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.

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-)