Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

A visit to a strange place will bring fresh work.


arts / rec.arts.sf.written / Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"

SubjectAuthor
* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Dudley Brooks
`* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Robert Woodward
 +* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"pete...@gmail.com
 |+* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Leif Roar Moldskred
 ||`- Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"pete...@gmail.com
 |+- Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Dorothy J Heydt
 |`* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Dudley Brooks
 | `* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Paul S Person
 |  +* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Dudley Brooks
 |  |`- Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Michael F. Stemper
 |  +* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Gary R. Schmidt
 |  |`- Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Thomas Koenig
 |  `* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Dorothy J Heydt
 |   +* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"James Nicoll
 |   |`* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Dimensional Traveler
 |   | `- Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"James Nicoll
 |   `- Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Paul S Person
 +* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Ahasuerus
 |+* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Dorothy J Heydt
 ||+* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Ahasuerus
 |||`- Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Dorothy J Heydt
 ||+* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Paul S Person
 |||`* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Dorothy J Heydt
 ||| +* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Ross Presser
 ||| |`- Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Paul S Person
 ||| `* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Paul S Person
 |||  `* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"pete...@gmail.com
 |||   `* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Robert Woodward
 |||    `* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"pete...@gmail.com
 |||     +* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Gary R. Schmidt
 |||     |+* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Wolffan
 |||     ||+* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Gary R. Schmidt
 |||     |||`* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"John Halpenny
 |||     ||| `* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Michael F. Stemper
 |||     |||  `- Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Robert Carnegie
 |||     ||`* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Jay E. Morris
 |||     || +- Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"The Horny Goat
 |||     || `- Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Dudley Brooks
 |||     |+* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Dorothy J Heydt
 |||     ||+- Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"pete...@gmail.com
 |||     ||`- Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Gary R. Schmidt
 |||     |`* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"The Horny Goat
 |||     | `- Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Gary R. Schmidt
 |||     +* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Paul S Person
 |||     |`* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Robert Carnegie
 |||     | +* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Ross Presser
 |||     | |`- Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Dorothy J Heydt
 |||     | `* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Dorothy J Heydt
 |||     |  `- Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Robert Carnegie
 |||     +* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Leif Roar Moldskred
 |||     |`* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Wolffan
 |||     | +* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Robert Carnegie
 |||     | |`* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Dorothy J Heydt
 |||     | | `* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"pete...@gmail.com
 |||     | |  `* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Scott Lurndal
 |||     | |   `* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Paul S Person
 |||     | |    `- Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Thomas Koenig
 |||     | `* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"pete...@gmail.com
 |||     |  +* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Dudley Brooks
 |||     |  |`- Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Joy Beeson
 |||     |  `- Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Dudley Brooks
 |||     `- Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Robert Woodward
 ||`- Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Default User
 |`* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Moriarty
 | `- Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Ahasuerus
 +* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Robert Carnegie
 |+* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Don
 ||`- Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Sjouke Burry
 |+* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Dorothy J Heydt
 ||`* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Robert Carnegie
 || `- Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Robert Carnegie
 |+- Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"pete...@gmail.com
 |+* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Michael F. Stemper
 ||`- Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Tony Nance
 |`* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Default User
 | `- Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Robert Carnegie
 `* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"David Johnston
  +* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"pete...@gmail.com
  |+* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"David Johnston
  ||`* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Robert Carnegie
  || `* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"David Johnston
  ||  `- Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Robert Carnegie
  |+* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Dudley Brooks
  ||+* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Paul S Person
  |||+- Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"David Johnston
  |||`* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Dudley Brooks
  ||| `* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Paul S Person
  |||  `- Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Dudley Brooks
  ||`* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"pete...@gmail.com
  || +- Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"David Johnston
  || `- Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Paul S Person
  |`* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Leif Roar Moldskred
  | `* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"pete...@gmail.com
  |  `* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Leif Roar Moldskred
  |   `* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Magewolf
  |    +* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Leif Roar Moldskred
  |    |`* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"John Halpenny
  |    | +- Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Leif Roar Moldskred
  |    | `- Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Robert Woodward
  |    `* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Paul S Person
  |     +* Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Robert Carnegie
  |     `- Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"The Horny Goat
  `- Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"Dudley Brooks

Pages:12345
Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"

<t4p6db$sf5$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=72800&group=rec.arts.sf.written#72800

