Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site usl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!akgub!usl!jew
From: jew@usl.UUCP (James E. Wilson)
Newsgroups: net.singles,net.nlang,net.women
Subject: Grammar and Spelling on the Net (some solutions)
Message-ID: <697@usl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Mar-86 19:58:17 EST
Article-I.D.: usl.697
Posted: Wed Mar  5 19:58:17 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 8-Mar-86 05:26:50 EST
Reply-To: jew@usl.UUCP (James E. Wilson)
Distribution: net
Organization: University of (SW) Louisiana CACS
Lines: 101
Keywords: grammar,clarity,alternatives
Xref: watmath net.singles:10747 net.nlang:4257 net.women:9585

RE: the use of "their" in such constructions as "If a person can't
    take the time to learn their own language..."

Ed Nather from the University of Texas-Austin sends me an informative
note, where he summarizes in this way:

> There was long and anguished net.discussion about just that point,
> based on the desire to keep sex out of the pronouns, hence the plural
> form.  Otherwise, it would identify the sex of the "person," which
> all and sundry agreed was sometimes undesirable.  The concensus was
> to use the plural form, feeling that strict schoolbook grammar in
> this case did more damage than the (slight) disagreement in number.

Also discussed on the net were simple substitutions such as "his/her",etc.


But is it really necessary to reconstruct the language just to find a
detour around some questionable pronoun?  It's not like we're picking
at some mere grammatical tort or ensnared with a desperate choice
of good grammar or social sensitivity.  The problem here is quite
simply that the use of the plural possessive obscures (and in the
general case can change) the meaning of the sentence.  The given
example has taken something simple and made it's meaning uncertain
and ambiguous.  Consider the following, which I have corrupted from
an article in a local newspaper:

    "Jury selection will continue today for the first degree
     murder trial of Wilton C. Lindon, accused of the 1984
     stabbing death of a 79-year-old Lafayette woman.  Police
     report that a witness claims to have seen the accused
     first enter THEIR residence..."

Whose residence?  The clear intent is to protect the identity of
the witness.  The first assumption that one is likely to make is
that the victim and the witness lived together.  Another good
possibility is that the victim and the accused did.  Perhaps all
three.  (Lafayette police do not all live together, nor do future
jurors.  But who knows, given the above?  Perhaps they were just
one big (unhappy) family!  :-) ).  

     The newspaper example, of course, is a little noisier than the
original, but I think the point is clear.  Given a plural possessive,
one can jump to some unpredictable conclusions as a result of chasing
this pointer back to a nonexistent or vaguely-disguised target.  Even if
you "know the idiom", it makes for slower comprehension, and as I
will show, reasonable alternatives exist.  It really is quite possible
to express possession, be understood, offend noone, and satisfy the
grammarians as well!!!   After all, these grammarians are not really
these little people with pencils in their hair teaching high school  
(or college) English courses, armed and ready to rap your knuckles at
the first sight of a double negative or split infinitive.  Instead
they are people who believe, as I do, that things written should be
readable and that things spoken should be understandable.  Clarity
is the basis of all grammar.

     So let us consider the alternatives:

Wrong, undefined object modifier--
    "If a person can't take the time to learn their own language..."

Standard, traditional, but offensive to some--
    "If a person can't take the time to learn his language..."

"Turnabout is fair play"--
    "If a person can't take the time to learn her language..."

Legalistic, clear, but awkward as spoken--
    "If a person can't take the time to learn his/her language..."

Correct but less specific--
    "If a person can't take the time to learn the language..."

But if possession is nine tenths of the law--
    "If a person can't take the time to learn his or her own language..."

My preference--
    "If a person can't take the time to learn one's language..."


I think any of the final three given would be sufficient for the
original context, even if one chooses to go no further than simple
pronoun substitution, and the above list is not exhaustive.  Still
other possibilities arise with the restructuring of sentences, shifts
from active to passive voice, etc.

There.  Now that wasn't so hard, was it?

I really question whether promoting some Orwellian Newspeak based on the
loose speech of high school sophomores is the proper way to advance
feminist (or any other) causes.  English grammar is far more flexible
than some people would lead one to believe.


(By the way, how did this flare up in net.singles anyhow?  Oh well...
If there is a need to do any followups on this, you will find them in
net.nlang or possibly net.women)

                               Jim Wilson

US Mail:  USL P.O. Box 45147, Lafayette, LA 70504; tel. (318)231-6423
UUCP:   {ut-sally, akgua}!usl!jew        ARPA:  usl!jew@ut-sally