Pedants' Paradise

[kernelbogey]

It isn't. But I was aware that some of the more extreme pedants who populate this thread might not have liked they.

'S/he' is ugly but 'twill often serve.

[vinteuil]

'S/he' is ugly but 'twill often serve.

... "she" has the advantage that it can cause people to stop and think.

[Sir Velo]

You are a squabblesome bunch!

As we all know, there is a perfectly acceptable gender neutral pronoun available.

[vinteuil]

... yep, I'm pretty happy with 'they' and 'their' in singular uses



In Paradise Lost Milton sometimes uses their and sometimes uses thir . Some 20th century scholarly editions (Helen Darbishire?) tried to make out that his use of the two forms was significant - their as a stressed form, thir an unstressed. I think that theory has now been exploded.

But for a time I did try to resurrect thir as a potential gender neutral singular...

[Nick Armstrong]

Interesting to read about the 'singular they' - thanks for the link Sir Velo.

I've long been vaguely surprised by another instance of a plural doing singular service - I've put it down as a 'media' affectation, but perhaps there's more to it. It seems to be a resurgence of the Royal 'we'...

It occurs when someone in the public eye describes their own actions using 'we'.

I just heard an example when a person was describing a lecture tour of schools in which he recounts his experience of bullying. Just him, no one else.... but he said "we've been speaking in a number of schools...".

And lately, I've been involved in an aspect of motor sport, and heard this or that driver regularly using the first person plural to talk about something that could only be the activity of a singular individual ("we changed gear early"... "we were accelerating"...).

Sometimes I think it derives from a desire to be collegiate, to encompass the team in certain remarks ("we drove a strong race").

But "we changed gear".... "we spoke"... Any thoughts?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

The problem with the use of "they" as singular is that it is then followed by a plural 3rd person verb.

They are... They go... They do...

It would be more appropriate to say:
They is... They goes... They does...

A better alternative might be to use the word "one", which is wrongly derided as being "posh".

You know the joke:
Q: What do polo hooligans sing at a match?
A: "Here one goes, here one goes, here one goes..."

[french frank]

A better alternative might be to use the word "one", which is wrongly derided as being "posh".

Again, it's 'practical linguistics': it's thought of as 'posh' because people who 'talk posh' tend to be the ones who use 'one' in those contexts. What do you teach children in schools? 'Do use 'one' in these contexts: it really is 'wrongly derided' as being 'posh'. But anyone is allowed to use it.' [Answer: Yes, but they don't. They use 'they', 'themselves' 'theirself'.]

Whether it's designated 'posh' is another matter. It may well simply become archaic, like 'thee' and 'thou'.

[jean]

But 'one' can never refer to a noun earlier in the sentence, as in the example that prompted this discussion, so in this case it's not an available 'alternative':

The careful reader will give the word even more care than she would without those.

(I nearly wrote 'refer back' then but remembered where I was, just in time.)

[ahinton]

Interesting to read about the 'singular they' - thanks for the link Sir Velo.

I've long been vaguely surprised by another instance of a plural doing singular service - I've put it down as a 'media' affectation, but perhaps there's more to it. It seems to be a resurgence of the Royal 'we'...

It occurs when someone in the public eye describes their own actions using 'we'.

I just heard an example when a person was describing a lecture tour of schools in which he recounts his experience of bullying. Just him, no one else.... but he said "we've been speaking in a number of schools...".

And lately, I've been involved in an aspect of motor sport, and heard this or that driver regularly using the first person plural to talk about something that could only be the activity of a singular individual ("we changed gear early"... "we were accelerating"...).

Sometimes I think it derives from a desire to be collegiate, to encompass the team in certain remarks ("we drove a strong race").

But "we changed gear".... "we spoke"... Any thoughts?

My first thought is that this is a case of Grewish first person usage.

