Talk:Singular they/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Singular they. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Some questions

I suspect all languages contain ungrammatical sentences, which are perfectly clear and accepted in common speech, and sometimes in formal writing.

It's me.

Is this a well-formed English sentence? By what standard?

Are the following two sentences equally amenable to rigorous, grammatical descriptive theories? Would both pass in formal writing?

I would hate the committee to elect me.
I would hate for the committee to elect me.

Not only do I suspect that ungrammatical sentences can be clear and acceptable, even in formal writing. I'm certain the opposite is also true, i.e. that grammatically correct sentences can be unclear and meaningless, even in common speech.

The speedy tree slept violently on rice.

In fact, since languages with common ancestors like German and English have distinctly different patterns of usage in certain areas, people must have been so accepting of inconsistencies from time to time, that these inconsistencies came to transform the language, in whole or in part. It's easy to imagine this with pronounciation and morphology, but it must also be true of syntax.

Can "singular" they be substituted for every instance of a third person personal animate subject pronoun? Are any of the following grammatically wrong? Are any stylistically poor? Is it possible that grammar alone does not describe all features of language performance?

The boss entered. She thanked them for their work.
The boss entered. He thanked them for their work.
The boss entered. They thanked them for their work.
The boss entered. They thanked him for his work.
The boss entered. They thanked her for her work.

Can you rank the following options according to your own preference?

Each sister found her own success rewarding.
Each sister found their own success rewarding.
Each sister found their success rewarding.
Each sister found her success rewarding.

Is their in such examples a question of grammatical prohibition or of style?

Which is your natural preference?

What about the following? Can they be improved without "singular" they?

Don't feed a Wiki troll! What he wants is your attention.
When an employee is over-emotional, you should send her home.

In what way is "singular" they helpful in these sentences?

An insecure adolescent male should be encouraged find esteem in taking adult responsibilty for themself.
When their trust has been betrayed, the female victim needs support to share their inner self again.

Looking forward to some thoughts, just procrastinating writing up more about quantification. ;) Cheers. Alastair Haines 13:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Some examples that avoid using singular 'they' -

Don't feed the Wiki trolls! What they want is the attention.
An employee who becomes over-emotional at work is better off being sent home.

For example, Newbyguesses - Talk 23:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The betrayal of trust suffered by these female 'victims' renders them 'incapable' of sharing their inner selves again, unless 'unlimited' support is offered, some people say.

Insecure adolescent males can attain self-esteem in taking adult responsibilty for themselves, and should be encouraged to do so, until someone gets an eye poked out, then its no fun anymore.

Just add water and stir, Newbyguesses - Talk 23:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Bake for ten minutes -

The boss entered. A voice boomed out: "Thanks!"
The sisters each found their own successes rewarding; though they were for the most part extremely ill-disposed towards each other, sibling-wise.
It is I, said the Fly.
If the committee elects me, I'm going on vacation.
the tree, the rice, the moon of august in the night sky, their congruence

How goes 'clitic' particles, in the intro? Does the use of source Pinker twice in the text work? Woops, more questions, Newbyguesses - Talk 23:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

More questions.

Should the article be longer? There are many relevant authoratative sources with much to say. The grammar texts, are barely skimmed, likewise Newman contains further material. Strunk&White is mentioned, but not Chicago MOS, Reuters, Press Club, also various editorial boards have produceded written guidelines. Guide to Eng. Usage contains further material (at the entry for he/she) which could be used, and there is much useful material contained in external links/further reading, not to mention the references which are listed there such as Jesperson, Bodine and many others.

Should the article be shorter? The approach to this article relies on copious examples, as well as reporting from sources which themselves "stockpile" examples. Is it possible to do with fewer examples in the article?

Should the tags come off? Within English grammar, singular they is a controversial topic, that is unavoidable. I would say that the article currently satisfies both WP:V (verifiability) and WP:NPOV (neutral point of view), and so both questionable tags should come off the top of the article. Controversial points are all matched by references. The main problem I still see with the article is that a reader might get through the article, not consult any of the reference material, and then still question factuality. If the tags come off, however, a reader who questions any particular point could add the appropriate (citation needed) tag, and the article improved from that.

Comments? Newbyguesses - Talk 05:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that User:Francis Tyers has removed a couple of unnecessary paragraphs, and the tags, any reader with fresh eyes is able to read and critique the article, and its references. Thanks to the users who have participated recently, this article is, for now, over that stigma. Those users who have engaged in fruitful dialogue on this talkpage are too numerous to mention individually. Further comments by any thoughtful editor are welcome on the talk-page, (which by the way is getting a bit longish, an archiving could be in order). Thanks to all who contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia. Newbyguesses - Talk 01:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Newbyguesses: I suspect all languages contain ungrammatical sentences, which are perfectly clear and accepted in common speech, and sometimes in formal writing.

I don't know what you mean by "ungrammatical" here.

It's me.

Is this a well-formed English sentence? By what standard?

Yes of course it is. By my standard. I'm a native speaker of English and it passes my acceptability test. But this is just me. Shall I pop it into a test for fifty native speakers? (This will cost me time and money and I will need to be refunded.) If on the other hand you're asking me for reasoning, I might venture that I (like he, she, we, and they) is only correct as a subject; that me and so forth correspond not only to French me but also to French moi.

Here's one for you:

It's we.

Does that sound all right to you? (If so, your English and mine are very, very different.)

The grammar texts, are barely skimmed, likewise Newman contains further material. Strunk&White is mentioned. . . .

Strunk and White's Elements of Style is a stunningly stupid book. Don't take my word for this; look in the Language Log, passim. There you'll find comments on it by people who've actually taken the trouble to study language, and don't merely pontificate on how others should use it. (You might start here.) -- Hoary 12:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Usage of "it" for infants

I’m not sure of the conventions in North American English, but it is perfectly acceptable to use ‘it’ for a baby or even child in British English. It is by no means an archaic usage. It is used either where the gender of a baby is unknown or when speaking of an unspecific baby or child.

