If I the language god, I would sit back in my chair, smile, and say to
myself, "What God hath wrought."
N. Scott Catledge, PhD/STD
Professor Emeritus
history & languages
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ATEG automatic digest system
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 12:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: ATEG Digest - 15 Aug 2009 to 17 Aug 2009 (#2009-176)
There are 18 messages totalling 2468 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Grammar in the classroom
2. If I were the language god... (
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:11:44 -0400
From: Scott <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Grammar in the classroom
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0166_01CA1F2B.8143F610
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/strips/mallard/2000/mallard1.asp
Scott Catledge
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 13:40:24 -0400
From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: If I were the language god...
--001485f20b268eb507047159e50e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
As grammarians, we try to examine, understand, explain, and teach about the
English language as we find it. In rare unguarded moments, however, in the
privacy of our studies, some of us might indulge ourselves in prescriptivist
fantasies about how we would change our language if we had that supernatural
power. In these waning days of summer break, perhaps some ATEGers might care
to join me in such illicit speculation.
If you were the language god and could go back a thousand years to reshape
the evolution of the English language, what might you change? Syntax,
phonology, orthography, and punctuation are all fair game.
Of course our first thoughts might be to regularize the irregular. Get rid
of all the oddball verb inflections and make it: *we seeked, we taked, we
swimmed, we goed, we doed, we beed*. In spelling, the absurdities to clean
up are legion: there's *tough/cough/bough/dough *and *
threw/through/coup/flew/slough/who/shoe*, as well as limitless more
orthographic craziness
<http://www.spellingsociety.org/news/media/poems.php>.
In punctuation, we might want to put the comma and period *after *the
close-quote mark where they logically belong: *You say "bucket", but I say
"pail".*
But that's all tame stuff. Anything more radical?
I think I'd change it so that plural and possesive nouns had different
inflections. Currently *dogs, dog's, *and *dogs'*' sound exactly alike. I'll
decree that the new plural inflection is *-en*, so that plurals are
now *doggen,
catten, horsen, oxen*, and *grammarianen*. Now it's easy to distinguish
between *doggen, dog's, and doggen's*. In fact, the apostrophes are now
superfluous, so *doggen, dogs, and doggens*. Much better.
So what would *you change *if you were the language god?
Dick Veit
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 13:22:47 -0500
From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: If I were the language god...
--00151750eaea519fb804715a7e4f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Great end of summer topic, Dick! I'll join you in your fantasy for different
plural and possessive noun inflections! If we can't get that passed in our
fictional grammar world, I'd take different punctuation marks for possessive
versus contraction. Perhaps ^ for contractions? That would leave ' open for
ALL possessives.
I can^t make it to Sally's birthday. It^s sure to upset the festivities'
start times.
A single device being used for more than one function is natural and
unavoidable I know, but you said we were the grammar gods in this fantasy
world, right!?
John Alexander
Austin, Texas
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> As grammarians, we try to examine, understand, explain, and teach about
the
> English language as we find it. In rare unguarded moments, however, in the
> privacy of our studies, some of us might indulge ourselves in
prescriptivist
> fantasies about how we would change our language if we had that
supernatural
> power. In these waning days of summer break, perhaps some ATEGers might
care
> to join me in such illicit speculation.
>
> If you were the language god and could go back a thousand years to reshape
> the evolution of the English language, what might you change? Syntax,
> phonology, orthography, and punctuation are all fair game.
>
> Of course our first thoughts might be to regularize the irregular. Get rid
> of all the oddball verb inflections and make it: *we seeked, we taked, we
> swimmed, we goed, we doed, we beed*. In spelling, the absurdities to clean
> up are legion: there's *tough/cough/bough/dough *and *
> threw/through/coup/flew/slough/who/shoe*, as well as limitless more
> orthographic
craziness<http://www.spellingsociety.org/news/media/poems.php>.
> In punctuation, we might want to put the comma and period *after *the
> close-quote mark where they logically belong: *You say "bucket", but I say
> "pail".*
>
> But that's all tame stuff. Anything more radical?
>
> I think I'd change it so that plural and possesive nouns had different
> inflections. Currently *dogs, dog's, *and *dogs'*' sound exactly alike.
> I'll decree that the new plural inflection is *-en*, so that plurals are
> now *doggen, catten, horsen, oxen*, and *grammarianen*. Now it's easy to
> distinguish between *doggen, dog's, and doggen's*. In fact, the
> apostrophes are now superfluous, so *doggen, dogs, and doggens*. Much
> better.
>
> So what would *you change *if you were the language god?
