<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { margin-top: 0 ; margin-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: everybody...their</title></head><body>
<div>This is an interesting case of 'informal' grammar mapping into
the call for gender equality in language. Luckily I had the
construction 'naturally' so I was pre-ready.</div>
<div>I sure do like it when people people report that they 'cringe' at
the ordinary speech of others. Keep sending in them visceral cards and
letters. Could somebody attest to actually puking, for example, on
hearing a piece of grammar they didn't take a liking to? I'd love to
hear about it (or fainting, wetting their [uh, I mean his or her]
pants, etc...).</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>dInIs</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>What about this one? I have noticed
during the past 20-25 years that the use of "Everybody (everyone,
each, somebody, etc...) has THEIR own way of doing things" has
steadily been replacing "Everybody (etc)....HIS own
etc" even in "learned discourse" I attribute this
to the influence of the women's movement in making America more aware
and sensitive to sexism in society in general and in the English
language in particular. I have tried to use "his/her"
(clumsy as it is) as a way to preserve subject-verb agreement, and I
notice some others use "her" as a sort of overcompensation;
but with each passing year I see "their" picking up more
momentum in all corners, even in Academia. Has this been picked
up on any "official radar?" Is it in any usage
dictionaries yet? Are there any other grammar formalists out
there who cringe like I do when they hear this?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
At 08:40 PM 4/16/01, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>At 10:10 AM -0400 4/17/01, P2052@AOL.COM
wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font size="-1">A number of the older
grammar books/style manuals claim that either<br>
acceptable. <br>
In<i> The Complete Stylist and Handbook, 3rd ed.</i> (1984), Sheridan
acknowledges<br>
both a singular and a plural usage; however, he embraces the singular
sense<br>
of<i> none</i>: "<i>None of them are</i>, of course is very
common. From Shakespeare's<br>
time to ours, it has persisted alongside the more precise<i> none of
them is</i>,<br>
which seems to have the edge in careful prose, since it follows the
structure<br>
of English, matching singular with singular"
(354). </font><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
I find this argument entirely circular and question-begging, besides
flying in the face of centuries of distinguished usage.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font size="-1">He cites the
following<br>
examples:<br>
<span
></span> <i><b>
FAULTY</b></i>: <i> None</i> of these men<i> are</i>
failures.<br>
<span
></span> <i><b>
REVISED</b></i>: <i> None</i> of these men<i> is</i> a
failure.<br>
<span
></span> <i><b>
FAULTY</b></i>: <i> None</i> of the class, even those best
prepared<i>, want</i><br>
the test.<br>
<span
></span> <i><b>
REVISED</b></i><b>: </b><i> None</i> of the class, even those
best prepared,<i><br>
wants</i> the<br>
<span
></span
> <span
></span
> <span
></span> test.<br>
Note that these uses of<i> none</i> are the equivalent of<i> not
one</i>.</font><br>
<font size="-1"></font></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
Actually, I'm not sure that "none" = 'not one' in the second
example: "Not one of the class wants the test"?
In any case, this equivalence (often used by earlier prescriptivists
as a rationale for the singular agreement) is a bit of a red herring,
since the one case where everyone has always used singular agreement,
"none of the X" for mass noun X, doesn't permit a "not
one" paraphrase.<br>
<br>
larry</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>-- <br>
Dennis R. Preston<br>
Department of Linguistics and Languages<br>
Michigan State University<br>
East Lansing MI 48824-1027 USA<br>
preston@pilot.msu.edu<br>
Office: (517)353-0740<br>
Fax: (517)432-2736</div>
</body>
</html>