Endless debate over use of "their" with indefinite pronouns

Perhaps if you were to explain that "anybody" is a simplified way of saying "any individual" the singular aspect of the word would be more evident. As to the his/her problem, I gave up on trying to be politically correct quite a while ago and stick to the once accepted as neutral use of "his".

Good point as to 'anybody,' however I prefer s/he. It indicates both genders yet still is prounced 'she.'

I agree with flyboy. Think of "anybody" as "any individual," or the way I think of it "any (one) body."

I also forgo the ultra-sensitivity of "he/she," and just use "he" as the neuter.

Think of language, not as a logical science, but as an art.

Welcome to A2K, CalifHerbGarden!!!

I have to agree with the sentiments of the last few posters. 'Any individual' is an excellent way to explain 'anybody'. I would also adopt the use of he/she, as, to me, it is grammatically correct.

http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html

Singular "their" etc., was an accepted part of the English language before the 18th-century grammarians started making arbitrary judgements as to what is "good English" and "bad English", based on a kind of pseudo-"logic" deduced from the Latin language, that has nothing whatever to do with English. (See the 1975 journal article by Anne Bodine in the bibliography.)

And even after the old-line grammarians put it under their ban, this anathematized singular "their" construction never stopped being used by English-speakers, both orally and by serious literary writers. So it's time for anyone who still thinks that singular "their" is so-called "bad grammar" to get rid of their prejudices and pedantry!

I always thought "anyone" was a combination of "any one" which makes it sigular. I think you're getting confused with "everyone" which would be plural. In fact, I think that "any" is usually the singular form of "every" in at least some non-English natlangs.

While I do use "their" in the singular a lot in speech, I don't consider it any kind of correct, unlike a lot of other "non-grammatical" usages. Gendered pronouns are just so loaded nowadays...

I do agree with JTT re: the use of "their." It seems to have come back into vogue as a gender-neutral term, regardless of what strict grammarians say. (personally, I never use it; I feel uncomfortable doing so. But that certainly doesn't mean it's wrong to use it.)

Just to be clear, I didn't say anything in my last post. All you saw there was from the site listed.

But isn't it interesting that some profess to use singular they/them/their but it's not all right and others profess it's all right but don't use it. Has prescriptive grammar got people confused or what?

Of course, singular 'they/them/their is perfectly grammatical and it is actually a clearer more precise construction than the old PG his/him 'rule'.

I certainly hope prescriptive grammar hasn't got me confused - I've never been a big fan of it. To me, "their" as singular just sounds awkward, and so I wouldn't use it if I was thinking about it clearly. It gets the point across, but it's sloppy. It's more like one of those constructions that you use precisely because you know it's wrong (at least in your dialect), when you're trying to sound sloppy or vernacular. Not like something like "Jim and me went to the park" which, though apparently it's grammatically incorrect, doesn't sound sloppy to me at all.

Re: Endless debate over use of "their" with indefi


I'm confused... why would CalifHerbGarden use the singular form of the verb "wants" with the word "anybody"... and then argue that a plural pronoun should follow?

It is fairly simple to make this grammatically correct...

Any who want to get into the fair must have their own pass on hand.



I have to disagree with you Rufio... "everyone" is as singular as "anyone." This can be quickly determined with a verb check:

Everyone IS going to the store... not everyone are going to the store.

Re: Endless debate over use of "their" with indefi


Ahh, touche. I think I was thinking of every/all, not any/every.

No problem, Rufio. Grammar is not a competitive sport. I'm just pedantic... as anyone'll tell you.

Re: Endless debate over use of "their" with indefi





JTT: Were that it was as simple as you suggest, Piffka. But alas, it isn't.
CalifHerbGarden picked, correctly, the phrasing that is most meaningful. Meaning always trumps prescriptive grammar because prescriptive grammar isn't about English.

Prescriptions are artificial rules that simply can't stand up to any scrutiny.

In case poor English, we ENLs choose words that make the meaning most clear. If we follow your logic that 'everyone' and like words are singular because they use a singular verb, we are left in a conundrum.

1. *Everyone is going to the store. He is bringing his bike.*

2. Everyone is going to the store. They are bringing their bikes.

Which is closer to the meaning of <everyone>, #1 or #2? {rhetorical question}

Further, if I were to say,

"I think you are mistaken, Piffka" ,

would you be casting looks around you to see who else I've included with this plural verb? I don't think so.

Why is it okay for you to glide along just fine with this obvious "grammatical error" but then you condemn a perfectly natural English collocation?

It also ludicrous to suggest rewrites or write arounds when it's painfully obvious that it's the "rule" [and I use that term exceedingly lightly] that's wrong, always has been, from the day it was penned.

It's one thing to say that all prescriptive grammar rules are wrong and another to say that they are not neccessarily accurate. "Are" is a single surface structure which is used to represent several different meanings. One of them is the second person singular. It's not a plural verb, in that context.

And even if you would refer to "everyone" as "they" in a following sentence, you still wouldn't say "everyone are bringing their bikes". True, there is a difference between something being grammatically plural, and semantically plural. For example, take "pants". The fact that when we say "pants" we mean a singular thing does not change the fact that it is grammatically incorrect to use singular verbs with the word.

And rules that are inaccurate now have not always been so. While I don't think that the destinction between "I" and "me" has only to do with case anymore, it did at one point. Every bit of prescriptive grammar that is employed today has a root in the history of the language somewhere. It may need to change with the times, but it has not always been wrong.

This is truly a key point. Languages are "held together" structurally by rules of grammar. Not the ones you get taught in school, but the ones babies naturally and rapidly acquire during the first few years of life. These rules are arbitrary, but largely systematic with a few exceptions.

