Jump to content

Talk:Singular they/Archive 2007-08

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Neutral

I've put a bit of work into redoing some of the obviously biased information in the page that makes the page a violation of WP:NPOV. I have not removed the NPOV tag because I am not sure if everyone is in agreement about the page's neutrality. (Justyn 18:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC))

I agreed with your edits Justyn. There is only really one problem with this page. Some people would like it to cover the issues of Gender-neutral pronouns. There is no need for Wiki to reproduce that debate in every related article. What this article needs to state clearly is what singular they actually is.
  • Everyone who reads this article will have their minds expanded. NOT singular they, but plural they.
  • Everyone who reads this article will have their mind expanded. IS singular they, not plural they.
Singular pronouns with distributive antecedents have always been acceptable.
Also it needs to be communicated that singular they is only ever acceptable as an epicene use.
  • That spaghetti is delicious, because of their tasty sauce. NOT acceptable
  • That teacher is outstanding, because of their clear expression. Widely used.
Personally I use generic she because it "feels" nicer to me, see Backgammon. But generic she and he can be covered in other articles.
  • The first player to remove all her pieces is the winner.
Alastair Haines 03:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Please provide some evidence

Alastair Haines: Please provide some evidence for your claim that "singular they" does not mean "the use of they/them/c. with a grammatically singular antecedent." I think it's great that you want to explain which uses of singular they are traditional and which are relatively new; but it's simply not acceptable for you to redefine the term "singular they" to push a specific agenda, and it really looks like that's what you're trying to do here.

—RuakhTALK 19:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ruakh, what agenda have I pushed? Have you looked at the Backgammon article I copy edited for generic pronouns? Note, I've cited OED, American Heritage, Merriam Webster, Baskerville and Sewell, not to mention half a dozen writers they use as examples. I'm happy to repeat it though. Here goes:
  • They. Often used in reference to a singular noun made universal by every, any, no, etc. [OED]
  • Them. ... in cases where the meaning implies more than one, as when the sb. is qualified by a distributive. [OED]
  • OED by universal is talking about effect of distributive pronouns which make antecedents generic. This phenomenon is described in detail by Baskerville and Sewell (19th century) citing sources going back centuries. Regarding distributive pronouns, MW says, "Main Entry: 3all Function: pronoun, singular or plural in construction."
  • MW:
  • Note MW (above) describes distinct usages. Usage 1a is plural of he/she or plural when both sexes present. Usage 1b is generic use. They define it as HE the traditional default generic pronoun. That is the usage this article is about. One could replace they in the examples by he. Everyone knew where he stood. Nobody has to go to school if he doesn't want to. Usage 2 is specified for PEOPLE only and can be used without antecedent! Mary's as lazy as they come. He's as lazy as they come. Mary and He are not the antecedent of they, they refers to everyone in this construction. The predicate adjectival clause has it's own subject -- those who Mary or He are being compared with.
  • American Heritage:
  • American Heritage (above) gives 3 uses of they. Again usage 1 is simple plural of course. Usage 2 makes explicit it is used to replace generic he, just like MW say (which incidently implies antecedent people). Usage 3 describes 2b in MW. They without antecedent, being understood to be everyone. AH specifies a special use of this for authorities. Let me provide an example: It all depends on what they (the powers that be) say.

Conclusions. 1. please let me know if you understand things better than the references. 2. please let me know if you think I've misunderstood the references. 3. please let me know if you think the sources fail to describe the topic of this article -- generic they (rather unfortunately called singular).

Recommendation. This article needs clear reference to the decisive issues in the grammars old and new alike -- the concepts distributive, referent (exophor), antecedent (cataphor), generic, distinction regarding people, etc. Before addressing any issues of style, there are plenty of uncontested facts.

PS: Never forget the Stern example: "Every nation have their refinements." Singular? Plural? Generic? Would you recommend it to your students? This is a fascinating subject.

Alastair Haines 23:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Your sources don't seem to be using the term "singular they". Since this discussion is about the definition of the term "singular they", can you explain to me how those sources are relevant to this discussion? —RuakhTALK 10:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
OK Ruakh, since you're the expert, you show me some peer-reviewed sources that use Singular they. As far as I can tell, "generic they" and "epicene they" are the terms used in the academic literature. But I want to hear from a man who thinks the Oxford English Dictionary entry on They is not relevant to this article. I've done a lot of work to answer you questions. I think it's only fair you give me a chance to see what references you're working from. Alastair Haines 11:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: "But I want to hear from a man who thinks the Oxford English Dictionary entry on They is not relevant to this article.": I said no such thing. Please don't lie about what I've just said; it makes you look like a troll.
Re: Your answering my questions: It doesn't seem to me that you have … ?
Re: my providing evidence: That's a very fair point. It will take me a few days, but I'll see what all I can pull up. :-)
—RuakhTALK 01:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Fact, Alastair quotes sources on talk page. Fact, Ruakh still asks for more evidence. Fact, Alastair is patient, and gives even more sources. Fact, these include OED. Fact, Ruakh now claims Alastairs sources don't address singular they. Fact, Alastair says, your turn to cite references. Fact, Ruakh doesn't cite sources, instead calls Alastair a liar and implies he is a troll. Conclusion, Alastair abandons hope of Ruakh making a constructive case to progress discussion. Looks forward to being proved wrong about this. Retraction of personal comments would be appreciated, but I'm not in any tiz over it. Have a nice day Ruakh. Alastair Haines 08:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Fact, Ruakh has repeatedly asked one specific question. Fact, Alastair has refused to even touch on this question, instead replying with long comments that quote lots of sources that aren't relevant to the question. Fact, this is troll-like behavior. Fact, Alastair misrepresented Ruakh's words in a fairly basic way. Opinion, this is not a mistake he could accidentally have made. Fact, if it was intentional, then it is troll-like behavior. —RuakhTALK 15:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll try one last time. This section makes it very clear that you have consistently made personal comments. Drop them, please. I have just realized you said something very positive in your question, that was drowned in my thinking at the time because of the unfounded "agenda pushing" and other comments. I chose to ignore the allegations and answer your question at the time, but I did miss your important and helpful "I think it's great you want to show traditional use is not so different." That is spot on, and needs to be the basis of us working together. It matters to me that you said that, because it shows you really have understood most of what I'm trying to say. You have been trying to understand. So thank you.
I don't know who is responsible for the text in the article, but it raised lots of questions for me, and helped me think through things. I am grateful to THON. I don't know who wrote the Criticisms section you reverted. But I was as angry about you reverting it, as you were at THON writing it. I reverted your revert and then you reverted again. I suspected you thought I wrote that Criticisms section, but all I've done is expand on a paragraph someone else wrote in response to some previous text. I was merely defending someone else, when I thought more effort should have been made to talk to THON. Enough!
I get 54,800 hits for "generic they" with Google -- 63,600 for "singular they" -- and LoL 440 for "epicene they". Singular they is the most popular, but despite being more technical sounding Generic they is not far behind. Terminology may reflect American v UK and Australian English, I am 40 years old, perhaps I'm out of date with a new move in terminology. Disciplines probably vary in which they'd choose. Register of usage matters. But, you know, frankly I don't really care that much. What matters is Wiki having a cutting-edge (sourced not OR) analysis of the concept that all the terms refer to. I can't do that on my own, there's just too many areas I don't know enough about. What concerns me though, is when I feel my genuinely offered comments are viewed through some grid and not genuinely engaged with. But enough of the whinging.
The thing I learned from the guy who wrote most of the stuff on the existing page, and from the OED record of usage is that English doesn't simply have singular and plural, it has an indeterminate or generic or "in-between" thingy. I thought it over and over and pennies fell into place. For goodness sake, we all speak the language, we can see it for ourselves if we stop and think a bit. Sure enough, once we've seen it, it's not hard to find the people who've written about it. The extra search words come to mind, or we start looking for different things in what we read, or we evaluate them more critically.
My suggestion is, please just consider the examples I'll lay out again. Think about your own usage, check the OED entries. Perhaps together we can work out a plan for this article. Once it's written we'll know better which namespace should get the article and which should be relegated to redirects, that's not really a big deal.
Here are the examples --
  • All Rastafarians think Marley is cool, cause they dig him. <-- simple plural
  • All Rastafarians think Marley is cool, cause she digs him. <-- not right
  • Each cat has nine lives, but they don't deserve them. <-- each cat thought of collectively
  • Each cat has nine lives, but it doesn't deserve them. <-- each cat thought of individually
  • Each cat has nine lives, but she doesn't deserve them. <-- each cat thought of individually and personally
  • A roller-blader wears knee-pads, cause they're not stupid. <-- worth having a great Wiki talk debate about this one
  • A roller-blader wears knee-pads, cause she's not stupid. <-- and another debate about this one
I'll say one more thing before signing off and going to bed. I think because I am old, because I specialise in foreign languages and because I resist gender neutral language, it may be easier for me to "hear" the "plurality" of they in some contexts, other people may have developed a mind-set where they will read Jane Austen using they as a singular, when she would have thought it was "indeterminate" they. If that is true, so be it, it's a fact. However, it's an interesting thing for us editors to discover about one another, it's at the heart of this article and modern English usage, and we won't be the first to notice it. The sources will be out there. In fact, despite what you say Ruakh, I think there's enough in just those I've cited, and my own poor attempts to explain them, to establish what I hope we can come to agree on. But even if we agree on that, there'll still be room for us to adopt different practices. Shalom. Alastair Haines 19:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I actually think we agree on almost everything, except for a few minor points and one very major point. (We might also disagree on the exact cases where it's appropriate to use singular they, but I think we both agree that our personal opinions on that front should have no bearing on the article, so that doesn't really matter.) The one very major point that we seem to disagree on in is the meaning of the term "singular they". You take to mean "they in reference to a single person"; I take it to mean "they with a grammatically singular antecedent" (and I contend that this is how the term is usually used — or at least, when people are being precise about which they mean, they mean this). (That said, neither of us has presented sources yet, and we both really need to if this discussion is going to be very productive.) This difference has a major bearing on the article, because the article currently makes it sound like pro-singular-they folks are deceptive or clueless when they cite examples of {what the article considers plural they} and describe them as examples of "singular they". This is not true; rather, they cite examples of singular they (they with a grammatically singular antecedent) where the referent is multiple (or convincingly interpretable as multiple). —RuakhTALK 22:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S. By the way, Google is deceiving you vis à vis "generic they" vs. "singular they". Of the first twenty hits for allintext:"singular they", all are discussing the same thing we are; but of the first twenty hits for allintext:"generic they", only five are. (The other fifteen are uses of the word "generic", usually in the pharmaceutical sense, followed by uses of the word "they".) So, even if we're generous to "generic they" and assume that only 90% of the total hits for allintext:"singular they" are in the relevant sense, but that fully 30% of the total hits for allintext:"generic they" are, we find that "singular they" beats "generic they" by more than 3.5 to 1. —RuakhTALK 22:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for this Ruakh, I think we are up and running, much appreciated. You have certainly made a very clear distinction between our understandings of "singular they". Would you consider all these examples to be "singular they"?
  • Either Judy or Jack will call and leave their phone number.
  • Either Judy or Jack will call and leave their phone numbers.
  • Either Judy or Jack will call, when they are free.

