Timeline for Was "their" a singular pronoun in English before the 16th century?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 10, 2022 at 14:13 | vote | accept | Astor Florida | ||
| Oct 27, 2021 at 19:46 | comment | added | kaya3 | @fredsbend Not sure exactly what point you're trying to make here - you seem to be saying that in general on skeptics.SE, subject-matter experts should only be cited when their publishers agree with them. If subject-matter experts' opinions get deleted on this site simply because of the venue they're published in, doesn't that strike you as a bad policy for truth-seekers? By the way, you described this as an "unsourced opinion piece" but I read it and saw plenty of references to sources. | |
| Oct 27, 2021 at 19:33 | comment | added | user11643 | @kaya3 See how far that gets you if you quote an NYP or WaPo op-ed here. It'll get deleted quick. We're being soft here because it's a touchy subject. | |
| Oct 27, 2021 at 16:48 | comment | added | kaya3 | @fredsbend OUP are a publisher, it hardly matters whether they endorse what they publish, since they aren't the subject-matter experts in this instance. If a professor writes something about their own area of expertise then it shouldn't matter whether the publisher agrees with them. | |
| Oct 24, 2021 at 14:47 | history | notice removed | user11643 | ||
| Oct 24, 2021 at 14:46 | comment | added | user11643 | After reviewing your update, I'm removing the notice. To improve this answer, I would move the last half beginning "As for how common it was", to the top. The claim-heavy and unsourced blog post is really quite a poor citation. Your update actually attempts to answer the question, instead of just repeats the claim. | |
| Oct 23, 2021 at 18:11 | comment | added | Just Some Old Man | @axsvl77 Can you point out in the article evidence for “their” being used commonly for the singular before 1500 (the 16th century)? | |
| Oct 23, 2021 at 8:44 | comment | added | Astor Florida | @Laurel The article " Androcentrism in Prescriptive Grammar" does it for me. That article seems to be a list of grammarians endorsing the Latinization of English; specifically they were trying to endorse the use of "he" instead of a variety of alternatives. Their efforts are an indication of usage; they would not have tried to proscribe something that didn't happen. | |
| Oct 23, 2021 at 4:32 | comment | added | user11643 | It's an unsourced opinion piece, and labeled as such. The problem is self evident. | |
| Oct 23, 2021 at 3:11 | comment | added | Laurel | @JustSomeOldMan (and others)... Please visit the links given in the answer, especially the first dictionary link to they. The quote given by the blog is the first (i.e. oldest) of several old sources that the OED explicitly lists out. | |
| Oct 23, 2021 at 3:06 | comment | added | Just Some Old Man | @Laurel The notice means precisely that you cannot conclude the OED agrees with what’s being said. That’s literally just what it means. The laurels of the writer are not relevant to the soundness of the reasoning present; believing otherwise is committing the argument by authority fallacy. | |
| Oct 23, 2021 at 3:06 | history | edited | Laurel | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1190 characters in body
|
| Oct 23, 2021 at 1:47 | comment | added | Laurel | @fredsbend I don't understand the notice and I don't see any problem here. The blog post was written by a "Professor of English and linguistics" and it serves as a nice quotable intro for the many examples given by the OED and MED, found in the links. The notice is boilerplate; clearly the OED/OUP does believe that's the first example, of the several that they offer. | |
| Oct 23, 2021 at 1:09 | history | notice added | user11643 | Needs citation | |
| Oct 23, 2021 at 1:09 | comment | added | user11643 | Oh boy, big problem. At the bottom of that blog post, which contains many big and unsourced claims, is the following disclaimer: "The opinions and other information contained in the OED blog posts and comments do not necessarily reflect the opinions or positions of Oxford University Press." You've not actually quoted the OUP! | |
| Oct 23, 2021 at 0:56 | comment | added | user11643 | I kind of quibble with "each" preceding the "they". Yes, technically singular, but the topic clearly is "a group". Anyway, the larger issue is that what you're quoting is the oldest known instance, which is not evidence of its commonplace use. I find it odd the quote itself is making the bold claim of commonplace use based solely on oldest known instance. So I won't downvote you, since they aren't your words. | |
| Oct 22, 2021 at 23:36 | comment | added | Just Some Old Man | “Since forms may exist in speech long before they’re written down, it’s likely that singular they was common even before the late fourteenth century. That makes an old form even older.” This is more than a stretch; it seems like desperation to reach a desired conclusion. A few instances being pointed out is not enough to conclude it was common. | |
| Oct 22, 2021 at 22:30 | comment | added | days of love iff good genes | Hardly my area of expertise, but "they drew near" could have meant "they" as a group in that context, IMHO. Besides, the translation was apparently terrible. bartleby.com/211/1303.html | |
| Oct 22, 2021 at 21:34 | history | answered | Laurel | CC BY-SA 4.0 |