>
> Dick Veit
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or
> leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--00151750eaea519fb804715a7e4f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Great end of summer topic, Dick! I'll join you in your fantasy for diff=
erent plural and possessive noun inflections! If we can't get that pass=
ed in our fictional grammar world, I'd take different punctuation marks=
for possessive versus contraction. Perhaps ^ for contractions? That would =
leave ' open for ALL possessives.<br>
<br>I can^t make it to Sally's birthday. It^s sure to upset the festivi=
ties' start times.<br><br>A single device being used for more than one =
function is natural and unavoidable I know, but you said we were the gramma=
r gods in this fantasy world, right!?<br>
<br>John Alexander<br>Austin, Texas<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mo=
n, Aug 17, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Dick Veit <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mai=
lto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockq=
uote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 20=
4); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
As grammarians, we try to examine, understand, explain, and teach about the=
English language as we find it. In rare unguarded moments, however, in the=
privacy of our studies, some of us might indulge ourselves in prescriptivi=
st fantasies about how we would change our language if we had that supernat=
ural power. In these waning days of summer break, perhaps some ATEGers migh=
t care to join me in such illicit speculation.<br>
<br>If you were the language god and could go back a thousand years to resh=
ape the evolution of the English language, what might you change? Syntax, p=
honology, orthography, and punctuation are all fair game. <br><br>Of course=
our first thoughts might be to regularize the irregular. Get rid of all th=
e oddball verb inflections and make it: <i>we seeked, we taked, we swimmed,=
we goed, we doed, we beed</i>. In spelling, the absurdities to clean up ar=
e legion: there's <i>tough/cough/bough/dough </i>and <i>threw/through/c=
oup/flew/slough/who/shoe</i>, as well as <a href=3D"http://www.spellingsoci=
ety.org/news/media/poems.php" target=3D"_blank">limitless more orthographic=
craziness</a>. In punctuation, we might want to put the comma and period <=
i>after </i>the close-quote mark where they logically belong: <i>You say &q=
uot;bucket", but I say "pail".</i><br>
<br>But that's all tame stuff. Anything more radical?<br><br>I think I&=
#39;d change it so that plural and possesive nouns had different inflection=
s. Currently <i>dogs, dog's, </i>and <i>dogs'</i>' sound exactl=
y alike. I'll decree that the new plural inflection is <i>-en</i>, so t=
hat plurals are now <i>doggen, catten, horsen, oxen</i>, and <i>grammariane=
n</i>. Now it's easy to distinguish between <i>doggen, dog's, and d=
oggen's</i>. In fact, the apostrophes are now superfluous, so <i>doggen=
, dogs, and doggens</i>. Much better.<br>
<br>So what would <i>you change </i>if you were the language god?<br><br>Di=
ck Veit<br>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interf=
ace at:
<a href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html" target=3D"_b=
lank">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a>
and select "Join or leave the list"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at <a href=3D"http://ateg.org/" target=3D"_blank"=
>http://ateg.org/</a>
</p></blockquote></div><br>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--00151750eaea519fb804715a7e4f--
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:22:47 -0700
From: "Wollin, Edith" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: If I were the language god...
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------_=_NextPart_001_01CA1F70.1A44E326
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I would not lose the pronoun for "we two"; I don't remember what it was
anymore, but I loved it. It feels so intimate and separates we two from
all of the "other" we's. There are also times when it would clear up
confusion. I can't quite figure out why we let it drop.
Edith Wollin
=20
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 10:40 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: If I were the language god...
=20
As grammarians, we try to examine, understand, explain, and teach about
the English language as we find it. In rare unguarded moments, however,
in the privacy of our studies, some of us might indulge ourselves in
prescriptivist fantasies about how we would change our language if we
had that supernatural power. In these waning days of summer break,
perhaps some ATEGers might care to join me in such illicit speculation.
If you were the language god and could go back a thousand years to
reshape the evolution of the English language, what might you change?
Syntax, phonology, orthography, and punctuation are all fair game.=20
Of course our first thoughts might be to regularize the irregular. Get
rid of all the oddball verb inflections and make it: we seeked, we
taked, we swimmed, we goed, we doed, we beed. In spelling, the
absurdities to clean up are legion: there's tough/cough/bough/dough and
threw/through/coup/flew/slough/who/shoe, as well as limitless more
orthographic craziness
<http://www.spellingsociety.org/news/media/poems.php> . In punctuation,
we might want to put the comma and period after the close-quote mark
where they logically belong: You say "bucket", but I say "pail".
But that's all tame stuff. Anything more radical?
I think I'd change it so that plural and possesive nouns had different
inflections. Currently dogs, dog's, and dogs'' sound exactly alike. I'll
decree that the new plural inflection is -en, so that plurals are now
doggen, catten, horsen, oxen, and grammarianen. Now it's easy to
distinguish between doggen, dog's, and doggen's. In fact, the
apostrophes are now superfluous, so doggen, dogs, and doggens. Much
better.
So what would you change if you were the language god?
