Question on English Language to British Members

I agree that they is not an elegant option, especially as it requires plural endings on verbs, which makes no sense when you are referring to an individual.Another option is to use it, but it’s too cold and harsh a word, and too commonly associated with inanimate or non-human objects.What we need is a new pronoun to describe the third person singular, but which is non-gender specific.It also needs to be short and simple — one syllable should suffice.It needs to be a word which has absolutely no other meaning or relevance.I think I've got it. How does this sound? -"When a fire fighter enters a smokey building, god must follow strict safety proceedures."I really like the sound of that!P.S.Talking of male and female fire fighters, does anyone know if it’s possible to obtain a calendar of topless female fire fighters? If not, I think there ought to be one, just to balance things out and ensure nobody's offended.

Wikipedia has a whole page on gender-neutral pronouns including a table of such invented pronouns.TTFN,WK

Evolution isn't about advancement But seriously, we spell all kinds of things 'improperly' according to x number of centuries ago.

Ever since I was I child I called female police officers or female fireperson a 'lady policeman or lady fireman'.I still do. You should see the looks I get, sometimes As am aside, my wife is a midwife; would a male midwife be a midhusband?I try to write with as much precision as I can but as I stammer I try to be as economical as I can with words; using the most utilitarian means of information conveyance (I would use that phrase in conversation).Plus I'm vain about how clever I am and can't resist using self-aggrandizing words.But I'm shit at spelling so it balances out (ish). Edited by Larni, : Spellink (oh the irony)

This is way off topic, but I've known a fair number of firefighting madames, and in my experience, if the definition of topless doesn't include brown bag on head then I'm not with ya.Just sayin'.Have a good one.

English has too many rules that exist simply because they exist.For instance, it's technically incorrect to start a sentence with the word "because," even though any clause that you could legitimately begin with the word "because" is grammatically and syntactically acceptable at the beginning of a sentence. I get grief about this all the time from my British advisor, and I keep doing it anyway (on purpose), because the rule frankly pisses me off.There's no reason for that rule to exist, other than that it was, at some point in the past, acknowledged to exist.Another one is the usage of the words "but" and "however." Their meanings are identical, but "but" is used to transition between two clauses (i.e. placed in the middle of the sentence), and "however" is used to transition between two sentences or paragraphs.Is that distinction really necessary?Languages should include as few underived rules as possible. Obviously, it would be unfeasible to go back and change the spelling of all words to be more intuitive, but it would not be hard to simply omit the one paragraph about using the word "because" at the beginning of sentences from the English rule book. Anything that easy to reverse is not worth maintaining, in my opinion.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Because language is complex, teachers often simplify with easy to remember 'rules of thumb' which are technically not true, but are 'good enough'.It is perfectly acceptable to start a sentence with 'Because', as in the above sentence. The rule is formulated to help avoid a certain trap. Because it's an easy trap to fall into. It is much easier to say 'avoid starting sentences with 'Because'' with a view to the student eventually learning why this is the case and learning when one can correctly start a sentence this way.It is tricky to explain independent clauses and dependent clauses to someone and that if you use a dependent clause in a sentence, there needs to be an independent clause for it to make sense."Because I don't like the rule."
"Although the rule is arbitrary."The sentences start with dependent clauses and they need something else to make sense."Because I don't like the rule, I often break it."
"Although the rule is arbitrary, it has its uses."

Hi, Modulous. Maybe to a fourth-grader; but, to a college student? (<---2 clauses)----- Is that the real reason?A former MS student who had done her BS in English explained it to me as a holdover from Latin grammar (which, by the way, I figured for crap, since I actually have some training in Latin). It bothers me that she could have gotten a college degree without knowing that (it simultaneously makes me feel better for not knowing that myself: thanks, Modulous).Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Anyone ever read Orwell's 1984? In it, he wrote about a principle called "Newspeak", which served to eliminate portions of the English language considered unneeded or redundant.See here: http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-prin.htmlIn Orwell's dystopia, this: becomes this: Now I'm not advocating the demise of democracy in order to use "knife" to replace all synonyms of the word "cut". But I agree with Bluejay on this point. Much of what we speak is useless trash which does nothing to further the understanding of the English language.I do, however, like the idea of the "2 Minutes Hate." Big Brother's got something there. Have a good one.

Have you tried tuning into American 'news' shows? I hear Fox is particularly adept at it.

Thing is, these rules only exist in the minds of those who advocate them. There is no rulebook of English. There've been many different grammar and style handbooks, but they all mutually contradictory in at least some bits. Despite the pretensions of some of those who write them, the best a grammar guide can help to do, like a dictionary, is describe a step in an evolutionary process - not a hard and fast rule. Anyone who thinks that 'Me and Dave went shopping' or 'with who?' are grammatically incorrect is deeply confused.When someone tries to criticise you for failing to obey a 'rule' like not using conjunctions at the start of the sentence, the correct approach is not to discuss whether the rule is necessary; but to inform them that they're talking out of their arse about the rule even existing, preferably with quotes from great literature if possible.

Hi, Caffeine. That's true, isn't it?It's not like we elected or appointed a government official in charge of grammar! English professors are just vigilantes.Still, as long as my science papers and grant proposals require me to use conventional grammar, I think the correct approach is still to demand an explanation for the rules I have to follow.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

In this case I think the better approach is just to blindly obey the arbitrary desires of whoever decides whether you're getting accepted/published! Although, having said that, I do remember once going on a rant at lecturer who returned a paper with "American" repeatedly crossed out and replaced by "United States" and with "'80s" changed to "1980s". Yes, there's ambiguity in the abstract sense, but there really wasn't in context.

Pffttt. I'm American and I talk real good. Brits don't not talk more sofistikated than me; I'm fairly certain this conundrum exists in the UK too. Androgyny in the language usually clears that matter up.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Hmmmm, I'm not sure. I can only speak for myself here and from general observations, but I don't speak half of the language I write with.I suppose it depends upon the audience and venue. If you were at a formal engagement or were, say, the keynote speaker at some function, you might want to sound eloquent in deference of the serious nature.If you're at the pub with a bunch of hooligans, the last thing they want to hear (or could comprehend) is pounding them over the head with a bunch of 5-dollar words. (That's a colloquial term in American vernacular for somebody being verbose or trying too hard to sound sophisticated, as I've just obnoxiously demonstrated). Good Will Hunting comes to mind. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams