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.

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