From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: New words for gender neutral pronouns in English
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 23:54:43 GMT

In article <10455@scott.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.160932.7499@rdg.dec.com> cockburn@edieng.enet.dec.com (Craig Cockburn) writes:

>>Thought readers here might appreciate these old notes, posted 6 years ago
>>on the singular use of "they" in English. This usage dates from 1526, 
>>according to the OED.

>>I hope that this will establish in everyone's minds that the use of 
>>singular "they" is as correct as anything can be in English.

>The use of singular "they" is as correct as anything can be because it
>dates from 1526?  

Oh, come off it.  Do you see a "Therefore" between the two paragraphs?

He hopes that "these old notes" will establish the correctness of
generic-singular "they."

>Possibly, but then the use of gender-neutral "he" is
>a zillion times more correct, because it dates from the Tower of Babel.

>[Quoting an old net.nlang article by steven@mcvax.uucp (Steven Pemberton)
>>
>>Here we go again. Last June I posted an article quoting the Oxford English
>>Dictionary, and tens of worthy authors through the ages from the 1300's to
>>the present day, who have used 'they', 'them', 'theirs', etc as SINGULAR
>>gender-unspecific words. It is CORRECT English. It was only later
>>grammarians who tried to enforce the rule that they are plural words, and
>>force us to use 'he', etc.

>This is absolutely ridiculous. 

Looks OK to me.

> Singular "they" was used from the
>1300s on (even not 1526).  Gender-neutral "he" was introduced by
>grammarians at some later time.  Good.  But what about the centuries
>before the 1300s?  Given that every single Indo-European language (bar
>the few which have lost the category of gender) uses its equivalent of
>`he' as a gender-neutral pronoun, I can't help thinking that this was
>the strategy of Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Germanic, etc., and in this
>sense gender-neutral "he" is the original state of affairs, hence as
>natural as anything. 

Au contraire!  English STOPPED using genders for things other than
humans and the occasional animal; accordingly, gender became closely
allied with sex in English, unlike all those other languages.
Accordingly, English-speakers felt the need for a generic singular that
was NOT male- or female-gendered, because they did not always wish to
specify the sex of the person being referred to.

Now calm down and look at the argument you call "ridiculous" a little
more closely.  It is *not* an argument from antiquity; instead, it is an
argument from continuity.  The usage has been established for a long
time, AND IS STILL WITH US.  i.e., it has not changed.

Why does this matter? Because the usual criticism of generic-singular
"they" is that it is a modern coinage, brought about by "political
correctness" or some such nonsense.  If you don't believe me, see John
Simon's typically snooty, typically ill-informed letter to the NYT Book
Review just a week or two ago.

The usage is, and has long been, standard and accepted and often
preferred by great speakers and writers.

> It obviously didn't need to be invented by
>grammarians.  As for "they" & Co, they _are_ plural words, even if at
>some point they have developed a secondary (singular) meaning.

>>Luckily, most people have not followed their dictates.

>Whether it is lucky or not is a matter of judgement.

What would we say, then?  The grammarians didn't bother to tell us what
to say instead of "Nobody was hurt, were they?" or "Everybody brought
their own lunch."  They just harrumphed a lot.

roger

Newsgroups: sci.lang