• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

'They' enters the English language as a singular pronoun

So, in respect of double negatives having the opposite effect in English, this does follow logic in that you avoid repeating yourself. If you repeat yourself, you've cancelled out what you have just said. For example, 'I do not have no bananas'.


Oh I missed this doozy at first read!

You're genuinely unware that a) it's perfectly grammatically-acceptable (and stylistically-acceptable as well) to use double negatives in English, and b) the meaning conveyed by a double negative can most certainly be different and distinguishable from the single positive? Wow.

For example:

Person A: Dave has no idea about the Syrian conflict.

Person B: Dave does not have no idea about the Syrian conflict: in fact, he just completed a doctoral thesis on that very subject.

And note that the meaning conveyed by Person B's first clause is different from: "Dave has an idea (or even "some idea") about the Syrian conflict"


Fortunately I went to school in a tiny mud hut in Papua New Guinea where my English teacher was the son of a local tribal warlord who had once been taught three English sentences by a passing missionary. What's more, I was top of my class and always scored 176% in my English exams.
 
No. In English, the constructions are either/or and neither/nor.

One might indeed say "I am neither fat or thin", but if one did, one would be at odds with actual conventions of English speech.

You may want to consider spending a lot more time asking English speakers how English is spoken, and a lot less time telling English speakers how they speak English.


To quote Vixen herself, with this quite astonishing piece of braggadocio from her post #198 in this very thread (my bolding for emphasis):

"I have been speaking English since age four. I was almost always top in French (often getting 98 - 100% in the exams) and usually top or near top in English and German (in a class which had a couple of German and Swiss descent pupils) in the creme de la creme stream of a sought after grammar school*. Do you know, I was the English teachers' pet. They liked me because I showed appreciation of the works of literature they put in front of us. The culture was extremely competitive and we were expected to do at least two hours homework every day. Although I was consistently top or near top in every subject I was particularly good at languages and I believe it's because I have have a logical bent."

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


* For clarification, Vixen's mention of a grammar school indicates that she received secondary education (10-18 years) in the British schools system, and therefore almost certainly had all lessons entirely conducted in the English language (apart, obviously, from parts of lessons in non-English languages for English-speaking pupils)
 
So, in respect of double negatives having the opposite effect in English, this does follow logic in that you avoid repeating yourself. If you repeat yourself, you've cancelled out what you have just said. For example, 'I do not have no bananas'. In Finnish, you can use double negatives because the logic that is being followed is that negative words in a sentence takes a consistently negative form.

So you see, logic is tied up in language construction.

"I don't got no bananas."

"You don't know nothing."

Neither of these are grammatically correct, but they are common dialect, and easily scrutable as single negatives. Your appeal to the logic of natural languages continues to fail.
 
"I don't got no bananas."

"You don't know nothing."

Neither of these are grammatically correct, but they are common dialect, and easily scrutable as single negatives. Your appeal to the logic of natural languages continues to fail.

English is actually very logical indeed. For maths follows the same rules: a positive and a positive equals a positive; a negative and a negative equals a positive; a negative and a positive equals a negative; a positive and a negative equals a negative.

We b'aint be talking about no dialect.
 
If 'they' is a singular pronoun, it would presumably be 'they was'.
If 'you were' is correct when 'you' is a singular pronoun, then 'they were' can be correct when 'they' is a singular pronoun.

We take no issue with 'you were' when it's used in the singular, so why should anyone have issue with 'they were' in similar circumstances?
 
English is actually very logical indeed. For maths follows the same rules: a positive and a positive equals a positive; a negative and a negative equals a positive; a negative and a positive equals a negative; a positive and a negative equals a negative.

We b'aint be talking about no dialect.



Why are you unilaterally deciding that dialect somehow "doesn't count"?

Once again, the rules of language were not handed down by some (non-existent) God. The purpose of all language - whether written or spoken - is nothing more or less than to communicate ideas, emotions, instructions, implorations, and so on. And in that respect, ALL that is important is that the communicator uses language in a way that his intended audience understands (that is to say, understands the message the communicator is trying to convey).

