Wikipedia is not a usage guide! --LMS
But it is an encyclopedia, and mention of "singular they" is relevant to the discussion of English language, and in particular English grammar -- I'm not saying "use the singular they" or "don't use the singular they", I'm just noting it is a phenomena of (at least some people's) English grammar. --
Simon J Kissane
I'm not convinced. You are talking about English usage. There is a lot of encyclopedic information you can give about English usage. The issue about "singular they" is one that belongs (is always treated) in an English language usage guide. --LMS
No, I'm not talking about English usage, at least as I understand it. English usage is prescriptive, "how you should write/speak", while all I'm trying to do is descriptive "how people do in fact write/speak". And it's not just an issue like affect vs. effect -- it can be related to issues such as gender-related language, and also it deals with a rather fundamental part of a language (its grammar, its pronouns). Are you saying that the features of the English language are somehow off-limits for an encyclopedia? I don't think so, especially since its not like we have any space limits here. --
Simon J Kissane
If you'll look at your Fowler, you'll see that very often his guide is prescriptive, but just as often it's descriptive, and a lot of time there is blurring between the two. So, yes, I am absolutely insisting that descriptions of English language usage are off-limits for Wikipedia--except when the issues impinge more or less directly on some issue of interest outside language. (That happens a lot, for example, in philosophy.) --LMS
I have to agree with Simon on this one.
Even if you assume that this is a usage issue, we are allowing other kinds of procedural knowledge -- what is it about language that makes it off limits?
But, I'm convinced that language use issues ALWAYS impinge on some issue of interest outside of language. I don't think meaning can be separated from the complex web of human behavior in which it is embedded, nor can use. I know this is a somewhat controversial position, but I think it is obvious in this case, that there are issues related to the feminist movement, gender inequality, and the politicization of language, tensions between academic language use and popular use, etc. These issues are real, and are related to historical facts. There is no reason that we can't do several things here: 1) Describe the way the singular they is used, 2) Describe the controversies surrounding it's use, 3) Describe the history of the words use. MRC
I'm with Simon here too, with reservations: so long as the article documents the
issue and controversy of the singular "they", and covers its history, it is relevant and useful. Similarly, I'd like to see the history of attempts at gender-neutral pronouns, and some coverage of that controversy. The last paragraph here, though, does stray a bit into prescription, and might be reworded. --
Lee Daniel Crocker
As a non-native speaker, I find this article very interesting, and think it should stay (except for some rewording, maybe). An example wouldn't hurt, maybe from Jane Austen's work. --
Magnus Manske
Look, do you all support just throwing the doors open to all the entries about English usage that you can see in Fowler or Garner or any other English usage guides? Or do you think this is, for some reasons you cite, an
exception? --LMS
Well, frankly, yes. If the article is
about English usage and not
solely prescriptive, then it's part of human knowledge, and belongs here every bit as much as articles about Poker strategy and cooking techniques. --LDC
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)