On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 04:43:23 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
wrote:

> Well, what are your criteria for distinguish the one from the
> other? I'd be interested in knowing.

Changes that improve communication vs. changes that inhibit
communication.

On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 10:32:37 AM UTC-6, The Horny Goat wrote:

> Generally I agree with you BUT I will not use made up pronouns (Ze,
> Zhir etc) - I'll call them by name instead of pronouns instead. I
> respect the English language and will not defecate on it.

If some made-up neuter animate pronoun becomes generally accepted,
I would be fine with that. The use of "they" as singular, however, has the
potential to cause confusion.

John Savard

On Monday, 5 July 2021 at 07:28:25 UTC+1, Joy Beeson wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 04:43:23 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
> wrote:
> > Well, what are your criteria for distinguish the one from the
> > other? I'd be interested in knowing.
> Changes that improve communication vs. changes that inhibit
> communication.

All changes inhibit communication.

On 05/07/2021 02.25, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 10:32:37 AM UTC-6, The Horny Goat wrote:
>
>> Generally I agree with you BUT I will not use made up pronouns (Ze,
>> Zhir etc) - I'll call them by name instead of pronouns instead. I
>> respect the English language and will not defecate on it.
>
> If some made-up neuter animate pronoun becomes generally accepted,
> I would be fine with that. The use of "they" as singular, however, has the
> potential to cause confusion.

If somebody can't handle it after eight centuries, they ought to go
back to grammar school.
<https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/>

--
Michael F. Stemper
The FAQ for rec.arts.sf.written is at
<http://leepers.us/evelyn/faqs/sf-written.htm>
Please read it before posting.

On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 11:33:15 AM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:

> What's your cut-off date for real English words vs new usages that
> sully it?

As far as I'm aware, between 1900 and 1965, or even between 1800 and
1965, the English language did not change in any noticeable manner.

This, no doubt, was in part a consequence of the invention of the printing
press. With so many books in existence, and a literate populace, there was
a solid mass of reference material against which correct English could be
measured.

So I don't see anything surprising in there being objections to any recent
rapid and noticeable changes to the English language.

John Savard

On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 7:03:34 AM UTC-6, Michael F. Stemper wrote:

> If somebody can't handle it after eight centuries, they ought to go
> back to grammar school.
> <https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/>

Even that article admits that it was regarded as incorrect from the eighteenth
century onwards. It may have been used long ago, when the English language
was different, and would have seemed archaic to us, but it was regarded as
incorrect from at least 1800 until at least 1965, so it was clearly not to be found
in what people have come to regard as normal and grammatically correct
modern English.

John Savard

In article <2966a788-62ff-4ae5-a007-4b846db2589cn@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 11:33:15 AM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
>
>> What's your cut-off date for real English words vs new usages that
>> sully it?
>
>As far as I'm aware, between 1900 and 1965, or even between 1800 and
>1965, the English language did not change in any noticeable manner.

Oh, it did. Chiefly with additions to (and to a lesser extent,
subtractions from) the vocabulary.
>

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/

In article <1h95eg1f1qu7gn59lkjau6jjurg80t2ti5@4ax.com>,
Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 04:43:23 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>wrote:
>
>> Well, what are your criteria for distinguish the one from the
>> other? I'd be interested in knowing.
>
>Changes that improve communication vs. changes that inhibit
>communication.

Okay; but if we're still talking about gendered vs. nongendered
pronouns, there are those who consider their gender none of anybody
else's business. Using a nongendered pronoun (which eliminates
number as well) may annoy you (and to a lesser extent, me), but
on the principle of calling people what they want to be called,
I'm going to try not to annoy them. (I mentioned Graydon's Halt
upthread, to whom no pronouns apply at all.)

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/

In article <2d298510-418e-4ad0-a160-a4d572957c6fn@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 7:03:34 AM UTC-6, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>
>> If somebody can't handle it after eight centuries, they ought to go
>> back to grammar school.
>> <https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/>
>
>Even that article admits that it was regarded as incorrect from the eighteenth
>century onwards. It may have been used long ago, when the English language
>was different, and would have seemed archaic to us, but it was regarded as
>incorrect from at least 1800 until at least 1965, so it was clearly not
>to be found
>in what people have come to regard as normal and grammatically correct
>modern English.

But the definition of "normal and grammatically correct modern
English" has been laboriously pulling away over the centuries
from its original form, which amounted to "as much like Latin as
possible."