As just one example: there was a time - and not so very long ago - when written or spoken use of internal-apostrophe joined words such as "don't" or "I'm" was considered - by ludicrous grammar Nazis, that is - to be almost beyond vulgar, and most certainly improper and undesirable. Even in casual conversation or a private letter. I suspect that the Vixens of those times would have been in the vanguard of those "arguments". Yet now of course everything from esteemed broadsheet newspapers to Prime Ministers to the Monarch uses precisely these types of word.

Oh and with your (incorrect and ignorant) pedant's hat on, would you consider a towering work of literary fiction such as (The Adventures of) Huckleberry Finn to be somehow unworthy - written as it is in Missouri/Mississippi vernacular? Was this book by chance one of those works of literature about which you claim so memorably (and highly amusingly) to have been a "English teachers' pet" owing to your sense of appreciation......?
 
Last edited:
"I don't got no bananas."

"You don't know nothing."

Neither of these are grammatically correct, but they are common dialect, and easily scrutable as single negatives. Your appeal to the logic of natural languages continues to fail.



Yes. And this is the salient part. If the person saying or writing those phrases can reasonably expect his/her/their (:D) intended audience to understand that a single negative is the intended meaning, then it's perfectly acceptable usage. End of story.

Surprisingly, this topic appears to be something about which Vixen's posts claim to demonstrate a lot of knowledge and understanding, but which in fact demonstrate very little of either. Most unusual.
 
Why are you unilaterally deciding that dialect somehow "doesn't count"?

Once again, the rules of language were not handed down by some (non-existent) God. The purpose of all language - whether written or spoken - is nothing more or less than to communicate ideas, emotions, instructions, implorations, and so on. And in that respect, ALL that is important is that the communicator uses language in a way that his intended audience understands (that is to say, understands the message the communicator is trying to convey).

As just one example: there was a time - and not so very long ago - when written or spoken use of internal-apostrophe joined words such as "don't" or "I'm" was considered - by ludicrous grammar Nazis, that is - to be almost beyond vulgar, and most certainly improper and undesirable. Even in casual conversation or a private letter. I suspect that the Vixens of those times would have been in the vanguard of those "arguments". Yet now of course everything from esteemed broadsheet newspapers to Prime Ministers to the Monarch uses precisely these types of word.

Oh and with your (incorrect and ignorant) pedant's hat on, would you consider a towering work of literary fiction such as (The Adventures of) Huckleberry Finn to be somehow unworthy - written as it is in Missouri/Mississippi vernacular? Was this book by chance one of those works of literature about which you claim so memorably (and highly amusingly) to have been a "English teachers' pet" owing to your sense of appreciation......?


Stop quoting me out of context. Bruto (IIRC) pointed out English was 'only her second language' implying my grasp of English was less than perfect. Sorry, if my rebuttal to him that my English is about as perfect as one can get has triggered some kind of envious reaction in some.

BTW Mark Twain was a wordsmith master, which is why he can be creative with the language.

Can you really imagine a semi-literate person writing The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn or even vocally telling the story and managing to keep in character and on plot?
 
Last edited:
Stop quoting me out of context. Bruto (IIRC) pointed out English was 'only her second language' implying my grasp of English was less than perfect. Sorry, if my rebuttal to him that my English is about as perfect as one can get has triggered some kind of envious reaction in some.



I know it's pantomime season, but this level of self-satirisation is even more hilarious than the best pantomime ever was. Thanks!


ETA: The post of yours to which I'd been responding had nothing whatsoever to do with any discussion about English being a second language. Rather, the post of yours was in turn addressing a post which had (correctly) pointed out that dialect phrases such as "I don't got no bananas" are perfectly acceptable since the intended audience can easily understand them to concern single negatives (as the writer/speaker would have intended). Had you just not even bothered to follow the post trail back, Vixen, or were you instead deliberately trying to distort, misrepresent and mislead?
 
