gam@amdahl.UUCP (Gordon A. Moffett) (12/07/84)
The following is from "American Tongue and Cheek: A Populist Guide to Our Language" by Jim Quinn. The OED says of "their": "Often used in relation to a singular substantive or pronoun denoting a person, after 'each', 'every', 'either', 'neither', 'no one', 'every one', etc. Also so used instead of 'his' or 'her', when the gender is inclusive or uncertain." Also "they", "them", in the same way. Amongh users cited, in a tradition that stretches back to the fourteenth century, are Fielding, Goldsmith, Thackeray, Walter Bagehot, Shaw, Chesterfield, Rusking, and Richardson. In no case does the OED call this usage an error.... It does say the usage is "not favoured by grammarians." But it refers the reader to grammarian Otto Jespersen and his defense of the usage. Jesperson mentions that the usage can be found in Congreve, Defoe, Shelley, Austen, Scott, George Eliot, Stevenson, Zangwill, and Oliver Wendell Holmes, as well as Swift and Herber Spencer. Jespersen points out that if you try to put the sentence "Does anybody prevent you?" into another interrogative formula, begining "Nobody prevents you", then "you will perceive that 'Nobody prevents you, does he?' is too definite, and you will therefore say (as Thackeray does, 'The Story of Pendennis', II, p. 260), "Nobody prevents you, do they?" ...[T]he OED does not say that the use of "they" and "their" with singular antecedents is "a grammatical error." The OED does not even say that the use is "considered ungrammatical" (which is the OED's way of warning readers that though there is nothing wrong with a usage, there are lots of uninformed people ... who think otherwise). The OED simply notes the usage as correct. I add From "The Evolution of the English Language", by George H. McKnight, still more evidents. McKnight notes that Richard Grant White, in "Every-day English", complains about the fact that the British quite often combine "them" and "their" and "they" with singular antecedent, and adds: The kinds of "misuse" here condemned in American use, in British use are established not only by long tradition but by current practice. The awkward necessity so often met with in American speech of using the double pronoun "his or her" is obviated by the "misused" of "their".... McKnight then gives a long list of quotes illustrating this point: Jane Austen, Thomas De Quincey, Matthew Arnold, Cardinal Newman, James Stephens, Frank Swinnerton, Lord Dunsany, Samuel Butler in "The Way of All Flesh", and A. E. (Jane Austen, "Mansfield Park": "nobody put themselves out of the way"; James Stephens, "The Crock of Gold": "everybody has to take their chance.") I have spent a long time on this single construction, but I want to be very plain about this. If you go away from this book with none of your cherished opinions about good English changed, at least you must recognize there is NO justification for attacking the use of plural pronouns with singular antecedents when the sex is uncertain or mixed. For example, says Bergen Evans: Only the word "his" would be used in "every soldier carried his own pack", but most people would say "their" rather than "his" in "everybody brought their own lunch". And it would be a violation of English idiom to say "was he?" in "nobody was killed, were they?" The use of "they" in speaking of a single individual is not a modern derivation of classical English. It is found in the works of many great writers including Malory .... And another list, all of which we have heard before. Again, from the OED: "The pronoun referring to 'every one' [sometimes written as one word] is often plural: the absence of a singular pronoun of common gender rendering this violation of grammtical concord sometimes necessary." -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,sun}!amdahl!gam 37 22'50" N / 121 59'12" W [ This is just me talking. ] [ Note longitude correction; I am no longer in the Pacific Ocean ]
gam@amdahl.UUCP (Gordon A. Moffett) (12/27/84)
I'm a bit astounded by the lack of (public) comment on the article I posted. While I have received a few complimentary letters, the net traffic has been nil. Either: a) The explanation was SO complete that further discussion would be pointless b) any serious opposing viewpoint would require extensive research which is not yet complete (!) c) everyone's on vacation e) this isn't very interesting or d) something else. -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam 37 22'50" N / 121 59'12" W [ This is just me talking. ]