Date: Sat, 5 Nov 1994 08:53:02 -0600 From: Natalie Maynor 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 structure? --Natalie (maynor[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]