# Predict changes in English grammar/usage over the next 100 years **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [August 15, 2009, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-changes-in-english-grammar-usage-over-the-next-100-years/506522 "2009-08-15T15:09:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-changes-in-english-grammar-usage-over-the-next-100-years/506522/41 "2009-08-16T23:47:17Z")
> [@Dusty\_Rose](#): > > And I don’t think I explained what I meant regarding the singular use of they. I didn’t mean use it _instead_ of gender, just when gender isn’t necessary, or when it’s “proper” to use both. > > “Who’s at the door?” > > “I don’t know, but they’ve rung the bell twice.” > > or > > “Could everyone take his or her seat, please?” vs. “Could everyone take their seat, please?” > > Just sounds better to me, less stilted I guess. Your first example is what I said (gender unclear/unknown), and your second example is proper use already (plural of he or she.) I’m pretty sure “could everyone take his or her seat” is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Dusty\_Rose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ba8739/32.png) [@Dusty\_Rose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dusty_Rose)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-changes-in-english-grammar-usage-over-the-next-100-years/506522/42 "2009-08-17T00:02:22Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > Your first example is what I said (gender unclear/unknown), and your second example is proper use already (plural of he or she.) I’m pretty sure “could everyone take his or her seat” is wrong. I admit the first one wasn’t a very good example. I’m getting tired, and it’s the first thing I thought of. The second one, though, I wonder if anyone knows for sure, because now I’m second-guessing it. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-changes-in-english-grammar-usage-over-the-next-100-years/506522/43 "2009-08-17T01:45:31Z")
> [@Justin\_Bailey](#): > > ETA: I can’t recall ever hearing anyone use “myself” for “me”. Who does this? Just about every_freaking_body these days. It’s one of the few dialectical quirks that drives me up a wall. I’d guess you’ve heard it before, too, but it just hasn’t pinged your radar. Either that, or you’re a very lucky individual. Common usage would be in a sentence such as “Debra and myself will be hosting a dinner party this Friday.” It can be analyzed as an emphatic substitute for “me,” and that does make sense to me, but it still is like nails-on-chalkboard to my ears. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-changes-in-english-grammar-usage-over-the-next-100-years/506522/44 "2009-08-17T01:52:03Z")
> [@Justin\_Bailey](#): > > ETA: I can’t recall ever hearing anyone use “myself” for “me”. Who does this? > [@pulykamell](#): > > Just about every_freaking_body these days. It’s one of the few dialectical quirks that drives me up a wall. I’d guess you’ve heard it before, too, but it just hasn’t pinged your radar. Either that, or you’re a very lucky individual. Common usage would be in a sentence such as “Debra and myself will be hosting a dinner party this Friday.” It can be analyzed as an emphatic substitute for “me,” and that does make sense to me, but it still is like nails-on-chalkboard to my ears. Uhhg. It’s douchey business-speak. Commonly seen in internal corporate emails. Justin Bailey is probably spared because he works in a library, surrounded by people who can actually read and write. ---
**Author:** ![Dallas\_Jones](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dallas_jones/32/3277_2.png) [@Dallas\_Jones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dallas_Jones)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-changes-in-english-grammar-usage-over-the-next-100-years/506522/45 "2009-08-17T02:20:45Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > By 2019, I predict that… > > 1. _Me_ will have become an archaic pronoun like _thee_ and _thou_. For the objective first person singular, everyone will say _myself_. > 2. All plurals will be marked with an apostrophe + s. U r mi ho mi Sk teh R. Srsly Punctuation will be soon lost in the tweeter fog. The SDMB will be seen as a quaint anachronism where fogeys still attempt proper spelling and sentence structure. And still fail at it, but no one else is going to even try. This is the sort of thing up with which we are going to have to put. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotGrrrl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9dc877/32.png) [@PatriotGrrrl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotGrrrl)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-changes-in-english-grammar-usage-over-the-next-100-years/506522/46 "2009-08-17T02:25:29Z")
Thru is replacing through. ---
**Author:** ![Sometimes\_Sober\_Sometimes\_Not](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d2c977/32.png) [@Sometimes\_Sober\_Sometimes\_Not](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sometimes_Sober_Sometimes_Not)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-changes-in-english-grammar-usage-over-the-next-100-years/506522/47 "2009-08-17T02:28:50Z")
Don’t worry. The Internet and texting will change everything in the future. Nobody can make fun of people for bad grammar or misspellings anymore. ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-changes-in-english-grammar-usage-over-the-next-100-years/506522/48 "2009-08-17T02:36:21Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > Common usage would be in a sentence such as “Debra and myself will be hosting a dinner party this Friday.” It can be analyzed as an emphatic substitute for “me,”… Or in the case of your example sentence, for “I”. 🙂 As for singular “they” – it’s recommended in the Chicago Manual as of the 14th edition (says Wiki), so perhaps the whinging will finally subside. I hope so. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-changes-in-english-grammar-usage-over-the-next-100-years/506522/49 "2009-08-17T15:13:10Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > No one will use adverbs anymore. I’m half-serious. The other day I heard a sportscaster say, “he’s really playing aggressive today.” Oh, really? I thought he was playing baseball. That is not an example of not using adverbs. That is an example of not using the _ly_ suffix to change adjectives into adverbs. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-changes-in-english-grammar-usage-over-the-next-100-years/506522/50 "2009-08-18T14:38:27Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > That is not an example of not using adverbs. That is an example of not using the _ly_ suffix to change adjectives into adverbs. Huh? “Aggressively” is an adverb, which should have been used in that sentence. The sportscaster didn’t use it. Therefore, it is an example of not using adverbs where appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-changes-in-english-grammar-usage-over-the-next-100-years/506522/51 "2009-08-18T15:31:20Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > Huh? “Aggressively” is an adverb, which should have been used in that sentence. The sportscaster didn’t use it. Therefore, it is an example of not using adverbs where appropriate. Let me explain. Though the _ly_ suffix is often used to change an adjective into an adverb, it is not absolutely necessary; some words are the same in both adjective & adverb forms (such as _fast_, _more_ and _aloft_), and some adverbs don’t even have adjectival forms (such as _perhaps_ and _maybe_. The sportscaster simply omitted the suffix, trusting that his meaning would be clear in context. This is a simplificiation of the language akin to using the same forms for the singular and plural forms of the second person pronoun. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-changes-in-english-grammar-usage-over-the-next-100-years/506522/52 "2009-08-18T22:40:43Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > Though the _ly_ suffix is often used to change an adjective into an adverb, it is not absolutely necessary… I am aware of different adverbial forms, thank you. 🙂 Here, though, I am not talking about adverbs that don’t end in “ly” or those that are the same in both forms. I am talking about the use of “aggressive” as an adverb. That, and nothing more. The sportscaster used the word incorrectly. I hear this same kind of error all the time. You suggest the sportscaster knowingly dropped the suffix, and I suppose that is possible. I however think it is much more likely that he had no idea of his error. ---
**Author:** ![TheMadHun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/53a042/32.png) [@TheMadHun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheMadHun)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2009, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-changes-in-english-grammar-usage-over-the-next-100-years/506522/53 "2009-08-23T18:12:42Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Double negatives will lose any stigma on them (yay for us teaching EFL/ESL) Double negatives are common in many languages. Maybe they will disappear when English speakers travel more. ---
**Author:** ![Sunspace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunspace/32/1250_2.png) [@Sunspace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunspace)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2009, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-changes-in-english-grammar-usage-over-the-next-100-years/506522/54 "2009-08-23T20:23:18Z")
> [@PatriotGrrrl](#): > > Thru is replacing through. I remember seeing ‘thru’ in US books from the 1940s. If anything, I think it was more common then than now. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2009, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-changes-in-english-grammar-usage-over-the-next-100-years/506522/55 "2009-08-23T20:26:15Z")
> [@TheMadHun](#): > > Double negatives are common in many languages. Maybe they will disappear when English speakers travel more. The way English handles double-negatives is one of the few things I like about it over otherwise more logical and consistently structured languages such as Spanish. I hope this one doesn’t change. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 9:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-changes-in-english-grammar-usage-over-the-next-100-years/506522/56 "2009-08-25T09:09:49Z")
> [@](#): > > **Cisco** : …and your second example is proper use already (plural of he or she.) I’m pretty sure “could everyone take his or her seat” is wrong. “Could everyone take his or her seat?” is correct. It’s just awkward. When I was growing up in the 1950s, we didn’t have to pay any attention to the feminine forms. People usually said, “Could everyone take his seat?” But eventually the women got tired of being referred to as “his,” and they protested. Since _everyone_ is singular, we weren’t supposed to change it to the plural _they_. That’s why grammar books added “or her.” Then some of the women decided to be sneaky and put _her_ first. “Could everyone take her or his seat?” Well, we couldn’t have that. So more and more grammarians are turning a blind eye to writing “Could everyone take their seats?” By the way, **Cisco** , English is very logical when it says, “We have no bananas.” What is illogical about that? It would be illogical to say, " We don’t have no bananas, yes?" One shift that is in progress: **All right** is becoming **alright**. I see it in movie captions and I just hate it! Something I saw on TV today in big letters. It made me laugh out loud and wonder what my 96 year old mother would think that it meant: **WTF?** ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-changes-in-english-grammar-usage-over-the-next-100-years/506522/57 "2009-08-25T11:05:54Z")
2109 … the year the Great Serial Comma war started. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-changes-in-english-grammar-usage-over-the-next-100-years/506522/58 "2009-08-25T13:35:31Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > “Could everyone take his or her seat?” is correct. It’s just awkward. When I was growing up in the 1950s, we didn’t have to pay any attention to the feminine forms. People usually said, “Could everyone take his seat?” But eventually the women got tired of being referred to as “his,” and they protested. Since _everyone_ is singular, we weren’t supposed to change it to the plural _they_. That’s why grammar books added “or her.” Then some of the women decided to be sneaky and put _her_ first. “Could everyone take her or his seat?” Well, we couldn’t have that. So more and more grammarians are turning a blind eye to writing “Could everyone take their seats?” I’ve heard “their” all my life so “his or her” just sounds really akward to me in this sentence. I guess “everyone” is a collective singular? I never really thought of it that way. > [@Zoe](#): > > By the way, **Cisco** , English is very logical when it says, “We have no bananas.” What is illogical about that? It would be illogical to say, " We don’t have no bananas, yes?" Why are you addressing this toward me? I just said I agree with the way English handles double-negatives. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Skeezix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/aca169/32.png) [@Red\_Skeezix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Skeezix)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-changes-in-english-grammar-usage-over-the-next-100-years/506522/59 "2009-08-25T17:49:23Z")
> [@](#): > > Could everyone take his or her seat > [@Cisco](#): > > I’ve heard “their” all my life so “his or her” just sounds really akward to me in this sentence. I guess “everyone” is a collective singular? I never really thought of it that way. The statement plagued by ambiguous pronouns. Even “Could everyone take their seat” is ambiguous. For proper clarity “Could everyone take his or her own (respective) seat?” Realistically we have a better tool for referring to a group being addressed than a third person collective, I prefer “Could you take your seats?”. And for you “y’allers” we already have a second person plural. We don’t need a redundant pronoun. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-changes-in-english-grammar-usage-over-the-next-100-years/506522/60 "2009-08-25T19:31:23Z")
> [@Red\_Skeezix](#): > > And for you “y’allers” we already have a second person plural. We don’t need a redundant pronoun. What is it? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-changes-in-english-grammar-usage-over-the-next-100-years/506522.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-changes-in-english-grammar-usage-over-the-next-100-years/506522.md?page=4)