Re: OT STCK question

[Ted MacNEIL]

‎A common choice, at least in Canada, is to use the plural pro-noun, since, in 
English, it in gender neutral.

It's difficult to get used to, at first.

-
-teD
-
  Original Message  
From: Elardus Engelbrecht
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 10:46
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Reply To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Subject: Re: STCK question

John McKown wrote:

>> I've seen s/he used to cover both genders.
>​Well, being computer professionals, despite not being of the UNIX variety, 
>perhaps we use use the regular expression: s?he​

>​(the ? means "repeat 0 or 1 times" aka "optional"). Unless we post in the 
>ISPF forum whereupon it becomes r's?sh' to match PDF EDIT's specification of a 
>regular expression.​

So, you and me are zero or "optional", because we're males? ;-)

Should r's?sh' not be r's?she'? Or am I missing something optional? 


>Yoda of Borg, we are. Futile, resistance is, yes. Assimilated, you will be.

Hehehe, resist, I will not, your good signature lines. ;-)

Groete / Greetings
Elardus Engelbrecht

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: OT STCK question

[Mike Schwab]

I use they all the time as the genderless pronoun.  A supervisor
suggested he, I changed it to (s)he.

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Ted MacNEIL  wrote:
> ‎A common choice, at least in Canada, is to use the plural pro-noun, since, 
> in English, it in gender neutral.
>
> It's difficult to get used to, at first.
>
> -
> -teD
> -
>   Original Message
> From: Elardus Engelbrecht
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 10:46
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Reply To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> Subject: Re: STCK question
>
> John McKown wrote:
>
>>> I've seen s/he used to cover both genders.
>>Well, being computer professionals, despite not being of the UNIX variety, 
>>perhaps we use use the regular expression: s?he
>
>>(the ? means "repeat 0 or 1 times" aka "optional"). Unless we post in the 
>>ISPF forum whereupon it becomes r's?sh' to match PDF EDIT's specification of 
>>a regular expression.
>
> So, you and me are zero or "optional", because we're males? ;-)
>
> Should r's?sh' not be r's?she'? Or am I missing something optional?
>
>
>>Yoda of Borg, we are. Futile, resistance is, yes. Assimilated, you will be.
>
> Hehehe, resist, I will not, your good signature lines. ;-)
>
> Groete / Greetings
> Elardus Engelbrecht
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN



-- 
Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA
Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all?

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: OT STCK question

[Paul Gilmartin]

On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:47:39 -0500, Mike Schwab wrote:

>I use they all the time as the genderless pronoun.  A supervisor
>suggested he, I changed it to (s)he.
> 
Of course, like all pronouns, it should assimilate its number, singular,
from its antecedent.  A form both politically and gramatically correct is:

Everyone thinks they is being politically correct.

-- gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: OT STCK question

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In
,
on 06/11/2015
   at 10:47 AM, Mike Schwab  said:

>I use they all the time as the genderless pronoun.

That would be he in contemporary English, but they has long
antecedents.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: OT STCK question

[Ted MacNEIL]

I don't know about politically correct.
But, it is recommended in the Canadian Press Book of Style.

-
-teD
-
  Original Message  
From: Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 18:11
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Reply To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Subject: Re: OT STCK question

On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:47:39 -0500, Mike Schwab wrote:

>I use they all the time as the genderless pronoun. A supervisor
>suggested he, I changed it to (s)he.
> 
Of course, like all pronouns, it should assimilate its number, singular,
from its antecedent. A form both politically and gramatically correct is:

Everyone thinks they is being politically correct.

-- gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: OT STCK question

[Robert A. Rosenberg]

At 11:19 -0500 on 06/11/2015, Paul Gilmartin wrote about Re: OT STCK question:


On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:47:39 -0500, Mike Schwab wrote:


I use they all the time as the genderless pronoun.  A supervisor
suggested he, I changed it to (s)he.


Of course, like all pronouns, it should assimilate its number, singular,
from its antecedent.  A form both politically and gramatically correct is:

Everyone thinks they is being politically correct.


Shouldn't that be "Everyone thinks they ARE being politically correct"?

Everyone and they (?) are plural while "is" is singular - Thus the 
change to plural "are".




-- gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN



--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: OT STCK question

[J O Skip Robinson]

My head is about to explode. In US English grammar, 'everyone' is and always 
has been singular; 'they' is and always has been plural. I'm not talking about 
'logical reference', just grammatical construction. 

There's a big difference. In UK English, it's common to say 'the committee 
are'. In US English, we say 'the committee is' even though there are multiple 
people involved. In US we adhere to grammatical agreement; in UK, logical 
agreement may prevail. I don't know about Canadian English. 

I have no problem with 'they/them' as genderless generic pronouns. But failure 
of number agreement is linguistic cacophony. 

.
.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler 
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
626-302-7535 Office
323-715-0595 Mobile
jo.skip.robin...@sce.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Robert A. Rosenberg
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 7:37 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: OT STCK question

At 11:19 -0500 on 06/11/2015, Paul Gilmartin wrote about Re: OT STCK question:

>On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:47:39 -0500, Mike Schwab wrote:
>
>>I use they all the time as the genderless pronoun.  A supervisor 
>>suggested he, I changed it to (s)he.
>>
>Of course, like all pronouns, it should assimilate its number, 
>singular, from its antecedent.  A form both politically and gramatically 
>correct is:
>
> Everyone thinks they is being politically correct.

Shouldn't that be "Everyone thinks they ARE being politically correct"?

Everyone and they (?) are plural while "is" is singular - Thus the change to 
plural "are".

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: OT STCK question

[Ted MacNEIL]

Canada and the US: two countries separated by a common language.

-
-teD
-
  Original Message  
From: J O Skip Robinson
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 14:21
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Reply To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Subject: Re: OT STCK question

My head is about to explode. In US English grammar, 'everyone' is and always 
has been singular; 'they' is and always has been plural. I'm not talking about 
'logical reference', just grammatical construction. 

There's a big difference. In UK English, it's common to say 'the committee 
are'. In US English, we say 'the committee is' even though there are multiple 
people involved. In US we adhere to grammatical agreement; in UK, logical 
agreement may prevail. I don't know about Canadian English. 

I have no problem with 'they/them' as genderless generic pronouns. But failure 
of number agreement is linguistic cacophony. 

.
.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler 
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
626-302-7535 Office
323-715-0595 Mobile
jo.skip.robin...@sce.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Robert A. Rosenberg
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 7:37 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: OT STCK question

At 11:19 -0500 on 06/11/2015, Paul Gilmartin wrote about Re: OT STCK question:

>On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:47:39 -0500, Mike Schwab wrote:
>
>>I use they all the time as the genderless pronoun. A supervisor 
>>suggested he, I changed it to (s)he.
>>
>Of course, like all pronouns, it should assimilate its number, 
>singular, from its antecedent. A form both politically and gramatically 
>correct is:
>
> Everyone thinks they is being politically correct.

Shouldn't that be "Everyone thinks they ARE being politically correct"?

Everyone and they (?) are plural while "is" is singular - Thus the change to 
plural "are".

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: OT STCK question

[J O Skip Robinson]

I suggest that anyone matriculating at a US university not try to get away with 
'they is' on a placement exam. (S)he will find theirself in Bonehead English. 

.
.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler 
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
626-302-7535 Office
323-715-0595 Mobile
jo.skip.robin...@sce.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Ted MacNEIL
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 11:44 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: OT STCK question

Canada and the US: two countries separated by a common language.

-
-teD
-
  Original Message
From: J O Skip Robinson
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 14:21
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Reply To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Subject: Re: OT STCK question

My head is about to explode. In US English grammar, 'everyone' is and always 
has been singular; 'they' is and always has been plural. I'm not talking about 
'logical reference', just grammatical construction. 

