| Author |
Message |
Odysseus
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 2:19 am
Post subject: Re: Pluralization of Pronouns to Avoid Gender |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
| Quote: |
Richard R. Hershberger wrote:
If, however, you go back one generation earlier than the quoting goes,
you will find that he originally wrote "grammatical gender", not merely
"gender".
Isn't that what we are all talking about - grammatical gender? OK, most
English nouns do not have a gender, as do our pronouns. But I fail to
see the enhancement of identifying the gender of a table.
|
Grammar Genious mentioned it upthread: where objects have different
genders they can be distinguished implictly by agreement. For
example, if "table" were masculine and "chair" feminine, one could
tell a mover unambiguously to "put him against the centre of the west
wall and her to the north" without having to name the items. Likewise
the gender of an adjective would indicate which of the pair it
referred to. Of course one could only expect such 'shortcuts' to be
available about half the time.
--
Odysseus
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
joetaxpayer
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 7:01 am
Post subject: Re: Pluralization of Pronouns to Avoid Gender |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
| Quote: | I came across a particularly strange looking corruption of the
traditional usage, seemingly to avoid gender issues.
"I'm happy to inform you that no one who thinks for themselves..."
Seems like someone will be thinking for a group. Am I just old
fashioned, or does this strike anyone else as odd?
Gary Eickmeier
|
Indeed. 25 years ago on my school's loudspeaker;
Whoever lost their jacket, please stop by the office today to pick it
up. Should have been 'his jacket'. It was an all boys school...... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Grammer Genious
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 8:01 am
Post subject: Re: Pluralization of Pronouns to Avoid Gender |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote
| Quote: | ...
But on the gender question, I thought the usual line was we talk of sex
when referring to people, gender when referring to grammatical usage.
|
Which is kind of the point. The English pronouns "he" and "she" refer to
people, and the only thing that determines which is used is the person's
sex. So grammar doesn't enter into it at all.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Grammer Genious
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 8:01 am
Post subject: Re: Pluralization of Pronouns to Avoid Gender |
|
|
joetaxpayer <joetaxpayer@nospam.com> wrote
| Quote: | Indeed. 25 years ago on my school's loudspeaker;
Whoever lost their jacket, please stop by the office today to pick it
up. Should have been 'his jacket'. It was an all boys school......
|
Doesn't matter. Awareness of the sex involved has nothing to do with it. As
your example and a gajillion others clearly show.
When I first heard the teacher say that "someone left his rain hat in the
cloakroom," I assumed I had missed some previous mention of who "his"
referred too, and also I wondered why anyone would leave some other person's
rain hat behind. That was before I became accustomed to the strange and
illogical "teacher-talk" use of "his" to refer to some unknown person. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Grammer Genious
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 1:45 am
Post subject: Re: Pluralization of Pronouns to Avoid Gender |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise <mplsray@my-deja.com> wrote
| Quote: | Perhaps Gary had in mind the "were"-subjunctive he used.
|
That's a subjunctive artifact, and not the actual subjunctive at work.
The only way he could claim that his English has a real subjunctive mood is
if he says things like "I'm not having a new roof put on until this one blow
off," and "Tell her I'll be back later, if she call me."
Otherwise he's just employing the subjunctive remnants that we all use,
which constitute the bathtub ring of a grammar feature that has gone down
the drain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:32 am
Post subject: Re: Pluralization of Pronouns to Avoid Gender |
|
|
The Grammer Genious wrote:
| Quote: | Raymond S. Wise <mplsray@my-deja.com> wrote
Perhaps Gary had in mind the "were"-subjunctive he used.
That's a subjunctive artifact, and not the actual subjunctive at work.
The only way he could claim that his English has a real subjunctive mood is
if he says things like "I'm not having a new roof put on until this one blow
off," and "Tell her I'll be back later, if she call me."
Otherwise he's just employing the subjunctive remnants that we all use,
which constitute the bathtub ring of a grammar feature that has gone down
the drain.
|
A subjunctive remnant is nevertheless still a subjunctive, just as the
"-en" plural marker in "oxen" and "children" is still a plural. The
"were"-subjunctive is even healthier than that frozen form, because it
can still be used to make an infinite number of sentences.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Grammer Genious
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:27 am
Post subject: Re: Pluralization of Pronouns to Avoid Gender |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise <mplsray@my-deja.com> wrote
| Quote: | The Grammer Genious wrote:
Raymond S. Wise <mplsray@my-deja.com> wrote
Perhaps Gary had in mind the "were"-subjunctive he used.
That's a subjunctive artifact, and not the actual subjunctive at work.
The only way he could claim that his English has a real subjunctive mood
is
if he says things like "I'm not having a new roof put on until this one
blow
off," and "Tell her I'll be back later, if she call me."
Otherwise he's just employing the subjunctive remnants that we all use,
which constitute the bathtub ring of a grammar feature that has gone
down
the drain.
A subjunctive remnant is nevertheless still a subjunctive, just as the
"-en" plural marker in "oxen" and "children" is still a plural. <...
|
I think that's an example of the old-fashioned "begging the question"?
Plural number is still a productive feature of English, so of course there
are all sorts of exceptional forms, just as there were with the subjunctive
mood when it still existed.
A better analogy would be to claim that in the phrase "the two dogs," the
noun is not in the plural, but rather in the dual number, since there are
two dogs and not three or more, and English once had a dual number so there
it still is, and just because you can't see it anymore doesn't mean it's not
still there.
| Quote: | The
"were"-subjunctive is even healthier than that frozen form, because it
can still be used to make an infinite number of sentences.
|
Yeah, and since the word "were" wasn't *ever* necessarily subjunctive, you
can slap the "subjunctive" label on it whenever you like, using your
knowledge of Early English. If you are so inclined. I mean, if you be so
inclined. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:01 am
Post subject: Re: Pluralization of Pronouns to Avoid Gender |
|
|
The Grammer Genious wrote:
| Quote: | Raymond S. Wise <mplsray@my-deja.com> wrote
The Grammer Genious wrote:
Raymond S. Wise <mplsray@my-deja.com> wrote
Perhaps Gary had in mind the "were"-subjunctive he used.
That's a subjunctive artifact, and not the actual subjunctive at work.
The only way he could claim that his English has a real subjunctive mood
is
if he says things like "I'm not having a new roof put on until this one
blow
off," and "Tell her I'll be back later, if she call me."
Otherwise he's just employing the subjunctive remnants that we all use,
which constitute the bathtub ring of a grammar feature that has gone
down
the drain.
A subjunctive remnant is nevertheless still a subjunctive, just as the
"-en" plural marker in "oxen" and "children" is still a plural. <...
I think that's an example of the old-fashioned "begging the question"?
Plural number is still a productive feature of English, so of course there
are all sorts of exceptional forms, just as there were with the subjunctive
mood when it still existed.
A better analogy would be to claim that in the phrase "the two dogs," the
noun is not in the plural, but rather in the dual number, since there are
two dogs and not three or more, and English once had a dual number so there
it still is, and just because you can't see it anymore doesn't mean it's not
still there.
The
"were"-subjunctive is even healthier than that frozen form, because it
can still be used to make an infinite number of sentences.
Yeah, and since the word "were" wasn't *ever* necessarily subjunctive, you
can slap the "subjunctive" label on it whenever you like, using your
knowledge of Early English. If you are so inclined. I mean, if you be so
inclined.
|
I've just spent some time reading up on the subjunctive mood, most of
the Web pages I read probably having been cited here or in
alt.usage.english at some time, and none of which questioned the idea
that English has a subjunctive--perhaps you could suggest such a page
or even a real-world source.
I did have a revelation, however. If you seriously believe that the
subjunctive no longer exists in English, then you must, to be logically
consistent, also insist that the imperative mood no longer exists in
English. And if neither the imperative nor the subjunctive mood exist,
does it make any sense to speak of an indicative mood in English?