Last edited:
Oh and I think the observation about English as a second language* was intended as a possible explanation for your *ahem* "less than perfect" grasp of English.


* Not that anyone could be blamed for thinking that, given the continual amount of spurious, irrelevant and downright odd references to Finland.......
 
I know it's pantomime season, but this level of self-satirisation is even more hilarious than the best pantomime ever was. Thanks!

Watch out guys, you're not allowed to explain how you came to be an English speaker without the bullies piling in.
 
Watch out guys, you're not allowed to explain how you came to be an English speaker without the bullies piling in.



Stop it! My sides are (not literally*) splitting! BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


* Just in case idioms and common phrases are also on Vixen's banned list.....
 
Oh and by the way: you "came to be an English speaker" by growing up and going to school in England. That's what you've been telling us in this thread, anyhow. Unless you now want to claim something different.
 
Stop quoting me out of context. Bruto (IIRC) pointed out English was 'only her second language' implying my grasp of English was less than perfect. Sorry, if my rebuttal to him that my English is about as perfect as one can get has triggered some kind of envious reaction in some.

BTW Mark Twain was a wordsmith master, which is why he can be creative with the language.

Can you really imagine a semi-literate person writing The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn or even vocally telling the story and managing to keep in character and on plot?
If you don't like quoting out of context, perhaps they you should do others the same favor, and while you're at it, avoid actually misquoting them.

What I said was "I'm pretty sure it's a second language, and it's usually pretty good..." and never inserted the word "only." I repeat that I do believe your English is generally quite good, and as a result I would not criticize your usage when you're simply making statements. I feel free to criticize it when you are claiming to be an expert on usage. It is not perfect, nor is mine. Though I try to write correctly, I am occasionally careless and clumsy, and occasionally make mistakes. Sometimes I just plain get things wrong. I am not envious. I do, however, find that your characteristic habit of never admitting a fault or an error, and of presuming that there is nothing left to learn, is unseemly and annoying.
 
If you don't like quoting out of context, perhaps they you should do others the same favor, and while you're at it, avoid actually misquoting them.

What I said was "I'm pretty sure it's a second language, and it's usually pretty good..." and never inserted the word "only." I repeat that I do believe your English is generally quite good, and as a result I would not criticize your usage when you're simply making statements. I feel free to criticize it when you are claiming to be an expert on usage. It is not perfect, nor is mine. Though I try to write correctly, I am occasionally careless and clumsy, and occasionally make mistakes. Sometimes I just plain get things wrong. I am not envious. I do, however, find that your characteristic habit of never admitting a fault or an error, and of presuming that there is nothing left to learn, is unseemly and annoying.

The thread is not about me though, is it? How I write in a chat forum is going to be very different from when I write a professional dissertation.
 
The thread is not about me though, is it? How I write in a chat forum is going to be very different from when I write a professional dissertation.

I don't think there's any such thing as a professional dissertation. Unless your profession is "grad student".

Professionals don't write dissertations. They write reports, memos, policies.
 
The thread is not about me though, is it? How I write in a chat forum is going to be very different from when I write a professional dissertation.



Dem strawmen juss-a keep on comin'!

It's not about the language you use to write your posts here. It's about the ideas you're trying to impart - specifically your (bogus) claims about what is "right" and "wrong" and your (bogus) claims to an authoritative knowledge of this whole topic. It started with your very OP, and it's only gone downhill since then.

Oh and what is a "professional dissertation"? I don't think there's such thing as a "professional" student academic............


ETA: Oh, Ninja'd on both points by theprestige!
 
Last edited:
If 'you were' is correct when 'you' is a singular pronoun, then 'they were' can be correct when 'they' is a singular pronoun.

We take no issue with 'you were' when it's used in the singular, so why should anyone have issue with 'they were' in similar circumstances?

No, no, no. The counter argument is "the second person is 'you are' whether used in the singular or collective, therefore the same rule should apply to the third person." To which I would counter "shut up, we're interrupting Vixen".
 