Dick Veit
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
"Join or leave the list"=20
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/=20
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
------_=_NextPart_001_01CA1F70.1A44E326
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" =
xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple>
<div class=3DSection1>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I would not lose the pronoun for “we two”; I =
don’t
remember what it was anymore, but I loved it. It feels so intimate and
separates we two from all of the “other” we’s. There =
are also
times when it would clear up confusion. I can’t quite figure out =
why we
let it drop.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Edith Wollin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style=3D'border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt =
0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><b><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span>=
</b><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Assembly =
for the
Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] <b>On =
Behalf Of </b>Dick
Veit<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, August 17, 2009 10:40 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> [log in to unmask]<br>
<b>Subject:</b> If I were the language god...<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>As grammarians, we try to examine, understand, =
explain, and
teach about the English language as we find it. In rare unguarded =
moments,
however, in the privacy of our studies, some of us might indulge =
ourselves in
prescriptivist fantasies about how we would change our language if we =
had that
supernatural power. In these waning days of summer break, perhaps some =
ATEGers
might care to join me in such illicit speculation.<br>
<br>
If you were the language god and could go back a thousand years to =
reshape the
evolution of the English language, what might you change? Syntax, =
phonology,
orthography, and punctuation are all fair game. <br>
<br>
Of course our first thoughts might be to regularize the irregular. Get =
rid of
all the oddball verb inflections and make it: <i>we seeked, we taked, we
swimmed, we goed, we doed, we beed</i>. In spelling, the absurdities to =
clean
up are legion: there's <i>tough/cough/bough/dough </i>and =
<i>threw/through/coup/flew/slough/who/shoe</i>,
as well as <a =
href=3D"http://www.spellingsociety.org/news/media/poems.php">limitless
more orthographic craziness</a>. In punctuation, we might want to put =
the comma
and period <i>after </i>the close-quote mark where they logically =
belong: <i>You
say "bucket", but I say "pail".</i><br>
<br>
But that's all tame stuff. Anything more radical?<br>
<br>
I think I'd change it so that plural and possesive nouns had different
inflections. Currently <i>dogs, dog's, </i>and <i>dogs'</i>' sound =
exactly
alike. I'll decree that the new plural inflection is <i>-en</i>, so that
plurals are now <i>doggen, catten, horsen, oxen</i>, and =
<i>grammarianen</i>.
Now it's easy to distinguish between <i>doggen, dog's, and doggen's</i>. =
In
fact, the apostrophes are now superfluous, so <i>doggen, dogs, and =
doggens</i>.
Much better.<br>
<br>
So what would <i>you change </i>if you were the language god?<br>
<br>
Dick Veit<br>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web =
interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or =
leave
the list" <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
------_=_NextPart_001_01CA1F70.1A44E326--
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:01:56 -0400
From: "Miller, Robert" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: If I were the language god...
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------_=_NextPart_001_01CA1F75.B2AFD952
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Without a doubt, fonetik spelling :)
Bob Miller
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Wollin, =
Edith
Sent: Mon 8/17/2009 3:22 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: If I were the language god...
=20
I would not lose the pronoun for "we two"; I don't remember what it was
anymore, but I loved it. It feels so intimate and separates we two from
all of the "other" we's. There are also times when it would clear up
confusion. I can't quite figure out why we let it drop.
Edith Wollin
=20
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 10:40 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: If I were the language god...
=20
As grammarians, we try to examine, understand, explain, and teach about
the English language as we find it. In rare unguarded moments, however,
in the privacy of our studies, some of us might indulge ourselves in
prescriptivist fantasies about how we would change our language if we
had that supernatural power. In these waning days of summer break,
perhaps some ATEGers might care to join me in such illicit speculation.
If you were the language god and could go back a thousand years to
reshape the evolution of the English language, what might you change?
Syntax, phonology, orthography, and punctuation are all fair game.=20
Of course our first thoughts might be to regularize the irregular. Get
rid of all the oddball verb inflections and make it: we seeked, we
taked, we swimmed, we goed, we doed, we beed. In spelling, the
absurdities to clean up are legion: there's tough/cough/bough/dough and
threw/through/coup/flew/slough/who/shoe, as well as limitless more
orthographic craziness
<http://www.spellingsociety.org/news/media/poems.php> . In punctuation,
we might want to put the comma and period after the close-quote mark
where they logically belong: You say "bucket", but I say "pail".
But that's all tame stuff. Anything more radical?
I think I'd change it so that plural and possesive nouns had different
inflections. Currently dogs, dog's, and dogs'' sound exactly alike. I'll
decree that the new plural inflection is -en, so that plurals are now
doggen, catten, horsen, oxen, and grammarianen. Now it's easy to
distinguish between doggen, dog's, and doggen's. In fact, the
apostrophes are now superfluous, so doggen, dogs, and doggens. Much
better.
So what would you change if you were the language god?
