TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Re: Rule about not using possessive? (Take III, and out)
Subject:Re: Rule about not using possessive? (Take III, and out) From:"Richard G. Combs" <richard -dot- combs -at- voyanttech -dot- com> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Mon, 9 Jul 2001 12:13:27 -0600
Christine rejects two "assumptions" she claims I made:
<snip>
> (1) That the meanings of "she," "they," "are," and "is" are somehow
> objective and immutable.
> Language is socially defined. It evolves. </snip>
I don't assume that the meaning of the words is objective, but that the
reality they attempt to describe is. The specific *words* we use are
socially defined. But the *word* for a widget is not the widget. And the
thing that the word refers to is either singular or plural and cannot be
both simultaneously.
I chose an unfortunate example when I used "They are..." (as Geoff pointed
out, "they" has historically been used as a singular pronoun). In fact, I
shouldn't have used pronouns at all; it confuses the issue. Let me try
again: As long as we have separate words for the concepts "apple" and
"apples" and for the concepts "is" and "are," the construction "apples is"
is not just another stylistic choice, but a logical error.
As I said, the language might evolve to no longer distinguish between
singular and plural. But such a change in language would not change the
nature of the things to which our words refer, which would still be either
singular or plural and not both simultaneously.
> (2) That Aristotle's law of identity is akin to "laws of nature."
> Aristotle's law of identity is a philosopher's opinion. Gravity is a law
of
> nature.
If Aristotle's law of identity is wrong, then a thing can both be and not be
at the same time, and may both possess mass and not possess mass at the same
time. Therefore, it may both attract other objects and not attract other
objects at the same time. So much for gravity as a law of nature...
;-)
Richard
------
Richard G. Combs
Senior Technical Writer
Voyant Technologies, Inc.
richard -dot- combs -at- voyanttech -dot- com
303-223-5111
------
rgcombs -at- free-market -dot- net
303-777-0436
------
*** Deva(tm) Tools for Dreamweaver and Deva(tm) Search ***
Build Contents, Indexes, and Search for Web Sites and Help Systems
Available now at http://www.devahelp.com or info -at- devahelp -dot- com
TECH*COMM 2001 Conference, July 15-18 in Washington, DC
The Help Technology Conference, August 21-24 in Boston, MA
Details and online registration at http://www.SolutionsEvents.com
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
