home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
- Path: sparky!uunet!utcsri!torn!nott!bnrgate!bcrka451!nadeau
- From: nadeau@bcarh1ab.bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
- Subject: Re: gender pronouns
- Message-ID: <1992Nov6.153141.6058@bcrka451.bnr.ca>
- Sender: 5E00 Corkstown News Server
- Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
- References: <1992Nov6.142139.7425@mcnc.org>
- Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:31:41 GMT
- Lines: 31
-
- In article <1992Nov6.142139.7425@mcnc.org> key@mcnc.org (Kathy E. Yount) writes:
- >
- >pepke@scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) writes:
- >
- >>Which of the following two statements is correct?
- >
- >>A) If a person wishes to discuss gender-neutral pronouns, he should do it
- >>somewhere other than sci.skeptic.
- >
- >>B) If a person wishes to discuss gender-neutral pronouns, they should do it
- >>somewhere other than sci.skeptic.
- >
- >Neither unless in A) you know the person is a male.
- >B) is incorrect because you have changed from singular
- >(a person) to plural (they)
- >Why not just avoid the gender-neutral pronoun when possible? i.e.
- >The subject of gender-neutral pronouns should not be discussed in
- >the sci.skeptic newsgroup.
-
- Passive phrase. How about:
-
- If people wish to discuss gender-neutral pronouns, they should do it
- somewhere other than sci.skeptic.
-
- I believe this is actually the recommended form according to The
- Canadian Style, my favourite style book (created by the Canadian
- government for the use of public servants. I also have the companion
- volume, "Le guide du redacteur". Once in a while, governments get
- it right . . .)
-
- The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
-