Dick Veit
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
"Join or leave the list"=20
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/=20
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web =
interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--=20
BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
------------------------------------------------------
Teach CanIt if this mail (ID 26432155) is spam:
Spam: =
https://ssl.ccbcmd.edu:7726/canit/b.php?i=3D26432155&m=3D2f8db258965d&t=3D=
20090817&c=3Ds
Not spam: =
https://ssl.ccbcmd.edu:7726/canit/b.php?i=3D26432155&m=3D2f8db258965d&t=3D=
20090817&c=3Dn
Forget vote: =
https://ssl.ccbcmd.edu:7726/canit/b.php?i=3D26432155&m=3D2f8db258965d&t=3D=
20090817&c=3Df
------------------------------------------------------
END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
------_=_NextPart_001_01CA1F75.B2AFD952
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
6.5.7638.1">
<TITLE>RE: If I were the language god...</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<BR>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Without a doubt, fonetik spelling :)<BR>
<BR>
Bob Miller<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Wollin, =
Edith<BR>
Sent: Mon 8/17/2009 3:22 PM<BR>
To: [log in to unmask]<BR>
Subject: Re: If I were the language god...<BR>
<BR>
I would not lose the pronoun for "we two"; I don't remember =
what it was<BR>
anymore, but I loved it. It feels so intimate and separates we two =
from<BR>
all of the "other" we's. There are also times when it would =
clear up<BR>
confusion. I can't quite figure out why we let it drop.<BR>
<BR>
Edith Wollin<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar<BR>
[<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">mailto:[log in to unmask]<=
/A>] On Behalf Of Dick Veit<BR>
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 10:40 AM<BR>
To: [log in to unmask]<BR>
Subject: If I were the language god...<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
As grammarians, we try to examine, understand, explain, and teach =
about<BR>
the English language as we find it. In rare unguarded moments, =
however,<BR>
in the privacy of our studies, some of us might indulge ourselves in<BR>
prescriptivist fantasies about how we would change our language if =
we<BR>
had that supernatural power. In these waning days of summer break,<BR>
perhaps some ATEGers might care to join me in such illicit =
speculation.<BR>
<BR>
If you were the language god and could go back a thousand years to<BR>
reshape the evolution of the English language, what might you =
change?<BR>
Syntax, phonology, orthography, and punctuation are all fair game.<BR>
<BR>
Of course our first thoughts might be to regularize the irregular. =
Get<BR>
rid of all the oddball verb inflections and make it: we seeked, we<BR>
taked, we swimmed, we goed, we doed, we beed. In spelling, the<BR>
absurdities to clean up are legion: there's tough/cough/bough/dough =
and<BR>
threw/through/coup/flew/slough/who/shoe, as well as limitless more<BR>
orthographic craziness<BR>
<<A =
HREF=3D"http://www.spellingsociety.org/news/media/poems.php">http://www.s=
pellingsociety.org/news/media/poems.php</A>> . In punctuation,<BR>
we might want to put the comma and period after the close-quote mark<BR>
where they logically belong: You say "bucket", but I say =
"pail".<BR>
<BR>
But that's all tame stuff. Anything more radical?<BR>
<BR>
I think I'd change it so that plural and possesive nouns had =
different<BR>
inflections. Currently dogs, dog's, and dogs'' sound exactly alike. =
I'll<BR>
decree that the new plural inflection is -en, so that plurals are =
now<BR>
doggen, catten, horsen, oxen, and grammarianen. Now it's easy to<BR>
distinguish between doggen, dog's, and doggen's. In fact, the<BR>
apostrophes are now superfluous, so doggen, dogs, and doggens. Much<BR>
better.<BR>
<BR>
So what would you change if you were the language god?<BR>
<BR>
Dick Veit<BR>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web<BR>
interface at: <A =
HREF=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html">http://listserv.mu=
ohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</A> and select<BR>
"Join or leave the list"<BR>
<BR>
Visit ATEG's web site at <A =
HREF=3D"http://ateg.org/">http://ateg.org/</A><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web =
interface at:<BR>
<A =
HREF=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html">http://listserv.mu=
ohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</A><BR>
and select "Join or leave the list"<BR>
<BR>
Visit ATEG's web site at <A =
HREF=3D"http://ateg.org/">http://ateg.org/</A><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
--<BR>
BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS<BR>
------------------------------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Teach CanIt if this mail (ID 26432155) is spam:<BR>
Spam: <A =
HREF=3D"https://ssl.ccbcmd.edu:7726/canit/b.php?i=3D26432155&m=3D2f8db258=
965d&t=3D20090817&c=3Ds">https://ssl.ccbcmd.edu:7726/canit/b.php?i=3D2643=
2155&m=3D2f8db258965d&t=3D20090817&c=3Ds</A><BR>
Not spam: <A =
HREF=3D"https://ssl.ccbcmd.edu:7726/canit/b.php?i=3D26432155&m=3D2f8db258=
965d&t=3D20090817&c=3Dn">https://ssl.ccbcmd.edu:7726/canit/b.php?i=3D2643=
2155&m=3D2f8db258965d&t=3D20090817&c=3Dn</A><BR>
Forget vote: <A =
HREF=3D"https://ssl.ccbcmd.edu:7726/canit/b.php?i=3D26432155&m=3D2f8db258=
965d&t=3D20090817&c=3Df">https://ssl.ccbcmd.edu:7726/canit/b.php?i=3D2643=
2155&m=3D2f8db258965d&t=3D20090817&c=3Df</A><BR>
------------------------------------------------------<BR>
END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
------_=_NextPart_001_01CA1F75.B2AFD952--
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 13:24:58 -0700
From: "Wollin, Edith" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: If I were the language god...
