Visitor13 wrote: moreitsythanyou wrote: Visitor13 wrote: moreitsythanyou wrote: Visitor13 wrote: ~Rael~ wrote: Visitor13 wrote: moreitsythanyou wrote: Visitor13 wrote: WalterDigsTunes wrote: his/her their Actually Walter is right (something I thought I'd never say). He used artist as a singular so the pronoun should be singular as well. 'His/her' or 'his or her' are very clumsy ways of circumventing problems with gender in pronouns though. Enter the plural form, convenient and accepted as an alternative, despite its conflict with the singular form of 'artist'. And it's logical, too. Walter really means the totality of pre-'89 artists here, not just a single one. Actually, it is not acceptable to match a singular pronoun with a plural counterpart, or vice versa. The best alternative would have been to write "you're neglecting a pre-1989 artist and that artist's masterpieces." Less clunky than "his or her" or "his/her." And I do not think Walter meant the totality of pre-'89 artists, because all of Walter's grammar seems competent, so his use of  "his/her" was obviously intentional. Plus, "his/her" or "his or her" is perfectly accpetable. And grammatical correctness always supersedes style.  Using "they" after a singular pronoun is starting to become okay in writing, but it still has a couple decades to integrate itself fully into the English language and become truly acceptable. And even then, it won't be correct to everyone. And the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary agrees with me too - though it does admit that the use of 'they/their/etc." after a singular noun or pronoun is considered erroneous by some. Isn't language fun? It is fun, that's why I'm such a grammar nazi. But a plural pronoun taking the place of a singular noun is just plain wrong no matter how many people mess it up. I think we all agree that one word can have many meanings. Personally I see 'their' as used in my suggestion as a singular pronoun with the same form as a plural one. Is it a perfect use? No, but his/her looks like crap in mine, and at least some authorities' opinion, and so 'their' is preferable. And until a better alternative shows up (unlikely), it stands. Well actually like I mentioned earlier, the idea of gender neutral pronouns is starting to form but probably won't be in mainstream usage for some time. For example, the word that could be used in this scenario would be "hir." But for now, we just have his/her or one's or there is the alternative of just using the noun itself instead of a pronoun. Copperud considered this usage established (though still somewhat controversial) as far back as the early '80s. Ditto Quirk, Greenbaum et al. , and they say it was American English that was the fastest in adopting it  I can see there is some resistance to it, but unless it was first gaining ground since the early '80s, only to be almost unanimously rejected somewhere in the mid-to-late '90s probably and is being slowly brought back now.... what you and Rael say is somewhat at odds with the sources I provide. 'Hir' sounds and looks dreadful, BTW. I can see it being rejected only because it looks so artificial.

At my school we learned gender neutral pronouns during orientation so we could use them in regards to a person who did not want to be associated with either end of the gender binary. Yes, I do go to a liberal arts school.

Visitor13 wrote: moreitsythanyou wrote: Visitor13 wrote: moreitsythanyou wrote: Visitor13 wrote: moreitsythanyou wrote: Visitor13 wrote: ~Rael~ wrote: Visitor13 wrote: moreitsythanyou wrote: Visitor13 wrote: WalterDigsTunes wrote: his/her their Actually Walter is right (something I thought I'd never say). He used artist as a singular so the pronoun should be singular as well. 'His/her' or 'his or her' are very clumsy ways of circumventing problems with gender in pronouns though. Enter the plural form, convenient and accepted as an alternative, despite its conflict with the singular form of 'artist'. And it's logical, too. Walter really means the totality of pre-'89 artists here, not just a single one. Actually, it is not acceptable to match a singular pronoun with a plural counterpart, or vice versa. The best alternative would have been to write "you're neglecting a pre-1989 artist and that artist's masterpieces." Less clunky than "his or her" or "his/her." And I do not think Walter meant the totality of pre-'89 artists, because all of Walter's grammar seems competent, so his use of  "his/her" was obviously intentional. Plus, "his/her" or "his or her" is perfectly accpetable. And grammatical correctness always supersedes style.  Using "they" after a singular pronoun is starting to become okay in writing, but it still has a couple decades to integrate itself fully into the English language and become truly acceptable. And even then, it won't be correct to everyone. And the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary agrees with me too - though it does admit that the use of 'they/their/etc." after a singular noun or pronoun is considered erroneous by some. Isn't language fun? It is fun, that's why I'm such a grammar nazi. But a plural pronoun taking the place of a singular noun is just plain wrong no matter how many people mess it up. I think we all agree that one word can have many meanings. Personally I see 'their' as used in my suggestion as a singular pronoun with the same form as a plural one. Is it a perfect use? No, but his/her looks like crap in mine, and at least some authorities' opinion, and so 'their' is preferable. And until a better alternative shows up (unlikely), it stands. Well actually like I mentioned earlier, the idea of gender neutral pronouns is starting to form but probably won't be in mainstream usage for some time. For example, the word that could be used in this scenario would be "hir." But for now, we just have his/her or one's or there is the alternative of just using the noun itself instead of a pronoun. Copperud considered this usage established (though still somewhat controversial) as far back as the early '80s. Ditto Quirk, Greenbaum et al. , and they say it was American English that was the fastest in adopting it  I can see there is some resistance to it, but unless it was first gaining ground since the early '80s, only to be almost unanimously rejected somewhere in the mid-to-late '90s probably and is being slowly brought back now.... what you and Rael say is somewhat at odds with the sources I provide. 'Hir' sounds and looks dreadful, BTW. I can see it being rejected only because it looks so artificial. At my school we learned gender neutral pronouns during orientation so we could use them in regards to a person who did not want to be associated with either end of the gender binary. Yes, I do go to a liberal arts school. Interesting. Umm, they did not teach you to use 'hir', did they...?

^ This is hilarious!

I went to a sci-fi convention a couple of weeks ago, and overheard a group of people at the next table arguing over how to pronounce the word 'pedant'. None of them appeared to be aware of the irony!

