Italophile ha detto...
Heh. My blog is in Italian.
I mean, not the actual content -- though I was worried for a sec -- but everything else. Fortunately, the color scheme is the same, saving me from trying to distinguish the buttons for "salva come bozza" and "pubblica post." Ok, maybe I could've gotten that one.
I don't really wanna chronicle the trip in 15-minute/no-time-to-fact-check-on-Google/weird keyboard/clock-counting-down bites (I'll do the whole loooong blow-by-blow once I have better access, or at home, whichever happens first), but luckily Italophile gave me something to talk about in his previous comments.
Two(ish) quick replies:
It's true I'm not a fan of 21st-century Londoners, whom I think -- speaking in grossly general terms -- have become tragically Americanized, and, well, coarse. But I'd separate London from the rest of Britain, and I'd move to a cottage in Devon in a heartbeat. In part, I think I'm just transitioning from being a city person to a demographic position more consistent with my age and degree of misanthropy. The follow-on book by the woman who wrote "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" -- and whose name, tick-tick, I don't have time to Google -- put it really well in her book entitled something-or-other "the utter bloody rudeness of everyday life." I mean, it was a total throwaway book riding on the success of her more worthwhile first one, but I would've done the same thing in her shoes, and she totally won me over with her take-no-prisoners approach to grammar, so I'd pretty much forgive her anything at this point anyway.
Point 1 (B): By "Europe," I did, in fact, mean "the Continent," which is, ironically, awfully English of me.
Point dué: Personally, I think -- and I feel strongly in this -- that as the Western world continues to mature with such instruments as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and various EU conventions, we are moving to a point where the strictures of nationality will be recognized for their contribution to psychological well-being. In a more enlightened age, one will be given the opportunity to prove that one is, say, an EU citizen trapped in an American body, and, with kind and wise evaluation and guidance (and perhaps a mandatory bit of lipo), be able to undergo citizenship reassignment. I only worry whether we will reach that point within my lifetime.
I mean, not the actual content -- though I was worried for a sec -- but everything else. Fortunately, the color scheme is the same, saving me from trying to distinguish the buttons for "salva come bozza" and "pubblica post." Ok, maybe I could've gotten that one.
I don't really wanna chronicle the trip in 15-minute/no-time-to-fact-check-on-Google/weird keyboard/clock-counting-down bites (I'll do the whole loooong blow-by-blow once I have better access, or at home, whichever happens first), but luckily Italophile gave me something to talk about in his previous comments.
Two(ish) quick replies:
It's true I'm not a fan of 21st-century Londoners, whom I think -- speaking in grossly general terms -- have become tragically Americanized, and, well, coarse. But I'd separate London from the rest of Britain, and I'd move to a cottage in Devon in a heartbeat. In part, I think I'm just transitioning from being a city person to a demographic position more consistent with my age and degree of misanthropy. The follow-on book by the woman who wrote "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" -- and whose name, tick-tick, I don't have time to Google -- put it really well in her book entitled something-or-other "the utter bloody rudeness of everyday life." I mean, it was a total throwaway book riding on the success of her more worthwhile first one, but I would've done the same thing in her shoes, and she totally won me over with her take-no-prisoners approach to grammar, so I'd pretty much forgive her anything at this point anyway.
Point 1 (B): By "Europe," I did, in fact, mean "the Continent," which is, ironically, awfully English of me.
Point dué: Personally, I think -- and I feel strongly in this -- that as the Western world continues to mature with such instruments as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and various EU conventions, we are moving to a point where the strictures of nationality will be recognized for their contribution to psychological well-being. In a more enlightened age, one will be given the opportunity to prove that one is, say, an EU citizen trapped in an American body, and, with kind and wise evaluation and guidance (and perhaps a mandatory bit of lipo), be able to undergo citizenship reassignment. I only worry whether we will reach that point within my lifetime.
13 Comments:
-
Emily said...
-
- 10:19 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 12:47 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 12:49 PM
-
Emily said...
-
- 7:03 PM
-
esquiver said...
-
- 8:14 AM
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 2:56 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 2:58 PM
-
esquiver said...
-
- 4:00 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 3:16 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 3:00 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 3:02 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 5:54 AM
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 6:07 AM
Post a CommentBecoming a Canadian citizen was one of the most emotional moments of my life. I had always, always felt out of place in the US, and now I feel like I'm home.
(Clara is a lucky little baby: she's Canadian by birth, and eligible to claim citizenship in both the US and the EU [her dad's grandmother came from Ireland, and her dad became an Irish citizen earlier this year].)
If moving to the EU doesn't work out, check out Nova Scotia or Newfoundland. The landscapes are magnificent -- Nova Scotia really is very much like Scotland -- and the people too friendly for words. I imagine we'll live Down East someday. I suspect it's a lot easier to immigrate to Canada than to an EU country if you don't have a family connection to get you in.
Hope you're continuing to enjoy Italy. Mmm, Italy.
I want to have triple citizenship too! BTW, Esquiver, you're thinking of Lynne Truss, and her book "Eats, Shoots & Leaves" is the only book of which I've received MULTIPLE copies, each from friends who apparently know me all too well. Was our militancy about grammar a by-product of being taught by Mrs. P in 10th grade?
