College Life

[taven]

Everyone can't be followed by their. You need to say "he or she" needs to vote after "everyone".

 

[tomstud]

Everyone is encouraged to cast his vote. ?????
but i'm only a german... )

 

[mindseye]

Well, of course it's easy to guess the error you perceive in that sentence, and if we had a third-person gender-free singular personal pronoun, we wouldn't have sentences like that. You see it as an 'error', and I see it as an evolution away from the stilted, cumbersome 'his or her'. (However, there's a less awkward way of phrasing that sentence that would be acceptable to both of us: 'People are encouraged to cast their votes.&#39

It's funny, because other people I talk with accuse me of being a prescriptivist as well. I'm very supportive of speech-influenced evolution in language ("ain't" is fine with me; and even "where's he at?" is fine with me), but I'm really hardcore against online-chat-influenced evolution ("r u m or f?", "1'z a l33t h4k0r!").

My distinction is that speech has been around for tens of thousands of years, and the changes it produces in language tend to be natural and graceful. Online text chat is a recent development, and I anticipate it'll be gone within a generation as network speeds grow to the point where face-to-face videoconferencing is the dominant means of online communication.

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Originally posted by mindseye@Feb 4 2005, 09:45 PM
Well, of course it's easy to guess the error you perceive in that sentence, and if we had a third-person gender-free singular personal pronoun, we wouldn't have sentences like that.

It's not my perception. "Everyone is encouraged to cast his vote" is the correct way of saying it. "His" in this sentence is not gender-free, but it is gender inclusive. Many languages use the masculine pronoun unless it is clear that the group referred to is comprised solely of females. "His or her" is acceptable, but not necessary.

However, there's a less awkward way of phrasing that sentence that would be acceptable to both of us: 'People are encouraged to cast their votes.'

No, it is not acceptable to both of us. I don't find the correct form to be awkward in the least. Even as fewer and fewer people use the correct form, 'their' is still incorrect.

I'm very supportive of speech-influenced evolution in language .

Believe it or not, so am I. There may come a day when the very constructions we're discussing may be accepted by orthodox grammarians, but that day is not now. It is my job to teach language according to the rules. In my view, language is more than a useful tool for communication; it is also an art. Using language with skill and care is an art form that is sadly dying out. I am one of that dying breed that believes in the strength of language, and correct grammatical use of language conveys an air of education and professionalism that is appropriate to many situations. You're a teacher, Heath; you know the importance of speaking in a manner that shows you know your field of expertise. I'm an English teacher. It's important that I demonstrate that I know the language intimately, and probably even more so because I speak with an accent. I have that disadvantage versus native speakers. I know English better than I know my mother tongue. That's an achievement, and I plan to let that show.

 

[jeepwranglerboi]

Actually Jacinto, you forgot the exeption. The sentence should read "Everyone is encouraged to cast his vote only if he does not vote for Bush." You know I had to throw that in there. I personally find your use of language quite intoxicating even though I fear that you print out every single thread and correct it with a red marker for all my errors. Not only do I find that the proper use of English gives and air of education an professionalism but I personally think it is very, very sexy, especially since you say that you have an accent. :wub: Okay, I need to go splash cold water on my face now!

 

[Freddie53]

I'd be willing to bet that 90% of those who read the following can't figure out what's grammatically wrong with it. "Everyone is encouraged to cast their votes." (As my student, Pete had better know what the error is&#33

[post=280115]Quoted post[/post]​

I am am not sure all the technical terms for this. The setence should read, "Everyone is encouraged to vote." In your sentence which I use all the time myself (Sorry) there are two sets of verbs "is encouraged" and "to vote". I'm not sure but I think the second one is called an infinitive. I just remember that we are supposed to avoid using both of these in the same sentence.

I taught sxith grade English. We didn't cover this in that grade level.

