On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 9:35:20 PM UTC-5, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> You are no doubt considering that Ursula Le Guin's
> _The Left Hand of Darkness_ (1969) used "he" for
> characters that are male and female, which is most
> of them. Wikipedia represents her as choosing not to
> "invent" their gender-neutral pronouns. She was born
> in 1929, so she would have had time and motivation
> to notice existing usage, if not 400 years of it.

The recent-ish Ancillary notably used "she/her" and feminine-indicating nouns like aunt or sister for everyone. The explanation was the narration is translated from the native which has no differentiation. At the time, some people were critical of this rather than some gender-neutral usage. I liked it because it made me think about the characters and my automatic assumptions.

> Dr Crow: I am Doctor Crow. You are surprised?
> Daphne Honeybutt: Yes, I am! I expected you to be a man...
> or a woman.

A gold-painted robot?

Brian

On 4/26/22 2:50 PM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 1:01:02 AM UTC-4, Robert Woodward wrote:
> >> In article <356cf0c5-8255-4326...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Dudley Brooks <dudley...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 9:32:58 AM UTC-7, Michael R N Dolbear wrote:
>>>> "Joy Beeson" wrote
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 04:41:06 -0500, leif...@dimnakorr.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Wilst thou truly?
>>>>
>>>>> It has been centuries, but we still haven't learned how to use
>>>> singular "you" without daily confusions and misunderstandings.
>>>>
>>>>> Singular "they" will be an even bigger disaster, and with less excuse.
>>>>
>>>> Jane Austen and her readers got on well enough (I dug out the quotations
>>>> for
>>>> Jim Baen).
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mike D
>>>
>>> Yep. Singular "they" has a respectable 400-year history of use by the finest
>>> writers of the English language. See Steven Pinker on this issue (and many
>>> similar issues). We don't need to come up a "new" gender-nonspecific word
>>> when we already have a time-honored one.
>>
>> IMHO, that is an indefinite "they". Example: "Everyone is welcome, but
>> if they don't arrive early, we might not have room for them." "Everyone"
>> might be treated as singular, but it can represent more than one person.
>> The same is true with "everybody", "anyone", "anybody", "someone", and
>> "somebody". My challenge (which nobody has answered) is an example of
>> "they" being used for a specified named individual in a work written
>> before 1970 (I might have used different dates, but none were for before
>> my birth).

Too answer your challenge: A simple google search turns up numerous
pages attesting (with examples) to the *fact* that *singular* indefinite
"they" has indeed been used by great authors for 400 (or more years) --
Shakespeare, Jane Austen ... you name 'em.

https://www.antidote.info/en/blog/reports/singular-they

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/we-need-the-singular-they-nil-and-it-wont-seem-wrong-for-long/

(I compiled this list before noticing your challenge. I *think* all of
these give examples ... but I'd have to re-read them to be sure ... and
it's too late at night, for me.)

I tried to find the article by Steven Pinker (my personal "most
authoritative" authority) about this. I haven't found it yet ... but I
found at least one other by him in which he criticizes many of the
common "rules". His general attitude seems to be that the rule-makers
pulled a lot of their rules out of their ... uh ... hats.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/15/steven-pinker-10-grammar-rules-break

But, again re-reading, I see now that you claim that it was not used for
a *named* individual, You may be right. I'd have to google a further
to find out. However, I was not aware that the OP was objecting to *that*.

I have at least one friend who is a "they/them" and I respect *their*
wish. Or try to. I do find it somewhat difficult. But not because
it's "ungrammatical" ... since I don't think it is. Rather, because it
means having to remember yet one more piece of information about
(potentially) everyone you know. It reminds me of a late eccentric
friend of mine who had three different email addresses, all of them
merely personal ... but his correspondents were supposed to remember
which one was for discussing which subjects (and the addresses
themselves gave no clue).

> I'd like to see that too.
>
> I dislike applying 'they' to a single person, because of
> the ambiguities it introduces. I've been in situations where I had to ask people
> to clarify how many people 'they' were, where the number of warm bodies was
> relevant, and turned out to be one.
>
> It shouldn't be like that.
>
> Pt

--
Dudley Brooks, Artistic Director
Run For Your Life! ... it's a dance company!
San Francisco

On Thursday, 28 April 2022 at 02:11:22 UTC+1, Default User wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 9:35:20 PM UTC-5, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > You are no doubt considering that Ursula Le Guin's
> > _The Left Hand of Darkness_ (1969) used "he" for
> > characters that are male and female, which is most
> > of them. Wikipedia represents her as choosing not to
> > "invent" their gender-neutral pronouns. She was born
> > in 1929, so she would have had time and motivation
> > to notice existing usage, if not 400 years of it.
> The recent-ish Ancillary notably used "she/her" and feminine-indicating nouns like aunt or sister for everyone. The explanation was the narration is translated from the native which has no differentiation. At the time, some people were critical of this rather than some gender-neutral usage. I liked it because it made me think about the characters and my automatic assumptions.
> > Dr Crow: I am Doctor Crow. You are surprised?
> > Daphne Honeybutt: Yes, I am! I expected you to be a man...
> > or a woman.
> A gold-painted robot?

No one has bid "an actual crow that talks" yet.
And as I explained, they'd be wrong.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 23:32:08 -0700, Dudley Brooks
<dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:

>On 4/26/22 2:50 PM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 1:01:02 AM UTC-4, Robert Woodward wrote:
>> >> In article <356cf0c5-8255-4326...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Dudley Brooks <dudley...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 9:32:58 AM UTC-7, Michael R N Dolbear wrote:
>>>>> "Joy Beeson" wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 04:41:06 -0500, leif...@dimnakorr.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wilst thou truly?
>>>>>
>>>>>> It has been centuries, but we still haven't learned how to use
>>>>> singular "you" without daily confusions and misunderstandings.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Singular "they" will be an even bigger disaster, and with less excuse.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jane Austen and her readers got on well enough (I dug out the quotations
>>>>> for
>>>>> Jim Baen).
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Mike D
>>>>
>>>> Yep. Singular "they" has a respectable 400-year history of use by the finest
>>>> writers of the English language. See Steven Pinker on this issue (and many
>>>> similar issues). We don't need to come up a "new" gender-nonspecific word
>>>> when we already have a time-honored one.
>>>
>>> IMHO, that is an indefinite "they". Example: "Everyone is welcome, but
>>> if they don't arrive early, we might not have room for them." "Everyone"
>>> might be treated as singular, but it can represent more than one person.
>>> The same is true with "everybody", "anyone", "anybody", "someone", and
>>> "somebody". My challenge (which nobody has answered) is an example of
>>> "they" being used for a specified named individual in a work written
>>> before 1970 (I might have used different dates, but none were for before
>>> my birth).
>
>Too answer your challenge: A simple google search turns up numerous
>pages attesting (with examples) to the *fact* that *singular* indefinite
>"they" has indeed been used by great authors for 400 (or more years) --
>Shakespeare, Jane Austen ... you name 'em.
>
>https://www.antidote.info/en/blog/reports/singular-they
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
>
>https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/we-need-the-singular-they-nil-and-it-wont-seem-wrong-for-long/
>
>(I compiled this list before noticing your challenge. I *think* all of
>these give examples ... but I'd have to re-read them to be sure ... and
>it's too late at night, for me.)
>
>I tried to find the article by Steven Pinker (my personal "most
>authoritative" authority) about this. I haven't found it yet ... but I
>found at least one other by him in which he criticizes many of the
>common "rules". His general attitude seems to be that the rule-makers
>pulled a lot of their rules out of their ... uh ... hats.
>
>https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/15/steven-pinker-10-grammar-rules-break
>
>But, again re-reading, I see now that you claim that it was not used for
>a *named* individual, You may be right. I'd have to google a further
>to find out. However, I was not aware that the OP was objecting to *that*.

I suspect that, if you check carefully the examples given/objected to,
they will tend to be about named individuals. But not, no doubt,
always.

>I have at least one friend who is a "they/them" and I respect *their*
>wish. Or try to. I do find it somewhat difficult. But not because
>it's "ungrammatical" ... since I don't think it is. Rather, because it
>means having to remember yet one more piece of information about
>(potentially) everyone you know. It reminds me of a late eccentric
>friend of mine who had three different email addresses, all of them
>merely personal ... but his correspondents were supposed to remember
>which one was for discussing which subjects (and the addresses
>themselves gave no clue).

Well, I suppose we could adopt the military approach -- name tags. Or,
rather, Preferred Pronoun Tags.

