Re: Singular "they" [again} was re: ENGLISH!
- From: "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 23:48:23 -0000
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
On 27 Feb 2006, Iskandar Baharuddin wrote
In order to weasel around this burning issue you have redefined
"singular".
It is really amusing to watch you NESsies struggling with a
problem unique to the English language.
Struggling? Idiomatic English stopped "struggling" with this issue a
long time ago.
Idiomatic English -- as you acknowledge and apparently condemn -- is
flexible. Insisting that the division between singular and plural
pronouns is sacrosanct is not only dogmatic but also, ultimately,
futile.
You call this "weasel[ing]". Others call it a strength based on
functionality.
To paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill:
"Never in the history of human debate have so many argued so much
over so little."
Except that there's no longer a meaningful argument.
Idiomatic English is in the process of adopting -- has near as dammit
adopted -- the former-third-person-plural as a useful non-gender-
specific singular pronoun.
The "debate" isn't there: the die-hards have lost.
Quite true: I often catch myself doing it, though I find it inelegant
and avoid it in writing. What's still interesting, though, is that
people haven't yet mastered its use. "Responsible dog-owners clean up
after their dog", which I quoted here a while back from a public notice,
is just one of the messes people are getting themselves into. "The man
who left their wallet in the lavatory can collect it from Reception" --
you know the kind of thing.
I'm getting the feeling that "they" and "their" are acquiring a status
more indefinite than simply that of common gender. Personally, I don't
like it (as if that mattered); but I wish I could live long enough to
see how it finally settles down. I'm inclined to speculate that this
apparent indefinite use is precisely a response to the absurdity of
using it for "his or her": as if there's a communal thought-process on
the lines of "It can't rationally mean that, so it must somehow refer to
_any_ person or persons unknown."
All this, of course, can't be happening in our time by coincidence. It
must be a response to our social decision that gendered words are to be
questioned. "Interrogated", as the theorists put it -- perhaps a
consciously scary choice of word.
--
Mike.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Singular "they" [again} was re: ENGLISH!
- From: Harvey Van Sickle
- Re: Singular "they" [again} was re: ENGLISH!
- From: Stephen Calder
- Re: Singular "they" [again} was re: ENGLISH!
- References:
- Re: ENGLISH!
- From: Mike Lyle
- Re: ENGLISH!
- From: Stephen Calder
- Re: ENGLISH!
- From: Iskandar Baharuddin
- Re: ENGLISH!
- From: Stephen Calder
- Re: ENGLISH!
- From: Iskandar Baharuddin
- Re: ENGLISH!
- From: Harvey Van Sickle
- Re: ENGLISH!
- From: Iskandar Baharuddin
- Re: ENGLISH!
- From: Evan Kirshenbaum
- Re: ENGLISH!
- From: Iskandar Baharuddin
- Re: ENGLISH!
- From: Evan Kirshenbaum
- Re: ENGLISH!
- From: Iskandar Baharuddin
- Singular "they" [again} was re: ENGLISH!
- From: Harvey Van Sickle
- Re: ENGLISH!
- Prev by Date: Re: to paste on the slap
- Next by Date: Re: n. stiff, the antonym?
- Previous by thread: Singular "they" [again} was re: ENGLISH!
- Next by thread: Re: Singular "they" [again} was re: ENGLISH!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|