[post=280169]Quoted post[/post]​

There aren't two sets of verbs. 'Votes' here is a noun, not a verb; it is the direct object. There is a grammatically correct way to express it without turning the noun 'vote' into a verb form. Take the original sentence, "Everyone is encouraged to cast their votes," and change just two words to correct it. Hint: the error is about non-agreement of number.

[post=280172]Quoted post[/post]​

[/quote]
First I wrote it wrong. I meant to say "is encouraged" and "to cast", not to vote. Vote is the direct object. Your hint gave it away. And we make that mistake all the time. Usually I don't, but I just didn't catch it. It is the last two words of the sentence. The sentence should read Everyone is encouraged to cast his vote. You must use both singular or both plural. Is enocuraged requires a singlular possessive pronoun and the direct object should also be singular since one person can cast only one vote. (Except in Ohio, but let us not digress.) I am surprised I didn't catch it, but with all the talk about infinitives, I was looking in the wrong place.

I broke a rule that I always told my students to do and that is to first find the simple subject, the verb and the completer whether it be a direct object, or predicate noun or predicate adjective. Except for indrect objects that is as far as we went with completers. Completer has another name which excapes me for the moment.
Had I done that first, I would have caught the error.

The other sentence that is said wrong is "Everyone, plesae put their paper plate in the trash". Their is wrong. The pronoun should be your.

I never studied Latin. My mother says that a thorugh knowledge of Latin helps with English grammer. She studied Latin in high school.

 

[Synergistic]

You all really should take this to another thread, there is nothing more boring than a grammar debate. Just look at Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events, Aunt Josephine, who felt life's greatest pleasure was grammar, was eaten by leeches because she corrected someone's grammar. That is your warning.

 

[mindseye]

Heh. Bring on the leeches!

 

[cityboy]

"Everyone is encouraged to cast his vote." may be grammatically correct but it is not politically correct. After all, now women vote too. Thus, "his or her" or "their", is more often used. "Everyone is encouraged to cast his or her vote." doesn't sound right and is too obvious. "Everyone is encouraged to cast their vote." is grammatically wrong. What would make the statement both politically and grammatically correct?

 

[mindseye]

Originally posted by cityboy@Feb 4 2005, 11:24 PM
"Everyone is encouraged to cast his vote." may be grammatically correct but it is not politically correct. After all, now women vote too. Thus, "his or her" or "their", is more often used. "Everyone is encouraged to cast his or her vote." doesn't sound right and is too obvious. "Everyone is encouraged to cast their vote." is grammatically wrong. What would make the statement both politically and grammatically correct?

[post=280268]Quoted post[/post]​

"His or her" is clunky -- it works okay for a usage or two, but when you're writing more than a paragraph or so, repeated use of "his or her" starts to grate.

A simple solution would be to agree that "they" represents one or more people of possibly undetermined gender. In fact, I have a textbook that in its preface defines 'they' to be singular or plural as needed, and then uses it unabashedly.

Are there situations in which such a definition could lead to ambiguity or confusion? Sure. But we already have ambiguity in our language (What does "I saw her duck" mean?) -- and we manage to communicate anyway.


P.S. If anyone tries to claim that "he" is gender-neutral, I'll open up my whoop-ass.

 

[Zingerific]

At what magical point in the future will scholars suddenly agree that a whole host of new constructions shall be granted acceptability from on high?

I'll stop being flippant now. I have long been interested in this topic, although my lack of confidence in my own grammer has stopped me from posting before. My background is a little different from DMW's. I debated in High School and College and am now in Grad School studying Rhetoric with a focus on social movements; I am a speaker, not a writer, and therefore have always been more interested if something "sounds right" than if something "is correct."

It seems that everyone will agree that language evolves, and that grammer is necessary. But to reduce the discussion of usage to just these issues is to oversimplify.

I would argue that whether 'his' is gendered is a fundamentally political question. I would wager that many, many people who use 'their' know full well what they are doing, and it has nothing to do with the debate of how language evolves or the integrity of grammer. To divorce the subject of usage from the social and political nature of our being is a diservice to anyone who loves the language as much as all of us here apparently do. Deliberatly using incorrect grammer as an act of resistance has a great and fascinating history.

