In article <koctji-rfm.ln1@paranoia.mcleod-schmidt.id.au>,
Gary R. Schmidt <grschmidt@acm.org> wrote:
>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.

In article <a6a5cc8b-c48e-4d19-937e-045092ff7bd1n@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>
>Perhaps someone can say if _Why Didn't They Ask Evans?_,
>the book, is a counter-example. I doubt it.

I just looked it up. It's a case of personation and "they" is
(or are), plural, being two witnesses to a fake deathbed scene.
"Evans" was the female, singular parlourmaid who was either
herself deceived or in on the fraud.

The line that became the title was some passer-by whom Christie
didn't know, but used the phrase to his (I think) companion, whom
Christie didn't know either, but was intrigued enough to give it
a context in a murder mystery, which is what she did.

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

In article <f1cbcc15-1722-4ec7-9677-bba2cf2db645n@googlegroups.com>,
Ross Presser <rpresser@gmail.com> wrote:
>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.)

Asimov didn't want to write typical Campbell stories in which the
universe is filled with intelligent alien life but the
Earth-humans are the biggest, baddest, smartest, prettiest beings
of them all. As Campbell felt about specifically northern-
European-descended humans as distinguished from the rest of the
population.

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

In article <77f4f567-da21-4455-8728-784227531082n@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>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.

And there's the old joke about the Yorkshireman saying to his
subordinate, "Don't tha thou me afore I thous thee!"

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

On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 5:09:48 PM UTC-4, 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?

Prior to recent years, yes, that would be a sign of an ungrammatical idiot..

However (and it's the point of this sub thread) there is now a small vocal minority
of 'non-binary' people who don't want to be referred to with gendered pronouns.
One of the alternatives they request is 'they/them'.

This is a new usage of the words. Older uses only exist when the person(s) being
referred to are hypothetical, unidentified, or indeterminate in number.

Old use: 'Someone left a cigarette butt. They smoked Marlboros'.

New use: 'Marion called. They want to set up a game of chess with you.'

Pt

On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 6:37:03 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <koctji-...@paranoia.mcleod-schmidt.id.au>,
> Gary R. Schmidt <grsc...@acm.org> wrote:
> >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.
> The referenced male Marion made his living as John Wayne.

On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 7:12:03 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <77f4f567-da21-4455...@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >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.
> And there's the old joke about the Yorkshireman saying to his
> subordinate, "Don't tha thou me afore I thous thee!"

Modern English is more or less stripped of formal/familiar forms.
French still has vous/tu, and some other languages are far more
elaborate, which makes it easy to unknowingly cause offense

Pt

On 2022-04-24 11:00 p.m., Robert Woodward wrote:
> In article <356cf0c5-8255-4326-94a7-47dd155be5b1n@googlegroups.com>,
> Dudley Brooks <dudleybrooks@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).
>

It is probably true that we can't find a named and specified individual
being called "they". Back then if a person personally knew a person and
still called them "them" it would be in a deliberate attempt not to
specify that they are a woman and that was a rare situation, and when it
arose, they would also avoid giving them a name that would be just as
big a giveaway. Science fiction authors would either settle for making
up a new pronoun (which was always annoying) or would go ahead and call
something that wasn't a man, a man. Or rarely a woman.

But that's a big pile of "so what?". The leap from "unspecified person"
to "specified person of unspecified/absent gender" is not a big one.
It's the natural development of language as opposed to all the attempts
to make up new pronouns which have inevitably failed to gain traction. -
The argument that using a plural pronoun to refer to a singular
individual is a grammatical error in English is an automatic fail.

On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 10:04:59 PM UTC-4, David Johnston wrote:
> On 2022-04-24 11:00 p.m., 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).
> >
> It is probably true that we can't find a named and specified individual
> being called "they". Back then if a person personally knew a person and
> still called them "them" it would be in a deliberate attempt not to
> specify that they are a woman and that was a rare situation, and when it
> arose, they would also avoid giving them a name that would be just as
> big a giveaway. Science fiction authors would either settle for making
> up a new pronoun (which was always annoying) or would go ahead and call
> something that wasn't a man, a man. Or rarely a woman.
>
> But that's a big pile of "so what?". The leap from "unspecified person"
> to "specified person of unspecified/absent gender" is not a big one.
> It's the natural development of language as opposed to all the attempts
> to make up new pronouns which have inevitably failed to gain traction. -
> The argument that using a plural pronoun to refer to a singular
> individual is a grammatical error in English is an automatic fail.

