# No such thing as correct English



## David

From an interesting article on the English language in today's New York Times (link to whole article appears at tend): "In fact, there is no such thing as Correct English, and there never has been. That's why David Crystal, one of the language's leading scholars, titles his new history THE STORIES OF ENGLISH (Overlook, $35), plural. As Crystal shows, the notion of correctness emerged only in the late 18th century, the work of a few self-appointed authorities like the grammarian Lindley Murray and the pronunciation pundit ''Elocution Walker.'' Murray, Walker and their ilk believed the language had gotten out of control -- too many new words, too many regional accents, too many different ways of saying things -- and needed to be stabilized. Behind this linguistic anxiety lay an anxiety about status. Commercial expansion, imperial conquest and industrial revolution were creating a vast new middle class. Just as a host of conduct manuals had sprung up to teach these socially insecure ''new men'' how to act and dress, so did the language pundits step forth to teach them how to speak. (And were wildly successful at it; Murray's ''Grammar'' went through 200 editions and sold over 20 million copies.) The standard, in speech as in conduct, was politeness, defined by Samuel Johnson (himself one of the pundits) as "elegance of manners; gentility; good breeding." Correct English was upper-class English."


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/09/books/review/09DERESIE.html


----------



## Artrella

Very interesting!!!  I think the correctness of a language is regarded as a powerful tool to delimit standards, social standards.  This was also the theory of the French philosopher Pierre Bourdieu , when he  talked about "Linguistic capital".

*
LINGUISTIC CAPITAL* 

Thanks David!!


----------



## Focalist

My sentiments entirely! There are many Englishes, and in each of them it is possible to make errors (= things which, at best, make the reader/listener stumble and say "eh? what? I don't get you" and, at worst, misunderstand and get hold of totally the wrong end of the stick*). Even so, there is indeed "no such thing as correct English".

F

* Spot my "deliberate mistake"!


----------



## prosopis

Well, there is merit to the argument. The poorest, most uneducated people in society communicate with one another fairly effectively, with no notion of proper conjugation, proper use of the subjunctive, etc. It wouldn't be a stretch to define "correct" command of a language as the ability effectively to interact at a certain societal socio/economic level. 

The bookworm from Barcelona with his perfect Spanish would not speak on the streets of East LA with any semblance of correctness, but a similarly well-educated person with the acumen to adapt will undoubtedly communicate more effectively and thus more "correctly"


----------



## Focalist

prosopis said:
			
		

> The poorest, most uneducated people in society communicate with one another fairly effectively, with no notion of proper conjugation, proper use of the subjunctive, etc.


Quite! -- though why only "fairly"? -- and I would submit that the use of the word "proper" is improper here, unless you intend it to mean "fitting".

Speakers in Somerset who say "I be" but "thee bist" have a perfect idea of the conjugation of verbs in their own English (what's more, they know more about conjugations than the majority of standard-English speakers, since they can also say "I am" and "you are" when occasion arises). And such sentences as "Him as done it don't want it no more" obey all the rules of the variety of English concerned.

F


----------



## Cath.S.

> Him as done it don't want it no more


Just being curious, Focalist : could you please tell me how you would translate that sentence into standard English?


----------



## Hatuey

Hello all,
I agree completely with the article but if you let me I'd like to play the devil's advocate.
What is the proper place of "standard English"?
Regards to all
Hatuey


----------



## mono

Thank you for sharing the article, David. I have also reflected on the subject, and read a few books concerning rhetoric, its history, and why it exists. For anyone interested in a very good book involved with language (especially "correct" language), its origins, evolution, psychology, and (oddly) biology I would recommend _The Alphabet vs. the Goddess by Leonard Shlain_.


----------



## fetchezlavache

Focalist said:
			
		

> My sentiments entirely! There are many Englishes, and in each of them it is possible to make errors (= things which, at best, make the reader/listener stumble and say "eh? what? I don't get you" and, at worst, misunderstand and get hold of totally the wrong end of the stick*). Even so, there is indeed "no such thing as correct English".
> 
> F
> 
> * Spot my "deliberate mistake"!




no i haven't spotted it... now i'm eager to know, please ! is it in the arrangement of the words totally etc... , or in 'englishes' ?


----------



## Hatuey

Hello
* Spot my "deliberate mistake"!
Since I am learning I have to risk being wrong:
"get hold of *totally* the wrong end of the stick*"
Is it totally?
H


----------



## jacinta

Hatuey said:
			
		

> Hello
> * Spot my "deliberate mistake"!
> Since I am learning I have to risk being wrong:
> "get hold of *totally* the wrong end of the stick*"
> Is it totally?
> H



You are right, Hatuey.  Totally is unnecessary in the sentence and misused but I will have to wait for Focalist to correct.  I don't know the phrase "wrong end of the stick".  I believe it means to misunderstand and continue on talking with that misunderstanding.  Do I have this right?


----------



## Edwin

> Him as done it don't want it no more





			
				egueule said:
			
		

> Just being curious, Focalist : could you please tell me how you would translate that sentence into standard English?



Since Focalist has not answered yet. I will take a stab at it. It sounds to me like something that Eliza Doolittle (My Fair Lady) would have said.  I imagine:

  Him as done it = He that did it or He that made it??

So in all, I guess it might mean:

*The man that made it doesn't want it any more.*

Am I close, Focalist?


----------



## Focalist

Hatuey said:
			
		

> Hello
> * Spot my "deliberate mistake"!
> Since I am learning I have to risk being wrong:
> "get hold of *totally* the wrong end of the stick*"
> Is it totally?
> H


Right, Hatuey! A stick has only two ends, so if it has a right and a wrong end, the wrong end can *only* be totally the wrong one. The word "totally" is therefore redundant. 

