Path: utzoo!hoptoad!uunet!oddjob!uwvax!uwmcsd1!ig!agate!ucbvax!dewey.soe.berkeley.edu!robinson
From: robinson@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (Michael Robinson)
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: Re: Adult illiteracy (was Re: Theological Debates)
Keywords: Comma
Message-ID: <22812@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 1 Feb 88 07:30:52 GMT
References: <4062@uwmcsd1.UUCP> <514@gethen.UUCP> <4080@uwmcsd1.UUCP> <22543@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <348@splut.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: robinson@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Michael Robinson)
Distribution: alt.flame
Organization: School of Education, UC-Berkeley
Lines: 32

In article <348@splut.UUCP> jay@splut.UUCP (Jay Maynard) writes:
>I only have one problem with that:
>Mike has been guilty of a bunch of "new grammar" himself.
>Just ask him about pronoun usage as it refers to man, women, and persons of
>unknown and/or unspecified gender - then...watch Michael turn the correct
>and accepted rules of pronoun use upside down in his attempt to justify the
>application of male pronouns to Smith!

For someone who clearly hasn't done the research, you are on pretty thin
ice talking about "the correct and accepted rules" of grammar (for example,
where the hell did you come up with "male pronouns"?).  Saying that it is
"ungrammatical" to refer to Mark with masculine pronouns is like saying
that it is "ungrammatical" to refer to Sting as Sting, because it is 
"correct and accepted" for everyone to have a last name.  Grammar deals with
syntax.  Genitalia have nothing, repeat, nothing to do with syntax.

Pronoun choice within the correct person and number (which *are* governed by
grammar) falls within the realm of diction.  If you claim that referring to
Mark with masculine pronouns is unconventional diction, you will get no 
argument.  If you continue to claim that your so-called "male" pronouns are
reserved for males, I will be more than happy to stuff your mailbox with 
quite a few well-researched and exhaustive articles I've saved.

>Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.

I cannot be convinced that there does not exist stupidity which is, at its
heart, malicious.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Robinson                              USENET:  ucbvax!ernie!robinson
                                              ARPA: robinson@ernie.berkeley.edu