Professor Zwicky has a new post on singular they. (It includes pictures for the humor impaired.) Anatoly Liberman comes under fire, and the issue of grammaticality and "logic" is examined. (The scare-quotes are Zwicky's.)
I always have trouble with using "they" with a singular subject, though I know I shouldn't. It must be habit. I usually change the subject to a plural, if at all possible.
I think it's funny that Anatoly Liberman and Mark Liberman are at such odds. I wonder if they're related. At one point when we had a question here on wordcraft, I had emailed Anatoly Liberman (I can't remember why), and we had an email exchange going. He was quite down-to-earth and very knowledgeable. So I can't get too down on him.
Actually, as natural as it is, it's something I eschew, because the small-minded would draw inordinate pleasure from the perceived solecism, and why give 'em their addlepated fix?
Anatoly Liberman and Mark Liberman
As it is, I happen to have met both of them, with much pleasure, over dinner. The former, at a Persian restaurant near UCLA on Santa Monica Blvd, and the latter, in Oakland (post-LSA) at a Mexican restaurant. They were both of them, engaging/ But Anatoly is Russian and Mark is all-American. (By the bye, Calvert Watkins was at the first dinner and Jesse Sheidlower at the second one.)
[Fixed typo to preserve the peace.]
This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,
Actually, as natural as it is, it;s something I eschew, because the small-minded would draw inordinate pleasure from the perceived solecism, and why give 'em their addlepated fix?
Today I was asked to send out an email to all our members to provide them with data. In my first attempt I ended a sentence with a preposition. Because of those "small-minded" people (our editor told me once that one thing she will never do is end sentences with prepositions), I reworded it something to the effect of "up with which I will not put." That sounded really stupid. So then I worked on rewording this whole sentence, wasting way too much time. The first way was just fine, thank you.
On a totally unrelated subject, love that word addlepated !
I try to avoid using "they" in the singular - which is usually easy enough to do. However, it seems to me that its singular use is becoming increasingly acceptable and I suspect that this use, as is the case of the almost universal use of the second person plural as a singular, will soon create little controversy.
So far as the terminal preposition is concerned, I frequently find that a preposition is the most logical thing to finish a sentence with! Ask your prescriptive editor (or editrix) to quote the source for the "don't end a sentence with a preposition" rule and that should solve the problem.
Richard English
Posts: 6039 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UK
Just to repeat myself, the singular use of they has been used by some of the finest writers of English since Chaucer's time. It is not a new grammatical phenomenon. It predates the very normative grammarians who hurl invective at it like pooh-slinging monkeys after a hard day of trying to type up Hamlet. It's not really a question of when it will become acceptable. It has been for about 600 years now.
Not that it will help, but here's a Language Log entry from Professor Pullum on its use by Shakespeare. For more information, here's a list of entries at their blog dealing in some way with this grammatical feature of English.
It's not really a question of when it will become acceptable. It has been for about 600 years now.
I am sure you're right but each to its time. Grammatical fashions, like other fashions, change. And presently the use of the plural pronoun to denote the singular is becoming acceptable. In recent years it has not been acceptable by most educated people. That this is simply a reversion to an earlier convention does not alter that fact.
There are many other examples of usages that are now common although once frowned upon - and vice versa.
Richard English
Posts: 6039 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UK
My point is: this is not something from long ago that died out and then got revived. It's been in continuous use for the past 600 years. Just because somebody a hundred years back or so took a disliking to, doesn't make it wrong. In fact, they're wrong. It fills a need, like the passive voice, which is also frowned upon, unjustly.
Given that it's as acceptable now as it was 50/100/500 years ago, I think the question that needs to be asked isn't "when will this become acceptable" but "when will the people who object to it make it unacceptable".
The passive voice is commonly used in UK English when it is felt that there is a need for diplomatic speech.
The passive voice is commonly used in US English when it is felt that there is a need for bureaucratic speech. Microsoft Word grammar checker may frown upon it, but my employers insist on it (although they call it "third person"). From the instructions for our monthly progress reports (certain words are redacted for reasons of security (job, not national)):
quote:
1. Please write third person, past tense -- ie: Ten additional **** **** **** force-feel configurations were defined. The design of these configurations was guided by the oscillation testing results presented in the test report titled "*** Pitch and Roll Axis Oscillation Test Results" and by pilot perception of force-feel characteristics.
The passive voice is commonly used in US English when it is felt that there is a need for bureaucratic speech.
It is not simply a demand by bureaucrats to phrase things in a particular way because it sounds "official". I used the word "diplomatic" for a reason.
The sentence quoted here "...The design of these configurations was guided by the oscillation testing results presented in the test report titled "*** Pitch and Roll Axis Oscillation Test Results..." is stating that a particular set of findings was used to influence design. It is not attributing the findings to anyone nor is it saying who used the findings. No blame (or credit) can thus be attributed - and there are times when this is desirable.
Had the sentence been expressed in the active form, then it might have read something like: "...We used Professor Brown's Pitch and Roll Axis Oscillation Test Results when we designed this configuration..." which, it could be argued, is a more direct and understandable sentence. But the direct attribution to both Professor Brown and the design team might not be diplomatic enough for all situations.
Richard English
Posts: 6039 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UK
Yeah, but "Ten additional force-feel configurations were defined" is more diplomatic than "We defined ten additional force-feel configurations" especially since this is a progress report on what we spent all month doing? These force-feel configurations don't define themselves, y'know. I suspect the real reason -- the bureaucratic reason -- is so that the final report, stitched together from all the individual reports and disassociated from the individual teams, has a consistent style and tone.
I meant they do that in writing -- not necessarily in speaking.
Okaydokay, Jerr; I stand corrected. Then the elided I is the least of their worries. I just know that if I had made that mistake, it'd be the death of me. Sigh.
