I can understand how it’s wrong in a technical sense. But it’s useful enough in a practical sense that I’m willing to accept it anyway. This is a case where the rules need to be rewritten.
The point, of course, is that using “they” generically is not some modernism. If anything it’s a reversion to an older historical usage.
Since English does not have a separate gender-neutral third person singular pronoun that applies to people, various kind of kludges have been applied.
-Use “he or she,” or recast the sentence to make the referent plural. But this is often awkward.
-Invent a new pronoun. Many have been proposed, none have gained acceptance.
-Use an existing pronoun. The two usual options are to use “he” generically for both sexes, ignoring gender in favor of number; or to use “they” generically for singular and plural, ignoring number in favor of neutral gender. Grammatically speaking, there is nothing inherently superior in one course of action over the other. But given modern sensibilities about gender equality, the second solution is more acceptable today.
I wouldn’t even say it’s wrong in a technical sense, any more than it’s wrong to end a sentence with a preposition. This was a usage of long historical standing that was declared an error by prescriptivists when it really was not.
There is a distinction. Something that’s free is a thing that isn’t owned. Something that’s for free is a thing whose ownership comes without cost. But usually this distinction is clear from the context.
True. But I think most would agree that while the rule might have originated in a mistake, they and their being plural has been a formal rule for some time.
For far less time than it has been accepted usage, however. And, even when it was deprecated by prescriptivists, many fine, high-profile writers of all kinds continued to make use of “they” as an indefinite pronoun with no consequences.
And I, (a Math major), approve [of (the use of parentheses)] (to group) phrases [to clarify (the parsing)]. Very algebraic.
Actually, it’s not that hard to understand. Let’s try to update the language just a little bit.
“Love is a thing as any spirit free.
Women, of kind, desire liberty,
And not to be constrained as a thrall;
And so do men, if I sooth say shall.”
Let’s update it a little more:
“Love is a thing as any spirit free.
Women, of kind, desire liberty,
And not to be constrained as a slave;
And so do men, if I shall say the truth.”
Not rocket science.
And a corpus search shows that their is used much more often than they, (probably because there are more options for avoiding they, with indefinite subject and object pronouns such as someone).
So I also would bet that many of the people here who object so strenuously to they don’t even notice when they hear something like this:
[QUOTE=Recent NPR interview]
NEAL-CONAN: But at the same time, it’s a little like asking you for the key to your diary.
CALEB-GARLING: Yeah, you know, and there obviously are already HR questions that off-limits, you know, about sexuality and I believe marriage status. So in asking someone for their Facebook login, in a sense, you’re asking that question.
[/quote]
it’s much more common
Not only is they as a singular pronoun widely accepted, I can find instances of the much clunkier ‘themself’ being used on this very forum in threads dating as far back as 2001.
There is no battle. The war is over. These pronouns pull double duty as singular and plural pronouns.
My impression, but I’m not a native speaker, is that in the sentence “A person who eats only what they can for for nothing” it’s easier to accept the usage of “they” as a singular pronoun because there is no visible difference in the conjugation of the verb - “they can” is also “they can” in the original plural usage of “they”. But what about verbs were the difference is visible? Let’s say in a sentence like “A person who eats only what they gets…”? Would “they” as a singular pronoun be acceptable there as well, or would your feeling for language insist on “they get”?
Changing it slightly - One might say, “A person who only eats what they can get…” This sounds okay to me.
I can see that, but it evades the question by once again using a verb where it doesn’t become evident whether “they” is used as a singular or a plural. What if you put the rule to the test by using a verb where the singular gets the -s but the plural doesn’t? Or does English grammar the way it evolved today, allowing for “they” to be used as a singular pronoun, permit this only with verbs where the difference doesn’t become visible? I’ve never heard that stated as a rule, but maybe that is what the language is heading for.
No, they 
can certainly use they as a singular pronoun with a verb that has distinct verb agreement - but it takes a *plural *verb, despite its use as a singular pronoun.
I think that may be where our internal warning bells start to clang, as **ZenBeam **alluded to earlier. At least, that’s where I start to get twitchy and have to remind myself that it’s acceptable to use “they” and its associated verb as a singluar. It’s acceptable, but it still *feels *wrong to many of us.
When a native speaker thinks too hard about the issue, they are forced to search for an answer. They get confused, and aren’t sure what the “rule” is. But when speaking, they know which verb to use, more often than not. If you listen to someone who learned English as an adult, they make errors, because it is illogical.
Compare that paragraph to an unambiguous singular pronoun, “she”:
When a native speaker thinks too hard about the issue, she is forced to search for an answer. She gets confused, and isn’t sure what the “rule” is. But when speaking, she knows which verb to use, more often than not. If you listen to someone who learned English as an adult, she makes errors, because it is illogical.
The rule is that “they” always uses the third person plural form of the verb, even when used in a singular sense.
This is analogous to “Usted” (formal “you”) in Spanish, which although it is used as second person technically is third person (derived from the honorific “Your Mercy”) and takes the third person form of verbs.
I’m amused at how the usage has become so commonplace that it trumps common sense and basic anatomy.
For example, here’s a Dope posting from August:
“no-one pisses without retracting their foreskin.”
It was a rule change in the mid90s by the apa to try to eliminate sexist speech. Overall, they haven’t been that successful but time will tell.
Well, no. APA (American Psychological Association) style advises against sexist language. It does not, to my knowledge, support using the singular “they.” I don’t have the 6th edition at hand, but I found this PDF from 2005 which states "CMS and APA both maintain that singular they is
‘ungrammatical.’ " And here’s a 5th edition synopsis that states: “Using the plural is an acceptable way to meet this guideline (assuming, of course, that you are referring to multiple participants). Do not, however, use ‘they’ if you are referring to an individual.”
Emphasis mine.
So, unless you have a cite saying otherwise, your information is incorrect.
Oh if only English speech had developed from West Country rather than London or Central England! In the West Country (read Thomas Hardy) they had a perfectly serviceable pronoun ‘er’ which means he, she or it. Still used in West Country dialog today!
Cite: ma in esl, prof told me so. Also, top three programs in the world at the time. Ill cede to your doctorate, if you gots one.