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------_=_NextPart_001_01CA1F78.CA218BE3
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Oh, no, I'm not going with that one. With all of the idiosyncratic
pronunciations, we'd have to slug our way through nearly every word!
Have you read the original Lewis and Clark Journals? Clark didn't
pronounce the same word the same way all of the time! It's fun, but not
for everything I read. Of course, the god could decide on the standard
pronunciation, but it might be more like "try to decide" than "decide".
Edith Wollin
=20
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Miller, Robert
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 1:02 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: If I were the language god...
=20
=20
Without a doubt, fonetik spelling :)
Bob Miller
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Wollin,
Edith
Sent: Mon 8/17/2009 3:22 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: If I were the language god...
I would not lose the pronoun for "we two"; I don't remember what it was
anymore, but I loved it. It feels so intimate and separates we two from
all of the "other" we's. There are also times when it would clear up
confusion. I can't quite figure out why we let it drop.
Edith Wollin
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 10:40 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: If I were the language god...
As grammarians, we try to examine, understand, explain, and teach about
the English language as we find it. In rare unguarded moments, however,
in the privacy of our studies, some of us might indulge ourselves in
prescriptivist fantasies about how we would change our language if we
had that supernatural power. In these waning days of summer break,
perhaps some ATEGers might care to join me in such illicit speculation.
If you were the language god and could go back a thousand years to
reshape the evolution of the English language, what might you change?
Syntax, phonology, orthography, and punctuation are all fair game.
Of course our first thoughts might be to regularize the irregular. Get
rid of all the oddball verb inflections and make it: we seeked, we
taked, we swimmed, we goed, we doed, we beed. In spelling, the
absurdities to clean up are legion: there's tough/cough/bough/dough and
threw/through/coup/flew/slough/who/shoe, as well as limitless more
orthographic craziness
<http://www.spellingsociety.org/news/media/poems.php> . In punctuation,
we might want to put the comma and period after the close-quote mark
where they logically belong: You say "bucket", but I say "pail".
But that's all tame stuff. Anything more radical?
I think I'd change it so that plural and possesive nouns had different
inflections. Currently dogs, dog's, and dogs'' sound exactly alike. I'll
decree that the new plural inflection is -en, so that plurals are now
doggen, catten, horsen, oxen, and grammarianen. Now it's easy to
distinguish between doggen, dog's, and doggen's. In fact, the
apostrophes are now superfluous, so doggen, dogs, and doggens. Much
better.
So what would you change if you were the language god?
Dick Veit
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
"Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--
BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
------------------------------------------------------
Teach CanIt if this mail (ID 26432155) is spam:
Spam:
https://ssl.ccbcmd.edu:7726/canit/b.php?i=3D26432155&m=3D2f8db258965d&t=3D=
2009
0817&c=3Ds
Not spam:
https://ssl.ccbcmd.edu:7726/canit/b.php?i=3D26432155&m=3D2f8db258965d&t=3D=
2009
0817&c=3Dn
Forget vote:
https://ssl.ccbcmd.edu:7726/canit/b.php?i=3D26432155&m=3D2f8db258965d&t=3D=
2009
0817&c=3Df
------------------------------------------------------
END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
"Join or leave the list"=20
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
------_=_NextPart_001_01CA1F78.CA218BE3
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" =
xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<title>RE: If I were the language god...</title>
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple>
<div class=3DSection1>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Oh, no, I’m not going with that one. With all of =
the idiosyncratic
pronunciations, we’d have to slug our way through nearly every =
word! Have
you read the original Lewis and Clark Journals? Clark didn’t =
pronounce
the same word the same way all of the time! It’s fun, but not for
everything I read. Of course, the god could decide on the standard
pronunciation, but it might be more like “try to decide” =
than “decide”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Edith Wollin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style=3D'border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt =
0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><b><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span>=
</b><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Assembly =
for the
Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] <b>On =
Behalf Of </b>Miller,
Robert<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, August 17, 2009 1:02 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> [log in to unmask]<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: If I were the language god...<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal =
style=3D'margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p style=3D'margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>Without a doubt,
fonetik spelling :)<br>
<br>
Bob Miller<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Wollin, =
Edith<br>
Sent: Mon 8/17/2009 3:22 PM<br>
To: [log in to unmask]<br>
Subject: Re: If I were the language god...<br>
<br>