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/

In article <816ae5c0-5103-4908-9193-a9f8ec309ba4n@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 10:32:37 AM UTC-6, The Horny Goat wrote:
>
>> Generally I agree with you BUT I will not use made up pronouns (Ze,
>> Zhir etc) - I'll call them by name instead of pronouns instead. I
>> respect the English language and will not defecate on it.
>
>If some made-up neuter animate pronoun becomes generally accepted,
>I would be fine with that. The use of "they" as singular, however, has the
>potential to cause confusion.

The use of "you" as singular has the same potential. Hence the
many nonce-words to signify "you plural, as distinguished from
singular"), some of which have become entrenched in their speakers'
groups.

I remember an article written, rather tongue-in-cheek, by a man
from the northeast part of the US who had married a southern
woman. One of the usages he mentioned was "Why don't all you-all
come over this evening?" Meaning, he said, "all you-all, not
just some of you-all."

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/

On 2021-07-03, Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:

> I've already mentioned that IMO, before the end of this century
> "they" will have replaced all third-person pronouns, ignoring
> both gender and number, just as "you" replaced all second-person
> pronouns, ignoring both number and social rank.

I'm confident that it will not replace "it". But then I suspect
you didn't want to say that.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de

On 2021-07-05, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> As far as I'm aware, between 1900 and 1965, or even between 1800 and
> 1965, the English language did not change in any noticeable manner.

Also, the Earth is flat.

I really don't know how else to comment on that. I've been sitting
here for a while trying to think of something, anything, serious
or snarky, and I just can't.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de

In article <slrnse68ar.1512.naddy@lorvorc.mips.inka.de>,
Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:
>On 2021-07-03, Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>
>> I've already mentioned that IMO, before the end of this century
>> "they" will have replaced all third-person pronouns, ignoring
>> both gender and number, just as "you" replaced all second-person
>> pronouns, ignoring both number and social rank.
>
>I'm confident that it will not replace "it".

Probably not; but you never know.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/

In article <qvs1pv.1nDC@kithrup.com>,
djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:

> In article <2d298510-418e-4ad0-a160-a4d572957c6fn@googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 7:03:34 AM UTC-6, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> >
> >> If somebody can't handle it after eight centuries, they ought to go
> >> back to grammar school.
> >> <https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/>
> >
> >Even that article admits that it was regarded as incorrect from the
> >eighteenth
> >century onwards. It may have been used long ago, when the English language
> >was different, and would have seemed archaic to us, but it was regarded as
> >incorrect from at least 1800 until at least 1965, so it was clearly not
> >to be found
> >in what people have come to regard as normal and grammatically correct
> >modern English.
>
> But the definition of "normal and grammatically correct modern
> English" has been laboriously pulling away over the centuries
> from its original form, which amounted to "as much like Latin as
> possible."

I will point out what was being suppressed was "they" being used as
singular indefinite (in general referring to one or more), which is NOT
the same thing as referring to a specific individual.

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
�-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

On 2021-07-05, Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:

>>As far as I'm aware, between 1900 and 1965, or even between 1800 and
>>1965, the English language did not change in any noticeable manner.
>
> Oh, it did. Chiefly with additions to (and to a lesser extent,
> subtractions from) the vocabulary.

IIRC, Mark Liberman did some statistics on Language Log that showed
that the proportion of articles in the language has changed. That
is clearly significant, even if we don't understand how.

Over the course of the 19th century, people stopped complaining
about the passive progressive ("the house is being built").

Since the 19th century, the language has more or less settled on a
standard set of contractions, some of which used to be condemned
("won't").

When did the direct negation of "know" without an auxiliary
("I know not") finally disappear? I think that also happened during
the 19th century, but I may be off.

People who actually study this stuff would know a lot more.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de

On 2021-07-05, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>> <https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/>
>
> Even that article admits that it was regarded as incorrect from the eighteenth
> century onwards.

That's when people started studying the grammar of English and
started having ideas how the language _should_ be, because of what
they considered logical, or what was obviously correct because it
was this way in Latin, etc.

As Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage explains:

As most commentators note, the traditional pronoun for [referring
to indefinite pronouns and singular nouns] is the masculine third
person singular, he, his, him. This tradition goes back to the
18th-century grammarians, who boxed themselves into the position
by first deciding that the indefinite pronouns must always be
singular. They then had to decide between the masculine and
feminine singular pronouns for use in reference to the indefinites,
and they chose the masculine (they were, of course, all men).

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de

On 5 Jul 2021 at 10:07:33 BST, "Robert Carnegie"
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

> On Monday, 5 July 2021 at 07:28:25 UTC+1, Joy Beeson wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 04:43:23 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>> wrote:
>>> Well, what are your criteria for distinguish the one from the
>>> other? I'd be interested in knowing.
>> Changes that improve communication vs. changes that inhibit
>> communication.
>
> All changes inhibit communication.

Initially. Then add to the richness of the language.

"Wine-dark sea" and all that. Or "blue" as we'd say now, unlike poor
Homer who didn't have a handy word to use.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
You can't get a leopard to change his spots. In fact, you
can't /really/ get a leopard to appreciate the notion that
it has spots. You can explain it carefully to the leopard,
but it will just sit there looking at you, knowing that
you are made of meat.
After a while it will perhaps kill you. -- Geoffrey Pullum

In article <ikh6qdFje31U1@mid.individual.net>,
Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
>On 5 Jul 2021 at 10:07:33 BST, "Robert Carnegie"
><rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, 5 July 2021 at 07:28:25 UTC+1, Joy Beeson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 04:43:23 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>>> wrote:
>>>> Well, what are your criteria for distinguish the one from the
>>>> other? I'd be interested in knowing.
>>> Changes that improve communication vs. changes that inhibit
>>> communication.
>>
>> All changes inhibit communication.
>
>Initially. Then add to the richness of the language.
>
>"Wine-dark sea" and all that. Or "blue" as we'd say now, unlike poor
>Homer who didn't have a handy word to use.

Color words, the number of them and what they signify, vary
widely among different languages. There are some who have only
"light" and "dark"; there are many who have "blue/green or any
other color you'd find in live vegetation" and "black/brown or
any other color you'd find in dead vegetation."

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/

In article <qvs1By.1Mv7@kithrup.com>,
Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>In article <2966a788-62ff-4ae5-a007-4b846db2589cn@googlegroups.com>,
>Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 11:33:15 AM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
>>
>>> What's your cut-off date for real English words vs new usages that
>>> sully it?
>>
>>As far as I'm aware, between 1900 and 1965, or even between 1800 and
>>1965, the English language did not change in any noticeable manner.
>
>Oh, it did. Chiefly with additions to (and to a lesser extent,
>subtractions from) the vocabulary.

There have been fairly significant changes in phonetics as well (low
back merger, Northern Cities Vowel Shift, Estuary stop glottalization,
TRAP-BATH split, New England non-rhotacism, the list goes on). If
we're going back to 1800, a lot of spellings have changed as well, or
settled down into more standardized state after subsisting in free
variation for centuries. (Webster's American Dictionary of the
English Language was published in 1828.)

Languages change a lot, and quickly, because language evolution is
Lamarckian (culturally rather than genetically transmitted).

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
wollman@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)

In article <slrnse68ar.1512.naddy@lorvorc.mips.inka.de>,
Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:
>On 2021-07-03, Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>
>> I've already mentioned that IMO, before the end of this century
>> "they" will have replaced all third-person pronouns, ignoring
>> both gender and number, just as "you" replaced all second-person
>> pronouns, ignoring both number and social rank.
>
>I'm confident that it will not replace "it". But then I suspect
>you didn't want to say that.

And lots of languages that lack masculine-feminine gender binary still
have animate-inanimate, or human-nonhuman, noun classification. Even
Finnish has separate pronouns for human and nonhuman referents,
although there's no concord. (Swedish, AIUI, has two genders, common
and neuter, and does have gender concord.)

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
wollman@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)

On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 08:03:23 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
<michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 05/07/2021 02.25, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 10:32:37 AM UTC-6, The Horny Goat wrote:
> >
> >> Generally I agree with you BUT I will not use made up pronouns (Ze,
> >> Zhir etc) - I'll call them by name instead of pronouns instead. I
> >> respect the English language and will not defecate on it.
> >
> > If some made-up neuter animate pronoun becomes generally accepted,
> > I would be fine with that. The use of "they" as singular, however, has the
> > potential to cause confusion.
>
> If somebody can't handle it after eight centuries, they ought to go
> back to grammar school.
> <https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/>

That argument reminds me of a discussion on some other newsgroup.
Someone argued that it was silly to be horrified at machines that
ground up garbage and mixed it with grey water because there is always
some garbage in dishwater.

The response was "There's a difference between 'some' and 'lots'."

