'They' enters the English language as a singular pronoun

[Vixen]

I think that's a stretch, as a phrase serving as a collective noun is expected to include the container, or to be bounded by quotation marks, italics, etc., that identify it as a collective. Robert's rules of order are rules for conducting business. Robert's Rules of Order is a book containing those rules. The bag of marbles is, but the marbles in the bag still are. The collection is, but the objects in it still are. In some cases, at least, the people is, but people still are, and we're straying now into territory where shots are occasionally fired. If there is a known collective called "the rules of grammar," it was not well defined.

Context is all.

Imagine we have been discussing say, the order of letters.

Then in that context I can refer to the topic of the letters' orders as an 'is'.

 

[bruto]

Context is all.

Imagine we have been discussing say, the order of letters.

Then in that context I can refer to the topic of the letters' orders as an 'is'.

Sure, but that is no surprise, as "topic" is singular, as is "order." You use a singular in one sentence and a plural in another, but I would contend that your plural in the second instance is questionable at best, because the letters follow an order. They do not (as far as we know) follow orders. It would be reasonable, then, to say that the topic of anything, including something that is wrong, is singular; and it would be reasonable to say that the "order of letters" is singular. It would be at least clumsy, if not downright wrong, to say (outside of using it as a quoted phrase, as here) that "the letters' orders" is singular.

 

[arthwollipot]

Jane sounds like a dick.

Jane was doing a great service to Sam by giving them advance notice that John might misgender them before they got blindsided by it. It's good to have advance notice of something that might be upsetting or distressing.

 

[LondonJohn]

Passive voice is not against the rules of grammar. There are circumstances where active voice is preferred, but nothing mandates it.

True. But in that specific sentence, a passive voice would not be the generally-accepted form. Why not? Well, because the sentence starts: "However, when writing good English,.....". This modifier immediately makes it clear that an active voice should follow - the voice of the person who is "writing good English". In other words, the concluding part of the sentence following the comma after "English" ought to have an active subject which has been referenced in the preceding clause (plus a verb and object).

So this is generally-accepted good usage:

"When writing good English, one should take care".

And this is not generally-accepted good usage:

"When writing good English, care needs to be taken".

The unwritten subject of the modifier clause would/should read as follows:

"When (one is) writing good English".


If the passive voice were to be applied to this idea, to make it conform to generally-accepted good usage, the sentence would be something like this:


"Care needs to be taken in the writing of good English".

 

[LondonJohn]

What I should have said is that while the meaning was perfectly clear, someone into diagramming sentences would hit some snags with that post. Of course usually when I get picky about other people's usage I inevitably wind up committing similar sins.

There was a legendary HS journalism teacher who trained a cohort at my old newspaper. One of his sayings was, "Parse that puppy." He made his students tear down sentences and rebuild them as tighter, more cogent prose. That was also my style of editing. But the students of this of teacher already had that down - I didn't have to fix their stuff.

It wasn't the passive voice I was talking about; it was the dangling modifier. But it did come out as kind of dickish.

I don't think it came out as dickish - I think you were absolutely correct, and it certainly wasn't simply a pedantic observation.

 

[LondonJohn]

My first language was Finnish. However, I have been speaking English since age four. I was almost always top in French (often getting 98 - 100% in the exams) and usually top or near top in English and German (in a class which had a couple of German and Swiss descent pupils) in the creme de la creme stream of a sought after grammar school. Do you know, I was the English teachers' pet*. They liked me because I showed appreciation of the works of literature they put in front of us. The culture was extremely competitive and we were expected to do at least two hours homework every day. Although I was consistently top or near top in every subject I was particularly good at languages and I believe it's because I have have a logical bent.

*This really irked one of my school friends, who slammed me up against the wall because I beat her in the English exam, which was her only good subject.

Not instructing anybody. Just debating how this will work.

Oh. My. Word.

 

[LondonJohn]

My first language was Cumanagoto. However, I have been speaking Yiddish since age four. I was almost always top in Tambora (often getting 43 - 119% in the exams) and usually top or near top in Minaean and Guanche (in a class which had a couple of Na'vi descent pupils) in the creamy, buttery stream of Hogwarts. Do you know, I was the Astapori teachers' pet*. They liked me because I showed appreciation of the works of literature they put under the floorboards. The culture was extremely competitive and we were expected to do at least twenty-two hours homework every day. Although I was consistently top or near bottom in every subject I was particularly good at languages and I believe it's because I have a left and upwards bent.


*You know it's true because it's on the internet.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think that's a stretch, as a phrase serving as a collective noun is expected to include the container, or to be bounded by quotation marks, italics, etc., that identify it as a collective. Robert's rules of order are rules for conducting business. Robert's Rules of Order is a book containing those rules. The bag of marbles is, but the marbles in the bag still are. The collection is, but the objects in it still are. In some cases, at least, the people is, but people still are, and we're straying now into territory where shots are occasionally fired. If there is a known collective called "the rules of grammar," it was not well defined.

Correct. The subject in that sentence is "the rules of grammar". That's a plural concept. And therefore when the sentence is finally completed (after a poorly-punctuated intermediate clause*), "they are" and not "it is" should be employed. Interestingly, Vixen does indeed choose the plural of the verb "remain" earlier in the sentence. So any attempt to claim "the rules" somehow take the singular form (which they don't, but anyhow...) presents an auto-fail anyhow earlier in the same sentence.



* Vixen wrote: "However, the rules of grammar, albeit unique to different languages pretty much remain the same, being based as it is on logic". But the punctuation in the middle section of that sentence is very poor and is consequently rather confusing to the reader.

That sentence should have read (also correcting for the plural):

However, the rules of grammar, albeit unique to different languages, pretty much remain the same, being based as they are on logic

(Note the comma required after the word "languages" to close the clause)

And actually, I'd suggest that the best (i.e. the most understandable) way to write that sentence would be to substitute in hyphens as follows:

However, the rules of grammar - albeit unique to different languages - pretty much remain the same, being based as they are on logic

 

[LondonJohn]

I think that's a stretch, as a phrase serving as a collective noun is expected to include the container, or to be bounded by quotation marks, italics, etc., that identify it as a collective. Robert's rules of order are rules for conducting business. Robert's Rules of Order is a book containing those rules. The bag of marbles is, but the marbles in the bag still are. The collection is, but the objects in it still are. In some cases, at least, the people is, but people still are, and we're straying now into territory where shots are occasionally fired. If there is a known collective called "the rules of grammar," it was not well defined.

One big bit of blindsiding that has always amused me is the way US English refers to sports teams in the singular form - e.g. "Dallas is playing Pittsburgh in a crucial NFL game tonight" (though obviously there's a forced plural if one writes/says "the Cowboys play the Steelers....").

Where things get tricky is if a sentence starting with a singular extends to a further reference. US English doesn't seem to allow for a singluar team to take the pronoun "it". So therefore you get bizarre sentence constructions (of which I hear variations on virtually every NFL commentary...) like:

"Dallas needs to have a strong second half, otherwise they risk missing out on the playoffs".


In British English, sports teams are always referred to in the plural ("Chelsea are playing Arsenal in a key London derby"), so the confusion never arises.

 

[Vixen]

Correct. The subject in that sentence is "the rules of grammar". That's a plural concept. And therefore when the sentence is finally completed (after a poorly-punctuated intermediate clause*), "they are" and not "it is" should be employed. Interestingly, Vixen does indeed choose the plural of the verb "remain" earlier in the sentence. So any attempt to claim "the rules" somehow take the singular form (which they don't, but anyhow...) presents an auto-fail anyhow earlier in the same sentence.



* Vixen wrote: "However, the rules of grammar, albeit unique to different languages pretty much remain the same, being based as it is on logic". But the punctuation in the middle section of that sentence is very poor and is consequently rather confusing to the reader.

That sentence should have read (also correcting for the plural):

However, the rules of grammar, albeit unique to different languages, pretty much remain the same, being based as they are on logic

(Note the comma required after the word "languages" to close the clause)

And actually, I'd suggest that the best (i.e. the most understandable) way to write that sentence would be to substitute in hyphens as follows:

However, the rules of grammar - albeit unique to different languages - pretty much remain the same, being based as they are on logic

Thank your for sharing your opinion with us.

 

[Vixen]

One big bit of blindsiding that has always amused me is the way US English refers to sports teams in the singular form - e.g. "Dallas is playing Pittsburgh in a crucial NFL game tonight" (though obviously there's a forced plural if one writes/says "the Cowboys play the Steelers....").

Where things get tricky is if a sentence starting with a singular extends to a further reference. US English doesn't seem to allow for a singluar team to take the pronoun "it". So therefore you get bizarre sentence constructions (of which I hear variations on virtually every NFL commentary...) like:

"Dallas needs to have a strong second half, otherwise they risk missing out on the playoffs".


In British English, sports teams are always referred to in the plural ("Chelsea are playing Arsenal in a key London derby"), so the confusion never arises.

Rubbish! Absolute nonsense. Entities, such as an organisation, should alwyas take the singular form, although it's not the end of the world if you use the plural, which appears to be quite conventional in the vernacular.

It should read: 'Chelsea's playing Arsenal and is one nil up'.

 

[Vixen]

True. But in that specific sentence, a passive voice would not be the generally-accepted form. Why not? Well, because the sentence starts: "However, when writing good English,.....". This modifier immediately makes it clear that an active voice should follow - the voice of the person who is "writing good English". In other words, the concluding part of the sentence following the comma after "English" ought to have an active subject which has been referenced in the preceding clause (plus a verb and object).

So this is generally-accepted good usage:

"When writing good English, one should take care".

And this is not generally-accepted good usage:

"When writing good English, care needs to be taken".

The unwritten subject of the modifier clause would/should read as follows:

"When (one is) writing good English".


If the passive voice were to be applied to this idea, to make it conform to generally-accepted good usage, the sentence would be something like this:


"Care needs to be taken in the writing of good English".

What a dreadful mangling of the English language up with which we will not put.

 

[Elagabalus]

Rubbish! Absolute nonsense. Entities, such as an organisation, should alwyas take the singular form, although it's not the end of the world if you use the plural, which appears to be quite conventional in the vernacular.

It should read: 'Chelsea's playing Arsenal and is one nil up'.

That's coz' they're crap!

 

[TragicMonkey]

That's coz' they're crap!

The thing about Arsenal is they always try to walk it in.

Did you see that ludicrous display?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Sorry to drag this from page 4 but is vixen claiming the oxford comma is grammatically incorrect?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Sorry to drag this from page 4 but is vixen claiming the oxford comma is grammatically incorrect?

Better an Oxford Comma than a Cambridge Colon. My uncle died from that. Literally exploded. While on horseback. The horse, Wilmingdale Threshflowerton Victorialus IV, was traumatized to the point it never raced again. It would still show up to spectate races, though, drinking heavily and making gloomy remarks. Eventually it had to be put down after it sassed Princess Margaret.

 

[Olmstead]

I believe it stems from old English, German and French traditions (and even Finnish!) when to address someone in the plural form was considered the polite way to do it. It probably had some kind of logic once.

But that's just it. There's no logic behind it. It wasn't logic that made "you" the polite version of "thou", and it wasn't logic that made "thou" disappear. It just happened naturally.

By the same token, the double negative as an intensifying construction is non-standard in English, but perfectly acceptable in many other languages. If logic governed languages, it should be one or the other in all languages.

 

[Minoosh]

I don't think it came out as dickish - I think you were absolutely correct, and it certainly wasn't simply a pedantic observation.

I know what's wrong when I see it, but I had to look up "dangling modifier" to make sure I was using the correct term. I could not have explained it as clearly as you did.

I would consider my post pretty inpolite, but this is a grammar thread so all bets are off.

 

[bruto]

I also had to do a little looking up after accusing Vixen of dangling a pronoun a few posts back. Technically speaking, a pronoun is not said to dangle, but the error, when it's named at all, would likely be that of an "ambiguous antecedent." Fowler* (a source Vixen seems to favor, since Fowler eschews the use of "they" as a genderless singular) simply states, "There should not be two parties justifying even a momentary doubt about which the pronoun represents." Stuffy but concise.

My Fowler's last revision is 1961, so I suppose it might have changed since then, but I would not be too surprised if it has not.

 

[LondonJohn]

Rubbish! Absolute nonsense. Entities, such as an organisation, should alwyas take the singular form, although it's not the end of the world if you use the plural, which appears to be quite conventional in the vernacular.

It should read: 'Chelsea's playing Arsenal and is one nil up'.

You're absolutely wrong. And I suggest you watch/listen to any UK sports broadcast this afternoon to see if the broadcasters use the single or the plural for sports teams (hint: they always use the plural - you will NEVER hear anyone saying something like "Chelsea's playing Arsenal and is one nil up (unless they are broadcasting on a US channel, that is)).

Perhaps you're thinking of the (management) accountancy practice of referring to corporate entities in the singular. And in that particular context, that is absolutely correct. It should always be "Tesco is announcing its half-year results today", and never "Tesco are announcing..." But that doesn't apply to sports teams.

Maybe do some actual research before pronouncing boldly (and incorrectly) that something is "rubbish! Absolute nonsense."

 

[LondonJohn]

What a dreadful mangling of the English language up with which we will not put.

I was illustrating the use of the passive voice. And in no way was it a "dreadful mangling of the English language" in any case. I suspect you need to learn more about the use of the English language....

 

[LondonJohn]

Thank your for sharing your opinion with us.

You're welcome. Hopefully it was a good learning experience.

 

[TragicMonkey]

In my experiunce, the only people with truly acceptable grammars are myself. Everybody else seems just to be flailing away at the language, spewing words like chunks of meat after a Taco Bell overindulgunce. And after alls, isn't the point of language to just communicationatize? And thurfour if one managed so to do it it could be then distinguished as an triumph? Obviously the answering is "excellently yes". Q.E.P.

 

[catsmate]

Do the math.

100m people who bought fiction (which likely includes a large percentage of school age children and pulp fiction) out of 324m US citizens. 30% like the article says.

Bollox. This doesn't address book lians, libraries et cetera. Have you any support for your claim?

 

[Vixen]

Sorry to drag this from page 4 but is vixen claiming the oxford comma is grammatically incorrect?

I'm not saying the Oxford comma is incorrect - and I'm a great lover of commas - but I can't see the point in adding a comma if you already have a conjunction (ceteris paribus). There's a fine line between under use and poor use to excessive use.

 

[Vixen]

But that's just it. There's no logic behind it. It wasn't logic that made "you" the polite version of "thou", and it wasn't logic that made "thou" disappear. It just happened naturally.

By the same token, the double negative as an intensifying construction is non-standard in English, but perfectly acceptable in many other languages. If logic governed languages, it should be one or the other in all languages.

That is because English does not like repetition. Once you have said 'not', 'hardly', 'scarcely', 'nor' etc., you do not need to say it again in another way.

For example, in Finnish, once you introduce a negative, the rest of the sentence has to carry on with the negative sense. Thus, 'olen' ('I am'), myös ('also'); '-kin' ('too'). In Finnish, it is logical and perfectly correct to say, 'Olen, myöskin' (I am also, too') but in English one would just say, 'Me, too' or 'Me, also'. Certainly not 'me, also, too'.

Likewise for negatives, 'en ole' ('I am not') you have to use the form '-kään' instead of -kin as it has to agree, thus you'd have 'En ole, myöskään' = two negatives in same sentence (='neither am I' - in English, just one negative, as you have already said so with the word 'neither').

If you extend it to include, 'and him' ('ja hän'), in Finnish this has to agree as a negative so it'd be, 'En ole, myöskään, eikä* hän' (I am not, either, nor is he').

In English one would say 'I am neither fat or thin'. In Finnish you'd say the equivalent of 'I am neither fat nor thin'.

More examples: English: 'it is scarcely believable', Finnish, equiv. 'It is not scarcely unbelievable'. English: 'He is hardly known'; Finnish, equiv, 'He is not hardly unknown'. English: 'There are no cattle, horses or sheep'; Finnish equivalent: 'There are no cattle, nor horses, nor sheep'.

So, in respect of double negatives having the opposite effect in English, this does follow logic in that you avoid repeating yourself. If you repeat yourself, you've cancelled out what you have just said. For example, 'I do not have no bananas'. In Finnish, you can use double negatives because the logic that is being followed is that negative words in a sentence takes a consistently negative form.

So you see, logic is tied up in language construction.


The issue about 'you' and 'thou' was more to do with etiquette, and logical against the social mores of the times, when the farm yokel was not supposed to show familiarity with his lords and masters.


*'ei' means 'no' and '-kä' is added on if used in a negative sentence as a form of negative conjunction (='nor')

 

[Vixen]

You're welcome. Hopefully it was a good learning experience.

I shan't be taking any lessons from you, but thanks for your offer.

 

[Vixen]

I know what's wrong when I see it, but I had to look up "dangling modifier" to make sure I was using the correct term. I could not have explained it as clearly as you did.

I would consider my post pretty inpolite, but this is a grammar thread so all bets are off.

Minoosh, think of it this way.

'....the rules of grammar is...'

and add an imaginary '... [the issue of] the rules of grammar is'.

Now does it become clear as to why it was singular?

 

[Vixen]

You're absolutely wrong. And I suggest you watch/listen to any UK sports broadcast this afternoon to see if the broadcasters use the single or the plural for sports teams (hint: they always use the plural - you will NEVER hear anyone saying something like "Chelsea's playing Arsenal and is one nil up (unless they are broadcasting on a US channel, that is)).

Perhaps you're thinking of the (management) accountancy practice of referring to corporate entities in the singular. And in that particular context, that is absolutely correct. It should always be "Tesco is announcing its half-year results today", and never "Tesco are announcing..." But that doesn't apply to sports teams.

Maybe do some actual research before pronouncing boldly (and incorrectly) that something is "rubbish! Absolute nonsense."

You are quite wrong to say it is incorrect to refer to a sports team in the singular form (for example, 'Dallas Cowboys is playing Philadelphia Flyers').

Whilst it is quite conventional for people to refer to a 'party' or 'group' as 'they', strictly speaking they are collective nouns and as such are singular (as in 'a herd of sheep', 'a school of fish', 'a football team'.).

Chelsea and Arsenal are football teams so strictly speaking, each is an 'it'. Sports presenters when referring to actual players are perfectly correct to refer to them as they (i.e., the wingers, full backs, forwards BUT one goalkeeper [please don't call the goalie 'they']).

 

[bruto]

Minoosh, think of it this way.

'....the rules of grammar is...'

and add an imaginary '... [the issue of] the rules of grammar is'.

Now does it become clear as to why it was singular?

To me it becomes clear as to why it was not.

In one sentence, there is a container, and in another the thing contained.

The issue is not the thing it is an issue of, just as the bag is not the peanuts inside it.

I think perhaps you're believing that "the issue" is implied or understood. I do not believe it is so.

 

[Vixen]

In my experiunce, the only people with truly acceptable grammars are myself. Everybody else seems just to be flailing away at the language, spewing words like chunks of meat after a Taco Bell overindulgunce. And after alls, isn't the point of language to just communicationatize? And thurfour if one managed so to do it it could be then distinguished as an triumph? Obviously the answering is "excellently yes". Q.E.P.

I am delightified by your argumentation.

 

[Vixen]

Bollox. This doesn't address book lians, libraries et cetera. Have you any support for your claim?

As I said, I read it somewhere.

<Sfx...There's a hole in my bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza...>

 

[Vixen]

To me it becomes clear as to why it was not.

In one sentence, there is a container, and in another the thing contained.

The issue is not the thing it is an issue of, just as the bag is not the peanuts inside it.

I think perhaps you're believing that "the issue" is implied or understood. I do not believe it is so.

Here in England 'as to' is correct. We were discussing the rules of grammar, so when I referred to it as 'it' I was obviously referring to it as the issue we were discussing.

I am sure you are very clever but not on this occasion.

 

[bruto]

Here in England 'as to' is correct. We were discussing the rules of grammar, so when I referred to it as 'it' I was obviously referring to it as the issue we were discussing.

I am sure you are very clever but not on this occasion.

"As to" may be correct, but it is unnecessary, because you are speaking of only one thing. As you point out, the reference was obvious. "As to" is a pointer not necessary if the thing referred to can stand alone without it, and generally used only at the beginning of sentences, rather than in the middle. If you wish further clarification on this small issue, Fowler might help.

I continue to maintain, anyway, that "the rules of grammar" is singular only if it is enclosed in quotation marks, as here, to indicate that it is a collective. Without enclosing quotation marks, or other indication that the phrase is collective (such as italics to indicate that it is a book title), "rules" remains a plural noun, and the rules are as plural as the clouds in the sky or the mice in my basement.

As for the Oxford Comma, I would generally agree here. I think it's more a matter of style and cadence. It seems the omission of a final comma in lists is largely the work of newspaper editors, who are always eager to save a space. But it has become so common that the "Oxford comma" appears unnecessary, despite Fowler's insistence that it always be used. Other sources seem a bit more lenient, suggesting that it is reasonable to omit it for shorter lists where no ambiguity exists, and to put it in for long lists, or when it's not entirely clear where the list ends.

So, for example, on might mention that the printer has four cartridges: cyan, magenta, yellow and black. But if one were listing all the movies made in 1939, or some list whose components are not simple or not easily distinguished from what follows, a comma makes more sense.

 

[ArchSas]

In English one would say 'I am neither fat or thin'. In Finnish you'd say the equivalent of 'I am neither fat nor thin'.

No, that's just incorrect. Enough so that your "English example comes off as glaringly awkward to me. If you're using neither as a conjunction, it goes with nor. Your "Finnish" example would be the correct version in English, too. At least in the US, this rule is even taught as a standard mantra (like "I before E except...") - "either/or, neither/nor." Again, it seems like the clear logic behind your set of rules for English aren't quite what you think they are.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I believe grammar is similar to sex in that the people who declare they're really good at it are only setting themselves up for embarrassment.

 

[zooterkin]

In English one would say 'I am neither fat or thin'. In Finnish you'd say the equivalent of 'I am neither fat nor thin'.
...

No, as already pointed out, the use of 'nor' in English would be the correct option.

For example, 'I do not have no bananas'. In Finnish, you can use double negatives because the logic that is being followed is that negative words in a sentence takes a consistently negative form.

In English, I think you'll find the correct phrase is, "Yes, we have no bananas".

 

[LondonJohn]

In English one would say 'I am neither fat or thin'. In Finnish you'd say the equivalent of 'I am neither fat nor thin'.

Ermmmmmm WHAT??
Tell us all again about your supernatural academic achievements at school

(Oh and your constant irrelevant references to Finnish and Finland are getting increasingly tiresome)

 

[LondonJohn]

You are quite wrong to say it is incorrect to refer to a sports team in the singular form (for example, 'Dallas Cowboys is playing Philadelphia Flyers').

Whilst it is quite conventional for people to refer to a 'party' or 'group' as 'they', strictly speaking they are collective nouns and as such are singular (as in 'a herd of sheep', 'a school of fish', 'a football team'.).

Chelsea and Arsenal are football teams so strictly speaking, each is an 'it'. Sports presenters when referring to actual players are perfectly correct to refer to them as they (i.e., the wingers, full backs, forwards BUT one goalkeeper [please don't call the goalie 'they']).

Ah ye olde Yuletide strawman!

Where did I say whether it was "incorrect" or not to refer to sports teams in the singular or plural? That, I'm afraid, is the product of your own misinterpretation.

What I actually said was that I found it interesting/amusing that in the USA they use the singular for sports teams but cannot bring themselves to use the "it" pronoun for sports teams - leading to internal contradictions such as "Dallas needs to win today, otherwise they risk missing out on the playoffs". Do you understand now?

Likewise, I pointed out that in the UK we are never faced with this contradiction because sports teams always take the plural in any case. Note again that I made no value judgement about whether that was "correct" or not.

You then posted an incorrect "response" - which showed you'd never even understood my post in the first place - in which you stated that it was "rubbish! Absolute nonsense!" to refer to sports teams in the plural, and that it "should" read things like "Chelsea is playing Arsenal and is one-nil up". Despite the fact that every single written and broadcast reference to sports teams in the UK media uses - and has used for certainly the last 40-50 years or so - the plural form for sports teams.

But do keep digging - it's entertaining!

 

[theprestige]

In English one would say 'I am neither fat or thin'.

No. In English, the constructions are either/or and neither/nor.

One might indeed say "I am neither fat or thin", but if one did, one would be at odds with actual conventions of English speech.

You may want to consider spending a lot more time asking English speakers how English is spoken, and a lot less time telling English speakers how they speak English.