The first book you ever read? Not sure if that means you were a prodigy, or the opposite. You should have at least read The Hobbit first.

I always just figured that dwarfs was the correct plural for little people, but dwarves was for the mythical being that superficially resemble them, but are not human.

Well, that too.

John,

Where are you on using "they" as gender-neutral pronoun? In abnother thread, Suzzer said this:

"My point is that even though the person who posted that may not be aware of the nuances of profit vs income, on a less technical level they may very well still have a point."

And I jokingly took him to task for using "they" there.

But he made a point that it is gaining acceptance now.

I still point it out in the papers I grade....should I just let it go now?

I think the second is better by making the nouns agree, regardless of which conjunction you choose. However, there is no rule that noun/noun should agree like there is with verb/subject.

sisters.

I prefer agreement, Dom, but I'm slightly old-fashioned. I typically revise my sentences so I don't have to worry about it.

I used to do this, but we've lost the battle. "They" is now both singular and plural.

It doesn't help that the google definition specifically states that it is acceptable as a singular pronoun for an individual of unspecified gender. So even students doing their due diligence may use it this way.

I like how that reads

I've seen very good writers that always use "he" and others that always use "she." The gender of unknown doesn't betray the gender of the writer.

I pick one and go with it for the rest of whatever I'm writing, so that it's clear I what I mean when I write "they."

If I have two unknowns, I assign one a "he" and the other a "she."

You may ask: "what happens if you have three unknowns?"

I rewrite whatever I'm writing because that's obnoxious.

I was a child nerdegy.

My mom had read The Hobbit to us. She was reading LotR to us too, but she was going to slowly, imo, so I read ahead.

"They" as singular and plural is obviously a good change in the language imo. English needs a non-gendered singular pronoun and "they" is the only game in town.

Not the only game in town: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-...ronoun#Summary

I think it's an age thing. Growing up, not using "they" was pounded very hard in our heads.

Another thing that was pounded in our heads was not saying "Q" like "kw." It seems a lot of people use "kw" as a drop-in for "Q." I'm wondering what others' thoughts are on this one.

We already had "it".

No, it's the only game in town because it's the only one people who speak the language actually use as a singular third-person pronoun (aside from "he", which is out of favour for obvious reasons).

I have this crazy notion that before prescriptivists start loudly insisting that some rule exists, they should be required to provide evidence that the rule doesn't conflict with centuries of the actual use of English. Failing this test are both "less v fewer", as discussed earlier, and the singular "they", which has been in use since the 14th century and actually predates the plural "they" in English. I described it as a change in the language in my last post, but I should really have said a change in whether prescriptivists are going to pearl-clutch about it.

I mean, even "they" didn't mean "they" throughout history. For example, we currently call foul on "they's" even though "they's" possibly predates "they" and may well be unrelated words.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/they

The origin of the determiner they (“the, those”) is unclear. The Oxford English Dictionary, Joseph Wright's English Dialect Dictionary and the University of Michigan's Middle English Dictionary[4] define it, and its Middle English predecessor thei, as a demonstrative determiner or adjective meaning "those" or "the". This could be a direct continuation of the use of the English pronoun they's

We don't approve of "ain't" either, but that word has been around since the 1770s and hasn't changed meaning at all.

I think "they" is simply morphing to a newer, more general meaning, which I don't think is good or bad in itself. Language reflects culture and society, and after we became more efficient and evolved in our collective opinions of women, "he" sounds quaint and not generic enough today.

It's just challenging to fight against things you were taught. When I was growing up, it was considered uneducated to use "they" in the sorts of contexts that people are using it now. To my eyes and ears, it feels lazy when better words can be used. I personally have a list of words that I simply loathe because they are mere placeholders that don't add any clarity.

I think it's odd to have a pronoun that works in all situations. I'd love to see words like "they's" and "y'all" become more commonplace because they really do express plurality. Of course, culture prevents those words from catching on.

There are a few reasons that's different, the most important of which is that a normal alternative, "isn't", is available. Aside from "he" there is no alternative to the singular "they". The only answer prescriptivists can come up with is to advise you to torture your sentences until you no longer need a singular third-person pronoun. This is the opposite of what grammar is supposed to be about (meaning clear expression).

They went into the store.

It was a long book. They took 5 weeks to finish reading it.

I imagine they aren't happy about it.

What do all of the above sentences mean, exactly? Are we talking about a single person of unknown gender, a person of known gender that the author chose not to reveal, a group of people with mixed gender, a group of people of unknown gender, or a group of people with known gender? "They" is currently valid in all 5 cases.

I do agree that there are proper words to replace "ain't," but it's a contraction of "am not," which has no proper contraction. It's used to replace many other contractions, so common use is expanded over the rigid definition.

It denotes something that (grammatically) is neither male nor female. "they" is proposed as a pronoun for someone who might be either.

But that is the way it has always been used colloquially. The newest thing is people who claim to be neither male nor female wanting to be called "they".

At one time, "ain't" was marker of the upper class. A Civil War poster read, "He is going. I ain't." The person pictured who wasn't going to war had enough money to buy his way out.

Had to stop at McDonald's to pick up Happy meal for granddaughter. Too many questions, and the final one, "Is this for a boy or girl?" was met with this reply:

"Really. Must we continue to be governed by these binary gender distinctions?"

My daughter asked why I would subject a minimum wage earning teen to such a question. But why not?

I was taught that it is short for "amn't", and was more acceptable than the vile misuse of "aren't". I'm right, aren't I? I enjoy using "ain't", but I enjoy using "amn't" more. (My spell checker doesn't like "amn't".)

This wins.

Probably because this won't accomplish anything - the teen is just doing its job as it was trained to do, not setting policies, and the reason is because the meal includes a toy made for either boys or girls. You'd be more likely to change things by contacting the corporate office about the policy.

Oh, I know, but it was the only question I could answer.