[kernelbogey]

Again, it's 'practical linguistics': it's thought of as 'posh' because people who 'talk posh' tend to be the ones who use 'one' in those contexts. What do you teach children in schools? 'Do use 'one' in these contexts: it really is 'wrongly derided' as being 'posh'. But anyone is allowed to use it.' [Answer: Yes, but they don't. They use 'they', 'themselves' 'theirself'.]

Whether it's designated 'posh' is another matter. It may well simply become archaic, like 'thee' and 'thou'.

I believe that 'one' is used, particularly by the so-called 'posh', to signify not merely 'I did/thought/believe etc' but an implication that this action/thought/belief is part of a value system in which the speaker is a particpant among a group. For example (to satirise) 'One wouldn't drink red wine with fish'; but also 'One wouldn't want to drive far on a flat tyre' - though, admittedly, my second example would be more likely to be said with 'you' rather than 'one'.

I find that 'they' in the singular usage jars for me and I try to avoid it - except occasionally when speaking. 'S/he' works where one seeks to emphasise that the (generalised) person could be of either gender. However, and in support of jean, where such a usage might occur more than once in a continuous piece of prose I would alternate 'she' and 'he', beginning with the former (out of post-patriarchal courtesy ).

[kernelbogey]

...I've long been vaguely surprised by another instance of a plural doing singular service - I've put it down as a 'media' affectation, but perhaps there's more to it. It seems to be a resurgence of the Royal 'we'...

It occurs when someone in the public eye describes their own actions using 'we'.

I just heard an example when a person was describing a lecture tour of schools in which he recounts his experience of bullying. Just him, no one else.... but he said "we've been speaking in a number of schools...".

And lately, I've been involved in an aspect of motor sport, and heard this or that driver regularly using the first person plural to talk about something that could only be the activity of a singular individual ("we changed gear early"... "we were accelerating"...).

Sometimes I think it derives from a desire to be collegiate, to encompass the team in certain remarks ("we drove a strong race").

But "we changed gear".... "we spoke"... Any thoughts?

I think I first noticed this usage as grandiosity by people such as Rupert Murdoch. Possibly the usage incorportates 'his people' in some way, though I'm disinclined to be generous in this instance.

Certainly, "we drove a strong race" seems appropriately collegiate (though what about 'We caught fire'?! ), and I suspect might just morph into 'We changed gear' etc under the influence of the quasi-regal celebrity usage I've attributed to the Press Baron.

(I don't plan to be the first on this forum, to post 'As we have previously posted....' .)

[french frank]

However, and in support of jean, where such a usage might occur more than once in a continuous piece of prose I would alternate 'she' and 'he', beginning with the former (out of post-patriarchal courtesy ).

[gurnemanz]

You are a squabblesome bunch!

As we all know, there is a perfectly acceptable gender neutral pronoun available.

Thanks for that link. One thing that struck me was the reference to the reflexive pronoun "themself" for use with they singular. Their example: Each child feeds themself. (Spellcheck on here marks it is an error). It seems to be perverse, but I can't say for sure whether I would use or not until I notice what comes out when I utter such a sentence spontaneously. It seems to be contentious.

[kernelbogey]

Thanks for that link. One thing that struck me was the reference to the reflexive pronoun "themself" for use with they singular. Their example: Each child feeds themself. (Spellcheck on here marks it is an error). It seems to be perverse, but I can't say for sure whether I would use or not until I notice what comes out when I utter such a sentence spontaneously. It seems to be contentious.

'Themself' jars for me: I'd be inclined to write 'Each child feeds her- or himself', or possibly simply 'Each child feeds herself'.

The Swedes are increasingly using 'hen' as a gender neutral pronoun.

I wonder whether the German usage 'Man' (more or less the same as 'one') has come under any attack from feminist theory: anyone know?

[jean]

I wonder whether the German usage 'Man' (more or less the same as 'one') has come under any attack from feminist theory: anyone know?

I don't know, but I would think not as it's sufficiently different from the word for man (Mann):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ykkn8HyVqhk