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:19 pm
Post subject: Re: Pluralization of Pronouns to Avoid Gender |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise wrote:
| Quote: | The Grammer Genious wrote:
[...]
Yeah, and since the word "were" wasn't *ever* necessarily
subjunctive, you can slap the "subjunctive" label on it whenever
you
like, using your knowledge of Early English. If you are so
inclined.
I mean, if you be so inclined.
I've just spent some time reading up on the subjunctive mood, most
of
the Web pages I read probably having been cited here or in
alt.usage.english at some time, and none of which questioned the
idea
that English has a subjunctive--perhaps you could suggest such a
page
or even a real-world source.
I did have a revelation, however. If you seriously believe that the
subjunctive no longer exists in English, then you must, to be
logically consistent, also insist that the imperative mood no
longer
exists in English. And if neither the imperative nor the
subjunctive
mood exist, does it make any sense to speak of an indicative mood
in
English?
|
It's a matter, as I see it, of the distinction between subjunctive
_form_, a matter of accidence, and subjunction itself, a matter of
grammar. (To revert to the analogy of the plurals of nouns, a
language can express plurality even if its nouns have no plural
forms.)
I'm not quite convinced that the verb-forms we use subjunctively are
any more "true" subjunctive forms than those we use for the future
are genuine future tenses (I'm open to persuasion, of course).
Nevertheless, we do use them for some instances of subjunction, and
they are different from indicatives of the same person; so it would
seem a little perverse not to call them "subjunctive" -- they must be
called something, after all.
My imagination is too weak to conjure up a language which works
without subjunction, but there's no need for a hypothetical language
to have special subjunctive forms.
I'm interested in the "no imperative without subjunctive" idea. I'm
not sure that I've understood it, so I'll "walk through it". Clearly
a language may have imperative forms even if it lacks subjunctive
ones. Greek has optative mood forms, while English does not: lacking
an optative doesn't of itself mean English has no other moods. So,
referring only to the special case of English, we manifestly use the
base form of a verb for commands rather than a distinct imperative
form. If we refuse to call the formulae "If I were" etc "subjunctive
forms", then it's absurd to call "Go!" an "imperative form". Is that
your thinking? If so, I agree.
Which brings me back to the distinction between grammar "subjunction"
and accidence "subjunctive". If GG doesn't want to accept "If I were
you" as genuine English, he's got to choose between "If I was you"
and "If I am you". He'll presumably choose "was", because "am" is
wrong. What, then, is he proposing to call it?
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 8:01 am
Post subject: Re: Pluralization of Pronouns to Avoid Gender |
|
|
Mike Lyle wrote:
| Quote: | Raymond S. Wise wrote:
The Grammer Genious wrote:
[...]
Yeah, and since the word "were" wasn't *ever* necessarily
subjunctive, you can slap the "subjunctive" label on it whenever
you
like, using your knowledge of Early English. If you are so
inclined.
I mean, if you be so inclined.
I've just spent some time reading up on the subjunctive mood, most
of
the Web pages I read probably having been cited here or in
alt.usage.english at some time, and none of which questioned the
idea
that English has a subjunctive--perhaps you could suggest such a
page
or even a real-world source.
I did have a revelation, however. If you seriously believe that the
subjunctive no longer exists in English, then you must, to be
logically consistent, also insist that the imperative mood no
longer
exists in English. And if neither the imperative nor the
subjunctive
mood exist, does it make any sense to speak of an indicative mood
in
English?
It's a matter, as I see it, of the distinction between subjunctive
_form_, a matter of accidence, and subjunction itself, a matter of
grammar. (To revert to the analogy of the plurals of nouns, a
language can express plurality even if its nouns have no plural
forms.)
I'm not quite convinced that the verb-forms we use subjunctively are
any more "true" subjunctive forms than those we use for the future
are genuine future tenses (I'm open to persuasion, of course).
Nevertheless, we do use them for some instances of subjunction, and
they are different from indicatives of the same person; so it would
seem a little perverse not to call them "subjunctive" -- they must be
called something, after all.
