LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for TSE Archives


TSE Archives

TSE Archives


TSE@PO.MISSOURI.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TSE Home

TSE Home

TSE  April 2006

TSE April 2006

Subject:

Re: Third person, or 'Tyger' and 'Vrka' (Was: 'Mind forged menacles' (sic) and spelling )

From:

Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

T. S. Eliot Discussion forum.

Date:

Sun, 9 Apr 2006 13:01:57 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (216 lines)

First, there is a perfectly good and grammatical third person singular: 
"they."  Check your OED on that also.  It has always been used as such
by major writers, and it is a constant in colloquial speech.

They, I, 2.   Often used in reference to a singular noun made universal
by every, any, no, etc. OR APPLICABLE TO ONE OF EITHER SEX (= 'HE OR
SHE').  (caps mine)  This too goes all the way back to Anglo-Saxon.

examples:  "If a person is born of a gloomy temper, they cannot help
it."---Chesterfield;  "Now, nobody does anything well that they cannot
help doing."--Ruskin.

I don't have the updated OED for recent examples, but it is a constant
actual use, and its supposed failure of grammar is as mistaken as the
supposed correctness of using the generic male for all humans.  

So there is no need to invent what is already there.  

As for Ms., it was made into a third alternative.  So you may not notice
because you are not female, but forms now all list boxes to check: 
Mrs., Miss, Ms.  Thus the whole point of it as a replacement for titles
defined by marital status is being masked.  I note that we still have
only one term for men--"Mr."--presumably no one needs to pry into their
personal lives in the same way.

So rejoice, Peter:  problem solved.

I also notice that the debate on generics continues without any response
so far to the simple linguistic history anyone could look up.  (But
there are still many posts to open here.)
Nancy


>>> [log in to unmask] 04/09/06 5:56 AM >>>
In any case it is politically correct not to use man as generic
in politically correct company.

What we need is some genius to invent terms for the generic and the
third
person singlar that politically correct people will accept, as they did
with
Ms, which, I notice, seldom gets used anymore.

Peter
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nancy Gish" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: 'Tyger' and 'Vrka' (Was: 'Mind forged menacles' (sic) and
spelling )


> As your own quotation shows, what Keats said is about the ability to
let
> characters speak from very different perspectives without forcing
unity.
>  To be precise, what he said in his letter of December 1817 was the
> following:  "what quality went to form a Man of Achievement especially
> in Literature & which Shakespeare possessed so enormously--I mean
> Negative Capability, that is when man is capable of being in
> uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after
> fact & reason. . . . "
>
> That is not about everyone spelling individually--or ignoring
linguistic
> conventions that both allow meaning and make possible the meanings in
> deviation.  Keats. like Eliot, followed spelling conventions.
>
> That is not what Eliot said either.  He said "But, of course, only
those
> who have personality and emotions know what it means to want to escape
> from these things."  Escape is quite different from transcend.
>
> And, I'm sorry, but in fact "man" is not at all generic in modern
> English.  It was in Anglo-Saxon, but its modern meaning is the adult
> male exclusive of the female (with the "generic" as a secondary
> meaning--exactly the opposite.)  So the assumption is that it means
two
> totally opposing things:  males AND females---and males BUT NOT
females.
>  That is why "all men are created equal" never was construed to mean
> women could vote or hold property or have rights to their own children
> or the money they earned or credit.  It meant what was convenient.
> That is also why it is no longer accepted by most grammars.  (See
> McGraw-Hill Guide to Equal Treatment of the Sexes.)  Moreover, the
> notion that it is "generic" in some grammatical sense was thought up
by
> 17th and 18th Century grammarians (all men who, oddly, did not see
> irony) who claimed that the male was the "more inclusive."
>
> Keats and Eliot would have been taught that "man" was a grammatical
> choice, but we now know it was a political and gender choice having
> nothing at all to do with grammar.  So I do not consider it excusable
> because it is just bloody rude (I don't at all mean you intended to be
> rude, but the claim just is--I am not in it, and I find that
insulting.)
>  Even though it meant all humans in the Anglo-Saxon period, they also
> had words for men and women:  werman and wifman or male man and female
> man. So there was then a "generic" as a third choice.  Now there is
only
> a choice of a male or a female term, and the male is not inclusive. 
See
> the OED.  (One might--on the absurdist theory of "inclusive"--insist
> that we use only the generic "woman" because we do now know that all
> embryos are female initially.  But I have never known of any woman
silly
> enough to reverse 17thC gender bias.)
>
> OED Man II:
>
> An adult male person
>  a. with special reference to sex.
> Lear:  "Let not women's weapons, water drops staine my mans cheekes."
> -----now why cannot those terms be transposed?
>
> b. generically (without article: cf II)  the male human being
>
> You praise him elaborately for his continuing claims to that
effect--you
> don't name them; you respond to the posts in which he says them with
> endless thanks.
> Cheers,
> Nancy
>
> >>> [log in to unmask] 04/08/06 3:06 PM >>>
> Negative Capability -- a dramatic virtue discerned by Keats in
> Shakespeare --
>   he (Shakespeare) had the capability to impersonate (identify with)
an
> Iago as well an Imogen, a Shylock as well as a Portia, an Edgar as
well
> as an Edmund. This capability did not obliterate his own individual
> self/identity or his capability to be himself. But, as TSE observed,
> only a man who has a personality knows how to transcend it and be
> impersonal.
>
>                                             Except for the point, the
> still point,
>     There would be no dance, and there is only the dance.
>
>   Likewise, only a man (I may be excused for using the generic term)
who
> knows his language (has control over his linguistic skills) is
competent
> enough to take liberties with his language. My admiration of Peter's
> elucidation was limited to this aspect only. Maybe both of you
converge
> on this point.
>
>   Now where have I praised 'his commitment to not "knowing" any
> particular "language" that is consistent' ?
>
>   Regards.
>
>   ~ CR
>
>
> Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:  As it happens, that is not
what
> "negative capability is about." Nor is
> Eliot's theory of impersonality, though I fail to see how it is
combined
> with "control." But as you seem to be completely in agreement with
> Tabitha and me and contradicting Peter since you focus on the
"liberty"
> with language of "a man" who "knows" it, why are you praising his
> commitment to not "knowing" any particular "language" that is
> consistent? "Taking liberties" with something already there is, of
> course, the point, minus the assumption of language being a male
> preserve.
> Nancy
>
> >>> [log in to unmask] 04/08/06 9:18 AM >>>
> I'm also reminded of Keats' "Negative Capability"
> in the context of Shakespeare. It's not a case of
> one's being a turncoat, a scarecrow that turns with
> every wind. Only a man who knows his language
> can take liberties with the language.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> ~ CR
>
>
>
> cr mittal wrote:
> Thanks, Peter, for your superb elucidation of
> "mind-forged manacles" vis-a-vis spellings.
> Your closing observation
>
> Is there a fear of loss of power through loss of control here?
> Dare we let ordinary people take back the language for themselves?
> Guess what? It doesn't matter. They're doing it anyway.
>
> reminds me of TSE's concept of Impersonality/Control.
>
> Regards.
>
> ~ CR
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low  PC-to-Phone call
> rates.
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.0/304 - Release Date:
4/7/2006
>
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



PO.MISSOURI.EDU

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager