Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: July 14 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3449
Posted: June 15 2009 at 20:06
Frankly, I think the only thing this thread is now missing is perhaps, a decent reference to the Mud Shark Dancing Lesson. I choose that because pretty much any of FZ's songs will generally contain the word fool.
Can you tell me where we're headin'?
Lincoln County Road or Armageddon.
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
Posted: June 15 2009 at 20:11
I suspect by tomorrow... this thread will have left it's current orbit and will next orbit some other distant celestial body.
god knows what... but that is why we love the forum... tune in tomorrow to see Willie Nelson performing his ode to the Decemberists classic album The Hazards of Love.... the Rake.
Alright... Alright...All Right...
nighty night my fellow fools, suckers, and Decemberists fans hahah.
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Joined: April 11 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 247
Posted: June 15 2009 at 21:30
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?
In that case, could you e-mail all my college professors and inform them of this, because they have been way off.
And I kind of feel sorry for anyone who can't find music he likes post '89. Too much good stuff to be missed.
Edited by ~Rael~ - June 15 2009 at 21:33
I repeat myself when under stress, I repeat myself when under stress, I repeat myself when under stress, I repeat myself when under stress, I repeat myself when under stress . . .
Joined: February 02 2005
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 4702
Posted: June 16 2009 at 01:41
~Rael~ 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?
In that case, could you e-mail all my college professors and inform them of this, because they have been way off.
They should simply read more grammar books, such as Quirk's and Greenbaum's humongous Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, which is another authority that agrees with me - and also condemns his/her as cumbersome. So my suggestion stands - unless there has been some academic backlash against it recently that I'm simply not aware of.
And I kind of feel sorry for anyone who can't find music he likes post '89. Too much good stuff to be missed.
Really, the only person who's ever posted here who hates anything post '89 would probably be Karnevil9, though his cut-off point was '73. Walter is just looking for attention.
Joined: February 02 2005
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 4702
Posted: June 16 2009 at 01:48
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.
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: June 16 2009 at 01:57
I have no intention of getting into a long discussion into the finer aspects of English grammar, but I have to agree with moreyouthanitsyou, his/her is the correct usage. There may be zillions of artists pre-89, but since Walter used "a pre-89 artist", his/her is correct. Give Walter credit where it's due.
Joined: April 23 2006
Location: NYC
Status: Offline
Points: 11682
Posted: June 16 2009 at 02:39
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.
Joined: February 02 2005
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 4702
Posted: June 16 2009 at 03:02
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.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.316 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Do The Decemberists have people fooled?
Topic Options
micky wrote:
<font color=white>butts, lol[/COLOR]
!
That's pretty much as on topic as that so-called Aretha or whatever
