Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site shark.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!drutx!houxe!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!shark!hutch From: hutch@shark.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Grammer Quiz (Try it if you dare!) Message-ID: <820@shark.UUCP> Date: Fri, 15-Jun-84 15:08:36 EDT Article-I.D.: shark.820 Posted: Fri Jun 15 15:08:36 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 22-Jun-84 03:36:06 EDT References: <428@bunker.UUCP> Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR Lines: 68 [People who play with glass grammars ought not to rock!] This appeared in net.flame, thereby becoming fair prey!! Let us prey. | Are the following pronoun references correct? | | "The team won its first game tonight. Afterwards, they went out to | cellebrate." | | Can a singular pronoun, its, and a plural pronoun, they, both reference | the same noun, team? | | Keep the home fires burning. | | Gmm | | ... to conform to standards, but I choose the calm approach. Just | consider it a flame that I put you to the test with a simple grammer | construct and expect you to fail. ** Warning: flames follow. Assume %-> for all following libels. First, it is "celebrate" not "cellebrate" since the latter seemingly refers to some obscure action performed by a cell and the former is a real word. How dare you pick on grammar (not "grammer"; grammer refers coloquially to the mother of one of your parents, assuming you HAD parents) when you cannot even correctly spell the word!? Furthermore, how dare you presuppose that we will automatically get it "wrong"? This is net.flame, not net.religion; presuming upon the responses of others is inadequate to constitute a flame and is inappropriate for this newsgroup! Based on your article I determine that your inadequate understanding of syntax and semantics as theoretical systems does not allow you to accurately analyze the two sentences. Therefore, I will do it for you. 1:2: The first sentence is a simple enough construction that even a ninny in grade school ought to be able to parse. The second sentence contains context from the first sentence, which I have included as [$1]. It is more complicated than the first and I have taken a shortcut in parsing it. The actual issue you are raising is "is it proper to change the number-attribute of an agent-noun in the middle of a complex phrase?" and the answer to the issue is "WHO CARES?!" Indeed, who really gives a <> about what some anal retentive grammarian dictator says about what is proper and what is not? The important thing is the communication of the underlying semantics, the IDEA, the INFORMATION. The conventions, and they ARE only conventions, about how to express ideas, are appropriate to the situation! If this were a legal document, or a treaty, or a computer program, then it would be more important to worry about agreement of number across references, but in such a case, the idea would be expressed more carefully in the first place! This is NOT such a case. This is merely a casual colloquial exchange and it is a waste of our time to flame about the "mistakes" in it. On the other hand, WE are perfectly justified in flaming you about your petty idiocy in ever posting such an article. Hutch