Yes, I think we have begun to accept a plural pronoun for a singular
antecedent to establish gender neutrality.  As a traditionally educated,
conventionally minded fifty-eight year old, I still dislike the sound of
it, but there's no longer any point in fighting it. I've mopved on to
trying to hold the line on a distinction between "simple" and "simplistic"
but am about to give even that up and settle for "sung" rather than "sang"
as the past participle of "sing"!

On Thu, 25 Jun 1998, Johanna Rubba wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Jun 1998, Paul E. Doniger wrote:
>
> >
> > I do have one concern about the sentence in question.  Was no one else
> > troubled by the pronoun reference problem in the absolute phrase (singular
> > *patient* = plural *their*)?  Have we really begun to accept a plural
> > pronoun for a singular antecedent to establish gender neutrality, avoid
> > using more than one pronoun (e.g. *his or her*), or avoid making all our
> > antecedents plural?  As a writing teacher, I often find myself forcing my
> > students to struggle with this frustrating question.
>
> I have a related question. Have we really begun to accept a plural pronoun
> ('you') for a singular antecedent (a single addressee?)?   ;-)
>
> I find it ironic that a major objection to gender-neutral singular 'they'
> is its supposed plurality. If 'they' is always plural, then surely 'you'
> is also always plural by the same criteria (although we have adopted the
> reflexive pronoun 'yourself' to fit the 'new' -- several centuries-old? --
> singular usage of 'you').
>
> 'They' has been used as a singular generic pronoun for centuries,
> including in the works of the usual canonical authorities such as
> Shakespeare. I believe it was drummed out of officially approved usage by
> the same folks who, back in the 18th century, gave us 'no prepositions at
> the end of sentences' and 'no split infinitives'. Their agenda, however,
> was not merely classist, but also sexist. They wanted to elevate the
> masculine pronoun to the status of the only acceptable singular generic,
> since the male gender itself was superior in all ways (there is a verbatim
> quote somewhere to that effect).
>
> The 'pronoun problem' has been with us ever since -- Dennis Baron, in his
> book 'Grammar and Gender', gives a list of several hundred? proposed new
> generic pronouns, none of which 'took', as it is extremely difficult to
> artificially introduce an item as basic as a pronoun.
>
> Speakers of English themselves fixed the pronoun problem ages ago by using
> 'they' as a singular. Since this is the solution that the speaking
> populace has 'chosen' for itself, it seems sensible to accept it rather
> than either force awkward alternatives such as 'she or he', or, worse,
> return to the prescription of 'he', which psychological studies show NOT
> to be gender-neutral (a student of mine conducted just such a study this
> term) to the majority of people who see it in print.
>
> If you doubt the class biases of those who wrote and published the first
> major works codifying English, I refer you to Samuel Johnson's preface to
> his great 1755 dictionary; I quote:
>
> "Nor are all words which are not found in the [dictionary], to be lamented
> as omissions. Of the laborious and mercantile part of the people, the
> diction is in a great measure casual and mtuable ... This fugitive cant,
> which is always in a state of increase or decay, cannot be regarded as any
> part of the durable materials of a language, and therefore must be
> suffered to perish with other things unworthy of preservation."
>
> Or George Puttenham's 'The Arte of English Poesie', 1589, which recommends
> that the poet take as models the English "which is spoken in the kings
> Court, or in the good townes and cities within the land, then in the
> marches and frontiers, or in port townes, where strangers haunt for
> traffike sake, or yet in Vniuersities where Schollers vse much peeuish
> affectation of words out of the primatiue langauges, or finally, in any
> vplandish village or corner of a Realme, where is no resort but of poore
> rusticall or vnciuill people: neither shall he follow the speach of a
> craftes man or carter, or other of the inferiour sort, though he be
> inhabitant or bred in the best towne and Citie in this Realme ... but he
> shall follow generally the better brought vp sort  ... ye shall therefore
> take the vsuall speach of the Court, and that of London and the shires
> lying about London within lx. myles, and not much aboue."
>
> (<u> and <v> are somewhat interchangeable)
>
> 'Nuff said?
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Johanna Rubba   Assistant Professor, Linguistics              ~
> English Department, California Polytechnic State University   ~
> San Luis Obispo, CA 93407                                     ~
> Tel. (805)-756-2184     Fax: (805)-756-6374                   ~
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]                           ~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>