everybody...their

[Dennis R. Preston]

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.
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...).

dInIs



>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?
>
>
>
>
>
>At 08:40 PM 4/16/01, you wrote:
>
>>At 10:10 AM -0400 4/17/01, P2052 at AOL.COM wrote:
>>
>>>A number of the older grammar books/style manuals claim that either
>>>acceptable.
>>>In The Complete Stylist and Handbook, 3rd ed. (1984), Sheridan acknowledges
>>>both a singular and a plural usage; however, he embraces the singular sense
>>>of none:  "None of them are, of course is very common.  From Shakespeare's
>>>time to ours, it has persisted alongside the more precise none of them is,
>>>which seems to have the edge in careful prose, since it follows
>>>the structure
>>>of English, matching singular with singular" (354).
>>>
>>
>>I find this argument entirely circular and question-begging,
>>besides flying in the face of centuries of distinguished usage.
>>
>>>He cites the following
>>>examples:
>>>                   FAULTY:  None of these men are failures.
>>>                   REVISED:  None of these men is a failure.
>>>                   FAULTY:  None of the class, even those best prepared, want
>>>the test.
>>>                   REVISED:  None of the class, even those best prepared,
>>>wants the
>>>                                     test.
>>>Note that these uses of none are the equivalent of not one.
>>>
>>
>>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.
>>
>>larry

--
Dennis R. Preston
Department of Linguistics and Languages
Michigan State University
East Lansing MI 48824-1027 USA
preston at pilot.msu.edu
Office: (517)353-0740
Fax: (517)432-2736
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/ads-l/attachments/20010417/72afa395/attachment.htm>