For example, if I saw a baby being pushed down the street by some strangers and it was not immediately obvious of the baby’s gender it would be perfectly natural for me to say:

“The baby was being pushed down the street in its pram”. On the other hand if someone said “The baby was being pushed down the street in their pram” it would be commonly understood that “their” referred to the parents or other persons, not to the baby.

Also the well known amusingly ambiguous sentence: “If the baby will not drink its milk, boil it”. This is more natural than “If the baby does not drink their milk, boil it”, at least to my ears.

The pronoun “it” is more likely to be used for unspecific children rather than specific children of unknown gender – presumably because gender is usually obvious by then and society attaches more significance to gender as people grow up.

“The child that doesn’t eat its vegetables will not grow up to be healthy” would be perfectly acceptable.

But if speaking of a specific child it would be regarded as bizarre or rude to say “it threw the ball at me”. Similarly it would usually be unacceptably strange to refer to a specific adult of unknown gender as “it”. For example BT uses an automated voice to say “You were called today at [time]; the caller withheld their number”. However “the caller withheld its number” would sound wrong.

Booshank 22:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I have long been of thopinion that it would be better to say e.g. "The caller's number was withheld."CanOfWorms (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, User:Booshank, that is how this editor understands it as well. The use of *it* referring to an infant is generally acceptable, but not in certain circumstances, such as X It through the ball at me X . The sentence The caller withheld their number seems to be widely accepted also. Newbyguesses - Talk 23:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

For me (living in the U.S.'s Upper Midwest) the use of "it" to refer to a person, even a baby, would be quite strange; the only exceptions I can think of are:

cleft sentences, like "It's you who is/are mistaken" ← here the "it" is actually an expletive/dummy pronoun, and only sort-of refers to the person.
sentences like "Is it a boy or a girl?", "Phone call for you: it's your mother", "There's someone at the door; could you go see who it is?" ← I think these fall into the same category as cleft sentences.
references to a currently-unborn (and perhaps currently-only-planned) child of unknown gender (even if the context is such that it's really referring to a future time when the child has been born.)

Obviously I can't guarantee that everyone in my area would agree, though.

—Ruakh_TALK 15:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, User:Ruakh, those examples also seem well-formed. I am glad thispage only deals with singular they, and not *it* which would be a real pain! The use of *it* referring to an infant is generally acceptable, but not in certain circumstances, (where it would be awkward, even impolite, a judgement call) is my understanding, in the (spoken/written) version of English commonly in use on Australia's eastern coast, where it is currently raining heavily. Not XThe girl fell out of it's pram X. OK- "The baby is sucking its thumb".

Oh, and thanks for doing that archiving, too - most helpful! — Newbyguesses - Talk 01:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm from the Midwest, too, and I commonly hear babies and young children referred to with it when the gender is unknown, or even when it's known, if the baby is quite small. However, it seems that a gendered pronoun is always used if a gendered antecedent is used, rather than being referred to as "the baby." Same with pets. (e.g., "The baby dropped its pacifier," but "Jimmy [the baby] dropped his pacifier." "The dog broke free of its leash," but "Cleo [the dog] lost her favorite toy.") I've never heard even the most wrong-headed and grammatically incorrect person in the world (who probably lives right here in my town) refer to a baby or animal with singular they. IrisWings 09:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm from Australia, and I have heard people say "your baby's dropped their dummy" (we don't have pacifier here in Australia;). However, according to Pullum, because it is a refering pronoun, he would declare this Australian usage ungrammatical. Mind you, Australians are good at not letting people tell them how to do anything <cheeky smirk>. Anyway, the main point is, your instinct is "officially" correct. Refering pronouns do not allow "singular" they.

I also like your description of when it's OK and when it's not is based on "gendered" antecedents. If an antecedent is generic -- indeterminate gender or indeterminate number -- they has always been an option, sometimes the prefered one, in English. Alastair Haines 09:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly I meant no offense to Australians. :) I simply have never heard that usage here. *Sigh* It would certainly simplify things if English had a singular androgynous pronoun. IrisWings 22:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe and maybe not. If people loosen up and realize that both a person cannot help their birth and every good student deserves their fruit have been standard English for 700 years, and that the idea seems to pick up on an implied plural from indeterminacy, then its a wonderfully flexible usage — the implied plurality includes anyone you might want it to. On the other hand, I have a completely childish reaction to androgynous pronouns — they've got germs! I'm a man, there's nothing "gyn-aecological" about me, lol. I'm very happy to stand side by side with them, but I'm a he not a hir. Hmmm, was the topic talking about infants. ;) Alastair Haines 01:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Continuing opposition among grammarians?

Some grammarians (e.g., Fowler 1992, pp. 300–301) continue to view singular they as grammatically inconsistent, and recommend either recasting in the plural or avoiding the pronoun altogether.

Fowler can't continue to view anything as anything. He died in 1933.

Even when alive, Fowler wasn't really a grammarian. He was a writer (and a good one) and a teacher. He wasn't in the same league as Jespersen and the like, and didn't claim to be.

Fowler's latest reviser/coauthor is one Jane E. Aaron. I've never heard of her, but her other books as listed by amazon.com suggest that she's a writer on writing, not a grammarian.