It occurs to me that, singular (generic) they may actually have a plural of its own, which is also they, though the distinction would probably be purely psychological, not syntactic. This would argue in favour of the usefulness of term "singular they" in some ways, and against it in others.

I'll keep looking for sources, looking forward to your comments. Cheers. Alastair Haines 02:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV on Singular they

If anyone is interested, I've started a draft article covering this topic in a more logical and thorough fashion. I'm aiming to set forward systematically the relevant results of linguistic scholarship from several disciplines, including cognitive science, who are fascinated by the way distribution is handled across cultures and at all ages. One reason this research is NPOV is that it is conducted by women and men from various language backgrounds, who have no stake in the English gender-neutral pronoun questions. In fact, many of the articles are studies of languages other than English. Some of them are about computer languages! But the issues are common to all. The link of the draft, which will probably take some time to complete is at User:Alastair Haines/Singular they, please feel free to use the talk page. Cheers. Alastair Haines 07:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like us to make progress here, but I will be maintaining the POV and accuracy tags, until it is clarified from peer-reviewed sources that "generic they" or "epicene they" are less neutral, less accurate or less comprehensive descriptions of the same subject. In other words I have good reason to believe that "singular they" is normally associated with a POV (need for gender neutral language), is frequently applied very loosely and does not describe the full range of uses that readers would seek information about. As such, the article under the current title is likely to result in confusing editors, further leading to endless cycles of revision.
As an example of what I mean, I offer the hypothetical title of an Australia related article:
As further evidence of my claim that Singular they reflects a POV, note that many Wiki editors refer to this page to express their POV that, "Singular they is standard English usage". See "What links here" (toolbox under "search" on article page).
I am personally committed to defending free speech. An NPOV heading for this suject gives a genuine opportunity for both facts and PsOV. Another advantage of this would be that it would become apparant that the differences between the two views are very much smaller than most would imagine.

Alastair Haines 03:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The link of the draft, which will probably take some time to complete is at User:Alastair Haines/Singular they, please feel free to use the talk page. I have taken up the invitation. To cut a long story short, I didn't get any further in that than I did in Generic antecedents. -- Hoary 16:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"A man said they needed to use my phone"

We have:

in the case of the sentence "A man said they needed to use my phone" it is hard to see that "they" refers to the man — it might more easily refer to a third party.

How is this different from "A man said he needed to use my phone"? In either case the pronoun can be as easily referring to a third party as to the man. Indeed, if "he" is reserved for identified persons of identified gender, then the third party is the only possible referent, and the "they" form the correct form for the intended interpretation. Perhaps this could be re-worded? –EdC 21:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that more words on this feature would be helpful for clarification. There should be sources that cover it.
The difference between he and they in the example, is that using he when there is already a masculine singular in near context -- here a man -- tends to assume reference to that man, or other words are required to clarify the ambiguity.
  • "A man said he needed to use my phone, that is, he said your brother needed to use my phone."
On the other hand, using they in the example sentence works exactly the other way around, additional words are required to clarify if they is intended to refer to the masculine singular, rather than to a third party.
  • "A man said they need to use my phone themself."
The example is of questionable value to the article, imo. It is a "straw-person". It is not a genuine example of a realistic or helpful use of singular they. The point made about the example is correct, however usage of singular they is much more sophisticated than simply replacing all singular pronouns with they.
I guess that is something some people may be confused about though. Some may think they can be used to replace any case of he or she, but that is simply not what people do, nor what gender-neutral style guides prescribe. In fact, both generic she and generic he are usually recommended as options, along with he or she. All these and others seem normally to be presented along with their drawbacks.
I'm not familiar with any prescription regarding he as restricted to known persons of male gender. I saw a bumper sticker recently with "A true patriot defends his country, even against its government." I have no difficulty understanding what is meant, but perhaps it's Australian English, and educated Americans and others wouldn't say something like it.
Thanks for your edits EdC, I personally generally agreed with them. Alastair Haines 04:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, in the variety of English I'm most accustomed to the example is one of the few cases where the masculine pronoun alone is correct; but any greater degree of genericity ("supposing a man were to say..."), anonymity ("one of your brothers said...") or epicenity ("the gardener said...") and they becomes allowed (and thus preferred). The bumper sticker would thus be seen as old-fashioned or, worse, sexist.
I'm not particularly au fait with gender-neutral style guides, but in any case prescriptive analysis will necessarily be behind the flow of language. It's entirely possible (speculation alert!) that at some time in the near future restriction of he to known persons of male gender will become the norm.
In different varieties of English "they" is used in a singular context to different extents. What I would hope the article could cover is historical usage (without analysis excessively coloured by current perspectives), current usage (with referenced studies where possible), and perhaps notes on some prescriptive recommendations (properly referenced and rooted in the appropriate context). Discussion on potential confusion is so difficult to get right (because confusion is entirely context-dependent) that it may be testing the bounds of original research. –EdC 20:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


Well said, and I think your focus on generic and epicene is spot on. It is also borne out by almost a millenium of English usage, modern political prescriptions aside, as far as I can tell from the OED and some historical linguistics papers I've read. Alastair Haines 07:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete

The following, from the lead para, totally misses the point, also misses the point of WP:NPOV, and, being superfluous, should be removed — Until the late twentieth century, generic use of the pronoun he was preferred (but not required) in such constructions. At that time an effort was made to change the language. The proposal is endorsed or rejected on various grounds.—

was preferred? By who(m)? An effort was made?? By whom?? There is no need to add cite fact,or weasel word or neutrality tags here — the section fails them all. These three sentences (thirty-nine words) do not add to the article, Newbyguesses - Talk 09:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll provide a citation for you. It's not difficult. What would be difficult is finding alternatives prior to the mid 20th century. The answer to your questions, "who?" are: generic singular in distributives is still prefered in inflected languages, so the answer is prefered by all, even outside English! So the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate usage of alternatives to generic masculines from early periods of English. In regard to who is trying to change the language, that's no secret, broadly feminist writers are proud of the influence they have made, and are adamant about the importance of their prescription. Are you seriously suggesting feminist complaints about sexist language were based on no evidence? Alastair Haines 20:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
There is more to the use of "their' than just singular and plural (for instance, mass nouns are neither singular nor plural). And there is more to it than promoting non-sexist language, which may be a present concern for some, but which is secondary in a historical sense. The proscriptions against the use of "singular their' which this article is apparently trying to enforce are a historical accident dating back no more than a mere couple of hundred years (a very short time in historical terms), in grammar books written in a much more prescriptive age.
WP, in following NPOV, may not seek to be proscriptive in this or any matter, and the use of this article to push a particular POV following the lines of a prescriptive dictionary, the AHD, is outside the proper use of WP, which is why the Neutrality and Factual Dispute tags are on the article, which needs rewriting, and a fresh approach, avoiding the temptation to lay down the law like some omniscient authority.
The arguments here of User:Alistair Haines about burden of proof and such are undermined by a failure to understand basic logic whilst claiming to stand behind it. Comments such as "who is trying to change the language, that's no secret, broadly feminist writers are proud of the influence they have made, and are adamant about the importance of their prescription." are unsourced, your opinion, and reek of the very POV you seek to attribute to others.

WP is not a dictionary, in particular it is not the AHD, and WP does not push POV —Newbyguesses - Talk 00:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the page and thanks for your POVs. If you are right about my lack of logic, my first class honours degree in pure mathematical logic has obviously not assisted me in practical application in this case. As regards sourcing my talk page comment, actually I could copy about 100 books from my PhD bibliography that prescribe non-sexist language, and take issue with usage (not prescription) of generic masculine forms. We don't have to cite sources in the talk page. However, another Wiki policy is no personal attacks on the talk page. Personally, I don't mind if you say Alastair is illogical as a shorthand for Alastair's argument doesn't follow logically, others might be a little more sensitive though. Just a point to have in mind.
But let's leave all that to one side. Is it a fact that feminism claimed language to be sexist? I thought that was so well known, it didn't need citation. I'm not sure my problem is that I'm illogical, just that I'm ignorant. I don't get out enough, clearly people are not aware that feminism has proposed hundreds of systematic gender biases in language. That's their POV. My personal observation is that gender distinctions are indeed thoroughly pervasive in languages. The data is clear. I think feminists see it more clearly than other people, and totally agree with them regarding the facts. Mind you, I don't make the same moral judgement like they do, and I'm not interested in changing language as they are. But if they believe what they believe, they should keep working hard at what they're doing, I'm not going to try to stop them, and certainly not at Wiki.
On a positive note, I liked your simplification to "unknown or irrelevant," which is precisely the phrase I use myself when talking about genericity. Others may disagree with our stylistic preference, which is why I didn't change it from what the author of the page wrote. Style is often a matter of opinion, however, decisions have to be made, thanks for being bold and making one. Cheers. Alastair Haines 04:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou Alastair for assuming good faith; for the article to go forward, and no personal attacks are made, and common ground established.
Here is a passage from the Cambridge Guide to English Usage 2004, on page 538 by Pam Peters, author, and associate professor of linguistics:
Everyone has to consider their future. This is of course more contentious. Purists might say that it's ungrammatical to use their after everyone, because one requires a singular pronoun. Many others would say that generic/universal their provides us with a gender-free pronoun, avoiding the exclusive his and the clumsy his/her. It avoids gratuitous sexism and gives the statement broadest reference.
The author here, personally responsible for the work, is able to advance this position without the same constraints that Attribution and NPOV rightfully result in on WP. But note, "Purists" - not all purists - and "many" - not all.
I think simplification, and attribution is possible in the article, and that, what is an important matter of grammar, this quoted passage referring to controversies is only about one-tenth of the English Usage entry here, in other words, controversy is a side issue to grammar. Why not be descriptive here? And refer to secondary authors, rather than so many examples, in the article. Newbyguesses - Talk 13:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Further matter: although Alastair was too dignified to insist on an apology for the wording of a previous post I made, I have had the opportunity to re-read same, and realize now that although no personal attack was intended, the tone of that post was impolite, and impolitic as well. I regret this now; so I am thanking Alastair again for the dignified way in which this was handled, I will try to do better in future. Newbyguesses - Talk 23:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
D Good for you! No apology was needed, your good faith is obvious.

Regarding your quote, I like it and would love to see it in the article. Please assume I'm describing it scientifically, not making a personal judgement of value, when I say that it is an excellent example of the feminist POV (shared by many who are not feminist). How do I know that it is feminist POV? Because it assumes generic use of he is sexist. This is not the view of the majority of people or scholars in history, or across languages. However, it is a very large and influential POV, that most certainly must be articulated clearly at Wiki and in this article. I've a very large number of sources that attribute the rise of singular uses of they to official proscriptions (we're talking about governments and schools here) of what is deemed by them to be "sexist" language. If a journalist wanted used generic he, for example, she would be corrected, if she insisted, she may well cease to have a job. It is a moral issue in the minds of probably the majority of contemporary English speakers -- hence they are prescriptive about it, and they should be!

Another reason I like your quote is because I think Pam shows academic precision in calling the usage of they she is describing "generic/universal", which I completely agree with (see generic antecedents). One difficulty we have in this article is that it is named as though the issue is singular v plural, which is very narrow and does not define the range of uses, nor the real issue. Which you noted above, and I completely agree with you.

However, back to the quote, I'm not sure what "purists" Pam is refering to, they do not include me, nor the Oxford English Dictionary, nor the history of English writers, nor speakers of other languages which have distributive pronouns and distinctions between singular and plural pronouns. (I can provide examples from Greek and Hebrew, but they are far from the only languages with the same issues). The point is very important to this article, it is made by several scholars who are already quoted in the text. The point is that most general/universal references are used with both singular and plural pronouns.

I specifically agree with Pam that: "Many others would say that generic/universal their provides us with a gender-free pronoun." Not only do I agree that many would say this, I am one of those many. The same is true of clumsy "his/her" -- many think it is clumsy. The clumsiness of he/she is not a simple descriptive/prescriptive issue -- many people use it, sometimes it is not clumsy, people would differ in their "feel" for which cases are clumsy and which not.

Pam believes, has every right to do so, is backed by the majority and by legislation in saying use of he rather than he/she or they is sexist. On the other hand, I am far from alone in disagreeing with her here, but that is not my main point. There are two distinct issues -- the politics of sexism and the structure of language. Regarding language, Pam is actually technically wrong to speak of he as an "exclusive" pronoun. As it turns out, in English (and many similar languages), the feminine pronoun is more exclusive. In many languages masculine pronouns do "double-duty" as a common or epicene pronoun -- generic use. If one hears the feminine pronoun, it will almost always refer to women. If one hears a masculine pronoun, it depends on context whether it means everyone, or just men.

Pam is too good a scholar, I'm sure, to actually mean that he is necessarily exclusive, she knows singular pronouns can be used generically, even in non-sexist writing (for example alternating generic she and he between chapters etc.). A better reading of her words would be that she is refering to uses of he that are intended exclusively. However, it is not clear how that is possible in the example she has described -- everyone has to consider his future has been perfectly good English for centuries, is generic use and so includes women, is sexist only in the mind of a reader who chooses to show insensitivity to the context.

Now please note what I am not saying. I am not saying people cannot use they in such sentences -- they do! Whether I like it or not. However, I (and many others) use he in such sentences, whether they like it or not. I am not saying that sexism doesn't exist or should be encouraged. In fact I believe it does exist, is wrong and should be corrected. However, what I am saying is that there is more than one POV regarding use of he or they and that in an encyclopedic article both should be explained from the NPOV. This should be done, even if the article finishes by saying, "the policy at Wiki is to use they unless the issue can be avoided by rephrasing the sentence." Wiki doesn't have such a policy, but it would be perfectly encyclopedic for them to include it in style guide-lines.

Anyway, I've written a lot. I hope you can see that although I have preferences for personal use, I've read quite a bit on the issue and understand the other perspective. Please also note, I did not write this article, I have simply worked with what was already there. I found the article to be largely unsourced and POV because it assumed singular they is a clearly articulated, neutral form of language use, which is not what the evidence suggests. Someone tried to address it, unfortunately with true, but slightly unclear and unsourced material.

If the quote you provide is anything to go by. I look forward to your contributions, because they are clear, relevant and sourced. Alastair Haines 02:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Epicene he

He does have some use as an epicene pronoun, but it's limited. Consider, for example, "Either her father or her uncle had his hair cut yesterday" — perfectly fine. Now consider "Either her father or her mother had his hair cut yesterday" — perfectly unintelligible. Epicene he is impossible when you explicitly list the options and they're not all male, suggesting that the only reason epicene he is possible when you don't list out the options is that it actually only refers to the male options, and we infer that the statement is supposed to be true of the female options as well. —RuakhTALK 04:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. He is not intrinsically epicene, as you demonstrate by your example. I also agree that a "representative" understanding of distributive contexts suits my own internalization. "A true patriot defends his country against her government." Uses of his and her are quite different, like you suggest. His is representative, her is conventional. However, there is another "psycholinguistic" aspect to this. I think some people really believe there is little difference between men and women -- we have more in common as humans than differences due to sex -- and that's probably an objective fact.
Now here's some original research for you, so obviously this is not for the article directly. But if you think people are basically people and gendered language is imposing arbitrary and meaningless social distinctions, you jolly well want to have the freedom to say things as you see them, and more power to you says I. However, if you think, as I do, that there are genuine and important patterns of emotional response that distinguish the sexes, you jolly well want to say it how you see it too! Part of the problem in this debate is that whether or not language influences our thinking, our thinking definitely influences our language. People think differently, so they want to speak differently. I'm the first to defend freedom of speech for those who think differently to me, because I know how important that freedom is to me myself. I love gender differences, perhaps I'm imagining them, but then again, perhaps others are hiding from them.
Anyway, I agree with you, generic he is not epicene, that's why I love it! However, regarding this article, it would help if we could make it clear that epicene they is not always singular. shalom ;) Alastair Haines 11:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

A New Direction

Could you please give me her words, I don't own this book. Let me explain what I object to. I hope you'll understand.

  • language purist is used in a pejoritive way, that doesn't really help make a positive case for using singular they anyway
  • also, what I need to see to believe this claim is a quote from someone who claims to be a purist and proscribes they
  • if it is true what people claim about this, well then, the evidence shouldn't be hard to find

But leaving that aside, there is truth in what is being said here, the debate is between an ideologically motivated attempt to change usage, and a logic and clarity based case to retain it. For Wiki to be neutral, we need to put a clear, positive case for the gender equity case; but we also need to put a clear, positive case for logic and clarity.

Let me give an example of a similar case where we'd probably agree. There are women who are biologically XY and have testes instead of ovaries. Medical scientists used to call them "male psuedohermaphrodites". Technically speaking it is a clear and precise way of describing the biology of what is going on. However, the plain fact of the matter is these women (and their husbands) have no doubt that they are women and usually find out what is going on when they want to know why they can't have children. Telling them it's because they are "male" is just crazy. Nowadays there are a number of ways of describing this situation, none of them are ideal, but AIS (androgen insensitivity syndrome) is pretty usual.

Now, suppose I said, "Hang on! I'm an expert medical terminologist and male psuedo etc etc is just more logical, let's keep our language pure." If I took that line, I'd be an insensitive purist.

My point here is that because I'm not pursuaded that generic he actually suggests anything sexist at all, I'm completely unmoved by the rationale for change in language. Instead, what I am not alone in seeing, is a lot of language use that is more concerned with signaling gender neutrality than in being clear and specific. As a teacher at an all boys school, I heard other staff using gender neutral forms to refer to the young men quite regularly. A lot of people didn't feel comfortable using generic forms that can indicate masculinity, even when all the possible referents in context were in fact male.

I've made my request above. I'm keen to hear Pam's actual words. However, my main point is not fussing over details and it is certainly not a matter of making a case for people to "get with the program" and use generic he. My point is simply that in this article we need to be clear about what the debate is, and how to report it neutrally.

To suggest that one side of the debate is modern, enlightened, majority opinion and the other is old-fashioned, narrow-minded minority purists does not describe the arguments, it describes the people. Actually its debateable whether these things are true, but even if they are the right stereotypes, it's actually irrelevant to the actual argument which is quite straight forward.

It's rude to use demeaning language for minorities, however accurate, traditional or logical the terms. Legislate against them by all means. The question is, "Does generic he exclude women?" The answer is "no" and "yes". The other question is, "Does "singular" they cause ambiguity and loss of clear expression?" The answer there is "yes" and "no". Both sides have good arguments. Casting one side as "self opinionated pig-headed purists" and the other as "feminazi lesbians" does not help elucidate the totally rational and community sensitive opinions of the intelligent views of both sides.

Can you see my point about "purist"? That'd be a great start. ;)


Thanks, Alastair – "Does generic he exclude women?" The answer is "no" and "yes". Agreed, and even more so to your following points!

Quoting a little more, PPpage243-4 (fair use/study), for the entry on he and/or she, — Some would argue that the use of he/his is also generic in: The applicant must demonstrate his ability to work independently, and how he would develop the unit if appointed. However for many people, this use of he/his suggests that women are ineligible for the job. Thus in ordinairy usage he/his/him seems to be losing its capacity to be generic. — So, the feminist case is stated here strongly, that such usage excludes, or seems to exclude, women (without necessarily implying that Peters, herself, is a feminist !/?) As to purists, would you agree that the AHD and Baskervill/Sewell could represent them, in the first instance, since they're already referenced in the article? Fowler's Grammar? The issues here are universal/generic (for their) and exclusive/generic (for he), its tricky! Untangling this stuff is gonna improve the article, I hope.Newbyguesses - Talk 11:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
In fact, I could not agree more! Casting this grammatical issue as a these versus them is entirely the wrong approach for any encyclopedia, let alone WP. We are working to move away from that approach, I think. Even if the moral issues seem compelling, (on whichever side of the debate), is it not best for WP to sum up the issues, dispassionately, and allow the reader to make their own mind up? My personal POV is that each speaker has the native right to speak their native language as they see fit. Politics complicates everything, but toning it down seems the right approach, yes? Not easy, but that is the way we are going.Newbyguesses - Talk 12:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey thanks! She clearly states the usual argument ... not a put down, in fact, not only is she representative (so well picked by you) of many, she makes the claim with admirable caution -- "for many people" ... "suggests" ... "seems" ... "losing" (i.e. not yet lost). Just heard the word "manpower" used by a policeman in The Bill on telly tonight, even though the word is on the "black-list" of "gendered" language. ;)

Good point you make and I agree. Peters doesn't describe herself as a feminist, so we shouldn't assume it. The linguistic issues we are addressing stand on their own without reference to either feminism or purism in the person who argues a case. The rest of the article talks about "those who support" and "those who don't", which is clumsy, but neutral. Perhaps we can find better words. I ain't no purist, really I ain't. See, non-purists can argue for freedom to use generic he, without proscribing alternatives, and without appealing to over-simplifications like singular/plural. But it's hard to find reasons other than gender justice for singular they.

I agree Baskerville/Sewell are a good example of a non-prescriptive and non-purist grammar from 100 years ago. For example they do not consider "everyone had their own opinion" to be absolutely wrong, and do not deal with the issue merely on the basis of a singular/plural distinction. They are not famous nor brilliant, but they are old and online, easy for people to look at w/out leaving home. To be fair, most advocates of singular they do not accuse the academics, rather they accuse primary school teachers. Fowler, on the other hand, is a very famous and respected style guide author. Grammars have always been descriptive, style guides have always been prescriptive (and so are primary school teachers). I guess there'd be exceptions, but the nineteenth century was full of descriptive grammars of dead languages, no point in being prescriptive there! ;)

Just remember, to say 19th C academics were prescriptive purists, doesn't prove that modern speakers prefer singular they or are best off using singular they. It might not even be true that 19th C scholars were what some claim they were, but who cares! The argument for using singular they is that people can perceive the main alternative, generic he to be exclusive. The argument for using generic he is that most people have an IQ sufficient to understand the structure, it is unavoidable in many inflected languages, without apparantly provoking any battles of the sexes, so why not educate those who don't understand, rather than try to get everyone to conform to a new usage. And there are answers to that question, but they are not decisive, so we are left with two sets of opinions. That's fine with me. Alastair Haines 12:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Was just about to post the following (definitely agreed, all!) –

  • ...Our language influences our thinking, our thinking definitely influences our language.
  • The rest of the article talks about "those who support" and "those who don't", which is clumsy,
  • Grammars have always been descriptive, style guides have always been prescriptive
  • freedom to use — rather than try to get everyone to conform to a new usage

Slowly, work on the article, moving it away from the "all-in wrestling" metaphor. And, my first suggestion is, that, the chapter titles are uninformative. Usage isnt usage, and History isnt history. Some material has to be moved, or it risks deletion by being redundant. Group the material differently, grip the salient points, and the chapter titles ought to be obvious. I will be working on it, and watching this talk:page,Newbyguesses - Talk 13:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree, the sections do not reflect their contents. The article needs a deliberate logical framework. Here is a workspace with the basic headings: Talk:Singular they/Draft. Alastair Haines 02:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed from History

Here is the code/text for an amazing table of greek pronouns or something. Cant really go in this article, but surely somewhere?

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.

Newbyguesses - Talk 14:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am returning this to the text. It is significant to the argument. Someone provided the Bible quote as an example of singular they from an ureliable source called Language Log. The Greek is there to show that Language Log, despite its name, makes linguistic errors when it fails to research topics it addresses. It is an excellent, clear example of how English interacts with other languages. If you find the argument unclear, I will expand it for you. Alastair Haines 01:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


  • Simple considerations of style are behind the changes that I thought we agreed were needed. The article is currently almost unreadable, rambling, off-topic because, mainly, of these learned digressions you are insisting on.
  • There is no need to prove anything, let alone that LanguageNet can be wrong on occasion. The topic is grammar, not point-scoring. Lessons in Greek, or Old English are for another article, not this one.
  • Reference page numbers go in the footnotes, to improve readability.
  • The debate is a more coherent chapter title, though still too argumentative. Cheers,Newbyguesses - Talk 03:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The article is almost unreadable because of text that was there long before I arrived. Stop accusing me!
  • I do not insist on learned digressions, you need to establish irrelevence, not simply assert it.
  • Reference page numbers should go in footnotes, agreed ... so put them there! Don't delete citation material others have provided.
  • If you don't like the word debate, by all means change it to discussion or fire-side chat or whatever.
  • This article is still POV, the case against singular they is not presented, where the case for it is repeated several times.
  • I can't remove the POV tag, or the fact tag, until I see clear evidence and both positions articulated clearly.
  • All said, though, I'm still thrilled you're having a go at an intricate and sensitive topic. Alastair Haines 04:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations and references

Please do not remove references from the article, and leave the author's name in citations in the text. These things are important because they are the verification trail of the article. It allows people to find books in libraries or search for online references. I know it may seem cumbersome to have details like authors names, when there are so many other things to say, but actually the authors, as well as titles are very much part of the information articles provide. Readers are not actually interested in your opinion, or mine, they are interested in facts, and where they can check those facts. Additionally, a golden rule of Wiki is that material that is not supported by a source can be removed at any time. However, material that accurately reflects a reliable source needs to be retained. Alastair Haines 01:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


{ibid.}(op.cit.)page538CGEU — Newbyguesses - Talk 08:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. Of course, the Oxford English Dictionary and Baskerville and Sewell said the last bit 100 years ago. The debate is not about whether the form exists in English, but whether it is preferable. Pam likes it, Baskerville and Sewell don't. OED doesn't take sides, and nor does Wiki.

I'm looking forward to you presenting the case against singular they as clearly as you present the case for. Cheers. Alastair Haines 09:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Back to a previous point

Simple challenge here. Please quote me Peters actual use of the words "purist" and "prescribe", and where she says the issue is "plurality". Those things, as far as I'm aware, are urban myths, not academic assessments. Pam is too good an academic from what you've quoted, for her to buy into such things. We cannot use her name to back ideas she has not actually articulated.

Why not just put her words you quoted on the talk page into the article? That would be excellent information for the article. Alastair Haines 02:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Purists might say that it's ungrammatical to use their after everyone, because one requires a singular pronoun. - Quoting author and linguist Pam Peters, Assoc. Prof., Macquarie Univ. — from bottomoffirstcolumn,tosecondcolumn,page 538, The Cambridge Guide to English Usage (2004)UK- — Newbyguesses - Talk 03:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, so she does use the term "purist", and not pejoratively, she's trying to be a purist and present a purist case, only, I imagine, to go on from that to explain why this hypothetical approach does not satisfy her. She also explicitly presents a hypothetical argument from grammatical number (not plurality).
Be careful about your descriptions of writers. You have a tendency to use adjectives to describe writers, that indicate your opinion of them -- "Peters, author and linguist"; "American Heritage, not authoritative, out of step." You need to keep your own POV out of things. Such descriptions are not necessary, just leave them out.
  • Adolph Hitler, a jew-hating tyrant said, "1+1=3". It's obvious what an idiot he is.
  • Adolph Hitler said, "1+1=3". However Betrand Russell, in Principia Mathematica, presents a 50 page argument establishing a set-theoretical approach to arithmetic. This states that "1+1=2".

Just state the facts. Who said what, where and when. Actually, the following is technically NPOV reporting of a particular POV:

  • Rudolph Blumenthal, in My Thoughts on Hitler, claims "that dude's just a way out tyrant!"

It's not our job to tell people which sources to trust. It's our job to tell people what the sources are, and where to find them. I'm sure you understand the point. Alastair Haines 04:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Alalstair, you said all this quite recently: Be careful about your descriptions of writers: Pam believes, has every right to do so, is backed by the majority and by , Pam is actually technically wrong to speak of Pam is too good a scholar, I'm sure, to Pam is too good an academic from what you've quoted, for her to she's trying to be a purist and present a purist case, Does it seem that you are conducting a personal debate, with this source, of a few sentences, and putting words into your "opponent's mouth" into the bargain? Be careful about your descriptions of writers, the way it is going is not my understanding of NPOV, more like a boxing match,Newbyguesses - Talk 07:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between making comments on the talk page, to making them in the article. I'm sure Pam would confirm for us, if present, that she was presenting the "purist" case first, then explaining why she differs with it. What she says purists believe, are not her own views. Or do you think she is a purist?
Call it "putting words in someone's mouth" if you wish. That's only a fair criticism if you attribute ideas to someone they don't actually hold, or if you claim to be quoting them exactly, but actually are paraphrasing them. On the other hand, repeating back someone else's idea in your own words is just reflective listening, to demonstrate or confirm that you've understood correctly.
Bearing in mind all my comments that you quote, I'm hardly disagreeing with her -- "good scholar", "good academic" -- don't sound like punches to me. ;)
Anyway, good start on the "case for the opposition". The thing is now to explain why on earth Huxley used he on one occasion and they on another. Clearly it has nothing to do with "prescriptivism" or "purism", unless we explain one of his uses as a mistake. If there was a rule, you'd imagine he'd follow it. Either there was no rule, or the rule was more complicated than "always use he". Perhaps there was one rule in America, and another in England, maybe Huxley moved from one to the other. Perhaps there was no prescription in the case of distributive pronouns, just a preference. Why was he prefered? Because it made men feel superior? Is that how they would explain it? Did they have a reason, or did it just "feel" right? Why did it "feel" right sometimes and not others. Why "England expects that every man will do his duty" not *"their duty"?
If it was a matter of stylistic preference, not grammatical prescription, what was the basis of that preference?
It's easy to understand the logic of the case for singular they -- if we don't know the sex of the referent, use a form that implies nothing about sex.
What on earth was the logic of more than 500 years of people using he instead of they, and why did they sometimes use they anyway? Alastair Haines 15:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Huxley faced a style choice, and it was answered differently on different occasions. In a chapter of a book, any writer faces style choices, over and over, and balancing, and variation, and repitition. Whether Thomas Huxley, or Aldous Huxley, there will be examples of "their' on occasion, and of he on occasion — Newbyguesses - Talk 16:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Obviously - "England expects that every man will do his duty" is Standard English, and "England expects every man will do their duty" also works, but "England expects That every man will do Their duty" is clumsy, cz of the repeated T - try speaking it, or think poetry. Newbyguesses - Talk 16:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

current status of article

Good points - there are currently 28 footnote/refs, and several References, and Further reading. Each footnote supports a useful entry, and they consist in reliable, relevant sources. Baskervill&Sewell- An English Grammar is well used, AHD, Cambridge English Usage and Epicene ProNouns(Newman) also. User:Alastair Haines, who has contributed extensively, but did not originate the article, has a broad knowledge of the topic and extensively of these and considerable other relevant reference material. User:Newbyguesses, also a contributor, has also investigated these references, and those as can be got to online, such as Warenda. Naturally, the topic is suitable for a treatment utilizing the best of the plentiful available sources and references. This possibility is advantageous to seeking to raise the article at some point, when stability, quality and the efforts of editors concord, to good article status. The current useful, though by no means polished article is a credit to the originator, the further contributors, and particularly User:Alastair Haines for considerable contributions and maintenence to "Singular they" — Newbyguesses - Talk 02:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You are far too kind to me. Let it be known that it is Newbyguesses, and the willingness to interact on behalf of this editor, that has drawn anything that might be considered helpful from me. Respect at you! ;) Alastair Haines 04:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Potential Problem Involving One of the Example Sentences

Let me preface this by saying that English grammar is extremely convoluted. I'm not quite sure who the authority is on what is proper and what isn't, or if there should even be an authority on this matter at all. However, based on my teachings, including my completion of an English minor, I don't understand how the following example sentence used in this article reflects proper grammar:

"The person you mentioned, are they coming?, not *… is they coming?."

Allow me to reword this sentence:

Are the person you mentioned coming?

This rewording shows that the verb usage does not agree with the subject of the sentence. It seems to me that English grammar mandates that the example sentence read "The person you mentioned, is he/she coming?" such that, when the sentence is broken down to investigate the grammar usage, you can see that when reworded, the sentence reads "Is the person you mentioned coming?" which makes sense grammatically. If you're worried about gender specificity, the sentence may read "he/she," "he or she," "he" or "she." Personally, it doesn't bother me one bit as a male for someone to use "she" when speaking about a singular subject with an unknown gender. However, using "they" in this case -- as well as in many other cases -- creates a subject/verb conflict that is grammatically incorrect.

I understand that forms of "singular they" may have been used many times over in the past, but just because something has been done in the past -- no matter how often -- does not make it correct. I simply cannot get over this obvious subject/verb conflict.

As for how this discussion might contribute to the article, perhaps we ought to edit the section entitled "The case against." Rather than simply inserting quote after quote of example usage, we might consider explaining some logical arguments against "singular they," like this subject/verb conflict. As I mentioned previously, just because people used a certain kind of grammar in the past doesn't mean that it makes sense or is proper. Thus, listing quotes where singular they is not used doesn't really make a "case against" singular they.

BareAss 16:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

User:BareAss is making good points in relation to the particular example sentence :"The person you mentioned, are they coming?" from the section Usage. The example sentence is likely taken from a reliable source, (though which one is obscure at present). This seems a legitimate use of singular they to many speakers and writers of English; equally, many would avoid this usage, and there are many ways to rewrite the example with that in mind. There is no great reliance on that one particular example, so if it can be improved on, it should be.
Discussion of the topic of singular they is complicated to an extent. Many speakers are competent language users, who understand concepts such as subject, verb, and object. However, sources and references, such as dictionaries, style guides, grammars, journal articles etc. may use different terms such as antecedent to mean the "subject" or epicene to mean "neutral".
The agreement of verb usage with subject is a fundamental feature of English. The issue of singular v/s plural however does not entirely settle the matter: consideration is required of words such as "each", "everyone", "anyone"; (referred to as distributive words, or singular indefinite antecedents or they may perhaps be considered as equivalent in a way to "mass nouns"): that is, their status is in some ways ambivalent rather than strictly singular or plural per se.
Perhaps more of an attempt could be made to explain the more arcane terminology, such as Morphology and so forth. This would require most likely, research to locate those sources who have made such an effort to explain the basic terms comprehensively. How much fits in, relevantly, to a single article is a question. A reader who follows up interesting links, and actually consults and reads up on the references, may acquire a wealth of information.
Ideally, an article such as this one would present an accurate summary of the relevant reliable sources in an easily comprehensible style. Such is not the case presently, not perfectly by any means, but useful information is here, and progress is being made. Newbyguesses - Talk 17:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the "The person you mentioned, are they coming?" example was invented collaboratively by editors here, myself included. —RuakhTALK 21:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I could go through the same process with many of the examples and quotes to show that there is a subject/verb conflict. If necessary, I could find references to definitions of "subject" and other terminology used in describing sentence structure.
From everything I've ever learned, words like each, everyone, and anyone are singular; you don't say, "each are happy," "everyone are happy," or "anyone are happy" when attempting to be grammatically correct. From the example sentence, "Each member of the group must be prepared to bring in samples of their work to discuss," "each" only refers to one member of the group at a time. This sentence literally means, "That member must provide examples of her work, and that member, and that member..." etc. The phrase "each member" is singular, while the phrase "all members" is plural. Thus, if the sentence read "All members must be prepared to bring in samples of their work to discuss," the use of "their" rather than "his/her" would be appropriate.
I'd like to emphasize my suggestion that we change the section entitled "The case against [singular they]." Rather than simply providing several quotes that prove nothing, we ought to include some real arguments against the use of singular they.
BareAss 19:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Properly speaking, you haven't actually made any argument against singular they; all you've done is point out that various possible antecedents for it are singular. Obviously, anyone who's managed to find the page titled "Singular they" is aware of this fact. In other words, your "argument" against singular they is just to give the definition of it and claim that it's grammatically incorrect. —RuakhTALK 21:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I made a couple of arguments. First comes my argument that a list of quotes doesn't prove anything -- I thank the main editor of the article for changing this aspect of the article at least in part. Really I was just stating this, but I could come up with an argument to support that assertion. Second is my argument involving subject/verb agreement, which is a fundamental grammatical requirement in the English language. The fact that sentences containing "singular they" create subject/verb disagreements constitutes an argument that "singular they" does not agree or comply with the rules of English grammar. I call upon someone to convince me that "everyone are happy" and "that person are coming" are examples of proper grammar.
BareAss 21:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that a list of quotes doesn't prove anything; but that's not an argument against singular they. And your subject/verb "argument" is a straw man; no one's claiming that *"everyone are happy" is correct. The whole point of singular they is that it takes a grammatically singular antecedent. —RuakhTALK 21:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
If it's singular, you have to use a singular verb and not a plural verb. However, because "they" is a plural pronoun, it requires the use of a plural verb. Singular subject + plural pronoun + plural verb = grammatically incorrect.
Clearly the people who believe in the use of singular they aren't going to be convinced to stop using it. I just think it's laughable that people incorrectly use "they" when they don't know the gender of the singular subject and now use this page to defend their mistakes to the death.
BareAss 13:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I really appreciate both your comments, however, I think you are both missing an important point. Anyone can understand this sentence if he speaks English. Is:
  1. a well-formed English sentence
  2. attested by centuries of usage
  3. has analogues in contemporary German and many other languages
  4. was the prefered approach in English until the 70s or 80s
  5. but, is not a singular construction
Replacing he with they in the sentence above is:
  1. also a well-formed English sentence
  2. also attested by centuries of usage
  3. also has analogues in contemporary German and many other languages
  4. is prescribed in our more prescriptive, PC age
  5. but is also not a singular construction.
"Singular" they is a popular name, not a grammatical description, whether you are for or agin its use. It is accurate in describing some forms of epicene they, but is only loosely relevant for generic they of distributive constructions, which are actually not strictly plural (or singular). In fact, some languages use clitic particles to signify different types of distributions independently of singular or plural markings.
Patterns of preference between the alternatives have certainly changed in English, for a specific and political reason. Both the change and the reason can be documented and are significant enough to report at Wiki. Additionally, logicians and linguists and even cognitive scientists have studied distributive constructions independently of the they / he issue. This is highly relevant and actually should defuse some of the singular v plural debate that circulates.
I'll be writing up some of these sources shortly. I hope they help clarify why the issue remains contentious. Alastair Haines 13:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
My two cents on this is:
  • I can't find an argument against singular they in the article. Seems like a perspective is missing from the article.
  • Nelson says "every man ... his duty", that's plenty good enough for me.
  • Baskerville and Sewell say singular forms are prefered with distributive pronouns, that also seems fine.
  • These are not cases against singular they.
  • An example is an example, whether produced by an individual or by consensus, interpretation of it still benefits from sources. Editorial consensus is a great thing, but it is not equivalent to a source.
  • I'm thrilled to see a debate here, where more than one opinion is represented. I think that reflects what is available in sources. There are two opinions out there, let's document them neutrally. It's not editor v editor then, but collation of sources for the readers to evaluate (not us).
  • </two cents> Alastair Haines 22:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There is another example and supporting text that I think has errors. I am not great with grammar so forgive me if this is wrong:

Caesar: "No, Cleopatra. No man goes to battle to be killed."

Cleopatra: "But they do get killed".
— George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra, 1901

Few people today would easily use he where Shaw used they....Semantically, however, they refers to the men who are killed, just as Austen's singular everybody refers to the people who get married.

"they" cannot refer to "the men who are killed." That usage is comic:
Caesar: "No man goes to battle to be painted blue."
Cleo: "But they (blue men) are all blue!"
I suggest "they" refers to "the men who go to battle". :)

The problem with this example is it's purpose (as per "Few people today..."), does not match the example. "But they do get killed." properly is plural (if ungrammatical) -- it is the group of men referred to by the singular "no man (of the group of men who goes to battle)". If that isn't severely incorrect, this is not a use of singular they. Robbiemuffin 17:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

ToDo

  • The articles mentioned in See Also should all appear as links in appropriate text - then, there is probably no need for a "See Also" section. see also, (WP:MOS) WP:GTL#See also
  • The footnotes could maybe be tidied.
  • Factuality, neutrality issues have been substantially addressed: the tags can come off.

Much could be added to this article; equally, the running order could be improved: it is quite possible that this article could feature on the Good Article list, one day.Newbyguesses - Talk 15:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

responses to ToDo

When I have time, I'll be copy editing. I'll look carefully to see if I think bias has now been corrected. I do note there appears to be an attempt to argue against singular they, at last. Good work, and thank you. But others will have their opinions too...
Saw a fascinating example of the ambiguity of grammatical number in a generic sentence in a newspaper here in Sydney today.
  • Tricks girls use to get their man
In this sentence, it's a generic they agreeing with singular man. I can't quite work out if it's singular, or just non-plural they.
However,
  • Tricks girls use to get their men.
would, of course, simply be plural throughout.
Singular (but generic) throughout would be:
  • Tricks a girl uses to get her man.
Distributive with singular is still prefered:
  • Every girl uses tricks to get her man.
But generic they is still possible:
  • Every girl uses tricks to get their man.
Finally,
  • A girl uses tricks to get their man.
sounds to me like a form that has not yet entered the language, if it ever will. Very unclear that their refers to the girl.
I'm not sure the article is complete until it covers this. Singular they is certainly not acceptable English in any and every context. I doubt Pam would prescribe it as OK, and I doubt we'd find examples of it in standard English, though hip-hop lingo probably does come pretty close, there's a great journal article on it, I've forgotten the name. Anaphora in African American English, or something like that.
Anyway, thanks again for your work so far. Cheers. Alastair Haines 10:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
In: "Tricks girls use to get their man", their is plural number, refers back to girls, not man.
Try: "Tricks girls use to get their book."
And: "Tricks girls use to get their books."
And: "A trick girls use to get their book."
And: "A trick girls use to get their books."
In these sentences, (sentence fragments) which are all well-formed, the gramm. number of book/s is not in formal agreement with their, although there may be notional agreement. Regards,Newbyguesses - Talk 14:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for interacting on this, and it's an appealing idea you present. However, if you are saying "Tricks girls use to get their man" is plural their, we need to take into account that their is also possessive. And it's not the girls who are being possessed; rather it's the man who is being possessed by all the girls — plural they. Yes, it's a well formed sentence if they is understood as plural, but it has a different meaning to generic they, which was the intention of the article. Man was intended distributively. Each girl is being considered one at a time, evidenced by selection of singular man. Their is actually agreeing with a particular usage of the plural — the "distributive plural". In other words, distributive plurals are sometimes marked by plural pronouns, other times by singular pronouns. "Tricks girls use get *her man" is yet to be attested in any usage I'm aware of.
I can't see any difference in the syntax or sense when substituting book for man, except that it blurs the distributive intention a little — it's somewhat more likely the girls may indeed be sharing one particular book. I am not suggesting that their agrees with man or book anyway, except indirectly. A distributive object or indirect object will often have a distributive subject. Here, because the object is distributive, we discover the subject is distributive, hence, the pronoun is agreeing with a distributive or generic antecedent. It is good, old-fashioned, generic they.
I just found epicene "plurality" used in German today too.
  • "... jeden Mann, der NICHT mit Dir verheiratet ..." [emphasis from web-site] BUT
  • "... für jede Frau und ... für jeden Mann, die sich gratis anmelden ..."
Tranlations, from Babel -"each man, who does not marry with you"
and "for each woman and... for each man, whom announce themselves free of charge" (NewbyG)
I wonder if this is "modern German", and 50 years ago the second sentence would also use der as the relative pronoun; or if, in fact, plural forms for epicene and generic contexts is an option (or the only option) in some languages with singular, (dual) and plural, but no "generic" number inflection. Perhaps generic masculines are mandatory in some languages, generic "plurals" mandatory in others, while others show preference for one or the other. Yet others could theoretically permit both forms without showing any preference.
I'm reminded that I really think singular they is a poor description of the usage people are actually concerned about. People are usually talking about generic they or the subclass of it which is epicene they.
I really feel the need for a serious academic paper on this subject (i.e. including other languages). Does anyone know one? Alastair Haines 17:09, 13 July 2007(UTC)

