Re: Crossposting [was: Re: Traditional gender-free "he" [was: Re: "16 and 276 are 292"? No. [was: Re: Lack of vocabulary in English?]]]

From: Peter T. Daniels (grammatim_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 02/20/05 

Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 13:52:55 GMT

Bob Cunningham wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 14:23:40 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> said:
>
> [...]
>
> > In this case, he instigated a new topic -- an attack on stylists who
> > recognize that there is no "gender-free neutral masculine singular
> > pronoun" --
>
> I would ask the muddleheaded Daniels how a pronoun could be
> gender-free and masculine at the same time, but I'm afraid
> he would try to tell me and get even more screwed up in the
> process.

Just quoting bits of Cunningham, who makes the point for me. The
traditional masculine pronoun is inherently _not_ gender-free.

Now that he has (once again) been shown up for the fool he is, perhaps
he'll have the sense (and grace) to retire to lick his octogenarian
wounds. Apparently you _can't_ teach an old dog new tricks.

> His implication that I crossposted to "instigate"* a new
> topic is either a deliberate fabrication or another
> demonstration of his inability to read with comprehension.
> The subject of traditional gender-free "he" arose in a
> footnote in an ongoing crossposted thread on another
> subject. A response to that footnote was crossposted, so
> courtesy demanded that comments on the response be
> crossposted.
>
> * About "instigate". I suspect he meant to say "initiate"
> but in his muddleheaded way wrote "instigate" instead. To
> say that I *instigated* an attack would mean that I incited
> or urged others to attack. But in sigh.lang they probably
> don't bother about what words mean; they're too busy
> discussing how to retrofit voting machines.

No, that's a task Republicans specialize in. 

-- 
Peter T. Daniels                       grammatim@att.net

Relevant Pages

  • "Gender-free masculine pronoun"? Absurd. [was: Re: Crossposting [was: Re: Traditional gen
    ... >> I would ask the muddleheaded Daniels how a pronoun could be ... It takes a muddleheaded specimen like Daniels to fail to ... understand that while a pronoun is being called gender-free ... it can't at the same time be called masculine. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: "Gender-free masculine pronoun"? Absurd. [was: Re: Crossposting [was: Re: Traditional
    ... > understand that while a pronoun is being called gender-free ... > Daniels might ask one of the older pupils to explain to him ... > 'gender-free neutral masculine singular pronoun', ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: OT| Tea Party Caucus Takes $1 Billion In Earmarks
    ... professional classification is assumed to be masculine. ... "Actor" is directly from the masculine Latin noun actor (feminine, actrix) from the verb agere "to do, to drive, to pass time" + the suffix -or "so./st. ... That female actors today are happy to call themselves by a masculine noun would seem to suggest they shouldn't be too upset to be referred to in the abstract by a masculine pronoun. ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: "people" is not the plural of "person" [was: Re: Is that right?]
    ... >> talented Bob Cunningham broadcast on alt.usage.english: ... the plural "you" is used as the singular. ... though perhaps with more registers accepting "persons") then ... very much like the analysis that "you" is used as the singular pronoun. ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: Gender
    ... Only, I believe, because there's an implied rule in French that ... not feminine is masculine. ... Consider, for example, the pronoun "they", ... The conventional answer is that you use the masculine pronoun, ...
    (sci.lang)