Seriously thoughtful English (or US) grammar

[Sweetpea]

I noticed something this morning.

I opened my google talk application and saw this message:

"person x is offline. You can still send this person messages and they will receive them the next time they are online."

I noticed this before. You know you're talking about 1 person (the sentence starts with that even) and yet, the sentence ends with a plural. Why is that?

I find it looks very weird...

[Filark]

Is "they" better or worse than "he/she", or just "he", or just "she"?

All the unknown-gender options bug me.

[HarryT]

I don't like it either, but it's common. "They" has come to be used as a "gender neutral" singular pronoun, because "he" is regarded as sexist, and "he or she" looks awkward.

[TGS]

It's not a plural - it's just gender indeterminate. If I was to say something like, "If the person who stole my pencil returns it by midday they will not be punished", there would appear to be nothing wrong with it. If I have no reason to believe that the culprit is one gender rather than another it would seem to be the best thing to say. As for Google, I would have thought they did know the gender of "person x", so it just seems like laziness.

[afa]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

"person x is offline. You can still send this person messages and they will receive them the next time they are online."

I think it's easier. Rather than having customised messages, they just have one standard, and the only thing that changes is the "person x".

So even if you were writing to multiple people, the message would still hold.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by TGS

It's not a plural - it's just gender indeterminate. If I was to say something like, "If the person who stole my pencil returns it by midday they will not be punished", there would appear to be nothing wrong with it. If I have no reason to believe that the culprit is one gender rather than another it would seem to be the best thing to say.

Thanks...

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't like it either, but it's common. "They" has come to be used as a "gender neutral" singular pronoun, because "he" is regarded as sexist, and "he or she" looks awkward.

I find this looking weird! And I doubt it's something I could get used to... I'll stick to my (s)he

[Falcao]

The following is (more or less)

Most Spanish nouns have gender. Thus, you can translate "friend" as "amigo" if it is a male friend or as "amiga" if it is a female friend. Plural nouns are the same, so you can talk about "amigos" or "amigas". But there is a catch. If among the group of female friends one has a male friend, then the plural is "amigos" like if all the friends were males.

Moreover, in Spanish there is a hint of machismo. We don't have a neuter term like "siblings", we talk about "brothers", even if there is one brother and five sisters. We don't have a term like "children", we say "sons". We don't have a term like "parents", we say "fathers". And so on.

We Mexicans like to copy trends from Americans, and political-correctness is not an exception. Now, some people talk about "amigos y amigas" instead of just "amigos". Since this is more cumbersome than the English "he/she", using the "@", like in "amig@s", is becoming more common.

In conclusion, I can understand the use of "they" instead of "he/she". Although I prefer some less confusing term like "s/he" or something similar.



I step down from the soda box.

[Nyssa]

I also prefer "(s)he", but find myself using either "they" or "he/she". I also use "him/her" or "them".

[SameOldStory]

I'm more likely to use s/he (she or he), but I think that "they" is acceptable nowadays.

"English" is a boiling caldron of many languages. I recall reading, somewhere, that Spanish readers can still read El ingenioso hidalgo don Quijote de la Mancha (15th century) or El Cantar de Mío Cid (12th century).

Anyone want to try 14th Century English? In modern type it's do-able, but in the script of the time I think very few would be able to read it.

"& he openynge his mowthe techinge hem, seyenge, Blessyd be pore in speryte, for here is the rewme of heuenes. Blessyd be the mylde, for thei schal haue the lond of lyf. Blessyd be thei that waylen, for thei schal be comfortyd. Blessyd be thei that hungren and thrusten ryghtwysnys, for thei schal be fulfyllyd. Blessyd be mercyful men, for thei schal swe mercy. Blessyd be men of clene herte, for thei schal se God. Blessyd be pesyble men, for thei schal be cleped Godes chyldren...."

Those who have learned to spell relief - Rolaids might have a small problem reading it.

txt msg ma b the end of enlsh u thnk 2?

[The Terminator]

"person x is offline. You can still send Her/Him a messages and He/She will receive them the next time He/She is online."

Does that look any better?

I personally like "They" better than "Him/Her" "He/She"

[Falcao]

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

"English" is a boiling caldron of many languages. I recall reading, somewhere, that Spanish readers can still read El ingenioso hidalgo don Quijote de la Mancha (15th century) or El Cantar de Mío Cid (12th century).

Your are right about the Quijote (17th century). It can be read in its original language although it can be somewhat dense. Thus, some editions offer a "modernized" version. This is because the Spanish language passed by an extensive spelling reform in the 18th century.

The Mio Cid is a different beast. It is written in a language much closer to Latin than modern Spanish. I can read some stanzas, always with a glossary at hand. Most editions I have seen of the Cid are either in modern Spanish or has extensive use of notes.

There is a nice article on the Spanish wikipedia about Spanish orthography.

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

txt msg ma b the end of enlsh u thnk 2?

The problem I see with English language is the lack of a regulatory body like the Royal Spanish Academy is for Spanish.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Falcao

The problem I see with English language is the lack of a regulatory body like the Royal Spanish Academy is for Spanish.

Why should it be a problem that there is no officially sanctioned language police? (Although there are plenty of self-appointed ones).

[Nyssa]

Originally Posted by TGS

Why should it be a problem that there is no officially sanctioned language police? (Although there are plenty of self-appointed ones).

Knowledge can save the world! We've had enough stupid people mess it up. Communication is a key, and how can one communicate properly without a proper command of language, especially their own?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

I'm more likely to use s/he (she or he), but I think that "they" is acceptable nowadays.

"English" is a boiling caldron of many languages. I recall reading, somewhere, that Spanish readers can still read El ingenioso hidalgo don Quijote de la Mancha (15th century) or El Cantar de Mío Cid (12th century).

Anyone want to try 14th Century English? In modern type it's do-able, but in the script of the time I think very few would be able to read it.

"& he openynge his mowthe techinge hem, seyenge, Blessyd be pore in speryte, for here is the rewme of heuenes. Blessyd be the mylde, for thei schal haue the lond of lyf. Blessyd be thei that waylen, for thei schal be comfortyd. Blessyd be thei that hungren and thrusten ryghtwysnys, for thei schal be fulfyllyd. Blessyd be mercyful men, for thei schal swe mercy. Blessyd be men of clene herte, for thei schal se God. Blessyd be pesyble men, for thei schal be cleped Godes chyldren...."

English has, however, gone through very few grammar changes since the 14th century (although there have been a few - eg Shakespeare wouldn't have known what the continuous present was). The above is hard for us to read primarily because it dates from before the introduction of Chancery Standard English in the mid 15th century, which set a standard for English usage and spelling.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Nyssa

Knowledge can save the world! We've had enough stupid people mess it up. Communication is a key, and how can one communicate properly without a proper command of language, especially their own?

For most of the history of human languages there were no national academies and language seems to have developed quite well. The purpose of the institutions of the type you mention seems to be to ossify language at a particular stage of development - usually one that reflects the interests of the powerful in society at a particular stage in history. None of which has got anything to do with knowledge acquisition, development and dissemination.