Subject: Re: PART TWO: winning industrial-use of lisp: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lis From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 14:45:48 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * email@example.comNOSPAM (Dvd Avins) | In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Erik Naggum <email@example.com> writes: | | >* Tim Bradshaw <firstname.lastname@example.org> | >| No. That is the precise usage I'd generate. Or `We're going to meet | >| the new employee tomorrow, they'll be here at 9:30'. | > | > How about "..., which should be here at 9:30"? | | "[W]hich", when talking about an individual human sounds completely wrong to | me. It is equivalent to "it". I would use it in talking about a corporation, | but I don't think I would if I referred to corporations as "they". Heh, amusing mistake of mine. I really thought "who", but because of the purposeful removal of gender/sex, the whole "person" property got lost. Just goes to show how unnatural I think "they" in such usage is, I guess. -- Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.