h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

One word to Madonna:

Sleeves.

http://roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/celebrity-pictures-madonna-sleeves-invented.jpg

RF

Correctly, the question should be 'who has had more criticism than he or she deserves?' but I wouldn't want to overly criticise

Re Gordon Brown "he probably understand the mess better than most."
I'd bloody well hope so! As Chancellor of the Exchequer he abandoned the previous government's ideal of reducing government borrowing and increased borrowing to pump money into public services and 'please the electorate'. Undoubtedly, this improved some public services but at what cost? There have been improvements in health and education but the improvements haven't been significant enough to justify the cost. It wouldn't be so bad if he'd spent money and it hadn't worked but he borrowed money and it hasn't worked; we have to pay the interest and pay back the borrowed money.

The NHS gets a lot of unfair criticism but, at the same time, it does employ a lot of incompetent people in non-clinical areas (I've worked with some of them for 5 years.) My experience of local government was much the same; in general, the people who *did* things did a pretty good job but the support service behind them was full of people who weren't up to scratch.

Anyway, I'd agree with Steve McClaren (I every time I see a positive result for FC Twente); he made some mistakes but it wasn't *his* fault that the players cocked it up in three matches when they should've known better. On a similar theme- Phil Scolari & Avram Grant.

The italics have probably had more criticism than they deserve (where's the smiley when you need it?) Seriously though, I think they bear the brunt of a lot of researchers' frustrations when they have no control over the situations.

Tom Cruise. As far as I can tell he doesn't harm anyone or break any laws and that is my only interest in his lifestyle. He's acted very well in some damn good films so why criticise him for jumping on a sofa or believing in scientology?

Hmmm, reading this back it does seem like a bit of a rant so I guess I deserve all the criticism I get

Don't worry I'm not going to criticize you, but I have to tell you that the use of 'they' to mean 'he and/or she' is quite acceptable. I just wish more people would use it. Somewhere, somehow, someone screwed it up and 'they' don't teach it anymore. Or if 'they' do 'they' don't teach it properly.

It's the third person plural, it's gender ambiguous and it's used when the number of possible, but as yet unknown, antecedents is likely to be more than one, or even if it's just one but gender is either unknown or irrelevant.

~jwf~

No, it is the plural of he, she, it. You have used a plural verb but your antecedent is singular. "Who have had more criticism than they deserve?" would be preferable but that would imply that several individuals had been subjected to the same criticism. "Who has had more criticism than he or she deserves?" is correct.

Compare

"the boys did up their flies."

with

"each boy did up his fly."

The meanings are different and, you're right, people aren't taught properly so these subtle distinctions may well become lost.

Languages evolve guys, don't fret over it.

Yeah, Tom Cruise too.

What is Tom Cruise evolving into?

Wait and see....

I see your point van-smeiter. My bad.

Tim Henman got a lot of criticism when he really was one of the best tennis players of his day. Even if he had been only one of a couple of dozen (and he was definitely higher most of the time), that's still extremely impressive.

>> You have used a plural verb but your antecedent is singular. <<

No, the number and gender of the antecedent is unknown.
That's why the question is being asked.
The correct form is the third person plural - the unknown, unseen and unnumbered 'Them', allowing for any possible combo of hes, shes and its.
peace
~jwf~

OK, do you have a copy of Goldilocks and the Three Bears handy?

Papa Bear says, "Someone's been eating my porridge."

And Mama Bear says, "Someone's been eating my porridge."

Now... will Baby Bear say, "And someone's been eating my porridge and he, she or it has eaten it all up."?

We know it was just one single young female, the title character, Goldilocks who did all the eating and chair breaking and mattress testing, but until the bears find her asleep in Baby Bear's bed there is no way for them to know who, or how many intruders were involved.

Yes a policeman might have said that the break-in was perpetrated by 'a person or persons unknown' but we have it on record that Baby Bear said, "And someone's been eating my porridge and they've eaten it all up." Yes, 'they', the unknown, gender neutral, unnumbered 'they'.

peace
~jwf~

He's right, you know.

>His opposition seems to be the chin-stroking muso types who would prefer 6 Music to be the exclusive province of people like Steve Lamacq and Stuart Maconie (who I also have a lot of time for) and Nemone, who is broadcasting's answer to Dido, the pop culture Paul Lewis.

A huge part of the problem is that 6music is supposed to cater for "musos", it's what it was set-up to do. A lot of Lamb's critics (myself included) don't object to the fact he's on BBC radio per se but the fact he's on 6music whose listenership plainly can't stand him.

<>

like the nurse who woke me up to give me a sleeping tabletWTF

A copy of the original? The Ladybird version?

Not that it matters; an example of speech... from a bear... a baby bear... is hardly authoritative

Perhaps the author was confused by her (or his- but not their) anthropomorphism of animals and misquoted baby bear. After all, given that the bears don't know who or what (gender/plurality/species) has been eating the porridge, surely baby bear should say "Something's been eating my porridge..." rather than "Someone's..."? And to continue that logic, baby bear's next statement should be "... and it has eaten it all up."

Grammatically, "he or she" is correct but "he" or "she" would be less clumsy. Politically, "he" can be seen as oppressive and "she" can be seen as feminist. Fortunately, grammar ignores politics and to use "they" as a substitute for "he or she", "he" or "she" remains incorrect. One could use "it" but not if one is using "who"; "what deserves more criticism than it deserves?" would be fine but it wouldn't really be the same question would it?

Your singular antecedent is set by the use of "has" after "who" (as per my post above) so to talk of unknown gender or number is grammatically irrelevant.

Incidentally, policemen use "a person or persons" for reasons of accuracy; if a crime is committed and there is no evidence to show the number of perpetrators, any statement that suggests a singularity or plurality of perps would be based on opinion rather than fact. Strictly speaking, the option that an animal committed the crime *should* be considered but I'm not that anal! Then again... "Please believe me officer, a wolf killed my mother and kidnapped my daughter!" "And your daughter was last seen wearing a red hooded-top?"

jwf has had more criticism than he deserves- from me

You honour me.

In aboriginal societies I would be happy (not obliged but honestly compelled) to share all my fish with you.



And half my


~j~

>>Fortunately, grammar ignores politics

Who says? Show me where English grammar is authoritatively and definitively prescribed.

Mr X is right - language evolves.

>>Incidentally, policemen use "a person or persons" for reasons of accuracy

Nonsense. They use it because it's the kind of thing policemen are supposed to say. Like when you get burgled and they ask you irrelevant questions about your occupation.

'Hi was proceeding down the 'ighway in a westerly manner...'

They (the police, plural and non-gender-specific) also seem to the only people to use the verb "decamp", but only when talking about the person they think is a responsible for the crime.
I think the use of decamp is prejudicial.

It is the 'police mentality' behind the use of such forced expressions as s/he and his/her that I was objecting to.

The inability (or misguided and spiteful refusal) to see 'they' and 'them' as representing some unknown/unnumbered antecedent is proof of a rising tendency to see the importance of political correctness and clinical 'accuracy' as the greatest values in social intercourse.

I take the continued resistance to accept the traditional usage of 'they' (or even 'he' when the number but not the gender is known) as a sure sign that we are losing our ability to communicate agreeably or to suspend judgment until all the facts are known. Like a lot of police thinking it is wrong and prejudicial and harmful, even if it is well-intended.


~jwf~

A friend of mine wrote a university psychology textbook which said in the preface:

'Throughout this book, 'she' is used to indicate either gender.'