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]