Without specifically addressing a question or sentence towards another person, one could use the suggestive "one". In this context, "one" could be used to mean first, second or third person (singular) specified or unspecified. Does one understand what one means? If one asked one a question, one wouldn't necessarily have to answer one's question as another one would. One hopes one has made it clear to one, however if one has any further question (s), then one should ask one one or ones.
Originally posted by KaboooombaThe question is overbroad, but I'll address part of the question with a text I created to attach to student papers, generally when they misuse "they."
what is the correct way to resond to a person without specifying sex?
is this possible??????
Misuse of plural pronouns
There must be agreement in number between a pronoun and its antecedent. In formal academic and professional writing, or when the individuality of the subject is significant, this rule remains absolute. In informal writing and speech, lack of agreement may be tolerable on occasion.
This error most often stems from efforts to avoid sexist use of universal male pronouns. One solution, if it does not become excessive, employs a pronoun phrase, such as he or she, where once he was common. However, this practice seems wordy to many. Sometimes it is beneficial to alternate pronouns, as I did in an instructive essay on chess strategy: “If black attacks the pawn on a2 with a knight and bishop, she will win the pawn. If he recaptures, she will also win a rook for a minor piece.”
These sentences lack agreement:
Your child needs more money in their lunch account.
When your child arrives at school, have them put their coat in their locker.
When a Latino writer begins, they must first decide whether to write in English or Spanish.
These sentences use pronoun phrases to avoid the error (but seem wordy):
Your child needs more money is his or her lunch account.
When your child arrives at school have him or her put his or her coat in his or her locker.
Instruct your child to put his or her coat in the assigned locker when arriving at school.
These sentences are recast to avoid the error:
Your child’s lunch account needs more money.
Your child needs more money in the lunch account.
These sentences use a plural antecedent to avoid the error:
When the children arrive at school, have them put their coats in their lockers.
When Latinos writers begin, each must choose whether to write in English or Spanish.
This sentence employs a novel approach to historic gender bias:
When a Latina writer begins, she must decide whether to write in English or Spanish.
Originally posted by WulebgrEnglish is a living language. The rules change - and in this instance, they are clearly changing. Fight the tide if you like, but I doubt you'll hold it back.
The question is overbroad, but I'll address part of the question with a text I created to attach to student papers, generally when they misuse "they."
Misuse of plural pronouns
There must be agreement in number between a pronoun and its antecedent. In formal academic and professional writing, or when the individuality of the subject is significant, thi ...[text shortened]... r bias:
When a Latina writer begins, she must decide whether to write in English or Spanish.
Don't get me wrong - I'm all for correct use of the language. But the use of 'they' has become so frequent and generally accepted that I think it's legitimate to label it as a new 'rule' (or exception to the old rule) that is forming.
2 edits
Originally posted by orfeoI lost this battle before I became aware of its existence. 😛
English is a living language. The rules change - and in this instance, they are clearly changing. Fight the tide if you like, but I doubt you'll hold it back.
Don't get me wrong - I'm all for correct use of the language. But the use of 'they' has become so frequent and generally accepted that I think it's legitimate to label it as a new 'rule' (or exception to the old rule) that is forming.
In point of fact, "they" has a long history as a neutral pronoun (as much as I dislike it), but subject-verb agreement remains valued and important, particularly in writing. I realize that I'm a bit curmudgeonly on this one.
My "bad" examples all strike me as particularly egregious, and they all came to me in print in a school setting: a memo that came home often when my son was in elementary school, a letter to parents that came home my son's first day of kindergarten, and a paper submitted to me in a college English class.
Moderate my comments with those Paul Brians offers at http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/they.html and use good sense.
