Fowler, The King's English

[Sceptra_Tenens]

@adrianus

This is a very roundabout way of saying that even many fluent speakers can make a mistake about this because they just don’t know what to say, so they have a 50% chance of getting it right. If the data showed significantly other than that for people who said they couldn’t articulate the standard grammatical rule, then that would be evidence for the application of some rule that lay unarticulated behind their choice. That would be interesting in descriptive grammatical terms. The data would hardly be interesting if it revealed (as it probably would) simply that many fluent and educated people [assuming agreement about measures of fluency and education] were uncertain about what to say. Or you might learn that many fluent speakers default to tying a verb to the number of the noun that’s closer when they have never learned to do otherwise.

People are not led or misled by the language. It’s not entrapment! We choose our terms of expression and we’re responsible for our choices and our mistakes. Nor is this a bad thing,—grammar and literacy can be forces for liberation, even if some might use them, or restrict them, in repressive, conservative ways.

One thing I must often remind myself is that language is far more ancient than the grammarian. I do my share of wincing and cringing, but who am I to tell a native speaker that he is wrong? “Sir, this language which was passed down to you by your parents, with which you communicate daily without misunderstanding, is fundamentally flawed because it violates a rule penned by a prominent professor.”

To us, language is a science. To the world at large, it is a tool. The masses will propel the evolution of all natural languages, while the grammarians of every generation watch in horror.

After all, all living languages are just horrible degenerations of ancient ones.

[adrianus]

@Ulpianus

Well, that frees me from decades of unnecessary guilt!

Yes, grammar CAN also make you free.
Ita, grammatica facit liber, vel ea te sic facere potest.

Concerning “they, them, their. 1. One, anyone, everybody, nobody, &c., followed by their &c.” (opus citatum, p.648), Fowler is against the use of their and disapproves of the OED’s weak stance on the matter (where it says just “not favoured by grammarians”). Reading between the lines, he sort of says that women should soak it up, and “he”, “him”, “his” is better if referring to bother sexes.

Usum renuit. Sententiarum ad genus pertinentium in tractando, Fowler omnes pronomina masculina communia tenere admonet et is in hâc re remissionem OED dictionarii plorat.

@Sceptra Tenens

The masses will propel the evolution of all natural languages, while the grammarians of every generation watch in horror.

You’re moving up your revolutionary gears there, Sceptra Tenens.
Mechanismos velocitatis revolutionarios adjicis, Sceptra Tenens.

[Sceptra_Tenens]

@adrianus

Concerning “they, them, their. 1. One, anyone, everybody, nobody, &c., followed by their &c.” (opus citatum, p.648), Fowler is against the use of their and disapproves of the OED’s weak stance on the matter (they just say “not favoured by grammarians”). Reading between the lines, he sort of says that women should soak it up, and “he”, “him”, “his” is better if referring to bother sexes.

I find myself going back and forth. “They” has a good foothold in the US, but when the fancy takes me I make a conscious effort to use “he”.

Is there any modern language, save English (but English/outside of English/except for English/&c), that uses plural pronouns and verbs for the third-person singular? It will certainly be standard within the next century, and I have to admit that I do like languages to develop unusual quirks.

You’re moving up your revolutionary gears there, Sceptra Tenens.

Just never let them know what power they have.

[adrianus]

@Sceptra Tenens

Is there any modern language, save English (but English/outside of English/except for English/&c), that uses plural pronouns and verbs for the third-person singular? It will certainly be standard within the next century, and I have to admit that I do like languages to develop unusual quirks.

Habes constructionem ad sensum seu synesin latiné et graecé.
You have synesis or “construction according to sense” in Greek and Latin, as in English.

“Magna pars quae raptae sunt” // “A great part [of the women] who were seized”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesis

Ca existe aussi en Français: http://en.wikipedia.org.fr.mk.gd/wiki/Synesis

[Sceptra_Tenens]

Yes, but that’s fundamentally different in that in English “they” can refer to an individual, which is what I was referring to in my poorly-worded way.