Everyone has their own opinion

[dr_mabeuse]

The rules of English would have us write this:

"Everyone has his own opinion."
"Does everyone have his money?"

I recently heard a grammarian on the radio address the possibility of replacing these contructions with:

"Everyone has their own opinion."
"Does everyone have their money?"

What was interesting was not only his opinion--he had no problem with the alternate constructions, and thought that as a gesture for the sake of sexual equality in language it might even be preferable--but what he said about the rules of grammar and their authoirity in general.

He was of the opinion that the rules of grammar, in America at least, are largely codifications of the way language was used by the American WASP establishment of the Eastern seaboard at the turn of the century. There is nothing 'natural' about these rules or fore-ordained, and it is ridiculous to think that language should allow itself to be frozen in amber, as it were, and beyond the reach of changing trends in usage and vocabulary. English is a living language, and living things grow and change.

There are many examples of this. The once-immutable laws of never starting a sentence with a conjunction or of ending one with a preposition are now mostly defunct and observed only by the most pedantic purists who still consider Dickens to be the epitome of prose. In fiction they are as routinely ignored as they are in everyday speech.

The point is, that rules of grammar and punctuation are largely matters we've agreed on (or been browbeaten to accept), and we are free to disagree on if we're ready to take the consequences. I don't mean to carry this too far (the horrors of simplifeid phonetic spelling come to mind), but inthe finer points of punctuation, I think we should be free to set our own rules.

---dr.M.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I'm so sorry ahead of time for my terrible spelling


actually I think to really be proper it should say "everyone has his or her own opinion" and how wordy is that?

I think you are right on this one.

as for the preposition one- I got comments on that for the sentance in my sigline. ...his words where anything but. Do I care that this is an "improper sentence"? Hell no! I wrote it that way because I liked the way it sounded.

back to his/ her/their (sort of):

I believe we need a new pronoun (he, she, it) one that means "singular object having both masculine and femine properties" as opposed to "it" which has neither masculine nor feminine properties. Now I know that we all have both masculine and feminine properties, so I guess it would be better to say "being both male and female" for instance 'group' which is singular, but may contain male and female, or say a cross-dresser or hermaphrodite. And maybe we should have a fifth pronoun that means either/or (unless the pronoun for both could double in this capacity) like when you don't know the sex of your unborn child. Inventing new words is relatively easy, but new pronouns?

Does anybody know if there are words like this in another language somewhere?

Here is my suggestion: he, she, it, af, and orf

 

[TheEarl]

Maleanesian languages just have one word for all of the pronouns. In bislama, it's all 'hem' whether you want to say he, she or it. Japanese doesn't even have pronouns. I love the af and orf suggestions. Now how to get them accepted by the Oxford English Dictionary?

It's probably depressing that I already say "Everyone has their own opinion." I'm not sure whether this is normal where I live; I have a very atypical accent and word choice and I haven't really listened to what words other people use for that sentence. It's more politically correct; I know women who'd give you an automatic slap even for categorising a group of men with one woman with 'Has everyone got his money?'

Actually just reading that, it really should be 'their' anyway. The pronoun should agree with 'everyone' which is plural. Why isn't it?

The Earl

 

[sweetnpetite]

"Actually just reading that, it really should be 'their' anyway. The pronoun should agree with 'everyone' which is plural. Why isn't it? "



Because 'everyone' isn't plural, its singular- like group or school is singular. Test it, if it where plural we would say everyone are instead of everyone is (plural: they are -singular: she is)

HOWEVER, in normal speach, most people say their- so you are not alone here. That's the reason why the rules so hard to remember, it "sounds right" the wrong way cuz we're used to hearing it that way. ANd the word looks plural when its really singular

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

My "straight" writing board had a long debate on this issue. The final vote was: For following the current rules, 2. For using "their" instead of some variation of "he", everybody else.

English grammar will always lag behind contemporary casual usage. IMHO, one of the reasons English has become a dominate international language is that, unlike French, it is not restricted by a governmental organization with the legal authority to decide what grammar is correct and what words must be used and which ones are forbidden.

But what the hell do I know about proper English, I live in Texas.

RF

 

[Un-registered]

I believe we need a new pronoun (he, she, it) one that means "singular object having both masculine and femine properties" as opposed to "it" which has neither masculine nor feminine properties. ... Does anybody know if there are words like this in another language somewhere?

Most other European languages have genders assigned to nouns which are independent of the actual meaning. For example in French all tables are feminine, and in German all young girls are neuter.

To complicate this further the gender of the noun does not change if the sex of the person referred to does. Thus the French find 'madame le president' perfectly acceptable.

Of course in French the possessive pronoun agrees in gender with its object and not its subject. Literally transposed into English that means that where we would say "The girl waved to her father" the French form is the equivalent of "The girl waved to his father."

Here is my suggestion: he, she, it, af, and orf

There isn't a problem with the plural, but there was a move to use en as the nominative and accusative and en's as the possessive in England some years ago, but it didn't catch on.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Feminists have also suggested a number of changes to our pronouns to avoid using the masculine him to agree with Everyone, Anyone, No one, etc. (What are those anyhow? Pronouns?) I remember tey and tem] being proposed for some of them, but I don't remember which ones.

I was curious whether in the UK, where nouns like team and club are treated as plurals, if that wouldn't influence you to use their as the possessive for those general group nouns:

The team lost all their equipment.

and so:

Everyone lost all their equipment.

Whereas in the US we would say

The team lost all its equipment

and so

Everyone lost all his equipment.


---dr.M.

 

[TheEarl]

I'd say that club and team are singular rather than plural. The club lost all of it's kit. Where did you hear that English people treat them as plural Dr M.

You're quite right SnP. It just sounded wrong though.

The Earl

 

[DarlingNikki]

I'd say that club and team are singular rather than plural. The club lost all of it's kit. Where did you hear that English people treat them as plural Dr M.

The Earl

But wouldn't you say the club areplanning a field trip? In American English we would say the club is planning a field trip.

 

[TheEarl]

Depends on the context. If you mean the people within the club, then it's are. If you're talking about the club itself, then it's is.

The Earl

 

[Un-registered]

Another collective noun with an odd usage is "government". The official ruling in the UK Civil Service, enshrined in a number of treaties, not least between the UK and the US, is that Her Britannic Majesty's Government are, whereas any other government is (inclding the capitalisation).

 

[sweetnpetite]

Depends on the context. If you mean the people within the club, then it's are. If you're talking about the club itself, then it's is.

The Earl

If you mean "the people in the club" don't you have to actually say the people in the club as opposed to just saying 'the club'?

 

[TheEarl]

Not necessarily. You can say The Club as an entity, or the club as in the people in the club.

The Earl

 

[sweetnpetite]

must be a british thing.

 

[TheEarl]

I love this. Whenever I say something about grammar that contradicts what everyone else is saying, no-one ever questions me on it. They just shrug their shoulders and say 'Must be a British thing.'

The Earl

 

[hiddenself]

Depends on the context. If you mean the people within the club, then it's are. If you're talking about the club itself, then it's is.
The Earl

I'm not so sure this reflects actual use. I was listening to the BBC the other night and they said

"XX's (name of team) loss to YY (another team) viturally ensures their relegation..."

I doubt that the "people" will be relegated -- rather it's the club, no?

I have the sense that when the noun is a "collective," then the verbs are usually in the plural, no matter what the implied context. But I'm not a Brit (oops, sorry, English).

hs

 

[TheEarl]

In that case, the commentator was probably referring to all the supporters and people involved with the club. Weirdness I know, but if you say a team is going to get relegated, it's referred to as the group of supporters rather than the club as an entity.

Weird, I know.

The Earl

 

[sweetnpetite]

I'm not so sure this reflects actual use. I was listening to the BBC the other night and they said

"XX's (name of team) loss to YY (another team) viturally ensures their relegation..."

I doubt that the "people" will be relegated -- rather it's the club, no?

I have the sense that when the noun is a "collective," then the verbs are usually in the plural, no matter what the implied context. But I'm not a Brit (oops, sorry, English).

hs