>> I'd like to see that too.
>>
>> I dislike applying 'they' to a single person, because of
>> the ambiguities it introduces. I've been in situations where I had to ask people
>> to clarify how many people 'they' were, where the number of warm bodies was
>> relevant, and turned out to be one.
>>
>> It shouldn't be like that.
>>
>> Pt
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 18:35:47 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
Heydt) wrote:

>In article <tcri6h5mhf09u9nfeks8fsqu4rd6n2kn0v@4ax.com>,
>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 00:06:45 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>>Heydt) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <587d392e-0a01-45c0-a7c7-dda2aa53ef4bn@googlegroups.com>,
>>>Ahasuerus <ahasuerus@email.com> wrote:
>>>>On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 1:01:02 AM UTC-4, Robert Woodward wrote:
>>>>> In article <356cf0c5-8255-4326...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> Dudley Brooks <dudley...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 9:32:58 AM UTC-7, Michael R N Dolbear wrote:
>>>>> > > "Joy Beeson" wrote
>>>>> > > > On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 04:41:06 -0500, leif...@dimnakorr.com wrote:
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > >> Wilst thou truly?
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > > It has been centuries, but we still haven't learned how to use
>>>>> > > singular "you" without daily confusions and misunderstandings.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > > Singular "they" will be an even bigger disaster, and with less
>>excuse.
>>>>> > > Jane Austen and her readers got on well enough (I dug out the
>>quotations
>>>>> > > for Jim Baen).
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > Yep. Singular "they" has a respectable 400-year history of use by
>>>>the finest
>>>>> > writers of the English language. See Steven Pinker on this issue
>>(and many
>>>>> > similar issues). We don't need to come up a "new" gender-nonspecific word
>>>>> > when we already have a time-honored one.
>>>>> IMHO, that is an indefinite "they". Example: "Everyone is welcome, but
>>>>> if they don't arrive early, we might not have room for them." "Everyone"
>>>>> might be treated as singular, but it can represent more than one person.
>>>>> The same is true with "everybody", "anyone", "anybody", "someone", and
>>>>> "somebody". My challenge (which nobody has answered) is an example of
>>>>> "they" being used for a specified named individual in a work written
>>>>> before 1970 (I might have used different dates, but none were for before
>>>>> my birth).
>>>>
>>>>There are pre-1970 examples of a single *un*named person being
>>>>mentioned and then referred to as "they", e.g. in Chapter 27 of
>>>>Agatha Christie's _The Murder at the Vicarage_ (1930):
>>>>
>>>>"We got an expert on it -- to say whether the 6:20 was added by a
>>>>different hand. Naturally we sent up samples of Protheroe’s
>>>>handwriting. And do you know the verdict? That letter was never
>>>>written by Protheroe at all.�
>>>>“You mean a forgery?â€?
>>>>“It’s a forgery. The 6:20 they think is written in a different hand
>>>>again -- but they’re not sure about that. The heading is in a different
>>>>ink, but the letter itself is a forgery. Protheroe never wrote it.�
>>>>“Are they certain?â€?
>>>>“Well, they’re as certain as experts ever are. You know what an expert is!
>>>>Oh! But they’re sure enough.â€?
>>>>
>>>>Note the interchangeable use of "an expert" and "they".
>>>>
>>>>I suspect that it may be an extension of the usage of the word
>>>>"they" to refer to organizations, especially official organizations,
>>>>as a whole.
>>>
>>>I don't read sports news (anybody's sports news) ordinarily; but
>>>occasionally in letting my eye drift down BBC News I see a
>>>headline such as "Bournemouth fight back to draw Swansea
>>>thriller," where "Bournemouth takes a plural verb because
>>>"Bournemouth" consists of a pluraility of players.
>>
>>Or because it makes the headline fit in the available space.
>
>The omission of a single lower-case 's' in a three-line headline?
>Take your tongue out of your cheek before you choke.

I didn't see any line divisions.

Or any note on the width of the column.

>Here's another example, perhaps not so jarring:
>
>https://www.bbc.com/sport/av/tennis/61233753
>
>where "Wimbledon," a singular place name, takes a plural verb
>because (I assume) the decision was made by a committee?

That would be my take on it -- or some other form of an organizational
"we". The "expert" example may be the same: it is elided to plural
because it refers to the office, which has more than one "expert" in
it.

Taking "they" as referring to be named person would be my last choice
-- unless, of course, it is that person's choice of pronoun.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 13:58:54 -0700 (PDT), Ross Presser
<rpresser@gmail.com> wrote:

>[snip long conversation about singular "they", because I'm not even sure
>if I'm replying to anyone at this point]
>
>I very recently read _The All-Consuming World_ (2021) by Cassandra Khaw,
>in which a particular nobinary character gets referred to to as "he",
>"she" and "they" in near random order as the paragraphs go on:
>
>> She dusts each shoulder with elaborate care, the shadows along the
>> planes of her cheeks, their jaw, his brow eddying into new shapes.
>
>and later
>
>> "That's not an apology if it was what you were trying to go for," says
>> Verdigris, the playfulness bled out of his voice, burned from her
>> expression. His hair unfurls, relaxing again into a nimbus which
>> spreads along her shoulders.
>
>I get the feeling that the author (also nonbinary, according to the
>afterward) just uses this alternation as verbal pyrotechnics; it
>certainly interfered with immersion and made me go back and reread many
>times.

It may have been a deliberate style intended to be "inclusive". Here,
of course, it appears to have wandered off the reservation, so to
speak.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 11:54:49 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 18:35:47 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> Heydt) wrote:
>
> >In article <tcri6h5mhf09u9nfe...@4ax.com>,
> >Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >>On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 00:06:45 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> >>Heydt) wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <587d392e-0a01-45c0...@googlegroups.com>,
> >>>Ahasuerus <ahas...@email.com> wrote:
> >>>>On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 1:01:02 AM UTC-4, Robert Woodward wrote:
> >>>>> In article <356cf0c5-8255-4326...@googlegroups.com>,
> >>>>> Dudley Brooks <dudley...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> > On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 9:32:58 AM UTC-7, Michael R N Dolbear wrote:
> >>>>> > > "Joy Beeson" wrote
> >>>>> > > > On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 04:41:06 -0500, leif...@dimnakorr.com wrote:
> >>>>> > >
> >>>>> > > >> Wilst thou truly?
> >>>>> > >
> >>>>> > > > It has been centuries, but we still haven't learned how to use
> >>>>> > > singular "you" without daily confusions and misunderstandings.
> >>>>> > >
> >>>>> > > > Singular "they" will be an even bigger disaster, and with less
> >>excuse.
> >>>>> > > Jane Austen and her readers got on well enough (I dug out the
> >>quotations
> >>>>> > > for Jim Baen).
> >>>>> > >
> >>>>> > Yep. Singular "they" has a respectable 400-year history of use by
> >>>>the finest
> >>>>> > writers of the English language. See Steven Pinker on this issue
> >>(and many
> >>>>> > similar issues). We don't need to come up a "new" gender-nonspecific word
> >>>>> > when we already have a time-honored one.
> >>>>> IMHO, that is an indefinite "they". Example: "Everyone is welcome, but
> >>>>> if they don't arrive early, we might not have room for them." "Everyone"
> >>>>> might be treated as singular, but it can represent more than one person.
> >>>>> The same is true with "everybody", "anyone", "anybody", "someone", and
> >>>>> "somebody". My challenge (which nobody has answered) is an example of
> >>>>> "they" being used for a specified named individual in a work written
> >>>>> before 1970 (I might have used different dates, but none were for before
> >>>>> my birth).
> >>>>
> >>>>There are pre-1970 examples of a single *un*named person being
> >>>>mentioned and then referred to as "they", e.g. in Chapter 27 of
> >>>>Agatha Christie's _The Murder at the Vicarage_ (1930):
> >>>>
> >>>>"We got an expert on it -- to say whether the 6:20 was added by a
> >>>>different hand. Naturally we sent up samples of Protheroe’s
> >>>>handwriting. And do you know the verdict? That letter was never
> >>>>written by Protheroe at all.�€?
> >>>>“You mean a forgery?�€?
> >>>>“It’s a forgery. The 6:20 they think is written in a different hand
> >>>>again -- but they’re not sure about that. The heading is in a different
> >>>>ink, but the letter itself is a forgery. Protheroe never wrote it.�€?
> >>>>“Are they certain?�€?
> >>>>“Well, they’re as certain as experts ever are. You know what an expert is!
> >>>>Oh! But they’re sure enough.�€?
> >>>>
> >>>>Note the interchangeable use of "an expert" and "they".
> >>>>
> >>>>I suspect that it may be an extension of the usage of the word
> >>>>"they" to refer to organizations, especially official organizations,
> >>>>as a whole.
> >>>
> >>>I don't read sports news (anybody's sports news) ordinarily; but
> >>>occasionally in letting my eye drift down BBC News I see a
> >>>headline such as "Bournemouth fight back to draw Swansea
> >>>thriller," where "Bournemouth takes a plural verb because
> >>>"Bournemouth" consists of a pluraility of players.
> >>
> >>Or because it makes the headline fit in the available space.
> >
> >The omission of a single lower-case 's' in a three-line headline?
> >Take your tongue out of your cheek before you choke.
> I didn't see any line divisions.
>
> Or any note on the width of the column.
> >Here's another example, perhaps not so jarring:
> >
> >https://www.bbc.com/sport/av/tennis/61233753
> >
> >where "Wimbledon," a singular place name, takes a plural verb
> >because (I assume) the decision was made by a committee?
> That would be my take on it -- or some other form of an organizational
> "we". The "expert" example may be the same: it is elided to plural
> because it refers to the office, which has more than one "expert" in
> it.
>
> Taking "they" as referring to be named person would be my last choice
> -- unless, of course, it is that person's choice of pronoun.