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbro...@runforyourlife.org (Dudley Brooks)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 11:03:23 -0700
Organization: Run For Your Life! ... it's a dance company
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <t4p6db$sf5$1@dont-email.me>
References: <o8zxBr.xqK@kithrup.com>
<5pGdnceun9Uv9fvKnZ2dnUU78fudnZ2d@giganews.com>
<91membpc20ch7531rbb8s0k8036ur6l68o@4ax.com>
<dst8hnFcam1U1@mid.individual.net>
<356cf0c5-8255-4326-94a7-47dd155be5b1n@googlegroups.com>
<robertaw-88B3C5.22005724042022@news.individual.net>
<t4i5g7$1mpu$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<d550e2ea-85f1-40ce-814e-69e531b7bef1n@googlegroups.com>
<t4i9p6$tbq$3@dont-email.me> <04nq6hdkmartqhduan6ehj8ejct33eb72l@4ax.com>
<t4n6gn$hj3$1@dont-email.me> <bnvv6hllrrrpor9qcac303k18r6sdruub5@4ax.com>
Reply-To: dbrooks@runforyourlife.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 18:03:24 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="40fcf6f7a317365faad61fbfbf03f1de";
logging-data="29157"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/33rZEogdDKAYfgY6+LTrD4AMHn9pm1sE="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:j0Sy4qVK/hBhha5lKUNjXRqNuto=
In-Reply-To: <bnvv6hllrrrpor9qcac303k18r6sdruub5@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: Dudley Brooks - Mon, 2 May 2022 18:03 UTC

On 5/2/22 8:56 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sun, 1 May 2022 16:52:54 -0700, Dudley Brooks
> <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
>
>> On 4/30/22 8:59 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 20:17:58 -0700, Dudley Brooks
>>> <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/29/22 7:40 PM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 10:04:59 PM UTC-4, David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-04-24 11:00 p.m., Robert Woodward wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <356cf0c5-8255-4326...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>> Dudley Brooks <dudley...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 9:32:58 AM UTC-7, Michael R N Dolbear wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Joy Beeson" wrote
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 04:41:06 -0500, leif...@dimnakorr.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wilst thou truly?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It has been centuries, but we still haven't learned how to use
>>>>>>>>> singular "you" without daily confusions and misunderstandings.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Singular "they" will be an even bigger disaster, and with less excuse.
>>>>>>>>> Jane Austen and her readers got on well enough (I dug out the quotations
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> Jim Baen).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Mike D
>>>>>>>> Yep. Singular "they" has a respectable 400-year history of use by the finest
>>>>>>>> writers of the English language. See Steven Pinker on this issue (and many
>>>>>>>> similar issues). We don't need to come up a "new" gender-nonspecific word
>>>>>>>> when we already have a time-honored one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IMHO, that is an indefinite "they". Example: "Everyone is welcome, but
>>>>>>> if they don't arrive early, we might not have room for them." "Everyone"
>>>>>>> might be treated as singular, but it can represent more than one person.
>>>>>>> The same is true with "everybody", "anyone", "anybody", "someone", and
>>>>>>> "somebody". My challenge (which nobody has answered) is an example of
>>>>>>> "they" being used for a specified named individual in a work written
>>>>>>> before 1970 (I might have used different dates, but none were for before
>>>>>>> my birth).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is probably true that we can't find a named and specified individual
>>>>>> being called "they". Back then if a person personally knew a person and
>>>>>> still called them "them" it would be in a deliberate attempt not to
>>>>>> specify that they are a woman and that was a rare situation, and when it
>>>>>> arose, they would also avoid giving them a name that would be just as
>>>>>> big a giveaway. Science fiction authors would either settle for making
>>>>>> up a new pronoun (which was always annoying) or would go ahead and call
>>>>>> something that wasn't a man, a man. Or rarely a woman.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But that's a big pile of "so what?". The leap from "unspecified person"
>>>>>> to "specified person of unspecified/absent gender" is not a big one.
>>>>>> It's the natural development of language as opposed to all the attempts
>>>>>> to make up new pronouns which have inevitably failed to gain traction. -
>>>>>> The argument that using a plural pronoun to refer to a singular
>>>>>> individual is a grammatical error in English is an automatic fail.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus appears to be Proof By Vigorous Assertion. I find the use of plural
>>>>> pronouns to refer to singular individuals ugly and broken. We should do
>>>>> better.
>>>>
>>>> And what about Proof by Numerous Examples? Namely, Shakespeare, Jane
>>>> Austen, etc., etc., etc. did not find it ugly and broken.
>>>
>>> Let's see some quotes from "Shakespeare, Jane Austen, etc., etc.,
>>> etc." showing a single /named/ individual referred to as "they".
>>>
>>> They didn't find it ugly and broken because /they never encountered
>>
>> You didn't specify "single *named* individual." You only said "plural
>> pronouns to refer to singular individuals."
>
> You mean, of course, whoever posted that statement.
>
> It wasn't me.
>
> But you are right -- I wasn't paying /close/ attention.