Visitor13 wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Visitor13 wrote: moreitsythanyou wrote: Visitor13 wrote: moreitsythanyou wrote: Visitor13 wrote: moreitsythanyou wrote: Visitor13 wrote: ~Rael~ wrote: Visitor13 wrote: moreitsythanyou wrote: Visitor13 wrote: WalterDigsTunes wrote: his/her their Actually Walter is right (something I thought I'd never say). He used artist as a singular so the pronoun should be singular as well. 'His/her' or 'his or her' are very clumsy ways of circumventing problems with gender in pronouns though. Enter the plural form, convenient and accepted as an alternative, despite its conflict with the singular form of 'artist'. And it's logical, too. Walter really means the totality of pre-'89 artists here, not just a single one. Actually, it is not acceptable to match a singular pronoun with a plural counterpart, or vice versa. The best alternative would have been to write "you're neglecting a pre-1989 artist and that artist's masterpieces." Less clunky than "his or her" or "his/her." And I do not think Walter meant the totality of pre-'89 artists, because all of Walter's grammar seems competent, so his use of  "his/her" was obviously intentional. Plus, "his/her" or "his or her" is perfectly accpetable. And grammatical correctness always supersedes style.  Using "they" after a singular pronoun is starting to become okay in writing, but it still has a couple decades to integrate itself fully into the English language and become truly acceptable. And even then, it won't be correct to everyone. And the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary agrees with me too - though it does admit that the use of 'they/their/etc." after a singular noun or pronoun is considered erroneous by some. Isn't language fun? It is fun, that's why I'm such a grammar nazi. But a plural pronoun taking the place of a singular noun is just plain wrong no matter how many people mess it up. I think we all agree that one word can have many meanings. Personally I see 'their' as used in my suggestion as a singular pronoun with the same form as a plural one. Is it a perfect use? No, but his/her looks like crap in mine, and at least some authorities' opinion, and so 'their' is preferable. And until a better alternative shows up (unlikely), it stands. Well actually like I mentioned earlier, the idea of gender neutral pronouns is starting to form but probably won't be in mainstream usage for some time. For example, the word that could be used in this scenario would be "hir." But for now, we just have his/her or one's or there is the alternative of just using the noun itself instead of a pronoun. Copperud considered this usage established (though still somewhat controversial) as far back as the early '80s. Ditto Quirk, Greenbaum et al. , and they say it was American English that was the fastest in adopting it  I can see there is some resistance to it, but unless it was first gaining ground since the early '80s, only to be almost unanimously rejected somewhere in the mid-to-late '90s probably and is being slowly brought back now.... what you and Rael say is somewhat at odds with the sources I provide. 'Hir' sounds and looks dreadful, BTW. I can see it being rejected only because it looks so artificial. At my school we learned gender neutral pronouns during orientation so we could use them in regards to a person who did not want to be associated with either end of the gender binary. Yes, I do go to a liberal arts school. Interesting. Umm, they did not teach you to use 'hir', did they...? The pyramid game! As opposed to Ivan's colour game

Edited by The T - June 16 2009 at 10:37

HolyMoly wrote: The T wrote: Visitor13 wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Visitor13 wrote: moreitsythanyou wrote: Visitor13 wrote: moreitsythanyou wrote: Visitor13 wrote: moreitsythanyou wrote: Visitor13 wrote: ~Rael~ wrote: Visitor13 wrote: moreitsythanyou wrote: Visitor13 wrote: WalterDigsTunes wrote: his/her their Actually Walter is right (something I thought I'd never say). He used artist as a singular so the pronoun should be singular as well. 'His/her' or 'his or her' are very clumsy ways of circumventing problems with gender in pronouns though. Enter the plural form, convenient and accepted as an alternative, despite its conflict with the singular form of 'artist'. And it's logical, too. Walter really means the totality of pre-'89 artists here, not just a single one. Actually, it is not acceptable to match a singular pronoun with a plural counterpart, or vice versa. The best alternative would have been to write "you're neglecting a pre-1989 artist and that artist's masterpieces." Less clunky than "his or her" or "his/her." And I do not think Walter meant the totality of pre-'89 artists, because all of Walter's grammar seems competent, so his use of  "his/her" was obviously intentional. Plus, "his/her" or "his or her" is perfectly accpetable. And grammatical correctness always supersedes style.  Using "they" after a singular pronoun is starting to become okay in writing, but it still has a couple decades to integrate itself fully into the English language and become truly acceptable. And even then, it won't be correct to everyone. And the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary agrees with me too - though it does admit that the use of 'they/their/etc." after a singular noun or pronoun is considered erroneous by some. Isn't language fun? It is fun, that's why I'm such a grammar nazi. But a plural pronoun taking the place of a singular noun is just plain wrong no matter how many people mess it up. I think we all agree that one word can have many meanings. Personally I see 'their' as used in my suggestion as a singular pronoun with the same form as a plural one. Is it a perfect use? No, but his/her looks like crap in mine, and at least some authorities' opinion, and so 'their' is preferable. And until a better alternative shows up (unlikely), it stands. Well actually like I mentioned earlier, the idea of gender neutral pronouns is starting to form but probably won't be in mainstream usage for some time. For example, the word that could be used in this scenario would be "hir." But for now, we just have his/her or one's or there is the alternative of just using the noun itself instead of a pronoun. Copperud considered this usage established (though still somewhat controversial) as far back as the early '80s. Ditto Quirk, Greenbaum et al. , and they say it was American English that was the fastest in adopting it  I can see there is some resistance to it, but unless it was first gaining ground since the early '80s, only to be almost unanimously rejected somewhere in the mid-to-late '90s probably and is being slowly brought back now.... what you and Rael say is somewhat at odds with the sources I provide. 'Hir' sounds and looks dreadful, BTW. I can see it being rejected only because it looks so artificial. At my school we learned gender neutral pronouns during orientation so we could use them in regards to a person who did not want to be associated with either end of the gender binary. Yes, I do go to a liberal arts school. Interesting. Umm, they did not teach you to use 'hir', did they...? The pyramid game! As opposed to Ivan's colour game   I just want to see how big a pyramid we can create...   It's like Ummagumma!