It's incorrect to characterize 'Wimbledon' as a place name in that context.
It full name is 'Wimbledon 2022', which is an event, a tennis tournament.

Even if the event moved, it might well retain the name, just as Woodstock
was not held in Woodstock, NY.

Let's refine Woodward's question a bit: Show an example of the use of 'they'
or 'them' for a singular, named individual, prior to 1970. Excluded are stories
in which non-binary genders, or gender terminology, is a plot point.

Example: "Marion called. They want to play you at chess."

Pt

On 4/28/22 8:47 AM, Paul S Person wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 23:32:08 -0700, Dudley Brooks
>
> <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
>
>> On 4/26/22 2:50 PM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 1:01:02 AM UTC-4, Robert Woodward wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In article <356cf0c5-8255-4326...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Dudley Brooks <dudley...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 9:32:58 AM UTC-7, Michael R N Dolbear wrote:
>>>>>> "Joy Beeson" wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 04:41:06 -0500, leif...@dimnakorr.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wilst thou truly?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It has been centuries, but we still haven't learned how to use
>>>>>> singular "you" without daily confusions and misunderstandings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Singular "they" will be an even bigger disaster, and with less excuse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jane Austen and her readers got on well enough (I dug out the quotations
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> Jim Baen).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Mike D
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep. Singular "they" has a respectable 400-year history of use by the finest
>>>>> writers of the English language. See Steven Pinker on this issue (and many
>>>>> similar issues). We don't need to come up a "new" gender-nonspecific word
>>>>> when we already have a time-honored one.
>>>>
>>>> IMHO, that is an indefinite "they". Example: "Everyone is welcome, but
>>>> if they don't arrive early, we might not have room for them." "Everyone"
>>>> might be treated as singular, but it can represent more than one person.
>>>> The same is true with "everybody", "anyone", "anybody", "someone", and
>>>> "somebody". My challenge (which nobody has answered) is an example of
>>>> "they" being used for a specified named individual in a work written
>>>> before 1970 (I might have used different dates, but none were for before
>>>> my birth).
>>
>> Too answer your challenge: A simple google search turns up numerous
>> pages attesting (with examples) to the *fact* that *singular* indefinite
>> "they" has indeed been used by great authors for 400 (or more years) --
>> Shakespeare, Jane Austen ... you name 'em.
>>
>> https://www.antidote.info/en/blog/reports/singular-they
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
>>
>> https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/we-need-the-singular-they-nil-and-it-wont-seem-wrong-for-long/
>>
>> (I compiled this list before noticing your challenge. I *think* all of
>> these give examples ... but I'd have to re-read them to be sure ... and
>> it's too late at night, for me.)
>>
>> I tried to find the article by Steven Pinker (my personal "most
>> authoritative" authority) about this. I haven't found it yet ... but I
>> found at least one other by him in which he criticizes many of the
>> common "rules". His general attitude seems to be that the rule-makers
>> pulled a lot of their rules out of their ... uh ... hats.
>>
>> https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/15/steven-pinker-10-grammar-rules-break
>>
>> But, again re-reading, I see now that you claim that it was not used for
>> a *named* individual, You may be right. I'd have to google a further
>> to find out. However, I was not aware that the OP was objecting to *that*.
>
> I suspect that, if you check carefully the examples given/objected to,
> they will tend to be about named individuals. But not, no doubt,
> always.
>
>> I have at least one friend who is a "they/them" and I respect *their*
>> wish. Or try to. I do find it somewhat difficult. But not because
>> it's "ungrammatical" ... since I don't think it is. Rather, because it
>> means having to remember yet one more piece of information about
>> (potentially) everyone you know. It reminds me of a late eccentric
>> friend of mine who had three different email addresses, all of them
>> merely personal ... but his correspondents were supposed to remember
>> which one was for discussing which subjects (and the addresses
>> themselves gave no clue).
>
> Well, I suppose we could adopt the military approach -- name tags. Or,
> rather, Preferred Pronoun Tags.

Ha-ha!

Once we get the electrodes installed in our brains, the Preferred
Pronoun and everything else about the person will show up the moment we
look at them.

>>> I'd like to see that too.
>>>
>>> I dislike applying 'they' to a single person, because of
>>> the ambiguities it introduces. I've been in situations where I had to ask people
>>> to clarify how many people 'they' were, where the number of warm bodies was
>>> relevant, and turned out to be one.
>>>
>>> It shouldn't be like that.
>>>
>>> Pt

--
Dudley Brooks, Artistic Director
Run For Your Life! ... it's a dance company!
San Francisco

In article <b33383ab-38b4-43ee-86be-64edc7534510n@googlegroups.com>,
"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 11:54:49 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 18:35:47 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> > Heydt) wrote:
> >
> > >In article <tcri6h5mhf09u9nfe...@4ax.com>,
> > >Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> > >>On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 00:06:45 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> > >>Heydt) wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>In article <587d392e-0a01-45c0...@googlegroups.com>,
> > >>>Ahasuerus <ahas...@email.com> wrote:
> > >>>>On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 1:01:02 AM UTC-4, Robert Woodward wrote:
> > >>>>> In article <356cf0c5-8255-4326...@googlegroups.com>,
> > >>>>> Dudley Brooks <dudley...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> > On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 9:32:58 AM UTC-7, Michael R N Dolbear
> > >>>>> > wrote:
> > >>>>> > > "Joy Beeson" wrote
> > >>>>> > > > On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 04:41:06 -0500, leif...@dimnakorr.com
> > >>>>> > > > wrote:
> > >>>>> > >
> > >>>>> > > >> Wilst thou truly?
> > >>>>> > >
> > >>>>> > > > It has been centuries, but we still haven't learned how to use
> > >>>>> > > singular "you" without daily confusions and misunderstandings.
> > >>>>> > >
> > >>>>> > > > Singular "they" will be an even bigger disaster, and with less
> > >>excuse.
> > >>>>> > > Jane Austen and her readers got on well enough (I dug out the
> > >>quotations
> > >>>>> > > for Jim Baen).
> > >>>>> > >
> > >>>>> > Yep. Singular "they" has a respectable 400-year history of use by
> > >>>>the finest
> > >>>>> > writers of the English language. See Steven Pinker on this issue
> > >>(and many
> > >>>>> > similar issues). We don't need to come up a "new"
> > >>>>> > gender-nonspecific word
> > >>>>> > when we already have a time-honored one.
> > >>>>> IMHO, that is an indefinite "they". Example: "Everyone is welcome,
> > >>>>> but
> > >>>>> if they don't arrive early, we might not have room for them."
> > >>>>> "Everyone"
> > >>>>> might be treated as singular, but it can represent more than one
> > >>>>> person.
> > >>>>> The same is true with "everybody", "anyone", "anybody", "someone",
> > >>>>> and
> > >>>>> "somebody". My challenge (which nobody has answered) is an example of
> > >>>>> "they" being used for a specified named individual in a work written
> > >>>>> before 1970 (I might have used different dates, but none were for
> > >>>>> before
> > >>>>> my birth).
> > >>>>
> > >>>>There are pre-1970 examples of a single *un*named person being
> > >>>>mentioned and then referred to as "they", e.g. in Chapter 27 of
> > >>>>Agatha Christie's _The Murder at the Vicarage_ (1930):
> > >>>>
> > >>>>"We got an expert on it -- to say whether the 6:20 was added by a
> > >>>>different hand. Naturally we sent up samples of Protheroe’s
> > >>>>handwriting. And do you know the verdict? That letter was never
> > >>>>written by Protheroe at all.?€?
> > >>>>“You mean a forgery??€?
> > >>>>“It’s a forgery. The 6:20 they think is written in a different hand
> > >>>>again -- but they’re not sure about that. The heading is in a different
> > >>>>ink, but the letter itself is a forgery. Protheroe never wrote it.?€?
> > >>>>“Are they certain??€?
> > >>>>“Well, they’re as certain as experts ever are. You know what an expert
> > >>>>is!
> > >>>>Oh! But they’re sure enough.?€?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Note the interchangeable use of "an expert" and "they".
> > >>>>
> > >>>>I suspect that it may be an extension of the usage of the word
> > >>>>"they" to refer to organizations, especially official organizations,
> > >>>>as a whole.
> > >>>
> > >>>I don't read sports news (anybody's sports news) ordinarily; but
> > >>>occasionally in letting my eye drift down BBC News I see a
> > >>>headline such as "Bournemouth fight back to draw Swansea
> > >>>thriller," where "Bournemouth takes a plural verb because
> > >>>"Bournemouth" consists of a pluraility of players.
> > >>
> > >>Or because it makes the headline fit in the available space.
> > >
> > >The omission of a single lower-case 's' in a three-line headline?
> > >Take your tongue out of your cheek before you choke.
> > I didn't see any line divisions.
> >
> > Or any note on the width of the column.
> > >Here's another example, perhaps not so jarring:
> > >
> > >https://www.bbc.com/sport/av/tennis/61233753
> > >
> > >where "Wimbledon," a singular place name, takes a plural verb
> > >because (I assume) the decision was made by a committee?
> > That would be my take on it -- or some other form of an organizational
> > "we". The "expert" example may be the same: it is elided to plural
> > because it refers to the office, which has more than one "expert" in
> > it.
> >
> > Taking "they" as referring to be named person would be my last choice
> > -- unless, of course, it is that person's choice of pronoun.
>
> It's incorrect to characterize 'Wimbledon' as a place name in that context.
> It full name is 'Wimbledon 2022', which is an event, a tennis tournament.
>
> Even if the event moved, it might well retain the name, just as Woodstock
> was not held in Woodstock, NY.
>
> Let's refine Woodward's question a bit: Show an example of the use of 'they'
> or 'them' for a singular, named individual, prior to 1970. Excluded are
> stories
> in which non-binary genders, or gender terminology, is a plot point.
>

Let's include humans who claim non-binary gender in a pre-1970 story to
my challenge (I wonder if somebody will cite a Theodore Sturgeon title).