My apologies. This thread now has so many indentation that it's hard to
trace.

--
Dudley Brooks, Artistic Director
Run For Your Life! ... it's a dance company!
San Francisco

Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"

<6s268hda9c865vlqi6nncgpf6l6lr101u3@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=73628&group=rec.arts.sf.written#73628

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: jbee...@invalid.net.invalid (Joy Beeson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"
Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 22:43:00 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <6s268hda9c865vlqi6nncgpf6l6lr101u3@4ax.com>
References: <tcri6h5mhf09u9nfeks8fsqu4rd6n2kn0v@4ax.com> <rB0Gzn.1MIF@kithrup.com> <3sdl6htceahasd2451bgop1mqbe69smmg3@4ax.com> <b33383ab-38b4-43ee-86be-64edc7534510n@googlegroups.com> <robertaw-812DC9.21543628042022@news.individual.net> <bc8240cf-7667-465c-b756-43532c9bcdb0n@googlegroups.com> <H3adnTAGqcJO2PH_nZ2dnZeNn_vNnZ2d@giganews.com> <0001HW.281C8B9400B0BA5F700008D7738F@news.supernews.com> <82352d53-8446-4835-b539-88c589c4c8d8n@googlegroups.com> <t4i8ob$pmf$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="77d4bbd89e65897605a8235fd1f455b3";
logging-data="27146"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19qtXJkQKmqJgDaOTBP5CzBNfE0evQ/sKk="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:w9hpKmkoaQthLQmnkYJ93m4lQq0=
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.2/32.830
 by: Joy Beeson - Tue, 17 May 2022 02:43 UTC

On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 20:00:26 -0700, Dudley Brooks
<dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:

> Any my (and others') point is that no, it is *not* a neologism
> ... it has been continuously used for at least 400 years.

And this plain has been flooded a foot deep for a week or two at least
once a decade ever since the glaciers retreated, therefore building a
dam to put it under twenty feet of water permanently will make no
difference whatsoever.

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

Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"

<t68qk6$1nvr$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=74038&group=rec.arts.sf.written#74038

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!UCFJvumVDb7v5Z1i3tYvQw.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: davidjoh...@yahoo.com (David Johnston)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"
Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 13:36:37 -0600
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t68qk6$1nvr$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <20160617a@crcomp.net> <20160618c@crcomp.net>
<o8z6Lv.1oLJ@kithrup.com> <dslktuFr66rU1@mid.individual.net>
<o8zxBr.xqK@kithrup.com> <5pGdnceun9Uv9fvKnZ2dnUU78fudnZ2d@giganews.com>
<91membpc20ch7531rbb8s0k8036ur6l68o@4ax.com>
<dst8hnFcam1U1@mid.individual.net>
<356cf0c5-8255-4326-94a7-47dd155be5b1n@googlegroups.com>
<robertaw-88B3C5.22005724042022@news.individual.net>
<t4i5g7$1mpu$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<d550e2ea-85f1-40ce-814e-69e531b7bef1n@googlegroups.com>
<t4i9a4$srl$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<408d2872-45a8-42a5-9903-62ae27724e72n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="57339"; posting-host="UCFJvumVDb7v5Z1i3tYvQw.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 220520-2, 5/20/2022), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
 by: David Johnston - Fri, 20 May 2022 19:36 UTC

On 2022-05-01 6:15 p.m., Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Saturday, 30 April 2022 at 04:10:00 UTC+1, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 2022-04-29 8:40 p.m., pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 10:04:59 PM UTC-4, David Johnston wrote:
>>>> It is probably true that we can't find a named and specified individual
>>>> being called "they". Back then if a person personally knew a person and
>>>> still called them "them" it would be in a deliberate attempt not to
>>>> specify that they are a woman and that was a rare situation, and when it
>>>> arose, they would also avoid giving them a name that would be just as
>>>> big a giveaway. Science fiction authors would either settle for making
>>>> up a new pronoun (which was always annoying) or would go ahead and call
>>>> something that wasn't a man, a man. Or rarely a woman.
>>>>
>>>> But that's a big pile of "so what?". The leap from "unspecified person"
>>>> to "specified person of unspecified/absent gender" is not a big one.
>>>> It's the natural development of language as opposed to all the attempts
>>>> to make up new pronouns which have inevitably failed to gain traction. -
>>>> The argument that using a plural pronoun to refer to a singular
>>>> individual is a grammatical error in English is an automatic fail.
>>>
>>> Thus appears to be Proof By Vigorous Assertion. I find the use of plural
>>> pronouns to refer to singular individuals ugly and broken. We should do
>>> better.
>> So what's your proposed substitute for "you" and how are you going to
>> get people to use it? There aren't many attempts to prescribe "logical"
>> speech that accomplish anything.
>
> One?

