Re: Discussion - Proposed Constitution - voting part 2
Darren Benham writes (Discussion - Proposed Constitution - voting part 2): I've found another area that could cause problems in the vote counting area. I've been running various sceanios and here's what I've found: In point 5 of A.6. describes the STV method. Basicly, if no one option has 1/2 the votes, The option that got the least number of votes is removed and every ballot that had that option listed as 1st prefered, will use thier 2nd prefered as 1st and 3rd prefered as 2nd. If a ballot has had all of it's options disqualified (lets say they only voted a 1 in one option and left the others blank.. and that option gets disqualified), their vote has no options. The Constitution doesn't state what to do with these ballots so they remain counted toward the total half needed by the winning option but they don't add any count to any option. It's possible for this no preference to actually win the vote. The constitution doesn't state what this would mean, either... This is particularly possible in the cases where a Supermajority is needed. Possible Options that wouldn't be far fetched: no preference = the default option or ballots with no preference don't count towards the half needed to win. A.6(5)(iii): This elimination procedure is repeated, moving down ballot papers to 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. preferences as required, until one option gets more than half of the `first' preferences. It seems to me to be clear that the intent is that if a ballot has no remaining preferences then it doesn't count when considering which option might have more than half of the `first' preferences. Such a ballot couldn't be said to have a `first' preference any more, surely ? In point 8, where Quorum is talked about, it states that for an option to win, it must have X more votes for than vs. the default option. Ok, there are two methods used to determine a winner if method one doesn't produce a winner (More people prefer this option against that option) we switch to the other method (STV). These two methods can *often* result in different outcomes so the answer to this next question can make an important difference in the outcome of votes: If the first method produces a clear winner ( 4. If there is any option which Dominates all others then that is the winner and 2. option A is said to Dominate option B if *strictly* more ballots prefer A to B than prefer B to A emphasis mine), but fails to get the Quorum, do we still switch to the STV method ( 5. If there is now *more than one* option remainging STV will be applied to choose amongst those remaining emphasis mine) of do we end the count there and declare the default option to have won? I think the constitution implies that the vote ends there... A.6(8): 8.If a quorum is required, there must be at least that many votes which prefer the winning option to the default option. If there are not then the default option wins after all. For votes requiring a supermajority, the actual number of Yes votes is used when checking whether the quorum has been reached. The winning option here refers to the outcome of steps 1-7, clearly, and 8 is intended to _modify_ the outcome. So, if Concorde doesn't produce a clear-cut answer we use STV amongst the remaining options, and then we have a putative `winner'. If this winner didn't actually have enough ballots which prefer it to the default, then the default option is declared the winner. There's nothing saying we should go and restart the ballot counting with STV instead, or something. The condition for using 4 or 5 is whether there is one option which Dominates all the others, and 8 can't change the answer to that question. Ian.
Re: Discussion - Proposed Constitution - voting part 2
On 09-Oct-98 Ian Jackson wrote: A.6(5)(iii): This elimination procedure is repeated, moving down ballot papers to 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. preferences as required, until one option gets more than half of the `first' preferences. It seems to me to be clear that the intent is that if a ballot has no remaining preferences then it doesn't count when considering which option might have more than half of the `first' preferences. Such a ballot couldn't be said to have a `first' preference any more, surely ? Actually, I've seen the STV method done in such a way that after a ballot loses all it's first preferences it is still counted as a no-preference (ie. as an abstention of sorts) hence my question. I think any questions on this can be settled by president but, as of yet, we don't have president so I thought I'd ask. A.6(8): 8.If a quorum is required, there must be at least that many votes which prefer the winning option to the default option. If there are not then the default option wins after all. For votes requiring a supermajority, the actual number of Yes votes is used when checking whether the quorum has been reached. The winning option here refers to the outcome of steps 1-7, clearly, I've learned, the hard way, that clearly usually doesn't apply to things like this. They turn out to be worm holes to cause problems :( and 8 is intended to _modify_ the outcome. So, if