The various revisions of Fowler's book aren't grammars. They're guides for nervous writers on how to avoid writing that's poor either by most people's standards or by the standards, however batty, of a significant number of people. If you want a real reference grammar, there are two or perhaps three I can think of that are worth considering. The iffy one is the ageing "comprehensive" grammar by Quirk et al. The good ones are the Longman grammar by Biber et al., and the Cambridge grammar by Huddleston and Pullum and others. Have I omitted any? -- Hoary 05:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the bit on Fowler can easily be rewritten to be more precise; then to perhaps refer to these more serious grammar-books would probably be a good idea, but needing research first. Every little bit helps. Newbyguesses - Talk 08:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've got hold of a paperback with the alarming title of A Concise Dictionary of Correct English (by B A Phythian, 1979). It's alphabetically arranged. There's an obvious place for "singular they" and it's not there. I've also got hold of a large hardback with the soporific title The Oxford Guide to Writing: A Rhetoric and Handbook for College Students (Thomas S Kane, 1983). This has a section on pronouns and an exhaustive index: neither mentions "singular they". For some long-forgotten reason I actually possess a copy of Zinsser's On Writing Well (4th ed): no mention of "singular they".

I suspect that most of even the writers of prescriptive syle books (a dreary genre) have given up on this one. -- Hoary 09:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to Fowler, the Href appears as (1992) pages 300-301, but then looking into it, The Little, Brown Handbook by Henry Ramsey Fowler, Jane E. Aaron - Language Arts & Disciplines - 1992 - 33 pages. Something wrong here, but I dont have a copy to check. Newbyguesses - Talk 23:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Continuing opposition among anyone else?

We read:

The advice of style guides and editorial boards is divided on this matter.

Everyone has to consider their future.

This is a contentious example, from the The Cambridge Guide to English Usage (2004); it is suggested that purists might say that it's ungrammatical to use their after everyone, because one requires a singular pronoun.

Can we have examples of such style guides and editorial boards? This CGEU is merely quoted as speculating that such "purists" may exist. Does it name any? -- Hoary 14:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, the CGEU only has "purists might say". An exhaustive list of purists, and style guides? There's Baskervill&Sewell, Strunk&White, and later, The Chicago manual of Style. By no means exhaustive. There must be hundreds of style guides, some in favour, and some against, the use of singular they. Newbyguesses - Talk 06:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we be bold?

I started to go through this article, and was struck less by the myriad little points that I fixed (or hope that I fixed) than by its repetitiveness and longwindedness. This gradually got to me, and I paid less and less attention to what it was saying. About two thirds of the way through, it utterly defeated me.

I'm inclined to be very bold indeed, deleting over half of what's in the article.

Look, singular they is pretty simple, really. It's obvious that it has long been idiomatic for use as a singular bound pronoun but not as a singular referring pronoun (see Pullum for the distinction). Self-appointed experts have long wittered on about how it's not merely awkward (a matter of taste) but also logically and/or grammatically wrong. For decades, actual linguists have shown the prescriptivists to be wrong. Recently, use even where the sex is known has become idiomatic in the informal speech of many people. And there has been more pressure to use sex-indeterminate singular they because of pressure not to use he. And that's about it. It can of course be sprinkled with examples, and the examples should be sourced; and arguments can be summarized and cited, but the whole thing should nevertheless be a lot shorter.

I don't particularly relish the job of cutting this down to size, as singular they seems a trivial non-issue of language. Any takers? -- Hoary 14:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hoary wrote,

"For decades, actual linguists have shown the prescriptivists to be wrong."

The correct phrasing would be, "For decades, Left-leaning descriptive linguists with their own ideological axes to grind have constructed convoluted, nonsensical, and jargon-riddled 'arguments' that have attempted to prove the prescriptivists wrong". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.4.185.39 (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Editing Singular they -(9 September 2007)-This page is 31 kilobytes long.

Revision as of 08:24, 3 July 2007 at (22,801 bytes) was shorter.

Newbyguesses - Talk 23:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the changes being made by User:Hoary, it is plain this whole section, Usage, had to go. The problem was not citation (the original items were all sourced from Baskervill&Sewell). But the lists lacked definition. Newbyguesses - Talk 00:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't entirely agree. If they were all sourced from B&S, they were all actually sourced from an about.com page that's obviously a commercial scrape of a Project Gutenberg production. PG productions aren't reliable (I speak as somebody who carefully went through and corrected one that had been revised by somebody who seemed conscientious), and (if we're going to be pernickety) B&S, even reproduced scrupulously, would have been using editions no better than the best available a century ago, some of which are probably dodgy by today's standards.

Still, the list was thought provoking, even if not reliable. I think it's worth presenting here; an editor might later recycle part of it. So (after my commenting some stuff out, and removing the tiresome "fact" tags) here it is. -- Hoary 05:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Could we be bold again and remove most of this article ? I'm not a english speaker and I was so scared after reading the first lines of this article that I didn't read further. At least we could find an easier example than Shakespeare. And probably dig up a layman's explanation from the older versions--Yitscar 13:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a great deal of repetition at the end of the article, and most of that should go. Regarding a layman's example from the older versions, I agree with you, and that's what I provided some time ago. However, although there's a good case for it, there's also a good case for addressing the linguistics.

Overall, linguistics is actually a better approach. It was more difficult to write, and it's more difficult to read, but at least it means we can start with "singular" they, rather than generic he, which has been the dominant form until only a couple of decades ago.

What is your mother-tongue? Is it Hebrew?

Can you still say:

איש לביתו

'ish l'beyto.

English used to work much the same way. If it meant everyone, it would still talk about a singular man. Alastair Haines 13:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"Usage" section

==Usage==

Examples occur throughout Engish literature.

===Of sex-neutral he===

These writers, from various periods of English letters, chose, for stylistic or other reasons, on these occasions, to employ the masculine form.

If any one did not know it, it was his own fault. —Cable.
Everybody had his own life to think of. —Defoe.
Suppose the life and fortune of every one of us would depend on his winning or losing a game of chess. —Thomas Huxley.
Every person who turns this page has his own little diary. —Thackeray.

===Of singular they===

On these occasions, these writers, or the same writers, chose differently, stylistically.

Had the doctor been contented to take my dining tables, as anybody in their senses would have done. —Austen.
Every one must judge of their own feelings. —Byron.
If the part deserve any comment, every considering Christian will make it themselves as they go. —Defoe.
Every person's happiness depends in part upon the respect they meet in the world. —Paley.
The sun, which pleases everybody with it and with themselves. —Ruskin.
Urging every one within reach of your influence to be neat, and giving them means of being so.— Id.
Everybody will become of use in their own fittest way.— Id.
The richly canopied monument of one of the most earnest souls that ever gave itself to the arts. <ref>Baskervill and Sewell, ''An English Grammar'' (1896).</ref>
"Whoever lives there," thought Alice, "it'll never do to come upon them this size: why, I should frighten them out of their wits!" —Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
"It's long," said the Knight, "but very, very beautiful. Everybody that hears me sing it -- either it brings the tears into their eyes, or else --" —Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. —King James Version (Authorized Version) translation of the Bible, Philippians 2:3
God send every one their heart's desire! —Shakespeare, Much Ado About Nothing, Act III Scene 4
There's not a man I meet but doth salute me, As if I were their well-acquainted friend. —Shakespeare, Comedy of Errors, Act IV Scene 3
No one prevents you, do they? —Thackeray
I shouldn't like to punish anyone, even if they'd done me wrong. —George Eliot
...everyone shall delight us, and we them. —Walt Whitman
He did not believe it rested anybody to lie with their head high... —Elizabeth Bowen
You do not have to understand someone in order to love them. —Lawrence Durrell
And how easy the way a man or woman would come in here, glance around, find smiles and pleasant looks waiting for them, then wave and sit down by themselves. —Doris Lessing
She kept her head and kicked her shoes off, as everybody ought to do who falls into deep water in their clothes. —C. S. Lewis, Voyage of the Dawn Treader
Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes. —Oscar Wilde

===Of both===

Nobody knows what it is to lose a friend, till they have lost him. —Fielding.

Greek

What follows is mildly impressive, but seems to say little or nothing about singular they and also irritatingly forces lateral scrolling (in my browser window, at least). So I've removed it. -- Hoary 10:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In the following case, these literal translations copy the Greek which has plural they (αυτων).

Ούτως	και	ο	πατήρ	μου	ο	ουράνιος	ποιησει	υμιν,	εαν	μη	αφητε	εκαστος	τω	αδελφω	αυτου	απο	των	καρδιων	υμων	τα	παραπτωματα	αυτων.
Thus	too	the	father	my	the	heavenly	will do	to you,	if	not	you all forgive	each one	the	brother	his	from	the	hearts	your	the	trespasses	their.

NPOV

Just a couple of quick comments. There is a very prominent but incorrect POV that needs to be documented at this page, but not to the exclusion of the facts. That POV is roughly this:

generic he was prescribed English until about the 20th century
this was sexist
usage changed as people abandoned sexism
some reactionaries insist on the old language because of recalcitrant sexism, nostalgia or purism

It is incorrect because:

"singular" they has always been in English
generic he is not sexist, it is unavoidable in many inflected languages
the relative frequency of they / he has changed because of gender-neutral prescriptivism
prescriptivism is inevitable and necessary for language change and reform

That the singular pronoun is preferable on logical grounds is abundantly clear by examination of usage in contexts where sexism cannot be an issue. It is also clear that both pronouns provide well-formed sentences, it is a matter of style, not of grammar.

Each of the girls enjoyed her sport.
Each of the girls enjoyed their sport.

The second sentence is not exactly equivalent to the first. Because English speakers normally associate they with plurality, the second sentence is more likely to suggest collectivity rather than distribution, i.e. the girls share the same sport. For precisely the reason that they has always been used in distributive constructions, the second sentence is ambiguous. In context, especially in speech, such ambiguity is usually no problem, there's enough information floating around in a discourse for the intention of the speaker to be clear.

Perhaps even more clear is:

Each house had it's charm.
Each house had their charm.

When perceptions of sexism are not at stake, singular pronouns are prefered in distributive constructions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alastair Haines (talk • contribs) 01:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there would be many who would come to this page hoping to find references to quality sources that express the POV I mention above. I think we need to do that, and do it well. However, we are misleading people if we leave it at that. We can also do a lot better.

"singular" they is well-formed / grammatical / established in English usage since Caxton at least
non-sexist ideology is good grounds for style selection

However

distributive constructions, where sexism is not an issue, still prefer singular pronouns
generic she and generic he are still well-formed and attested English usage

What would make this article POV is: assuming that prescriptivism is always wrong, ignoring that gender-neutral language reform is in fact prescriptive, failing to recognize that the argument for singular pronouns in distributive constructions is based on logic not sentimentalism.

The bottom line is this. An editor of this article should ask herself, would she personally ever use generic he in a context that could include women? If her answer is "no", that's all well and good, but it doesn't give her the right to forbid that usage to others. That's not what Wiki is about. In fact, it is easy to be NPOV at this article, there are good reasons to avoid generic he in many contexts, and singular they is often the best solution. However, generic he has logical clarity, directness, suits itself to translation from highly inflected languages and exists in so much literature already that we need to report it. Frankly, we're not allowed to recommend either usage are we? We should simply document where, when, and by whom they are used.

Alastair Haines 23:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You make a lot of sense, but some details are iffy.

It is incorrect because:

"singular" they has always been in English
generic he is not sexist, it is unavoidable in many inflected languages
the relative frequency of they / he has changed because of gender-neutral prescriptivism
prescriptivism is inevitable and necessary for language change and reform

True since whenever the OED or some similarly authoritative source can show it. But certainly it long predates any mass concern about sexism.
A highly contentious statement about English, and what's not about English is arguably irrelevant.
(No particular comment.)
For "reform" (in the obvious senses of the word), this is tautologous; for other language change it's demonstrably untrue. (Simple example off the top of my head: Nobody "prescribed" the expansion of "estuary English" across much of England, yet it happened all the same.)

That the singular pronoun is preferable on logical grounds is abundantly clear by examination of usage in contexts where sexism cannot be an issue.

Seemingly a very POV assertion. It may indeed be true, but its truth value lacks abundant clarity.

#"singular" they is well-formed / grammatical / established in English usage since Caxton at least

The article says Chaucer; was that somebody's typo?

#non-sexist ideology is good grounds for style selection

Obviously POV, and if you say it you'll have the usual wingnuts bleating about their beloved term "political correctness".

Frankly, we're not allowed to recommend either usage are we? We should simply document where, when, and by whom they are used.

Right. And that's assuming that this article should exist at all. -- Hoary 10:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting final point Hoary. I'm actually inclined to agree, though our reasons may differ. I'm curious to know why you are against having an entry under "singular" they.

Reordering

The article has struck me as confused in various ways. One was the way it kept presenting more or less sensible stylistic prescriptions/advice/commentary under a variety of headings. Most of these headings were at least moderately satisfactory, but the reason for separating wasn't clear. Moreover, some of the stylistic stuff was mixed up with purely descriptive material.

What immediately struck me as a sensible idea was to separate (a) the descriptive material from (b) the stuff about style. After all, the latter is commentary; and articles normally say what a movie, building or dialect is before summarizing reactions to it.

I therefore started on this job. However, while doing it, I realized two things:

First, it seems likely that, for better or worse, stylistic commentary has had at least some effect on actual use. Thus description (e.g. that by Huddleston and Pullum) can't completely ignore prescription and metalinguistic notions.

Secondly, if the article is encyclopedic at all, it's the metalinguistic notions (however batty) that make it so. (Consider the complementizer that: "I told the police that I killed her". It's far more important in English than singular they, but nobody kicks up a fuss about it and so it's not encyclopedic.)

So I'm now inclined to switch the order around:

Introduction (briefly summarizing the prescriptive and descriptive)
Stylistic/prescriptive
Descriptive

Of course the body would be subdivided where necessary.

But I'm not going to rush to make further changes to the order of the article, as I realize that they make diffs unusable: "being bold" is fine; but preferably after agreement, so that you don't have to be bold all over again and further screw up your diffs.

Comments? -- Hoary 02:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Basque, etc.

Basque is far from the only example of this. Kuroda considers it [sc an indeterminate pronoun takes on a universal distributive value (?)] typical of east asian lanugages, Japanese and Korean in particular.

Typos aside, wow.

Where does Kuroda say this?
What is the "indeterminate pronoun" in Japanese?

Hoary 12:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The more I read, the more clear it is that English does what many languages do. Distributive ideas are very common, and indeterminate pronouns are frequently used to mark them. English could use one, that, which or various other words to form distributives, and in fact it does. It could borrow from a closely related language, or it could invent a word or structure. Actually it borrows from closely related languages. The word, they is borrowed from Norweigan, and the structure <quantifier> ... <3rd person personal pronoun> is typical of European Indo-European languages.

If I was inventing a language, I think I wouldn't do it the Indo-European way. I rather like the precision of the languages that have specific clitics for specific distributions. In fact, this is precisely what computer languages do.

Unfortunately, Japanese is not one of the scripts I've studied, nor one of the languages I'm familiar with, so I'm completely at Kuroda's mercy. However, he's rather a famous linguist and Japanese, so I'm happy to take his word for it, which is what those who cite him are also doing. Alastair Haines 17:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Your latest edit implies that the concept termed "Kuroda normal form" has stated this. Kuroda normal form has not stated anything. Kuroda may have stated it. You cite Kuroda's book; I infer that you have looked at it. If so, what page of the book does this appear on?

Further, what evidence do you have that "he" was preferred until the late 20th century? (Or are you saying that a book published in 1896 implied a prediction for decades following?) -- Hoary 23:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Since Kuroda is actually mentioned at Wiki, albeit a reference to only one of his publications, I think it is helpful to let skeptical readers check out something of his credentials. Regarding the page number, his view is summarized, not quoted in the article. As it turns out, I only know the book says this because it is cited in other works. That they refer to the book rather than a chapter or page suggests his treatment of the subject may extend throughout the work.

We have not supplied page numbers for an edition of Shakespeare. In the same way I don't doubt an edition of Shakespeare would confirm the quote, so I'm sure an edition of Kuroda would confirm his view regarding east asian languages. As it turns out, his claim could also be verified by consulting Japanese grammars (and Korean etc, etc). Kuroda just happens to have discussed the synchronic linguistics of distribution and quantification in at least one of his works. He wrote rather a lot, on a wide range of topics.

Regarding preference for generic he. Frankly, any recent work that makes a fuss about "singular" they now being accepted is evidence for the fact. Has there been a change or not? What are they claiming has changed? Generic he and generic they have been used throughout the history of English. What has changed is the relative proportion of usages of generic singulars. This includes both and the rise of generic she, as well as "singular" they to replace generic he.

Arguably, quantifiers that take plurals are still prefered to "singular" they (AHD 2000 et al.). In contexts where gender neutrality is not an issue, distributives still prefer singular pronouns. In fact, the very name "singular" they suggests English speakers still prefer to think of distributives as singular.

I'm afraid I have to turn your question back on you. Most sources see the gender neutral language program as a product of the 1970s. And most sources include "singular" they among its recommendations. In fact, I'd love to see a quote from a source that suggest some other time-frame, or some other rational for its rise.

Perhaps you have a personal theory that "singular" they became favoured over generic he in the 1920s, and Fowler was out of step with the move. Perhaps you think it was the 1930s. Perhaps you think it was a natural evolution that cannot be dated precisely. I am not aware of anyone who has suggested any of these things. If you know something I don't regarding this, please educate me.

When do you think generic he lost "prefered" status? 1897? (the year after BandS) 1927? (a year after Fowler) 1937? If it's after 1947, "late 20th century" is correct. It probably can be dated, and I bet it would be about 1977. To be quite honest, I thought this was common knowledge. Alastair Haines 02:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply and I'm glad we seem to be on the same wavelength. Right now I'm in a huge rush, so I'll have to limit myself to one matter. (I hope to return to the others a few hours from now.) I don't have any theory about when singular "they" became preferred. I imagine that, yes, it became preferred (by people talking about "preferences") since the 1970s or so. But for somebody (with whatever background knowledge and/or axe to grind) to say that X is "preferred" (regarded as better) over Y is not the same as the result of, say, a corpus study that shows X is actually commoner than Y. And "preferred" can be used for the latter. Back in 1896, such a confusion would have been commoner. So, two questions (among many): Was "he" preferred over "they" by prescriptivists (of all flavors) in the mid-20th century? (I'd guess that it was, but I don't know.) And was it actually commoner in speech? I have no idea, and I don't suppose the question can even be investigated. (Conceivably, there's some sort of corpus somewhere of mid-20th-century "vernacular" writing -- the kind that hasn't gone through a trained copyeditor, and some study has been done of this.) -- Hoary 02:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Just found something for you. "So we had a rule prescribing singular generic he until the 1980's, when feminists urged a different solution, the result being he or she." — Professor Anne Curzan of the University of Michigan, an expert in the history of English and a member of the American Heritage Dictionary's usage panel. She also says, "It's a very efficient and natural solution to he/she. In fact, English speakers have been using the singular they for centuries. I've done research on the history of gender constructions in English, and you can find the singular they back into at least Middle English." Alastair Haines 03:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Curzan probably does know what she's talking about. I've found the quotation in context, and now know that she's talking in general (and not just about, say, the editors of the AHD.) OK, but again she's talking about conscious rule-making and -keeping rather than about actual use. Indeed, she continues: Most people don't notice it. Imagine if I said, "I was talking to a friend of mine, and they said it was a terrible movie." That would be under the radar for most of us. Indeed it would. My question, then: At the peak or during the plateau of anti-singular-they fervor by prescriptive grammarianss and other pundits, was such use similarly "under the radar"? My guess is that it was, and that singular they has changed in popularity only to copy-editors and self-copy-editors. But NB this is merely a guess. -- Hoary 04:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you approve of Curzan. I guess we won't know if she was one of the 20% who voted in favour of "singular" they, or 80% against it in the a student ... their coursework example from AHD. However, it does show that you would approve of some of the people on the usage panel, and that AHD did consult people who are broadly in favour of "singular" they in general.

But to return to a major point. Just because many modern academics refer to earlier generations of academics as "prescriptivists" doesn't cut much ice with me. Especially because modern academics tell us to use new terminology like "determiner phrase" etc, etc. What is that but prescription?

Frankly, I'm not against modern academics changing terminology if it has advantages in understanding and explaining language features, and it does. In fact, it is their job to recommend terminology that is most helpful in understanding language. What I am against is the hypocracy of expressing one's own professional opinion regarding best terminology, while condemning other academics for doing the same.

The other side of the coin is that I regularly interact with 19th century grammarians of dead languages. By definition they cannot be prescriptive — no one speaks dead languages! What I also notice is that English grammarians of the same era say pretty much the same kinds of things the classicists say. In fact, grammatical analysis of English seems to follow results from analysis of languages other than English rather than preceed it. English speakers did not invent the study of language! The English are responsible for inventing beaurocracy and warm beer, not linguistics!

When it comes to a topic like "singular" they, what normal people want to know is, "I already use this, is it OK, or am I missing something?" Most are happy if a suitably qualified person gives yay or nay with a single simple reason. They are even happier if they are shown evidence of precedent. Regarding these things, there is abundant material everywhere.

Peculiar people like myself are not happy to be told what is OK. I want to understand what the issues are, all the options, and even evalutate minority and extreme views. I'm sure you understand exactly what I mean. Some people are very practical and get on with it, others really want to delve and understand. Normal people want a style guide, academic types want an encyclopedia.

There's so much finger pointing and empty use of the pejoritive but empty description prescriptivist, that I'm finding it hard to find a genuine analysis of pre-1980 English usage. But let me tell you what I think is the case.

It is easy to find sources that offer generic he as preferable. The question is, why do these sources offer it as preferable? This is a form of exactly the question you are aksing above. It is the key question to the whole topic. Frankly, it doesn't really matter whether pre-1980s grammars were making rules or describing statistical frequency, presumably it was a bit of both. The question is, was there any rationale for the preference, whether driven by grass-roots preference, or driven by academic recommendation. Was it arbitrary? Or was there a reason?

This is where languages other than English really help us, especially dead languages. Dead languages don't change any more, and no-one is being prescriptive about them. What is apparent is that many languages form distributives in similar ways and with similar issues. Key components of understanding how they work include indeterminacy, especially with regard to grammatical number.

Actually, another good area for study is formal languages and computer languages. Gender neutrality is not an issue in such languages, but logical clarity and removal of ambiguity most certainly is.

There is actually quite a lot of technical discussion of distribution and quantification. They are apparantly rather intricate subjects. Although the vast majority of uses of "singular" they fall into these topics, they form a very small part of that broad field.

The bottom line seems to be that generic they has always been part of English, though singular forms are prefered. As with other languages, it has to do with logic not grammatical prescription. Epicene they is particularly popular now, but has often been used by analogy with generic they. Finally, though, there appear to be a range of contexts in which epicene they is comprehensible but perceived as awkward — reference to specific antecedents, for example. This is aknowledged even by gender-neutral advocates. I don't doubt that they are correct, I just haven't found a clear statement or explanation of what makes these uses awkward to speakers.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alastair Haines (talk • contribs) 04:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

But to return to a major point. Just because many modern academics refer to earlier generations of academics as "prescriptivists" doesn't cut much ice with me. Especially because modern academics tell us to use new terminology like "determiner phrase" etc, etc. What is that but prescription? In his Minimalist Syntax (which happens to be the work I know best among those that explain functional heads in general and determiner phrases in particular), Andrew Radford does not tell anyone to use "determiner phrase". Rather, he uses evidence from English to argue for them. The subtitle of the book is Exploring the structure of English; it's not about good/elegant/efficient/correct/proper English, and indeed it has very little to say about stylistic issues; moreover, it's not about good/elegant/efficient/correct/proper linguistic terminology, merely trying to establish coherent terminology before using it for some purpose. You may disagree with him; a lot of linguists in a vaguely related tradition (let alone unrelated traditions) do disagree with him. All argue their claims. Prescriptivists typically do not; instead, they dispense advice (or something stronger). When the prescriptions are to aim for precision, to avoid ambiguity, etc., the prescriptive isn't necessarily bad; Radford doesn't even mention this tradition, but Huddleston and Pullum do mention it and not dismissively. The problem is that prescriptivists rather often merely recycle received ideas or perform original bloviation. One of the best selling of prescriptive works, and one cited in this article, is Elements of Style; this has such a high horseshit ratio (see here) that I can't start to take it seriously. -- Hoary 06:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Strunk and White are just plain wrong about distributives requiring number agreement. However, most of the people who criticise them believe exactly the same thing, hence the term "singular" they. Strunk and White say, "never use they in distributives because distributives are always singular and they is always plural." Their critics say, "sure distributives are always singular, so when we use they in distributives it is singular. So we have a new word now, everyone calls it singular they, therefore it is. Don't listen to Strunk and White." The problem is, the thing they agree with SandW about is actually the thing SandW get wrong — number is undefined, not singular, nor plural in most cases of what people are calling "singular" they. Also the thing they condemn, writing-off particular classes of usage, they also duplicate, by forbidding generic he. I can't buy into either group.

On the other hand, Radford sounds cool. My issue is not with people who generate new terminology, but with those who insist on things like actor and patient rather than subject and object. Where new terminology does in fact provide better explanatory power, it has a habit of catching on all of itself. Sometimes old terminology is accurate but cumbersome, or limited to specific cases. If you're young it's worth "upgrading", if you're close to retirement, your typewriter will produce a couple more manuscripts, without needing to buy a you-beaut "word-processor".

On a more sober note, I expect SandW know a lot more than me, and everyone makes mistakes. Still, I'm happy we can quote Pinker who concisely and clearly presents the case for indeterminate number in quantified expressions, contra SandW.

PS How would you "modernize", every dog has his day? ;) Alastair Haines 07:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Two points.

First, "singular". I need more water / Water is necessary etc.: water is regarded as singular, even though you clearly can't count it ("one water"). This is a convention; cf the "present tense" for a tense that may be about the present but that is more often general (and that can be clearly about the non-present).

My issue is not with people who generate new terminology, but with those who insist on things like actor and patient rather than subject and object. Surely you mean agent and patient. The latter are commonly called theta roles. They are not the same as subject and object. Example: I underwent surgery. -- Hoary 07:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting. I'll look up theta roles. I'm dabbling in abolute-ergative languages atm and it'd be nice to have alternative models of linguistic description to hand.

Regarding water, in Hebrew it is mayim, dual in form, i.e. both of them, how's that for linguistic idiosyncracy. Egypt is also dual in Hebrew, presumably upper and lower Egypt. Athens is plural in Greek, apparantly Queen Victoria was a prescriptivist who insisted on calling it Athen! (But people say many rude things about QV.)

Regarding the present tense, things like "historic present" are found across many languages. Inflections and constructions are often give multiple uses in various languages. Greek has many verbs that are passive in form but active in meaning. One analysis of Hebrew sees its two conjugations as a past and a future. It's intriguing to see how people convey similar ideas in quite different structures.

That is the point being made about Basque, that parallels Pinkers point. In Basque, an indefinite pronoun that means who/which in a dictionary, has quite a different meaning (a universal quantifier), in a formal structure recognized by Basque speakers. Of course English can do the same. A word like they can be used in structures that English speakers will recognize as a marker of the variable bound by a preceeding quantifier. Sometimes such usage follows a discernable logic. Other times who knows how it happened, it just did.

However, it does go to show that language sometimes needs to be taught and accepted. Some features are not reduceable to consistant patterns, they are simply prescribed by the weight of precedent. It's too much trouble to change some of them. Who wants to make English spelling more logical! English spelling is hopelessly prescriptive. Bring bak de gud old das iz wot i sez. Alastair Haines 08:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

When you look at "ergative" languages, you'd better consider the difference between (a) mere morphological ergativity and (b) (much rarer) syntactic ergativity. Also, remember that while accusative languages are (always, usually?) systematically accusative, ergativity seems to be partial.

Yes, orthography is a matter of conscious learning. It's strange to say that any orthography is or isn't "prescriptive"; it's a matter of convention. The "illogicality" of English spelling is (unenthusiastically) defended by Pinker in Language Instinct; you really should buy the book (which is cheap enough). -- Hoary 11:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I may come at buying the book. I've had it out from the library a couple of times and paid a fine once. I have noticed what you say about use of the ergative, and I'm screaming to understand why they do what they do. What you say about spelling being a matter of convention is true, of course. But my point is that the purpose of prescription is to establish or maintain conventions. Indonesian is the prescribed national language of thousands of islands and local languages, and many Indonesians only know their national language as a second language. I feel the tension of the fact that one national language is felt as an imperialistic imposition by some, but I also believe there is real progress, co-operation and unity facilitated by this extreme form of prescription. Spelling and grammar have been legislated at various points in recent Indonesian history. I'm not in favour of prescription, nor against it. It all depends on the context. I dislike the prescription of gender neutral language, not because it's prescriptive, but because I disagree with the rationale for the prescription. Were I a publisher who agreed with the rationale, however, I'd have no hesitation in making the prescription myself. I do hope I'd be honest enough to admit I was requiring conformity to language standards though. Anyway, I'm sure you see the point.

But back to this article. I want to write up a section on Lewis and refactor sections where I've created duplications in the current revision. Alastair Haines 14:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that you're conflating two different levels of "language planning": maybe "status planning" and "corpus planning", but I forget (this is far outside anything that I've done more than glanced at).

Pinker's book costs as little as $3 from ABE. For split ergativity, etc, see one or other or both (I forget) of Croft's book on typology in the Cambridge textbooks series and Comrie's book on universals. -- Hoary 14:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

My problem with purchasing books is twofold. I'm a bachelor who is reducing his personal library size, because he'd rather not face the domestic responsibility of dusting it. A conflation of poverty and freight charges to Australia also limit eyes bigger than my stomach when it comes to books. Apologies for the mixed metaphors, but I trust we're among non-prescriptive friends here. ;)

Having said that, I rather think I will purchase The Language Instinct locally. I rather suspect it will never need dusting. ;) Alastair Haines 15:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Indefiniteness

From what I'm reading at the moment, there are lots of uncoordinated theories regarding quantification, distribution and indefiniteness in general. Logicians and linguists overlap in their interest in the area and best terminology is a matter of active discussion. People seem to agree that they don't understand all the issues well enough to be certain which frameworks provide the most comprehensive and flexible set of integrated concepts to model indefiniteness in natural language.

Sorry if all that sounds like gibberish, the words are chosen carefully. The main point is that 1990s linguistics and 2000s linguistics does not actually understand all the factors involved in the semantics of natural language usage in constructions where people use "singular" they.

Don't get me wrong on this. Ordinary people understand what they are saying to one another, and academics understand it too. What the academics don't understand (and ordinary people don't even get curious about) is how to explain the patterns of usage in a simple and consistant manner. It's a bit like the ancient models of how stars moved around in the sky, which were true enough, but much more complicated than modern models that are based on the earth moving around the sun.

Having said that, there is a lot that is understood regarding such constructions. Firstly, they are way more complicated than a distinction between singular and plural. That means any prescriptivists (and Strunk and White are the only ones I've actually encountered so far) are certainly wrong. But it also means the very name "singular" they is just as wrong.

The reason I know all this is because I've googled "quantification" and a range of associated phrases, checked out academic level papers rather than popular explanations, and the papers are often addressing questions like, "which theory provides a better account of quantifiers, descriptors, predicates, etc?"

At an undergraduate level, people are normally exposed to theories that have come to more or less complete and coherent form. By graduation people have been exposed to the more problematic parts of certain theories, or introduced to new approaches that show promise of providing superior explanatory power. Without meaning to be uppity about it, it normally takes years for research to make its way into undergrad textbooks, and from there into popular print, and only after that into the popular press, if at all.

The question is, what do we do at this Wiki page. It'd be way cool if the internet made popularization of cutting edge academic papers at Wiki possible. But I keep getting nervous about copyright. I read some great PhD dissertations that are online at young academics personal sites. I guess a lot wouldn't mind their work being cited at Wiki. In some cases though, it feels almost like "industrial espionage". I suppose I should just email them and have a chat.

Anyway, I think I'll write up Lewis, summarize the sort of thing I'm saying here, point at a couple of papers that demonstrate the point, and call it a day.

Pinker takes things as far as most people really want or need to know. "Singular" they is not a mere matter of syntax, but involves quite challenging semantic/logical analysis -- bound variable will do, but it is a long way from the end of the story.

Drat, and I really thought I was going find an answer somewhere. :( Alastair Haines 16:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

On a positive note

I finally read the Pullum radio interview. It was nice to see he said explicitly it was all about logic and quantification. LoL, he said it was too involved for the radio interview, and not covered adequately in the Cambridge Grammar. Mind you, I was surprised to find I disagreed with him about something, though. I think "singular" they can be used more than he does ... in particular with refering pronouns, and specifically in the case he mentioned -- a person of known name but unknown gender. Undoubtedly people use it that way ...

That friend of yours, Chris, ... are they coming?
Oh I didn't tell you! Chris is a "she". Yes, she is coming.

But I'd be interested to hear a serious analysis from him. He doesn't actually say much in the interview. From what he does say, the example above, whether found in usage or not, is ungrammatical. Ungrammatical forms are found in usage all the time. The fact that something is used doesn't make it grammatical. Hence, the fact that someone declares something ungrammatical that can be demonstrated to be widespread usage doesn't make him a prescriptivist. Or Pullum would be guilty himself! Sometimes it is specifically because words "bend" grammar that they have their power, other times, they just seem to happen ...

It's me. -- Ungrammatical, but common usage. It is I is formal to the point of unbelievable pretentiousness.

Pullum said very little about generic he, and what he did say looked like paper tigers to me. I've never read anyone who seriously says he is gender neutral, what I have read is that it is generic. People prior to the 60s, 70s or 80s didn't use language like gender neutral. So anyone calling generic he gender-neutral, sex-neutral or whatever since, has indeed chosen the wrong descriptor. Generic he: gender-inclusive, yes; gender-neuteral, no. But that's for the he page really. Alastair Haines 12:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)