‘Language Evolves’
[Feedback: “Grammar Advice,” May 17] bemoans the use of “they” as a singular pronoun — not by nonbinary people but when the gender of the antecedent person is unspecified. Sorry, Jeremy, but that ship sailed 650 years ago. That’s when the singular “they” began to appear in writing. Four centuries later, the grammar patriarchs decided it had to go.
I care passionately about grammar and word choice. Dangling modifiers, “for Tom and I,” and the egregious “if I would have known” set my teeth on edge. These errors violate core grammatical principles; if we accepted them, we would need to overhaul the framework of our language. By contrast, there’s no reason the same pronoun can’t be both singular and plural — after all, “you” is, now that we’ve retired “thee” and “thou.”
When a grammarian finds themself (yup, I said it) advocating for the passive voice to avoid using a pronoun at all, they should know there’s a problem. English is crying out for a gender-neutral pronoun. That’s why millions of people use “they” in that function without a second thought and why most dictionaries now recognize it.
The construction “The book is being printed” used to arouse disgust. A well-bred person would of course say, “The book is a-printing.” Language evolves. The sooner we stop fussing about the singular “they,” the more energy we’ll have to champion the past perfect in the dependent clause of the third conditional.
Sonia DeYoung
Burlington
Appreciate the Paper
Thanks for the excellent coverage and well-researched investigative reports and articles. Your paper is especially appreciated by those few of us who are trying to live off the grid, free of social media. It means a lot to get that paper each Wednesday!
Ruth Furman
Jericho
Land of Leahy
[Re Last 7: “Emoji That,” May 24]: There’s a large hole in the ground in downtown Newport City that hasn’t been named for senator Patrick Leahy…
Barry Barton
Irasburg
‘Grifter’ Bill
[Re “Plan to Boost Legislators’ Pay and Offer Health Benefits Advances,” May 10]: Raising their own pay by 100 percent and adding free health care, meals, lodging, mileage, childcare, dependent care and elderly care coverage is theft from the taxpayers by a group of grifters, some who blew into Vermont and discovered it was ripe for the picking. Every one of the legislators who voted for this looting of our state’s coffers should be tossed out of office in the next voting cycle. This is just the start of more free handouts to the nonworking class and legislators who want you to think they know what they are doing but don’t want you to see what they are up to.
People who work for a living can’t keep an eye on these folks at the Statehouse. It appears that they spend too much time sitting on the laps of the lobbyists who are slithering around the legislature and coming up with nonsense, like the unaffordable heat act that is going to blow up in the faces of the working people in Vermont.
I give Gov. Phil Scott credit for putting up with these lightweights. The legislators who represent the Northeast Kingdom and vote for this foolishness should be defeated next November. They have turned the “brave little state” into the “stupid little state.” And now they want to be rewarded for this grift under the false claim that this will encourage more people to run for the legislature.
Veto this robbery from the people, Gov. Scott, and make these people stop this madness!
Gordon Spencer
Lowell
Bad ‘Optics’
Kevin McCallum’s article “Plan to Boost Legislators’ Pay and Offer Health Benefits Advances” [May 10] was interesting in that, for the first time in my 67 years, I agree with a member of the Republican Party. This was when McCallum quoted Rep. Mark Higley (R-Lowell): “I think the optics of [the bill] are terrible.”
From the view of a Vermont taxpayer and a voter, he’s right, however much I applaud the intent of S.39, especially the idea of garnering a more diverse membership to the body. This was expressed so neatly by Conor Casey (D-Montpelier), who is my rep, when he said, “I really think it’s unfortunate for the state that somebody who pushes a mop or shovels gravel for a living is excluded from this body.”
Though Rep. Casey is right and the intent is good, I doubt S.39 will solve this problem. There are so many other factors about running for office that exclude working folks. Chief among these is the daunting problem for the mop pushers and gravel diggers (who generally labor without benefits because they are considered “temporary” in our society and not “eligible” for these things) of how American politics is now generally driven by money and its donors rather than democracy and equal representation of all classes.
Why S.39’s optics are so terrible is because, to date, our state government has consistently denied the mop pushers and gravel shovelers the benefits they are giving themselves, especially health care.
Walter Carpenter
Montpelier
Who Feels the Heat
[Re “After a Wrenching Debate Over Homelessness, Vermont Legislature Adjourns,” May 13]: Kevin McCallum’s account of the recent legislative session says, of S.5, the clean heat standard bill passed over Gov. Phil Scott’s veto, “Supporters said reducing the cost of heating for low-income people is the program’s priority.”
Yes, the bill repeatedly promises to protect low-income people from what is likely to be a dollar-or-more-per-gallon increase in heating fuel cost, presumably by paying them to switch from fossil fuel heat to electric heat pumps or “advanced wood” heat.
What is not a priority is protecting ordinary middle-income Vermonters from having to pay for this low-income priority, through sharply increased prices of heating oil, propane and natural gas.
But hey, the Global Warming Solutions Act mandates that we meet (arbitrary) carbon dioxide reduction standards, and somebody must be made to sacrifice on the Altar of Climate Change.
John McClaughry
Kirby
This article appears in The Dairy Issue.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!