Grammar Tip of the Week

[Stephen]

No new tips in a while.

I'm beginning to believe the quote that I saw...

"Sadly the days of good grammar are went."

[Doug]

"Dad-blamed" right. Oops, I thought that was going to give me a red line in the sand and it turns out it's been in use since about 1835. I guess I will put the "dad-burned" thing back in my vocabulary. (Yep. that one's from 1825.) (Yep is also from 1830.) Dang it (Corruption of damn from 1780.) If that don't blast all. (Blast = frustration from 1630.)

[Ken, Moderator]

The biggest fault line these days is in the use of the pronoun "their." It's become multi-purpose -- singular and plural.

[Doug]

Wow, Ken that is more interesting than I thought:

theirn or their'n is old English meaning belonging to them (plural) as in that is thine people's will or thine family cottage. I couldn't help see that it has "heir" in it which might connote future ownership but my reference does not mention that. I think someone had the idea to drop the n off the end to use it as singular but now no one uses the the plural "theirn" form any more except in mid south US. Does that sound correct?

[Stephen]

Part of the pressure for using "their" rather than "his" or "her" is that it's gender neutral and doesn't raise any "its/it's" confusion.

As a gay man who's open about his sexuality but sometimes chooses not to advertise it, I have caught myself using "their" instead of his or her when I didn't want to disclose the gender of the (singular) owner.

[Doug]

Also, the 'n makes the pronoun "their" denote ownership like the 's on other words; is that right? Are there other examples of 'n denoting ownership? His'n and her'n is wrong of course because they are singular and already complete without the 'n. Where did mine come from? Was it originally my'n? I know; I'm getting silly. :-) My grandma told me those fingerprints on the wall are your'n. If 'n is contracted from adding "own", then they all make perfect sense.

[Doug]

Stephen wrote: "Part of the pressure for using "their" rather than "his" or "her" is that it's gender neutral and doesn't raise any "its/it's" confusion.


We do need some new pronouns instead of "he/she" etc. which is distracting.

[Ken, Moderator]

Yes, the "he or she" is awkward, as is the "s/he." Thus, the ascension of "their." And, as Stephen points out, gender issues also come into play--more now than before. Though the new GOP trifecta (Prez/House/Senate) may introduce legislation to change that.

[Cecily]

Ken wrote: "Yes, the "he or she" is awkward, as is the "s/he." Thus, the ascension of "their."... Though the new GOP trifecta (Prez/House/Senate) may introduce legislation to change that."

Legislation - to change what (the language those in the US use?!), and HOW?

[Sally]

Stephen wrote: "Part of the pressure for using "their" rather than "his" or "her" is that it's gender neutral and doesn't raise any "its/it's" confusion..."

Preferring traditional English usage, I find my teeth grating a lot when I see "their" used in formal texts as a gender-neutral for the singular. In informal speech, I couldn't care less. I have just enough brains to realize that vocal dispute over it is futile, so I do my best in my own written work to work around it without succumbing to it. Not always easy...

What really grits my teeth is when someone is specifically referencing an individual of specific gender and refers to him or her as "their" or "them." For example, I would never say, "My husband has to take their car into the shop for a new radiator." And I hear this kind of thing a lot. If you know the gender, use the appropriate gender-specific terminology.

Just my two-cents' worth, if it's worth that. I could say "in my humble opinion," but the jury is still out about how humble I am. ;-)

[Stephen]

Sally wrote: "...I find my teeth grating a lot when I see "their" used in formal texts..."

I agree that using "their" as a singular does feel awkward enough that I only do it in speech. In writing I generally find a more graceful way to avoid the gender disclosure issues. I did type something like that in my earlier post but eliminated it before posting for the sake of clarity (and pith.)

At least we're not as hung up on gender as past language creators. In Spanish every noun has a gender and that gender is pretty nonsensical. Dress (vestido) is masculine while shirt (camisa) is feminine.

[Sally]

French nouns are also designated by gender, too, which I never understood when I studied it in school. English is easier that way (although not easy in many other aspects). With Spanish that way, I would think that Italian is probably also festooned with gender-fixed nouns. I've been poking a bit into Gaelic, and find something similar going on.

[Sally]

Stephen wrote: "I did type something like that in my earlier post but eliminated it before posting for the sake of clarity (and pith.)...

Good ol' pith!

[Ruth]

Sally wrote: "French nouns are also designated by gender, too, which I never understood when I studied it in school. English is easier that way (although not easy in many other aspects). With Spanish that way, I..."

Yep on the Italian.

[Ken, Moderator]

Cecily wrote: "Ken wrote: "Yes, the "he or she" is awkward, as is the "s/he." Thus, the ascension of "their."... Though the new GOP trifecta (Prez/House/Senate) may introduce legislation to change that."

Legisla..."

That was facetious. I think.

[Doug]

So why does every box and set of instructions have 3 or 4 languages on it in an English speaking country? It wastes a lot of trees and adds to the landfills. A website can be listed for the alternate when rarely needed. Things are sometimes so slow to adapt to modern technological solutions.

[Ken, Moderator]

Not everyone has a computer. Or the Internet. Especially immigrants. If you can find any now. (I feel like a fragment today.)

[Doug]

Ken wrote: "Not everyone has a computer. Or the Internet. Especially immigrants. If you can find any now. (I feel like a fragment today.)"

Really? (Now, that is a complicated grammatical sentence.)

[Doug]

He will be putting his properties and assets in blind trusts. But why would the trustees want to sweep away the employees?

[Stephen]

This thread has been dead for a while so I thought I'd toss out a question about something I recently learned....

Many Arabic languages don't have any distinction for capital vs small letters.

Does English actually benefit from having capitals? I know that they're used to begin sentences and to identify "proper nouns" but other than giving grammar school one more thing to worry about, is there any benefit?

And lest anyone beat me to the punch, I do know about E. E. Cummings

[Doug]

I was taught that the reason is to speed up the reading, change of subject warning, and differentiate between names that are the same as other words like Miller, Rose, Baker etc. Many common names are other meanings in English. Finally there is the respect owed to people vs. things. Incidentally, it makes scanning documents for names, etc. much easier. That's all I know about it.

[Ken, Moderator]

God knows, or they say He does...