Conference turris::womannotes-v2

Pronouns were one of the first blocks that people ran into when they became
more aware of male-dominance in the English language.

The first solution was very awkward, and is still the most widely practiced.
It is the easiest to apply inconsistently, and requires order reversal every
once in awhile for fair play.  How many people are sick of "(s)he", "he/she",
"she/he", "him/her", etc.?

The next solution was to alter syntax so that the need for pronouns
disappeared altogether.  Not only did this make everything read like a
laboratory report or court proceedings, but it tended to make things more
verbose in general.  It also made it more difficult to keep perspective, tense
and point of view consistent.  The message would get lost in the muddle.

Nevertheless, I used approach #2 more than approach #1 until a few years ago,
as there was less chance of error.

Fortunately, my youngest sister saved me a few years ago when she proposed
something quite "radical" that I at first thought very improper but accepted
with an open mind and have found only seemed that way because of conditioning.

It is apparantly being more and more widely accepted by grammarians to use
"they" for the singular as well as the plural third person.  It only seems
awkward because we're used to it only referring to a group of people.  And
yet, verb conjugation doesn't have to change if we apply it to the singular as
well, so it is a simple fit.  Since "you" is the same for both singular and
plural, it isn't really all that different to apply the same rule to the third
person.  Of course, the first person often becomes the same for both singular
and plural as well (i.e. the editorial "we").

This solution makes so much sense, and it keeps the language clean.  Yet I
hardly ever see anyone else using it.  Apparantly, no one has made a case for
it in a major publication yet.  It takes a bit of reconditioning, but I can
assure you that I don't even think about it anymore... UNTIL I see "he/she"
crop up somewhere (as I did a few minutes ago, followed by an "accident" a few
sentences later that left off the "she" part).  It allows for a freer flow of
thought as well as more compositional freedom than the highly restrictive
approaches listed above.


				Mark

    When speaking, I use "they" as third person singular, unless, of
    course, it is obvious "he" or "she".
    
    K.C.

    related to this is note 112 in this file,  Sexism In Language
    
    -Jody
    

    Yuk!  
    
    I HATE to see a plural pronoun referring to a singular noun
    -- but maybe that's the writer/grammarian/documentator in me!  I
    usually LIKE the results of re-writing a sentence to avoid the problem,
    even though it takes a little more time.  When rewriting just WON'T
    work, I resort to the him-or-her solution.  Because I do that only
    as a last resort, I don't have to do it very often at all.  (I'm
    a writer here at DEC.)

    I have also heard that using "they" is becoming accepted, but, like
    you, I rarely see it used by people who write for a living.  I
    personally hope it doesn't make acceptability during my lifetime,
    but if it does....(sigh)
    
    Nancy
    

    One might use "one". . .
    
    Can't recall the replies that touched on this a while back; maybe
    the authors could repost? 
    
    Steve
    

    re .5:
    
    see note 112.13
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    Someone (I believe it was Ann Broomhead) pointed out elsewhere
    in this file (or was it V1?) that there is some historical
    usage support for the singular "they".
    
    --- jerry

    re: .7
    
    Certainly the trend through the history of the English language
    the trend has been to the loss of gender and number distinctions
    in both nouns and pronouns.  At one point English pronouns
    had feminine, masculine, and neutral endings in both singular
    and plural.  These endings also indicated grammatical case.
     
    The only inflections remaining on nouns is singular/plural. The
    first-person masculine and feminine singular objective pronouns
    were replaced by the neutral form (me), the subjective
    second-person plural "you" replaced the second-person singular
    "thou" (except in the south, where you-all persists), and the
    third person feminine plural disappeared.  I don't remember off
    the top of my head if "they" and "them" are the masculine or the
    neutral form. 
    
    So if the form "they" replaces "he" and "she" in some, or even
    all, contexts, it would be a continuation of a trend that's
    been going on in English for a long long time.
    
    --bonnie

    Actually, unless I'm mistaken, the note that I was referring to
    gave me the impression that the specific word "they" has been
    used in the literature for a good long time, enough to give it
    a "legitimate claim to the throne", as it were.
    
    --- jerry

    re: .9
    
    I think you're right, Jerry, but I couldn't find it on a quick
    look through the old file. 
    
    --bonnie

    Maybe it was in JOYOFLEX rather than =wn=.
    
    --- jerry

    I got e-mail from someone the other day suggesting such descriptions
    of servicepersons and so forth as "Congresscritter", "Chairpern",
    and "Assemblydroid"....
    
    They're curious, but non-sexist ;)
    
    -Jody
    

Some old mail from a co-worker:


I seem to remember a serious proposal which was once made to coin 2-3 new
gender-neutral pronouns.  It's too bad it never caught on.  As I remember
them, they were:
		
                e	= nominative case singular.	(she/he)
		em	= objective case singular.	(her/him)
		er	= singular possessive.		(her/his)

They sound a bit Cockney, but they have the advantage of simplicity.

    I think it is pretty silly to say a usage is becoming more and more
    widely accepted when it has been in use for SIX HUNDRED YEARS.  Yes, as
    some of the responses here have hinted, "they" and "their" have long
    histories of singular usage; "they" has been used in the singular for
    four hundred years, and "their" has been used in the singular for six
    hundred years -- it was already a hundred years old by the time
    Columbus discovered America.
    
    The Oxford English Dictionary doesn't even note anything abnormal about
    using "they", "them", or "themselves" in the singular; such usages are
    simply correct.  Only "their" has a note about grammarians disfavoring
    it -- and, given the history, this is clearly a modern creation.
    
    The OED entries are below.
    
    
    				-- edp

                       
                                      THEY

           2. Often used in reference to a singular noun made
           universal by every, any, no, etc., or applicable to one of
           either sex (= `he or she').  See Jespersen Progress in
           Lang. �24.

           1526 Pilgr. Perf. (W. de W. 1531) 163 b, Yf..a psalm scape
           ony persone, or a lesson, or else yt they omyt one verse or
           twayne.

           1535 FISHER Ways perf. Relig. ix. Wks. (1876) 383 He neuer
           forsaketh any creature vnlesse they before haue forsaken
           them selues.

           1749 FIELDING Tom Jones VIII. xi, Every Body fell a
           laughing, as how could they help it.

           1759 CHESTERF. Lett. IV. ccclv. 170 If a person is born of
           a gloomy temper..they cannot help it.

           1835 WHEWELL in Life (1881) 173 Nobody can deprive us of
           the Church if they would.

           1858 BAGEHOT Lit.Stud. (1879) II. 206 Nobody fancies for a
           moment that they are reading about anything beyond the pale
           of ordinary propriety.

           1866 RUSKIN Crown Wild Olives �38 (1873) 44 Now, nobody
           does anything well that they cannot help doing.


                                      THEM

           2. Often used for `him or her', referring to a singular
           person whose sex is not stated, or to anybody, nobody,
           somebody, whoever, etc.

           1742 RICHARDSON Pamela III. 127 Little did I think..to make
           a..complaint against a Person very dear to you,..but dont
           let them be so proud..as to make them not care how they
           affront everybody else.

           1853 Miss YONGE Heir of Redclyffe xliv, Nobody else..has so
           little to plague them.

           1874 DASENT Half a life II. 198 Whenever anyone was ill,
           she brewed them a drink.


                                   THEMSELVES

           5. In concord with a singular pronoun or sb. denoting a
           person, in cases where the meaning implies more than one,
           as when the sb. is qualified by a distributive, or refers
           to either sex: = himself or herself.

           1464 Rolls of Parlt. V. 513/2 Inheritements, of which any
           of the seid persones..was seised by theym self, or joyntly
           with other.

           1489 CAXTON Sonnes of Aymon i. 39 Eche of theym..make
           theymselfe redy.

           1533 MORE Apol. 55b, Neyther Tyndale there nor thys precher
           ..hath by theyr maner of expounyng..wonne them self mych
           wurshyp.

           1600 SHAKS. Lucr. 125 Eury one to rest themselues [ed. 1594
           himselfe] betake.

           1654-66 EARL ORRERY Parthen. (1676) 147 All that happened,
           which every one assured themselves, would render him a
           large sharer in the general joy.

           1874 DASENT Half a life 3 Every one likes to keep it to
           themselves as long as they can.


                                     THEIR

           3. Often used in relation to a singular sb. or pronoun
           denoting a person, after each, every, either, neither, no
           one, every one, etc. Also so used instead of `his or her',
           when the gender is inclusive or uncertain. (Not favoured by
           grammarians.)

           13.. Cursor M. 389 (Cott.) Bath ware made sun and mon,
           Aither wit ther ouen light.

           1420 Sir Amadace (Camden) 1, Iche mon in thayre degre.

           14.. Arth. & Merl. 2440 (Kolbing) Many a Sarazen lost their
           life.

           1545 ABP. PARKER Let. to Bp. Gardiner 8 May, Thus was it
           agreed among us that every president should assemble their
           companies.

           1563 WYNGET Four Scoir Thre Quest. liv, A man or woman
           being lang absent fra thair party.
    
           1643 TRAPP Comm. Gen. xxiv. 22 Each Countrey bath their
           fashions, and garnishes.

           1749 FIELDING Tom Jones VII, xiv, Every one in the House
           were in their beds.

           1771 GOLDSM. Hist. Eng III. 241 Every person..now recovered
           their liberty.

           1845 SYD. SMITH Wks. (1850) 175 Every human being must do
           something with their existence.

           1848 THAKERAY Van. Fair xli, A person can't help their
           birth.

           1858 BAGEHOT Lit. Studies (1879) II. 206 Nobody in their
           senses would describe Gray's `Elegy' as [etc.].

           1898 G.B SHAW Plays II Candida 86 It's enough to drive
           anyone out of their senses.