But that is language as logic. Language is also affect and imagery and emotion. "To get hold of the wrong end of the stick" is a metaphorical way of saying "to misunderstand" -- and one *can*, of course, misunderstand things totally or only partially. It doesn't hurt though, I think, sometimes just to stand back a little and take a look at "the pictures behind the words". 

F

PS: Right, Jacinta too! (I failed to spot there were more replies)


----------



## Focalist

Edwin said:
			
		

> *The man that made it doesn't want it any more.*
> 
> Am I close, Focalist?


Spot on, Ed.

And three cheers for the "any more"! (I have a deep unreasoning prejudice against "anymore" -- does no-one know how to spell "any more" any more?) 

F


----------



## abc

Focalist,

How about anybody, anyhow, anywhere, anything etc.?  Might there be a difference between anymore and any more?

Cheers!


----------



## modgirl

There are various aspects to the English language.  There is usage, which is constantly changing, and there is grammar, for which there is a standard set of rules.

I'd be shocked to find a grammar book that endorsed this usage:  _Me, Bill, and Jane like to go swimming._

Not only should the author put himself last, but _me_ is an object pronoun, not a subject pronoun.

However, most unfortunately, the word _I_, for some strange reason, seems to be gaining in standard usage as an object pronoun.

We'd all agree that *The librarian gave the book to me* is correct and *The librarian gave the book to I* is not correct!  Yet, it seems to be vogue to say _The librarian gave the book to Bill and *I*_.  I cringe whenever I see that written!

Another use of bad grammar but acceptable usage is the abominable practice of using a plural pronoun to refer to a single person:  _An employee is not allowed to bring their spouse to the meeting._  Ouch!  Yet, one hears that usage everywhere, especially in the media.  Again, it's very bad grammar but  apparently acceptable usage.

Thus, when you say "correct English," it all depends on what part of English you mean -- grammar or usage.


----------



## Artrella

modgirl said:
			
		

> There are various aspects to the English language.  There is usage, which is constantly changing, and there is grammar, for which there is a standard set of rules.
> 
> I'd be shocked to find a grammar book that endorsed this usage:  _Me, Bill, and Jane like to go swimming._
> 
> Not only should the author put himself last, but _me_ is an object pronoun, not a subject pronoun.
> 
> However, most unfortunately, the word _I_, for some strange reason, seems to be gaining in standard usage as an object pronoun.
> 
> We'd all agree that *The librarian gave the book to me* is correct and *The librarian gave the book to I* is not correct!  Yet, it seems to be vogue to say _The librarian gave the book to Bill and *I*_.  I cringe whenever I see that written!
> 
> Another use of bad grammar but acceptable usage is the abominable practice of using a plural pronoun to refer to a single person:  _An employee is not allowed to bring their spouse to the meeting._  Ouch!  Yet, one hears that usage everywhere, especially in the media.  Again, it's very bad grammar but  apparently acceptable usage.
> 
> Thus, when you say "correct English," it all depends on what part of English you mean -- grammar or usage.





Hi Modgirl!!

As regards the use of "their" yes it is not grammatically correct because of the subject verb agreement rule.  But since in English you don't know when a word is feminine or masculine you'd have to say "the employee is not allowed to bring his/her children/spouse, etc" .  You must always say "he/she or his/her" so by saying "their" you solve that problem, though it's not grammatically correct. But as you said it's very useful, thus it is more and more used in everyday speech.

Question about "I" and "me".  When you make a phone call you say "This is me" or "This is I" >>> if I say my name >> "This is Meg" in which situation is "Meg" in *I* or in* me* (nominative or objective case?)


Thx!!


----------



## fetchezlavache

Focalist said:
			
		

> Spot on, Ed.
> 
> And three cheers for the "any more"! (I have a deep unreasoning prejudice against "anymore" -- does no-one know how to spell "any more" any more?)
> 
> F



and here again, i'm lost . i'd have used _any more_ if the sentence had gone 'The man that made it doesn't want it any more than he'd have wanted to ..blabla'. with the sentence being what it is, i know i'd have written 'anymore'.

can you explain then why it would have been wrong ? thanks in advance.


----------



## modgirl

Buenos dias Artrella!

There is one fact that many people don't realize.  The pronoun *he* has two meanings.  One is, of course, a male person.  However, the other is a person whose sex is unknown!  Unfortunately, some rather sensitive radicals who started the entire "their" nonsense conveniently forgot about the other meaning.



			
				Artrella said:
			
		

> Question about "I" and "me".  When you make a phone call you say "This is me" or "This is I"



*This is I* is grammatically correct because _is_ is a linking verb.   However, "it's me" is very colloquial, and although grammatically incorrect, is widely used.  Thus, the familiar Shakespearian quote, "Woe is me," should grammatically be "Woe is I!"

Sometimes, the incorrect word of phrase is uttered so often that the grammatically correct one sounds just wrong!


----------



## modgirl

abc said:
			
		

> Might there be a difference between anymore and any more?



There is a difference.  _Anymore_ means at the present time.  For instance, _"The bee's knees" is a phrase used many decades ago but is no longer in general use anymore._   It often indicates that something was accepted earlier but no longer is.  For example, _I used to like broccoli, but I don't anymore._ 

_Any_ and _more_ used together generally indicates an amount (more of something)  For example, _No thank you; I don't want any more food_  or _We don't need any more telephone solicitors in our lives._


----------



## Sybil

Hatuey, dear devil's advocate... ;-)

The place of standard English? Hm.. Let me guess...to help us all understand our regional differences (since there are many Englishes in the world), various jargons and slangs...