> Example: "Marion called. They want to play you at chess."
>

There are ambiguous names; i.e., "Kim called. <pronoun> want to play you
at chess" (Kipling's character was male, I know of several female Kims).

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

On 29/04/2022 01:47, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 23:32:08 -0700, Dudley Brooks
> <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
>
>> On 4/26/22 2:50 PM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 1:01:02 AM UTC-4, Robert Woodward wrote:
>>>>> In article <356cf0c5-8255-4326...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Dudley Brooks <dudley...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 9:32:58 AM UTC-7, Michael R N Dolbear wrote:
>>>>>> "Joy Beeson" wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 04:41:06 -0500, leif...@dimnakorr.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wilst thou truly?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It has been centuries, but we still haven't learned how to use
>>>>>> singular "you" without daily confusions and misunderstandings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Singular "they" will be an even bigger disaster, and with less excuse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jane Austen and her readers got on well enough (I dug out the quotations
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> Jim Baen).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Mike D
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep. Singular "they" has a respectable 400-year history of use by the finest
>>>>> writers of the English language. See Steven Pinker on this issue (and many
>>>>> similar issues). We don't need to come up a "new" gender-nonspecific word
>>>>> when we already have a time-honored one.
>>>>
>>>> IMHO, that is an indefinite "they". Example: "Everyone is welcome, but
>>>> if they don't arrive early, we might not have room for them." "Everyone"
>>>> might be treated as singular, but it can represent more than one person.
>>>> The same is true with "everybody", "anyone", "anybody", "someone", and
>>>> "somebody". My challenge (which nobody has answered) is an example of
>>>> "they" being used for a specified named individual in a work written
>>>> before 1970 (I might have used different dates, but none were for before
>>>> my birth).
>>
>> Too answer your challenge: A simple google search turns up numerous
>> pages attesting (with examples) to the *fact* that *singular* indefinite
>> "they" has indeed been used by great authors for 400 (or more years) --
>> Shakespeare, Jane Austen ... you name 'em.
>>
>> https://www.antidote.info/en/blog/reports/singular-they
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
>>
>> https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/we-need-the-singular-they-nil-and-it-wont-seem-wrong-for-long/
>>
>> (I compiled this list before noticing your challenge. I *think* all of
>> these give examples ... but I'd have to re-read them to be sure ... and
>> it's too late at night, for me.)
>>
>> I tried to find the article by Steven Pinker (my personal "most
>> authoritative" authority) about this. I haven't found it yet ... but I
>> found at least one other by him in which he criticizes many of the
>> common "rules". His general attitude seems to be that the rule-makers
>> pulled a lot of their rules out of their ... uh ... hats.
>>
>> https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/15/steven-pinker-10-grammar-rules-break
>>
>> But, again re-reading, I see now that you claim that it was not used for
>> a *named* individual, You may be right. I'd have to google a further
>> to find out. However, I was not aware that the OP was objecting to *that*.
>
> I suspect that, if you check carefully the examples given/objected to,
> they will tend to be about named individuals. But not, no doubt,
> always.
>
>> I have at least one friend who is a "they/them" and I respect *their*
>> wish. Or try to. I do find it somewhat difficult. But not because
>> it's "ungrammatical" ... since I don't think it is. Rather, because it
>> means having to remember yet one more piece of information about
>> (potentially) everyone you know. It reminds me of a late eccentric
>> friend of mine who had three different email addresses, all of them
>> merely personal ... but his correspondents were supposed to remember
>> which one was for discussing which subjects (and the addresses
>> themselves gave no clue).
>
> Well, I suppose we could adopt the military approach -- name tags. Or,
> rather, Preferred Pronoun Tags.
>
They already exist, feed "preferred pronoun badges" to google and see
just how many variations there are.

They're quite common in Roller Derby, sewn patches as well as badges.

Cheers,
Gary B-)

In article <6kdl6htgifip2mn5s1ufakar7cu6e7h1od@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>Well, I suppose we could adopt the military approach -- name tags. Or,
>rather, Preferred Pronoun Tags.

Those already exist, in the form of small sticky labels and
ribbons to attach to the bottom of convention badges. We've
ordered in a variety of both forms for the last couple of
DunDraCons (2000 and 2022). Not a lot of them get used, but some
do.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/

In article <rB3s2u.Bwn@kithrup.com>,
Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>In article <6kdl6htgifip2mn5s1ufakar7cu6e7h1od@4ax.com>,
>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Well, I suppose we could adopt the military approach -- name tags. Or,
>>rather, Preferred Pronoun Tags.
>
>Those already exist, in the form of small sticky labels and
>ribbons to attach to the bottom of convention badges. We've
>ordered in a variety of both forms for the last couple of
>DunDraCons (2000 and 2022). Not a lot of them get used, but some
>do.

Amongst the many changes* that occurred at my theatre following the sudden
change of management is new usher tags, which now have preferred pronouns.
Two issues: last shift there were not as many he/him tags as he/him ushers,
so I ended up using a they/them. Also, the print is tiny tiny, and there's
no way to read the pronouns without breaking distancing rules.

* Also, we now have a gender-free bathroom, which was accomplished by
removing the word "men's" from one washroom. No sign of changing tables,
yet.

--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On 4/29/2022 6:45 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <rB3s2u.Bwn@kithrup.com>,
> Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>> In article <6kdl6htgifip2mn5s1ufakar7cu6e7h1od@4ax.com>,
>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, I suppose we could adopt the military approach -- name tags. Or,
>>> rather, Preferred Pronoun Tags.
>>
>> Those already exist, in the form of small sticky labels and
>> ribbons to attach to the bottom of convention badges. We've
>> ordered in a variety of both forms for the last couple of
>> DunDraCons (2000 and 2022). Not a lot of them get used, but some
>> do.
>
> Amongst the many changes* that occurred at my theatre following the sudden
> change of management is new usher tags, which now have preferred pronouns.
> Two issues: last shift there were not as many he/him tags as he/him ushers,
> so I ended up using a they/them. Also, the print is tiny tiny, and there's
> no way to read the pronouns without breaking distancing rules.
>
> * Also, we now have a gender-free bathroom, which was accomplished by
> removing the word "men's" from one washroom. No sign of changing tables,
> yet.
>
Changing tables have been in all washrooms in my part of the world for
some years now.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 12:54:42 AM UTC-4, Robert Woodward wrote:
> In article <b33383ab-38b4-43ee...@googlegroups.com>,
> "pete...@gmail.com" <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 11:54:49 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> > > On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 18:35:47 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> > > Heydt) wrote:
> > >
> > > >In article <tcri6h5mhf09u9nfe...@4ax.com>,
> > > >Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> > > >>On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 00:06:45 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> > > >>Heydt) wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>In article <587d392e-0a01-45c0...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > >>>Ahasuerus <ahas...@email.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 1:01:02 AM UTC-4, Robert Woodward wrote:
> > > >>>>> In article <356cf0c5-8255-4326...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > >>>>> Dudley Brooks <dudley...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> > On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 9:32:58 AM UTC-7, Michael R N Dolbear
> > > >>>>> > wrote:
> > > >>>>> > > "Joy Beeson" wrote
> > > >>>>> > > > On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 04:41:06 -0500, leif...@dimnakorr.com
> > > >>>>> > > > wrote:
> > > >>>>> > >
> > > >>>>> > > >> Wilst thou truly?
> > > >>>>> > >
> > > >>>>> > > > It has been centuries, but we still haven't learned how to use
> > > >>>>> > > singular "you" without daily confusions and misunderstandings.
> > > >>>>> > >
> > > >>>>> > > > Singular "they" will be an even bigger disaster, and with less
> > > >>excuse.
> > > >>>>> > > Jane Austen and her readers got on well enough (I dug out the
> > > >>quotations
> > > >>>>> > > for Jim Baen).
> > > >>>>> > >
> > > >>>>> > Yep. Singular "they" has a respectable 400-year history of use by
> > > >>>>the finest
> > > >>>>> > writers of the English language. See Steven Pinker on this issue
> > > >>(and many
> > > >>>>> > similar issues). We don't need to come up a "new"
> > > >>>>> > gender-nonspecific word
> > > >>>>> > when we already have a time-honored one.
> > > >>>>> IMHO, that is an indefinite "they". Example: "Everyone is welcome,
> > > >>>>> but
> > > >>>>> if they don't arrive early, we might not have room for them."
> > > >>>>> "Everyone"
> > > >>>>> might be treated as singular, but it can represent more than one
> > > >>>>> person.
> > > >>>>> The same is true with "everybody", "anyone", "anybody", "someone",
> > > >>>>> and
> > > >>>>> "somebody". My challenge (which nobody has answered) is an example of
> > > >>>>> "they" being used for a specified named individual in a work written
> > > >>>>> before 1970 (I might have used different dates, but none were for
> > > >>>>> before
> > > >>>>> my birth).
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>There are pre-1970 examples of a single *un*named person being
> > > >>>>mentioned and then referred to as "they", e.g. in Chapter 27 of
> > > >>>>Agatha Christie's _The Murder at the Vicarage_ (1930):
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>"We got an expert on it -- to say whether the 6:20 was added by a
> > > >>>>different hand. Naturally we sent up samples of Protheroe’s
> > > >>>>handwriting. And do you know the verdict? That letter was never
> > > >>>>written by Protheroe at all.?€?
> > > >>>>“You mean a forgery??€?
> > > >>>>“It’s a forgery. The 6:20 they think is written in a different hand
> > > >>>>again -- but they’re not sure about that. The heading is in a different
> > > >>>>ink, but the letter itself is a forgery. Protheroe never wrote it..?€?
> > > >>>>“Are they certain??€?
> > > >>>>“Well, they’re as certain as experts ever are. You know what an expert
> > > >>>>is!
> > > >>>>Oh! But they’re sure enough.?€?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>Note the interchangeable use of "an expert" and "they".
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>I suspect that it may be an extension of the usage of the word
> > > >>>>"they" to refer to organizations, especially official organizations,
> > > >>>>as a whole.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>I don't read sports news (anybody's sports news) ordinarily; but
> > > >>>occasionally in letting my eye drift down BBC News I see a
> > > >>>headline such as "Bournemouth fight back to draw Swansea
> > > >>>thriller," where "Bournemouth takes a plural verb because
> > > >>>"Bournemouth" consists of a pluraility of players.
> > > >>
> > > >>Or because it makes the headline fit in the available space.
> > > >
> > > >The omission of a single lower-case 's' in a three-line headline?
> > > >Take your tongue out of your cheek before you choke.
> > > I didn't see any line divisions.
> > >
> > > Or any note on the width of the column.
> > > >Here's another example, perhaps not so jarring:
> > > >
> > > >https://www.bbc.com/sport/av/tennis/61233753
> > > >
> > > >where "Wimbledon," a singular place name, takes a plural verb
> > > >because (I assume) the decision was made by a committee?
> > > That would be my take on it -- or some other form of an organizational
> > > "we". The "expert" example may be the same: it is elided to plural
> > > because it refers to the office, which has more than one "expert" in
> > > it.
> > >
> > > Taking "they" as referring to be named person would be my last choice
> > > -- unless, of course, it is that person's choice of pronoun.
> >
> > It's incorrect to characterize 'Wimbledon' as a place name in that context.
> > It full name is 'Wimbledon 2022', which is an event, a tennis tournament.
> >
> > Even if the event moved, it might well retain the name, just as Woodstock
> > was not held in Woodstock, NY.
> >
> > Let's refine Woodward's question a bit: Show an example of the use of 'they'
> > or 'them' for a singular, named individual, prior to 1970. Excluded are
> > stories
> > in which non-binary genders, or gender terminology, is a plot point.
> >
> Let's include humans who claim non-binary gender in a pre-1970 story to
> my challenge (I wonder if somebody will cite a Theodore Sturgeon title).
> > Example: "Marion called. They want to play you at chess."
> >
> There are ambiguous names; i.e., "Kim called. <pronoun> want to play you
> at chess" (Kipling's character was male, I know of several female Kims).

I deliberately picked 'Marion' because its ambiguous. Not only MZB, but also
Marion Robert Morrison.

'Day Million' is a good example of what I wanted to avoid including;
the gender change is part of the plot, and discussed as such.

I want someone to produce a pre-1970 example of the use of a
singular 'they' or 'them' where the individual is already known to
the reader and speaker, not a hypothetical or unknown person. I want to
see it in normal use, not in the context of 'lets discuss gender and/or
terminology'.

pt

In article <t4gsst$b9u$1@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>On 4/29/2022 6:45 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
>> In article <rB3s2u.Bwn@kithrup.com>,
>> Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>> In article <6kdl6htgifip2mn5s1ufakar7cu6e7h1od@4ax.com>,
>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, I suppose we could adopt the military approach -- name tags. Or,
>>>> rather, Preferred Pronoun Tags.
>>>
>>> Those already exist, in the form of small sticky labels and
>>> ribbons to attach to the bottom of convention badges. We've
>>> ordered in a variety of both forms for the last couple of
>>> DunDraCons (2000 and 2022). Not a lot of them get used, but some
>>> do.
>>
>> Amongst the many changes* that occurred at my theatre following the sudden
>> change of management is new usher tags, which now have preferred pronouns.
>> Two issues: last shift there were not as many he/him tags as he/him ushers,
>> so I ended up using a they/them. Also, the print is tiny tiny, and there's
>> no way to read the pronouns without breaking distancing rules.
>>
>> * Also, we now have a gender-free bathroom, which was accomplished by
>> removing the word "men's" from one washroom. No sign of changing tables,
>> yet.
>>
>Changing tables have been in all washrooms in my part of the world for
>some years now.

UW has loads, none of which are in the theatre buildings (which get lots
of parents with babies attending). In fact, the last time I checked, none
of the building adjacent to the theatre building had changing tables. This
is James' extremely annoyed face.

I was a bit bemused to discover the Applied Health Services extension to
Burt Matthews Hall is designed such that a person in a wheelchair would
have a heck of a time getting from the old building to the new without help.
One route leads to a non-powered door. So does another. The third leads to
two non-powered doors and six stairs. It is possible to go from AHS to
the old part of the building through the garden (mind the nesting birds)
but not the other way because two of the three garden doors cannot be
opened from the garden. And are unpowered. I think AHS dates to 2018.

(AHS does have gender neutral bathrooms, I think. On 3rd, which requires
a fob to access on weekends)

The other interesting detail is that BMH has two different wings named
for Lyle Hallman, and they are at opposite ends of the complex.

--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On 30/04/2022 00:35, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 12:54:42 AM UTC-4, Robert Woodward wrote:
>> In article <b33383ab-38b4-43ee...@googlegroups.com>,
>> "pete...@gmail.com" <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 11:54:49 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 18:35:47 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>>>> Heydt) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <tcri6h5mhf09u9nfe...@4ax.com>,
>>>>> Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 00:06:45 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>>>>>> Heydt) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <587d392e-0a01-45c0...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>> Ahasuerus <ahas...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 1:01:02 AM UTC-4, Robert Woodward wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <356cf0c5-8255-4326...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>>>> Dudley Brooks <dudley...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 9:32:58 AM UTC-7, Michael R N Dolbear
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Joy Beeson" wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 04:41:06 -0500, leif...@dimnakorr.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wilst thou truly?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It has been centuries, but we still haven't learned how to use
>>>>>>>>>>> singular "you" without daily confusions and misunderstandings.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Singular "they" will be an even bigger disaster, and with less
>>>>>> excuse.
>>>>>>>>>>> Jane Austen and her readers got on well enough (I dug out the
>>>>>> quotations
>>>>>>>>>>> for Jim Baen).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yep. Singular "they" has a respectable 400-year history of use by
>>>>>>>> the finest
>>>>>>>>>> writers of the English language. See Steven Pinker on this issue
>>>>>> (and many
>>>>>>>>>> similar issues). We don't need to come up a "new"
>>>>>>>>>> gender-nonspecific word
>>>>>>>>>> when we already have a time-honored one.
>>>>>>>>> IMHO, that is an indefinite "they". Example: "Everyone is welcome,
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> if they don't arrive early, we might not have room for them."
>>>>>>>>> "Everyone"
>>>>>>>>> might be treated as singular, but it can represent more than one
>>>>>>>>> person.
>>>>>>>>> The same is true with "everybody", "anyone", "anybody", "someone",
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> "somebody". My challenge (which nobody has answered) is an example of
>>>>>>>>> "they" being used for a specified named individual in a work written
>>>>>>>>> before 1970 (I might have used different dates, but none were for
>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>> my birth).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are pre-1970 examples of a single *un*named person being
>>>>>>>> mentioned and then referred to as "they", e.g. in Chapter 27 of
>>>>>>>> Agatha Christie's _The Murder at the Vicarage_ (1930):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "We got an expert on it -- to say whether the 6:20 was added by a
>>>>>>>> different hand. Naturally we sent up samples of Protheroe’s
>>>>>>>> handwriting. And do you know the verdict? That letter was never
>>>>>>>> written by Protheroe at all.?€?
>>>>>>>> “You mean a forgery??€?
>>>>>>>> “It’s a forgery. The 6:20 they think is written in a different hand
>>>>>>>> again -- but they’re not sure about that. The heading is in a different
>>>>>>>> ink, but the letter itself is a forgery. Protheroe never wrote it.?€?
>>>>>>>> “Are they certain??€?
>>>>>>>> “Well, they’re as certain as experts ever are. You know what an expert
>>>>>>>> is!
>>>>>>>> Oh! But they’re sure enough.?€?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note the interchangeable use of "an expert" and "they".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suspect that it may be an extension of the usage of the word
>>>>>>>> "they" to refer to organizations, especially official organizations,
>>>>>>>> as a whole.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't read sports news (anybody's sports news) ordinarily; but
>>>>>>> occasionally in letting my eye drift down BBC News I see a
>>>>>>> headline such as "Bournemouth fight back to draw Swansea
>>>>>>> thriller," where "Bournemouth takes a plural verb because
>>>>>>> "Bournemouth" consists of a pluraility of players.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or because it makes the headline fit in the available space.
>>>>>
>>>>> The omission of a single lower-case 's' in a three-line headline?
>>>>> Take your tongue out of your cheek before you choke.
>>>> I didn't see any line divisions.
>>>>
>>>> Or any note on the width of the column.
>>>>> Here's another example, perhaps not so jarring:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/sport/av/tennis/61233753
>>>>>
>>>>> where "Wimbledon," a singular place name, takes a plural verb
>>>>> because (I assume) the decision was made by a committee?
>>>> That would be my take on it -- or some other form of an organizational
>>>> "we". The "expert" example may be the same: it is elided to plural
>>>> because it refers to the office, which has more than one "expert" in
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> Taking "they" as referring to be named person would be my last choice
>>>> -- unless, of course, it is that person's choice of pronoun.
>>>
>>> It's incorrect to characterize 'Wimbledon' as a place name in that context.
>>> It full name is 'Wimbledon 2022', which is an event, a tennis tournament.
>>>
>>> Even if the event moved, it might well retain the name, just as Woodstock
>>> was not held in Woodstock, NY.
>>>
>>> Let's refine Woodward's question a bit: Show an example of the use of 'they'
>>> or 'them' for a singular, named individual, prior to 1970. Excluded are
>>> stories
>>> in which non-binary genders, or gender terminology, is a plot point.
>>>
>> Let's include humans who claim non-binary gender in a pre-1970 story to
>> my challenge (I wonder if somebody will cite a Theodore Sturgeon title).
>>> Example: "Marion called. They want to play you at chess."
>>>
>> There are ambiguous names; i.e., "Kim called. <pronoun> want to play you
>> at chess" (Kipling's character was male, I know of several female Kims).
>
> I deliberately picked 'Marion' because its ambiguous. Not only MZB, but also
> Marion Robert Morrison.
[SNIP]
"Marion" may be ambiguous where you come from, but it's not in Oz, where
it's only a girl's name.

