I think they will soon enter the “rule” books due to common usage. It’s convenient, popular and non-discriminatory. But then I have a strictly descriptivist approach to grammar (though not spelling).
You’re right, Goo. Sometimes you can rephrase it so that no pronoun is necessary. At least until istara’s prediction comes true, it will be a valuable skill to be able to rewrite these sentences, so keep it up. But try writing a huge essay like that, and you’ll realize how tedious it is. My point is that the lack of this word is more trouble than it’s worth.
But I think I came up with an example that’ll be very difficult to rephrase without changing the meaning:
I think your doctor acted unprofessionally; he/she should not have called his/her bookie from his/her office while a patient was waiting to see him/her. He/she is a doctor, after all.
Hey Achernar, sorry if I came across as if I was nitpicking or being obtuse. I didn’t mean that. I agree with your point that it would be handy to have a non-gender word to cover the weird situations.
I have recently been in trouble for calling a baby an “it” and so was trying to make the point that if you can say “it’s a boy” why can’t I say “it” to refer to the baby, when the gender is unsure. I do agree 100% with your argument, I was just trying to refight an old argument, I think. Truce ? 
BTW, in your example I’d revert to the grammatically incorrect “they”. I agree, we need a new word !
I like Dtilque’s take. I’m as anal a grammarian as anyone, but lately I have given up on a couple of things, including the topic. I use “they” as a singular pronoun, and I use “themself” as its reflexive. Every English writer needs this device nowadays for the sake of their own survival and sanity. (I also gave up on hopefully.)
Linguist Steven Pinker makes an excellent argument in favor of the singular “they” and “their,” coming to the conclusion that, “Since these are not real referential pronouns but only homonyms of them, there is no reason that the vernacular decision to borrow they, their, them for the task is any worse than the prescriptivists’ recommendation of he, him, his. Indeed, they has the advantage of embracing both sexes and feeling right in a wider variety of sentences.”
Strunk and White (as if there could be another source) recommends using he or she “as the logical thing to do if it works”. Other options are pluralizing the sentence, eliminating the pronoun if possible, or using the second person as a substitute.
I vote for using “they” for the objective pronoun, because it works.
As for gender neutral subject pronouns, I’ve seen student newspapers that used “he/she” or “she/he,” which made me want to flog the editors. And the use of “s/he” isn’t a solution since it is pronounced the same as “she,” and that seems like more of the same problem.
Then there is the situation where the sex is unknown, as in unborn babies, and the baby is referred to as “it.”
I’d like to propose that we use “s/he/it,” pronounced “shee-yit,” but I reckon with common usage it will get whittled down to one syllable.
cookeze
According to quantum physics, the person in question is in both the male and the female (and the neuter) states, so using “they” to refer to the person is scientifically accurate, not to mention that it sounds better than all the alternatives. I agree with everyone that language is fluid, and popular usage will prevail, making this usage grammatically correct over time.
Hmmm…They just had this same discussion at the Snopes MB. I made the point that the use of “they” as third-person singular is not without literary precedent and that, as many have been saying, the usage changes over time. I also made the point that I think a somewhat similar thing happened with the word “whose.”
According to American heritage
Purists would argue that “whose” cannot refer to inanimate objects. However, English at some point decided it didn’t have a good word for the possessive form of “which” and settled on whose.
I believe a similar thing is happening with the word “they” and its various forms. They’re slowly picking up a secondary meaning of genderless third-person singular. I personally like the usage of “they,” although I do cringe whenever I use it because I know somebody will try to point out the antecedent agreement error. So be it. For me it’s the most elegant solution, and “s/he” or “he/she” or “he or she” are just plain ugly, while alternating between “he” and “she” makes for dizzying prose and slows comprehension, in my opinion.
Of course, if I am writing academically or for professional publications, I avoid this usage, since it is still frowned upon by many people. In those cases, I recast into the plural, but that’s often cumbersome as well.
I guess time will tell how this argument settles. My guess is that “they” is already part of the way to acceptance.
I like “they” alright, but I think that all third-person singular pronouns should take the same type of verb. So if we have “she is” and “it is”, we should have “they is”. But I don’t think most people would agree with me here.
Careful users of English do not use the “third-person singular they.” Neither do people who care about or depend upon the good opinion of careful users of English.
If you don’t care about careful usage, and you don’t care about the opinion of those who do, then go ahead. You’re free to use it, and I’m free to think you’re an idiot.
Nametag’s post demostrates why this thread should be moved to GD or maybe even IMHO, although since he’s started calling names, perhaps the Pit is more appropriate.
I want to draw your attention to how he (and the other prescriptivists) have grabbed the title “careful users of English”, implying that those people who don’t kowtow to their hobgoblins of “careful” usage must therefor be “careless users”. No matter how carefully we proofread our posts for spelling or grammatical or semantic errors.
Of course, when I say “grammatical errors”, I mean those that I think are errors, not what the Nametag thinks are errors. The two sets have a lot of overlap, but are not identical.
Yes, I’d also be more interested in hearing about how Jane Austen and a professional linguist are not “careful users of English.” Could you perhaps be bothered to enlighten us further, Nametag?
Excellent link, Phil. Language is a perfect example of something that conforms to Hayek’s Theory of Spontaneous Order. No one is in charge of it, and it will do what it will do despite the wishes of any of us here, including Nametag.
Fish weighing in. Take advice from a Fish with a grain of salt or a dash of lemon.
Yes, it’s common usage. Yes, it’s correct. Yes, it’s incorrect.
The point of language is to communicate your intent, to convey meaning. If your listener understands what you meant, it’s correct. If your listener makes false assumptions and judgements about your meaning, your character, your message, or your intent, then it’s incorrect.
Yes, there are excruciatingly clear ways in the English language to express an idea. Yes, a dedicated attack on a given sentence can often reveal lapses in clarity. Yes, it is generally preferable to communicate a message with as clear an intent as you can. Yes, it is often an advantage to also be brief. Naturally, this is not always possible, given the breadth of human experience, regional uses, past experiences, personal interpretations, and so on. Yes, attempts have been made, especially on the Anonymous Internet, to revitalize gender-inspecific pronouns like zie, hir, and other creations. Yes, those words can promote clarity. Yes, they have failed to catch on with a wide audience, so yes, they can also inhibit communication.
I say, use what you’re going to use. You’re not going to make everyone happy anyway, but if you can communicate your point, use whatever works. If someone infers you to be something you’re not, that’s their problem.
In certain parts of my area, a lot of people walk about uttering “they is” and other such convolutions.
The singular they is acceptable and has considerable precident.
There are several articles available on the web about this subjent
including one By Scott Morris - The Word Detective at http://www.word-detective.com/back-h2.html#gender.
We’re not in the Pit yet, so I’ll be nice.
In colloquial English, I can see no problem with the use of “they.” I think most people certainly are aware of the agreement problems with the word. I have already stated as much in my previous post. I do use construction such as “To each their own” or “Each poster has a right to their own opinion” even though I know it’s traditionally incorrect. If I were writing in an academic setting, I’d avoid the issue with something as stupid and inelegant as “To each his/her own” or sexist as “To each his own.” Or in the second case “Posters have a right to their own opinion.”
English comes in many flavors and the truly educated speakers of English know how to fluctuate between different dialects in regards to the people they are speaking with. For example, I would certainly use the construction “I ain’t got no money” around my peers, since that is our dialect. Sure, it’s supposedly grammatically incorrect, but not in their English. It’s only grammatically incorrect in standard written English or so-called “Educated” English or whatnot. In my opinion, it is a perfectly valid grammatical construction.
If you think I’m an idiot for purposely using incorrect grammar, then I’m afraid I’d have to vehemently disagree with you.
Thing is, I’m not even sure if the third-person singular “they” fits into this argument, since I think it is more than just a matter of dialect or diction. Many educated writers, as it has been pointed out, have made use of this form. According to American Heritage, such esteemed writers as Thackeray, George Bernard Shaw, Anne Morrow Lindbergh and the such have used them. Furthermore, its use has been cited in high-brow publications such as *Christian Science Monitor, Discover, *and the Washington Post.
Furthermore, a quick look through the Oxford English dictionary shows such usage of “they” as dating back to 1526. Also cited are Fielding’s Tom Jones and John Ruskin’s The Crown of Wild Olives.
And even moreso, “themselves” as a singular third-person pronoun goes back to 1464 according to OED, and “their” back to the 1300s. “Bath ware made sun and mon, Aither wit ther ouen light.” You can also add to this list Shakespeare, Whitman, Lewis Carrol, C.S. Lewis and Oscar Wilde as “idiots” who have chosen to use the third-person plural as singular.
It is obvious to me that many educated writers and ambassadors of English have noticed this obvious lack of a genderless third-person pronoun and have decided third-person plural forms would suffice in their place. I also think it is misleading to treat “they” and its forms as solely third-person plural since this is NOT the case. Nor has it been since, oh, the 1300s. If you insist on treating “they” as third-person plural only, then I would assume you treat “whose” only with animate objects. If not, why the double standard?
Much of this is recap of previous posts, but…
“They” or “them” with reference to a singular is not appropriate formal English. It is, however, often used with reference to an indeterminate singular person – one of many for whom “they” would be the appropriate referent.
“He or she” and the related pronoun-forms-in-conjunction is often seen as too pedantic, and “he” representing both sexes as inadequately inclusive.
It is not poor grammar, though it is both awkward and not considered precise English, to use “they” and its case forms when speaking of a representative member of a group. It would be quite appropriate to use “he or she” for the first reference and then continue with “they.” For example, if I were describing how a Bibliocentric Christian comes to a conclusion on a particular issue, the person’s sex is not at issue. So I might say that “he or she first looks up, with the aid of his or her concordance, the appropriate Biblical verses relative to the situation. Then they might resort to a commentary for additional guidance…” In such a context, I personally would use “he or she” for the first few times and then, having established that I am clearly not excluding the female half of the species, use “he,” “him,” and “his” thereafter to avoid the awkward pedanticism of a hyperreiterated “he or she” usage.
I think the question has been answered as well as it can be within the factual confines of GQ. If you care to debate the question, hie yourselves to GD.