Substitutes for the wrong sense of "you". One uses "one" for the
unspecified individuals not the specified ones. One says "I will kill
you" to the specific individual or individuals one is threatening. One
does not say "I will kill one". That would just lead to people asking
"one what?"

Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"

<9e61d4f3-305c-40ec-8adc-61e1f27f1ed0n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=74051&group=rec.arts.sf.written#74051

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:391:b0:2f9:2bbb:b847 with SMTP id j17-20020a05622a039100b002f92bbbb847mr38665qtx.439.1653078560911;
Fri, 20 May 2022 13:29:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:ac1a:0:b0:2fe:e385:437 with SMTP id
k26-20020a81ac1a000000b002fee3850437mr12650479ywh.259.1653078560698; Fri, 20
May 2022 13:29:20 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 13:29:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <t68qk6$1nvr$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=188.29.41.141; posting-account=dELd-gkAAABehNzDMBP4sfQElk2tFztP
NNTP-Posting-Host: 188.29.41.141
References: <20160617a@crcomp.net> <20160618c@crcomp.net> <o8z6Lv.1oLJ@kithrup.com>
<dslktuFr66rU1@mid.individual.net> <o8zxBr.xqK@kithrup.com>
<5pGdnceun9Uv9fvKnZ2dnUU78fudnZ2d@giganews.com> <91membpc20ch7531rbb8s0k8036ur6l68o@4ax.com>
<dst8hnFcam1U1@mid.individual.net> <356cf0c5-8255-4326-94a7-47dd155be5b1n@googlegroups.com>
<robertaw-88B3C5.22005724042022@news.individual.net> <t4i5g7$1mpu$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<d550e2ea-85f1-40ce-814e-69e531b7bef1n@googlegroups.com> <t4i9a4$srl$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<408d2872-45a8-42a5-9903-62ae27724e72n@googlegroups.com> <t68qk6$1nvr$1@gioia.aioe.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <9e61d4f3-305c-40ec-8adc-61e1f27f1ed0n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Recently Read - "Two Dooms"
From: rja.carn...@excite.com (Robert Carnegie)
Injection-Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 20:29:20 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 3912
 by: Robert Carnegie - Fri, 20 May 2022 20:29 UTC

On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 20:36:42 UTC+1, David Johnston wrote:
> On 2022-05-01 6:15 p.m., Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > On Saturday, 30 April 2022 at 04:10:00 UTC+1, David Johnston wrote:
> >> On 2022-04-29 8:40 p.m., pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 10:04:59 PM UTC-4, David Johnston wrote:
> >>>> It is probably true that we can't find a named and specified individual
> >>>> being called "they". Back then if a person personally knew a person and
> >>>> still called them "them" it would be in a deliberate attempt not to
> >>>> specify that they are a woman and that was a rare situation, and when it
> >>>> arose, they would also avoid giving them a name that would be just as
> >>>> big a giveaway. Science fiction authors would either settle for making
> >>>> up a new pronoun (which was always annoying) or would go ahead and call
> >>>> something that wasn't a man, a man. Or rarely a woman.
> >>>>
> >>>> But that's a big pile of "so what?". The leap from "unspecified person"
> >>>> to "specified person of unspecified/absent gender" is not a big one.
> >>>> It's the natural development of language as opposed to all the attempts
> >>>> to make up new pronouns which have inevitably failed to gain traction. -
> >>>> The argument that using a plural pronoun to refer to a singular
> >>>> individual is a grammatical error in English is an automatic fail.
> >>>
> >>> Thus appears to be Proof By Vigorous Assertion. I find the use of plural
> >>> pronouns to refer to singular individuals ugly and broken. We should do
> >>> better.
> >> So what's your proposed substitute for "you" and how are you going to
> >> get people to use it? There aren't many attempts to prescribe "logical"
> >> speech that accomplish anything.
> >
> > One?
> Substitutes for the wrong sense of "you". One uses "one" for the
> unspecified individuals not the specified ones. One says "I will kill
> you" to the specific individual or individuals one is threatening. One
> does not say "I will kill one". That would just lead to people asking
> "one what?"

We were considering change of usage, and when
one is holding the individuals you mention at gunpoint,
what one says about usage goes.

Pages:12345
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor