A Simple Question

Damo123

A simple question.

Emmm so Im wondering why people say the word "one" when they are talking about people?

Like "one would do well to heed my advice" or "if one so desires then I shall"..

I just dont get it. I looked on wikipedia and I couldnt find anything... Im hoping maybe somebody here can help me.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Damo123

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I dont mean to sound ungrateful, but Im more or less interested in why people use the word the way they do (not how to use it).... and even as you said (indirectly) why is it considered formal? Whats so great about it?

I probably should have being more specific in my opening post. But I do appreciate you taking your time to write out that first answer.

The Raven.

Damo123 wrote: »

...Im more or less interested in why people use the word the way they do...

Because it expresses things generally rather than personally.

why is it considered formal?

It is usually considered formal or archaic by those who are not used to using it. It is used less frequently in Ireland than in England.

Whats so great about it?

Nothing. It is just less personal and more accurate in certain instances. For example, if I were to say ‘you should eat healthy food’ when I meant that it is important that people in general should eat healthy food, I wouldn't be accurately expressing what I meant to say. Therefore I ought to say ‘one should eat healthy food’.

FlutterinBantam

Damo123 wrote: »

I dont mean to sound ungrateful, but Im more or less interested in why people use the word the way they do (not how to use it).... and even as you said (indirectly) why is it considered formal? Whats so great about it?

I probably should have being more specific in my opening post. But I do appreciate you taking your time to write out that first answer.

People who are interested in the correct use of language and grammar, and who literally wince(as I do!) when I hear the 'dones' and 'seens' battering on on radio vox pops would tend to use 'one'.

I wouldn't think of using it in informal circumstances, but in formal business and social situations,I most certainly try to use the term properly.

The Novacastrian

People who are interested in the correct use of language and grammar, and who literally wince(as I do!) when I they hear the 'dones' and 'seens' battering on on radio vox pops would tend to use 'one'.

I think its called Muphry's law.....;)

(only having a laugh, dont take it personally )

FlutterinBantam

Heh heh, that's what I thought I said.

:o

Donkey Oaty

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Heh heh, that's what I thought I said.

:o

One does one's best.

Damo123

Ok just one last question.... If you were talking to somebody... just a general chat, and they kept saying that word would your opinion of them change?

I didnt say this at the start. But personally I hate the fact, hates not even a strong enough word, but I hate when other people think higher off somebody because they use that word. I guess its just another buzz word people get off on...

Thanks for all the replys everyone

Donkey Oaty

Damo123 wrote: »

Ok just one last question.... If you were talking to somebody... just a general chat, and they kept saying that word would your opinion of them change?

Yes. My opinon of them would go down, as to me it sounds pretentious.

Eliot Rosewater

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Yes. My opinon of them would go down, as to me it sounds pretentious.

I actually really dislike this attitude. Its very annoying when you're amongst a group of people and you have the put your sentences through the "less than 8 letters a word" filter. There's a reason "big" words and less common sentence structures exist: they're useful.

Donkey Oaty

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I actually really dislike this attitude. Its very annoying when you're amongst a group of people and you have the put your sentences through the "less than 8 letters a word" filter. There's a reason "big" words and less common sentence structures exist: they're useful.

Eliot, I don't follow you...we're talking about the use of the word "one" here instead of "you" or "people".

Do you not think that the sentence you wrote would sound rather pretentious if phrased like this: "It's very annoying when one is amongst a group of people and one has to put one's sentences through...." ?

The Raven.

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Do you not think that the sentence you wrote would sound rather pretentious if phrased like this: "It's very annoying when one is amongst a group of people and one has to put one's sentences through...." ?

Not when one is speaking in general terms, but if you personally were referring to putting your own sentences 'through the "less than 8 letters a word" filter', then the use of 'you' and 'your' would be accurate.

There is nothing pretentious about being precise.

Donkey Oaty

The Raven. wrote: »

Not when one is speaking in general terms, but if you personally were referring to putting your own sentences 'through the "less than 8 letters a word" filter', then the use of 'you' and 'your' would be accurate.

There is nothing pretentious about being precise.

Raven, in your example above surely the first person singular would be accurate? But never mind that - this is not about accuracy, nor is it about precision.

The OP wants to know what we think of the use of "one" to refer to people in general, and I think constant use of this in everyday speech sounds pretentious. Perhaps you disagree.

Eliot, I have no idea where your fewer than eight letters thing came from - can you explain?

The Raven.

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Raven, in your example above surely the first person singular would be accurate?