I would not lose the pronoun for "we two"; I don't remember =
what it
was<br>
anymore, but I loved it. It feels so intimate and separates we two =
from<br>
all of the "other" we's. There are also times when it would =
clear up<br>
confusion. I can't quite figure out why we let it drop.<br>
<br>
Edith Wollin<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar<br>
[<a =
href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">mailto:[log in to unmask]<=
/a>]
On Behalf Of Dick Veit<br>
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 10:40 AM<br>
To: [log in to unmask]<br>
Subject: If I were the language god...<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
As grammarians, we try to examine, understand, explain, and teach =
about<br>
the English language as we find it. In rare unguarded moments, =
however,<br>
in the privacy of our studies, some of us might indulge ourselves in<br>
prescriptivist fantasies about how we would change our language if =
we<br>
had that supernatural power. In these waning days of summer break,<br>
perhaps some ATEGers might care to join me in such illicit =
speculation.<br>
<br>
If you were the language god and could go back a thousand years to<br>
reshape the evolution of the English language, what might you =
change?<br>
Syntax, phonology, orthography, and punctuation are all fair game.<br>
<br>
Of course our first thoughts might be to regularize the irregular. =
Get<br>
rid of all the oddball verb inflections and make it: we seeked, we<br>
taked, we swimmed, we goed, we doed, we beed. In spelling, the<br>
absurdities to clean up are legion: there's tough/cough/bough/dough =
and<br>
threw/through/coup/flew/slough/who/shoe, as well as limitless more<br>
orthographic craziness<br>
<<a =
href=3D"http://www.spellingsociety.org/news/media/poems.php">http://www.s=
pellingsociety.org/news/media/poems.php</a>>
. In punctuation,<br>
we might want to put the comma and period after the close-quote mark<br>
where they logically belong: You say "bucket", but I say
"pail".<br>
<br>
But that's all tame stuff. Anything more radical?<br>
<br>
I think I'd change it so that plural and possesive nouns had =
different<br>
inflections. Currently dogs, dog's, and dogs'' sound exactly alike. =
I'll<br>
decree that the new plural inflection is -en, so that plurals are =
now<br>
doggen, catten, horsen, oxen, and grammarianen. Now it's easy to<br>
distinguish between doggen, dog's, and doggen's. In fact, the<br>
apostrophes are now superfluous, so doggen, dogs, and doggens. Much<br>
better.<br>
<br>
So what would you change if you were the language god?<br>
<br>
Dick Veit<br>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web<br>
interface at: <a =
href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html">http://listserv.mu=
ohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a>
and select<br>
"Join or leave the list"<br>
<br>
Visit ATEG's web site at <a =
href=3D"http://ateg.org/">http://ateg.org/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web =
interface at:<br>
<a =
href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html">http://listserv.mu=
ohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a><br>
and select "Join or leave the list"<br>
<br>
Visit ATEG's web site at <a =
href=3D"http://ateg.org/">http://ateg.org/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS<br>
------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Teach CanIt if this mail (ID 26432155) is spam:<br>
Spam: <a
href=3D"https://ssl.ccbcmd.edu:7726/canit/b.php?i=3D26432155&m=3D2f8d=
b258965d&t=3D20090817&c=3Ds">https://ssl.ccbcmd.edu:7726/canit/b.=
php?i=3D26432155&m=3D2f8db258965d&t=3D20090817&c=3Ds</a><br>
Not spam: <a
href=3D"https://ssl.ccbcmd.edu:7726/canit/b.php?i=3D26432155&m=3D2f8d=
b258965d&t=3D20090817&c=3Dn">https://ssl.ccbcmd.edu:7726/canit/b.=
php?i=3D26432155&m=3D2f8db258965d&t=3D20090817&c=3Dn</a><br>
Forget vote: <a
href=3D"https://ssl.ccbcmd.edu:7726/canit/b.php?i=3D26432155&m=3D2f8d=
b258965d&t=3D20090817&c=3Df">https://ssl.ccbcmd.edu:7726/canit/b.=
php?i=3D26432155&m=3D2f8db258965d&t=3D20090817&c=3Df</a><br>
------------------------------------------------------<br>
END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS<br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit =
the list's
web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and =
select
"Join or leave the list" <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
------_=_NextPart_001_01CA1F78.CA218BE3--
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:54:22 -0500
From: "Katz, Seth" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: If I were the language god...
How about divorcing pronunciation from orthography (as in Chinese, where =
the same written character has the same meaning everywhere, whether the =
speaker pronounces the character in Mandarin, Cantonese, or any of the =
other langauges spoken in China).
=20
Oh. Wait: we already have that, as when the Southerner says 'peen' to =
name the object I call a 'pen.'
=20
Dr. Seth Katz=20
Assistant Professor
Department of English
Bradley University
________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 10:40 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: If I were the language god...
As grammarians, we try to examine, understand, explain, and teach about
the English language as we find it. In rare unguarded moments, however,
in the privacy of our studies, some of us might indulge ourselves in
prescriptivist fantasies about how we would change our language if we
had that supernatural power. In these waning days of summer break,
perhaps some ATEGers might care to join me in such illicit speculation.
If you were the language god and could go back a thousand years to
reshape the evolution of the English language, what might you change?
Syntax, phonology, orthography, and punctuation are all fair game.