angelmk wrote: mr.cub wrote: HolyMoly wrote: The T wrote: Visitor13 wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Visitor13 wrote: moreitsythanyou wrote: Visitor13 wrote: moreitsythanyou wrote: Visitor13 wrote: moreitsythanyou wrote: Visitor13 wrote: ~Rael~ wrote: Visitor13 wrote: moreitsythanyou wrote: Visitor13 wrote: WalterDigsTunes wrote: his/her their Actually Walter is right (something I thought I'd never say). He used artist as a singular so the pronoun should be singular as well. 'His/her' or 'his or her' are very clumsy ways of circumventing problems with gender in pronouns though. Enter the plural form, convenient and accepted as an alternative, despite its conflict with the singular form of 'artist'. And it's logical, too. Walter really means the totality of pre-'89 artists here, not just a single one. Actually, it is not acceptable to match a singular pronoun with a plural counterpart, or vice versa. The best alternative would have been to write "you're neglecting a pre-1989 artist and that artist's masterpieces." Less clunky than "his or her" or "his/her." And I do not think Walter meant the totality of pre-'89 artists, because all of Walter's grammar seems competent, so his use of  "his/her" was obviously intentional. Plus, "his/her" or "his or her" is perfectly accpetable. And grammatical correctness always supersedes style.  Using "they" after a singular pronoun is starting to become okay in writing, but it still has a couple decades to integrate itself fully into the English language and become truly acceptable. And even then, it won't be correct to everyone. And the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary agrees with me too - though it does admit that the use of 'they/their/etc." after a singular noun or pronoun is considered erroneous by some. Isn't language fun? It is fun, that's why I'm such a grammar nazi. But a plural pronoun taking the place of a singular noun is just plain wrong no matter how many people mess it up. I think we all agree that one word can have many meanings. Personally I see 'their' as used in my suggestion as a singular pronoun with the same form as a plural one. Is it a perfect use? No, but his/her looks like crap in mine, and at least some authorities' opinion, and so 'their' is preferable. And until a better alternative shows up (unlikely), it stands. Well actually like I mentioned earlier, the idea of gender neutral pronouns is starting to form but probably won't be in mainstream usage for some time. For example, the word that could be used in this scenario would be "hir." But for now, we just have his/her or one's or there is the alternative of just using the noun itself instead of a pronoun. Copperud considered this usage established (though still somewhat controversial) as far back as the early '80s. Ditto Quirk, Greenbaum et al. , and they say it was American English that was the fastest in adopting it  I can see there is some resistance to it, but unless it was first gaining ground since the early '80s, only to be almost unanimously rejected somewhere in the mid-to-late '90s probably and is being slowly brought back now.... what you and Rael say is somewhat at odds with the sources I provide. 'Hir' sounds and looks dreadful, BTW. I can see it being rejected only because it looks so artificial. At my school we learned gender neutral pronouns during orientation so we could use them in regards to a person who did not want to be associated with either end of the gender binary. Yes, I do go to a liberal arts school. Interesting. Umm, they did not teach you to use 'hir', did they...? The pyramid game! As opposed to Ivan's colour game   I just want to see how big a pyramid we can create...   It's like Ummagumma!   I think the discussion was over when someone said Walter has no style. Never use his/her, use ones. Pyramid A pyramid is a building where the outer surfaces are triangular and converge at a point. The base of a pyramid is usually trilateral or quadrilateral (but may be of any polygon shape), meaning that a pyramid usually has four or five faces. A pyramid's design, with the majority of the weight closer to the ground,[1]means that less material higher up on the pyramid will be pushing down from above: this allowed early civilizations to create stable monumental structures. For thousands of years, the largest structures on Earth were pyramids: first the Red Pyramid in the Dashur Necropolis and then the Great Pyramid of Khufu, the only one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient Worldstill remaining. The largest pyramid ever built, by volume, is the Great Pyramid of Cholula, in the Mexican state of Puebla. This pyramid is still being excavated. and ours pyramid i would call WalterDigsTunesandpyramids     This pyramid is still being excavated...