I am thinking of children from the South (or parts of London, or anywhere, for that matter) for whom going to school was a torture because all they had ever heard before was "wrong." I know that this is an issue far greater than grammer, but they are internally related in such a way that I don't think the political can be ignored.

So, DMW, I would certainly agree that you should teach students the standards of usage. But I don't think it would hurt a bit to introduce a hint of ambiguity . The idea that people can argue, debate, write dissertations, scream, fight, and go on and on for days on end about a subject so supposedly "dry" as grammer would be a very great lesson indeed.

(My grammer check would go nuts over this last sentance, but orally it sings like Cicero

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Originally posted by mindseye@Feb 5 2005, 03:39 AM
P.S. If anyone tries to claim that "he" is gender-neutral, I'll open up my whoop-ass.

It's not gender-neutral; it's what linguists term as the gender inclusive pronoun. I tend to frown at political correctness as applied. Women becoming 'womyn' so that the word 'men' will be absent from the word is absurd. The same goes for God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen being stricken from hymnals on the grounds of its being 'sexist'. The pinnacle of anti-sexist PC is the proposed rewording of the Sign of the Cross. "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" becomes "In the name of the Creator and of the Christ and of the Holy Spirit"? Sorry, but that's just plain stupid. The Christ was masculine: He was Jesus, who was a man. What's wrong with referring to a historically masculine figure with another masculine noun: 'Son'? And Christ Himself told us to call God 'Father'. To change that designation is to disregard the instructions of the founder of Christianity. I'll take grammatical correctness over political correctness anytime, thank you very much.

 

[BuffMusicIdol]

Okay, I'm dizzy. I'm truly more concerned about semi quavers than I am pronouns and grammar, but I do tolerate all this literary fertilizer for the sake of setting a good lyric to music. I've written a few (hundred) lyrics myself, that managed to find a way to publication, despite my hot distaste for (gag) grammar and sentence diagramming. (However the hell that's spelled.)

My favorite lyric of all time is Neil Diamond:

"Songs she sang to me
Flowers she brang to me...."

I don't know that I have ever read anything more constipated and in need of a high colonic than that one.

I have a fine southern heritage, and I can drawl with the finest of them, despite my upbringing as a redneck cowboy from the midwest, "who dun growed up a city boy and what writes a fine tewn now'n agin."

Whaa, I din't figger this wood git so compliticated.

However, I have to say I have enjoyed immensely the jaunt through the woods with you literati.

I'm a little more in my comfort zone with words AND music.

Thanks for keeping me smiling.


Buffmusicidol :lol: B) :blink:

 

[mindseye]

Men decided that "men" is gender-inclusive so they could go on talking about men. It was a rule determined at a time when women were denied a say in such things, and as such is completely unsupportable. This is a completely separate issue from how "women" is spelled or whether "God" is male or female.

Consider the following 'race-inclusive' paragraph, and I'll use your model sentence as a basis for it.

Everyone is encouraged to cast white's vote. When arriving at the polling place, the voter should have white's voter registration card, but if white does not have it, white may vote after signing an affirmation.

Find it offensive? You should. Insisting that 'men' is gender-inclusive is just as offensive. Studies have shown that it's not: When children are read a paragraph in which no genders are mentioned except that the allegedly-gender-inclusive 'he', and then asked to draw a picture to illustrate the story, the children invariably draw males. (Ann Bodine, 1975, Androcentrism in Prescriptive Grammar).

Many times in this thread, you've passed judgement on certain phrases and sentences as being either "incorrect" or "wrong". Perpetuating male dominance by saying that everybody's a 'he' until proven otherwise -- that's definitely wrong. Pooh-poohing true gender inclusion as mere 'political correctness' is ignorant of decades of research.

