das@ucla-cs.UUCP (04/19/85)
What's all this nonsense about English "starting" to evolve in a way that
allows a singular "they". WE'VE HAD IT FOR CENTURIES! You'd think that
these people who've been brainwashed into thinking that English is the set
of rules their English teachers taught them would be exactly those people who
accept a dictionary's word as law (instead of as a description; many
dictionaries themselves make this dictinction in their prefaces). So let's
check the Oxford English Dictionary, published in 1933, well before the recent
"he/she" brouhaha.
Under "them", we find: "Often used for 'him or her,' referring to a singular
person whose sex is not stated, or to "anybody", "nobody", "somebody",
"whoever", etc." with a citation of such a use as early as 1742.
"Themselves" is similarly used by Shakespeare, and "their" was used with
singular antecedents as early as the 14th century, and since then by Fielding,
Goldsmith, Thackeray, and Shaw.
So to Marcel Simon and others, your mistake is assuming that because "they",
"their", and "them" are *primarily* used as plural pronouns, they cannot also
be used with singular antecedents in certain contexts. They *are* so used,
continually, by educated native speakers of English. Just open your ears.
What the proponents of "they" instead of "he/she", etc., want that is not
already in effect is a *greater* acceptance of that form in written English,
which is by its nature is less mutable than spoken English.
-- David Smallberg, das@ucla-cs.ARPA, {ihnp4,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!das