I love the mental image of you in a cottage in Devon. I think you'd go stonking bonkers.
Oh dear ... I should have said, "*Is* our militancy ..."
I beg your forgiveness.
Oddly enough, since becoming an English teacher myself, I am far less militant about grammar than I used to be. Of course there are still (mis)usages that irritate me no end, such as "lay" instead of "lie," and I will never hear "off of" without hearing Mrs. P rasping "'Off of' is a VULGARISM, little girl!"
But in many other ways, I've become a roundheeled descriptivist. (Gasp.) I even teach my students to use the third person plural pronouns after "everyone" and "anyone" (even as I point out that some disagree with this usage). It doesn't help them to learn only what some people say the language should be; they need to know what they're actually going to hear and see.
Well, sure; good point -- I do always use third person plural in those circumstances. Was it Kate Miller who pointed out that there's no singular-person lobby claiming historical oppression? But I do think those kind of amendments should be made judiciously and with deliberation -- and that I should be the one to rule on them, naturally.
This is going to come across as incredibly arrogant, but because you both know me already, arrogance from me should not come as a surprise.
Em, I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint, but I think there should be a difference between the standards of English taught in an ESL vs. an "EFL" setting. For ESL, I'm perfectly happy for students to learn to speak and write functional English. It's an issue of practicality.
On the other hand, I'd like to maintain as high a standard as possible. I thus believe that people whose mother tongue is English should be taught (in school) that "everyone" takes a singular pronoun, at least in writing. (I don't require, however, that the pronoun be "his" instead of "her"!) My reason for this is that there is a beauty in languages that have a logic and adhere to that logic. (In this case, because "everyone" takes the third-person singular conjugation of the verb, it is only logical that any pronoun of which "everyone" is the antecedent should also be singular.)
Accepting the distinction in teaching standards may sound divisive (i.e., creating a system of shibboleths so that we can distinguish native speakers from asylum seekers), but my real goal is to uphold a higher standard where it is reasonable to expect one.
Furthermore, I would certainly not object if a non-native speaker wanted to learn "EFL."
PS I meant to put "asylum seekers" in quotation marks. That's the code used by the British tabloids for practically anyone who didn't grow up speaking English as a first language ... just poking fun at what must sound like a reactionary view.
Interesting. I find, personally, that some of the most compelling arguments against sexist language come from psychology (the arguments from etymology are, frankly, silly), which show, among other things, that use of the generic masculine tends to result in -- surprise, surprise -- rather specific masculine mental imagery. In unlearning gendered language, I find that I genuinely now have an androgynous and abstract "everyone" in mind when I write the word. So why shouldnät (verdammt, es gibt *keines* Apostrophe mit dieser bloeder Dinge!) I use the plural to better track my thoughts -- which, after all, ought to be the function of language?
On a completely unrelated point, and just because I am too lazy to make a new entry, I have just come from seeing the movie "Short Bus," and John Cameron Mitchell is an utter genius (as if we didnät know that already from "Hedwig and the Angry Inch"), and everyone should see this movie. Well, not everyone. Just my blog readers. Excepting my family.
That is a compelling argument (the psychological one, that is). I suppose it's too much to hope for a gender-neutral "he" to induce a gender-neutral mental image in the human mind. I wonder how "Man" works in German, or "on" in French. Do those (especially the former) induce masculine mental imagery too?
And Shortbus was great -- I heartily agree.
Shakespeare used the singular third person plural. "There's not a man I meet but doth salute me / As if I were their well-acquainted friend" — The Comedy of Errors, Act IV, Scene 3. I thus think it's perfectly appropriate EFL, and I say that with bona fide conservative credentials and Fox News experience.
Also: "I would have everybody marry if they can do it properly." — Jane Austen, Mansfield Park, 1814
Thanks for the citation. I admire a conservative who is willing to identify himself as such after Tuesday. (By the way ... Thanks, America! And thanks especially to Guardian readers for not butting into American politics this year as they did in 2004 with their condescending postcards-to-Ohio campaign.) Ironically, my app for UK citizenship was received by the Home Office on the very day that Americans did me proud.
Perhaps it was intentional that a play entitled "A Comedy of Errors" should contain a grammatical error.
In this case, I *could* argue that William simply goofed, on the grounds that the antecedent here is not gender-neutral but masculine. Therefore, even if we can agree that "their" should at least be considered as a stand-in for an otherwise non-existent, genuinely gender-neutral, "singular" pronoun, the use of the word "man" argues for a masculine singular pronoun.
On the other hand, "man" is more likely to be a stand-in for the clumsy but gender-neutral words for "human": person, adult, etc.
So, to your point ... it *is* interesting, and I can see how the word choices of someone like Shakespeare should be considered grounds for a re-definition of the rules of pronoun-antecedent agreement.
PS It's even nicer to see a conservative cite a statement by an early feminist(!) that plainly supports the right of two individuals (no genders specified, I might add) to marry (double-!).
I infer that you are a traditional conservative, Ted. I'm glad of this, as it is easy for me to respect traditional conservatives even if I don't always agree with their views. (I have a harder time respecting modern conservatives because so many of their views seem mutually conflicting.)
Of course, anyone who likes Hal Hartley films can't be that bad. I'm sorry about Adrienne Shelly, too.
<< Home