[mac freak]

Yes, lads and lasses! I have discovered a minor grammatical error embedded in iChat. I copied a dictionary entry (from the Tiger dictionary) and sent it to a friend of mine over iChat when, lo and behold, iChat emitted this nugget of grammatical imperfection:

The other person, or their software, refused the request.

I demand that Apple fix this grave injustice to the English language at once

In other news, I have no clue why I posted this topic.

[Lew]

I see no problem with the grammar.

[Randman]

Am I missing something?

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Lew

I see no problem with the grammar.

My grammar is rusty, but:

Not so much an error as a difference between strictly proper formal (and British) English and standard American English. "Person" is singular, "their" is plural, so, technically, a mismatch. This arises from the fact that spoken American English uses the second person differently than formal or British English.

Technically the sentence should read The other person, or his or her software, refused the request. However, the sentence is perfectly acceptable American English.

[tooki]

It's not an error, it's contemporary gender-neutral English. English lacks a gender-agnostic singular possessive pronoun, so "their" has not only become pervasive in spoken English, and has increasingly become accepted in written English, since "his" has been deemed unacceptable, and "his or her" is just too unwieldy.

tooki

[Chuckit]

It's still prescriptively incorrect in formal English.

[analogika]

Since the "their" is becoming increasingly correct even in more formal context, as per *de*scriptive grammar, the larger problem I see is the tense:

"The other person, or their software, HAS refused the request."

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

It's still prescriptively incorrect in formal English.

English is about the least prescriptive language in the world, and as it has become the global lingua franca is has become even more fluid and open to change. Drives those who comes from languages with very prescribed grammar (like German) completely nuts.

That said, unless English suddenly grows a gender-neutral singular possessive pronoun, this is what we got.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by analogika

Since the "their" is becoming increasingly correct even in more formal context, as per *de*scriptive grammar, the larger problem I see is the tense:

"The other person, or their software, HAS refused the request."

What's wrong with it? "The other person refused the request" is a completely valid simple past.

tooki

[analogika]

my understanding is that in the case of very recent events, such as this one, where one is confronted with the immediate results of something, simple past is not the best choice of tenses.

[Chuckit]

Why not?

[analogika]

Because there is a tense specifically to deal with immediate results of very recent events:

"has refused".

[Chuckit]

What are you talking about?

"I have seen Star Wars 27 times." Is this talking about the immediate result of very recent events, or am I tallying up events that happened over a very large period of time?

The present perfect tense ("has xed") allows us to say that something happened at some point (or several different points) in the past without specifying when it happened. It is not "specifically to deal with immediate results of very recent events."

In this context, past tense is perfectly acceptable to say that your attempt was unsuccessful. If we were to use your rule, this conversation would sound natural (which it doesn't):

KING: "Shoot that traitor for me, archer."

[Inept archer loses control and hits a tree instead]

ARCHER: "Sorry, I have missed him."

This seems to imply that the archer has been missing the guy for a long period of time — possibly even that the traitor is the archer's gay lover.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

What are you talking about?

Use 3:
http://web2.uvcs.uvic.ca/elc/studyzo...mar/upperf.htm

Also, present perfect is often used when events described are very recent.

Originally Posted by Chuckit

This seems to imply that the archer has been missing the guy for a long period of time — possibly even that the traitor is the archer's gay lover.

er, no.






really.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

It's still prescriptively incorrect in formal English.

I have to agree with Chuckit here. "Their" is, and will remain, a plural pronoun. And the "his or her" construction is prominently prescribed in guides like the MLA, despite the feeling of awkwardness engendered (unintended pun) by the traditional popularity of the masculine as the universal pronoun (a practice first instituted by 18th century grammarians).

[Recto Bold]

Recommended reading:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...187197-0451819

Or, if you are in the US:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846

RB

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I have to agree with Chuckit here. "Their" is, and will remain, a plural pronoun. And the "his or her" construction is prominently prescribed in guides like the MLA, despite the feeling of awkwardness engendered (unintended pun) by the traditional popularity of the masculine as the universal pronoun (a practice first instituted by 18th century grammarians).

"and will remain"

In other words, yeah, right.

There's no way to stop language change — it just happens. Declaring something to be wrong won't make people stop using it.

"Their" now has a widely accepted use as a singular gender-neutral pronoun, and in that function it agrees with a singular verb. I personally never saw a problem with using "his" when referring to both genders, but pretty much every organization, be it a university, company, etc. these days has internal style rules that strongly suggest, or even outright require, the use of gender-neutral language.

What the MLA and Chicago guides say doesn't matter, because people are bound by other requirements that take precedence.

tooki

[:dragonflypro:]

centre
theatre
petrol
favourite
Authorised

Crossing the pond does things to words and grammar.

MLA and Troika aren't gonna help here.

Maybe we could all start speakin' L337.

Sod off, piss off and prattle on over a spot of tea or get yourself pissed.

Cheers!

Oh, well I guess he did say nit-picky (sp?).

[Chuckit]

It's true that most places won't accept "he" as a gender-neutral pronoun, but I'd wager just as few reputable (i.e. run by people with at least some college education) places would encourage "their." The currently accepted term by all style guides I know is "his or her."

Just to be clear, though, it's not like "their" really bugs me. There are much bigger grammatical fish to fry, starting with "between you and I."

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by analogika

Use 3:
http://web2.uvcs.uvic.ca/elc/studyzo...mar/upperf.htm

Also, present perfect is often used when events described are very recent.

You laugh, but his point is more than valid in everyday English. All of the "use 3" examples refer to events in which there is a definite recovery time (finding a key or waiting for a bone to heal). In fact, the examples aren't even very good.

A: What happened to her?
B: She broke her arm!

Though the simple past is used, it does not really imply -- one way or the other -- that the bone has probably healed. In fact, if it is mentioned in passing conversation like this, the bone is probably still broken.

If the error message were part of a formal essay, your words might approach the compelling-argument zone. But colloquially, "use 3" is mostly something one can ignore.

[Stradlater]

Back to the topic:

While your high-school English teacher may have told you not to use this construction [singular "their"], it actually dates back to at least the 14th century, and was used by the following authors (among others) in addition to Jane Austen: Geoffrey Chaucer, Edmund Spenser, William Shakespeare, the King James Bible, The Spectator, Jonathan Swift, Daniel Defoe, Frances Sheridan, Oliver Goldsmith, Henry Fielding, Maria Edgeworth, Percy Shelley, Lord Byron, William Makepeace Thackeray, Sir Walter Scott, George Eliot [Mary Anne Evans], Charles Dickens, Mrs. Gaskell, Anthony Trollope, John Ruskin, Robert Louis Stevenson, Walt Whitman, George Bernard Shaw, Lewis Carroll, Oscar Wilde, Rudyard Kipling, H. G. Wells, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Edith Wharton, W. H. Auden, Lord Dunsany, George Orwell, and C. S. Lewis.

Singular "their" etc., was an accepted part of the English language before the 18th-century grammarians started making arbitrary judgements as to what is "good English" and "bad English", based on a kind of pseudo-"logic" deduced from the Latin language, that has nothing whatever to do with English.

(from http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html#X1a )

It's true. There have been plenty of attempts, throughough the history of English, to standardize our language. Some of the attempts used Latin as an example; anyone familiar with languages, however, knows that English has far more in common, syntactically, with German.

[Chuckit]

Geoffrey Chaucer also used quintuple negatives, which would sound outright stupid in modern English (or should I say, never wouldn't not very probably sound not good to nobody). The fact that some old author used a construct does not make it prescriptively correct English — or even descriptively valid modern English.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

or should I say, never wouldn't not very probably sound not good to nobody

Actually I kind of like the way that sounds (reads).

Seriously.

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Back to the topic:


(from http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html#X1a )

It's true. There have been plenty of attempts, throughough the history of English, to standardize our language. Some of the attempts used Latin as an example; anyone familiar with languages, however, knows that English has far more in common, syntactically, with German.

I'm really not a prescriptivist about English, since those guys a) creep me out and b) have at the heart of their position the idea that English was, at some point, "perfect." Clearly not true. But this is simply a combination of an agreement "mandate" in the language coming into conflict with the lack of a truly acceptable plural, gender-neutral pronoun that can be used to describe people. But to just throw up our hands and say "Well, the language is changing! Deal with it!" is tantamount to ignoring when my students grossly misconjugate verbs (e.g. "had became") or don't know the difference between their/they're/there. In short, there's cutting edge and there's sounding like a moron.

OT:

BTW, I like this list:

Jane Austen: Geoffrey Chaucer, Edmund Spenser, William Shakespeare, the King James Bible, The Spectator, Jonathan Swift, Daniel Defoe, Frances Sheridan, Oliver Goldsmith, Henry Fielding, Maria Edgeworth, Percy Shelley, Lord Byron, William Makepeace Thackeray, Sir Walter Scott, George Eliot [Mary Anne Evans], Charles Dickens, Mrs. Gaskell, Anthony Trollope, John Ruskin, Robert Louis Stevenson, Walt Whitman, George Bernard Shaw, Lewis Carroll, Oscar Wilde, Rudyard Kipling, H. G. Wells, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Edith Wharton, W. H. Auden, Lord Dunsany, George Orwell, and C. S. Lewis.

It's fun to go through and add the appropriate sleight: 1) accused rapist, 2) lunatic, 3) didn't exist, 4) fiction, 5) assholes, 6) grump, 7) liar, 8) sex-addict, 9) lunatic, 10) super-sex addict, 11) Irish, 12) druggie, 13) druggie, in love with his half-sister, 14) only wrote one good novel, 15) hack, 16) adultress, 17) lunatic, 18) nice lady, 19) hack, dominated by his mother, 20) my favorite writer and the grumpiest human being to have ever graced the planet, 21) hack, 22) druggie, 23) lunatic, 24) mathematician, 25) convict, 26) lunatic, 27) hack, 28) alkie-bum, 29) new yorker, 30) lunatic, 31) hack, 32) nice guy, 33) crazy man obsessed with his dead wife.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by subego

Actually I kind of like the way that sounds (reads).

Seriously.

I agree that it sounds cool, but it's 1) not natural at all anymore, and 2) clear as mud what exactly it means in modern English.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Geoffrey Chaucer also used quintuple negatives, which would sound outright stupid in modern English (or should I say, never wouldn't not very probably sound not good to nobody). The fact that some old author used a construct does not make it prescriptively correct English — or even descriptively valid modern English.

The bigger argument is in bold. The fact is that singular "their" has been accepted from start to finish, and the change to plurality was forced, not natural, by rather shoddy logic.

The use of negatives has changed (in Chaucer's time, I think one or more negatives always made a negative, none of this double-negative-cancel-out stuff we have today). The use of "their" in the singular never really did.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by midwinter

It's fun to go through and add the appropriate sleight:

haha

[Cadaver]

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro:

centre
theatre
petrol
favourite
Authorised

Crossing the pond does things to words and grammar.

MLA and Troika aren't gonna help here.

Maybe we could all start speakin' L337.

Sod off, piss off and prattle on over a spot of tea or get yourself pissed.

Cheers!

Oh, well I guess he did say nit-picky (sp?).

...so go have a fag and a wank and retire for the night.

[Russian Mac fan]

You all don't know what you are talking about. The original poster is correct -- the correction is in order. I also second the "has" request.

Sorry, I am old-school.

[Russian Mac fan]

And I just KNEW someone was going to recommend the Shoots and Leaves book

[saltines17]

It's been there for a while, and therefore it has also been annoying me for a while. I think I even sent feedback about it once.

[Russian Mac fan]

Yeah, I think standards are important in this post-modernist world... But not to get distracted...

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

The fact that some old author used a construct does not make it prescriptively correct English — or even descriptively valid modern English.

Right. But it does entirely debunk it as being some recent bastardization, which is what people assume it is.

Using "their" is neither new, and most certainly not "forced".

tooki

[mac freak]

I'm thrilled that this has generated such a discussion.
Carry on.

[Wevah]

I find it hilarious and disturbing, both at the same time.

As for "their", I am going to continue to use it as a singular pronoun, or not, as I see fit.

:D

[mac freak]

I'd post my opinion, but frankly it'd be pointless at this point.