Date:  Sat, 5 Nov 1994 08:53:02 -0600

From:  Natalie Maynor <maynor[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]RA.MSSTATE.EDU>

Subject: Re: "them" singulars



>  of history there may have been some male dominance suggestion in the use

>  of "him" as a generic for "human being," in the case in question "him" is

>  certainly a generic form. To demonstrate this one need only suppose that

>  it was intended as masculine. The result would be that the preceding noun,

>  "person," was meant to refer only to a male--clearly a ridiculous

>  assumption. Furthermore, the situation is easily avoided by either



I'm having a bit of a problem with what I perceive to be a circle here.

If it's not my imagination, I hope others will note it and address it.

I'm online for only a very quick run through new mail before the arrival

of out-of-town guests.



>   awkward) "him/her." We already find ourselves in a situation in which

>   grammatical structure has broken down to the extent that millions of

>   Americans are unable to say clearly what they mean. (And one wonders, if



Huh? Would you mind giving some examples of this broken grammatical

structure?

  --Natalie (maynor[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]ra.msstate.edu)