I was using the second person singular because that is what Eliot Rosewater used, which is more frequently used in Ireland in this context.

But never mind that - this is not about accuracy, nor is it about precision.

The OP wants to know what we think of the use of "one" to refer to people in general, and I think constant use of this in everyday speech sounds pretentious. Perhaps you disagree.

Yes, I disagree. I don't find it pretentious because it is more accurate and unambiguous.

Furthermore, accuracy is relevant to this discussion, as that is the reason why the third person singular (neutral) is used: to distinguish an expression in general terms from an expression in the personal second person singular. It is not pretentious to express oneself accurately, therefore it doesn't 'sound' pretentious to me.

Donkey Oaty

The Raven. wrote: »

Furthermore, accuracy is relevant to this discussion, as that is the reason why the first person singular is used: to distinguish an expression in general terms from an expression in the personal second person singular. QUOTE]

No, that is why the third person singular (neutral) is used.

My view is that it's usually unneccesary because the context is very clear.

The Raven.

You are correct. I meant to say 'third person singular (neutral)'. My mistake. I was in a hurry earlier on. Thanks for pointing that out. I have corrected my post accordingly.

There are instances where the context is not clear and it can be irritating, but I haven't time right now to discuss it. I will get back to it later.

Eliot Rosewater

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Eliot, I have no idea where your fewer than eight letters thing came from - can you explain?

I plucked it out of thin air to describe the process by which you "dumb down" your thoughts before speaking them. Although long words are removed, the process also includes the filtering out of rare words such as "liaise" and the re-working of uncommon language constructs.

pickarooney

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I plucked it out of thin air to describe the process by which you "dumb down" your thoughts before speaking them. Although long words are removed, the process also includes the filtering out of rare words such as "liaise" and the re-working of uncommon language constructs.

"Liaise" is a dreadful abomination of a word; I'd be all for its being eradicated.

The Raven.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I plucked it out of thin air to describe the process by which you "dumb down" your thoughts before speaking them. Although long words are removed, the process also includes the filtering out of rare words such as "liaise" and the re-working of uncommon language constructs.

That reminds me of the phrase: ‘He who walks with the lame learns to limp’ (of Latin origin).

I don’t mean you personally, Eliot, nor do I mean to be inconsiderate to anyone who walks with a limp. In this context it could be understood as a metaphor for feeling obliged to dumb down one’s normal practice of more eloquent expression, often as a result of genuine sensitivity to the less articulate. Although necessary at times, it can be frustrating and seldom appreciated.

Eliot Rosewater

The Raven. wrote: »

Although necessary at times, it can be frustrating and seldom appreciated.

I don't do it out of any sensitivity to the "lesser articulate". To speak in "difficult" English appears to be culturally looked down upon, the kind of thing thats gets you a glance of derision from your peers. I've no doubt that the people I talk to would understand me, but I don't think they would appreciate me talking so. Thats my perception of the situation. Do you ever feel this?

I don't do all this consciously by the way. My last post way was probably a bit over the top.

The Raven.

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

My view is that it's usually unneccesary because the context is very clear.

As I said above, there are instances where the context is not clear and it can be irritating. For example, to say ‘You have to understand …’ rather than ‘One must understand…’, or ‘You cannot expect miracles’, rather than ‘One cannot expect miracles’ etc. when these expressions were meant in the general sense. If somebody said them to me, I would take them personally and feel insulted.

I also despise the use of ‘we’ in certain instances. For example, it is particularly infuriating to hear statements such as ‘we got what we deserved because we voted for Fianna Fail’. This is totally inaccurate and offensive. An utterance such as this assumes that ‘we’ (all of us), voted this way rather than a percentage of misguided individuals.

The Raven.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I don't do it out of any sensitivity to the "lesser articulate". To speak in "difficult" English appears to be culturally looked down upon, the kind of thing thats gets you a glance of derision from your peers. I've no doubt that the people I talk to would understand me, but I don't think they would appreciate me talking so. Thats my perception of the situation. Do you ever feel this?

I don't do all this consciously by the way. My last post way was probably a bit over the top.

I have great admiration for people who speak and write with eloquence, and I make no apologies for that. I also respect people who are less articulate; more so when they admit that they are so, and subsequently ask for help. This is a regular occurrence in my life, and we learn from each other in various ways. My view is that no one is word perfect, and we all make mistakes. However, I refuse to tolerate those who attempt to deny one’s right to speak in more sophisticated English. This doesn’t mean that I don’t relax and frequently converse in a more lighthearted manner, or appreciate the vital role of humour.