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

In article <sc0d66$1ou3$1@usenet.csail.mit.edu>,
Garrett Wollman <wollman@bimajority.org> wrote:
>In article <qvs1By.1Mv7@kithrup.com>,
>Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>In article <2966a788-62ff-4ae5-a007-4b846db2589cn@googlegroups.com>,
>>Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 11:33:15 AM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
>>>
>>>> What's your cut-off date for real English words vs new usages that
>>>> sully it?
>>>
>>>As far as I'm aware, between 1900 and 1965, or even between 1800 and
>>>1965, the English language did not change in any noticeable manner.
>>
>>Oh, it did. Chiefly with additions to (and to a lesser extent,
>>subtractions from) the vocabulary.
>
>There have been fairly significant changes in phonetics as well (low
>back merger, Northern Cities Vowel Shift, Estuary stop glottalization,
>TRAP-BATH split, New England non-rhotacism, the list goes on). If
>we're going back to 1800, a lot of spellings have changed as well, or
>settled down into more standardized state after subsisting in free
>variation for centuries. (Webster's American Dictionary of the
>English Language was published in 1828.)
>
>Languages change a lot, and quickly, because language evolution is
>Lamarckian (culturally rather than genetically transmitted).
>
Well put!

Saved to disk because I want to look up some of these.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/

On Tuesday, 6 July 2021 at 03:49:24 UTC+1, Joy Beeson wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 08:03:23 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
> <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 05/07/2021 02.25, Quadibloc wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 10:32:37 AM UTC-6, The Horny Goat wrote:
> > >
> > >> Generally I agree with you BUT I will not use made up pronouns (Ze,
> > >> Zhir etc) - I'll call them by name instead of pronouns instead. I
> > >> respect the English language and will not defecate on it.
> > >
> > > If some made-up neuter animate pronoun becomes generally accepted,
> > > I would be fine with that. The use of "they" as singular, however, has the
> > > potential to cause confusion.
> >
> > If somebody can't handle it after eight centuries, they ought to go
> > back to grammar school.
> > <https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/>
> That argument reminds me of a discussion on some other newsgroup.
> Someone argued that it was silly to be horrified at machines that
> ground up garbage and mixed it with grey water because there is always
> some garbage in dishwater.
>
> The response was "There's a difference between 'some' and 'lots'."

Referring to food waste, I think my parents' waste
disposal drain machine came with advice to run
more water while using the machine. Solved?

On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 20:17:23 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
wrote:

>In article <ikh6qdFje31U1@mid.individual.net>,
>Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
>>On 5 Jul 2021 at 10:07:33 BST, "Robert Carnegie"
>><rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, 5 July 2021 at 07:28:25 UTC+1, Joy Beeson wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 04:43:23 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Well, what are your criteria for distinguish the one from the
>>>>> other? I'd be interested in knowing.
>>>> Changes that improve communication vs. changes that inhibit
>>>> communication.
>>>
>>> All changes inhibit communication.
>>
>>Initially. Then add to the richness of the language.
>>
>>"Wine-dark sea" and all that. Or "blue" as we'd say now, unlike poor
>>Homer who didn't have a handy word to use.
>
>Color words, the number of them and what they signify, vary
>widely among different languages. There are some who have only
>"light" and "dark"; there are many who have "blue/green or any
>other color you'd find in live vegetation" and "black/brown or
>any other color you'd find in dead vegetation."

And I once had a book, which claimed to be a history of spiritualism
but was mostly about Madame Blavatsky, that asserted, in the
introduction, that the "fact" that Homer saw the sea as "red" meant
that human senses were constantly become more sensitive, hence the
recent "breakthrough" in seeing dead people. This is, of course,
nonsense.

We went through this on another newsgroup, and the consensus was that
Homer knew very well what color the sea was and that Greek had a word
for it. We were using the translation "wine-red"; the Greek,
apparently, is something like "wine face" or "wine eye".

My guess was that it was a well-known tag, which audiences expected to
hear. This gained no support there, so I don't expect it to here.

Bing brings up several articles on "wine dark sea" and "wine red sea".
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 15:34:36 -0000 (UTC), Christian Weisgerber
<naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:

>On 2021-07-05, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> As far as I'm aware, between 1900 and 1965, or even between 1800 and
>> 1965, the English language did not change in any noticeable manner.
>
>Also, the Earth is flat.
>
>I really don't know how else to comment on that. I've been sitting
>here for a while trying to think of something, anything, serious
>or snarky, and I just can't.

Yeah, I've been reading a lot of older fiction (mid 1800s-mid 1900s)
and I've seen a /lot/ of words used in ways that either aren't in the
dictionary at all or are there but marked "obsolete".

Of course, if they aren't there at all, they /could/ be a typo, as
most of these are scanned-in Kindle books with no prufredding evident.
But I can often figure out what the word means from the context, and
when that meaning is related to the current meaning of the word, then
"typo" doesn't seem as likely, whether its in the dictionary or not.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."