In article <[log in to unmask]>, F. Alfredo Rego
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>At 21:58 -0400 9/2/04, Wirt Atmar wrote:
>>
>>Saying this allows one to avoid tooting their own horn.
>
>Having grown up as a poor Guatemalan, I readily confess ignorance
>of the nuances of the English language ;-)
>
>As an example of my ignorance, I acknowledge that I am confounded
>by Wirt's sentence:
>
>   "Saying this allows one to avoid tooting their own horn."
>
>
>I assume that "one" refers to the (SINGULAR) person doing the
>writing.
>
>So far, so good, and I truly believe that "I got it".  My problems
>start with "their".
>
>Does "their" refer to "our English cousins" (the only possible PLURAL
>backreference)?  Am I missing some other obvious plural entity?  Do I
>need to have my eyes checked?  Do I need to take a quickie course in
>remedial English?
>
>
>Befuddled in Sun Valley,
>

As normal Alfredo is also quietly understating his own abilities and
mastery of English (very much the characteristic that Wirt is alluding
to) and as normal makes me blush at my pathetic attempts to speak
foreign languages whilst those for whom English was a second language
can converse fluently in it.

So whilst not wishing to Teach my grandmother to suck eggs, I believe
the translation to be (and this alone will make a few "Brit" members of
the 3000-L smile, as no doubt their opinion of my command of English
Grammar is not high)

The person saying "Not Bad" is the "one"  which in itself can be a
confusing term as in:

"one may well think that one is the Bee's Knee's, but I for one wouldn't
comment"

Where the first two "one"'s refer to a second party whilst the third
"one" refers to oneself.

So to return to the original statement it may perhaps be clearer if
restated as

"Saying this allows one to avoid tooting one's own horn."

or perhaps Wirt writing of such a person

"Saying this allows them to avoid tooting their own horn."


Alan (having a not too bad day, if one may be excused for mentioning it)


P.S. For those interested, and I may be wrong I think the term "one"
dates back to Queen Victoria who is famously quoted for saying "One is
not amused" where "One" really meant more than the singular person "I"
but meant the Queen as Head of State, or then Head of Empire. Which
again leads to a further complication as the Queen also could refer to
herself as "We" meaning both herself as an individual and her personage
the Queen. So therefore the expression could well have be "We are not
amused" or as we knew it as children "The Royal Wee"


--
Alan Yeo
[log in to unmask]    Just because you're paranoid
Phone +44 1684 291710   it doesn't mean someone isn't!.
Fax   +44 1684 291712

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *