Archives
11:28:00 AM EDT
Hearing My dog snoring. Yes, she snores. It's cute!
What They Said
Grammarians, and those who would like to strangle them, will get a kick out of this article about the "singular they" -- that is, when you use the word like this: "Someone left the audience. They didn't like show." The article traces the history of the singular "they," notes some of its famous users (including Shakespeare and Whitman) and explains how such a useful pronoun was exiled to the margins of polite grammarian society.
I'm personally all for the rehabilitation of the singular "they." Like everyone else in the English-speaking world, I use the singular "they" in speech without giving it a second thought; in written language I'm pretty slapdash about it. In personal writing (or if I'm writing dialogue), I'll use when I feel the need, but in more formal writing -- or if I'm getting paid to write -- I'll avoid its use.
But the alternatives are usually awkward: They usually involve recasting a sentence to avoid pronoun use, or using "he or she," or creating irritating PC pronouns or otherwise bending over backwards just because some idiot grammarian at some point in the past decided it was a no-no, and everyone else went along. He or she should be shot.
English is such a morass of pointless grammatical proscriptions that it's a miracle anyone learns to write or speak it correctly at all. The spoken-word tug toward simplifiying the language is fiercely resisted by grammarians everywhere -- apprently if you don't know your "who" from your "whom," Western Civilization will dangle upon the precipice. I'll admit as a working writer there is some pleasure in having internalized most of the arcane details of English grammar and usage; it's like being part of an exclusive and slightly anal secret society. But I'm also pretty pragmatic about words -- them's what I use for me job -- and I think using the singular "they" in polite written society will not cause hoi polloi to rampage anarchically through the streets, looting TVs and burning mountainous piles of the Chicago Manual of Style.
And if they do? Well, we still have "who" and "whom" with which to beat them back. Yes, it's our secret grammatical weapon. Shhh. Tell no one. Who knows what they would do with the information.
Written by johnmscalzi Blog about this entry |
Add to del.icio.us | 
digg this
-
My somewhat off-topic response:
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm bcuseae we dno't raed erveylteter by itslef but the wrod as a wlohe.
I guess this e-mail (of the above) has been making the rounds, but isn't it interesting to note how easily you could read it? -
Insistence on the use of "they" calls for a frozen style. Language is too dynamic to bear such cold immobility. Besides "they" sounds so much better than so many other alternatives, like the screechy "he or she," or the humorous attempts at generating a new word, such as the scatalogical "s/he-it."
-
in fact, thanks for the whole site. i'm going to
subscribe to this wonderful magazine. -
okay, tell me again, WHY are all those
plus signs in my comment?
9/25/03 12:30 PM
http://journals.aol.com/johnm