----------



## fetchezlavache

modgirl said:
			
		

> It often indicates that something was accepted earlier but no longer is.  For example, _I used to like broccoli, but I don't anymore._




well then, according to your example, modgirl, the sentence that focalist congratulated ed about was misspelled, if i understood you correctly it should have been _The man that made it doesn't want it anymore_. so now i'm even more confused.


----------



## modgirl

fetchezlavache said:
			
		

> if i understood you correctly it should have been _The man that made it doesn't want it anymore_.



I believe in that sentence, the word should be _anymore_.  A test for using two words might be to continue the sentence:  any more _what_?

For example:  I don't want any more.  (Any more what?  Any more money?  Any more advice?)

For example:  Do you want to hear this music?  Not anymore.  (It wouldn't make sense to say _any more what_)  It just means "not now."

Does that make it any clearer?


----------



## modgirl

Focalist said:
			
		

> does no-one know how to spell "any more" any more?)



I'm very curious about something.  Is no-one (hyphenated) in the British dictionary?  I've seen other British people spell it that way, as well, but it isn't standard American English.


----------



## Artrella

modgirl said:
			
		

> Buenos dias Artrella!
> 
> There is one fact that many people don't realize.  The pronoun *he* has two meanings.  One is, of course, a male person.  However, the other is a person whose sex is unknown!  Unfortunately, some rather sensitive radicals who started the entire "their" nonsense conveniently forgot about the other meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> *This is I* is grammatically correct because _is_ is a linking verb.   However, "it's me" is very colloquial, and although grammatically incorrect, is widely used.  Thus, the familiar Shakespearian quote, "Woe is me," should grammatically be "Woe is I!"
> 
> Sometimes, the incorrect word of phrase is uttered so often that the grammatically correct one sounds just wrong!





Thank you for your explanation!!!


----------



## jacinta

modgirl said:
			
		

> I'm very curious about something.  Is no-one (hyphenated) in the British dictionary?  I've seen other British people spell it that way, as well, but it isn't standard American English.




The proper spelling is no one or no-one (both are correct and neither is strictly British), but never noone.


----------



## modgirl

jacinta said:
			
		

> The proper spelling is no one or no-one (both are correct and neither is strictly British), but never noone.



Could you please point to an American source that cites the hyphen?  I don't mean to put you on the spot, but I've never heard of it!  Thanks.


----------



## jacinta

My dictionary:  the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.  Most unabridged dictionaries will have it.
My Webster's Abridged Dictionary does not show it.


----------



## modgirl

Very interesting!  I did check out the American Heritage Dictionary online, but it wasn't listed.  I'll have to check that out the next time I'm at the library.  

I use the unabridged Webster's New World Dictionary (the official dictionary of the Associated Press) and the word is not listed as a hyphen or alternate spelling at all.  Oddly enough, the only time I've seen it hyphenated is by British sources, never American ones.


----------



## Hatuey

Jacinta and Focault thank you for answering my posting. And thanks to the others too because I learn something from each.
H.


----------



## Artrella

jacinta said:
			
		

> My dictionary:  the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.  Most unabridged dictionaries will have it.
> My Webster's Abridged Dictionary does not show it.







 *no one* not any person 
_I called twice, but no one answered._(from Cambridge Dictionary of *American* English)

 *American Heritage* : no one

 *no one* (also NOBODY) no person:
_At first I thought there was no one in the room.
"Who was that on the phone?" "No one you would know."
I'd like to go to the concert but no one else (= no other person) wants to.
No-one told me she was ill._
*(from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)*


 *The NEW OXFORD Dictionary
OF ENGLISH*

*no one*
pronoun no person; not a single person: _no one came | she told no one she was going._


* no one  *    also *no-one  * 
No one means not a single person, or not a single member of a particular group or set.
_Everyone wants to be a hero, but no one wants to die...
_(c) HarperCollins Publishers.



 Main Entry:*no one*Functionronoun 
Date:before 12th century

 : no person : NOBODY
*Merriam - Webster's Collegiate Dictionary & Thesaurus*


*no one * /n wn/ pron.   Also *no-one*. E17. [f. NO a. + ONE pron.] No person; nobody.

---------------------------------------------------------
Tomado de Oxford Talking Dictionary
Copyright © 1998 The Learning Company, Inc. Reservados todos los derechos.


----------



## John Tittensor

"Totally" — superfluous/wide of the mark in the written sentence, but good, emphatic spoken English.


----------



## Brioche

modgirl said:
			
		

> Buenos dias Artrella!
> 
> *This is I* is grammatically correct because _is_ is a linking verb. However, "it's me" is very colloquial, and although grammatically incorrect, is widely used. Thus, the familiar Shakespearian quote, "Woe is me," should grammatically be "Woe is I!"
> !


 
*"Woe is me" is not incorrect.*

Do you really think that Shakespeare was saying "I am woe"?

He is saying "Woe is upon me" = affliction is upon me.
He is quoting the Bible.

