[OOC] Myriad Reality

[Legend]

<Snipped quote by Legend>

Actually, Bodine wrote her paper back in 1975 before the debate was actually becoming a debate, for the purposes of explaining what was happening. It was already accepted that prescriptive grammarians attacked singular "they", and therefore "he" became accepted. Her article is actually considering other things, but her input and quotations are useful to me nevertheless, because it shows that scholars don't need to debate that point. They have it in history.
EDIT: I don't even consider that a good argument. The fact that nobody made an attempt to write an article about the use of "he" in the eleventh century could just as easily imply that they didn't because there was no usage to write about. All it is is a fact, with no specific connotations either way.

@whizzball1

I read that.

When there are two options, and we know for sure that they did have a word to refer to singular genderless pronouns, once one is dated to the first usage, there's no choice but for the other to exist before it. It's also similar to the IVT in Calculus, ie. an airtight argument.

[Heroic]

<Snipped quote by Heroic>

English insinuate, when you want to imply something bad about the language.

@Legend

English permeate, for when you want to end these shenanigans so you need one that doesn't make any sense at all.

[Legend]

<Snipped quote by Legend>

English permeate, for when you want to end these shenanigans so you need one that doesn't make any sense at all.

@Heroic

English procreate, for when you want to create new words

_{like a singular "they."}

[Heroic]

<Snipped quote by Heroic>

English procreate, for when you want to create new words

_{like a singular "they."}

@Legend

Hrom.

[Legend]

<Snipped quote by Legend>

Hrom.

@Heroic

English Estate, where the wealthy Grammar Nazis live.

[Extra]

<Snipped quote by Extra>

Nope. Not worth.

<Snipped quote by Heroic>

English translate, for obvious reasons.

@Legend

Haha. I just kid with ya.

[Legend]

<Snipped quote by Legend>

Haha. I just kid with ya.

@Extra

Still though.

[Heroic]

<Snipped quote by Heroic>

English Estate, where the wealthy Grammar Nazis live.

@Legend

Just get it out of your system, compadre.

[Legend]

<Snipped quote by Legend>

Just get it out of your system, compadre.

@Heroic

English Imitate, used by inferior languages to appear to be English.

[Heroic]

<Snipped quote by Heroic>

English Imitate, used by inferior languages to appear to be English.

@Legend

I might guess you saved a few just for the sake of being able to keep going.

[Legend]

<Snipped quote by Legend>

I might guess you saved a few just for the sake of being able to keep going.

@Heroic

I'm making them off the spot.

English Initiate, in order to bring someone into the cult of grammar.

[Heroic]

<Snipped quote by Heroic>

I'm making them off the spot.

English Initiate, in order to bring someone into the cult of grammar.

@Legend

Good thing I didn't actually guess then.

[Legend]

<Snipped quote by Legend>

Good thing I didn't actually guess then.

@Heroic

English instantiate, for when you want to give a variable a value.

[whizzball1]

<Snipped quote by whizzball1>

I read that.

When there are two options, and we know for sure that they did have a word to refer to singular genderless pronouns, once one is dated to the first usage, there's no choice but for the other to exist before it. It's also similar to the IVT in Calculus, ie. an airtight argument.

@Legend

What? We haven't dated the first usage. We noticed that Chaucer used it in the fourteenth century. That doesn't mean it was the earliest usage; in fact, it implies that the use of "they" could have been the common usage in speech (after all, literature is our only source of information on common language of the past).

Furthermore, I already cited the earliest mention of "he" as a singular indefinite pronoun in literature; that is, Wilson in the sixteenth century, and he was only giving a passing remark saying that he thought it would be better if man was placed before woman in grammar. But my quote from Chaucer is a quote of actual usage, not just a quote of someone writing about theoretical usage. But if you can find me a literary quote where "he" is used as a gender-neutral pronoun before Chaucer in the fourteenth century, I'll reluctantly concede.

But you'll be hard-pressed to find that, because Old English was still trying to find an identity by 1066 when the Normans took over Britain. In fact, English literature actually died down until the 1200s, when English began gaining acceptance. In 1362, English became the official language of England, and this is a few years before Chaucer began writing. The reference of "they" in Chaucer's writing came around the 1370s. The earliest English writing of the thirteenth century was Layamon's Brut, a poem describing the history of England, and it does not have any examples of usage of a pronoun referring to both males and females in a singular manner.

(I've been doing my research.)

[Extra]

These arguments somewhat annoy me. Not going to lie. I don't find them amusing nor entertaining at all. But, I'm not on OOC all the time so I can't complain.

[Heroic]

<Snipped quote by Heroic>

English instantiate, for when you want to give a variable a value.

@Legend

Might stop responding. Running out of things to say.

[Heroic]

These arguments somewhat annoy me. Not going to lie. I don't find them amusing nor entertaining at all. But, I'm not on OOC all the time so I can't complain.

@Extra

Meh.

[Extra]

<Snipped quote by Extra>

Meh.

@Heroic

Eh.

[Legend]

<Snipped quote by Legend>

What? We haven't dated the first usage. We noticed that Chaucer used it in the fourteenth century. That doesn't mean it was the earliest usage; in fact, it implies that the use of "they" could have been the common usage in speech (after all, literature is our only source of information on common language of the past).

Furthermore, I already cited the earliest mention of "he" as a singular indefinite pronoun in literature; that is, Wilson in the sixteenth century, and he was only giving a passing remark saying that he thought it would be better if man was placed before woman in grammar. But my quote from Chaucer is a quote of actual usage, not just a quote of someone writing about theoretical usage. But if you can find me a literary quote where "he" is used as a gender-neutral pronoun before Chaucer in the fourteenth century, I'll reluctantly concede.

But you'll be hard-pressed to find that, because Old English was still trying to find an identity by 1066 when the Normans took over Britain. In fact, English literature actually died down until the 1200s, when English began gaining acceptance. In 1362, English became the official language of England, and this is a few years before Chaucer began writing. The reference of "they" in Chaucer's writing came around the 1370s. The earliest English writing of the thirteenth century was Layamon's Brut, a poem describing the history of England, and it does not have any examples of usage of a pronoun referring to both males and females in a singular manner.

(I've been doing my research.)

@whizzball1

Not when we have one account of it. It could be a literary error for all we know. And if that's the only piece of ancient literature that we have that uses "their" as singular, it's safe to assume the rest of them used "his."

Old English actually had a neutral term. Middle English had a semi-neutral term, which is connected to the modern term "he."
"The third person singular neuter (it, also found in the older form hit) relates to the possessive his (not its!)"
nativlang.com/middle-english/middle-en..

(As am I, but I'm not willing to spend as much time on it.)

[Legend]

These arguments somewhat annoy me. Not going to lie. I don't find them amusing nor entertaining at all. But, I'm not on OOC all the time so I can't complain.

@Extra

They aren't arguments; they're grammar discussions right now. Neither of us are upset, but I prefer a gender neutral "he" and he prefers a singular "they," and we're discussing the history. I don't find it amusing or entertaining either, but it's just information. I avoid the OOC as well, but for other reasons. I don't see how we could have a discussion that differs from an argument if this isn't good.

<Snipped quote by Legend>

Might stop responding. Running out of things to say.

@Heroic

Just fine "-ate" words.