Here's part of Brian's advice:
"... in many written sentences the use of singular “their” and “they” creates an irritating clash even when it passes unnoticed in speech. It is wise to shun this popular pattern in formal writing. Often expressions can be pluralized to make the “they” or “their” indisputably proper: “All of them have brought their own lunches.” “People” can often be substituted for “each.” Americans seldom avail themselves of the otherwise very handy British “one” to avoid specifying gender because it sounds to our ears rather pretentious: “One’s hound should retrieve only one’s own grouse.” If you decide to try “one,” don’t switch to “they” in mid-sentence: “One has to be careful about how they speak” sounds absurd because the word “one” so emphatically calls attention to its singleness. The British also quite sensibly treat collective bodies like governmental units and corporations as plural (“Parliament have approved their agenda&rdquo😉 whereas Americans insist on treating them as singular."
1 edit
Originally posted by orfeoIt's been used like that for a very long time--since the 14th century at least. It was good enough for Jane Austen.
But the use of 'they' has become so frequent and generally accepted that I think it's legitimate to label it as a new 'rule' (or exception to the old rule) that is forming.
http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html
"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!"
Originally posted by Bosse de Nageor invent a new word. it's only cause of the net that this problem came into existance, as for the most part it was a rarity.
It's been used like that for a very long time--since the 14th century at least. It was good enough for Jane Austen.
http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html
"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 Eng ...[text shortened]... heir" is so-called "bad grammar" to get rid of their prejudices and pedantry!"
NEW WORD!!!!!!!!!!!!! he/she/???
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThanks for the link, Bosse. I've added it to my bookmarks.
It's been used like that for a very long time--since the 14th century at least. It was good enough for Jane Austen.
http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html
"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 Eng ...[text shortened]... heir" is so-called "bad grammar" to get rid of their prejudices and pedantry!"
However, I must maintain that at least two of my three "bad" examples still violate the rules presented by Henry Churchyard:
Contrary to what some people apparently believe -- that as soon as speakers deviate in the slightest degree from the prescriptive rules inculcated in schools, the English language then begins to spontaneously degenerate into a chaos of incoherent mumbles -- there are actually clearly-defined patterns in the use of singular "their" etc. Such plural pronouns can only be used with a morphologically and syntactically singular antecedent when what it refers to is semantically collective and/or generic and/or indefinite and/or unknown. (A lack of knowledge about the gender of what is referred to, or an "epicene" reference to both genders or indefinitely to either, will in many cases help to make the use of singular "their" sound acceptable, by contributing to such semantic indeterminacy; however, note that unspecified gender is actually neither a necessary or sufficient condition for use of singular "their" -- see below for non-"epicene" examples of this construction.)
Where singular "their" cannot be used is when referring to a strongly-individualized single person about whom there is some specific information. So the following attempt at pronominal reference would fail, even if one did not know (or did not wish to reveal) the sex of "Chris": "Chris was born on February, 25th 1963, the youngest of three siblings, is 5 feet 9 inches tall with red hair, graduated from Slippery Rock college, is currently working as an accountant, has never married, and is fond of listening to jazz. They..." (This shows that singular "they"/"them"/"their" cannot be used in all cases of unknown or indefinite gender.)
These semantic factors are gradient, which is why some speakers find "their" etc. which refers back to an indefinite pronoun such as "anybody" more acceptable than cases of "their" etc. referring back to a singular concrete noun. So in the great majority of cases in Jane Austen's writings, singular "their" has indefinite pronouns or quantifier words as its antecedent; there are also a few cases of "a person", "any young person", and "any man" as the antecedent, but no cases of a more specific noun phrase as the antecedent (except perhaps one case of "any acquaintance" embedded in a parallel coordinate construction). (It is significant that in one of the two cases I have found of the generic masculine construction in Jane Austen the antecedent is "the reader", with a definite article and a concrete noun.)
"Your child needs more money in their lunch account." is not acceptable, even by those that maintain the long tradition of "their" as a singular pronoun.
Such words as everybody and everyone have always presented grammarians with difficulty in formulating rules.
Their is used improperly today in novel ways that have no precedent in Austen, Chaucer, or even Parliament. Some changes to the language are part of natural evolution; others mark gross incompetence. I will continue my fight against uses that offend my ear, but I'll use your link to muddy the waters when necessary. I prefer to lay down absolute rules that have exceptions.