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by cityboy@Feb 4 2005, 10:24 PM
"Everyone is encouraged to cast his vote." may be grammatically correct but it is not politically correct. After all, now women vote too. Thus, "his or her" or "their", is more often used. "Everyone is encouraged to cast his or her vote." doesn't sound right and is too obvious. "Everyone is encouraged to cast their vote." is grammatically wrong. What would make the statement both politically and grammatically correct?

[post=280268]Quoted post[/post]​

"Everyone is encouraged to vote."

Uses fewer words and bypasses the whole issue.

 

[mindseye]

Actually -- where'd the rest of your diatribe even come from? Except for the first sentence you wrote, nothing else you said bears any resemblance at all to my P.S. you quoted.

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper+Feb 5 2005, 12:45 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DoubleMeatWhopper &#064; Feb 5 2005, 12:45 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-mindseye@Feb 5 2005, 03:39 AM
P.S. If anyone tries to claim that "he" is gender-neutral, I&#39;ll open up my whoop-ass.

It&#39;s not gender-neutral; it&#39;s what linguists term as the gender inclusive pronoun. I tend to frown at political correctness as applied. Women becoming &#39;womyn&#39; so that the word &#39;men&#39; will be absent from the word is absurd. The same goes for God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen being stricken from hymnals on the grounds of its being &#39;sexist&#39;. The pinnacle of anti-sexist PC is the proposed rewording of the Sign of the Cross. "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" becomes "In the name of the Creator and of the Christ and of the Holy Spirit"? Sorry, but that&#39;s just plain stupid. The Christ was masculine: He was Jesus, who was a man. What&#39;s wrong with referring to a historically masculine figure with another masculine noun: &#39;Son&#39;? And Christ Himself told us to call God &#39;Father&#39;. To change that designation is to disregard the instructions of the founder of Christianity. I&#39;ll take grammatical correctness over political correctness anytime, thank you very much.

[post=280282]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

 

[13788]

NikkiSixx:

"Everyone is encouraged to cast their vote." is grammatically wrong. What would make the statement both politically and grammatically correct?

All are encouraged to cast their votes.

I&#39;m still having trouble getting laid; I have severe inhibitions...I don&#39;t know how to properly behave around women so that I have a chance to score with them, so I usually do nothing.

 

[Max]

Who would have thought, on opening a thread entitled "College Life, with 11 inches", to find heated disputes about split infinitives, political versus grammatical correctness, and — best of all — references to Fowler? It has to say something for the quality of the discussion on this site, perhaps lpsg.org is redeemable after all.

I wonder what the reaction would be if it happened in reverse; if a thread on the inclusive &#39;he&#39; on a grammar site was suddenly interrupted by a cohort of overactive eleven-inch penises and their life stories.

For the record, I operate in an environment where half the people would take offence at "everyone is encouraged to cast his vote", and the other half would take equal offence at "everyone is encouraged to cast their vote", or the more correct but obviously clumsy alternatives. And this does not divide on a gender basis: I have found that there are as many women who object to the ugliness of artificial politically-correct constructions as there are men.

So I take one of two options. Either I go with the simplest construction I can find, like Freddie&#39;s "Everyone is encouraged to vote". Why not just "Vote"? Or I simply take the opportunity of the dispute, admit the impossibility of pleasing more than half my readers or hearers, and I exercise my freedom. And in doing this I usually take the DMW line because I care about the language.

Fowler is on my shelf in an honoured position. I tend to read him if I need my spirits lifting, there is at least one laugh on every page.

 

[DadsAreUs]

What about "All are encouraged to cast their vote?" Would this also require an admonishment: "Please limit to one vote per issue or candidate per voter?"

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Originally posted by mindseye@Feb 5 2005, 05:44 AM
This is a completely separate issue from how "women" is spelled or whether "God" is male or female.

There is a grammar-based answer to that last question, of course. In every language that has gender distinction, &#39;God&#39; is a masculine noun. That includes English. If &#39;God&#39; were female, She&#39;d be &#39;Goddess&#39;.