Yes, their in the above examples is possessive case, is considered of plural number, third person and unmarked gender. According to E'day Oxfrd(81) p23 agree v. 7. to correspond in grammatical case, number, gender or person.(reff 8). Off to the state library to see what OEDii(89) has got. Newbyguesses - Talk 22:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You need to cite more than the fact that agreement is normal with prepositions. Obviously there is usage of distributive antecedents with both singular and plural pronouns. Which are cases of agreement? "Every man ... his duty" or "Every girl ... their man"? Alastair Haines 07:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
PS it is bad form to edit the posts of other users. I've removed your strike-outs over my use of sentence, which you used to replace my words with clause. I meant to say sentence not clause or I would have used the word. I simply transcribed the relevant bit, which was also the title of the article. Read my first sentence again, it doesn't actually matter whether we say sentence or clause, the generic bit is in both, in fact it is only contained in a few words.
I make lots of mistakes, but I prefer to leave them documented. In this case, I do not consider my words to be an error. Add an ellipsis before and after my approximate quote in your own mind if it makes you feel happier.Alastair Haines 07:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if my change correction upset you. "Tricks girls use to get their man" is not a sentence, you would agree? You can fix your own mistake if you wish. Newbyguesses - Talk 08:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Article still POV — the case against singular they still not presented

Sorry Newbyguesses, but the article still doesn't have an argument against singular they. Removing section headings "for" and "against" does disguise the fact. I really don't think this article will be free of claims of bias unless both positions are labelled by heading and argued as strongly as possible by sources that represent them.

How would you describe the argument against singular they. What would you say are the best sources to find such an argument? Alastair Haines 08:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

How to present an article whicl deals (in part) with a contentious issue is not immediately obvious. My suggestion would not be to present it as Team A versus Team B. How about, (not in order) Gramm. issues, History issues, Usage and LitQuotes, Contempory Issues, Why are the authorities divided? /Notes/Refs...
It is hard to keep material all in one section though, as the sources all contribute material which could be suited to multiple sections. I think the FOR and AGAINST idea personalises the issues too much, it is already contentious without using a combative metaphor. Still, a stable article, as current, is working and allows scope for further improvement. Newbyguesses - Talk 23:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
For and against is only combative among the immature. It is standard practice for democratic governments to have houses of representation that include an oposition party or parties. Academic writing (and that includes encyclopedias) frequently organize information into sections that provide a coherent case each of various alternative views. However, I'm happy for you to remove the argument for singular they, and distribute the material into other places in the article.
That is the way it was while the article was stable for the six months I've been watching it, until your recent edits. Stability can be roughly measured as the length of time text stands unchanged, or with change to style rather than content. As I've noted elsewhere, I've not even started copy editing your additions, I've simply restored cited text you removed.
Those two comments are minor, however. The article not only continues to lack the arguments against singular they. Not only that, but the arguments presented in favour of it are very weak -- that is, based on claims without supporting evidence. Hence, although an argument is presented for singular they, it is not very compelling and doesn't represent the views of those who hold for substantial reasons -- Pinker, for example. More seriously, the grammatical analysis does not deal with a range of non-trivial issues, which would go a long way to helping readers understand why the article is worth having in the first place.
These comments are not criticisms of your work, I hasten to add. Neither of us wrote this article, many people have contributed here with additions and deletions. Not only that, but I agree that History of Usage (i.e quotes), History of grammatical analysis, and History of style guidance are the sections needed. I would recommend that order, because the Grammars are all attempts to describe the patterns of usage, so presume knowlege of it. The Style guides are attempts to recommend best practice on various grounds, which assume knowledge of both usage and grammatical analysis, but also incorporate additional factors like social theories and political programs.
A neat thing about building the information up logically is that History of Usage is uncontentious, it is simply a matter of documenting instances. The history of grammatical analysis is more interesting, because two new and independent approaches to grammatical analysis arose in the 20th century, that refine the simplistic singular-plural approach -- logicians and linguists were both more interested in reference and binding -- logicians considered "semantic" binding, linguists considered syntactic binding (with semantic implications). Interestingly, both approaches provide grounds to support each of the broad positions ragarding best style for formal English expression. Alastair Haines 12:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

More German

A little more searching and I found:

  • ... das Haus oder Auto, das er gerade begutachtet.

It would appear that jede and oder prefer singular relatives in distributive constructions, unless gender marking makes this sound silly to a native German speaker.

  • every <feminine noun>, who [feminine singular form] BUT
  • <neuter noun> or <feminine noun>, which [epicene plural form]

In the second case, plural inflections seem to be used. I'm not sure how much lee-way German has in this. I suspect calling such relatives singular die would seem rather odd. Rather, the plural appears to be used to escape discordant gender distinctions, and seems natural enough because distribution can be conceived almost equally well as singular or plural. I'd appreciate a German native speaker helping us to understand what you do, bitte? Alastair Haines 14:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

A knight in shining armour

David Kellogg Lewis, my favourite genius, considering 'Adverbs of Quantification' in Formal Semantics of Natural Language (1975) suggested some elements of natural language demonstrate a "quantification variability effect". This is pretty standard stuff now, cited as "the well-known QVE (Lewis:1975)".

For others with a mind to the academic stuff. Some liguists split quantifiers into two categories — D and A — standing for determiner-quantifiers and adverbial-quantifiers.

Others have done work on distributive constructions. Some languages have distributive particles or clitics. There are different types of distribution — distributive-key and distributive-share, as against non-distributive and unmarked varieties.

It would appear that distributive and epicene they are not new, not unique to English, and considered accademically quite independently of political or prescriptive issues. However, the one word that is not used in the serious literature to classify these uses of they (or analogs in other languages) is singular. Alastair Haines 16:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, these passages from "External Links" seem to suggest by "bound pronouns" or such what singular they is meant to convey.

frm transcript, on radio, Anyone who had a Heart... 04/05/2002

Geoff Pullum, (with Rodney Huddleston , Cambridge Grammar of the English Language), offers a descriptive analysis of how English grammar actually works.

transcript, Geoff Pullam:>In the other use, pronouns don’t really refer to anyone; they have antecedents like ‘everyone’ or ‘nobody’ or ‘all’ or ‘none’ or ‘who’ or ‘somebody’ or ‘anyone’, which don’t themselves refer. Take an example like:

  • ‘No writers said they enjoyed writing.’

The pronoun ‘they’ can’t be referring to anyone here, because the whole point of what the sentence says is that there weren’t any writers who said they enjoyed writing, so there’s no one to refer to. I won’t get all technical here about how pronouns of this sort work like bound variables in logic, but I will borrow the term from logic: I’ll call pronouns of this kind bound pronouns.

The relevance of the distinction is this: in English, the pronoun ‘they’ is fairly strictly limited to having a plural-inflected antecedent when it is used as a referring pronoun, but there is no such restriction when it’s a bound pronoun.

In The Cambridge Grammar we lay out the general ...<

frm...Steven Pinker The Language Instinct (1994) Chapter 12: The Language Mavens Sometimes an alleged grammatical "error" is logical not only in the sense of "rational" but in the sense of respecting distinctions made by the formal logician. Consider this alleged barbarism, brought up by nearly every language maven;

  • Everyone returned to their seats.
  • If anyone calls, tell them I can't come to the phone.

... is that everyone and they are not an "antecedent" and a "pronoun" referring to the same person in the world, which would force them to agree in number. They are a "quantifier" and a "bound variable," a different logical relationship. Everyone returned to their seats means "For all X, X returned to X's seat." The "X" does not refer to any particular person or group of people; it is simply a placeholder that keeps track of the roles that players play across different relationships. In this case, the X that comes back to a seat is the same X that owns the seat that X comes back to.

The 'their' there does not, in fact, have plural number, because it refers neither to one thing nor to many things; it does not refer at all. The same goes for the hypothetical caller: there may be one, there may be none, or the phone might ring off the hook with would-be suitors; all that matters is that every time there is a caller, if there is a caller, that caller, and not someone else, should be put off.

On logical grounds, then, variables are not the same thing as the more familiar "referential" pronouns that trigger number agreement (he meaning some particular guy, they meaning some particular bunch of guys). Some languages are considerate and offer their speakers different words for referential pronouns and for variables. But English is stingy: a referential pronoun must be drafted into service to lend its name when a speaker needs to use a variable.

