4 ms·

Additionally, it has a longer history than the grammar pedants give it credit for. It has been part of the English language since the 14th century. Meaning it's

Additionally, it has a longer history than the grammar pedants give it credit for. It has been part of the English language since the 14th century. Meaning it's just as valid as the word "succeed", which was inherited from French in the same time period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

tptacek 10y ago
For Language Log or Geoffrey Pullum fans, here's a more fun link: http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/grammar/sing_they_sli.pdf http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/grammar/sing_they_sli.pdf
- jdmichal 10y ago
  I'll have to keep that link around for reference! I love all the quotes from literary references... I want to see the mental knots that are tied trying to address that cognitive dissonance.
- dllthomas 10y ago
  "The evidence is literally overwhelming." I love it!
  - belenos46 10y ago
    as I am not surprised, I assume the author was using "literally" according to its secondary definition: "figuratively"
    - dllthomas 10y ago
      The author was using "literally" chiefly according to its play-on-words definition of the samples having been drawn from literature. As for the claim that "literally" ever means "figuratively", I have never encountered that use - including in examples offered by those who claim its existence. Literally is sometimes used in figurative circumstance, but I would argue the use is hyperbolic - in the same way we don't say "'days' sometimes means 'minutes'" because people say "I've been waiting for you for days". I have never seen an example that would not have been understood to be figurative but for the addition of "literally".
cperciva 10y ago
I disagree with the notion that the novelty of a component of language can be best assessed by when it was first used. In particular, vocabulary is far more mutable than grammar. Then again, I'm a grammatical traditionalist: I consider English to not have a male gender, but rather the three genders "inanimate", "female", and "animate".
- tptacek 10y ago
  The assessment isn't simply that its first use is ancient, but that it has been used universally throughout the history of the language and occurs routinely in its greatest works --- not just in Chaucer, but in Orwell. See the link I posted downthread. To me, a "controversial" language feature that has been used by Chaucer, Austen, and Orwell is no controversy at all. The prescriptivists have lost this debate, comprehensively. There may be a language that lacks a gender-neutral singular "they", but it isn't English.
- jdmichal 10y ago
  > I disagree with the notion that the novelty of a component of language can be best assessed by when it was first used. I think novelty is a bad choice of word here, as that has a connotation of being related to time and exposure, which makes your statement seem somewhat contradictory... I think the word "controversial" that Thomas uses is more appropriate. I'll continue as if you had used that instead. I do agree, that length of attestation does not necessarily mean a feature is non-controversial. But I do think it is likely a prerequisite for being non-controversial, precisely because it allows the usage to be non-novel.
- vacri 10y ago
  > Then again, I'm a grammatical traditionalist: I consider English to have a male gender, but rather the three genders "inanimate", "female", and "animate". Ironically for a grammatical traditionalist making a comment about grammar, this sentence is not grammatically correct.
  - rhizome 10y ago
    Muphry's Law

tptacek 10y ago

For Language Log or Geoffrey Pullum fans, here's a more fun link: http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/grammar/sing_they_sli.pdf http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/grammar/sing_they_sli.pdf

jdmichal 10y ago
I'll have to keep that link around for reference! I love all the quotes from literary references... I want to see the mental knots that are tied trying to address that cognitive dissonance.
dllthomas 10y ago
"The evidence is literally overwhelming." I love it!
- belenos46 10y ago
  as I am not surprised, I assume the author was using "literally" according to its secondary definition: "figuratively"
  - dllthomas 10y ago
    The author was using "literally" chiefly according to its play-on-words definition of the samples having been drawn from literature. As for the claim that "literally" ever means "figuratively", I have never encountered that use - including in examples offered by those who claim its existence. Literally is sometimes used in figurative circumstance, but I would argue the use is hyperbolic - in the same way we don't say "'days' sometimes means 'minutes'" because people say "I've been waiting for you for days". I have never seen an example that would not have been understood to be figurative but for the addition of "literally".

cperciva 10y ago

I disagree with the notion that the novelty of a component of language can be best assessed by when it was first used. In particular, vocabulary is far more mutable than grammar. Then again, I'm a grammatical traditionalist: I consider English to not have a male gender, but rather the three genders "inanimate", "female", and "animate".

tptacek 10y ago
The assessment isn't simply that its first use is ancient, but that it has been used universally throughout the history of the language and occurs routinely in its greatest works --- not just in Chaucer, but in Orwell. See the link I posted downthread. To me, a "controversial" language feature that has been used by Chaucer, Austen, and Orwell is no controversy at all. The prescriptivists have lost this debate, comprehensively. There may be a language that lacks a gender-neutral singular "they", but it isn't English.
jdmichal 10y ago
> I disagree with the notion that the novelty of a component of language can be best assessed by when it was first used. I think novelty is a bad choice of word here, as that has a connotation of being related to time and exposure, which makes your statement seem somewhat contradictory... I think the word "controversial" that Thomas uses is more appropriate. I'll continue as if you had used that instead. I do agree, that length of attestation does not necessarily mean a feature is non-controversial. But I do think it is likely a prerequisite for being non-controversial, precisely because it allows the usage to be non-novel.
vacri 10y ago
> Then again, I'm a grammatical traditionalist: I consider English to have a male gender, but rather the three genders "inanimate", "female", and "animate". Ironically for a grammatical traditionalist making a comment about grammar, this sentence is not grammatically correct.
- rhizome 10y ago
  Muphry's Law