There's a big difference. In UK English, it's common to say 'the committee 
are'. In US English, we say 'the committee is' even though there are multiple 
people involved. In US we adhere to grammatical agreement; in UK, logical 
agreement may prevail. I don't know about Canadian English. 

I have no problem with 'they/them' as genderless generic pronouns. But failure 
of number agreement is linguistic cacophony. 

.
.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
626-302-7535 Office
323-715-0595 Mobile
jo.skip.robin...@sce.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Robert A. Rosenberg
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 7:37 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: OT STCK question

At 11:19 -0500 on 06/11/2015, Paul Gilmartin wrote about Re: OT STCK question:

>On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:47:39 -0500, Mike Schwab wrote:
>
>>I use they all the time as the genderless pronoun. A supervisor 
>>suggested he, I changed it to (s)he.
>>
>Of course, like all pronouns, it should assimilate its number, 
>singular, from its antecedent. A form both politically and gramatically 
>correct is:
>
> Everyone thinks they is being politically correct.

Shouldn't that be "Everyone thinks they ARE being politically correct"?

Everyone and they (?) are plural while "is" is singular - Thus the change to 
plural "are".

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: OT STCK question

[Paul Gilmartin]

On 2015-06-12 15:57, J O Skip Robinson wrote:
> I suggest that anyone matriculating at a US university not try to get away 
> with 'they is' on a placement exam. (S)he will find theirself in Bonehead 
> English. 
> 
And yet, "A person who uses that construct should know that they are
destined for Bonehead English" grates equally.  "Person ... are"!?
Where did the singular slip to plural?

-- gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: OT STCK question

[Tony Harminc]

On 12 June 2015 at 18:10, Paul Gilmartin <
000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:

> On 2015-06-12 15:57, J O Skip Robinson wrote:
> > I suggest that anyone matriculating at a US university not try to get
> away with 'they is' on a placement exam. (S)he will find theirself in
> Bonehead English.
> >
> And yet, "A person who uses that construct should know that they are
> destined for Bonehead English" grates equally.  "Person ... are"!?
> Where did the singular slip to plural?


There's a 2013 article on Language Log that covers some of this. And the
many comments -- to say nothing of the linked articles -- cover yet more.

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4482

Tony H.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: OT STCK question

[retired mainframer]

> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 3:11 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: OT STCK question
> 
> On 2015-06-12 15:57, J O Skip Robinson wrote:
> > I suggest that anyone matriculating at a US university not try to get
away with 'they is' on
> a placement exam. (S)he will find theirself in Bonehead English.
> >
> And yet, "A person who uses that construct should know that they are
> destined for Bonehead English" grates equally.  "Person ... are"!?
> Where did the singular slip to plural?

To compensate for the slip in "The data is unreliable."

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: OT STCK question

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In
,
on 06/12/2015
   at 05:31 PM, J O Skip Robinson  said:

>I have no problem with 'they/them' as genderless generic pronouns.

That's good, because the usage goes back hundreds of years. OTOH, I
cringe when I hear "media is" or, worse, "medias are".

>But failure of number agreement is linguistic cacophony. 

Don't read any Hebrew religous books in the original; you'll get hit
in the face with what you call cacophony.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: OT STCK question

[J O Skip Robinson]

I should let this go, but Sunday is still Friday in the mind. 

Number agreement is based on subject - predicate. That is, subject (noun, 
pronoun) should be consistent with its associated verb. Whether a pronoun and 
its associated noun in a different clause may vary by dialect or usage. 

A person who uses that construct should know 
that 
they are destined for Bonehead English

person --> uses  (agreement)
they --> are  (agreement per US English)

The fact that 'they' stands in for 'person' is the whole point of this thread. 
You may buy into that correlation or not, but in the example sentence, there is 
still number agreement within each clause. At least in US English.

.
.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler 
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
626-302-7535 Office
323-715-0595 Mobile
jo.skip.robin...@sce.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 3:11 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: OT STCK question

On 2015-06-12 15:57, J O Skip Robinson wrote:
> I suggest that anyone matriculating at a US university not try to get away 
> with 'they is' on a placement exam. (S)he will find theirself in Bonehead 
> English. 
> 
And yet, "A person who uses that construct should know that they are destined 
for Bonehead English" grates equally.  "Person ... are"!?
Where did the singular slip to plural?

-- gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: OT STCK question

[J O Skip Robinson]

My sense of cacophony is all about grammar, not phonology. But the claim that 
'they' has long functioned as a singular reference sent me to my Random House 
Dictionary. I was surprised to read this in the entry for THEY:

"-Usage. Long before the use of generic HE was condemned as sexist, the 
pronouns THEY, THEIR, and THEM were used in educated speech and in all but the 
most formal writing to refer to indefinite pronouns and to singular nouns of 
general personal reference, probably because such nouns are often not felt to 
be exclusively singular: If anyone calls, tell them I'll be back at six. 
Everyone began looking for their books at once. Such use is not a recent 
development, nor is it a mark of ignorance. Shakespeare, Swift, Shelley, Scott, 
and Dickens, as well as many other English and American writers, have used THEY 
and its forms to refer to singular antecedents. Already widespread in the 
language (though still rejected as ungrammatical by some), this use of THEY, 
THEIR, and THEM is increasing in all but the most conservatively edited 
American English. This increased use is at least partly impelled by the desire 
to avoid the sexist implications of HE as a pronoun of general reference."

How's that for pedigree? But I see no mention here of subject - verb agreement. 
The examples here dance around that question altogether. 

.
.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler 
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
626-302-7535 Office
323-715-0595 Mobile
jo.skip.robin...@sce.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 5:56 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: OT STCK question

In
,
on 06/12/2015
   at 05:31 PM, J O Skip Robinson  said:

>I have no problem with 'they/them' as genderless generic pronouns.

That's good, because the usage goes back hundreds of years. OTOH, I cringe when 
I hear "media is" or, worse, "medias are".

>But failure of number agreement is linguistic cacophony. 

Don't read any Hebrew religous books in the original; you'll get hit in the 
face with what you call cacophony.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: OT STCK question

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In
,
on 06/14/2015
   at 05:54 PM, J O Skip Robinson  said:

>How's that for pedigree?

The Hebrew Bible goes back farther. O r were you only looking at
English?
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: OT STCK question

[J R]

> The Hebrew Bible goes back farther. 


You probably meant "further".;-)  

 
===

 
> Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 17:17:03 -0400
> From: shmuel+ibm-m...@patriot.net
> Subject: Re: OT STCK question
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> 
> In
> ,
> on 06/14/2015
>at 05:54 PM, J O Skip Robinson  said:
> 
> >How's that for pedigree?
> 
> The Hebrew Bible goes back farther. O r were you only looking at
> English?
>  
> -- 
>  Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
>  ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html> 
> We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
> (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
> 
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
  
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: OT STCK question

[Paul Gilmartin]

On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 17:44:20 +, J O Skip Robinson wrote:

>I should let this go, but Sunday is still Friday in the mind. 
>
>Number agreement is based on subject - predicate. That is, subject (noun, 
>pronoun) should be consistent with its associated verb. Whether a pronoun and 
>its associated noun in a different clause may vary by dialect or usage. 
>
>A person who uses that construct should know 
>that 
>they are destined for Bonehead English
>
>person --> uses  (agreement)
>they --> are  (agreement per US English)
>
>The fact that 'they' stands in for 'person' is the whole point of this thread. 
>You may buy into that correlation or not, but in the example sentence, there 
>is still number agreement within each clause. At least in US English.
>
And, pronouns have traditionally agreed in number with their antecedents.
The only other pronoun that can be either singular or plural that comes
readily to my mind is "who".  You provided half the example:

" A person who uses ..."