To answer your question, I am not aware of any instances where my peers are condescending towards the way I speak. If that is the case, then tough! That’s their problem. I really don’t care.

Yakuza

A few years ago, when writing emails or documents for work, I used to avoid / rephrase constructions that involved the usage of a possessive pronoun followed by a gerund (such as "our having to..." or "by your saying this, it means...") as I thought that the readers would think *I* was wrong by mixing up "your/you're" or "their/they're). One day I decided, "f**k it, I know I'm right, so I'll put down what I think is better".

To this day, I still use that philosophy. I teach my kids to never hide their light under a bushel (but that it does have to be balanced by telling them not to lord something they're good at over others who may not be good at that particular thing).

As The Raven says above, we all learn from each other as we all have different strengths and weaknesses.

Edit - that was my 666th post, perhaps I should have put in something more Devilish

The Raven.

Yakuza wrote: »

I teach my kids to never hide their light under a bushel (but that it does have to be balanced by not telling them not to lord something they're good at over others who may not be good at that particular thing). [

There you have it in a nutshell.

As The Raven says above, we all learn from each other as we all have different strengths and weaknesses.

It also depends on what one is writing and why. One person may have a more sophisticated style of writing and structure, while another may have a more acute vision of the overall purpose and the ability to suggest modifications to avoid possible misinterpretation etc.

Proofreading of documents is also important as one cannot always rely on spell checks.

Donkey Oaty

Interesting comments, but this is not about dumbing down when walking amongst the peasants. Here's an example:

I have no intention of going abroad and I do not have passport. However, for some strange reason I am interested in the check-in procedures in foreign hotels. Can you tell me what happens?

Answer A: "When you arrive, you hand over your passport and they give it back to you later."

Answer B: "When one arrives, one hands over one's passport and they give it back to one later."

The context is clear, and B is grammatically correct, but to me it sounds rather contrived and I'd rather it was kept under the bushel unless preceded by a strobe lighting warning.

I think this is the sort of example the OP had in mind in post #9.

The Raven.

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Interesting comments, but this is not about dumbing down when walking amongst the peasants. Here's an example:

I have no intention of going abroad and I do not have passport. However, for some strange reason I am interested in the check-in procedures in foreign hotels. Can you tell me what happens?

Answer A: "When you arrive, you hand over your passport and they give it back to you later."

Answer B: "When one arrives, one hands over one's passport and they give it back to one later."

The context is clear, and B is grammatically correct, but to me it sounds rather contrived and I'd rather it was kept under the bushel unless preceded by a strobe lighting warning.

I think this is the sort of example the OP had in mind in post #9.

Answer A. is fine when one is speaking personally.

Answer B. needs modification: ‘When one arrives, one hands over one's passport and they give it is given back to one later.’ No need to go overboard.

If people feel uncomfortable with the use of the third person singular (neutral) they are perfectly entitled not to use it. Those who find it completely natural should be afforded the same consideration without incurring derisive comments.

Donkey Oaty

The Raven. wrote: »

If people feel uncomfortable with the use of the third person singular (neutral) they are perfectly entitled not to use it. Those who find it completely natural should be afforded the same consideration without incurring derisive comments.

I fully agree, and would add: those who do not find it natural, and use it exclusively and excessively for emphasis on occasions when they wish to sound superior, may find that it does not always have the desired effect.

These people do exist, as personified by Margo Leadbetter in "The Good Life".

The Raven.

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

I fully agree, and would add: those who do not find it natural, and use it exclusively and excessively for emphasis on occasions when they wish to sound superior, may find that it does not always have the desired effect.

These people do exist, as personified by Margo Leadbetter in "The Good Life".

Yes, I agree that they do exist. It is not really the terminology that bothers me in those instances, but the overbearing attitude is hard to take. I found Leadbetter amusing though.

metrovelvet

I don't know.

It might be one of those gaps that exists between conversational and formal written English.

We were forbidden to use personal pronouns in essay writing throughout my secondary and third level education [with the exception of autobiographical or fictional assignments.] But no one would correct you in conversation if "you" was used where "one" could/should be.

We were also forbidden to start a sentence with a conjuntion. Sometimes a bit of rule breaking seems appropriate.

looksee

As I read this thread I was trying out various sentences and came up with a question that is quite apposite at the moment:

"So if one were unable to travel..."

but when I substituted 'I' I found the sentence turned into

"So if I was unable to travel..." which is strictly incorrect, but sounds better than "So if I were unable to travel...". Now I have written it down I am not sure, what does anyone else think?

Did you notice how I snook in "apposite" there?