crimson87 wrote: The T wrote: angelmk wrote: mr.cub wrote: HolyMoly wrote: The T wrote: Visitor13 wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Visitor13 wrote: moreitsythanyou wrote: Visitor13 wrote: moreitsythanyou wrote: Visitor13 wrote: moreitsythanyou wrote: Visitor13 wrote: ~Rael~ wrote: Visitor13 wrote: moreitsythanyou wrote: Visitor13 wrote: WalterDigsTunes wrote: his/her their Actually Walter is right (something I thought I'd never say). He used artist as a singular so the pronoun should be singular as well. 'His/her' or 'his or her' are very clumsy ways of circumventing problems with gender in pronouns though. Enter the plural form, convenient and accepted as an alternative, despite its conflict with the singular form of 'artist'. And it's logical, too. Walter really means the totality of pre-'89 artists here, not just a single one. Actually, it is not acceptable to match a singular pronoun with a plural counterpart, or vice versa. The best alternative would have been to write "you're neglecting a pre-1989 artist and that artist's masterpieces." Less clunky than "his or her" or "his/her." And I do not think Walter meant the totality of pre-'89 artists, because all of Walter's grammar seems competent, so his use of  "his/her" was obviously intentional. Plus, "his/her" or "his or her" is perfectly accpetable. And grammatical correctness always supersedes style.  Using "they" after a singular pronoun is starting to become okay in writing, but it still has a couple decades to integrate itself fully into the English language and become truly acceptable. And even then, it won't be correct to everyone. And the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary agrees with me too - though it does admit that the use of 'they/their/etc." after a singular noun or pronoun is considered erroneous by some. Isn't language fun? It is fun, that's why I'm such a grammar nazi. But a plural pronoun taking the place of a singular noun is just plain wrong no matter how many people mess it up. I think we all agree that one word can have many meanings. Personally I see 'their' as used in my suggestion as a singular pronoun with the same form as a plural one. Is it a perfect use? No, but his/her looks like crap in mine, and at least some authorities' opinion, and so 'their' is preferable. And until a better alternative shows up (unlikely), it stands. Well actually like I mentioned earlier, the idea of gender neutral pronouns is starting to form but probably won't be in mainstream usage for some time. For example, the word that could be used in this scenario would be "hir." But for now, we just have his/her or one's or there is the alternative of just using the noun itself instead of a pronoun. Copperud considered this usage established (though still somewhat controversial) as far back as the early '80s. Ditto Quirk, Greenbaum et al. , and they say it was American English that was the fastest in adopting it  I can see there is some resistance to it, but unless it was first gaining ground since the early '80s, only to be almost unanimously rejected somewhere in the mid-to-late '90s probably and is being slowly brought back now.... what you and Rael say is somewhat at odds with the sources I provide. 'Hir' sounds and looks dreadful, BTW. I can see it being rejected only because it looks so artificial. At my school we learned gender neutral pronouns during orientation so we could use them in regards to a person who did not want to be associated with either end of the gender binary. Yes, I do go to a liberal arts school. Interesting. Umm, they did not teach you to use 'hir', did they...? The pyramid game! As opposed to Ivan's colour game   I just want to see how big a pyramid we can create...   It's like Ummagumma!   I think the discussion was over when someone said Walter has no style. Never use his/her, use ones. Pyramid A pyramid is a building where the outer surfaces are triangular and converge at a point. The base of a pyramid is usually trilateral or quadrilateral (but may be of any polygon shape), meaning that a pyramid usually has four or five faces. A pyramid's design, with the majority of the weight closer to the ground,[1]means that less material higher up on the pyramid will be pushing down from above: this allowed early civilizations to create stable monumental structures. For thousands of years, the largest structures on Earth were pyramids: first the Red Pyramid in the Dashur Necropolis and then the Great Pyramid of Khufu, the only one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient Worldstill remaining. The largest pyramid ever built, by volume, is the Great Pyramid of Cholula, in the Mexican state of Puebla. This pyramid is still being excavated. and ours pyramid i would call WalterDigsTunesandpyramids     This pyramid is still being excavated...   Teodigspyramidstoo C'mon are the decemberists that uninteresting that you have to make giant pyramids in order to keep the thread going??

