4 ms·

The English language does. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/their https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/their https://www.merriam-webster.c

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.
  - Clubber 10y ago
    Agreed, but it's because the following, resulting in the mangling of the language. I'm referring to formal writing style. Of course, my quote is starting a sentence with a preposition, which is also poor form. >Because he is no longer accepted as a generic pronoun referring to a person of either sex, it has become common in speech and in informal writing to substitute the third-person plural pronouns they, them, their, and themselves, and the nonstandard singular themself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

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.
- Clubber 10y ago
  Agreed, but it's because the following, resulting in the mangling of the language. I'm referring to formal writing style. Of course, my quote is starting a sentence with a preposition, which is also poor form. >Because he is no longer accepted as a generic pronoun referring to a person of either sex, it has become common in speech and in informal writing to substitute the third-person plural pronouns they, them, their, and themselves, and the nonstandard singular themself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they