|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 13, 2008 15:32:04 GMT
Goofy's Language Log link was interesting (as goofy's links always are), but it took a long time to state the blindingly obvious, or is that just me?
Anyway, its footnote put me in mind of a language conundrum I noticed a couple of nights ago. UK Home Secretary Jacqui Smith was speaking in parliament about the proposed powers to detain "terrorist suspects" without charge for 42 days. She said that a future Home Secretary would have to come to parliament to seek approval for such detention "and to justify her decision".
I was interested in the use of "her" to describe a future, unknown, Home Secretary. I'm not of the school that thinks that ministers can be assumed to be male, so why did "her" jar so much, I wonder. I probably would not have noticed "his" as all.
Does this prove I am a victim of sexist conditioning?
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jun 13, 2008 15:37:31 GMT
This is a bit like meeting god and discovering that she is really very nice. ;D
|
|
|
Post by goofy on Jun 13, 2008 15:58:22 GMT
My citation shows that the government of Canada encourages "they" with singular antecedents. I don't think that can mean what you want it to mean. A general statement can only be assumed to apply generally: if I say I don't eat meat, I can't make that mean I don't eat turkey sausages on alternate Wednesdays in March. But that's a negative, while my statement was positive. If I say "I eat meat," that doesn't necessarily mean "I eat every kind of meat." This matters (to me at least) because I think people here expect a citation to back up a point made, even if we don't check it. To cite a reference that makes an entirely different point is unhelpful. I don't think my link makes an entirely different point that what I claimed. My claim just wasn't specific enough. Yes I was trying to broaden the discussion. I don't want to confuse any discussions. "their" can be used not just as a common-gender pronoun, but also as a common-number pronoun, as in Shakespeare's "There's not a man I meet but doth salute me / As if I were their well-acquainted friend" (Comedy of Errors). To relate this to the photo, "their" has been used with inanimate nouns, but in only in informal use (for instance "Your usual store should have their Autumn stocks in now" - Punch, 1953). The photo is interesting because their seems to have as its antecedent the handle. This referent is specific enough that it is ungrammatical for me. *The handle has guidelines for their safe use. I'm ok with it if it's a less specific referent: Each locker must be emptied of its contents Each locker must be emptied of their contents
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jun 13, 2008 16:03:40 GMT
It still jars horribly on my ears and grates on my nerves. If I were to see that notice inside a bus, I'd spend the entire journey muttering to myself about it.
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on Jun 13, 2008 16:10:35 GMT
> If I say "I eat meat," that doesn't necessarily mean "I eat every kind of meat." <
No, indeed. But to say that the Government of Canada "encourages x", and then not give a restriction, suggests that x is generally encouraged. If the pattern were used in advertising, the advertiser would be (rightly) done for it!
I think we can all expect, here, to have to say what we mean, rather than what we can later get away with saying we hadn't meant not to say ;D
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 13, 2008 16:11:54 GMT
I think your usual store ... their relies on the same thinking as the corporate plural in the BBC have defended themselves against ... -- we mentally envisage the people who comprise the BBC or the store.
But the trolleys (or handles) and lockers are not made up of people, so it's a harder stretch. Too far for me -- I'd see your Each locker must be emptied of their contents as ungrammatical, too.
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jun 13, 2008 16:17:16 GMT
Ah. Thanks, Dave M. That'll be where I've been going wrong, then.
|
|
|
Post by goofy on Jun 13, 2008 16:32:43 GMT
Would it have been better if I had written "The government of Canada encourages the use of singular they"? "Singular they" is the common term, altho I don't like it because "they" is not syntactically singular. otoh I guess I should have stuck with it, because it seems to be commonly understoond to mean "they as a common-number or epicene pronoun with a syntactically singular generic antecedent."
|
|
|
Post by Sue M-V on Jun 13, 2008 17:07:20 GMT
I am assuming that native speakers can tell the difference between grammatical and ungrammatical utterances, given time to reflect. Oh, how I wish ...! Sue
|
|
|
Post by SusanB on Jun 13, 2008 17:27:55 GMT
It still jars horribly on my ears and grates on my nerves. If I were to see that notice inside a bus, I'd spend the entire journey muttering to myself about it. I used to not like this. Now I do, because I find I need to write things that would otherwise require a lot of repetition of his/her or his or her. so I find multiple theirs to be less grating. However, in a simple sentence I can be happy with either.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Palmer on Jun 13, 2008 17:46:11 GMT
Much simpler:
Do not speak to or distract the driver without good cause.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 13, 2008 18:15:26 GMT
Would it have been better if I had written "The government of Canada encourages the use of singular they"? No! The fact is that the Canadian Government (or rather its Department of Justice) encourages its writers to use singular they in some circumstances and discourages them from using it in other circumstances. As the circumstances where its use is encouraged do not arise in Trevor's photograph, your citation was irrelevant. For making a general point your post was fine. As a justification of B&Q's sign (which is how it was presented) it was highly misleading, the more so as it seemed authoritative. Your post made an implicit claim (that the cited reputable source supports B&Q's usage) which simply isn't true.
|
|
|
Post by goofy on Jun 13, 2008 18:46:17 GMT
It was never my intention to mislead anyone or justify anything. I thought it was ok to post things that are not completely relevant. My apologies if I confused anyone.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 13, 2008 19:56:10 GMT
Thank you, goofy. For my part, I apologise for being heavy-handed.
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Jun 13, 2008 21:02:31 GMT
Seems to me a case of a lot of reading and little learning. Tone
|
|