Concorde doesn't produce a clear-cut answer we use STV amongst the remaining options, and then we have a putative `winner'. If this winner didn't actually have enough ballots which prefer it to the default, then the default option is declared the winner. There's nothing saying we should go and restart the ballot counting with STV instead, or something. The Yes. I saw my mistake as I was reading and rereading the constituion. But since nobody commented on the thread, I just let the matter drop instead of correcting my assuptions to the list. = * http://benham.net/index.html * * * -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- ---* *Darren Benham * Version: 3.1 * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++ P+++$ L++* * * E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K- w+++$(--) O M-- V- PS-- * * Debian Developer * PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b DI+++ D++ * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * G++G+++ e h+ r* y+* * * --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- ---* =
Re: Pronouns (was Re: Proposed Constitution)
Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hope you are well aware of the fact that a lot of people will not understand it, and probably will ask you about it. I can tell you that most german readers may be confused. I don't know about other countries, but I assume the situation is not very different there. If this is a problem, we could fix it by supplying a short list of definitions of words which are known problems for people with various backgrounds. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Pronouns (was Re: Proposed Constitution)
I´m did a little research and nobody here at my university I ask (not too many people, and not represantive, but FWIW) did know this use of they. I would really appreciate a list of word explanations, as reading english legal texts is hard. I´m willing to learn new stuff, but I hope that Ian can provide such a list. Marcus On Wed, Apr 29, 1998 at 10:37:36PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hope you are well aware of the fact that a lot of people will not understand it, and probably will ask you about it. I can tell you that most german readers may be confused. I don't know about other countries, but I assume the situation is not very different there. If this is a problem, we could fix it by supplying a short list of definitions of words which are known problems for people with various backgrounds. -- Raul -- Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.Debian GNU/Linuxfinger brinkmd@ Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.orgmaster.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]for public PGP Key http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Pronouns (was Re: Proposed Constitution)
--On Thu, Apr 30, 1998 1:03 pm +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I´m did a little research and nobody here at my university I ask (not too many people, and not represantive, but FWIW) did know this use of they. I would really appreciate a list of word explanations, as reading english legal texts is hard. I´m willing to learn new stuff, but I hope that Ian can provide such a list. I'd just like to reassure you, Marcus, and any other non-English as first language speakers here, that Ian and I are not proposing Debian adopt some obscure antiquated english usage, just for the sake of it. This use of 'they' really is in common use in everyday conversation, in my experience, as well as in print. The idea of a language glossary for non-native-english speakers does sound like a good idea, however. Jules /+---+-\ | Jelibean aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 6 Evelyn Rd| | Jules aka | | Richmond, Surrey | | Julian Bean | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| TW9 2TF *UK* | ++---+-+ | War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. | | When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. | \--/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Pronouns (was Re: Proposed Constitution)
On Tue, Apr 28, 1998 at 05:02:57PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: This discussion is ridiculous. In my view singular `they' is perfectly correct. If I can use it in my PhD thesis (with a footnote[1] and supporting references, and without any complaint from the examiners) then we can use it here. Furthermore, language is defined by use, not by prescription (try asking a linguist, rather than a schoolteacher). Singular `they' is very well accepted practice in this speech community; in the contexts I have used it it is (I believe) clear, clean and unambiguous. I hope you are well aware of the fact that a lot of people will not understand it, and probably will ask you about it. I can tell you that most german readers may be confused. I don't know about other countries, but I assume the situation is not very different there. I will not change the current draft, and blustering here will not make me change my mind. If you're so horribly bothered you'll have to propose an amendment; I wonder if you could find five sufficiently anal (and wrong) supporters. Ian, I find your attitude arrogant and egocentric. Your constitution is hard enough to read for non-native speakers, and if you don't want to rule out people that don't have a Ph.D. in Oxford English, you probably want to reconsider your position. I will not make you the favour to propose a change, because I don't have the time for kid games and name calling. I only ask you to have a footnote explaining: If you need it in your Ph.D. to warrant this language, you certainly want it in an internationally used document, too. Remember that Linux as well as Debian is an international project. Marcus -- Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.Debian GNU/Linuxfinger brinkmd@ Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.orgmaster.