~Rael~ wrote: The T wrote: crimson87 wrote: The T wrote: angelmk wrote: mr.cub wrote: HolyMoly wrote: The T wrote: Visitor13 wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Visitor13 wrote: moreitsythanyou wrote: Visitor13 wrote: moreitsythanyou wrote: Visitor13 wrote: moreitsythanyou wrote: Visitor13 wrote: ~Rael~ wrote: Visitor13 wrote: moreitsythanyou wrote: Visitor13 wrote: WalterDigsTunes wrote: his/her their Actually Walter is right (something I thought I'd never say). He used artist as a singular so the pronoun should be singular as well. 'His/her' or 'his or her' are very clumsy ways of circumventing problems with gender in pronouns though. Enter the plural form, convenient and accepted as an alternative, despite its conflict with the singular form of 'artist'. And it's logical, too. Walter really means the totality of pre-'89 artists here, not just a single one. Actually, it is not acceptable to match a singular pronoun with a plural counterpart, or vice versa. The best alternative would have been to write "you're neglecting a pre-1989 artist and that artist's masterpieces." Less clunky than "his or her" or "his/her." And I do not think Walter meant the totality of pre-'89 artists, because all of Walter's grammar seems competent, so his use of  "his/her" was obviously intentional. Plus, "his/her" or "his or her" is perfectly accpetable. And grammatical correctness always supersedes style.  Using "they" after a singular pronoun is starting to become okay in writing, but it still has a couple decades to integrate itself fully into the English language and become truly acceptable. And even then, it won't be correct to everyone. And the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary agrees with me too - though it does admit that the use of 'they/their/etc." after a singular noun or pronoun is considered erroneous by some. Isn't language fun? It is fun, that's why I'm such a grammar nazi. But a plural pronoun taking the place of a singular noun is just plain wrong no matter how many people mess it up. I think we all agree that one word can have many meanings. Personally I see 'their' as used in my suggestion as a singular pronoun with the same form as a plural one. Is it a perfect use? No, but his/her looks like crap in mine, and at least some authorities' opinion, and so 'their' is preferable. And until a better alternative shows up (unlikely), it stands. Well actually like I mentioned earlier, the idea of gender neutral pronouns is starting to form but probably won't be in mainstream usage for some time. For example, the word that could be used in this scenario would be "hir." But for now, we just have his/her or one's or there is the alternative of just using the noun itself instead of a pronoun. Copperud considered this usage established (though still somewhat controversial) as far back as the early '80s. Ditto Quirk, Greenbaum et al. , and they say it was American English that was the fastest in adopting it  I can see there is some resistance to it, but unless it was first gaining ground since the early '80s, only to be almost unanimously rejected somewhere in the mid-to-late '90s probably and is being slowly brought back now.... what you and Rael say is somewhat at odds with the sources I provide. 'Hir' sounds and looks dreadful, BTW. I can see it being rejected only because it looks so artificial. At my school we learned gender neutral pronouns during orientation so we could use them in regards to a person who did not want to be associated with either end of the gender binary. Yes, I do go to a liberal arts school. Interesting. Umm, they did not teach you to use 'hir', did they...? The pyramid game! As opposed to Ivan's colour game   I just want to see how big a pyramid we can create...   It's like Ummagumma!   I think the discussion was over when someone said Walter has no style. Never use his/her, use ones. Pyramid A pyramid is a building where the outer surfaces are triangular and converge at a point. The base of a pyramid is usually trilateral or quadrilateral (but may be of any polygon shape), meaning that a pyramid usually has four or five faces. A pyramid's design, with the majority of the weight closer to the ground,[1]means that less material higher up on the pyramid will be pushing down from above: this allowed early civilizations to create stable monumental structures. For thousands of years, the largest structures on Earth were pyramids: first the Red Pyramid in the Dashur Necropolis and then the Great Pyramid of Khufu, the only one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient Worldstill remaining. The largest pyramid ever built, by volume, is the Great Pyramid of Cholula, in the Mexican state of Puebla. This pyramid is still being excavated. and ours pyramid i would call WalterDigsTunesandpyramids     This pyramid is still being excavated...   Teodigspyramidstoo C'mon are the decemberists that uninteresting that you have to make giant pyramids in order to keep the thread going??   You are either with us or against us!! Don't forget the apostrophe in "one's" to signal the possessive, lol. And, Visitor13, are you a professor, English major, etc? It just seems like you would have to be. Also, do you live in the US? Right now I am studying for a secondary education English degree, and right now plan on teaching the plural/singular agreement the traditional way, because it will be safer for my students when the enter college. And, I know you mean well, but the professors I have had are very smart, I do not question their knowledge of the English language, and with all due respect, will take their advice on the issue. I actually think "their" is perfectly acceptable after a singular pronoun, but where I live (Midwest USA, near St. Louis) it is not yet widely accepted, if at all.