Thus appears to be Proof By Vigorous Assertion. I find the use of plural
pronouns to refer to singular individuals ugly and broken. We should do
better.

Pt

On 4/29/22 6:24 PM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 5:09:48 PM UTC-4, 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?
>
> Prior to recent years, yes, that would be a sign of an ungrammatical idiot.
>
> However (and it's the point of this sub thread) there is now a small vocal minority
> of 'non-binary' people who don't want to be referred to with gendered pronouns.
> One of the alternatives they request is 'they/them'.
>
> This is a new usage of the words. Older uses only exist when the person(s) being
> referred to are hypothetical, unidentified, or indeterminate in number.
>
> Old use: 'Someone left a cigarette butt. They smoked Marlboros'.
>
> New use: 'Marion called. They want to set up a game of chess with you.'
>
> Pt

Yes. And, even though I no longer know exactly how the topic started in
*this* thread, I know that *one* of the claims some people make in
heated discussions of this new issue is that the singular "they" is a
neologism and grammatical abomination *in general*, not just in the new
usage. Any my (and others') point is that no, it is *not* a neologism
.... it has been continuously used for at least 400 years.

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

On 2022-04-29 8:40 p.m., pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 10:04:59 PM UTC-4, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 2022-04-24 11:00 p.m., 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).
>>>
>> It is probably true that we can't find a named and specified individual
>> being called "they". Back then if a person personally knew a person and
>> still called them "them" it would be in a deliberate attempt not to
>> specify that they are a woman and that was a rare situation, and when it
>> arose, they would also avoid giving them a name that would be just as
>> big a giveaway. Science fiction authors would either settle for making
>> up a new pronoun (which was always annoying) or would go ahead and call
>> something that wasn't a man, a man. Or rarely a woman.
>>
>> But that's a big pile of "so what?". The leap from "unspecified person"
>> to "specified person of unspecified/absent gender" is not a big one.
>> It's the natural development of language as opposed to all the attempts
>> to make up new pronouns which have inevitably failed to gain traction. -
>> The argument that using a plural pronoun to refer to a singular
>> individual is a grammatical error in English is an automatic fail.
>
> Thus appears to be Proof By Vigorous Assertion. I find the use of plural
> pronouns to refer to singular individuals ugly and broken. We should do
> better.

So what's your proposed substitute for "you" and how are you going to
get people to use it? There aren't many attempts to prescribe "logical"
speech that accomplish anything.

On 4/29/22 6:24 PM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 5:09:48 PM UTC-4, 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?

My remark is OT, but related: I made a terrible faux pas in Bali by
using a genderless interrogative pronoun when a gendered one was
required. In Indonesian you say "WHAT is the name" of an inanimate
object, but "WHO is the name" of a person. Arriving at the airport
after a 36-hour flight I asked the taxi driver (in Indonesian) WHAT his
name was. Despite being very used to tourists whose Indonesian is
completely inadequate, he actually got quite irked.

>> They’re an idiot?
>
> Prior to recent years, yes, that would be a sign of an ungrammatical idiot.
>
> However (and it's the point of this sub thread) there is now a small vocal minority
> of 'non-binary' people who don't want to be referred to with gendered pronouns.
> One of the alternatives they request is 'they/them'.
>
> This is a new usage of the words. Older uses only exist when the person(s) being
> referred to are hypothetical, unidentified, or indeterminate in number.
>
> Old use: 'Someone left a cigarette butt. They smoked Marlboros'.
>
> New use: 'Marion called. They want to set up a game of chess with you.'
>
> Pt

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

On 4/29/22 7:04 PM, David Johnston wrote:

> On 2022-04-24 11:00 p.m., Robert Woodward wrote:
>
>> In article <356cf0c5-8255-4326-94a7-47dd155be5b1n@googlegroups.com>,
>>   Dudley Brooks <dudleybrooks@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).
>
> It is probably true that we can't find a named and specified individual
> being called "they".  Back then if a person personally knew a person and
> still called them "them" it would be in a deliberate attempt not to
> specify that they are a woman and that was a rare situation, and when it
> arose, they would also avoid giving them a name that would be just as
> big a giveaway.  Science fiction authors would either settle for making
> up a new pronoun (which was always annoying) or would go ahead and call
> something that wasn't a man, a man.  Or rarely a woman.
>
> But that's a big pile of "so what?".  The leap from "unspecified person"
> to "specified person of unspecified/absent gender" is not a big one.
> It's the natural development of language as opposed to all the attempts
> to make up new pronouns which have inevitably failed to gain traction. -
> The argument that using a plural pronoun to refer to a singular
> individual is a grammatical error in English is an automatic fail.

Amen!

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

On 4/29/22 7:40 PM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 10:04:59 PM UTC-4, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 2022-04-24 11:00 p.m., 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).
>>>
>> It is probably true that we can't find a named and specified individual
>> being called "they". Back then if a person personally knew a person and
>> still called them "them" it would be in a deliberate attempt not to
>> specify that they are a woman and that was a rare situation, and when it
>> arose, they would also avoid giving them a name that would be just as
>> big a giveaway. Science fiction authors would either settle for making
>> up a new pronoun (which was always annoying) or would go ahead and call
>> something that wasn't a man, a man. Or rarely a woman.
>>
>> But that's a big pile of "so what?". The leap from "unspecified person"
>> to "specified person of unspecified/absent gender" is not a big one.
>> It's the natural development of language as opposed to all the attempts
>> to make up new pronouns which have inevitably failed to gain traction. -
>> The argument that using a plural pronoun to refer to a singular
>> individual is a grammatical error in English is an automatic fail.
>
> Thus appears to be Proof By Vigorous Assertion. I find the use of plural
> pronouns to refer to singular individuals ugly and broken. We should do
> better.

And what about Proof by Numerous Examples? Namely, Shakespeare, Jane
Austen, etc., etc., etc. did not find it ugly and broken.

> Pt

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

On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 01:27:57 +1000, "Gary R. Schmidt"
<grschmidt@acm.org> wrote:

>> 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.

Marian was my father in law's name but then he was born in Poland
where that is their form of 'Martin'

On 30/04/2022 05:59, Wolffan wrote:
> 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.
>
> how about Claire, Carroll, Jean, or Andrea?
>
>
All girls - or a recent immigrant.

On 30/04/2022 08:24, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <koctji-rfm.ln1@paranoia.mcleod-schmidt.id.au>,
> Gary R. Schmidt <grschmidt@acm.org> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> The referenced male Marion made his living as John Wayne.
>
Oh, I was aware of that, but it's not a bloke's name here!

pete...@gmail.com <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I find the use of plural
> pronouns to refer to singular individuals ugly and broken.

Well, thou'rt wrong.

--
Leif Roar Moldskred

In article <bc8240cf-7667-465c-b756-43532c9bcdb0n@googlegroups.com>,
"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.

On 30/04/2022 14:26, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 01:27:57 +1000, "Gary R. Schmidt"
> <grschmidt@acm.org> wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> Marian was my father in law's name but then he was born in Poland
> where that is their form of 'Martin'

That's the only male I've known in Oz with that name was also Polish,
Marian Maj, he was lecturer in Mech. Eng. at Swinburne, I went to school
with his oldest son.

Cheers,
Gary B-)

On Saturday, 30 April 2022 at 00:02:04 UTC+1, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <a6a5cc8b-c48e-4d19...@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >
> >Perhaps someone can say if _Why Didn't They Ask Evans?_,
> >the book, is a counter-example. I doubt it.
>
> I just looked it up. It's a case of personation and "they" is
> (or are), plural, being two witnesses to a fake deathbed scene.
> "Evans" was the female, singular parlourmaid who was either
> herself deceived or in on the fraud.

Or something like that... Wikipedia describes the plot,
but I couldn't repeat it.

What I meant, but I think we have to read the book to see,
is whether Evans, whose identity is unknown to the
amateur detectives, is another "they". Or is assumed to
be "he", for instance.

> The line that became the title was some passer-by whom Christie
> didn't know, but used the phrase to his (I think) companion, whom
> Christie didn't know either, but was intrigued enough to give it
> a context in a murder mystery, which is what she did.

Mmm.

On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 12:29:09 AM UTC-4, grschm...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 30/04/2022 05:59, Wolffan wrote:
> > On 29 Apr 2022, Gary R. Schmidt wrote
> > (in article<koctji-...@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.
> >
> > how about Claire, Carroll, Jean, or Andrea?
> >
> >
> All girls - or a recent immigrant.
>
> I've met male Jean's and Andrea's, but they were all European first.
>
> Some became John or Andy or something completely different after a
> while, but not all.
>
> Cheers,
> Gary B-)

On 30/04/2022 09.27, John Halpenny wrote:
> On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 12:29:09 AM UTC-4, grschm...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 30/04/2022 05:59, Wolffan wrote:

>> I've met male Jean's and Andrea's, but they were all European first.
>>
>> Some became John or Andy or something completely different after a
>> while, but not all.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Gary B-)
>
> Jean is probably the most common man's name in Quebec. It is often modified, as in Jean-Phillipe or Jean-Luc.
>
> John ( the English version of Jean)

In John Christopher's Tripods series:
<http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pe.cgi?3098>

The narrator is fleeing occupied England, heading towards
Switzerland. As he's crossing France, he meets a French kid
who joins him. The French kid is named "Jean-Paul", which
the narrator pronounces "Bean-Pole". The only problem with
that is they didn't introduce themselves by exchanging calling
cards, so the narrator never saw the other kid's name in
written form, he only heard it. As far as I know, a
Francophone would pronounce "Jean" to rhyme with the English
name "John".

--
Michael F. Stemper
This sentence no verb.

On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 20:17:58 -0700, Dudley Brooks
<dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:

>On 4/29/22 7:40 PM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 10:04:59 PM UTC-4, David Johnston wrote:
>>> On 2022-04-24 11:00 p.m., 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).
>>>>
>>> It is probably true that we can't find a named and specified individual
>>> being called "they". Back then if a person personally knew a person and
>>> still called them "them" it would be in a deliberate attempt not to
>>> specify that they are a woman and that was a rare situation, and when it
>>> arose, they would also avoid giving them a name that would be just as
>>> big a giveaway. Science fiction authors would either settle for making
>>> up a new pronoun (which was always annoying) or would go ahead and call
>>> something that wasn't a man, a man. Or rarely a woman.
>>>
>>> But that's a big pile of "so what?". The leap from "unspecified person"
>>> to "specified person of unspecified/absent gender" is not a big one.
>>> It's the natural development of language as opposed to all the attempts
>>> to make up new pronouns which have inevitably failed to gain traction. -
>>> The argument that using a plural pronoun to refer to a singular
>>> individual is a grammatical error in English is an automatic fail.
>>
>> Thus appears to be Proof By Vigorous Assertion. I find the use of plural
>> pronouns to refer to singular individuals ugly and broken. We should do
>> better.
>
>And what about Proof by Numerous Examples? Namely, Shakespeare, Jane
>Austen, etc., etc., etc. did not find it ugly and broken.

Let's see some quotes from "Shakespeare, Jane Austen, etc., etc.,
etc." showing a single /named/ individual referred to as "they".

They didn't find it ugly and broken because /they never encountered
it/.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 11:18:03 PM UTC-4, Dudley Brooks wrote:
> On 4/29/22 7:40 PM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 10:04:59 PM UTC-4, David Johnston wrote:
> >> On 2022-04-24 11:00 p.m., 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).
> >>>
> >> It is probably true that we can't find a named and specified individual
> >> being called "they". Back then if a person personally knew a person and
> >> still called them "them" it would be in a deliberate attempt not to
> >> specify that they are a woman and that was a rare situation, and when it
> >> arose, they would also avoid giving them a name that would be just as
> >> big a giveaway. Science fiction authors would either settle for making
> >> up a new pronoun (which was always annoying) or would go ahead and call
> >> something that wasn't a man, a man. Or rarely a woman.
> >>
> >> But that's a big pile of "so what?". The leap from "unspecified person"
> >> to "specified person of unspecified/absent gender" is not a big one.
> >> It's the natural development of language as opposed to all the attempts
> >> to make up new pronouns which have inevitably failed to gain traction. -
> >> The argument that using a plural pronoun to refer to a singular
> >> individual is a grammatical error in English is an automatic fail.
> >
> > Thus appears to be Proof By Vigorous Assertion. I find the use of plural
> > pronouns to refer to singular individuals ugly and broken. We should do
> > better.
> And what about Proof by Numerous Examples? Namely, Shakespeare, Jane
> Austen, etc., etc., etc. did not find it ugly and broken.

I see that we're addressing two separate questions.

1. Can you produce examples where an individual known to the speaker is referred to
as 'them' or 'they'? I don't think you can, except in special circumstances.

2. There are plenty of examples where the terms are used for a singular unknown
or hypothetical person. I find that use infelicitous, since the number is ambiguous.
I wish we had an agreed singular ungendered pronoun.

Pt