Of course our first thoughts might be to regularize the irregular. Get
rid of all the oddball verb inflections and make it: we seeked, we
taked, we swimmed, we goed, we doed, we beed. In spelling, the
absurdities to clean up are legion: there's tough/cough/bough/dough and
threw/through/coup/flew/slough/who/shoe, as well as limitless more
orthographic craziness
<http://www.spellingsociety.org/news/media/poems.php> . In punctuation,
we might want to put the comma and period after the close-quote mark
where they logically belong: You say "bucket", but I say "pail".
But that's all tame stuff. Anything more radical?
I think I'd change it so that plural and possesive nouns had different
inflections. Currently dogs, dog's, and dogs'' sound exactly alike. I'll
decree that the new plural inflection is -en, so that plurals are now
doggen, catten, horsen, oxen, and grammarianen. Now it's easy to
distinguish between doggen, dog's, and doggen's. In fact, the
apostrophes are now superfluous, so doggen, dogs, and doggens. Much
better.
So what would you change if you were the language god?
Dick Veit
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:03:07 -0400
From: Brett Reynolds <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: If I were the language god...
On 17-Aug-09, at 5:16 PM, Assembly for the Teaching of English
Grammar wrote:
> I would make a gender non-specific (as opposed to the neutral
> "its") pronoun. Maybe "hizzer"?
>
> I get so tired of saying, "a student should take his or her
> workbook ..." Then again using "their" is just a total cop-out to me.
How's it a cop out? That's the way it's always been.
Best,
Brett
-----------------------
Brett Reynolds
English Language Centre
Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:16:08 -0700
From: Erin Karl <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: If I were the language god...
--0-162420807-1250550968=:55809
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Because it's wrong! Pronoun/antecedent agreement is what it is. It's
always been wrong ...
It used to be always accepted to use the masculine pronoun when referring to
groups, but modern political correctness and inclusion has made that harder
to do. There are many Web sites now that even make a point of switching the
pronoun used between him/his and her/hers on different articles
(www.babycenter.com for instance) just to be fair. It just cracks me up
that those who wish to use English correctly have to go through all that.
"Hizzer" would make things so much easier! LOL
Erin Karl
Analytical Grammar
________________________________
From: Brett Reynolds <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 6:03:07 PM
Subject: Re: If I were the language god...
On 17-Aug-09, at 5:16 PM, Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
wrote:
> I would make a gender non-specific (as opposed to the neutral "its")
pronoun. Maybe "hizzer"?
>
> I get so tired of saying, "a student should take his or her workbook ..."
Then again using "their" is just a total cop-out to me.
How's it a cop out? That's the way it's always been.
Best,
Brett
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 20:04:22 -0400
From: Brett Reynolds <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: If I were the language god...
On 17-Aug-09, at 7:16 PM, Assembly for the Teaching of English
Grammar wrote:
> It used to be always accepted to use the masculine pronoun when
> referring to groups, but modern political correctness and inclusion
> has made that harder to do.
It has nothing to do with political correctness, and everything to do
with the fact that that's the way it is in English. As Mark Liberman
writes, "singular they has routinely been used throughout the history
of English, by all the best writers, until certain subcases were
artificially turned into 'errors' by self-appointed experts.
Successively less discriminating pseudo-authorities then generalized
the proscription in successively sillier ways, although they have
largely been ignored by the users of the language."
Similarly, Merriam Webster's online dictionary has this to say. "The
use of they, their, them, and themselves as pronouns of indefinite
gender and indefinite number is well established in speech and
writing, even in literary and formal contexts."
There is no evidence that anybody thought twice about this until the
mid 1700s when Ann Fisher wrote, "The Masculine Person answers to the
general Name, which comprehends both Male and Female; as, any Person
who knows what he says."
> Pronoun/antecedent agreement is what it is.
But 'they' is not always plural, just the way 'you' isn't, so there
is no agreement problem.
Best,
Brett
-----------------------
Brett Reynolds
English Language Centre
Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
[log in to unmask]
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 20:20:10 -0400
From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: If I were the language god...
Here's from the OED entry for "they."
2. Often used in reference to a singular noun made universal by every, a=
ny, no, etc., or applicable to one of either sex (=3D 'he or she').
See Jespersen Progress in Lang. =A724.
1526 Pilgr. Perf. (W. de W. 1531) 163b, Yf..a psalme scape ony persone, or =
a lesson, or else yt they omyt one verse or twayne. 1535 FISHER Ways perf. =
Relig. ix. Wks. (1876) 383 He neuer forsaketh any creature vnlesse they bef=
ore haue forsaken them selues. 1749 FIELDING Tom Jones VIII. xi, Every Body=
fell a laughing, as how could they help it. 1759 CHESTERFIELD Lett. IV. cc=
clv. 170 If a person is born of a..gloomy temper..they cannot help it. 1835=
WHEWELL in Life (1881) 173 Nobody can deprive us of the Church, if they wo=
uld. 1858 BAGEHOT Lit. Stud. (1879) II. 206 Nobody fancies for a moment tha=
t they are reading about anything beyond the pale of ordinary propriety. 18=
66 RUSKIN Crown Wild Olives =A738 (1873) 44 Now, nobody does anything well =
that they cannot help doing. 1874 [see THEMSELVES 5].