If you look at the Bible as it was translated in Shakespeare's time: [Geneva Bible]
Job 10:15 
_If I haue done wickedly, *wo vnto me:* if I haue done righteously, I will not lift vp mine head, being full of confusion, because I see mine affliction._

In the King James Version:
Job 10:15 
_If I be wicked,* woe unto me*; and if I be righteous, yet will I not lift up my head. I am full of confusion; therefore see thou mine affliction;_

Psalms 120:5.
_*Woe is me*, that I sojourn in Mesech, that I dwell in the tents of Kedar! _

Jeremiah 4:31.
_For I have heard a voice as of a woman in travail, and the anguish as of her that bringeth forth her first child, the voice of the daughter of Zion, that bewaileth herself, that spreadeth her hands, saying, *Woe is me now!* for my soul is wearied because of murderers._


----------



## MarcB

All of the comments and the article make good points. I think there is such a think as correct English and any other language. To me that means, it is what allows us to understand each other despite centuries of geographic separation. That does not mean we can not accept the many varieties of the language that already exist and are accepted. Also we teach English to our children not only the spoken form they learn in life's early years but in school where they learn rules. This also allows us to communicate on a higher level than simple meaningless phrases. We can solve complex problems and further knowledge, science and the quality of life. The language is also evolving and again its study is necessary. We can if you wish use another word rather than correct but the result is the same.


----------



## Brioche

If there is no such thing as correct English - or any other language, then why do we bother with this forum?


----------



## MarcB

Brioche said:
			
		

> If there is no such thing as correct English - or any other language, then why do we bother with this forum?


Yes we agree, good point.


----------



## nycphotography

Brioche said:
			
		

> If there is no such thing as correct English - or any other language, then why do we bother with this forum?


 
I always say (my general rule):  There might not be a single correct way of doing something, but there are plenty of WRONG ways.

So then:  While there may not be one single correct English, there are plenty of INCORRECT ones.  Particularly when  a specific context is assumed.


----------



## A90Six

*Anymore* is time related and is generally placed at the end of the clause or sentence. _"He does not live here anymore."_
*Any more* is item related. In this case, the word *any *gives added emphasis, but could be omitted. _"I do not want any more bread."_

*No one *is correct. The hyphen is a fairly recent addition in an attempt to concatenate the two words - as with everyone, someone and anyone - to denote the pronoun.
The words *no one*, *everyone* and *anyone *are pronouns meaning nobody, everybody and anybody, and can be used only of people. *No one*, *every one*, and *any one* are counts. _"No one child is better than another." "Every one of the cakes was purple. "Five could arrive at any one time."_

The reply to, *"Is that Meg?"* is *"It is she."* This reply is for purists only and sounds very effected today. The question enquires of the subject in the third person and should be answered in the same manner. If the question had been worded, *"Are you Meg?"*, Meg becomes the second person subject and so should be answered in the first person subject, *"It is I!" *This again is very formal and would sound better if answered as *"Yes, I am."*


----------



## fnarg7

Actually, there is no such thing as US English.

I'm surprised that when I registered for this forum I was asked to select a language - and the web designer had found it necessary to list my language as "English (US)".  Not what I would have expected from a 'word reference' website.

For a related discourse see:
stephaniemiller.com/declarationofrevocation.htm[

This may help.

thankyou.


----------



## maxiogee

fnarg7 said:
			
		

> This may help.



Not a lot!
I think very, very little — if any — of John Cleese's entire life's _oeuvre_ is meant to be taken seriously.  

You might care to spend some time browsing among the threads here before declaring that there is no such thing as US English. I see you've not yet been a full day here.


----------



## Brioche

David said:
			
		

> "In fact, there is no such thing as Correct English, and there never has been. That's why David Crystal, one of the language's leading scholars, titles his new history THE STORIES OF ENGLISH (Overlook, $35), plural. As Crystal shows, the notion of correctness emerged only in the late 18th century, ....
> 
> The standard, in speech as in conduct, was politeness, defined by Samuel Johnson (himself one of the pundits) as "elegance of manners; gentility; good breeding." Correct English was upper-class English."


 
Have you noticed that these journalists and academics who loudly proclaim that there is no Correct English, adhere strictly to all the rules, conventions and strictures of Standard English?


----------



## cuchuflete

fnarg7 said:
			
		

> Actually, there is no such thing as US English.



I wonder if this asseveration is about the title "US English" or the language itself.  If the former, you are welcome to call it
anything you please.  We often use AE in these forums.

If you are declaring that the US does not have its own spoken and written forms of English, identifiably distinct from the English spoken and written, for example, in the UK, I have to wonder what language I speak.  

You may call it a variant, a dialect, or a regional form.  That's a matter of your preferred naming conventions, and whether you are speaking as a professional linguist or just using a colloquial description.   If you really don't think it exists, please tell us what nearly 300 million people speak in the US.


----------



## timpeac

Brioche said:
			
		

> Have you noticed that these journalists and academics who loudly proclaim that there is no Correct English, adhere strictly to all the rules, conventions and strictures of Standard English?


I tried that once in a linguistics essay. I used lots of "colloquial" grammar (split infinitives, prepositions at the end etc) I spelt "speech" as "speach" throughout and various other changes. It got absolutely slammed!(don't expect tutors to always have the good reaction you were thinking of).


----------



## suzi br

modgirl said:
			
		

> Buenos dias Artrella!
> 
> There is one fact that many people don't realize. The pronoun *he* has two meanings. One is, of course, a male person. However, the other is a person whose sex is unknown! Unfortunately, some rather sensitive radicals who started the entire "their" nonsense conveniently forgot about the other meaning.
> !


 
You see - I totally disagree with this. The mytht that the "male embraces the female" is totally debunked. 

e.g. The great ape breast feeds his young? Of course HE doesnt. 

I dont see myself as a "rather sensitive radical", I see myself as a woman who has been justifiabley irriated by the fact that text books, job adverts and masses of legal documents down the ages were written as though I didn't exist. 