Things get tricky when adult speakers decide to question the "logic" of the system they have acquired. One example is what JTT posted (linked to) about "their" being a completely accepted normal pronoun which can agree with a singular antecedent. There is nothing inherently wrong with a particular sequence of sounds being used in such a fashion. It is NOT a plural form exclusively; it serves a dual function in this context. It just so happens that at this particular stage in English, "their" is used MUCH more frequently in this context (as it has been for centuries) than "his" or "her".

I challenge anyone who disputes this and ask:

Which would you say to your friend getting ready to go clubbing:

"Hast thou still got those awesome silver hot pants that I borrowed last weekend?"

or

"Have you still got those awesome silver hot pants that I borrowed last weekend?"

If you say the latter, I ask why? English used to have a perfectly good and useful 2nd person singular pronoun "thou". Why'd you stop using it? Why'd you generalize the plural form "you" to be used in the singular too? That's wacky!!!

Oh wait, we live in the 21st century, not the 16th...

Keep in mind that language is always in a state of flux, fluid, always changing. We can accept the changes (as they are inevitable) or fight them and be left in the dust, to perish with our antiquated usages

As for the original question of the ESL education, that is an extremely difficult topic. Rather than going by rules carved in stone, try to maintain a flexible approach, use tons of example sentences, and let the students be aware of the variation. They will surely encounter it in the real world!

Rufio:
It's one thing to say that all prescriptive grammar rules are wrong and another to say that they are not neccessarily accurate.

JTT: I don't know who said they're all wrong; it certainly 'twarn't me. There are a number of fine prescriptive rules for writing; use a period at the end of a sentence, etc, etc, etc.

But I must admit that I am finding it more than a bit difficult to imagine the crucial distinction between inaccurate and wrong.

---------------------------------
Rufio:

"Are" is a single surface structure which is used to represent several different meanings. One of them is the second person singular. It's not a plural verb, in that context.

JTT: "is" is a single surface structure which is used to represent several different meanings. One of them is the plural use. It's not a singular verb, in the context of words like everyone.

-------------------------------------------
Rufio:
And even if you would refer to "everyone" as "they" in a following sentence, you still wouldn't say "everyone are bringing their bikes".

JTT: You couldn't use in a following sentence, anything BUT a plural. That should clue you in to the ACTUAL meaning of words like everyone.

--------------------------------------
Rufio:
True, there is a difference between something being grammatically plural, and semantically plural. For example, take "pants". The fact that when we say "pants" we mean a singular thing does not change the fact that it is grammatically incorrect to use singular verbs with the word.

JTT: The gaps in your logic are astonishing, Ruffio. "are" clearly was/is a plural verb and it became accepted into use as the default verb with 'singular 'you'. If English can handle this type of adjustment, then there no reason to NOT make the same assumption about 'everyone', to wit, 'is' is not a singular verb in this case.

But why all the mental contortions. English simply makes use of that which is the most meaningful. It's a complete red herring that we don't switch to "everyone are". We don't simply because it's conventional to use 'is'.

And yes, Rufio you're right; notional plurality is much more important to speakers and meaningful language use than some old silly prescription. The long and successful use of they/their/them, dating back long before this errant rule was penned, clearly illustrates that.

--------------------------------------

Rufio:
And rules that are inaccurate now have not always been so. While I don't think that the destinction between "I" and "me" has only to do with case anymore, it did at one point.

JTT: I'm not so sure it did but that's moot. The 'rule' has long been nonsensical, perpetuated by those who simply repeated old saws.

Rufio:
Every bit of prescriptive grammar that is employed today has a root in the history of the language somewhere. It may need to change with the times, but it has not always been wrong.

JTT: Language science simply doesn't support that view, Rufio.

==================

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/1994_01_24_thenewrepublic.html

For here are the remarkable facts. Most of the prescriptive rules of the language mavens make no sense on any level. They are bits of folklore that originated for screwball reasons several hundred years ago and have perpetuated themselves ever since. For as long as they have existed, speakers have flouted them, spawning identical plaints about the imminent decline of the language century after century. All the best writers in English have been among the flagrant flouters. The rules conform neither to logic nor tradition, and if they were ever followed they would force writers into fuzzy, clumsy, wordy, ambiguous, incomprehensible prose, in which certain thoughts are not expressible at all. Indeed, most of the "ignorant errors" these rules are supposed to correct display an elegant logic and an acute sensitivity to the grammatical texture of the language, to which the mavens are oblivious.

============================

Well said, Mezzie, right on the money!

That Pinker quote is excellent. The Language Instinct is actually being used as the textbook for Intro to Linguistics at the school I teach at.

One small point.

You said:


As far as I know, the plural forms were: "you are", while the singular forms were "thou art". So both "you" AND "are" gradually took over the singular as well as plural. I believe they went together, rather than one by one. In case anyone wanted to know, when a particular word or morpheme does double or triple (or more!) duty, like "are" for 2nd person singular and 1st/2nd/3rd person plural, that's called a syncretism.

Exactly... what I say is different from how I write. My written language is more precise in following the grammar rules I was taught at my mama's knee. My speech is casual... it is often not grammatical and it frequently uses short-hand. I imagine that the evolution of language comes first from speech. Further, I think it is quite likely that when written language starts to change it begins with dialogue.

I know though, that you weren't trying to point out that difference. I think you're quite right that "their" and "you" point to similar changes in our handling of these awkward pronouns. I wonder if it is something about these words that make them more likely to evolve...