Examples going back to the early 16th c. Of course, that was several centu=
ries after English borrowed the word from Old Norse, but then what did thos=
e Vikings know from agreement?
Herb
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 20:23:09 -0400
From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: If I were the language god...
I think I'd restore "ain't" as the standard contraction for "am not," and p=
lugging a gap we've had since the 18th c. codified the plague of prescripti=
vism. (Like the other plague, it had been around for a lot longer.)
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]
OHIO.EDU] On Behalf Of Brett Reynolds
Sent: 2009-08-17 20:04
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: If I were the language god...
Importance: Low
On 17-Aug-09, at 7:16 PM, Assembly for the Teaching of English =20
Grammar wrote:
> It used to be always accepted to use the masculine pronoun when =20
> referring to groups, but modern political correctness and inclusion =20
> has made that harder to do.
It has nothing to do with political correctness, and everything to do =20
with the fact that that's the way it is in English. As Mark Liberman =20
writes, "singular they has routinely been used throughout the history =20
of English, by all the best writers, until certain subcases were =20
artificially turned into 'errors' by self-appointed experts. =20
Successively less discriminating pseudo-authorities then generalized =20
the proscription in successively sillier ways, although they have =20
largely been ignored by the users of the language."
Similarly, Merriam Webster's online dictionary has this to say. "The =20
use of they, their, them, and themselves as pronouns of indefinite =20
gender and indefinite number is well established in speech and =20
writing, even in literary and formal contexts."
There is no evidence that anybody thought twice about this until the =20
mid 1700s when Ann Fisher wrote, "The Masculine Person answers to the =20
general Name, which comprehends both Male and Female; as, any Person =20
who knows what he says."
> Pronoun/antecedent agreement is what it is.
But 'they' is not always plural, just the way 'you' isn't, so there =20
is no agreement problem.
Best,
Brett
-----------------------
Brett Reynolds
English Language Centre
Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
[log in to unmask]
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface =
at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:51:24 -0700
From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: If I were the language god...
--0-2027400983-1250556684=:97739
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm being baited but I'll bite.
--- On Mon, 8/17/09, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I think I'd restore "ain't" as the standard contraction for "am not," and p=
lugging a gap we've had since the 18th c. codified the plague of prescripti=
vism.=A0 (Like the other plague, it (had been) was=A0around for a lot longe=
r.)
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]
OHIO.EDU] On Behalf Of Brett Reynolds
Sent: 2009-08-17 20:04
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: If I were the language god...
Importance: Low
On 17-Aug-09, at 7:16 PM, Assembly for the Teaching of English=A0=20
Grammar wrote:
> It used to be always accepted to use the masculine pronoun when=A0=20
> referring to groups, but modern political correctness and inclusion=A0=20
> has made that harder to do.
It has nothing to do with political correctness, and everything to do=A0=20
with the fact that that's the way it is in English. As Mark Liberman=A0=20
writes, "singular they has routinely been used throughout the history=A0=20
of English, by all the best writers, until certain subcases were=A0=20
artificially turned into 'errors' by self-appointed experts.=A0=20
Successively less discriminating pseudo-authorities then generalized=A0=20
the proscription in successively sillier ways, although they have=A0=20
largely been ignored by the users of the language."
Similarly, Merriam Webster's online dictionary has this to say. "The=A0=20
use of they, their, them, and themselves as pronouns of indefinite=A0=20
gender and indefinite number is well established in speech and=A0=20
writing, even in literary and formal contexts."
There is no evidence that anybody thought twice about this until the=A0=20
mid 1700s when Ann Fisher wrote, "The Masculine Person answers to the=A0=20
general Name, which comprehends both Male and Female; as, any Person=A0=20
who knows what he says."
> Pronoun/antecedent agreement is what it is.
But 'they' is not always plural, just the way 'you' isn't, so there=A0=20
is no agreement problem.
Best,
Brett
-----------------------
Brett Reynolds
English Language Centre
Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:59:53 -0700
From: Erin Karl <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: If I were the language god...
--0-986880332-1250557193=:94495
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hmmm ... were it THAT accepted I would think that numerous grammar programs
that have sections directly concerning this particular topic would have been
revised by now. I stand corrected, I suppose. (Although I will continue to
mentally correct it when I see it done; can't help it!) I will also add
that just because you can find its use centuries back, doesn't mean it's
correct. Look at the comma usage of Twain or Dickens ... they sprinkled
them like wedding rice. Many of the rules of modern English weren't
solidified until more recently.
By the way, I'm new to this list and would like to say a virtual hello to
all of you. At last a group that find the discussion of this stuff as
interesting and debatable as I do!
Warmest regards,
Erin Karl
Analytical Grammar
***********************************************************
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
