> > [mb]  Well, why do you mention Stenger?  You seemed to *burst* onto the
scene at sci-as-cu. Why was this?

> [clay stinson - (2apr99)]   With regard to *bursting* onto the scene, what
can I say but that I somehow subscribed to the list, had thoughts X, Y, and
Z about topics A, B, and C, typed them onto a word processing document,
refined the ideas, and then sent them via e-mail to this forum. What more
could there be to the matter than this? If you want to characterize *that*
as "bursting onto the scene" then so be it. As for me, all I see are posts
from variegated individuals expressing a variety of viewpoints about matters
pertaining to sci-as-culture and/or whatever else.

       --[mb]--  Whether sci-as-cu is aiming to be sci-enhancing or
sci-degrading, I've not seen enough to decide.  Your essays contained one
problem:

 -------------

> > [{[mb]-(15feb99)}] ... JiM did you get why it is anti-future to confuse
"bio-evolution" with words like "darwinism" and "darwinian" etc?  That's
very important.  I hope you never use the latter again improperly.
D*N*E*A*V*T*I*A*L*!

> [jh - (2apr99)   I doubt BTW you know anything at all about Darwin.

 ----

From: Beck, Melissa
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc: '*TWERPFREEZE*' <[log in to unmask]>;
'Mitch' <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Verbal and written
Date: Sunday, April 05, 1998

On 5apr98, Vic Stenger wrote :

> > [Taner]  In plain words, motivate your readers' interest in... mental
masturbation...

> [vjs]   I will try.  Every writer has to decide on s/h/its audience.  I
have decided not to make any attempt to address Joe Sixpack and Dora
Doormat.

        --[mb]--  Shouldn't that be "Jim Sixpack", in honour of Mr.
Humfreeze, the (al)most unreachable "beer" Bratt?  Also, a month or two ago
the solution to the sex-awkwardness of English grammar came to me.  It's
quite simple.  [If anyone else has thought of this, Mitch might know.]

Already, in settings too austere and intellectual for there to be any
toleration of sex-pathology in *spoken* English, a rapid evolution has
occurred, away from the grammatical "he or she" and "him or her" and "his or
her", which are cumbersome and disruptive, and towards the ungrammatical
"they" and "their" and "them".

*Need* forced this transition.  That is in *spoken* English.  And it works
well, because in spoken English, other context cues are available to prevent
meaning ambiguity, and this evolution is relatively ungrating to the ear.

However, the solution found in *spoken* English does not transfer readily to
*written* English, where other context cues are absent, and where
"they-their-them" look literal.

So the problem is really just in *written* English.

Thus, here's the solution.  In *written* English, use "thay" and "thair" and
"tham", pronounced of course as "they", "their", "them".

This brings spoken and written English into alignment, and the problem is
solved by acknowledging the new *spoken* form which is currently in spoken
use and likely to expand gradually to universal spoken use.

The reason I noticed this solution is that I've watched indeed the *spoken*
form of "thay-thair-tham" come into being in law teaching.

Why did this occur?  In American law, "separate but equal" cannot fly.
Historically, law itself (that great, interstitial, exo-stuff that permits
complex society) taught this lesson overtly, while society has struggled
ever since to learn how "race" (never more than a few cell-layers in
reality) and "sex" are personal rather than social matters.  At the same
time, in the teaching of law, the day-to-day classroom is a place where
professors must speak about all kinds of intense, emotional, and horribly
abstract (--not to mention *expensive*) materials under time-pressure which
is always palpable.  In that environment, cumbersome, disruptive grammatical
decorum lost its importance and the new speech form found happy soil.

Conclusion: there obviously is in fact a new speech form.  It needs a name.
The name is "thay-thair-tham".

=====

On 6apr98, Mitchell Porter replied :

> [mitch]  I have seen a few attempts to escape 'he or she'. Timothy Leary I
think used SHe and Hir. The sf writer Greg Egan invented a pronoun for
*literally* gender-neutral ('asex') individuals, 've' (vis, verself).

> http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~churchh/austheir.html is a page on the history
of 'singular "their"', which was apparently in common usage *before* being
deemed ungrammatical.

>  -mitch
> http://www.thehub.com.au/~mitch

 ----------

    --[mb]--  The problem is only with using the *written* grammatical forms
"they, their, them" to indicate both plural and singular.  That makes
writing confusing and causes it to look ungrammatical...  Nor do I think we
have a situation where everyone has simply thair own opinion about this
matter.  Rather no-one is happy, and no-one knows what to do with today's
state of language affairs.

      Since the *spoken* genderless singulars *have* come into existence,
I'm just saying: Why not use them?!  Writers, afterall, have a 'duty' to
their art.  We need just to grammatically identify the genderless singulars
in written form, such as with "thay, thair, tham" (pronounced of course
*exactly* like the genderless plurals, "they, their, them").  The singulars
work well, because they're ALWAYS singular, and because, since they are
functionally parallel to the genderless plurals, they're easy to use and
understand.  Grammar is not being bastardized; rather a new element of
grammar has developed.

       Recognizing in writing the independent, already existing --and indeed
really quite nifty-- genderless singulars of *spoken* English is important
for another reason.  This is that genitals are irrelevant in many instances.
Using "he or she" where neither is relevant, and only because we haven't yet
formally noticed the genderless singulars, is oversexualizing things.

      Anyway, just try it.  You'll soon see that the genderless singulars
work as well as the genderless plurals.  An Internet writer then can take
pride in having asserted thamself in this manner creatively.  In fact, I
have already noticed one (a mere 'skeptic', no less) who in fact was
'smart-enough' to figure out what we're talking about here:

       On 6apr98 - Mike.D.Sofka :  "Unfortunately, if there was anybody with
a Ph.D. level of knowledge of geology in the room, thay kept quiet.  That
left it for some non-specialist skeptics to attempt to critique him, and we
just didn't do a good job.  In fact, I suspect we came off looking crude and
rude to much of the audience."

 ---------

On 11apr98, from Keith Douglas :

> > [mb]   Are you around during this holiday weekend?

> [keith]  A strange question.  The answer is obviously yes. :)

> > [mb]  I'm interested in your opinion about the "thay-thair-tham" grammar
solution.  It  simply works so well....

> [keith]  It gets annoying.  I, for one, just use random genders, though
generally sticking to  one in one conversation.  I use he and she to mean
all three genders.

      --[mb]-- An alternative is to use "thaey, thaeir, thaem", until the
words become more familiar.  But the best exercise is probably just to watch
how long it actually takes for the visual 'thay-thair-tham' to stop looking
foreign.  The singulars do in fact exist in spoken language.

Then, Keith, consider that there might be something inherently wrong with
bringing up sex when talking about a "PhD level of knowlege of geology".
The population in fact divides in many ways: race, age, weight, height,
wealth, sex, degree of snobbiness etc.  Why should it be fine to arbitrarily
pick out one of these?


 -------------

 --------end of fwd to sci-as-trueluck ---- 3apr99 ------

jukyt