From Paulo Coelho, The Althemist:
-----Beginning of the citation-----
"Why would a king be talking with a shepherd?" the boy asked,
awed and embarrassed.
"For several reasons. But let's say that the most important is
that you have succeeded in discovering your Personal Legend."
The boy didn't know what a person's "Personal Legend" was.
"It's what you have always wanted to accomplish. Everyone, when
they are young, knows what their Personal Legend is.
----- The end of the citation -----
What about the last sentence?
Should it be "Everyone, when he is young, knows"
or
"All people, when they are young know..."
If we use "they", we imply many people? IMHO, it is incompatible "are"
and "knows".
If we use "they", we imply many people? IMHO, it is
incompatible "are" and "knows".
I have no answer to your question, I have another question instead.
What is the benefit of reading English translations from other
languages and not books written in English? I'd understand it if
the book were really a good literature. But from my point of view Althemist is not, it is more like graphomania. Throw out the nasty
thing!
say, "one shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth". ;-) Besides, I
like English reading just for sake of English. I look at the phrase construction, punctuation marks etc. The process gives me some
pleasure itself.
say, "one shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth". ;-) Besides,
I like English reading just for sake of English. I look at the
phrase construction, punctuation marks etc. The process gives me
some pleasure itself.
I would argue that while reading a translation may provide access
to an otherwise hard to read/acquire text, a translation is NOT the
text to reference when trying to learn correct English usage!
-----Beginning of the citation-----
"Why would a king be talking with a shepherd?" the
boy asked, awed and embarrassed.
"For several reasons. But let's say that the most
important is that you have succeeded in discovering
your Personal Legend."
The boy didn't know what a person's "Personal Legend"
was. "It's what you have always wanted to accomplish.
Everyone, when they are young, knows what their Personal
Legend is.
----- The end of the citation -----
What about the last sentence?
Should it be "Everyone, when he is young, knows"
or "All people, when they are young know..."
If we use "they", we imply many people? IMHO, it is
incompatible "are" and "knows".
Paulo Coelho:
Everyone, when they are young, knows what theirShould it be "Everyone, when he is young, knows"
Personal Legend is.
[...]
Although, I found in Wikipedia information that "they"
can be used as single pronoun:
In the early 21st century, use of singular _they_ with
known individuals has been promoted for those who do not
identify as male or female:
"This is my friend, _Jay_. I met _them_ at work."
What is the benefit of reading English translations from
other languages and not books written in English?
I'd understand it if the book were really a good
literature. But from my point of view Althemist is not,
it is more like graphomania.
I found in Wikipedia information that "they" can be
used as single pronoun:
_SINGULAR THEY_ is the use in English of the pronoun
_they_ or its inflected or derivative forms, _them_,
_their_, _theirs_, and _themselves_ (or _themself_),
as an epicene (gender-neutral) singular pronoun. It
typically occurs with an unspecified antecedent, as
in sentences such as:
"_The patient_ should be told at the outset how much
_they_ will be required to pay."
"But _a journalist_ should not be forced to reveal
_their_ sources."
The singular _they_ had emerged by the 14th century,
about a century after plural _they_. It has been
commonly employed in everyday English ever since then,
though it has become the target of criticism since the
late-19th century.
Its use in formal English has become more common with
the trend toward gender-neutral language,
though most style guides continue to proscribe it.
In the early 21st century, use of singular _they_ with
known individuals has been promoted for those who do
not identify as male or female:
"This is my friend, _Jay_. I met _them_ at work."
I found in Wikipedia information that "they" can be used as single
pronoun:
_SINGULAR THEY_ is the use in English of the pronoun _they_ or its
inflected or derivative forms, _them_, _their_, _theirs_,
and _themselves_ (or _themself_), as an epicene (gender-neutral)
singular pronoun. It typically occurs with an unspecified
antecedent, as in sentences such as:
"_The patient_ should be told at the outset how much _they_ will
be required to pay." "But _a journalist_ should not be forced to
reveal _their_ sources."
I can see some justification for it here, because it is easier than writing "s/he" and "him/her" or trying to reason with a person who
feels their (!) gender is being ignored although they don't notice
when the shoe is on the other foot. My CANADIAN OXFORD, however,
lists "themself" as "disputed". :-)
The singular _they_ had emerged by the 14th century, about a
century after plural _they_. It has been commonly employed in
everyday English ever since then, though it has become the target
of criticism since the late-19th century.
Hmm. Fowler's cites some evidence in support of this idea, but I'm doubtful "they" was commonly used as a gender-neutral pronoun between the late 1900's & the 1960's or early 1970's... when the feminists adopted it... except maybe when people thought the government should fix something. Typically when grammarians voice
an objection they encounter more popular resistance.... :-Q
Its use in formal English has become more common with the trend
toward gender-neutral language,
It has become more common in recent years, but not because the mood
at the time of its resurgence took into account that our ancestors
knew things we might well pay attention to. Quite the contrary...
Jerry Rubin, e.g., made headlines when he advised other folks not
to trust anybody over 30. I suppose they must have followed his
advice because he doesn't make headlines now. ;-)
In the early 21st century, use of singular _they_ with known
individuals has been promoted for those who do not identify as
male or female: "This is my friend, _Jay_. I met _them_ at work."
They had better have saved it for schizophrenics with multiple- personality disorder.
With the preceding comma, Jay is the person addressed. Omit it and
it will be the name of the friend.
What is the benefit of reading English translations from other
languages and not books written in English?
I sometimes read translations from my native Russian that I may
better translate myself (double meaning intended).
I'd understand it if the book were really a good literature. But
from my point of view Althemist is not, it is more like
graphomania.
One aphorism from The Alchemist, "Once you make a decision, the universe conspires to make it happen", is often attributed to Ralph
Waldo Emerson, but I did not find it in any of his essays. If
Coelho wrote it himself, he is not so bad at all at all!
I remember that in Russia a tsar used plural pronouns for
a single person. He wrote his decrees in the following way:
"We, the great tsar of Russia, declare..."
It is difficult to fight with people when they have a bad
habit. I remember a thing from Pygmalion, by Bernard Shaw:
-----Beginning of the citation-----
HIGGINS. How the devil do I know what's to become of you?
What does it matter what becomes of you?
LIZA. You don't care. I know you don't care. You wouldn't
care if I was dead. I'm nothing to you -- not so much as
them slippers.
HIGGINS [thundering] THOSE slippers.
----- The end of the citation -----
I still cannot see the logic why she used _them_ instead of
_those_. ;-) It is not a kind of error a Russian could make.
Its use in formal English has become more common with the
trend toward gender-neutral language,
It has become more common in recent years, but not because
the mood at the time of its resurgence took into account
that our ancestors knew things we might well pay attention
to. Quite the contrary... Jerry Rubin, e.g., made headlines
when he advised other folks not to trust anybody over 30. I
suppose they must have followed his advice because he doesn't
make headlines now. ;-)
I imagine what does a foreign student think when he hears
the sentence like the first sentence in last paragraph. ;)
After reading it ten times I think I understood what you
meant. ;=)
It is difficult to fight with people when they have a bad habit. I
remember a thing from Pygmalion, by Bernard Shaw:
-----Beginning of the citation-----
HIGGINS. How the devil do I know what's to become of you? What
does it matter what becomes of you?
LIZA. You don't care. I know you don't care. You wouldn't care if
I was dead. I'm nothing to you -- not so much as them slippers.
HIGGINS [thundering] THOSE slippers.
----- The end of the citation -----
I still cannot see the logic why she used _them_ instead
of _those_. It is not a kind of error a Russian could make.
No... it's the sort of error a lower-class native speaker who'd had
little or no formal education would have made at the time of writing. Higgins conducted an experiment to find out whether a
young adult who was motivated to learn would be able to change habitual speech patterns. Both he & his student seem to have reverted to old habits when they were emotionally upset.... :-))
Those who are not native speakers of English tend to make different errors. People from Russia have difficulty with articles, for the
same reason people from China have difficulty with plurals: the
rules are a bit different in their language. I see no need to pluralize "broccoli", e.g., because it is plural already... yet I
would say "a bunch of grapes". When I visit the local greengrocery
I understand that from a Chinese POV it might be more appropriate
to say "one potato, two potato, three potato" (i.e. a counting game
used in my childhood). From my POV as an advanced student of English it's easier to sort out many of the apparent inconsistencies with a dictionary which explains what language xxx
came from & how it was spelled in this language at the time.
Its use in formal English has become more common with the trend
toward gender-neutral language,
It has become more common in recent years, but not because the
mood at the time of its resurgence took into account that our
ancestors knew things we might well pay attention to. Quite the
contrary... Jerry Rubin, e.g., made headlines when he advised
other folks not to trust anybody over 30. I suppose they must have
followed his advice because he doesn't make headlines now.
I imagine what does a foreign student think when he hears the
sentence like the first sentence in last paragraph. After reading
it ten times I think I understood what you meant. ;=)
Good point. Alexander has been with us for over a decade, he reads widely, and I know that if he doesn't understand what I'm babbling
about he'll say so... but I don't mean to leave him & other folks
behind in the dust.
I still cannot see the logic why she used _them_ instead
of _those_. It is not a kind of error a Russian could make.
No... it's the sort of error a lower-class native speaker
who'd had little or no formal education would have made at
the time of writing.
Well, _them_ is well known pronoun, who can we mix it up
with _those_?.
Can I, for instance, say, "I gave _them_ _them_ books"?
It is not a matter of education, IMHO. ;)
But Eliza got her English with her mother's milk.
We can admit that she had an ignoble pronunciation,
but mixing _them_ and _those_ is too much, IMHO.
I like when you write something complicated and
nativenglishly. ;=)
But when a person has nothing to say to the point
he usually starts carping at other person. ;)
| Sysop: | Coz |
|---|---|
| Location: | Anoka, MN |
| Users: | 2 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 157:58:57 |
| Calls: | 162 |
| Files: | 5,334 |
| Messages: | 221,585 |