Cato's Grammar Grumble

[Grazioso]

Well, here in the South we have advanced to the level of distinquishing between the singular and plural second person pronoun: You (singular) and Y'all (plural).

"This Grammar Endorsed by Daisy Duke"   

[karlhenning]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

Aye, I've read that dodgy article before.  File it under tendentious faux pedigree ; )

If we wrote a paper with 'support' that flaky, we'd be thrown out on our ear.  Tell me that ain't true . . . .

[Grazioso]

Aye, I've read that dodgy article before.  File it under tendentious faux pedigree ; )

If we wrote a paper with 'support' that flaky, we'd be thrown out on our ear.  Tell me that ain't true . . . .

Whatever the merits of that article, you're probably tilting at windmills by decrying the singular they. It's so commonly used and understood in speech, that it's only a matter of time before the arbiters of written style cave on the issue. (That process has apparently already begun.) If it's been used in writing for centuries, is common in speech, and does not erect barriers to understanding, but rather facilitates it through economy, it's probably not a bad thing

Recall that one reason for style guides is to promote clarity, but another is about power: the willingness and ability to accede to the printed prescriptions acts as a condition for membership in a particular community.

(Here, fwiw, are the translators' notes for the NIV Bible, as mentioned earlier, wherein they explain their stance on the issue and the methodology behind it: http://www.biblegateway.com/niv/Translators-Notes.pdf )

[karlhenning]

Whatever the merits of that article, you're probably tilting at windmills by decrying the singular they.

No, I'd be tilting at windmills if I conducted a public campaign over it.  Here, I am just expressing a comparatively conservative grammatical opinion.  That, is trust, is not so visually ludicrous as the Quixote simile you kindly suggest.

It's so commonly used and understood in speech, that it's only a matter of time before the arbiters of written style cave on the issue.

I am sure.

[Grazioso]

No, I'd be tilting at windmills if I conducted a public campaign over it.  Here, I am just expressing a comparatively conservative grammatical opinion.  That, is trust, is not so visually ludicrous as the Quixote simile you kindly suggest.

Understood. But, hey, you need to write a Don Quixote piece: "Don Quixote Tilts at a Windmill, Misses, and Impales a Grammarian" for countertenor and small orchestra. I can just hear the countertenor screech during the third stanza... 

[The Six]

It disturbs me that Merriam Webster has changed its definition of acronym to include initialisms. Sonar is an acronym, FBI is not.

[karlhenning]

It disturbs me that Merriam Webster has changed its definition of acronym to include initialisms. Sonar is an acronym, FBI is not.

There you go; another useful distinction, which will be blurred by usage, no matter what you or I might say.

'Tis the weigh of the world . . . .

[Grazioso]

There you go; another useful distinction, which will be blurred by usage, no matter what you or I might say.

Fight back. Start the Socforpropcronymtion! (That's the Society for Proper Acronym Distinction to you and me.)

[Cato]

I can agree with the distress about "they/them" being used as a non-sexual singular pronoun: but such is the politico-grammatical correctness from a society which is almost a matriarchy now!   

And yes, I suspect it will be accepted fairly soon.

Yesterday local TV news - a fantastic source for bad grammar - made the following statement:

"A Dayton man stabbed his wife to death who prosecutors refused to charge for domestic abuse."            

We have four problems here:

1. "Whom" should be used, not "Who."

2. I find the phrase "charge for domestic abuse" somewhat odd: charged "with" would be usual.

3. and 4. After you place your eyes back into your head and pick up your lower jaw, you realize from the rest of the report that the relative clause in question needs to be placed after the word "man" and not "wife" !!!  Also, the verb in the clause should be "had refused."

[karlhenning]

What's this $24.95?

— Charge for domestic abuse.

[Cato]

What's this $24.95?

— Charge for domestic abuse.

Well, somebody must pay for it!   

And we were not even watching the station which is usually the source of so much garbled grammar!

[Grazioso]

I can agree with the distress about "they/them" being used as a non-sexual singular pronoun: but such is the politico-grammatical correctness from a society which is almost a matriarchy now!   

I should start by saying that, to my ears, English style reached its peak in the 18th century and has been rolling downhill ever since.

That said, the singular "they" is not, from everything I've read, an imposition from the PC Police, but rather a centuries-long usage that evolved to address an insufficiency of the language: the lack of a generic third-person singular pronoun that refers to people.

Yesterday local TV news - a fantastic source for bad grammar - made the following statement:

"A Dayton man stabbed his wife to death who prosecutors refused to charge for domestic abuse."            

Interesting that the brain readily understands the meaning, despite the (egregious) solecisms. And in fairness, it's easy to see why the talking head used that construction:

* The who/whom distinction has been dying out in spoken English--goodbye, inflections.
* A lengthy relative clause inserted in the "proper" position would have undercut the impact. Better to have divided it into two sentences: "A Dayton man stabbed his wife to death. Prosecutors refused to charge him with domestic abuse." (BTW, should he not be charged with murder instead of domestic abuse?)

[karlhenning]

That said, the singular "they" is not, from everything I've read, an imposition from the PC Police, but rather a centuries-long usage . . .

But is it, really? I expect you've read about it more, and that you have more (and properly substantiating) examples from the literature than appear in the Wikipedia "article." Characters in plays and fiction using sub-par (or outright poor) grammar, is not "usage," but characterization.

My friend, I should really be interested in your bringing forward examples of the sustained, centuries-long usage which would justify this claim.  The examples which I have seen do fully vindicate the view that it's PC imposition.  (Taking it as read that resistance to the Zeitgeist in this, is ultimately futile.)

[karlhenning]

Interesting that the brain readily understands the meaning, despite the (egregious) solecisms.

It is interesting, but isn't redemption. When I was in Petersburg, there were countless occasions where non-Russian-speakers (including myself) would try to make themselves understood as best they might, generally with faltering grammar, the wrong verb (verbs are a particular challenge in Russian) and incorrectly declined nouns.  Yours is a subtle mind, and I know I needen't tell you that the fact that the listener succeeded in understanding what the speaker wished to convey, is a matter entirelty different to grammatic approval.

[Grazioso]

But is it, really? I expect you've read about it more, and that you have more (and properly substantiating) examples from the literature than appear in the Wikipedia "article." Characters in plays and fiction using sub-par (or outright poor) grammar, is not "usage," but characterization.

I'm talking about spoken English, in which case an accurate characterization would indeed be a reflection of spoken use.

My friend, I should really be interested in your bringing forward examples of the sustained, centuries-long usage which would justify this claim.  The examples which I have seen do fully vindicate the view that it's PC imposition.  (Taking it as read that resistance to the Zeitgeist in this, is ultimately futile.)[/font]

I'll try to dig up some examples, though I don't have access to a university library atm. As for the PC Police, I sincerely doubt that the form's widespread use in spoken English--across social and educational classes--was somehow initiated and enforced by that particular academic cabal. In my last run-ins with the PC Police, the preferred gender-neutral pronoun was in fact the construction "he or she," not "they," which would have been unacceptable.

And I certainly don't recall the usage as having evolved only recently--not that I jotted down examples back when I was a kid

[Grazioso]

It is interesting, but isn't redemption. When I was in Petersburg, there were countless occasions where non-Russian-speakers (including myself) would try to make themselves understood as best they might, generally with faltering grammar, the wrong verb (verbs are a particular challenge in Russian) and incorrectly declined nouns.  Yours is a subtle mind, and I know I needen't tell you that the fact that the listener succeeded in understanding what the speaker wished to convey, is a matter entirelty different to grammatic approval.

Certainly. My interest here is in language "on the ground," not prescriptive academic grammar, which is another matter. Certainly by those standards, which lag behind shifts in spoken English, that newscaster's sentence was abominable. 

Edit: the whole idea of a prescriptive academic grammar raises lots of interesting questions: who, for example, gets to do the prescribing, and why? What are the benefits of adherence and drawbacks of noncompliance?

[karlhenning]

I'm talking about spoken English, in which case an accurate characterization would indeed be a reflection of spoken use.

Well, happily tape was running in 1815 . . . .

; )

. . . In my last run-ins with the PC Police, the preferred gender-neutral pronoun was in fact the construction "he or she," not "they," which would have been unacceptable.

Aye, that's a clunker, isn't it? One can understand a speaker lapsing into they as less ummusical.

And I certainly don't recall the usage as having evolved only recently--not that I jotted down examples back when I was a kid

Like Brahms's notebook of parallelisms in the works of JS Bach : )

[karlhenning]

Certainly. My interest here is in language "on the ground," not prescriptive academic grammar, which is another matter. Certainly by those standards, which lag behind shifts in spoken English, that newscaster's sentence was abominable. 

Ho capito.

[Grazioso]

Well, happily tape was running in 1815 . . . .

; )

That's of course the dilemma for linguists. You have to draw inferences from written works in earlier centuries.

[karlhenning]

That's of course the dilemma for linguists. You have to draw inferences from written works in earlier centuries.

Of course.  It does seem to yield room for tendentious inferences, though.

I appreciate your approach to the question, though; thanks for your part in the discussion!