Someone did this and then They did that.....?

All the shit that doesn't fit!
If it doesn't go into the other forums, stick it in here.
A general free for all
User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 15478
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Someone did this and then They did that.....?

Post by Joe Guy »

Recently, I was pedantically pondering a puzzling phrasing procedure.

I heard a newscaster on the radio the other day say the following - "Someone in a truck crashed into a car and then they drove away".

I hear similar statements quite often.

Like this -

"When a person goes to the grocery store why do they need to spend so much money?"

And this -

"It's easy for anyone to do if they read the directions first."

Is that correct grammar?

Shouldn't it be something like the following? - "It's easy for a person to do after reading the directions." or "It's easy for a person to do if he or she first reads the directions."

Is the word they okay to use as a substitute for "he or she"? It doesn't sound correct to me so I don't do it. However, it appears to me that most people mix their singulars in with their plurals. But I make up my own rules so I don't really know what's right or wrong.

Does anyone currently living in South Africa know the answer?

If they do please let us know the answer... :loon

User avatar
Rick
Posts: 3875
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:12 am
Location: Arkansas

Re: Someone did this and then They did that.....?

Post by Rick »

No
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is

User avatar
Long Run
Posts: 6723
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 2:47 pm

Re: Someone did this and then They did that.....?

Post by Long Run »

They're going to make up their own answer, so it won't be worth much.

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Someone did this and then They did that.....?

Post by rubato »

And in Afrikaans.

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21506
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Someone did this and then They did that.....?

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Kan jy dit asseblief herhaal?
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Someone did this and then They did that.....?

Post by Lord Jim »

Is the word they okay to use as a substitute for "he or she"? It doesn't sound correct to me so I don't do it.
I do it all the time; and I don't care whether it's technically correct or not; it conveys the meaning clearly in a gender neutral fashion, (you used to be able to use just one gender or the other, but nowadays some people have become so goldarn tetchy about that...) and it creates far less cluttered and unwieldy sentences....

Consider these two sentences:

"A President, no matter which party he or she represents, needs to understand that his or her motives will be frequently questioned, even this seems unfair to him or her."

"A President, no matter which party they represent, needs to understand that their motives will be frequently questioned, even if this is seems unfair to them."

The first version may be technically correct, but it's a mess to read...

So many people are now taking this approach that I suspect that, (if it isn't already) the use of "they, them or their" to substitute for "he or she, him or her, and his or hers" will soon become authoritatively recognized as acceptable usage when referring to a hypothetical person who could be of either gender.

The fact is that the rules of the English language, (despite what the Maggie Arglestropes may think :nana ) are not carved on sacred stone tablets...

English is a language which is constantly evolving, (this is probably the language's greatest strength, and has contributed significantly to its durability and success) and what is "officially" accepted usage generally follows what becomes "common" usage....

If this were not the case, we'd all still be talking like Beowulf...
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Rick
Posts: 3875
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:12 am
Location: Arkansas

Re: Someone did this and then They did that.....?

Post by Rick »

I'm all for ripping peoples arms off and beating them to death with it
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 15478
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: Someone did this and then They did that.....?

Post by Joe Guy »

That's plural and correct because you didn't use an apostrophe for peoples.

User avatar
Rick
Posts: 3875
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:12 am
Location: Arkansas

Re: Someone did this and then They did that.....?

Post by Rick »

Now what if I wanted to beat people to death with Grendel's arm
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 9135
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: Someone did this and then They did that.....?

Post by Sue U »

I suppose you'd have to take that up with Grendel first.
GAH!

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21506
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Someone did this and then They did that.....?

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Joe Guy wrote:That's plural and correct because you didn't use an apostrophe for peoples.
No, it's not correct. "It" is singular and inaccurate. Multiple arms have been torn from multiple people and are used plurally to do the beating, besides which leaving out the apostrophe brings only derisive laughter.

"I'm all for ripping peoples' arms off and beating them to death with them."

The problem becomes the use of "them" twice in one sentence in referring to do different things, which aside from potential confusion is aesthetically displeasing. Are we beating people to death with the arms? Are we beating the arms to death with the people? The sentence demands radical restructuring, thusly:

"I'm all for ripping peoples' arms off and using them to beat the remaining dismembered portions to death."

It does appear somewhat redundant though. According to J. Cleese et al (MPATHG 1975), the dismembering itself does eventually cause a person to bleed to death with one exception. In the latter case, beating to death with the removed limbs may be necessary.


Tackling LJ's laudable (not to mention risable) example, the problem of disagreement is solved by increasing the number of Presidential persons, thusly:

"Presidents, no matter which party they represent, need to understand that their motives will be frequently questioned, even if this is unfair to them."

Note: "is seems" has been arbitrarily corrected to "is", although "seems" may have been intended

It's easy for anyone to do if they read the directions first." Is that correct grammar?

Shouldn't it be something like the following? - "It's easy for a person to do after reading the directions." or "It's easy for a person to do if he or she first reads the directions." Is the word they okay to use as a substitute for "he or she"? It doesn't sound correct to me so I don't do it. However, it appears to me that most people mix their singulars in with their plurals. But I make up my own rules so I don't really know what's right or wrong.
It's easy for anyone to use a correctly constructed sentence (such as "It's easy for a person to do after reading the directions") if they just give it some thought instead of blurting out the first combination of words that enters his or her or their head or heads. :oops:

Is it any more difficult to say "It's easy for anyone to do if the directions are carefully followed"? (In my experience, reading the directions is insufficient; following the directions is desirable).

Anyone up for a discussion as to whether "anyone" is singular or plural?

You're welcome
M. Arglethorpe, Mrs.
Association for Rectifying Sentences in English
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 9607
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

Re: Someone did this and then They did that.....?

Post by Econoline »

What Jim said.

I'm pretty sure that the word "they" has already become acceptable for use as a gender-neutral singular pronoun; certainly much more acceptable than the old default singular pronoun, "he". (Surely anyone currently living anywhere other than in South Africa knows this is correct.)
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21506
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Someone did this and then They did that.....?

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Tush!
"When a person goes to the grocery store why do they need to spend so much money?"


As LJ and Econo have stated, no one can validly assume that "a person" is "he" (or "she") without a gender indicator. The structure needs to account for that. One can either use the brain-dead and sloppy "they" or take the time to structure a sentence with clarity.

"Why do people need to spend so much money when they go to the grocery store?" What's so difficult about that, aside from the obvious defects?

Really one should say something more akin to:

"Why do some people (apparently feel the need to) overspend in grocery stores?" Note that the five words in parentheses are optional.

Here we avoid several pitfalls.

Generalisation: not all people have this problem
Generalisation and false indicative: this does not occur in one ("the") grocery store to the exclusion of all others.
Stating an unknown with certainty: we cannot assert there is a "need" but can reasonably assume that such a need may be "felt"
Confusion of meaning: "so much money" has no quantifiable quality. People spend "so much money" because that is what groceries cost. The intent is to criticise the felt need to spend beyond what is necessary and should be stated as such.

In conclusion, one can only regard the sentence, "When a person goes to the grocery store why do they need to spend so much money?" as utterly devoid of any meaning whatever. It conveys no information in a structurally incoherent manner. One may as well say "Glibble dook fungo ping dang dong" with as much chance of being understood.

Maggie
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Someone did this and then They did that.....?

Post by rubato »

MajGenl.Meade wrote:"...

"Why do some people (apparently feel the need to) overspend in grocery stores?" Note that the five words in parentheses are optional.
... "

Maggie
The phrase is not optional, it entirely changes the sentence.

"Why do some people overspend in grocery stores?" This is about what people do.

"Why do some people (apparently feel the need to) overspend in grocery stores?" This is about what people think.



yrs,
rubato

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 15478
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: Someone did this and then They did that.....?

Post by Joe Guy »

So now I have an answer. It is incorrect to use them in place of he or she but it is accepted by most people because they don't care whether or not they are correct.

So I will continue to shake my head in disgust at the ignorance of English speaking people when they speak and write incorrectly. I won't be disgusted in myself because I don't care whether or not I am correct.

People are dummies.

Screw them all because it's improper to screw every one of them.

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Someone did this and then They did that.....?

Post by Lord Jim »

It is incorrect to use them in place of he or she
Well, the Oxford Dictionary website disagrees with you:
He or she’ versus ‘they’

It’s often important to use language which implicitly or explicitly includes both men and women, making no distinction between the genders. This can be tricky when it comes to pronouns. In English, a person's gender is explicit in the third person singular pronouns (i.e., he, she, his, hers, etc.). There are no personal pronouns that can refer to someone (as opposed to something) without identifying whether that person is male or female. So, what should you do in sentences such as these?
If your child is thinking about a gap year, ? can get good advice from this website.
A researcher has to be completely objective in ? findings.

In the past, people tended to use the pronouns he, his, him, or himself in situations like this:

If your child is thinking about a gap year, he can get good advice from this website.
A researcher has to be completely objective in his findings.


Today, this approach is seen as outdated and sexist. There are other options which allow you to arrive at a ‘gender-neutral’ solution, as follows:

You can use the wording ‘he or she’, ‘his or her’, etc.:

If your child is thinking about a gap year, he or she can get good advice from this website.
A researcher has to be completely objective in his or her findings.


This can work well, as long as you don’t have to keep repeating ‘he or she’, ‘his or her’, etc. throughout a piece of writing.


You can make the relevant noun plural, rewording the sentence as necessary:

If your children are thinking about a gap year, they can get good advice from this website.
Researchers have to be completely objective in their findings.


This approach can be a good solution, but it won’t always be possible.

You can use the plural pronouns ‘they’, ‘them’, ‘their’ etc., despite the fact that, technically, they are referring back to a singular noun:

If your child is thinking about a gap year, they can get good advice from this website.
A researcher has to be completely objective in their findings.


