Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Choop]

I'm just gonna come out and say it. I love the Oxford comma. Suck it, haters.

[Noah]

Also, using "they" instead of "him or her."  Fuck that shit.

"him or her" sounds more snobby than just "they". "they" is kind of what i naturally say, even though it always sounds completely ungrammatical.

[jough]

It was called the "Harvard comma" when I learned of it.  Maybe the comma is always greener on the opposite side of the pond?

[Drastic Action]

I remember actually hearing someone say that replacing gender-inspecific singular pronouns with 'they' or 'them' was basically acceptable in informal discussions, because everyone was doing it regardless.  And that seems to be how language works anyway; you fit the language to the people rather than the other way around.  It really just depends on the audience and medium I guess.

Heh, and thanks for the cans.  I could use some real dr. pepper, as this town doesn't believe in selling it in 2-liter bottles.  WTF HOBOKEN.  And my name here stems from a volleyball tournament in which everyone adopted action hero names.  My actual name is less exciting: Doug.

[wombat]

The illustrious history of singular 'their' in English.

Singular "their" etc., was an accepted part of the English language before the 18th-century grammarians started making arbitrary judgements as to what is "good English" and "bad English", based on a kind of pseudo-"logic" deduced from the Latin language, that has nothing whatever to do with English.

I could find more references on this but I am not in the business anymore, dammit.

[Drygioni]

Choop, I am a huge fan of the Oxford comma. It makes a sentence look and sound so much more rhythmic. In my experience, everyone uses the Oxford comma in speech most of the time anyhow.

Also, usage of 'they/their' etc. to identify an individual is very much supported for it's handy use of getting out of tricky situations involving androgynous boys you don't want to offend.

[CortJstr]

I remember actually hearing someone say that replacing gender-inspecific singular pronouns with 'they' or 'them' was basically acceptable in informal discussions, because everyone was doing it regardless.  And that seems to be how language works anyway; you fit the language to the people rather than the other way around.  It really just depends on the audience and medium I guess.

It's a big push amoung descriptivists. The arguement being that when something sounds awdward or wrong to well-educated smart people then it's time to just change the rule. Suck it s/he!

[AugustWest]

WTF HOBOKEN. 

[bugsbunny]HOBOKEN???!!![/bb]

[wombat]

It's a big push amoung descriptivists. The arguement being that when something sounds awdward or wrong to well-educated smart people then it's time to just change the rule. Suck it s/he!

People have always used 'their' this way in English (including the well educated and respected authors cited in my link above). It was part of the language long before anyone thought to make a rule against it. It's the ones who decided it was wrong who 'changed the rule.'   

Note that there are plenty of languages where certain pronouns do double duty as singular and plural. Just because 'their' is singular in some contexts doesn't mean it always is. You can think of it as a homophone if it makes you feel better.

It is best to know your history before you decide that some feature of the language is a modern degeneration, lest you find yourself ranting about These Kids Today using a construction that has actually been around since the middle ages.

[CortJstr]

People have always used 'their' this way in English (including the well educated and respected authors cited in my link above). It was part of the language long before anyone thought to make a rule against it. It's the ones who decided it was wrong who 'changed the rule.'   

Note that there are plenty of languages where certain pronouns do double duty as singular and plural. Just because 'their' is singular in some contexts doesn't mean it always is. You can think of it as a homophone if it makes you feel better.

It is best to know your history before you decide that some feature of the language is a modern degeneration, lest you find yourself ranting about These Kids Today using a construction that has actually been around since the middle ages.

Damn straight. It's time to devolve this particular contruction back to its intended usage. But I vote that we leave "a lot" as is. No matter how many times Good Eats writes it as one word.

[theinevitable]

the oxford comma is my favorite.

[Drastic Action]

I apparently already use the oxford comma (had to look it up to see what it even referred to).  You're already putting commas and pauses after every other word in the series, so why stop on the second to last one?  Also, you'd distinguish pairs within a series by not having commas between them (e.g., apples, chips, cats and dogs, flan, and monkeys), so omitting that last comma just would be ambiguous.

Yes, Hoboken!!1

Edit: Apparently wikipedia already made note of that explicity, but with a much better example:

Notably, The Times once published a description of a Peter Ustinov documentary: "highlights of his global tour include encounters with Nelson Mandela, an 800-year-old demigod and a dildo collector."

[CortJstr]

IIRC, AP style says to not use the serial comma unless it creates an ambiguous list item. And the easiest way to create one of those is to have a list item with "and" already in it.

[wombat]

Flan and Monkeys!

The 'alot' spelling has always been mysterious to me.  It seems like it's not a mere spelling mistake but a fundamental misunderstanding of the structure of the phrase.  And I don't understand how a native speaker of English could come by this misunderstanding.  But it's so common that it must make sense in some way that I can't figure out.

[theinevitable]

womb-- I really get off on those things. I have an ongoing (mental) list of sentences which can mean multiple things. Also, of words which I now realize don't mean what I once thought they did. An example would be the former version of myself who thought that "A Lot" was one word. Sometimes we just don't think about these things.