3 ms·

Prescriptive versus descriptive views of language. English doesn't have the equivalent of Académie française, and even its edicts are well-regarded recommendati

by 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?)

3 ms·

Prescriptive versus descriptive views of language. English doesn't have the equivalent of Académie française, and even its edicts are well-regarded recommendati

by grzm 10y ago

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?)