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?