bummer

[highlyeccentric]

Kate's linguistic textbook has just shot down my grammatical adherence to non-inclusive language...

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, masculine pronouns were not used as the generic terms; the various forms of he were used when referring to males, and of she when referring to females. The pronoun they was used to refer to people of either sex even if the referent was a singular noun, as shown by Lord Chesterfield's statement in 1759: 'If a person is born of a gloomy temper... they cannot help it.
By the eighteenth century, grammarians (males to be sure) created the rule designating the male pronoun as the general term, and it wasn't until the nineteenth century that the rule was applied widely, after an Act of parliament in the United Kingdom in 1850 sanctioned its use. But this generic use of he was ignored.

which makes me wonder... could the current parliament of the UK repleal said law? what would be the social implications thereof?
moreover, i am delighted to find there was once a time when grammar was of such importance that Parliament was passing acts on it :)

Comments

[lepsdavid.livejournal.com]

Take that Amy's grammatical adherence!

[niamh-sage.livejournal.com]

I'm delighted to find out that "they" was once correct usage to refer to a person of non-specified gender. I've always thought that was the most sensible thing to do. I think I shall write to British Parliament and ask them to reinstate that rule. ppppbpbbbttttt to all the horrified grammarians spinning in their office chairs >:)

[highlyeccentric.livejournal.com]

the thing with all this is, i happen to know how neuter pronouns worked in Old English and they *weren't* used for persons of unspecified gender, they were used for objects. I'm not sure if "they" was the pronoun of choice for individuals selected from a mixed group... shall ask Melanie. "they" in OE was interestingly based on or identical the feminine construction for all but the dative form...

[daiskmeliadorn.livejournal.com]

*bron jumps for joy* woo hoo!

.... then bron reads the next comment from amy

*bron's joy is shot down by confusion*

[highlyeccentric.livejournal.com]

well, kate's linguistics textbook is clearly only talking about 'modern' english...

[daiskmeliadorn.livejournal.com]

ah, i see.
and you're saying that english today should reflect which historical 'english'? :P

are you like this with other matters of grammar, or just the he-man issue? :)

[highlyeccentric.livejournal.com]

well modern english pronouns use 'he' for indefinite gender, which i think is taking a Latin model. and so grammar sticklers like myself start muttering when people rewrite hymns and so on, because we ought to be just smart enough to deal with it. i like my old hymns and i like them old, reflecting the grammatical and other prejudices of the time.

the old english digression was just because it struck me as inaccurate to say that 'they' had *always* been used for singular indefinite gender; and then that makes me curious about when the change came in, and so on...