"thon", "thon's" and "thonself"
>>Anyway, I've always hated the idea of introducing new pronouns. They sound unnatural and they'll never catch on. On the other hand, the use of "singular they" does sound natural (which is why it's widespread), and I think there's nothing wrong with it. Who says an old pronoun can't be adapted to a new use? The only problem is the form "themself", which sounds weird because it's normally ungrammatical, but using "themselves" does clearly suggest a plural... I'd be inclined to use "oneself" in such a case, myself.<<
The thing is that this usage of "they" is not actually new at all, but rather dates back all the way into the days of Early New English at the latest; for instance, this usage of "they" has been used quite unambiguously in the works of Shakespeare, which should be a very strong precedent if anything is.
As for "themself", my dialect does indeed use that word for the reflexive version of singular they, and trying to use "themselves" for the reflexive version of singular they just sounds wrong or at least extremely akward to me. As for "oneself", but seems like a silly workaround to avoid some idiots' thinking that "'themself" is not a word" rather than simply doing the obvious thing to do, whatever some pedants may say, and simply using "themself".
When "themself" first came to my attention - I may have used it before this, without realizing it - my initial reaction was that it seemed silly. But now I'm not so sure. In some situations, it seems to me as if it may be the natural reflexive to use for singular "they". For example, "If someone has a problem, they should take care of it themself." I'm still not sure, though; "themselves" doesn't sound entirely unnatural to me there either.
One interesting issue, which has been brought up on Language Log (
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001582.html ), is the use of singular they even when the sex of the referent is known (or knowable). The author says that increasingly, words like "person" and "somebody" take singular "they" systematically. He gives the example of a radio piece that he heard about high school pregnancy, in which a girl says something like, "I think if someone in my class was pregnant I would be sympathetic to them." He also gives the example of some graffiti that he saw, which (long story short) uses singular "they" for what would certainly be a male referent.
It's hilarious when people speak non-standard / sub-standard English to hear them attribute all the mistakes to "my dialect"!!!!!!!
>>It's hilarious when people speak non-standard / sub-standard English to hear them attribute all the mistakes to "my dialect"!!!!!!!<<
FOAD, prescriptivist.
<<FOAD, prescriptivist.>>
Most definitely agreed...without the "AD" bit. Just FO. :-)
<<It's hilarious when people speak non-standard / sub-standard English to hear them attribute all the mistakes to "my dialect"!!!!!!!>>
It's hilarious when people are prescriptivists to hear them attribute all their misconceptions to "correctness".
> It's hilarious when people speak non-standard / sub-standard English to hear them attribute all the mistakes to "my dialect"!!!!!!!
On what grounds is the use of "singular they" substandard? If you were paying attention, we have a precedent in Shakespeare, for God's sake.
- Kef
What's hilarious is the "FOAD" extremism when someone disagrees but is unable to retort properly without resorting to profane language.
(FOAD = f*ck off and die)
>>What's hilarious is the "FOAD" extremism when someone disagrees but is unable to retort properly without resorting to profane language.
(FOAD = f*ck off and die)<<
It was late, I had taken "david"'s comments quite personally (the reference to "my dialect" was quoting some words of mine in an earlier post), and I did not feel like spending time I could be sleeping trying to "convert" someone who I thought probably could not be "converted" in the first place. There is no point in trying logic with these sorts.
And if you really felt like saying something, don't use the name "Guest".
The "my dialect" did not crop up with reference to Shakespeare, but to the "themself" form that allegedly exist.
>>The "my dialect" did not crop up with reference to Shakespeare, but to the "themself" form that allegedly exist.<<
Which is exactly what I took issue to here, as it is effectively calling my own English "incorrect" even though I am a native English-speaker (and thus by definition such cannot be "incorrect").
I can see having an issue with the form "themself", but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it. If people really do use it, it's a real word, whether you like it or not. Even *sigh* "irregardless"...
- Kef
>>Which is exactly what I took issue to here, as it is effectively calling my own English "incorrect" even though I am a native English-speaker (and thus by definition such cannot be "incorrect").<<
By whose definition? Not by my definition. If you try getting a job teaching English in China you will find they won't want to be taught incorrect things just because you use incorrect English.
There's no such thing as correct or incorrect English except when compared to a standard. Dialectical features are by definition non-standard, so that would be irrelevant in a classroom environment anyway (where one would teach the standard). "Themself" is a nonstandard construction (and therefore should not be taught as standard), but that doesn't make it wrong.
- Kef
>>>>Which is exactly what I took issue to here, as it is effectively calling my own English "incorrect" even though I am a native English-speaker (and thus by definition such cannot be "incorrect").<<
By whose definition? Not by my definition. If you try getting a job teaching English in China you will find they won't want to be taught incorrect things just because you use incorrect English.<<
And so what if I happen to have dialect features which are outside some particular standard (and I doubt that there are many native English-speakers who happent to truly strictly follow some given standard, as much as they may happen to believe that their speech is "standard")? Aren't things like teaching the curriculum effectively more important from the standpoint of a school? One can speak cut-glass RP or conservative General American and still be a horrible teacher, while one can speak a dialect which is quite far from any given standard and yet be a very good teacher...
>>There's no such thing as correct or incorrect English except when compared to a standard. Dialectical features are by definition non-standard, so that would be irrelevant in a classroom environment anyway (where one would teach the standard). "Themself" is a nonstandard construction (and therefore should not be taught as standard), but that doesn't make it wrong.<<
The matter here is that students should still be able to *understand* such features even if they are "nonstandard"; they should not be "shielded" from such features just because of them being outside of whichever standard variety happens to be that which is being specifically taught.
When they are outside the classroom, if they ever actually speak to a native English-speaker, they will have to understand whatever "nonstandard" dialect features happen to be present in said native English-speaker's speech. Native English-speakers' speech won't just follow whatever curriculum the individual in question has been taught, and if they have been only exposed to a narrow range of varieties of English, they will only be disadvantaged in practice when they encounter actual native English-speakers.