I am pleased that the language is changing. 

I am pleased that people advertising jobs cannot write them as though *only *men are invited to apply.

I am pleased that school text books on history and sociology etc can no longer sound as though *only *male lives and experiences matter. 

The whole issue of being aware of gender bias in language has forced people to consider their prejudices and move us to greater awareness of inclusivity. I'm sure some people only pay lip-serivce to it, but for others the over-all effct has been very liberating.

Language DOES change, you know "modgirl" (strange name for someone with such old-fashioned views!).
Or do you still address your intimates with the old pronouns thou and thee? I imagine *that* change caused as much flurry back then as your crocodile-tears about people using a gender-free pronoun show now!


----------



## Yôn

suzi br said:
			
		

> I am pleased that the language is changing.
> 
> I am pleased that people advertising jobs cannot write them as though *only *men are invited to apply.
> 
> I am pleased that school text books on history and sociology etc can no longer sound as though *only *male lives and experiences matter.



And YOU are ruining the language! He IS infact also a neuter (sp?) pronoun!~ It has been for centuries. Do not try to act as if you really think the people writing centuries ago had no idea that females existed. Do you think they were that stupid?

Consider Spanish, there are two pronouns (él, ella). When the gender is not known (and if a pronoun has been used), it will be él (he). In English, HE has long stood in as the neuter (sp?) pronoun!

It is much from folks like you that our language is being turned into some clumbsy "he/she" monotone computer programming language sounding garbage! 

I recall my speech teacher (FEMALE) who gave a list of words containing the three letters MAN. She said many feminists were trying to have them removed. She then said at the end of her schpeel (sp?) that what she thought of the whole situation could be summed up by the word at the bottom of the list: manure!!

Not a singe FEMALE (or male for that matter) agreed with ANY of the conventions that the teacher was teaching us (and, as I have shown, the teacher did not agree with them either!) Nonetheless, the teacher was forced to teach them to us because they are starting to become the new politically correct standard being brought on by a handful of people who obviously have nothing better to do than complain.

I side with my FEMALE teacher on this one, and must believe that what you are saying is nothing more than a puddle of crap.

I am sorry to sound so evil, and perhaps as though I am pouncing (am I). I would hope you can take what I mean seriously, as I do mean it in as serious and calm a tone I can take on the subject. 

I mean, if a person cannot even have his words, what is there left for him to live for?




Jon


----------



## maxiogee

Yôn said:
			
		

> And YOU are ruining the language! He IS infact also a neuter (sp?) pronoun!~ It has been for centuries. Do not try to act as if you really think the people writing centuries ago had no idea that females existed. Do you think they were that stupid?



Ooooh, keep your shirt on!
Of course the people writing centuries ago knew females existed, they were men's property (chattels) and had no legal standing. They took court cases, if necessary either through their father, their husband, or their nearest male relative. They could not inherit.

"He" was used in legal documents because they applied to men.


----------



## timpeac

> And YOU are ruining the language! He IS infact also a neuter (sp?) pronoun!~ It has been for centuries. Do not try to act as if you really think the people writing centuries ago had no idea that females existed. Do you think they were that stupid?


 
Can I please request that everyone keeps a civil tone in this discussion. We may disagree with each other, even vehemently, but personal attacks are not allowed. Such posts will be deleted in future.

Timpeac (moderator).


----------



## panjandrum

Jon,
Please take care to follow the forum rules in your posts.

The language changes as the people who use the language changes.

It is no longer acceptable to use what is currently understood as gender-specific language in many contexts. In job advertising here, it is illegal.

You do your argument no service either by the tone of your post or your degenerating to the ridiculous manure example - OK for a stand-up comic, but hardly persuasive.


----------



## suzi br

I agree with the moderator's about Yon's tone - but find him absolutely typical of the type who thinks there is some idealised time when language was "fixed" and immuteable, usually some time just before their birth. 

That view shows a stark disregard for the facts of how language evolves and how language reflects the social needs of the times. 

Language changes, that is a FACT - you can rail against it as much as you like, but then, that's not new either! You can find people exclaiming down the ages. 

I, however, agree with Caxton, in the 15th Century. He faced the puzzler of what to use for "English" when he was trying to make his printing business a success. He was aware of the enormous range of varieties that English has always encompassed and he concluded:

*"But in my iudgemente the comyn termes that be dayli vsed ben lyghter to be vnderstonde than the olde and auncyent englysshe."*


----------



## emma42

It is true that "he" is, technically, neuter, as well as masculine. However, this is a moot point. Many intelligent people will understand "he" used as "he or she" to be sexist and wholly inappropriate, if not ridiculous. There is no need for it. I use "they" (I don't care what the purists say) or he/she or she/he.

Good quote from Caxton, suzi.


----------



## timpeac

suzi br said:
			
		

> I, however, agree with Caxton, in the 15th Century. He faced the puzzler of what to use for "English" when he was trying to make his printing business a success. He was aware of the enormous range of varieties that English has always encompassed and he concluded:
> 
> *"But in my iudgemente the comyn termes that be dayli vsed ben lyghter to be vnderstonde than the olde and auncyent englysshe."*


Yes - I'm afraid I can't remember the specifics but I'm sure I read about how some of the choices he made directly fixed the spelling or variation of word that we still use today.


----------



## modus.irrealis

How come people are saying that "he" is/was neuter? "It" derives from the neuter form of the pronoun and plus, I don't know of any language that has a neuter gender and uses that to refer to people in general. Greek, e.g., uses the masculine, and the neuter would be insulting. I know what people mean when they use it, but I'm wondering now if "neuter" is commonly used in this sense?

Thymios


----------



## emma42

I am saying that "he" is/was neuter because it, I would say, was.  Others would say is.  Others would not know.


----------



## timpeac

modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> How come people are saying that "he" is/was neuter? "It" derives from the neuter form of the pronoun and plus, I don't know of any language that has a neuter gender and uses that to refer to people in general.


Das Volk, German.

It is very dangerous to imagine there is a link between the human category of sex and the language category of gender. With Latin languages, and many others, the link holds up much of the time - which is of course why the linguistic terms masculine, feminine etc were coined in the first place - but it is nothing more than a trend. You could rename "masculine" "feminine" and "neuter" as "fred" "bobby" and "john" if you liked and simply say that in general "fred" nouns refer to male people etc.

There are numerous other examples in language of this link being tenuous. Imagine Italian "Lei" being used for formal "you" for example (its other meaning, without a capital, is "she"! - you wouldn't suggest that whenever you address an Italian respectfully you are calling them female)


----------



## Yôn

suzi br said:
			
		

> I agree with the moderator's about Yon's tone - but find him absolutely typical of the type who thinks there is some idealised time when language was "fixed" and immuteable, usually some time just before their birth.
> 
> That view shows a stark disregard for the facts of how language evolves and how language reflects the social needs of the times.
> 
> Language changes, that is a FACT - you can rail against it as much as you like, but then, that's not new either! You can find people exclaiming down the ages.
> 
> I, however, agree with Caxton, in the 15th Century. He faced the puzzler of what to use for "English" when he was trying to make his printing business a success. He was aware of the enormous range of varieties that English has always encompassed and he concluded:
> 
> "But in my iudgemente the comyn termes that be dayli vsed ben lyghter to be vnderstonde than the olde and auncyent englysshe."




I agree.  An evolution of the language into THEY/THEIR/etc. would be by me just fine.  The problem I have is that people are intentionally trying to change it.  If they want a neuter pronoun, the least they could do would be to invent one, instead of trying to use the wrong one.

I am a little upset with what you said about the HE being used because of the "male embraces the female" idea.  From my American Heritage Dictionary:

HE - Old English HE - (see KO  in Appendix). KO - stem of demonstrative pronoun meaning "this."

The use has nothing to do with the thoughts of male dominance. 



			
				panjandrum said:
			
		

> The language changes as the people who use the language changes.




But in this case it is a small number of people deciding what is acceptable and what is not.



			
				modu.irrealis said:
			
		

> "It" derives from the neuter form of the pronoun and plus, I don't know of any language that has a neuter gender and uses that to refer to people in general.



Correct me someone if I'm wrong, but HE and IT (I do believe) have the same origin.  Also, Spanish uses SU (which can mean either HIS, or HER).



			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> It is very dangerous to imagine there is a link between the human category of sex and the language category of gender.




I would have to say that is part of the point I am trying to make.




Sorry to have offended anyone,
Jon


----------



## emma42

Why would using "they" be any more "wrong" than "inventing" a new pronoun?

"They" as a neuter pronoun is already widely used in England, so nobody is "deciding what is acceptable and what is not" for everyone.  It simply wouldn't work.  If one were to "invent" one, well, that would be strange, wouldn't it?  Far stranger than promulgating the use of an already widely accepted usage.


----------



## Yôn

emma42 said:
			
		

> Why would using "they" be any more "wrong" than "inventing" a new pronoun?
> 
> "They" as a neuter pronoun is already widely used in England, so nobody is "deciding what is acceptable and what is not" for everyone. It simply wouldn't work. If one were to "invent" one, well, that would be strange, wouldn't it? Far stranger than promulgating the use of an already widely accepted usage.



Yes, you're right.  Inventing one would be stupid.  In fact, I always use "they" as the third person singular anyway.  I also find it strange when people use "he."  The point I'm trying to make is that there is technically NOTHING wrong with it, as so many people would claim.  It's like trying to replace HISTORY with HERSTORY! 




Jon


----------



## emma42

I do see your point, and I am very pleased that you use "they" as well!  

I disagree that it's like trying to replace "history" with "herstory", though, as the roots of "neuter" he and "masculine" he are linguistically close, whereas "herstory" is, in my view, a nonsense.  Having said that, I can see the radical feminist point of view.  When one has been oppressed so  badly for so long, perspectives may become cloudy.


----------



## modus.irrealis

timpeac said:
			
		

> Das Volk, German.


That should teach me to be more specific in what I say.  I meant is there a language that uses the netuer forms of a pronoun to refer to people? Does German ever use "es" to refer to people?



> It is very dangerous to imagine there is a link between the human category of sex and the language category of gender. With Latin languages, and many others, the link holds up much of the time - which is of course why the linguistic terms masculine, feminine etc were coined in the first place - but it is nothing more than a trend. You could rename "masculine" "feminine" and "neuter" as "fred" "bobby" and "john" if you liked and simply say that in general "fred" nouns refer to male people etc.



I can agree with that for the most part. To toss in an odd example I've seen in a Greek reference grammar was the following, said to a girl:

Poios einai kalo koritsi? = Who is [a] good girl?

Here you have the person spoken to being a female, the question word poios being masculine and girl being a neuter noun, all referring to the same thing.  And it seems to me that grammatical gender wins out over sex when a pronoun refers to a noun (at least in the languages I'm familiar with).

But the situation in English is, I think, extremely different because it has no grammatical gender. This whole situation has been explained to me, quite reasonably I think, that once gender dissapeared from English, English speakers reanalyzed the remnants it left behind in terms of sex, so that "he" is now a male pronoun and there's a disconnect when it's used to refer to females.



> There are numerous other examples in language of this link being tenuous. Imagine Italian "Lei" being used for formal "you" for example (its other meaning, without a capital, is "she"! - you wouldn't suggest that whenever you address an Italian respectfully you are calling them female)


That's a very good point. I think in the end there's little relation, if any, between linguistic gender and say sexism, since there are many sexist cultures whose language has no gender at all. And the ways of making languages less sexist vary too, e.g. in English we're getting rid of female only nouns like actress while I'm told in French they're doing the exact opposite, so the two can't be that closely related.



			
				Yôn said:
			
		

> Correct me someone if I'm wrong, but HE and IT (I do believe) have the same origin.


They're both derived from the forms of the Old English 3rd person pronoun, he from the masculine, and it from the neuter. I was just wondering about the choice of the word neuter to describe "he."

Thymios


----------



## emma42

Good points, modus and Tim, particularly about not confusing linguistic gender with human sex. However, the argument for neuter "he" will never be won for me, notwithstanding its linguistic origins, because of the _perception_ of it being sexist. I read it as sexist very early on in my reading career and choose not to use it. I can remember using it when much younger and feeling very uncomfortable.

I am aware that there was a recent thread about this very subject, and hope I have not strayed off topic.


----------



## timpeac

modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> That should teach me to be more specific in what I say.  I meant is there a language that uses the netuer forms of a pronoun to refer to people? Does German ever use "es" to refer to people?


Well, Fraülein (Miss) and Mädchen (girl) are neuter (because they are diminutives and all diminutives are neuter - but that in itself is a good example of why the sex-gender correlation is a trend at best). Similar examples are "la victime" or "le professeur" in standard French (no matter the sex of the victim or teacher). You would use the according gender agreements for adjectives and pronouns etc.


			
				modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> I can agree with that for the most part. To toss in an odd example I've seen in a Greek reference grammar was the following, said to a girl:
> 
> Poios einai kalo koritsi? = Who is [a] good girl?
> 
> Here you have the person spoken to being a female, the question word poios being masculine and girl being a neuter noun, all referring to the same thing.  And it seems to me that grammatical gender wins out over sex when a pronoun refers to a noun (at least in the languages I'm familiar with).
> 
> But the situation in English is, I think, extremely different because it has no grammatical gender. This whole situation has been explained to me, quite reasonably I think, that once gender dissapeared from English, English speakers reanalyzed the remnants it left behind in terms of sex, so that "he" is now a male pronoun and there's a disconnect when it's used to refer to females.


I don't really see why we need to assume that. Take "they" that we have also been discussing. This is commonly - much more commonly than "he" in spoken language - used to refer to a person of unknown sex, and yet of course this doubles as meaning the third person plural. I think you can say that there is a relatively close correlation of sex to gender in English pronouns, but it is not absolute. We don't really need it to be either. I think as human beings we like to be able to put things in boxes and have easy to follow rules, but in this instance I think the easiest thing is to say that "they" can be plural or singular (and note in either case it is non-gender specific) and that "he" can (and more often does) relate to the human male, but can refer to a person of unknown or unspecified sex. I know what you mean by the disconnect, though. I find it odd, which is one reason I prefer "they". Of course, on a logical basis you might expect the fact that "they" is used more often to refer to the plural for it to sound strange when used for the singular - but this doesn't seem to be the case, since it is very common in spoken language.



			
				modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> That's a very good point. I think in the end there's little relation, if any, between linguistic gender and say sexism, since there are many sexist cultures whose language has no gender at all. And the ways of making languages less sexist vary too, e.g. in English we're getting rid of female only nouns like actress while I'm told in French they're doing the exact opposite, so the two can't be that closely related.They're both derived from the forms of the Old English 3rd person pronoun, he from the masculine, and it from the neuter. I was just wondering about the choice of the word neuter to describe "he."
> 
> Thymios


Well, I think that we can put too much store it etymology. At the end of the day until we read a book, or were told, or studied it how did we know the gender of the words that these pronouns are descended from? We didn't, of course. We come across the word "they" meaning 3rd person plural so often that on the less frequent (but still common) use meaning "someone of unknown sex" some of us are tempted to think that we have hijacked the plural usage as a make-shift option. If we use the pronoun "he" to mean someone of unknown gender then it also has that gender. Let's not forget that when we say "someone has left his/her/their pen on the desk" then no matter which pronoun we choose the person who left the pen was either male or female (ok ok 99.999% of the time) so a truely "neuter" pronoun would not be any more appropriate than a masculine, feminine or plural one!

To tie all this back to the principal topic of "no correct English" I think that the issues involved in analysing language are so complex that you can make an argument, at least of sorts, to support pretty much any usage. There is no cosmological constant of correct language use (so many different languages have different methods to express the same concept, and sometimes two languages have the same grammatical way to express an idea but in one language the usage is accepted as "standard" and considered "colloquial" or "sub-standard" in another. Trends, fashion and, on occasion, pure love of rule making in my opinion.


----------



## Yôn

modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> They're both derived from the forms of the Old English 3rd person pronoun, he from the masculine, and it from the neuter. I was just wondering about the choice of the word neuter to describe "he."



No no no, as I've pointed out, they're from the SAME word, not different forms of one.

But, this is becoming off-topic.  Maybe someone wants to start a topic on language, gender, and its effects on sexism.




Jon


----------



## Yôn

Actor/actress, waiter/waitress are other problems altogether.  Getting rid of these forms just means you must write extra words when you want to tell a story.  You can't say "actor/actress", but you have to say "male actor/female actress."

