On Friday, December 29, 2023 at 9:18:11 AM UTC-5, James Nicoll wrote:
Off-Time Jive by A. Z. Louise
A traumatized sorcerer is hired to find a missing person. They
find a trail of corpses instead, in what might very well be their
final case.
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/room-without-a-roof
--
"They" for the investigating duo, or is this some version of
"singular they" your review doesn't mention?
In article <3c457b2e-d280-4d6f-af46-9dd7981951dcn@googlegroups.com>,
Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
On Friday, December 29, 2023 at 9:18:11 AM UTC-5, James Nicoll wrote:
Off-Time Jive by A. Z. Louise
A traumatized sorcerer is hired to find a missing person. They
find a trail of corpses instead, in what might very well be their
final case.
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/room-without-a-roof
--
"They" for the investigating duo, or is this some version of
"singular they" your review doesn't mention?
Just a singular they for no reason. Singular they have hundreds
of years of use.
In article <3c457b2e-d280-4d6f-af46-9dd7981951dcn@googlegroups.com>,
Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
On Friday, December 29, 2023 at 9:18:11 AM UTC-5, James Nicoll wrote:
Off-Time Jive by A. Z. Louise
A traumatized sorcerer is hired to find a missing person. They
find a trail of corpses instead, in what might very well be their
final case.
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/room-without-a-roof
--
"They" for the investigating duo, or is this some version of
"singular they" your review doesn't mention?
Just a singular they for no reason. Singular they have hundreds
of years of use.
On Saturday 30 December 2023 at 16:47:18 UTC, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 22:22:12 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
Nicoll) wrote:
In article <3c457b2e-d280-4d6f...@googlegroups.com>,Perhaps, in the future, you should specify this, at least when you
Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
On Friday, December 29, 2023 at 9:18:11 AM UTC-5, James Nicoll wrote: >> >>> Off-Time Jive by A. Z. Louise
A traumatized sorcerer is hired to find a missing person. They
find a trail of corpses instead, in what might very well be their
final case.
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/room-without-a-roof
--
"They" for the investigating duo, or is this some version of
"singular they" your review doesn't mention?
Just a singular they for no reason. Singular they have hundreds
of years of use.
have two people it could refer to (the sorceror and the employer).
Also, if "they" is singular, shouldn't the verb be "finds"?
No.
Again, this has stood for centuries.
Singular they have hundreds
of years of use.
On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 22:22:12 -0000 (UTC), jdnicoll@panix.com (James
Nicoll) wrote:
Singular they have hundreds
of years of use.
But it's only recently that it became necessary to shoehorn singular
"they" into every sentence.
On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 11:35:37?AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 15:05:52 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
On Saturday 30 December 2023 at 16:47:18 UTC, Paul S Person wrote:Then there is no "singular" they.
On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 22:22:12 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
Nicoll) wrote:
In article <3c457b2e-d280-4d6f...@googlegroups.com>,Perhaps, in the future, you should specify this, at least when you
Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
On Friday, December 29, 2023 at 9:18:11 AM UTC-5, James Nicoll wrote:
Off-Time Jive by A. Z. Louise
A traumatized sorcerer is hired to find a missing person. They
find a trail of corpses instead, in what might very well be their
final case.
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/room-without-a-roof
--
"They" for the investigating duo, or is this some version of
"singular they" your review doesn't mention?
Just a singular they for no reason. Singular they have hundreds
of years of use.
have two people it could refer to (the sorceror and the employer).
Also, if "they" is singular, shouldn't the verb be "finds"?
No.
Again, this has stood for centuries.
Subject and verb are required to agree in English. Plural verb ==
plural subject, and vice-versa.
There may, indeed, be a "they" that is used when gender is unclear.
But it is still plural if it takes a plural verb. IIRC, "it" is used
of babies and young children for much the same reason. And it actually
/is/ singular.
And the idea that /any/ pronoun has a history of referring to
non-binary individuals from the 14th century on is ... ludicrous.
This doesn't mean that "they" cannot be used as a singular pronoun.
But it should be used with singular verbs.
'They' has a long history as a singular pronoun, but the current clamor
to use it for non-binary persons misconstrues that use.
In the past it was always used in an indefinite sense, to indicate that
we don't know (or care) about the gender of the person referred to. If
we do know, or can reasonably infer, the person's gender, until very
recently everyone used the correct gendered pronoun.
"The driver should know that they need to fasten their seatbelt" is >perfectly acceptable.
"Your father should know that they need to fasten their seatbelt" is
weird and non-standard. The normal formation would be "Your father
should know that he needs to fasten his seatbelt".
In article <0e84pi52bm2t12qnqudutoftmap90sqek2@4ax.com>,
Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 22:22:12 -0000 (UTC), jdnicoll@panix.com (James
Nicoll) wrote:
Singular they have hundreds
of years of use.
But it's only recently that it became necessary to shoehorn singular
"they" into every sentence.
I didn't shoe horn it into this sentence. Or this one. As trivially >disproven claims go, that's pretty easily shown not to be the case. Oh, two >more sentences that don't follow the model, including this sentence.
On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 22:22:12 -0000 (UTC), jdnicoll@panix.com (James
Nicoll) wrote:
Singular they have hundreds
of years of use.
But it's only recently that it became necessary to shoehorn singular
"they" into every sentence.
On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 12:15:20?PM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 09:33:29 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
<pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 11:35:37?AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:This is because it could be expressed as:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 15:05:52 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
On Saturday 30 December 2023 at 16:47:18 UTC, Paul S Person wrote:Then there is no "singular" they.
On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 22:22:12 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
Nicoll) wrote:
In article <3c457b2e-d280-4d6f...@googlegroups.com>,Perhaps, in the future, you should specify this, at least when you
Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
On Friday, December 29, 2023 at 9:18:11 AM UTC-5, James Nicoll wrote:
Off-Time Jive by A. Z. Louise
A traumatized sorcerer is hired to find a missing person. They
find a trail of corpses instead, in what might very well be their >> >> >> >>> final case.
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/room-without-a-roof
--
"They" for the investigating duo, or is this some version of
"singular they" your review doesn't mention?
Just a singular they for no reason. Singular they have hundreds
of years of use.
have two people it could refer to (the sorceror and the employer).
Also, if "they" is singular, shouldn't the verb be "finds"?
No.
Again, this has stood for centuries.
Subject and verb are required to agree in English. Plural verb ==
plural subject, and vice-versa.
There may, indeed, be a "they" that is used when gender is unclear.
But it is still plural if it takes a plural verb. IIRC, "it" is used
of babies and young children for much the same reason. And it actually >> >> /is/ singular.
And the idea that /any/ pronoun has a history of referring to
non-binary individuals from the 14th century on is ... ludicrous.
This doesn't mean that "they" cannot be used as a singular pronoun.
But it should be used with singular verbs.
'They' has a long history as a singular pronoun, but the current clamor
to use it for non-binary persons misconstrues that use.
In the past it was always used in an indefinite sense, to indicate that
we don't know (or care) about the gender of the person referred to. If
we do know, or can reasonably infer, the person's gender, until very
recently everyone used the correct gendered pronoun.
"The driver should know that they need to fasten their seatbelt" is
perfectly acceptable.
"The driver should know that all drivers need to fasten their
seatbelt".
or
"The driver should know that drivers need to fasten their seatbelt".
that all drivers are meant being understood.
The so-called "singular they" here actually has /drivers in general/,
not a specific driver, as its antecedent. That it why it takes a
plural verb.
This article is very interesting:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/singular-nonbinary-they
in part because the abstract on Bing (shown here in full) caught my
eye:
"In the 17th century, English laws concerning inheritance sometimes
referred to people who didn’t fit a gender binary using the pronoun
it, which, while dehumanizing, was conceived of as being the most
grammatically fit answer to gendered pronouns around then."
Interesting!
I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that 'it' in this case referred to hypothetical >future person(s) whose gender was as yet indeterminate, such as:
'If my son has a child born before this will is executed, it shall inherit >1/4 of the estate."
On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 10:32:27 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 12:15:20?PM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 09:33:29 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
<pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 11:35:37?AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 15:05:52 -0800 (PST), Robert CarnegieThis is because it could be expressed as:
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
On Saturday 30 December 2023 at 16:47:18 UTC, Paul S Person wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 22:22:12 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James >>>>>>> Nicoll) wrote:Then there is no "singular" they.
In article <3c457b2e-d280-4d6f...@googlegroups.com>,Perhaps, in the future, you should specify this, at least when you >>>>>>> have two people it could refer to (the sorceror and the employer). >>>>>>>
Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
On Friday, December 29, 2023 at 9:18:11 AM UTC-5, James Nicoll wrote:
Off-Time Jive by A. Z. Louise
A traumatized sorcerer is hired to find a missing person. They >>>>>>>>>> find a trail of corpses instead, in what might very well be their >>>>>>>>>> final case.
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/room-without-a-roof
--
"They" for the investigating duo, or is this some version of >>>>>>>>> "singular they" your review doesn't mention?
Just a singular they for no reason. Singular they have hundreds >>>>>>>> of years of use.
Also, if "they" is singular, shouldn't the verb be "finds"?
No.
Again, this has stood for centuries.
Subject and verb are required to agree in English. Plural verb ==
plural subject, and vice-versa.
There may, indeed, be a "they" that is used when gender is unclear.
But it is still plural if it takes a plural verb. IIRC, "it" is used >>>>> of babies and young children for much the same reason. And it actually >>>>> /is/ singular.
And the idea that /any/ pronoun has a history of referring to
non-binary individuals from the 14th century on is ... ludicrous.
This doesn't mean that "they" cannot be used as a singular pronoun.
But it should be used with singular verbs.
'They' has a long history as a singular pronoun, but the current clamor >>>> to use it for non-binary persons misconstrues that use.
In the past it was always used in an indefinite sense, to indicate that >>>> we don't know (or care) about the gender of the person referred to. If >>>> we do know, or can reasonably infer, the person's gender, until very
recently everyone used the correct gendered pronoun.
"The driver should know that they need to fasten their seatbelt" is
perfectly acceptable.
"The driver should know that all drivers need to fasten their
seatbelt".
or
"The driver should know that drivers need to fasten their seatbelt".
that all drivers are meant being understood.
The so-called "singular they" here actually has /drivers in general/,
not a specific driver, as its antecedent. That it why it takes a
plural verb.
This article is very interesting:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/singular-nonbinary-they
in part because the abstract on Bing (shown here in full) caught my
eye:
"In the 17th century, English laws concerning inheritance sometimes
referred to people who didn’t fit a gender binary using the pronoun
it, which, while dehumanizing, was conceived of as being the most
grammatically fit answer to gendered pronouns around then."
Interesting!
I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that 'it' in this case referred to hypothetical
future person(s) whose gender was as yet indeterminate, such as:
'If my son has a child born before this will is executed, it shall inherit >> 1/4 of the estate."
That, AFAIK, is a standard useage for babies and small children.
Apparently, it caught my eye but my eye did not notice that the
pronoun used was "it" and not "they".
BTW, it has occurred to me that the singular "you" takes a plural
verb, so my assertions about singular "they" taking a singular verb
are hereby abandoned and withdrawn.
The point above about the allegedly-singular "they" actually referring
to a group of people rather than a single person still stands,
however.
On 1/2/2024 8:28 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 10:32:27 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 12:15:20?PM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 09:33:29 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
<pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 11:35:37?AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 15:05:52 -0800 (PST), Robert CarnegieThis is because it could be expressed as:
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
On Saturday 30 December 2023 at 16:47:18 UTC, Paul S Person wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 22:22:12 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James >>>>>>>> Nicoll) wrote:Then there is no "singular" they.
In article <3c457b2e-d280-4d6f...@googlegroups.com>,Perhaps, in the future, you should specify this, at least when you >>>>>>>> have two people it could refer to (the sorceror and the employer). >>>>>>>>
Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
On Friday, December 29, 2023 at 9:18:11 AM UTC-5, James Nicoll wrote:
Off-Time Jive by A. Z. Louise
A traumatized sorcerer is hired to find a missing person. They >>>>>>>>>>> find a trail of corpses instead, in what might very well be their >>>>>>>>>>> final case.
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/room-without-a-roof
--
"They" for the investigating duo, or is this some version of >>>>>>>>>> "singular they" your review doesn't mention?
Just a singular they for no reason. Singular they have hundreds >>>>>>>>> of years of use.
Also, if "they" is singular, shouldn't the verb be "finds"?
No.
Again, this has stood for centuries.
Subject and verb are required to agree in English. Plural verb ==
plural subject, and vice-versa.
There may, indeed, be a "they" that is used when gender is unclear. >>>>>> But it is still plural if it takes a plural verb. IIRC, "it" is used >>>>>> of babies and young children for much the same reason. And it actually >>>>>> /is/ singular.
And the idea that /any/ pronoun has a history of referring to
non-binary individuals from the 14th century on is ... ludicrous.
This doesn't mean that "they" cannot be used as a singular pronoun. >>>>>> But it should be used with singular verbs.
'They' has a long history as a singular pronoun, but the current clamor >>>>> to use it for non-binary persons misconstrues that use.
In the past it was always used in an indefinite sense, to indicate that >>>>> we don't know (or care) about the gender of the person referred to. If >>>>> we do know, or can reasonably infer, the person's gender, until very >>>>> recently everyone used the correct gendered pronoun.
"The driver should know that they need to fasten their seatbelt" is
perfectly acceptable.
"The driver should know that all drivers need to fasten their
seatbelt".
or
"The driver should know that drivers need to fasten their seatbelt".
that all drivers are meant being understood.
The so-called "singular they" here actually has /drivers in general/,
not a specific driver, as its antecedent. That it why it takes a
plural verb.
This article is very interesting:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/singular-nonbinary-they
in part because the abstract on Bing (shown here in full) caught my
eye:
"In the 17th century, English laws concerning inheritance sometimes
referred to people who didn’t fit a gender binary using the pronoun
it, which, while dehumanizing, was conceived of as being the most
grammatically fit answer to gendered pronouns around then."
Interesting!
I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that 'it' in this case referred to hypothetical
future person(s) whose gender was as yet indeterminate, such as:
'If my son has a child born before this will is executed, it shall inherit >>> 1/4 of the estate."
That, AFAIK, is a standard useage for babies and small children.
Apparently, it caught my eye but my eye did not notice that the
pronoun used was "it" and not "they".
BTW, it has occurred to me that the singular "you" takes a plural
verb, so my assertions about singular "they" taking a singular verb
are hereby abandoned and withdrawn.
The point above about the allegedly-singular "they" actually referring
to a group of people rather than a single person still stands,
however.
IF you really want to get into kids in this regard, there are/were any >number of cultures that didn't even _name_ their children until they
were a few years old. (Mostly because of infant mortality rates I think
but still.)
And "das Kind" is neuter in German.
This isn't exactly unique to English.
On Monday 1 January 2024 at 17:19:43 UTC, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 21:22:57 -0500, Joy Beeson
<jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 22:22:12 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
Nicoll) wrote:
Singular they have hundreds
of years of use.
But it's only recently that it became necessary to shoehorn singular
"they" into every sentence.
Except that, since it takes a plural verb, it is, in fact, plural.
I say that in this case, the verb is agreeing with the
pronoun, but that does not make the verb plural.
It may be more helpful to mention that I've just had
an online argument against Quora Prompt Generator
about people who wish you "Happy New Years", than
to bring up the enchantment written on the hammer
Mjolnir - in English - which, if I'm justified in taking this
from <https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Mjolnir>, said
in 1962, "Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy,
shall possess the power of Thor." But before or after
a female character received the hammer to wield for
a while, it changed from "he" to "she", and subsequently
to "they". However, apparently that coincided with
many other people being treated as "worthy".
Apparently the hammer itself chooses people.
And maybe these days it prefers a more general
pronoun for its companion.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 07:13:39 |
| Calls: | 10,386 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,058 |
| Messages: | 6,416,640 |