The other half:

"Persons who use ..."

The number agreement exists here, even outside the same clause.  If "they"
is newly to assume a singular meaning, a singular verb should agree with it.

The examples you cited later of collectives and indefinites do confuse the
issue, as does the royal (and editorial) "we", and the formal "you" (in French,
Russian, et al.)

(Some of the examples cited are outrageous: "Kim helped theirself to another
slice of cake.")

-- gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: OT STCK question

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In <3077152189307302.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu>, on
06/15/2015
   at 10:30 AM, Paul Gilmartin
<000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> said:

>If "they" is newly to assume a singular meaning,

Newly? That ship sailed before or grandfathers were born.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: OT STCK question

[Paul Gilmartin]

On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 19:30:26 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)  wrote:
>
>>If "they" is newly to assume a singular meaning,
>
>Newly? That ship sailed before or grandfathers were born.
> 
No, it's dragging its anchor most uncomfortably:

"Pat tells me that they enjoy a glass of wine with their meal when
they're dining alone."

-- gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: OT STCK question

[Ed Finnell]

Well we could produce a new word.
 
Maybe: ze, zey, zer, zoo.Leave it as an exercise for the reader-past  
pluperfect subjunctive!
 
 
In a message dated 6/17/2015 3:31:50 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu writes:

"Pat  tells me that they enjoy a glass of wine with their meal when
they're dining alone."


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: OT STCK question

[Ted MacNEIL]

It's generally for generic usage.
It's okay when used colloquially, ie:
Pat enjoys a drink when he's alone.
OR:
Pat enjoys a drink when she's alone.

Exaggerated examples are akin to straw-person arguments.

-
-teD
-
  Original Message  
From: Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 16:31
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Reply To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Subject: Re: OT STCK question

On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 19:30:26 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
>
>>If "they" is newly to assume a singular meaning,
>
>Newly? That ship sailed before or grandfathers were born.
> 
No, it's dragging its anchor most uncomfortably:

"Pat tells me that they enjoy a glass of wine with their meal when
they're dining alone."

-- gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: OT STCK question

[Tony's Outlook via Mozilla]

Aw geez, where's Gilmore when we need him?




On 6/17/2015 3:48 PM, Ted MacNEIL wrote:

It's generally for generic usage.
It's okay when used colloquially, ie:
Pat enjoys a drink when he's alone.
OR:
Pat enjoys a drink when she's alone.

Exaggerated examples are akin to straw-person arguments.

-
-teD
-
   Original Message
From: Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 16:31
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Reply To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Subject: Re: OT STCK question

On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 19:30:26 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:



If "they" is newly to assume a singular meaning,


Newly? That ship sailed before or grandfathers were born.


No, it's dragging its anchor most uncomfortably:

"Pat tells me that they enjoy a glass of wine with their meal when
they're dining alone."

-- gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN



--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: OT STCK question

[Tom Brennan]

My wife is from a country where the same word is used for both he and 
she.  I've heard translations like, "A man came into the store today, 
and she complained about the service".  I have to stop for a second 
because it sounds like we're talking about two separate people.  So I 
vote for a new word, and that would solve the Caitlyn issue too.


Ed Finnell wrote:

Well we could produce a new word.
 
Maybe: ze, zey, zer, zoo.Leave it as an exercise for the reader-past  
pluperfect subjunctive!
 
 
In a message dated 6/17/2015 3:31:50 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu writes:


"Pat  tells me that they enjoy a glass of wine with their meal when
they're dining alone."


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN




--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: OT STCK question

[Ed Finnell]

So instead of he,she, it. We'd have ze,ze,zitback to work knaves!
 
 
In a message dated 6/17/2015 4:18:45 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
t...@tombrennansoftware.com writes:

because  it sounds like we're talking about two separate people.  So I 
vote  for a new word, and that would solve the Caitlyn issue  too

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: OT STCK question

[Ted MacNEIL]

The only reason for they (singular) is for formal documentation and the press.
The verb still has to match the pronoun.
This has been 'formally' been accepted in Canada.
But, it's all for the sake of political correctness.

Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical 
minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous press which holds forth the 
proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.


-
-teD
-
  Original Message  
From: Tony's Outlook via Mozilla
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 16:59
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Reply To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Subject: Re: OT STCK question

Aw geez, where's Gilmore when we need him?




On 6/17/2015 3:48 PM, Ted MacNEIL wrote:
> It's generally for generic usage.
> It's okay when used colloquially, ie:
> Pat enjoys a drink when he's alone.
> OR:
> Pat enjoys a drink when she's alone.
>
> Exaggerated examples are akin to straw-person arguments.
>
> -
> -teD
> -
> Original Message
> From: Paul Gilmartin
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 16:31
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Reply To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> Subject: Re: OT STCK question
>
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 19:30:26 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
>>
>>> If "they" is newly to assume a singular meaning,
>>
>> Newly? That ship sailed before or grandfathers were born.
>>
> No, it's dragging its anchor most uncomfortably:
>
> "Pat tells me that they enjoy a glass of wine with their meal when
> they're dining alone."
>
> -- gil
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: OT STCK question

[J O Skip Robinson]

I believe this issue is worth discussing because it bears on our professional 
development and performance. It seems to be generally true that European 
languages all have gender-distinct pronouns at least in the singular. Same is 
true of (most?) languages of India. European languages and modern Indian 
languages share a common proto-type ancestor. It makes sense that Indo-European 
had gender-distinct pronouns and that its progeny would also. It seems very 
unlikely that such a basic linguistic feature would disappear over time. 

On the other hand, most languages of eastern Asia and South Pacific--such as 
those spoken in the Philippines--do not have gender-distinct pronouns. Nor do 
those of Sub-Saharan Africa. One pronoun fits all. It's especially difficult 
for such a learner to develop an instinctive feel for gender pronouns when 
speaking a second language that demands this distinction. Mixing up pronouns 
may be one of the last obstacles to overcome for a language learner. 

The he/she/they conundrum in English is just another flavor of the same 
problem. Once we commit to the sex of a pronoun, it's hard to use it for the 
opposite gender, even to the point where we give into number anomaly in order 
avoid gender anomaly. The boy-girl distinction sits at the core of our world 
view. 

.
.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler 
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
626-302-7535 Office
323-715-0595 Mobile
jo.skip.robin...@sce.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Tom Brennan
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 2:19 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: OT STCK question

My wife is from a country where the same word is used for both he and she.  
I've heard translations like, "A man came into the store today, and she 
complained about the service".  I have to stop for a second because it sounds 
like we're talking about two separate people.  So I vote for a new word, and 
that would solve the Caitlyn issue too.

Ed Finnell wrote:
> Well we could produce a new word.
>  
> Maybe: ze, zey, zer, zoo.Leave it as an exercise for the 
> reader-past pluperfect subjunctive!
>  
>  
> In a message dated 6/17/2015 3:31:50 P.M. Central Daylight Time, 
> 000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu writes:
> 
> "Pat  tells me that they enjoy a glass of wine with their meal when 
> they're dining alone."

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: OT STCK question

[Robert A. Rosenberg]

At 22:23 + on 06/17/2015, J O Skip Robinson wrote about Re: OT 
STCK question:


The he/she/they conundrum in English is just another flavor of the 
same problem. Once we commit to the sex of a pronoun, it's hard to 
use it for the opposite gender, even to the point where we give into 
number anomaly in order avoid gender anomaly. The boy-girl 
distinction sits at the core of our world view.


The problem is that there is no gender neutral/un-specified singular. 
The use of they (and its forms) is what we end up with when we are 
referencing a single person of either gender. In many cases the 
singular can be used in the context of a group where we are talking 
about any individual in the group as an individual.


