5 ms·

*Her

Clubber 10y ago
It's annoying that the English language doesn't have proper gender neutral possessive pronouns. The same could be said for people who allow themselves to be distracted by it.
- potatosoup 10y ago
  Agreed, didn't mean to be picky. I put the name of the author in the title originally (because context is useful), but the mods edited it out, too bad.
  - Clubber 10y ago
    No worries, I misinterpreted it. I think we derailed the original conversation in this thread.
- jjnoakes 10y ago
  The English language does. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/their https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/their https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/their https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/their
  - Clubber 10y ago
    The English language is more than just a collection of words, it entails grammar as well. "Their" is plural. For singular, it's "his," "her," "its." For example, the sentence, "Pat has a flower. Their flower smells good, " doesn't sound right because "their" is plural. "Pat has a flower. Its flower smells good, " doesn't sound right either because "its" is reserved for things and not people. Also, the dictionary isn't a good source for grammar. It contains definitions of words, proper or not, like "ain't" and "irregardless." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless?utm_... https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aint https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aint
    - grzm 10y ago
      Prescriptive versus descriptive views of language. English doesn't have the equivalent of Académie française, and even its edicts are well-regarded recommendations, not definitions. Well-regarded style resources such as the Chicago Manual of Style explicitly recommend using singular they and their. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
      - Clubber 10y ago
        >English doesn't have the equivalent of Académie française, and even its edicts are well-regarded recommendations, not definitions. Even if it did, I suspect either the US or the UK would reject the country that wrote it. >They with a singular antecedent has remained in common use for centuries in spite of its proscription by traditional grammarians. I was being a traditional grammarian. "John has a flower. Their flower smells good," sounds as incorrect to me as, "John ain't got no flowers." For me, the more important the point I'm trying to make the more grammatically correct I try to be. Of course the spoken word is completely different. I think a message can get a lot of additional value misusing the language. Maybe I should just realize, "ain't nobody got time for that."
        jjnoakes 10y ago
        If you want to say "John has a flower", saying "his flower smells good" is fine. But try it with "Someone has a flower. Their flower smells good." Sounds right to me. There's no need to replace one with the other everywhere. For example, why would you use "ain't" if you are trying to sound formal and a suitable alternative exists? Just say "No one has time for that." I think it is a strawman argument to equate "there is an alternative word that can be used" (like they or ain't) with "one must use the alternative exclusively" (see how "one" was chosen over "they" in that sentence?)
    - jjnoakes 10y ago
      "Their" is not always plural.

*Her

It's annoying that the English language doesn't have proper gender neutral possessive pronouns. The same could be said for people who allow themselves to be distracted by it.

potatosoup 10y ago
Agreed, didn't mean to be picky. I put the name of the author in the title originally (because context is useful), but the mods edited it out, too bad.
- Clubber 10y ago
  No worries, I misinterpreted it. I think we derailed the original conversation in this thread.
jjnoakes 10y ago
The English language does. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/their https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/their https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/their https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/their
- Clubber 10y ago
  The English language is more than just a collection of words, it entails grammar as well. "Their" is plural. For singular, it's "his," "her," "its." For example, the sentence, "Pat has a flower. Their flower smells good, " doesn't sound right because "their" is plural. "Pat has a flower. Its flower smells good, " doesn't sound right either because "its" is reserved for things and not people. Also, the dictionary isn't a good source for grammar. It contains definitions of words, proper or not, like "ain't" and "irregardless." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless?utm_... https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aint https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aint
  - grzm 10y ago
    Prescriptive versus descriptive views of language. English doesn't have the equivalent of Académie française, and even its edicts are well-regarded recommendations, not definitions. Well-regarded style resources such as the Chicago Manual of Style explicitly recommend using singular they and their. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
    - Clubber 10y ago
      >English doesn't have the equivalent of Académie française, and even its edicts are well-regarded recommendations, not definitions. Even if it did, I suspect either the US or the UK would reject the country that wrote it. >They with a singular antecedent has remained in common use for centuries in spite of its proscription by traditional grammarians. I was being a traditional grammarian. "John has a flower. Their flower smells good," sounds as incorrect to me as, "John ain't got no flowers." For me, the more important the point I'm trying to make the more grammatically correct I try to be. Of course the spoken word is completely different. I think a message can get a lot of additional value misusing the language. Maybe I should just realize, "ain't nobody got time for that."
      - jjnoakes 10y ago
        If you want to say "John has a flower", saying "his flower smells good" is fine. But try it with "Someone has a flower. Their flower smells good." Sounds right to me. There's no need to replace one with the other everywhere. For example, why would you use "ain't" if you are trying to sound formal and a suitable alternative exists? Just say "No one has time for that." I think it is a strawman argument to equate "there is an alternative word that can be used" (like they or ain't) with "one must use the alternative exclusively" (see how "one" was chosen over "they" in that sentence?)
  - jjnoakes 10y ago
    "Their" is not always plural.