Indefinite pronouns [was:Re: realloc() - frequency, conditions, or experiences about relocation?]

[Anton Shepelev]

Cross-posting to alt.english.usage .

I think it is a modern English idiom, which I dislike as
"How do you do this?" and "How do I do that?" They are
informal ways of the more literary "How does one do
this?" or "What is the way to do that?"

I have a different take here. First the "your" of "your
strategy" reads as a definite pronoun, meaning it refers
specifically to Ben and not to some unknown other party.

And I am /sure/ it is intended in the general (indefinite)

You allocate a small amount for the first few bytes. Then
you use exponential growth, with a factor of ether 2 or
1.5.

This is the typical wording of impersonal instruction in
modern English.

(And incidentally is subtly insulting because of that,
whether it was meant that way or not.)

Yes! My first impulse is always to interpret those pronouns
according to their literal (definite) meanings, which gives
the text an insulting (because presumptuos) taint. This is
why I wince at the indefinite useage of first- and second-
person pronouns.

Second the use of "you" to mean an unspecified other
person is not idiom but standard usage.

`Idiomatic' can mean `standard':

Of or pertaining to, or conforming to, the mode of
expression peculiar to a language; as, an idiomatic
meaning; an idiomatic phrase.

The word "you" is both a definite pronoun and an
indefinite pronoun, depending on context.

It /is/ used as in indefinite pronoun, is not widely
recognised as capable of that function:

https://eslgrammar.org/indefinite-pronouns/
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/indefinite-pronouns

And when it is, only as an informal relaxation:

https://www.englishclub.com/grammar/pronouns-indefinite.php

These recent informal usages can be ugly.

The word "they" also has this property.

I know it, and agree:

They took some honey from a tree,
Dressed it up and then called it me.
<https://on.soundcloud.com/NGz7nZgzm4hiQQbd6>

The indefinite `they' can be used formally as well.

The word "you" is similar: it can mean specifically the
listener, or it can mean generically anyone in a broader
audience, even those who never hear or read the statement
with "you" in it.

Modern teenagers definitely see it that way, and I have to
clench my teech and adapt.

The word "one" used as a pronoun is more formal, and to me
at least often sounds stilted. In US English "one" is
most often an indefinite pronoun, either second person or
third person.

How can it be a second-person pronoun? The famous phrase
"One never knows, do one?" features a third-person `one'
with a dialectical third-person `do'.

But "one" can also be used as a first person definite
pronoun (referring to the speaker), which an online
reference tells me is chiefly British English.

I had no idea it could, nor does Wikipedia. Can you share
an example of a definite first-person `one'?

Finally I would normally read "I" as a first person
definite pronoun, and not an indefinite pronoun.

And so would I, and I hate the indefinte usage.

So I don't have any problem with someone saying "how
should I ..." when asking for advice. They aren't asking
how someone else should ... but how they should ..., and
what advice I might give could very well depend on who is
doing the asking.

The problem is, in 99% of cases no personal information is
given that could possibly justify the personal wording of
the question.

[vallor]

Post by Anton Shepelev
Cross-posting to alt.english.usage .

I've set the followup-to: same

Post by Anton Shepelev

But "one" can also be used as a first person definite pronoun
(referring to the speaker), which an online reference tells me is
chiefly British English.

I had no idea it could, nor does Wikipedia. Can you share an example of
a definite first-person `one'?

I think that would go something like:

"One wonders how..."

(Also, in some writing, "this one" can replace "I" -- this one used to do
that on Usenet, but was told it was pretentious.)

[Anton Shepelev]

Post by vallor

Can you share an example of definite first-person
`one'?

"One wonders how..."

Technically, it is still an indefinite third-person, meaning
that anyone in this situtions would wonder about that.

Post by vallor
(Also, in some writing, "this one" can replace "I" -- this
one used to do that on Usenet, but was told it was
pretentious.)

No problem: also a definite third-person pronoun, cf. the
way little children, and adults initating them, refer to
themselves by their first names and third-person pronouns.
This is self-reference from a distance as it were. Another
example is the phrase "one of us" in a work by several
authors. All these are syntatically third-person usages,
agreeing with the related verbs in third person.

[David Brown]

Post by vallor

Post by Anton Shepelev
Cross-posting to alt.english.usage .

I've set the followup-to: same

I've put it back to comp.lang.c. It's off-topic for that group, but
that's where people were discussing it, and it seems to be of a at least
some interest to some regulars here. (I suppose maybe those regulars
are also followers of alt.english.usage.)

Post by vallor

Post by Anton Shepelev

But "one" can also be used as a first person definite pronoun
(referring to the speaker), which an online reference tells me is
chiefly British English.

I had no idea it could, nor does Wikipedia. Can you share an example of
a definite first-person `one'?

"One wonders how..."

It is /possible/, but archaic and very upper-class. You'd immediately
suspect the speaker is wearing a top hat.

