[Ads-l] "man non-avoidance

Jonathan Lighter wuxxmupp2000 at GMAIL.COM
Tue Oct 11 08:05:56 EDT 2016


 No, no, no, no, no!

"Every *person* for themselves."

(Or to be even more egalitarian, "theirselves.")

JL

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 6:27 AM, Robin Hamilton <
robin.hamilton3 at virginmedia.com> wrote:

> Best case yet I've seen for the utility of the gender-neutral "they".
>
> "Every man for themselves" (or is that misconcorded?) could be happily
> accepted by either a fish or a bicycle.
>
> Well, actually, no, but it would have been (marginally) less awkward than
> what the Late Deserting "I'm not going to vote for him, but I'm still
> endorsing him" Son-of-Ann said.  Or is it the other way around?  Confusing
> times we live in ...
>
> Not man-people or women-people but person-peoples ...
>
> Robin
>
> On 11 October 2016 at 11:10 Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at GMAIL.COM>
> wrote:
>
>
> Dana Bash, CNN, reports that Paul Ryan has told Republicans,
>
> "Every man for him or herself. I know what I just did there, but let's go
> on."
>
> She was embarrassed over "man" non-avoidance. Or was it just the twisted
> grammar? Many ask, "Which is a greater threat to our world?"
>
> JL
>
> --
> "If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
>


-- 
"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org


More information about the Ads-l mailing list