Cheers,
Gary B-)

On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 13:28:06 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
Heydt) wrote:

>In article <6kdl6htgifip2mn5s1ufakar7cu6e7h1od@4ax.com>,
>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Well, I suppose we could adopt the military approach -- name tags. Or,
>>rather, Preferred Pronoun Tags.
>
>Those already exist, in the form of small sticky labels and
>ribbons to attach to the bottom of convention badges. We've
>ordered in a variety of both forms for the last couple of
>DunDraCons (2000 and 2022). Not a lot of them get used, but some
>do.

(This can be taken as a note to all who responded that they already
exist.)

The difference, of course, is that, in the military, the name tags are
/mandatory/. So far as I can tell, gender tags are still optional.

But I do freely admit I was unaware of them being in use -- or,
perhaps better, any references to/photos of them in news articles had
simply left no impression.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 07:35:21 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 12:54:42 AM UTC-4, Robert Woodward wrote:
>> In article <b33383ab-38b4-43ee...@googlegroups.com>,
>> "pete...@gmail.com" <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 11:54:49 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>> > > On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 18:35:47 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>> > > Heydt) wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >In article <tcri6h5mhf09u9nfe...@4ax.com>,
>> > > >Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> > > >>On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 00:06:45 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>> > > >>Heydt) wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>>In article <587d392e-0a01-45c0...@googlegroups.com>,
>> > > >>>Ahasuerus <ahas...@email.com> wrote:
>> > > >>>>On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 1:01:02 AM UTC-4, Robert Woodward wrote:
>> > > >>>>> In article <356cf0c5-8255-4326...@googlegroups.com>,
>> > > >>>>> Dudley Brooks <dudley...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>> > On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 9:32:58 AM UTC-7, Michael R N Dolbear
>> > > >>>>> > wrote:
>> > > >>>>> > > "Joy Beeson" wrote
>> > > >>>>> > > > On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 04:41:06 -0500, leif...@dimnakorr.com
>> > > >>>>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >>>>> > >
>> > > >>>>> > > >> Wilst thou truly?
>> > > >>>>> > >
>> > > >>>>> > > > It has been centuries, but we still haven't learned how to use
>> > > >>>>> > > singular "you" without daily confusions and misunderstandings.
>> > > >>>>> > >
>> > > >>>>> > > > Singular "they" will be an even bigger disaster, and with less
>> > > >>excuse.
>> > > >>>>> > > Jane Austen and her readers got on well enough (I dug out the
>> > > >>quotations
>> > > >>>>> > > for Jim Baen).
>> > > >>>>> > >
>> > > >>>>> > Yep. Singular "they" has a respectable 400-year history of use by
>> > > >>>>the finest
>> > > >>>>> > writers of the English language. See Steven Pinker on this issue
>> > > >>(and many
>> > > >>>>> > similar issues). We don't need to come up a "new"
>> > > >>>>> > gender-nonspecific word
>> > > >>>>> > when we already have a time-honored one.
>> > > >>>>> IMHO, that is an indefinite "they". Example: "Everyone is welcome,
>> > > >>>>> but
>> > > >>>>> if they don't arrive early, we might not have room for them."
>> > > >>>>> "Everyone"
>> > > >>>>> might be treated as singular, but it can represent more than one
>> > > >>>>> person.
>> > > >>>>> The same is true with "everybody", "anyone", "anybody", "someone",
>> > > >>>>> and
>> > > >>>>> "somebody". My challenge (which nobody has answered) is an example of
>> > > >>>>> "they" being used for a specified named individual in a work written
>> > > >>>>> before 1970 (I might have used different dates, but none were for
>> > > >>>>> before
>> > > >>>>> my birth).
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>>There are pre-1970 examples of a single *un*named person being
>> > > >>>>mentioned and then referred to as "they", e.g. in Chapter 27 of
>> > > >>>>Agatha Christie's _The Murder at the Vicarage_ (1930):
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>>"We got an expert on it -- to say whether the 6:20 was added by a
>> > > >>>>different hand. Naturally we sent up samples of Protheroe’s
>> > > >>>>handwriting. And do you know the verdict? That letter was never
>> > > >>>>written by Protheroe at all.?€?
>> > > >>>>“You mean a forgery??€?
>> > > >>>>“It’s a forgery. The 6:20 they think is written in a different hand
>> > > >>>>again -- but they’re not sure about that. The heading is in a different
>> > > >>>>ink, but the letter itself is a forgery. Protheroe never wrote it.?€?
>> > > >>>>“Are they certain??€?
>> > > >>>>“Well, they’re as certain as experts ever are. You know what an expert
>> > > >>>>is!
>> > > >>>>Oh! But they’re sure enough.?€?
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>>Note the interchangeable use of "an expert" and "they".
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>>I suspect that it may be an extension of the usage of the word
>> > > >>>>"they" to refer to organizations, especially official organizations,
>> > > >>>>as a whole.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>I don't read sports news (anybody's sports news) ordinarily; but
>> > > >>>occasionally in letting my eye drift down BBC News I see a
>> > > >>>headline such as "Bournemouth fight back to draw Swansea
>> > > >>>thriller," where "Bournemouth takes a plural verb because
>> > > >>>"Bournemouth" consists of a pluraility of players.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>Or because it makes the headline fit in the available space.
>> > > >
>> > > >The omission of a single lower-case 's' in a three-line headline?
>> > > >Take your tongue out of your cheek before you choke.
>> > > I didn't see any line divisions.
>> > >
>> > > Or any note on the width of the column.
>> > > >Here's another example, perhaps not so jarring:
>> > > >
>> > > >https://www.bbc.com/sport/av/tennis/61233753
>> > > >
>> > > >where "Wimbledon," a singular place name, takes a plural verb
>> > > >because (I assume) the decision was made by a committee?
>> > > That would be my take on it -- or some other form of an organizational
>> > > "we". The "expert" example may be the same: it is elided to plural
>> > > because it refers to the office, which has more than one "expert" in
>> > > it.
>> > >
>> > > Taking "they" as referring to be named person would be my last choice
>> > > -- unless, of course, it is that person's choice of pronoun.
>> >
>> > It's incorrect to characterize 'Wimbledon' as a place name in that context.
>> > It full name is 'Wimbledon 2022', which is an event, a tennis tournament.
>> >
>> > Even if the event moved, it might well retain the name, just as Woodstock
>> > was not held in Woodstock, NY.
>> >
>> > Let's refine Woodward's question a bit: Show an example of the use of 'they'
>> > or 'them' for a singular, named individual, prior to 1970. Excluded are
>> > stories
>> > in which non-binary genders, or gender terminology, is a plot point.
>> >
>> Let's include humans who claim non-binary gender in a pre-1970 story to
>> my challenge (I wonder if somebody will cite a Theodore Sturgeon title).
>> > Example: "Marion called. They want to play you at chess."
>> >
>> There are ambiguous names; i.e., "Kim called. <pronoun> want to play you
>> at chess" (Kipling's character was male, I know of several female Kims).
>
>I deliberately picked 'Marion' because its ambiguous. Not only MZB, but also
>Marion Robert Morrison.
>
>'Day Million' is a good example of what I wanted to avoid including;
>the gender change is part of the plot, and discussed as such.
>
>I want someone to produce a pre-1970 example of the use of a
>singular 'they' or 'them' where the individual is already known to
>the reader and speaker, not a hypothetical or unknown person. I want to
>see it in normal use, not in the context of 'lets discuss gender and/or
>terminology'.

Gary R. Schmidt <grschmidt@acm.org> schrieb:
> On 29/04/2022 01:47, Paul S Person wrote:

>> Well, I suppose we could adopt the military approach -- name tags. Or,
>> rather, Preferred Pronoun Tags.
>>
> They already exist, feed "preferred pronoun badges" to google and see
> just how many variations there are.

https://dilbert.com/strip/2021-07-21 comes to mind.

On Friday, 29 April 2022 at 16:49:59 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 07:35:21 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 12:54:42 AM UTC-4, Robert Woodward wrote:
> >> In article <b33383ab-38b4-43ee...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> "pete...@gmail.com" <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 11:54:49 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> >> > > On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 18:35:47 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> >> > > Heydt) wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >In article <tcri6h5mhf09u9nfe...@4ax.com>,
> >> > > >Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >> > > >>On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 00:06:45 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> >> > > >>Heydt) wrote:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>>In article <587d392e-0a01-45c0...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> > > >>>Ahasuerus <ahas...@email.com> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 1:01:02 AM UTC-4, Robert Woodward wrote:
> >> > > >>>>> In article <356cf0c5-8255-4326...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> > > >>>>> Dudley Brooks <dudley...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> > On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 9:32:58 AM UTC-7, Michael R N Dolbear
> >> > > >>>>> > wrote:
> >> > > >>>>> > > "Joy Beeson" wrote
> >> > > >>>>> > > > On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 04:41:06 -0500, leif...@dimnakorr.com
> >> > > >>>>> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >>>>> > >
> >> > > >>>>> > > >> Wilst thou truly?
> >> > > >>>>> > >
> >> > > >>>>> > > > It has been centuries, but we still haven't learned how to use
> >> > > >>>>> > > singular "you" without daily confusions and misunderstandings.
> >> > > >>>>> > >
> >> > > >>>>> > > > Singular "they" will be an even bigger disaster, and with less
> >> > > >>excuse.
> >> > > >>>>> > > Jane Austen and her readers got on well enough (I dug out the
> >> > > >>quotations
> >> > > >>>>> > > for Jim Baen).
> >> > > >>>>> > >
> >> > > >>>>> > Yep. Singular "they" has a respectable 400-year history of use by
> >> > > >>>>the finest
> >> > > >>>>> > writers of the English language. See Steven Pinker on this issue
> >> > > >>(and many
> >> > > >>>>> > similar issues). We don't need to come up a "new"
> >> > > >>>>> > gender-nonspecific word
> >> > > >>>>> > when we already have a time-honored one.
> >> > > >>>>> IMHO, that is an indefinite "they". Example: "Everyone is welcome,
> >> > > >>>>> but
> >> > > >>>>> if they don't arrive early, we might not have room for them."
> >> > > >>>>> "Everyone"
> >> > > >>>>> might be treated as singular, but it can represent more than one
> >> > > >>>>> person.
> >> > > >>>>> The same is true with "everybody", "anyone", "anybody", "someone",
> >> > > >>>>> and
> >> > > >>>>> "somebody". My challenge (which nobody has answered) is an example of
> >> > > >>>>> "they" being used for a specified named individual in a work written
> >> > > >>>>> before 1970 (I might have used different dates, but none were for
> >> > > >>>>> before
> >> > > >>>>> my birth).
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>>There are pre-1970 examples of a single *un*named person being
> >> > > >>>>mentioned and then referred to as "they", e.g. in Chapter 27 of
> >> > > >>>>Agatha Christie's _The Murder at the Vicarage_ (1930):
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>>"We got an expert on it -- to say whether the 6:20 was added by a
> >> > > >>>>different hand. Naturally we sent up samples of Protheroe’s
> >> > > >>>>handwriting. And do you know the verdict? That letter was never
> >> > > >>>>written by Protheroe at all.?€?
> >> > > >>>>“You mean a forgery??€?
> >> > > >>>>“It’s a forgery. The 6:20 they think is written in a different hand
> >> > > >>>>again -- but they’re not sure about that. The heading is in a different
> >> > > >>>>ink, but the letter itself is a forgery. Protheroe never wrote it.?€?
> >> > > >>>>“Are they certain??€?
> >> > > >>>>“Well, they’re as certain as experts ever are. You know what an expert
> >> > > >>>>is!
> >> > > >>>>Oh! But they’re sure enough.?€?
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>>Note the interchangeable use of "an expert" and "they".
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>>I suspect that it may be an extension of the usage of the word
> >> > > >>>>"they" to refer to organizations, especially official organizations,
> >> > > >>>>as a whole.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>I don't read sports news (anybody's sports news) ordinarily; but
> >> > > >>>occasionally in letting my eye drift down BBC News I see a
> >> > > >>>headline such as "Bournemouth fight back to draw Swansea
> >> > > >>>thriller," where "Bournemouth takes a plural verb because
> >> > > >>>"Bournemouth" consists of a pluraility of players.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>Or because it makes the headline fit in the available space.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >The omission of a single lower-case 's' in a three-line headline?
> >> > > >Take your tongue out of your cheek before you choke.
> >> > > I didn't see any line divisions.
> >> > >
> >> > > Or any note on the width of the column.
> >> > > >Here's another example, perhaps not so jarring:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >https://www.bbc.com/sport/av/tennis/61233753
> >> > > >
> >> > > >where "Wimbledon," a singular place name, takes a plural verb
> >> > > >because (I assume) the decision was made by a committee?
> >> > > That would be my take on it -- or some other form of an organizational
> >> > > "we". The "expert" example may be the same: it is elided to plural
> >> > > because it refers to the office, which has more than one "expert" in
> >> > > it.
> >> > >
> >> > > Taking "they" as referring to be named person would be my last choice
> >> > > -- unless, of course, it is that person's choice of pronoun.
> >> >
> >> > It's incorrect to characterize 'Wimbledon' as a place name in that context.
> >> > It full name is 'Wimbledon 2022', which is an event, a tennis tournament.
> >> >
> >> > Even if the event moved, it might well retain the name, just as Woodstock
> >> > was not held in Woodstock, NY.
> >> >
> >> > Let's refine Woodward's question a bit: Show an example of the use of 'they'
> >> > or 'them' for a singular, named individual, prior to 1970. Excluded are
> >> > stories
> >> > in which non-binary genders, or gender terminology, is a plot point.
> >> >
> >> Let's include humans who claim non-binary gender in a pre-1970 story to
> >> my challenge (I wonder if somebody will cite a Theodore Sturgeon title).
> >> > Example: "Marion called. They want to play you at chess."
> >> >
> >> There are ambiguous names; i.e., "Kim called. <pronoun> want to play you
> >> at chess" (Kipling's character was male, I know of several female Kims).
> >
> >I deliberately picked 'Marion' because its ambiguous. Not only MZB, but also
> >Marion Robert Morrison.
> >
> >'Day Million' is a good example of what I wanted to avoid including;
> >the gender change is part of the plot, and discussed as such.
> >
> >I want someone to produce a pre-1970 example of the use of a
> >singular 'they' or 'them' where the individual is already known to
> >the reader and speaker, not a hypothetical or unknown person. I want to
> >see it in normal use, not in the context of 'lets discuss gender and/or
> >terminology'.
> I wanna see it so far back there is no question of what it is.
>
> I wanna see it in Shakespeare:
>
> "Alas, poor Yorick! I knew them, Horatio, in my youth."
>
> But I don't think I ever will.

On 29 Apr 2022, Gary R. Schmidt wrote
(in article<koctji-rfm.ln1@paranoia.mcleod-schmidt.id.au>):

> On 30/04/2022 00:35, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 12:54:42 AM UTC-4, Robert Woodward wrote:
> > > In article<b33383ab-38b4-43ee...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > "pete...@gmail.com" <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 11:54:49 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 18:35:47 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> > > > > Heydt) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > In article<tcri6h5mhf09u9nfe...@4ax.com>,
> > > > > > Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 00:06:45 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> > > > > > > Heydt) wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In article<587d392e-0a01-45c0...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > > > > Ahasuerus <ahas...@email.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 1:01:02 AM UTC-4, Robert Woodward wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > In article<356cf0c5-8255-4326...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > > > > > > Dudley Brooks <dudley...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 9:32:58 AM UTC-7, Michael R N Dolbear
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Joy Beeson" wrote
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 04:41:06 -0500, leif...@dimnakorr.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wilst thou truly?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It has been centuries, but we still haven't learned how to use
> > > > > > > > > > > > singular "you" without daily confusions and misunderstandings.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Singular "they" will be an even bigger disaster, and with less
> > > > > > > excuse.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Jane Austen and her readers got on well enough (I dug out the
> > > > > > > quotations
> > > > > > > > > > > > for Jim Baen).
> > > > > > > > > > > Yep. Singular "they" has a respectable 400-year history of use by
> > > > > > > > > the finest
> > > > > > > > > > > writers of the English language. See Steven Pinker on this issue
> > > > > > > (and many
> > > > > > > > > > > similar issues). We don't need to come up a "new"
> > > > > > > > > > > gender-nonspecific word
> > > > > > > > > > > when we already have a time-honored one.
> > > > > > > > > > IMHO, that is an indefinite "they". Example: "Everyone is welcome,
> > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > if they don't arrive early, we might not have room for them."
> > > > > > > > > > "Everyone"
> > > > > > > > > > might be treated as singular, but it can represent more than one
> > > > > > > > > > person.
> > > > > > > > > > The same is true with "everybody", "anyone", "anybody", "someone",
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > "somebody". My challenge (which nobody has answered) is an example
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > "they" being used for a specified named individual in a work written
> > > > > > > > > > before 1970 (I might have used different dates, but none were for
> > > > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > > my birth).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > There are pre-1970 examples of a single *un*named person being
> > > > > > > > > mentioned and then referred to as "they", e.g. in Chapter 27 of
> > > > > > > > > Agatha Christie's _The Murder at the Vicarage_ (1930):
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "We got an expert on it -- to say whether the 6:20 was added by a
> > > > > > > > > different hand. Naturally we sent up samples of Protheroe’s
> > > > > > > > > handwriting. And do you know the verdict? That letter was never
> > > > > > > > > written by Protheroe at all.?€?
> > > > > > > > > “You mean a forgery??€?
> > > > > > > > > “It’s a forgery. The 6:20 they think is written in a different
> > > > > > > > > hand
> > > > > > > > > again -- but they’re not sure about that. The heading is in a
> > > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > ink, but the letter itself is a forgery. Protheroe never wrote
> > > > > > > > > it.?€?
> > > > > > > > > “Are they certain??€?
> > > > > > > > > “Well, they’re as certain as experts ever are. You know what an
> > > > > > > > > expert
> > > > > > > > > is!
> > > > > > > > > Oh! But they’re sure enough.?€?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Note the interchangeable use of "an expert" and "they".
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I suspect that it may be an extension of the usage of the word
> > > > > > > > > "they" to refer to organizations, especially official organizations,
> > > > > > > > > as a whole.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't read sports news (anybody's sports news) ordinarily; but
> > > > > > > > occasionally in letting my eye drift down BBC News I see a
> > > > > > > > headline such as "Bournemouth fight back to draw Swansea
> > > > > > > > thriller," where "Bournemouth takes a plural verb because
> > > > > > > > "Bournemouth" consists of a pluraility of players.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Or because it makes the headline fit in the available space.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The omission of a single lower-case 's' in a three-line headline?
> > > > > > Take your tongue out of your cheek before you choke.
> > > > > I didn't see any line divisions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Or any note on the width of the column.
> > > > > > Here's another example, perhaps not so jarring:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.bbc.com/sport/av/tennis/61233753
> > > > > >
> > > > > > where "Wimbledon," a singular place name, takes a plural verb
> > > > > > because (I assume) the decision was made by a committee?
> > > > > That would be my take on it -- or some other form of an organizational
> > > > > "we". The "expert" example may be the same: it is elided to plural
> > > > > because it refers to the office, which has more than one "expert" in
> > > > > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Taking "they" as referring to be named person would be my last choice
> > > > > -- unless, of course, it is that person's choice of pronoun.
> > > >
> > > > It's incorrect to characterize 'Wimbledon' as a place name in that
> > > > context.
> > > > It full name is 'Wimbledon 2022', which is an event, a tennis tournament.
> > > >
> > > > Even if the event moved, it might well retain the name, just as Woodstock
> > > > was not held in Woodstock, NY.
> > > >
> > > > Let's refine Woodward's question a bit: Show an example of the use of
> > > > 'they'
> > > > or 'them' for a singular, named individual, prior to 1970. Excluded are
> > > > stories
> > > > in which non-binary genders, or gender terminology, is a plot point.
> > > Let's include humans who claim non-binary gender in a pre-1970 story to
> > > my challenge (I wonder if somebody will cite a Theodore Sturgeon title).
> > > > Example: "Marion called. They want to play you at chess."
> > > There are ambiguous names; i.e., "Kim called. <pronoun> want to play you
> > > at chess" (Kipling's character was male, I know of several female Kims).
> >
> > I deliberately picked 'Marion' because its ambiguous. Not only MZB, but also
> > Marion Robert Morrison.
> [SNIP]
> "Marion" may be ambiguous where you come from, but it's not in Oz, where
> it's only a girl's name.

pete...@gmail.com <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I want someone to produce a pre-1970 example of the use of a
> singular 'they' or 'them' where the individual is already known to
> the reader and speaker, not a hypothetical or unknown person. I want to
> see it in normal use, not in the context of 'lets discuss gender and/or
> terminology'.

I think you're requesting an example of someone using 'they' as a genderless
singular pronoun in a situation where it makes no sense to use a genderless
singular pronoun in the first place.

If the gender of the person referred to is known, and gender identity isn't
of particular concern, why would anyone use a genderless pronoun instead of
a gendered one?

--
Leif Roar Moldskred
Fee/Fi/Fo/Fum

On 29 Apr 2022, Leif Roar Moldskred wrote
(in article<H3adnTAGqcJO2PH_nZ2dnZeNn_vNnZ2d@giganews.com>):

> pete...@gmail.com<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I want someone to produce a pre-1970 example of the use of a
> > singular 'they' or 'them' where the individual is already known to
> > the reader and speaker, not a hypothetical or unknown person. I want to
> > see it in normal use, not in the context of 'lets discuss gender and/or
> > terminology'.
>
> I think you're requesting an example of someone using 'they' as a genderless
> singular pronoun in a situation where it makes no sense to use a genderless
> singular pronoun in the first place.
>
> If the gender of the person referred to is known, and gender identity isn't
> of particular concern, why would anyone use a genderless pronoun instead of
> a gendered one?

They’re an idiot?

On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 3:57:50 PM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> I think Isaac Asimov's robots from "Robbie" on, are "he".
>
> What think I might find is a space alien person that is neither male
> nor female - or is both, like Dr Crow - but is articulate enough for
> "it" to be rejected, at which point I do expect to see "they".

It is kinda funny that right between these two paragraphs -- "Asimov"
and "space alien person" -- you could easily fit THE GODS THEMSELVES,
which describes a TRInary sexual structure of space alien persons
written by Asimov. (And just about the only work he wrote that was even
partly about space alien persons.)

As I recall, in TGT, one gender was called "he", identified with "left",
amd focused intellectually; the second gender was called "she",
identified with "right", and focused on child rearing, and the third was
also called "she", focused on emotions -- and having individual
variations toward "intellectual" and "parental" that were called
"left-Em" and "right-Em".

On Friday, 29 April 2022 at 22:09:48 UTC+1, Wolffan wrote:
> On 29 Apr 2022, Leif Roar Moldskred wrote
> (in article<H3adnTAGqcJO2PH_...@giganews.com>):
> > pete...@gmail.com<pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I want someone to produce a pre-1970 example of the use of a
> > > singular 'they' or 'them' where the individual is already known to
> > > the reader and speaker, not a hypothetical or unknown person. I want to
> > > see it in normal use, not in the context of 'lets discuss gender and/or
> > > terminology'.
> >
> > I think you're requesting an example of someone using 'they' as a genderless
> > singular pronoun in a situation where it makes no sense to use a genderless
> > singular pronoun in the first place.
> >
> > If the gender of the person referred to is known, and gender identity isn't
> > of particular concern, why would anyone use a genderless pronoun instead of
> > a gendered one?
>
> They’re an idiot?

We established that pronouns don't have to have
a gender. In some languages, they do not.

However, it's convenient to have distinct pronoun A,
pronoun B, pronoun C, etc., or else something like -

"They told me you had been to her,
And mentioned me to him:
She gave me a good character,
But said I could not swim.

"He sent them word I had not gone
(We know it to be true):
If she should push the matter on,
What would become of you?"

- would be unintelligible.

Or, you could just use names.

Further reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_neutrality_in_languages_with_gendered_third-person_pronouns#Historical,_regional,_and_proposed_gender-neutral_singular_pronouns

"Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/11/11-h/11-h.htm

In whichever order makes sense to you.

I would add to the Wikipedia reference that
Scottish dialect allows "thon" and "yon" as
pronouns, or possibly as the same pronoun.
I canna spik to yon.