Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site hou2e.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!houxm!hou2e!pskay From: pskay@hou2e.UUCP (P.KAY) Newsgroups: net.nlang,net.women Subject: Re: Gender-specific responses to s/he Message-ID: <401@hou2e.UUCP> Date: Fri, 4-Jan-85 19:13:17 EST Article-I.D.: hou2e.401 Posted: Fri Jan 4 19:13:17 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 5-Jan-85 03:43:47 EST References: <1315@dciem.UUCP> <643@bunker.UUCP>, <1914@sun.uucp> Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ Lines: 33 Xref: watmath net.nlang:2317 net.women:3965 >> > Generic Versus Specific Inclusion of Women in Language: Effects on Recall >> > >> > Mary Crawford and Linda English >> > >> > J. Psycholinguistic Research, 1984, 13, 373 >> > >> > [Abstact from learned treatise on language and recall] >> >> [Gary complains about what this means to his formal writing] > >Try using "their" whether referring to one generic person or many persons: >it's easier to read than he/she or his/her, and is gender non-specific. > Sunny Bravo Sunny! While I don't use that form in formal writing, I do use "they" or "their" in in conversation or informal writing as the generic form for a Homo sap. of unknown or irrelivent gender. From observation this is generally acceptable to all but grouchy, pain in the (insert part of human anatomy), old English teachers (e.g. my mom :-)). So what do you say, netters? Lets invoke Grimm's Rule of Usage and make our language (U.S. Standard English in this case, the rest of you can start your own crusades) reflect the social changes of the last decade or so. Paul S. Kay UUCP: ...ihnp4!hou2e!pskay ...ihnp4!mvuxe!psk (the real me) USPS: Bell Labs, 1600 Osgood St. N. Andover, Mass.* * Please note change from UNIX 5.0. Merrimack Valley is back in Mass. It has never been in Maine, no matter what mm says!