Since these are not real referential pronouns but only homonyms of them, there is no reason that the vernacular decision to borrow they, their, them for the task is any worse than the prescriptivists' recommendation of he, him, his. Indeed, they has the advantage of embracing both sexes and feeling right in a wider variety of sentences.<

So, does singular they refer, then, to situations which can be described as involving "bound pronouns" (or, bound variables)? – Newbyguesses - Talk 08:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be really nice if we could say that, but the answer is both yes and no.
Yes, people use the term singular they for such cases, but not for all such cases. BUT
No, people also use the term singular they for cases that are not normally described as logically bound variables.
When the variable is unambiguously plural, people do not call it singular they.
  • The presidents of the United States take an oath when commencing their periods of administration.
This is a logically bound variable — for all elements (pi) of the non-empty, non-singular set of presidents of the US (P), pi took an oath when commencing his administration.
When the variable is unambiguously singular, people call it singular they, and indeed it is. It could be parsed as a logical quantification, but it's a little odd to do it.
  • My only child took their medicine yesterday.
As a logically bound variable — there exists an element (c1) of the singleton set of children belonging to me (C), where c1 took the medicine belonging to c1 yesterday.
QVE (quantifier variability effect) analysis of these examples are boundary cases. Perfectly good cases, but ones amenable to simpler descriptions — viz. singular and plural. The power of considering logical modeling of the semantics of natural language lies in the more subtle cases — distributive constructions and such like.
Anyway, those are excellent sources, thank you. The sources I was looking at focused on logical/mathematical analysis and bound variables. Binding in linguistics is related but distinct. By and large I prefer your sources to the ones I was looking at, your authors are more widely known. We should summarise this and report it.
We're stuck with the name singular they. However, that's not a bad thing, it's the most common name, and it doesn't have to be exact. Tidal wave and tsunami (harbour wave) are both imprecise, just descriptive ... they appear like rapidly rising tides in many cases, and are observed more in harbours than at sea. It's only because we don't know tsunami refers to harbours that we can use it for the whole wave function in English, but why not? We can prescribe any term we like, we're not restricted to patterns of Japanese usage. ;)
In conclusion, logically bound variables do describe many traditional and current uses of distributive constructions in English, which are known colloquially as "singular" they. You have found well-known and respected sources that explain this approach to describing the underlying semantics. It is an approach that has more descriptive power and precision than traditional binary singular/plural distinction, so congratulations and write it up! :D Alastair Haines 11:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a suggestion, and Alastair, as an experienced editor, would like your opinion. Looking at Wikipedia:Embedded list#"References" and "External links", would it be suitable for this article to combine both, and we have a (Foot)-Notes section also. WWW sources referenced in this article to date are of the highly reliable and well-respected type; so, footnotable. Those accesed by myself, all still "Live links", would appear to have equivalent verifiabilty as library material has. Now, your thoughts? Cheers, U:Newbyguesses - Talk 13:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the external links are generally either to web copies of books or journal articles, or to reliable sources of the spoken words of respected scholars. These are sound sources of verification, with the advantage of being easier to access.
Personally, I agree with you. Why have separate sections? A footnote section needs to be separate of course, but why further split the extended bibliography into External links and others?
When I write articles from scratch, I merely copy what appears to be the most common approach across articles I've observed. I've become used to it and comfortable with it, so much so, I'm almost a little protective of it, lol. So by all means change it here if you wish. I don't believe policy is really strict on this issue, and policy can change, and you can be part of that change.
The pattern I'm used to is:
  • See also
  • References
  • External links
  • Other literature
I remember it because See also is the closest reference (other Wiki articles), References are next closest (external sources incorporated into Wiki in the current article), External links are the next closest, because a simple mouse click allows verification, finally, Other literature is the most remote, because it requires physically accessing a library and maybe an inter-libarary loan.
There are inconsistancies in this approach. I would prefer the References section to be called Footnotes. I'd prefer the See also section to be last (and close to the Categories at the bottom of the page) -- they reflect a change in subject, where External links and Bibliography ought to be to links and works that address the topic of the article directly (though they may contain additional material, of course). I like Literature as a heading, because it is a more common English word than Bibliography, but Bibliography is well enough known and describes a specific idea, that using it may actually be better.
There are a lot of thoughts for you. I personally will not make any changes to the way you choose to organize the information. I care only that it is all there. However, if you re-organize it in a way that other editors who watch this page, or happen to "pass by" dislike, it may well get changed. There are Wiki gnomes who make it their business to make sure all articles in Wiki conform to standard patterns. I like their work, and is it so bad to have web-links separated from other sources?
Your call, I'll back you personally, but we are not alone. ;) Alastair Haines 12:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Alastair (User:AH), your suggestions here are cogent, my own preference as well would be for REF to be called as footNOTES, um, how about, then, at the end,
Notes (for the footnotes)
Material referenced (strictly for references)
Further reading -
Bibliography - (if needed)
Literary Quotes - Compendium --
(i.e., how about a separate section for the bunch of, relevant, LitQuotes that are in the article, try to pretty it up nice too?) :suggestion, — U-Newbyguesses - Talk 15:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm content with that system, though I'd recommend the Compendium of literary quotes be a section of the article, perhaps the final one. I would even recommend it have two sections: old quotes with "singular" they (or such like) and recent quotes with generic he (or such like). Examples of singular they abound in current literature, and those with generic he are equally numerous in the past. I would propose 1950 as a round number to divide what counts as old and recent. If both or either list becomes very long, they could become Wiki List articles. Alastair Haines 15:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Quotation templates

An apt quotation is like a lamp which flings its light over the whole sentence. 
       - Letitia Elizabeth Landon, Romance and Reality

Try to bridge each sentence with the sentence before it by using an idea or word that appears in both sentences. Use consistent vocabulary in parts that are technical and difficult. To decide which parts of the sentence are going to be difficult for the reader, try to anticipate the reader's resistance to the ideas.

— Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Principle of least astonishment

I shall never be ashamed to quote a bad author if what he says is good.

— Seneca the Younger, On Tranquility of Mind

There are a number of such Quotation Templates found at [[Category:Quotation templates]], the setting out of the article is affected by such choices. These are deep waters for me, relying on gut-instinct on matters of "style" , trying to upgrade my skill-sets, still I reckon there have been improvements to this article, Alastair, since we started working together. Cheers Newbyguesses - Talk 22:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well said, my friend, I think I should apply a principle I believe in to myself. "Stop whining and do something." If the argument against singular they is not represented on the page, perhaps I should make the effort to present it. ;) Alastair Haines 16:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


Friend, your energy and positivity, and your willingness to learn have already brought great things to the article. Keep it up! My guess is you are the type that swims when thrown in the deep end. Yes, the article needs more consistancy in citation. In fact, I think that's the Wiki policy. It doesn't matter what system we use, so long as we have one. Usually I just follow the first editor's system, if there were lots of editors, with different approaches, I standardize according to my system. If others come and change everything to their system, I do not revert. If they only change a couple of quotes and leave the rest, I do revert, not to protect my own system, but to protect consistancy within the article.
I encourage you to standardize according to your system throughout. The only things I'd say are that retaining Author, Title, Date are essential. Publisher is essential when page numbers are given, and when they are given they should be retained. I'm the type that actually checks references. (You might be surprized how often people quote sources and reinterpret words to suit their own opinions.)
The other thing I'd mention about quote style is that it is fairly standard that when a quote is about four lines of text or more it should be offset from the body of the text of the article. If it is only one line or so, like the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog, it should simply be included in the main text, marked by quotation marks, and followed by a footnote (after the nearest punctuation mark). I guess that's a point too. Quotations should always be footnoted, and footnotes (except in cases where there would be ambiguity) should be placed after punctuation.
That's about as fussy as I get regarding such things, and to be quite honest, I tend not to correct other editors who don't conform to the conventions that I've been taught. There are other editors at Wiki who are more particular, however. I value their work, I let them change my contributions to conform to their preferences, I stick to matters of content as much as possible. In fact, I mainly only contribute material from sources. It's one the few contributions that has a kind of protected status at Wiki.
Hope there's some value in my comments. If this is your first major editorial contribution, you've picked a difficult topic, and a demanding observer-editor! ;) It's not always this hard, but it amazes me how so many topics have debates associated with them. The main problem I find is that people try to silence opposition to a view they hold, which is rather silly, because the strongest argument in favour of a particular view, is usually the inadequacy of alternatives. Present those as well as you possibly can, and let their inadequacy argue for itself.
If the argument against singular they was based on alleged prescriptive grammars asserting they is only ever used in plural contexts, it would be laughably weak. However, I've never seen that argument, except in books by people who argue for singular they. Sadly, it weakens their case to set up such a paper tiger, especially when they do not cite examples. Pullum is much better, when he conceeds that certain cases of they are always plural. Guides that recommend alternating generic he and she (as one of several alternatives) also sound credible, because this addresses the main concerns of the two groups.
Anyway, enough already! I've gotta go to bed. Keep thinking, sourcing and editing ... not only this article, but others. Nice to have you aboard. Don't get addicted! ;) Cheers, Alastair Haines 13:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Alastair, the idea of contributing, with you, to bringing this article out of the doldrums is welcome, (rather, if, between us, sources are found of particular relevance to the pertinent issues, those sources will dictate the material that gets added). That being said, both of us, no doubt, have other irons in the fire, and, RL.
Let us hasten not, nor slowly go, other contributors show interest, and stability ought be maintained. I contribute when I can, and at the moment that is enjoyable, thanks. Your contributions are treated with respect, and I am looking forward to seeing more of them. U-Newbyguesses - Talk 15:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

German parallel

Description of German usage. 2002: "Pronouns and determiners referring back to jemand [someone] and niemand [no one] have the masculine singular form: Niemand, der es weiß [no one who (masc.) knows it]; Jemand hat seine Tasche vergessen [someone has forgotten his bag]."[3]

Contemporary English example

2007: "After the hard times of the 20th century, the average citizen is willing to tolerate unfairness as long as his living standard improves."[4]

References

  1. ^ Peters,P. (2004) Cambridge Guide to English Usage p538 ISBN 0 521 62181 X
  2. ^ Peters,P. (2004) Cambridge Guide to English Usage p538 ISBN 0 521 62181 X
  3. ^ Martin Durell, Hammer's German Grammer and Usage, 4th ed., (London: Hodder Arnold, 2002), p. 117. ISBN 978-0-340-74229-7
  4. ^ Peter Hessler, 'China's Instant Cities', National Geographic June 2007.

Comment

This sentence is backed by a footnote to Huddleston and Pullum. I'm sure they can't say it, 'cause it almost contradicts itself.

"The third of these example sentences, in which their refers back to singular student, is acceptable, especially in speech, for many users of English, but some prescriptive grammars have objections to it."

To say that a usage is "acceptable" is to be prescriptive. How can the grammars that prescribe singular they have objection to what they prescribe? Is the following what is intended:

"The third of these example sentences, ..., is acceptable, ..., it is prescribed as acceptable by Huddleston and Pullum."

Or was something else intended?

Also, linguists are allowed to be prescriptive, be we can't be. We can only say: "X is used (example)"; "Y says, 'Z is acceptable/unacceptable for reasons A, B, C.' " Alastair Haines 14:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It says "acceptable...for many users", It's descriptive, not prescriptive. Ampwright 23:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it describes a prescription. "She thinks sugar in coffee is unacceptable." Description of a prescription.
So, if we say at Wiki, "Trogladites think singular they is acceptable." That's fine, we are speaking from the NPOV, describing what they prescribe.
But that wasn't my point was it? My point is that "acceptable" includes a value judgement, hence it is prescriptive.
Description states only what exists, and that it exists. It doesn't venture beyond that into matters of taste, style, morality or legality.
In this article, it is easy for us to report:
  • Descriptions of usage
  1. "singular" they has been and continues to be used (verifiable by published examples)
  2. other alternatives (like generic he) also have been and continue to be used
  • Descriptions of prescriptions
  1. "singular" they is currently recommended by many contemporary prescriptive style guides including government manuals
  2. it is also discouraged in other contemporary style guides
  3. generic he was recommended in English and is still offered as an alternative, especially if alternating with generic she
  • Other descriptions
  1. forms analagous to generic he are still the default usage in many other languages
  2. logical modeling of the underlying natural language semantics explains these patterns of usage
It is worth noting that the line between prescription and description can be pretty blurry. Also, prescription is a necessary and typically non-vicious aspect of language. Names for new species are prescribed, so everyone has a common name for them. The same could be said for the movement to name cities according to the citizens of those cities, though this is a non-trivial issue, given that more than one dialect is often spoken in certain cities. Other useful prescription includes new business names, titles of job descriptions, terminology designed to remove implicit bias, nations that legislate a common language to facilitate co-operation between all citizens. Personally, I think people have every right to prescribe singular they if they wish to. That they are being prescriptive is no argument against singular they in and of itself. Alastair Haines 01:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to notice this question so late. The kernel seems to be My point is that "acceptable" includes a value judgement, hence it is prescriptive.