This is down-right ridiculous, but again off-topic.




Jon


----------



## Yôn

emma42 said:
			
		

> I do see your point, and I am very pleased that you use "they" as well!
> 
> I disagree that it's like trying to replace "history" with "herstory", though, as the roots of "neuter" he and "masculine" he are linguistically close, whereas "herstory" is, in my view, a nonsense. Having said that, I can see the radical feminist point of view. When one has been oppressed so badly for so long, perspectives may become cloudy.




I do not believe that the women of today are oppressed like the women of years ago who couldn't vote, hold office, sue in court, etc.  Any oppression that exists today has certainly not been "so badly for so long."




Jon


----------



## modus.irrealis

timpeac said:
			
		

> Well, Fraülein (Miss) and Mädchen (girl) are neuter (because they are diminutives and all diminutives are neuter - but that in itself is a good example of why the sex-gender correlation is a trend at best). Similar examples are "la victime" or "le professeur" in standard French (no matter the sex of the victim or teacher). You would use the according gender agreements for adjectives and pronouns etc.


But would a German, on seeing a young girl, say (hopefully there's no errors, but I think my question is still clear) "Es ist ein schön Mädchen" or "Sie ist ein schön Mädchen"? For French, I'm fairly sure that if the victim is a man, you'd still say "Il est la victime," and I'm pretty sure that you would continue to refer to him with "il" in something like "mais il ne l'avoue pas."



> I don't really see why we need to assume that. Take "they" that we have also been discussing. This is commonly - much more commonly than "he" in spoken language - used to refer to a person of unknown sex, and yet of course this doubles as meaning the third person plural. I think you can say that there is a relatively close correlation of sex to gender in English pronouns, but it is not absolute. We don't really need it to be either. I think as human beings we like to be able to put things in boxes and have easy to follow rules, but in this instance I think the easiest thing is to say that "they" can be plural or singular (and note in either case it is non-gender specific) and that "he" can (and more often does) relate to the human male, but can refer to a person of unknown or unspecified sex. I know what you mean by the disconnect, though. I find it odd, which is one reason I prefer "they". Of course, on a logical basis you might expect the fact that "they" is used more often to refer to the plural for it to sound strange when used for the singular - but this doesn't seem to be the case, since it is very common in spoken language.


I'm not sure we disagree. I think that an objective analysis of spoken English (or at least of my idiolect), "he" would be a male singular pronoun, "she" female singular, and "they" would be both a sex-not-specified singular and human plural. For me, "he" is marked as male and I don't use it in a sex-not-specified way (although I do have a passive knowledge that it is/has been used this way), which is why I understand why people would finds its generic use uncomfortable.



> To tie all this back to the principal topic of "no correct English" I think that the issues involved in analysing language are so complex that you can make an argument, at least of sorts, to support pretty much any usage. There is no cosmological constant of correct language use (so many different languages have different methods to express the same concept, and sometimes two languages have the same grammatical way to express an idea but in one language the usage is accepted as "standard" and considered "colloquial" or "sub-standard" in another. Trends, fashion and, on occasion, pure love of rule making in my opinion.


Hopefully not any usage . My spin on it, though, is that speaking in terms of "correctness" is probably not the best approach. Some language use is acceptable and some is not, but acceptability heavily depends on context. For some reason we have this urge to pick out what's acceptable in one specific context and call that correct, and strangely enough the best (but what's that supposed to mean? ) language use is usually pushed aside as "literary." So maybe I'm in the no-correct-English camp.



			
				Yôn said:
			
		

> No no no, as I've pointed out, they're from the SAME word, not different forms of one.


This may just be a terminology issue (what counts as the same word), but the 3rd person pronoun in Old English had, as singular nominative forms, masc. he, fem. heo / hio, and neut. hit. I don't think this is completely off-topic because like timpeac points out, people often use etymology to argue what's correct and what's not. But I find that people rarely take that argument all the way to the end -- at least I haven't seen anyone argue you shouldn't say "I saw him" because "him" was originally a dative and not an accusative.


----------



## Yôn

I'm not sure what to tell you about origin.  I'm going by what my dictionary says, and it lists them as having the same origin.





Jon


----------



## KittyCatty

Him as done it don't want it no more 





> Just being curious, Focalist : could you please tell me how you would translate that sentence into standard English?


Did nobody else think that the sentence should have been "translated" into:
He that *did* it doesn't want it anymore?
In poor English people say "I done it" for "I did it". I would need context to prove that done means "made" here.
And, to confirm, to get the wrong end of the stick is a popular BE phrase (is it used in AE?I guessed by your unfamiliarity that it isn't, jacinta) and it means to get the wrong idea. So a woman would walk in to see her boyfriend and her best friend on the sofa together and assume there's something going on. She'd have the wrong end of the stick if he was just comforting her or something like that.


----------



## cuchuflete

Yôn said:
			
		

> I do not believe that the women of today are oppressed like the women of years ago who couldn't vote, hold office, sue in court, etc.  Any oppression that exists today has certainly not been "so badly for so long."
> Jon


This may be political philosophy, or anthropology, or sociology
or personal opinion of some other "oh gee!", but it doesn't belong in a discussion of "No such thing as correct English".

If you wish to open a new thread in another forum to discuss the evolution of language, or the relative reduction in oppression of women, or the importance of parsely in a healthy diet, please do so.  Further off-topic remarks, however enlightening, will be summarily deleted.

Cuchuflete,
Moderator and Curmudgeon


----------