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: OT STCK question

[Bruce Hewson]

ONE

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: OT STCK question

[Tom Marchant]

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 20:03:01 -0400, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:

>The problem is that there is no gender neutral/un-specified singular.

We have "it", but we don't like to refer to people as "it". In many 
languages every object has a gender and there is a masculine and 
feminine "the" to go with it.

-- 
Tom Marchant

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: OT STCK question

[Robert A. Rosenberg]

At 06:59 -0500 on 06/18/2015, Tom Marchant wrote about Re: OT STCK question:


On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 20:03:01 -0400, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:

 >The problem is that there is no gender neutral/un-specified singular.

We have "it", but we don't like to refer to people as "it". In many
languages every object has a gender and there is a masculine and
feminine "the" to go with it.

--
Tom Marchant


I read lots of Science Fiction and unless an invented term is used, 
"it" is often used when an alien race has more than 2 sexes. There is 
also a series where there are bio-engineered Humans with both Male 
and Female organs. The proper gender term for them is "it".


OTOH, I have often seen the term "it" used as a gender 
neutral/un-specified singular in referencing a baby or animal/pet as 
in "The baby sucked on its pacifier".


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: OT STCK question

[J O Skip Robinson]

The proper term for (at least) a person have both sets of organs is 
'hermaphrodite'. Q: So what's the biggest advantage that a 'hermaphrodite' has 
over singly endowed folks?

(Imagine scrolling down down for the answer...)

A: Can read a map but isn't afraid to ask directions. 

.
.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler 
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
626-302-7535 Office
323-715-0595 Mobile
jo.skip.robin...@sce.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Robert A. Rosenberg
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 3:24 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: OT STCK question

At 06:59 -0500 on 06/18/2015, Tom Marchant wrote about Re: OT STCK question:

>On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 20:03:01 -0400, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:
>
>  >The problem is that there is no gender neutral/un-specified singular.
>
>We have "it", but we don't like to refer to people as "it". In many 
>languages every object has a gender and there is a masculine and 
>feminine "the" to go with it.
>
>--
>Tom Marchant

I read lots of Science Fiction and unless an invented term is used, "it" is 
often used when an alien race has more than 2 sexes. There is also a series 
where there are bio-engineered Humans with both Male and Female organs. The 
proper gender term for them is "it".

OTOH, I have often seen the term "it" used as a gender neutral/un-specified 
singular in referencing a baby or animal/pet as in "The baby sucked on its 
pacifier".

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: OT STCK question

[Gary Weinhold]

From conversations with a child who prefers not to be identified by 
gender and who also studied lingustics, I suspect that just as all the 
rules I learned about when to use "me" and "I" seem to be ignored when 
"and" is used ("John and me will be using the tickets given to Nancy and 
I") that "they, them, their(s)"  will soon be treated as the singular 
forms for persons.


It won't be a rule; as they say, to each their own.

Gary Weinhold



On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 20:03:01 -0400, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:
>
>  >The problem is that there is no gender neutral/un-specified singular.
>


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: OT STCK question

[Paul Gilmartin]

On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 11:23:54 -0400, Gary Weinhold  wrote:

> From conversations with a child who prefers not to be identified by
>gender and who also studied lingustics, I suspect that just as all the
>rules I learned about when to use "me" and "I" seem to be ignored when
>"and" is used ("John and me will be using the tickets given to Nancy and
>I") that "they, them, their(s)"  will soon be treated as the singular
>forms for persons.
> 
IOW, they will take singular verbs for number agreement?

-- gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: OT STCK question

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In <20150617214111.5353554.62004.40...@yahoo.ca>, on 06/17/2015
   at 05:41 PM, Ted MacNEIL  said:

>The only reason for they (singular) is for formal documentation and
>the press.
 ...
>But, it's all for the sake of political correctness.


Nonsense. They (singular) was around centuries before PC entered the
vernacular.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN