> I think jpmattia was joking. Guilty as charged, your honor. > But it's fascinating how, when someone mistakenly thinks that it's a new proposed rule and tri

> I think jpmattia was joking. Guilty as charged, your honor. > But it's fascinating how, when someone mistakenly thinks that it's a new proposed rule and tries to apply it, they frequently come up with an awkward overcorrection I'd note that there is a great deal of verbiage about grammar rules requiring rewrite to allow singular they . For example: A foreign speaker would be well within bounds to look at the first google hit for "define are" [1] : are1 är,ər/ 2nd person singular present and 1st, 2nd, 3rd person plural present of be. Google should note that "are" is also 3rd person singular present, consistent with 500 years of usage. But we also have to point out that singular "are" is disallowed in cases other than they, and we can't even add a gender-specific conjugation, since the neuter "it" is still not paired with "are". Fortunately, rules in language are not subject to mathematical rigor, and people and authors and poets (and smartasses) are given free license to use language in any way that facilitates communication.