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]for public PGP Key http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed Constitution
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Mon, 27 Apr 1998, Mark Baker wrote: On Mon, Apr 27, 1998 at 06:05:51PM -0400, Bob Hilliard wrote: include the plural. Then all of the clumsy constructions using plural pronouns (they, their) to refer to singular entities (Leader, Secretary, etc.) should be changed to use singular masculine pronouns (him, his). They is not only a singular, it is also widely accepted as a singular pronoun, and has been used as such by not only ordinary people but also great writers for hundreds of years. I am sorry to burst that bubble, but do you care to centest that argument with my english teacher? they is a plural non-gender pronoun. When writing in formal english, it is required thatspecific formal pronouns be used. E.G. The President will be (blablabla). He will also... (blablabla). One thing that IS accepted is the use of masculine pronouns to represent both genders. However, some view this as sex discrimination. Hence, everybody is in a very awkward position. Write gramatically incorrect documents, discriminatory documents; even better, lace your documents with useless replacement phrases. An example of the last, replacing the second sentence in my previous display, would go as such: The person who holds this position will also ... (blablabla). Following this method insures that everybody will be happy, but puts extreme pressure on the writer not do provoke anybody carelessly. Who will take something seriously if its main constitution is riddled with grammatical errors? Who of the same will take it seriously if it is discriminatory? Who, then, will read it if it is twice as long as it needs to be? I say everybody is too paranoid. Who cares what it looks like? Do it effectively and use the most common method, whoever's toes it steps on. Don't be afraid to put he because somebody will surely slander you for your nievety. Enough of my ramblings ;) - --- Aaron Van Couwenberghe -- [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] |--- Debian GNU/Linux: http://www.debian.org ftp://ftp.debian.org -\ |- Proud competitor in the race for World Domination ---| Illusion web designs - http://www.sonic.net/~vanco - To be launched by June PGP KeyID: 41119089 UserID: Aaron Van Couwenberghe [EMAIL PROTECTED] - -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- Version: 2.6.3a mQCNAzU9DnIAAAEEAMPBOCQh5zzgJCh7hz7M20bL+gztIn1+ldPNq8AcN7s16XHa sgWQoK/Yz/15HnClqDATQhqItG4+4SZDW/VywLgDUxfa+WXPqOFGdUv8AODAnWiz doOI58TajZTV4gyvp2fCH2sjvOOpfZ1AFn1m3Z6kT3c0otbNSfoZ48BBEZCJAAUR tChBYXJvbiBWYW4gQ291d2VuYmVyZ2hlIDx2YW5jb0Bzb25pYy5uZXQ+iQCVAwUQ NT0OcvoZ48BBEZCJAQENBQP9G/3B3HHQOYaea6ep1Z+0ZR/BtK3o2bPPdhVFEksT vwlvDYM01RouZoWZ91ixJVTp5r+ovq/4eFnrVk1IxjK6lEeXtKixrWKuyv3xVBa5 1snIrslc4t6zahBJx6i9OESgK69BDi0MMA8Y5jzz6I38vCZS1cFjwGZvzyINJEaF +Fg= =56FS - -END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNUSmSfoZ48BBEZCJAQEwVAP/XabxTwkAJ0FDzKHe89S0ImxrCevkE09a b9bYNFkC6KcCdyyj6spfv4ADdKAQEUzlYGbUXabLwyhHoWIXR4/FwBOBpV6qXfsB d0kAw/RwzksqVq3Zn2zeRCxwteV9J9KAS53/MoWPfB6EbtLJ6ia9QkFfS2Nqk90l 3YcXAiLnAwc= =9Aoa -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed Constitution
--On Mon, Apr 27, 1998 8:37 am -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Mon, 27 Apr 1998, Mark Baker wrote: On Mon, Apr 27, 1998 at 06:05:51PM -0400, Bob Hilliard wrote: include the plural. Then all of the clumsy constructions using plural pronouns (they, their) to refer to singular entities (Leader, Secretary, etc.) should be changed to use singular masculine pronouns (him, his). They is not only a singular, it is also widely accepted as a singular pronoun, and has been used as such by not only ordinary people but also great writers for hundreds of years. I am sorry to burst that bubble, but do you care to centest that argument with my english teacher? Happy to. Send him over here (to England). I'll have a go at them for your spelling while I'm at it ;) Personal taste aside, 'they' is certainly grammatically acceptable as a gender free singular or plural noun. Although, being so free, it is also ambiguous. Personally, I find it more comfortable to read than any of the alternatives. Other people find 'they' clumsy, and prefer 'he'. I understand this point of view perfectly, just don't agree with. I'm not naive enough to believe that repeated use of 'he' is sex