I don't know what's going on here, but please take my two cents for this wonderful pyramid. Hope this will inspire more and more people to take care of our planet

AlexUC wrote: AlexUC wrote: ~Rael~ wrote: The T wrote: crimson87 wrote: The T wrote: angelmk wrote: mr.cub wrote: HolyMoly wrote: The T wrote: Visitor13 wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Visitor13 wrote: moreitsythanyou wrote: Visitor13 wrote: moreitsythanyou wrote: Visitor13 wrote: moreitsythanyou wrote: Visitor13 wrote: ~Rael~ wrote: Visitor13 wrote: moreitsythanyou wrote: Visitor13 wrote: WalterDigsTunes wrote: his/her their Actually Walter is right (something I thought I'd never say). He used artist as a singular so the pronoun should be singular as well. 'His/her' or 'his or her' are very clumsy ways of circumventing problems with gender in pronouns though. Enter the plural form, convenient and accepted as an alternative, despite its conflict with the singular form of 'artist'. And it's logical, too. Walter really means the totality of pre-'89 artists here, not just a single one. Actually, it is not acceptable to match a singular pronoun with a plural counterpart, or vice versa. The best alternative would have been to write "you're neglecting a pre-1989 artist and that artist's masterpieces." Less clunky than "his or her" or "his/her." And I do not think Walter meant the totality of pre-'89 artists, because all of Walter's grammar seems competent, so his use of  "his/her" was obviously intentional. Plus, "his/her" or "his or her" is perfectly accpetable. And grammatical correctness always supersedes style.  Using "they" after a singular pronoun is starting to become okay in writing, but it still has a couple decades to integrate itself fully into the English language and become truly acceptable. And even then, it won't be correct to everyone. And the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary agrees with me too - though it does admit that the use of 'they/their/etc." after a singular noun or pronoun is considered erroneous by some. Isn't language fun? It is fun, that's why I'm such a grammar nazi. But a plural pronoun taking the place of a singular noun is just plain wrong no matter how many people mess it up. I think we all agree that one word can have many meanings. Personally I see 'their' as used in my suggestion as a singular pronoun with the same form as a plural one. Is it a perfect use? No, but his/her looks like crap in mine, and at least some authorities' opinion, and so 'their' is preferable. And until a better alternative shows up (unlikely), it stands. Well actually like I mentioned earlier, the idea of gender neutral pronouns is starting to form but probably won't be in mainstream usage for some time. For example, the word that could be used in this scenario would be "hir." But for now, we just have his/her or one's or there is the alternative of just using the noun itself instead of a pronoun. Copperud considered this usage established (though still somewhat controversial) as far back as the early '80s. Ditto Quirk, Greenbaum et al. , and they say it was American English that was the fastest in adopting it  I can see there is some resistance to it, but unless it was first gaining ground since the early '80s, only to be almost unanimously rejected somewhere in the mid-to-late '90s probably and is being slowly brought back now.... what you and Rael say is somewhat at odds with the sources I provide. 'Hir' sounds and looks dreadful, BTW. I can see it being rejected only because it looks so artificial. At my school we learned gender neutral pronouns during orientation so we could use them in regards to a person who did not want to be associated with either end of the gender binary. Yes, I do go to a liberal arts school. Interesting. Umm, they did not teach you to use 'hir', did they...? The pyramid game! As opposed to Ivan's colour game   I just want to see how big a pyramid we can create...   It's like Ummagumma!   I think the discussion was over when someone said Walter has no style. Never use his/her, use ones. Pyramid A pyramid is a building where the outer surfaces are triangular and converge at a point. The base of a pyramid is usually trilateral or quadrilateral (but may be of any polygon shape), meaning that a pyramid usually has four or five faces. A pyramid's design, with the majority of the weight closer to the ground,[1]means that less material higher up on the pyramid will be pushing down from above: this allowed early civilizations to create stable monumental structures. For thousands of years, the largest structures on Earth were pyramids: first the Red Pyramid in the Dashur Necropolis and then the Great Pyramid of Khufu, the only one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient Worldstill remaining. The largest pyramid ever built, by volume, is the Great Pyramid of Cholula, in the Mexican state of Puebla. This pyramid is still being excavated. and ours pyramid i would call WalterDigsTunesandpyramids     This pyramid is still being excavated...   Teodigspyramidstoo C'mon are the decemberists that uninteresting that you have to make giant pyramids in order to keep the thread going??   You are either with us or against us!! Don't forget the apostrophe in "one's" to signal the possessive, lol. And, Visitor13, are you a professor, English major, etc? It just seems like you would have to be. Also, do you live in the US? Right now I am studying for a secondary education English degree, and right now plan on teaching the plural/singular agreement the traditional way, because it will be safer for my students when the enter college. And, I know you mean well, but the professors I have had are very smart, I do not question their knowledge of the English language, and with all due respect, will take their advice on the issue. I actually think "their" is perfectly acceptable after a singular pronoun, but where I live (Midwest USA, near St. Louis) it is not yet widely accepted, if at all. I don't know what's going on here, but please take my two cents for this wonderful pyramid. Hope this will inspire more and more people to take care of our planet Oh, and we're helping M@X with some load testing here too. I just want to see how many levels do we need here before seeing some strange server error

@ ~Rael~ You can say I majored in English (English major makes me think of Fawlty Towers ). I'm a linguist, with English as my primary field of study and German as the secondary one. No, I don't live in the US.

Sure, you do whatever you want, and if this is considered safer, then it's probably the right choice where you live. Anyway, I've noticed that language teachers tend to judge correctness instinctively and don't consult literature nearly often enough. The results are often unpleasant. And consulting specialist literature is - or should be- ultimately a significant part of what they get paid for. Sure, there's room for regional variation, but if your professors teach that 'their' is just plain wrong, well, they're most likely just plain wrong. Unless they have serious, numerous and preferably recent sources to back it up.

Just wondering, are the professors you talk about actual professors or simply university/college teachers?
'Professor' seems to be as vague a word as they get, not only in English but also in Polish, for example.      


Edited by Visitor13 - June 17 2009 at 03:24