6.0631 Rs: Illogicalities; CETEDOC (6/96)

Elaine Brennan (EDITORS@BROWNVM.BITNET)
Tue, 30 Mar 1993 13:53:07 EST

Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 6, No. 0631. Tuesday, 30 Mar 1993.


(1) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1993 15:22 EST (14 lines)
From: "Peter Graham, Rutgers U.; 908-932-5908" <GRAHAM@ZODIAC.BITNET>
Subject: Re: 6.0622 Illogicalities and Constructions (4/122)

(2) Date: 29 Mar 93 16:36:03 AST (20 lines)
From: "J. Russell Perkin" <RPERKIN@SHARK.STMARYS.CA>
Subject: Inclusive language

(3) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 93 18:52:48 -0500 (22 lines)
From: rand@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Rand David)
Subject: Re: 6.0622, Grammatical illogicalities

(4) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 93 11:52:22 BST (17 lines)
From: frsfwl <F.W.Langley@frd.hull.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: 6.0622 Illogicalities and Constructions (4/122)

(5) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 93 10:21:49 MST (17 lines)
From: George Lang <GLANG@vm.ucs.UAlberta.CA>
Subject: Caring, more or less

(6) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 93 19:17:18 CST (6 lines)
From: "James Marchand" <marchand@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Cetedoc CD-ROM

(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1993 15:22 EST
From: "Peter Graham, Rutgers U.; 908-932-5908" <GRAHAM@ZODIAC.BITNET>
Subject: Re: 6.0622 Illogicalities and Constructions (4/122)


Norman Hinton just said (re Constructions):

>"On site" and "in concert" may be unusual constructions in Australia, but in
the United States they are so common that I cannot even remember having
heard "on _the_ site" or "in _the_ concert".

I was on the site at the very time that Doris Day screamed out in the
concert that Hitchcock was filming.
From: Peter Graham, Rutgers University Libraries. Sorry.
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------34----
Date: 29 Mar 93 16:36:03 AST
From: "J. Russell Perkin" <RPERKIN@SHARK.STMARYS.CA>
Subject: Inclusive language

Responding to David A. Hoekema:

> (I find it impossible to maintain this detached
> attitude, however, when student papers contain such well-entrenched
> solecisms as "could of been" and "each person has their own perspective".
> If language may be inconsistent, so may I.)

"Could of" irks me a great deal too. But it is at least a phonetic
transcription of what most people say. "Each person has their own
perspective," on the other hand, strikes me not as a solecism but as
an example of the inclusive usage I try to encourage my first-year
writing students to adopt.

J. Russell Perkin
Department of English
Saint Mary's University, N.S., Canada
(3) --------------------------------------------------------------41----
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 93 18:52:48 -0500
From: rand@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Rand David)
Subject: Re: 6.0622, Grammatical illogicalities

David A. Hoekema is irritated by illogicalities such as "each person
has their own perspective". I assume that he objects to the word "their"
because it is plural, and would prefer "one's" or "his/her". I am no
grammarian, just a techno-nerd, but I would like to make a case in
favour of the construction as it stands. The alternatives are too
awkward, at least for the spoken language. If "you" can be singular,
then why not "they"? Why not accept they, their, etc. as
non-gender-specific (is that a word?) singular? That is exactly how
these pronouns are often used. For example: "I need help from someone.
They would have to be patient." Just think how happy bisexuals would be
if they could sing, without fear of reproach from grammarians, "Someday
they'll come along, the person I love!"

David Rand
CRM, Universite de Montreal
rand@ere.umontreal.ca


(4) --------------------------------------------------------------31----
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 93 11:52:22 BST
From: frsfwl <F.W.Langley@frd.hull.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: 6.0622 Illogicalities and Constructions (4/122)

David Hoekema is right to point out that the most frequent spoken form of
"je ne sais pas" is "she(i.e. e acute)pa", but it is not tru that "je ne
sais pas" belongs exclusively to elementary French classes: it can still
be heard from the mouths of the linguistically punctilious.

As regards "in/to (the) hospital", both are commonly used in England, but
I'm not sure that they are simply interchangeable: the use of the definite
article does imply some degree of definition, suggesting that the speaker
assumes that the hearer knows which hospital is referred to.

By the way, it is anachronistic to refer to "present subjects of the
Crown": my passport informs whomsoever looks at it that I am a British
"citizen". The distinction is important to some of us.
(5) --------------------------------------------------------------28----
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 93 10:21:49 MST
From: George Lang <GLANG@vm.ucs.UAlberta.CA>
Subject: Caring, more or less

From: George Lang
Romance Languages
University of Alberta
The running discussion on "caring less" has reminded me of a different aspect
of the expression, at less according to the transactionally trained new age
Berkeley mom who repeatedly corrected my use of the phrase. To questions of
the type "Dad, can I go over to Johnny's to play" I would habitually respond
"I don't care". This was of course the wrong message. What I meant was: "I
_do_ care. I have considered the request, find it reasonable, but be home in
time for supper".

George Lang
GLANG@VM.UCS.UALBERTA.CA
(6) --------------------------------------------------------------20----
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 93 19:17:18 CST
From: "James Marchand" <marchand@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Cetedoc CD-ROM

There is a good review of the Cetedoc CD-ROM of the Corpus Christianorum by
Jim O'Donnell in Offline37, available from HUMANIST.