discrimination. However, I personally feel that 'he' as used in modern English, does in fact convey a definite sense of maleness, which is why I sometimes avoid it. Who will take something seriously if its main constitution is riddled with grammatical errors? Who of the same will take it seriously if it is discriminatory? Who, then, will read it if it is twice as long as it needs to be? I say everybody is too paranoid. Who cares what it looks like? Do it effectively and use the most common method, whoever's toes it steps on. Don't be afraid to put he because somebody will surely slander you for your nievety. Personally, I would like the constitution to read comfortably, more than anything else. I fear that, as a legal document, this is unlikely anyway :( The old text-books frequently started with the phrase 'he embraces she'. Sweet, I think :) Jules /+---+-\ | Jelibean aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 6 Evelyn Rd| | Jules aka | | Richmond, Surrey | | Julian Bean | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| TW9 2TF *UK* | ++---+-+ | War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. | | When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. | \--/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed Constitution
On Mon, 27 Apr 1998, Bob Hilliard wrote: I suggest that Section B. Use of language and typography be amended to include a statement similar to Where the context permits, the masculine shall include the feminine, and the singular shall include the plural. Then all of the clumsy constructions using plural pronouns (they, their) to refer to singular entities (Leader, Secretary, etc.) should be changed to use singular masculine pronouns (him, his). Standard usage in legal documents and the like is he/she, I think. Using just he would annoy lots of people. Sort of gratuitously political. he/she is neutral. he causes flamewars from liberals like me, and they causes flamewars from the grammar police. he/she resolves the issue and most people are mostly happy, since the damage is purely cosmetic. The other poster is correct, however, that from a linguistic standpoint they has been in common usage for hundreds of years. If anyone wants to read more a good article is Language and the Culture of Gender: At the Intersection of Structure, Usage, and Ideology, Silverstein, _Semiotic Mediation_, 1995. Thanks, Havoc Pennington http://pobox.com/~hp -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed Constitution
Mark Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They is not only a singular, it is also widely accepted as a singular pronoun, and has been used as such by not only ordinary people but also great writers for hundreds of years. All of my dictionaries give nominative plural of he, she, or it as the primary definition of they. My unabridged dictionary adds (used with an indefinite singular antecedent in place of the definite masculine he or definite feminine she). The examples cited are for indefinite antecedents such as anyone or whoever. I do not think Project Leader is an indefinite antecedent. Bob -- _ |_) _ |_ Robert D. Hilliard[EMAIL PROTECTED] |_) (_) |_) Palm City, FL USAPGP Key ID: A8E40EB9 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed Constitution
--On Mon, Apr 27, 1998 8:29 pm -0400 Bob Hilliard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They is not only a singular, it is also widely accepted as a singular pronoun, and has been used as such by not only ordinary people but also great writers for hundreds of years. All of my dictionaries give nominative plural of he, she, or it as the primary definition of they. My unabridged dictionary adds (used with an indefinite singular antecedent in place of the definite masculine he or definite feminine she). The examples cited are for indefinite antecedents such as anyone or whoever. I do not think Project Leader is an indefinite antecedent. Ha! My dictionary's bigger than yours ;-) Oxford English Dictionary (Compact): quote They : pers. pron B.I.1 As pronoun of the third person plural... [..] 2 Often used in reference to a singular noun made universal by the use of every, any, or no, etc., or applicable to one of either sex ( = 'he or she' ). /quote The project leader *is*, in this sense, an indefinite antedecent - the only indefiniteness required is indefinite sex, which the project leader possesses (no offence, Ian ;). This is getting silly. I will reiterate my opinion. My opinion is that 'they', irrespective of grammatical accuracy, is to me an acceptable alternative to 'he' which removes gender-bias without compromising the flow of the text. You need not agree :) Yours, Jules Bean /+---+-\ | Jelibean aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 6 Evelyn Rd| | Jules aka | | Richmond, Surrey | | Julian Bean | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| TW9 2TF *UK* | ++---+-+ | War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. | | When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. | \--/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed Constitution
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Tue, 28 Apr 1998, Jules Bean wrote: I must apologize, I was the one that fueled this technical jargon battle. I personally don't care. My bad ;) Like father like son - --- Aaron Van Couwenberghe -- [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] |--- Debian GNU/Linux: http://www.debian.org ftp://ftp.debian.org -\ |- Proud competitor in the race for World Domination ---| Illusion web designs - http://www.sonic.net/~vanco - To be launched by June PGP KeyID: 41119089 UserID: Aaron Van Couwenberghe [EMAIL PROTECTED] - -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- Version: 2.6.3a mQCNAzU9DnIAAAEEAMPBOCQh5zzgJCh7hz7M20bL+gztIn1+ldPNq8AcN7s16XHa sgWQoK/Yz/15HnClqDATQhqItG4+4SZDW/VywLgDUxfa+WXPqOFGdUv8AODAnWiz doOI58TajZTV4gyvp2fCH2sjvOOpfZ1AFn1m3Z6kT3c0otbNSfoZ48BBEZCJAAUR tChBYXJvbiBWYW4gQ291d2VuYmVyZ2hlIDx2YW5jb0Bzb25pYy5uZXQ+iQCVAwUQ NT0OcvoZ48BBEZCJAQENBQP9G/3B3HHQOYaea6ep1Z+0ZR/BtK3o2bPPdhVFEksT vwlvDYM01RouZoWZ91ixJVTp5r+ovq/4eFnrVk1IxjK6lEeXtKixrWKuyv3xVBa5 1snIrslc4t6zahBJx6i9OESgK69BDi0MMA8Y5jzz6I38vCZS1cFjwGZvzyINJEaF +Fg= =56FS - -END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNUS38/oZ48BBEZCJAQGTWQP/auu7zRry/m+Hn8kS9LOiCBH8qoOqH7J0 gQ1aWWb+BHOp24GS+8Cg61vZHjD5cPl5mgme8eOcMBtXNgaln9syfFhniLTo8923 c2XqqH/UveZfSgFNe4xT0INpWt7wTaU4n+7aruEE5bimVD7sMUuDe/4Opc1qnxTm ajknhSe4t4Q= =9jAi -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed Constitution
I say everybody is too paranoid. Who cares what it looks like? Do ^ it effectively and use the most common method, whoever's toes it steps on. Don't be afraid to put he because somebody will surely slander you for your nievety. then i guess we'll use 'they' (since nobody cares what it looks like). or even better, why don't we use 'she'? and maybe we'll throw in some spelling mistakes (to do what everybody else seems to be doing. btw, what is 'nievety'?) --alex-- -- | I believe the moment is at hand when, by a paranoiac and active | | advance of the mind, it will be possible (simultaneously with | | automatism and other passive states) to systematize confusion | | and thus to help to discredit completely the world of reality. | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed Constitution
On Mon, Apr 27, 1998 at 08:37:42AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am sorry to burst that bubble, but do you care to centest that argument with my english teacher? they is a plural non-gender pronoun. When writing in formal english, it is required thatspecific formal pronouns be used. E.G. The President will be (blablabla). He will also... (blablabla). One thing that IS I say everybody is too paranoid. Who cares what it looks like? Do Then why post this? If you like, I will ask an English teacher I know, my mother. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5 CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pronouns (was Re: Proposed Constitution)
This discussion is ridiculous. In my view singular `they' is perfectly correct. If I can use it in my PhD thesis (with a footnote[1] and supporting references, and without any complaint from the examiners) then we can use it here. Furthermore, language is defined by use, not by prescription (try asking a linguist, rather than a schoolteacher). Singular `they' is very well accepted practice in this speech community; in the contexts I have used it it is (I believe) clear, clean and unambiguous. I will not change the current draft, and blustering here will not make me change my mind. If you're so horribly bothered you'll have to propose an amendment; I wonder if you could find five sufficiently anal (and wrong) supporters. Ian. [1] The footnote reads: I follow well-established English practice in using the terms `they', `their' and `them' as gender-neutral singulars, as well as plurals [OED89, vol.XVII, p.928, col.3, `they', 2nd sense] [Churchyard97] The references are: [OED89] `Oxford English Dictionary'. Oxford University Press. 2nd ed., 1989 [Churchyard97] Henry Churchyard, `Singular `their' in Jane Austen and elsewhere'. http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~churchh/austheir.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proposed Constitution
I suggest that Section B. Use of language and typography be amended to include a statement similar to Where the context permits, the masculine shall include the feminine, and the singular shall include the plural. Then all of the clumsy constructions using plural pronouns (they, their) to refer to singular entities (Leader, Secretary, etc.) should be changed to use singular masculine pronouns (him, his). Bob -- _ |_) _ |_ Robert D. Hilliard[EMAIL PROTECTED] |_) (_) |_) Palm City, FL USAPGP Key ID: A8E40EB9 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed Constitution
On Mon, Apr 27, 1998 at 06:05:51PM -0400, Bob Hilliard wrote: include the plural. Then all of the clumsy constructions using plural pronouns (they, their) to refer to singular entities (Leader, Secretary, etc.) should be changed to use singular masculine pronouns (him, his). They is not only a singular, it is also widely accepted as a singular pronoun, and has been used as such by not only ordinary people but also great writers for hundreds of years. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