My imagination is too weak to conjure up a language which works
without subjunction, but there's no need for a hypothetical language
to have special subjunctive forms.
I'm interested in the "no imperative without subjunctive" idea. I'm
not sure that I've understood it, so I'll "walk through it". Clearly
a language may have imperative forms even if it lacks subjunctive
ones. Greek has optative mood forms, while English does not: lacking
an optative doesn't of itself mean English has no other moods. So,
referring only to the special case of English, we manifestly use the
base form of a verb for commands rather than a distinct imperative
form. If we refuse to call the formulae "If I were" etc "subjunctive
forms", then it's absurd to call "Go!" an "imperative form". Is that
your thinking? If so, I agree.
Which brings me back to the distinction between grammar "subjunction"
and accidence "subjunctive". If GG doesn't want to accept "If I were
you" as genuine English, he's got to choose between "If I was you"
and "If I am you". He'll presumably choose "was", because "am" is
wrong. What, then, is he proposing to call it?
|
I've wondered about that last point, the problem of an alternate name
if one wishes to avoid the term "subjunctive."
In any case, yesterday I looked up the subject of the subjunctive in a
couple of books.
The following comes from *The Oxford Companion to the English
Language,* Tom McArthur, editor; Oxford University Press; (C) 1992.
[quote, from the article "SUBJUNCTIVE"]
Some languages have a range of subjunctive tenses[....] There was such
a system in Old English (_Ne hE ealu ne drince o[th][th] wIn_: Nor
shall he drink ale or wine), but in Modern English there are few
distinctive subjunctive forms and the use of the term is controversial.
[end quote]
(It turns out, I learn after consulting MWCD11, that the word "or" is
an alteration of "other." In the Old English example, capital "E" and
"I" stand for, respectively, "e" with a macron and "i" with a macron."
The notation [th] stands for the letter thorn.)
Note that the author says "there are few distinctive subjunctive
forms." This suggests, does it not, that he believes there do exist
such forms in Modern English.
The following comes from *The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English
Language,* 2nd ed., David Crystal, editor; Cambridge University Press;
(c) 2003.
[quote, from box labeled "MINOR SENTENCES" on page 216]
[O]ne type [of minor sentence] uses an archaic verb form (the
subjunctive) to express wishes, as in _God save the Queen!_ and _Heaven
forbid!"
[end quote]
This indicates that to the author, "save" in "God save the Queen!" and
"forbid" in "Heaven forbid!" are subjunctive verb forms.
I'd like to mention also that none of the authors I have read recently
consider "should" and "may" constructions to be subjunctive
constructions, even though they can be used where the subjunctive could
otherwise be used. So to all these authors, it is the *form of the
verb* which is important in determining that a given usage is in the
subjunctive.
Now, the imperative is simply the bare form of the verb, that is, the
infinitive. Rarely, it involves the infinitive plus a pronoun, "You do
that this minute!" What makes this imperative is both what the sentence
is meant to accomplish and what form of verb is used. The same is true
of the subjunctive. What makes a subjunctive a subjunctive is both what
the sentence (or just the clause) is meant to accomplish and the form
of the verb.
In Modern English, there is not a dedicated subjunctive form, different
from any other form. The subjunctive forms are the same as either the
infinitive or certain indicative forms. *But the way they are used is
different.* The "were" used in the "were" subjunctive is a plural verb
form used with a singular subject. The present subjunctive used in "God
save the Queen!" (a formulaic subjunctive) and "We asked that he be
fired" are ways of using these verbs which are not used elsewhere.
*That* is what makes them subjunctive. While those forms which use
"may" and "should" have a verb following in a form which is
unexceptional, used in other, non-subjunctive uses with those
auxiliaries.
So while I would not disagree that English does not have a true future
tense, and that "Let us agree to disagree" is not an example of a true
first-person imperative (but is, instead, a type of second-person
imperative), I would say that the uses of the subjunctive which remain
in English are examples of a true subjunctive.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in