Date: Sat, 5 Nov 1994 08:53:02 -0600
From: Natalie Maynor maynor[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]RA.MSSTATE.EDU
Subject: Re: "them" singulars
of history there may have been some male dominance suggestion in the use
of "him" as a generic for "human being," in the case in question "him" is
certainly a generic form. To demonstrate this one need only suppose that
it was intended as masculine. The result would be that the preceding noun,
"person," was meant to refer only to a male--clearly a ridiculous
assumption. Furthermore, the situation is easily avoided by either
I'm having a bit of a problem with what I perceive to be a circle here.
If it's not my imagination, I hope others will note it and address it.
I'm online for only a very quick run through new mail before the arrival
of out-of-town guests.
awkward) "him/her." We already find ourselves in a situation in which
grammatical structure has broken down to the extent that millions of
Americans are unable to say clearly what they mean. (And one wonders, if
Huh? Would you mind giving some examples of this broken grammatical
--Natalie (maynor[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]ra.msstate.edu)