If you can recall someone's name, you can recall their pronoun.

Odds are, I won't remember their name either, but you misread my point. I'm pretty **** at remembering names in the first place. I can't recall using any pronoun in front of anybody.

However, if someone has a "personal pronoun" it is infact their name and totally undercuts the reason pronouns exist in the first place.

So, yes, it would be a situation of some jackass trying to cause trouble being a tattle tale. They, not I, should be target of any potential claims of harassment and abuse by stirring up trouble. Because that is exactly what they are doing.
 
Dem strawmen juss-a keep on comin'!

It's not about the language you use to write your posts here. It's about the ideas you're trying to impart - specifically your (bogus) claims about what is "right" and "wrong" and your (bogus) claims to an authoritative knowledge of this whole topic. It started with your very OP, and it's only gone downhill since then.

Oh and what is a "professional dissertation"? I don't think there's such thing as a "professional" student academic............


ETA: Oh, Ninja'd on both points by theprestige!

I said professional as in getting paid for it. You know you've written a good report if someone is happy to pay you for it.
 
Jane was doing a great service to Sam by giving them advance notice that John might misgender them before they got blindsided by it. It's good to have advance notice of something that might be upsetting or distressing.

Jane was causing unnecessary drama. Sam might never know if they are being misgendered since it's not something to likely to happen in their presence. Sam should not be granted the right to offense by the thoughtcrime of John.

Jane, not John, is the proximate cause of the strife. Jane is causing a hostile work environment by talking out of school. John hasn't done anything directly to Sam. John might never do anything directly to Sam.
 
The thread is not about me though, is it?
Your argument in this thread is based partly on your appeal to your own authority on the English language. It is therefore appropriate to examine the basis for your claim to authority, and to challenge your claim if it is flawed. Which it is.

If you don't want this thread to include an examination of your authority on English, then you must remove your authority from consideration in the debate.
 
Jane was causing unnecessary drama. Sam might never know if they are being misgendered since it's not something to likely to happen in their presence. Sam should not be granted the right to offense by the thoughtcrime of John.

Jane, not John, is the proximate cause of the strife. Jane is causing a hostile work environment by talking out of school. John hasn't done anything directly to Sam. John might never do anything directly to Sam.

I'm betting that the entry of "they" into the lexicon as a pronoun for uncertain gender is an expression of society's allergic reaction to the prospect of having to keep track of individualized pronouns for every individual ever.

---

"My pronouns are--"

"Your pronoun is 'they', Sam. Get over yourself. The rest of us have."
 
I'm betting that the entry of "they" into the lexicon as a pronoun for uncertain gender is an expression of society's allergic reaction to the prospect of having to keep track of individualized pronouns for every individual ever.

---

"My pronouns are--"

"Your pronoun is 'they', Sam. Get over yourself. The rest of us have."

There is a perfectly good reason to have an unknown gendered pronoun that has nothing to do with the rise of personal pronouns. Sometimes you have to ask about someone with imperfect knowledge. Even if you have a name, Sam, for example, could work for both a male Sam and a female Samantha. I've worked with both male and female Carols.

I'm just not sure how many times it's going to come up in my day to day life. Honestly, I don't recall using pronouns all that often. And as **** as I am with names, it should come up often. But if I can't remember a name, I'm sure as **** not going to remember a personal pronoun. I'd be inclined to use the pronoun that fits the gender performance of the individual in question. But, I work for an agency with an older demographic and it just doesn't come up at the office.
 
Dissertations aren't things people normally pay for.

Are you sure you're an authority on how English is actually used?



I'd have thought it was much harder to dig an ever-deeper hole during this chilly and frosty season..... but events appear to be proving me wrong.
 
I said professional as in getting paid for it. You know you've written a good report if someone is happy to pay you for it.


Dissertations aren't things people normally pay for. Are you sure you're an authority on how English is actually used?


One might wonder how Vixen came to such an understanding.

Not personal experience, one hopes.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom