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'.

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.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."