(April 2, 2021 at 10:30 pm)SUNGULA Wrote:Pretty sure you mean except unless you want us to accept that "they" was once a singular pronoun.(April 2, 2021 at 9:37 pm)Eleven Wrote: You're not alone. I am one who rocks the boat on the pronoun issue. For one, if informed, I will respect the individual's choice to be referred to as what s/he, it, they, broken pottery piece wants to be called. On the other hand, neither do I understand the need to be referred to a pronoun other than he or she. After all, as you pointed out, a single person cannot be more than one person, to which "they" would refer in the English language. I have heard the argument that "they" is often used in literature to describe a single person, and my guess is that to what is being referred is a butchery of the English language by writers who aren't properly adhering to semantic rules. Granted, sometimes rules are meant to be broken in literature, but this pronoun case is not one of them.Accept they was once a singular pronoun in old English
Picturing Emily Gilmore trying to figure out the pronoun situation:
Lorelie: They are coming next week, too.
Emily: She and who else?
Lorelie: They. *points to daughter*
Emily: It's just your daughter there. Are her friends hiding behind her where I can't see them?
Lorelie: Yes, mom, she has multiple personality disorder now. It must be the stress of that Yale education.
Quote:But that’s nothing new. The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular back to 1375, where it appears in the medieval romance William and the Werewolf. Except for the old-style language of that poem, its use of singular they to refer to an unnamed person seems very modern. Here’s the Middle English version: ‘Hastely hiȝed eche . . . þei neyȝþed so neiȝh . . . þere william & his worþi lef were liand i-fere.’ In modern English, that’s: ‘Each man hurried . . . till they drew near . . . where William and his darling were lying togetherhttps://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-hist...ular-they/
I'm your huckleberry.