naruki_oni | Grammar Gestapo

You're viewing

naruki_oni's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

I have learned from much painful experience not to be a total ass when someone shows a genuine inability to type correctly. But the occasional typo or grammar/spelling mistake is still fair game, when discussed amiably. And flagrant and unrepentant offenders deserve whatever crap they catch from me or others.

That said, here is a place to note things that tick you off, or at least make you go "Hmm..."

This post was inspired by the repeated misuse by one poster of "whom" where "who" would have been correct. I say that as one whom [sic] has occasionally been guilty of such mis-usage, but the glaring errors are painful to ignore. ;-)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

routermg.livejournal.com

It is true that the examples I gave came with an implied gender. But suppose you used "he" to start your gender-neutral paragraph, and then you needed to use one of these examples. Switching the pronoun could be confusing and possibly distracting. You'd have to rewrite the paragraph.

In my professor's case, at least, she was using humor to illustrate and reinforce a point. She wasn't really saying you can't use "he." I believe she was trying to show us that you can't use "he" as an all-purpose third-person singular.

I do tend to use "he," partly to piss off the gender wardens, but mostly because it's what sounds best to me. I think the claim that using "he" excludes women is hooey. I never felt excluded or slighted by the use of the masculine pronoun, and I don't like being told that I should.

I use "she" when called for. Mainly when discussing kitchenware and the gentle art of child-rearing.

From:

naruki-oni.livejournal.com

I start a paragraph about a topic where I don't know that I'm suddenly going to be talking about women specifically?

Er, I would need a plausible example to try to* get my mind around that one.

But I agree that "he" is not a good "all purpose" 3PS.

*_{My emphasis there had nothing to do with you. I've just been noticing a particular mistake a lot and felt like pointing out the correct usage. ;-)}

From:

routermg.livejournal.com

Was that the particular mistake that's been bugging you? It bothers me too. It's only valid if the speaker both 1) tries to do X, and 2) actually does X. And in that case, "try" is redundant.

History 102
Western Civilization II
Peter Pratfaller
Exam #3

...

#6) You have five minutes to answer this essay question (10 points):

Describe the effect of the invention of anaethesia on the public's perception of medicine. Be specific.

Throughout history, men have suffered not only from disease and injury, but the accompanying pain and suffering. Hippocrates states a common view when he says, "Many a man has experienced grave illness, and yet he suffered not; his recovery is often faster and more thorough than that of a man who has not been seriously ill, but whose malady afflicted him with periods of agony." From this we can see that men have feared not just the physical state of ill health, but the subjective experience of painful sensations. Throughout history, men have experienced the agony of the burst buboes of the bubonic plague, the festering wounds of battle, the pain of childbirth.

[more & more BS...]

...

Now obviously, that's easy to fix; just change "men" to "humans" in the last sentence. My point was simply that it's possible to start off a paragraph or sentence talking about something gender neutral, which entitles you to use "men" or masculine pronouns, and then end up using one instance which would actually only apply to women. I think that's what my professor was trying to warn us from.

From:

naruki-oni.livejournal.com

I've never quite done that kind of mistake when writing on paper, but I can see where others might have. But when typing it up, you always have the option of changing something with great ease.