Not at all. H&P are using the word "acceptable" in its regular linguistics sense. This is explained in many introductory linguistics texts. Or you could look up "Acceptability" in Crystal's Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics; the entry in its third edition (old, but the only one I have on me) is far too long for me to think of regurgitating it here (quite aside from copyright considerations), but I'll quote the first sentence: The extent to which linguistic DATA would be judged by NATIVE-SPEAKERS to be possible in their language. (Capitalization is used for cross referencing.) Note that there's nothing here about the extent to which respondents would like TV announcers, their children, or others to speak in this way. A test item might include James asked Mary to cook for himself; I think that any native speaker would call this unacceptable (in the linguistics sense) and the linguist would then describe it as unacceptable; neither the test respondent nor the linguist would think of "prescribing" the simple accusative him in this example.

Acceptability sounds like grammaticality, and the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably. However, within the Chomskyan tradition there's a distinction between the two, going back at least as far as Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (1965). Where (or as far as) the two are distinguished, acceptability does not have connotations of propriety, elegance, etc.; it's tangential to the realm of the prescriptivists. -- Hoary 04:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's fine, well formed has the same issue. Well can be a value statement, or be defined in a more neutral way which means something more like according to a regular pattern. If acceptability has a technical definition w/in linguistics, so be it.
However, you are still begging the question, because gender neutral language is explicitly a prescriptivist program. Hence to report the debate as being between prescriptivists and descriptivists to introduce an unhelpful equivocation. References to prescriptivism are fine, of course, but it needs to be clear that:
  1. prescription is perfectly normal in language evolution
  2. I assume it applies to both parties in the "singular" they debate (I've only seen it published by the gender neutral camp, in fact there's not a single citation of a prescriptive source against singular they in the article, just claims that such sources exist)
  3. the argument: "this is what people use" therefore "this is what should be used" uses description in order to prescribe
  4. in fact, it is a good argument in favour of continued usage, applicable to both sides of the debate in question, but it is not a conclusive argument
  5. but the bottom line is, "singular" they can neither be supported nor rejected without prescription, so the argument that those against are "prescriptivists" and can be ignored, is self-defeating

...Comment added at 05:40, 21 July 2007 by Alastair Haines

I don't think I was begging any question. I was instead responding in a way that I hoped would be helpful to a question about the word "acceptable". Still, since you do bring up a number of points:

  • Yes, prescription seems perfectly normal in language. I have little reason to think that it has more than a trivial effect on the evolution of language. (Did modern English come to require "do-support" for lexical main verbs in questions as a result of prescription? Are British writers skipping the the in job-plus-name combinations ("linguist Geoff Pullum" as opposed to "the linguist Geoff Pullum") as the result of prescription by Americans or others?)
  • Anyone is welcome to bring up sources that criticize singular "they". I didn't, because I have have better things to do with my time than read through the dusty books of linguistic prescriptivism or more likely the microfiches of intemperate columns in middlebrow newspapers.
  • you are still begging the question, because gender neutral language is explicitly a prescriptivist program Oh? Consider these: "Hoary is a fool" and "Hoary, you are a fool." They look gender neutral to me. If they are, that's a simple matter of description; I'm not prescribing anything.
  • the argument: "this is what people use" therefore "this is what should be used" uses description in order to prescribe Yes it does. But is anyone saying this? (It smells of "straw man" to me.)
  • "singular" they can neither be supported nor rejected without prescription. Well, what do you mean by "support" or "reject"? I don't reject it, in that I don't rewrite it when I'm wearing my editorial hat. But I also don't "support" it (in the standard sense of that word). I simply accept it, rather as I accept singular "you".

Incidentally, I'm puzzled by your use of "save" in edit summaries; this seems utterly uninformative to me. -- Hoary 06:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. It is an interesting question regarding the degree to which prescription influences language development. I suspect the prescription of the Norman court that business be transacted in French influenced the English language non-trivially. The invention of the printing press also had an standardizing influence on several languages. The extent to which this should be considered prescriptive is probably debated in articles somewhere. Modern spell checkers and publication processes probably introduce constraints on language development. If a study has not already addressed this question, I expect one will eventually be proposed. The current status of English as a defacto international language introduces other questions of standardization and diversity. I know I've been taught that pronounciation should be addressed in ESL contexts, but only to the point of production of distinctions between phonemes, not to duplication of any specific dialect. More tellingly still, children are taught by parents to bring their language into conformity with a wider speech community than each family. Whether trivial or not, the point remains that prescriptions of various kinds are part of language transmission.
I would appreciate a reference to a "dusty book" or "middle brow newspaper" that makes the prescription you claim. I take it you are being purely descriptive in such expressions. Certain usage can be dispassionately described as "dusty" or "middle brow". You would not, of course, be suggesting Hoary's view that any questioning of "singular" they is not only prescriptive, but old fashioned or not quite up to Hoary's definition of scratch. Or that those who may object to various uses of they could do so on grounds other than sentimentality for the past, or a failure to grasp current issues. Did someone mention "staw persons"?
As to who argues that current majority usage is normative. This has been spelled out to me in style guides for submission of essays and manuscripts from many institutions. This may be an Australian phenomenon, generic he is widely proscribed, and a range of alternatives offered. The context makes it clear that language use like generic he make a manuscript liable to a rejection or a request for resubmission. This is not prescription and is no more than a straw man? It is true, I ignore the guides and have yet to be rejected or asked to resubmit. But actually, I conceed that institutions have a right to set standards for language use, but I also reserve the right to express thoughts that bear my name in ways I think appropriate.
For all our comments, it would appear our approach differs little wrt singular they. I don't correct people who use it, but nor do I correct those who use generic he (it is quite common among ESL students). When it comes to my own language, however, I happily use generic he when providing public text, though I tend to use generic she when the medium of communication is owned by an entity that proscribes generic he. Do you ever use generic he, and if not, why not? Alastair Haines 07:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate a reference to a "dusty book" or "middle brow newspaper" that makes the prescription you claim. I saw such stuff in the distant and receding past; I used to pay attention to it; I no longer do. I suppose this "issue" is dealt with, and the cranky sources cited, in Jim Quinn's American Tongue and Cheek, but I don't have my copy of that merry book at hand.
I take it you are being purely descriptive in such expressions. Certain usage can be dispassionately described as "dusty" or "middle brow". No, not usage, books and newspapers respectively. Yes, dusty books: The kind of stuff that retired professors (of subjects other than linguistics) bequeath to libraries on or after their retirement. Yes, middlebrow newspapers, like the (London) Times.
Do you ever use generic he, and if not, why not? I think you're asking if I ever use sex-neutral "he". I don't know, as I don't have an easily searchable corpus of my own verbal output. I probably do to some extent, out of force of habit acquired in an earlier, simpler age. (NB simplicity is not always a virtue.) Usually (perhaps always) I don't, because one or more of several alternatives pop to mind and seem preferable.
I don't know how that last edit of yours is explained by the one-word summary "save". -- Hoary 08:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Four good answers deserve at least one. I use the one word summary "save" when no specific explanation seems necessary. If I'm awake I type "reply" on a talk page. If I'm tired "save" does for me, sorry. Sadly, when I'm making a number of additions to an article, I sometimes get tired and put "save" also, i.e. I am saving my changes. It is short and only requires the fingers of one hand to enter. If you'd like to prescribe a better usage for me, feel free, but I'm afraid the flesh would likely be weak, even though the spirit would be willing. Thanks for your more edifying edit summaries, and more so for your comments. Alastair Haines 08:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Example of language use

The following is an English translation of an Italian journal article. It concerns interpretation of the Song of Songs. Emphasis is added.

The use of their in the second sentence is hard to call "singular" their, but the point of the example is that the sentences in bold are well formed English sentences, that depend for their coherence on use of generic masculine. The writer does intend that women can be wise and embrace wisdom, they are included by using generic men. However, the writer is equivocating on this word, as he intends it also as specifically masculine -- wisdom as spouse in the second sentence.

John Lennon also points out the gender inclusive nature of the word man in his famous song Imagine -- "a brotherhood and sisterhood of man". Clearly, he did not intend to say that men are sisters to other men, rather that humanity embraces both men and women. Of course, others would take offence at Lennon, and consider him sexist, rather a pity really. I can't work out which is a sadder alternative phrase: siblinghood of persons, which is neutral to the point of losing all heart; or cameraderie of humanity, which loses the concept of family solidarity.

I have some soures that make points like these, the place for most of them is at Gender neutral language though. Just came across the first quote above while I was researching something else today, so thought I'd drop it in here for comment. Cheers. Alastair Haines 19:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That second emboldened sentence strikes me as generally ill-formed. I think it is a bad translation that does not work as a natural example of English usage. As for the snippet of Imagine... what does that have to do with singular they? Strad 19:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Dame Wisdom is a name for wisdom personified as a woman. Present in creation could be offset with commas. Would you find lady luck, present at every casino, reveals herself as an untrustworthy lover of men, and their downfall ill formed? If not, why not?
The relevance to "singular" they is that the main argument in favour of it is the fact that it makes no gender distinction. Lack of gender distinction is considered a virtue by many, but not by all. Generic masculines are a feature of many languages, including English, and are not necessarily sexist. Lennon is an example of usage of generic masculine which is not sexist.
These are just examples of English usage, that's all. If we are being descriptive about the English language, we need to consider how people use the features we talk about. If Lennon's use of generic masculine is not sexist, we cannot prescribe the label sexist for all usage of generic masculine (or generic feminine) language, can we? Alastair Haines 22:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not just that sentence. The entire passage is badly written, probably by someone who is not fully fluent in English. That instance of their is not an example of English usage, it is an example of English misusage by a (probable) non-native speaker.
Well, it scans OK to me. It is odd, because it is the highly compressed language of academic abstracts. Here's another abstract from the same source. This is highly technical English, and yet semantic units are all very precisely correct. My vote is the translator is fluent if not native in English. There is also evidence she is competant in Hebrew, Greek and Latin as well as Italian and English.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Singular_they/Archive_2007-08&oldid=791778248"