Some people object to the use of plural pronouns in this type of situation on the grounds that it’s ungrammatical. In fact, the use of plural pronouns to refer back to a singular subject isn’t new: it represents a revival of a practice dating from the 16th century. It’s increasingly common in current English and is now widely accepted both in speech and in writing.


http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/wo ... ersus-they
If this usage is acceptable to the snooty eggheads at The Oxford Dictionary, who do you think you are to be to be saying it isn't? :nana
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Long Run
Posts: 6723
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 2:47 pm

Re: Someone did this and then They did that.....?

Post by Long Run »

Lord Jim wrote:[

If this usage is acceptable to the snooty eggheads at The Oxford Dictionary, who do you think you are to be to be saying it isn't? :nana
Pants-hating grammar-cracker-eating thugs!

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 17319
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Someone did this and then They did that.....?

Post by Scooter »

Interesting. The piece about it being used in the 16th century is new to me.

I still avoid it in formal writing even though I use it pretty regularly in speech and casual writing, just because singular/plural shifts are always jarring to me.
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 15478
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: Someone did this and then They did that.....?

Post by Joe Guy »

Lord Jim wrote:If this usage is acceptable to the snooty eggheads at The Oxford Dictionary, who do you think you are to be to be saying it isn't? :nana
The Oxford Eggheads aren't saying that it's correct. They are acknowledging that people use it and that most people accept it.

:nana

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Someone did this and then They did that.....?

Post by Lord Jim »

Interesting article on the history of this:
The singular "they"/"their"/"them"/"themselves" construction

These files contain a list of over 75 occurrences of the words "they"/"their"/"them"/"themselves" referring to a singular antecedent with indefinite or generic meaning in Jane Austen's writings (mainly in her six novels), as well as further examples of singular "their" etc. from the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and elsewhere.

While your high-school English teacher may have told you not to use this construction, it actually dates back to at least the 14th century, and was used by the following authors (among others) in addition to Jane Austen:

Geoffrey Chaucer, Edmund Spenser, William Shakespeare, the King James Bible, The Spectator, Jonathan Swift, Daniel Defoe, Frances Sheridan, Oliver Goldsmith, Henry Fielding, Maria Edgeworth, Percy Shelley, Lord Byron, William Makepeace Thackeray, Sir Walter Scott, George Eliot [Mary Anne Evans], Charles Dickens, Mrs. Gaskell, Anthony Trollope, John Ruskin, Robert Louis Stevenson, Walt Whitman, George Bernard Shaw, Lewis Carroll, Oscar Wilde, Rudyard Kipling, H. G. Wells, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Edith Wharton, W. H. Auden, Lord Dunsany, George Orwell, and C. S. Lewis.

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![Let the church say AMEN! :ok ]

The following is a brief potted history of this construction:

In Old English, the masculine gender was used as the "unmarked" default for some purposes, but the problem of which pronouns to use with an indefinite singular antecedent (which can refer to both men and women) did not exist in quite the same way that it does in more recent English. This is because in Old English there was a system of arbitrary "grammatical gender", in which nouns were assigned a gender which was often independent of the biological sex (if any) of the noun's referent (as also happens in modern German, French etc.), and articles, demonstratives, and adjectives (as well as third person singular pronouns) all took on different forms according to the grammatical gender of the noun words they accompanied.

It was apparently in early Middle English, with the transition to a system of "natural gender" (in which the third person singular pronouns are almost the only surviving linguistic markers of gender, and they are basically used in accordance with the biological sex of the referents of their antecedent nouns), that there arose the pronominal "generic masculine" construction as such -- in which it is only by a separate convention (somewhat isolated from regular rules of pronoun agreement) that masculine pronouns are used in sentences of the type "Everybody loves his own mother".

However, not long afterwards the "singular their" construction ("Everybody loves their own mother") also came into existence, and is attested starting in the late 1300's. So from the fourteenth century on, both "singular their" and the pronominal generic masculine existed in English, and were two competing solutions for the same problem.

From then on, "singular their" was used without much inhibition (see the examples from the OED) and was not generally considered "bad grammar".
It is true that starting in the 16th century, when English grammar began to be a subject of study, some rules of Latin grammar were applied to English; and that the Latin-based rules of grammatical agreement might have been seen as forbidding the English singular "their" construction -- if they were interpreted in a certain linguistically naïve way.

(This may explain why certain classical-language-influenced authors, such as the translators of the King James Bible, tended to use singular "their" somewhat infrequently -- but see Phillipians 2:3.) However, the earliest specific condemnation of singular "their" that Bodine was able to find (in her 1975 article) dated only from 1795 (more than two centuries after English grammar started being taught, and at least several decades after the beginning of the 18th century "grammar boom").

So it seems that it was only in the late 18th century or early 19th century, when prescriptive grammarians started attacking singular "their" because this didn't seem to them to accord with the "logic" of the Latin language, that it began to be more or less widely taught that the construction was bad grammar. The prohibition against singular "their" then joined the other arbitrary prescriptions created from naïve analogies between English and Latin -- such as the prohibition against ending a sentence with a preposition.

But through the 19th and 20th centuries, singular "their" has still continued to be used by a number of even somewhat "literary" authors, as well as commonly in the speech of even many educated individuals.
There's a lot more interesting stuff about this (if you find this kind of thing interesting) in the rest of the article here:

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

Post Reply