Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!spar!ellis
From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: ``They'' vs. ``one'' vs. nothing
Message-ID: <182@spar.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 16-Apr-85 04:30:51 EST
Article-I.D.: spar.182
Posted: Tue Apr 16 04:30:51 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Apr-85 04:41:11 EST
References: <2379@randvax.UUCP> <291@mhuxr.UUCP> <2396@randvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 35

In article <2396@randvax.UUCP> edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) writes:
> Is it not
> more "natural" to use a pronoun already in wide usage, and with which
> most people are at least somewhat familiar, than to force this square
> peg of a singular 'they' into the round hole of gender neutrality?
> 
> Marcel Simon

    More problems with `One' vs. `They'

    In professional jargon, `they' shares the quality `anaphoric' with
    the pronouns `he/she', whereas `one' lacks this feature, as below:

    A. When you see Bill's secretary, be sure you give him/her my memo.

       Here, the pronoun has anaphoric use; it refers to a previously
       mentioned specific noun. Which of the below sentences is 
       is more natural?

    B. When you see Bill's secretary, be sure you give them my memo.
    C. When you see Bill's secretary, be sure you give one my memo.

     I'd believe that the vast majority of native english speakers
      would at least understand (B), but not (C).

     The quality shared by {they,he,she} but not by {one}, is
     apparently so important that people are willing to overlook
     the mismatch in number caused by the use of `they' rather
     than deal with the total loss of reference caused by the
     use of `one'.

     Apparently, Marcel, you value the grammatical category `number'
     more highly than most english speakers.

-michael