It is much more common to say simply "I wonder how...", followed by "You
wonder how..." (with "you" being generic rather than specifically the
person listening). Such usage will be more common in some dialects than
others.

Post by vallor
(Also, in some writing, "this one" can replace "I" -- this one used to do
that on Usenet, but was told it was pretentious.)

That would be even less common. The form, again archaic, would be more
usually written as "This writer used to do that..." (or "This
programmer", or however the person wanted to style himself/herself).

[Keith Thompson]

Post by David Brown

Post by vallor

Post by Anton Shepelev
Cross-posting to alt.english.usage .

I've set the followup-to: same

I've put it back to comp.lang.c. It's off-topic for that group,

Please don't do that.

[...]

[Kenny McCormack]

Post by Anton Shepelev

I think it is a modern English idiom, which I dislike as
"How do you do this?" and "How do I do that?" They are
informal ways of the more literary "How does one do
this?" or "What is the way to do that?"

I have a different take here. First the "your" of "your
strategy" reads as a definite pronoun, meaning it refers
specifically to Ben and not to some unknown other party.

And I am /sure/ it is intended in the general (indefinite)

This sub-thread is certainly interesting, but it ultimately smacks of
people looking for ways to feel insulted. Victimhood complex, and all that.

But, it makes me think that the problem is the basic paradigm of newsgroup
(i.e., online forum) communication being thought of as personalized. I.e.,
as in direct person-to-person communication - as if it was being spoken in
a real room with real people (face-to-face). The fact is, it is not. It
would be better if we didn't think of it that way. Rather, it should be
thought of as communication between the speaker and an anonymous void.
I.e., I'm not talking to you - I am talking to the anonymous void.
Everybody is.

Sort of like in the (US) House of Representatives - members are not ever
supposed to be talking to each other. Rather, they are always speaking to
the void.

Like I am doing now.

This is also why it is good (And, yes, I know this goes against the CW) to
drop attributions, as I have done here. Keep it anonymous.

[Janis Papanagnou]

Post by Kenny McCormack
This sub-thread is certainly interesting, but it ultimately smacks of
people looking for ways to feel insulted. Victimhood complex, and all that.
But, it makes me think that the problem is the basic paradigm of newsgroup
(i.e., online forum) communication being thought of as personalized. I.e.,
as in direct person-to-person communication - as if it was being spoken in
a real room with real people (face-to-face). The fact is, it is not. It
would be better if we didn't think of it that way. Rather, it should be
thought of as communication between the speaker and an anonymous void.
I.e., I'm not talking to you - I am talking to the anonymous void.
Everybody is.
Sort of like in the (US) House of Representatives - members are not ever
supposed to be talking to each other. Rather, they are always speaking to
the void.
Like I am doing now.
This is also why it is good (And, yes, I know this goes against the CW) to
drop attributions, as I have done here. Keep it anonymous.

Part 1

This is hard to achieve given that the technical NG infrastructure and
functions "logically" connect the articles; it's only a little burden
to identify (if not already obvious) the addressee.

I think it would be better to try to stay on the issue as opposed to
reply (as so often done) ad hominem (where arguments don't seem to
exist or don't help anymore). This is of course yet more difficult to
achieve and will in practice [also] not work in Usenet (I'm sure).

Language can be used or interpreted in personal or impersonal forms.
Some communication forms - and more so their semantical contents! -
are (beyond the "you" vs. "one" dichotomy) inherently [set up to be]
personal.

-- Anonymous
:-)

Part 2

That all said. I think it's important to know who said/posted what.
It allows to associate personal context/background information when
replying. You can also be more assured about the quality of contents
(to the good or bad) or even ignore certain posts. It saves time and
protects ones health and mental sanity.[*]

There's of course also post (or threads) that just exchange opinions,
and "we" know everyone [typically] has an opinion (and often even in
cases where they are put up against facts). Some folks are known to
post a lot, respond to every thread that appears, contributing facts
(sometimes) but also opinions (or personal offenses); this may be a
nuisance (or just ignored, unless "anonymously" posted).

So far my opinion on this non-technical meta-topic subthread.

Janis
(Darn, I disclosed my identity!)

[*] Wasn't that the inherent problem of all those "social media"
platforms? - Where anonymous posts - and some say that anonymity
does negatively contribute to the language and contents of such
disturbing posts - lead to barbarian communication conditions.
(I know that only from hearsay but it seems common perception.)

[Cri-Cri]

But "one" can also be used as a first person definite pronoun
(referring to the speaker), which an online reference tells me is
chiefly British English.

We have the same construct in Swedish: 'en', as in "en kanske skulle kunna
ta en banan", meaning "one could perhaps have a banana." Referring to
oneself from an outside perspective, in, for instance, a situation where
there used to be several items on offer to guests, but now there are only
bananas and some dry sponge cake left. IOW, of two lesser desirable items,
one could accept a banana.