why don't we just reclaim the word "man""?

[Walkie]

Holly put a holly wreath into the car boot and then drove to a friend's house. It's really not that difficult.

Bah! I didn't tell you, but Holly's spouse, Ash also had their car parked outside, and Holly was holding keys to both.  Also Holly (whose gender remains unspecified)  has now changed their mind and has driven to Holly's Mum's house instead. 
oh! plus Holly and Ash had each bought a Holly wreath, wouldn't you know it?  They only needed one, so Holly figured Holly's was superfluous. 

[Jack]

There are two singular uses of their there. It's not so ugly usage, or even uncommon usage. Now thinking of a time at another forum, when people were discussing how how a certain member was referred to via pronouns. One member chose to always refer by name. Made sense at the time. Sure, writing a whole book could be a considerable challenge, but in general no. Going to definitely give it a try.

[Jack]

Didn't even know it, but in 2019 Webster officially defined they as also singular, and also specifically defined as a non binary pronoun.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/sep/17/merriam-webster-they-nonbinary-pronoun

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

A point to remember is that not all transgender people want to be referred to by neutral pronouns. So maybe stick with traditional gender pronouns and if unsure use them/they/their as singular pronouns until you do know?

[Jack]

A point to remember is that not all transgender people want to be referred to by neutral pronouns. So maybe stick with traditional gender pronouns and if unsure use them/they/their as singular pronouns until you do know?

Yes, made that point before. Though this discussion seems more about how people generally speak, and people generally use gender pronouns. It does make sense a trans person might want a specific pronoun, but might not be offended by by them/they/their if people generally didn't use gender pronouns. Courtesy is still courtesy, so matter the general rule.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Jack, I couldn't agree more.

[odeon]

The problem, of course, is that we can't because none of us gets to decide.

Not sure what that's supposed to mean.

That none of us gets to decide how to change the language.

[Walkie]

Holly put a holly wreath into the car boot and then drove to a friend's house. It's really not that difficult.

Bah! I didn't tell you, but Holly's spouse, Ash also had their car parked outside, and Holly was holding keys to both.  Also Holly (whose gender remains unspecified)  has now changed their mind and has driven to Holly's Mum's house instead. 
oh! plus Holly and Ash had each bought a Holly wreath, wouldn't you know it?  They only needed one, so Holly figured Holly's was superfluous. 

There are two singular uses of their there. It's not so ugly usage, or even uncommon usage.

I think you mistook  my point? The above wasn't meant to be an example of an ugly usage of "their" (I;m sure there are loads of them floating around if you need them) . That was just me providing some additional info to make the task of reconstructing the original sentence without using any personal pronouns  (whch would include "their"wouldn't it?)  a tad more challenging for you.  Seeing as you found it so  simple.

Avoiding the use of personal pronouns was your own suggestion, remember? you surely can't fault me for sticking to that theme in my next reply to you? 

 If you want to rewrirte  "Holly put Holly's holly wreath  into Holly's car boot, then Holly drove to Holly's Mum's house..." with fewer iterations of Holly, but no personal pronouns,  i think that info makes it a tad more challenging? Heck. my intoduction of Holly's spouse, Ash, even made the usage of "their" ambiguous, in many places (uninitentionally)  and made me a think rather harder about how to phrase the additional info.  If its "' not so ugly usage" of their, well that goes to show that i rose to that particular  challenge half-way decently. Thanks   But that wasn't the point.
The point was that you can't now say "a holly wreath" "the car boot"  ., because you need to indicate which one of two options.  Also, if you write "a Mum" that would be both ambiguous and absurd, as would "the Mum".

Actually, I did once have a friend who would say  "the mother"when speaking of their mother. It's not grammatically incorrect . But in that case it was meant as am emotional  distancing device, on account of a traumatic relationship.  Surely not something that we should impose on Holly,  nor anybody else.

[Jack]

Holly put a holly wreath into the car boot and then drove to a friend's house. It's really not that difficult.

Bah! I didn't tell you, but Holly's spouse, Ash also had their car parked outside, and Holly was holding keys to both.  Also Holly (whose gender remains unspecified)  has now changed their mind and has driven to Holly's Mum's house instead. 
oh! plus Holly and Ash had each bought a Holly wreath, wouldn't you know it?  They only needed one, so Holly figured Holly's was superfluous. 

There are two singular uses of their there. It's not so ugly usage, or even uncommon usage.

I think you mistook  my point? The above wasn't meant to be an example of an ugly usage of "their" (I;m sure there are loads of them floating around if you need them) . That was just me providing some additional info to make the task of reconstructing the original sentence without using any personal pronouns  (whch would include "their"wouldn't it?)  a tad more challenging for you.  Seeing as you found it so  simple.

Avoiding the use of personal pronouns was your own suggestion, remember? you surely can't fault me for sticking to that theme in my next reply to you? 

 If you want to rewrirte  "Holly put Holly's holly wreath  into Holly's car boot, then Holly drove to Holly's Mum's house..." with fewer iterations of Holly, but no personal pronouns,  i think that info makes it a tad more challenging? Heck. my intoduction of Holly's spouse, Ash, even made the usage of "their" ambiguous, in many places (uninitentionally)  and made me a think rather harder about how to phrase the additional info.  If its "' not so ugly usage" of their, well that goes to show that i rose to that particular  challenge half-way decently. Thanks   But that wasn't the point.
The point was that you can't now say "a holly wreath" "the car boot"  ., because you need to indicate which one of two options.  Also, if you write "a Mum" that would be both ambiguous and absurd, as would "the Mum".

Actually, I did once have a friend who would say  "the mother"when speaking of their mother. It's not grammatically incorrect . But in that case it was meant as am emotional  distancing device, on account of a traumatic relationship.  Surely not something that we should impose on Holly,  nor anybody else.

Over ten years of attempting to avoid I and you variants has shown they can't always be avoided, though didn't mean to imply always avoiding pronouns is possible, but rather a desire to try avoiding pronouns in general. The new insight of dictionary changes also shifts that idea to them/they/their being completely acceptable singular alternatives when pronouns can't be avoided. Initially assumed the point of the first holly holly holly sentence was to mock the idea of trying, and the second was a continuation of that mockery while also contradicting previous statements implying variants of they shouldn't be used. Though okay. Holly, while holding the keys to both cars parked outside, the other belonging to spouse Ash, decided to drive to Mum's house instead.  Both had bought a holly wreath, and since only one was needed, the other was deemed superfluous. It's worth considering, maybe what's been holding ME back is stubbornness and unwillingness to try.

[Jack]

The problem, of course, is that we can't because none of us gets to decide.

Not sure what that's supposed to mean.

That none of us gets to decide how to change the language.

Have already decided. Seriously though, that may be the bigger stumbling point. Not necessarily and individual's personal decision, but the notion of deciding for others.

[Walkie]

The problem, of course, is that we can't because none of us gets to decide.

Not sure what that's supposed to mean.

That none of us gets to decide how to change the language.

Well, yeah, that much is obvious. And you could legitimately post a variant of that observation in almost every thread apart from "Did you take your meds today?"

I don't know, ofc,  but would hazzard a guess that Jack's curious as to why it's a problem for you wrt this particular issue, and not, say,  wrt to what we think should be done about Donald Trump? 

But to witter on a bit more, I might add that it's pretty cool that language remains (more-or-less) a genuinely democratic phenomenon, with correctness determined by common usage. I mean , once most of us individually adopt a particular parlance , that becomes de facto , correct , and will soon be recognised as correct  by academia.  And if that makes it hard for any given individual to impose their will on it, that's also cool, ofc.

I also think it's pretty cool that we do have some arbiters of good taste and clarity (eg grammaticists, editors) who have rather more influence than the average  bod-in-the-streetwhen it comes to establishing conventions. That's cool because they are people who know and care about language, as it happens. and can help to prevent communication snarl-ups when things change in some stupid and  ambiguous direction (eg the spelling of "lose" the sameway  as "loose".  Maybe they can't stop that; maybe that's the future "'correct' spelling, and then we'll have to check the context carefully whenever we write one of those words, wont we? but they can slow that change down, at the very least. eg. they can ensure you get marked down if you write "looser"in an essay without explaining "looser than what?" or why looseness is a factor )

What isn't cool, IMO , is that political pressure groups are now having an excessive influence, too. So we're getting things like the centuries-old natural drift towards  they/their/them as singulars rushed through unnaturally  fast, without anybody coming up with alternative plurals. (We do need to discriminate between singular and plural at times.  that is, if we want to be understood- which is the whole point of language in the first place isn't it?)  If things were left to proceed at their natural pace, such problems would be naturally ironed out. Whilst i don't like to upset transexuals, I don't find "let's all talk a load of acane bollox at each other to avoid upsetting transexuals" to be a good trade off.

Nor do i like that 'people can be maligned as "bigots" when they chose the  wrong pronoun. That's upsetting for people too. And that word is indubitably meant to be offensive and judgmental isn't it?  which fact supercharges the sting.  Do the feelings of non-transexuals no longer matter?

Invented words- even invented pronouns- do take root when they answer a commonly-felt need . "She"  certainly took root, didn't it? And we're going to have to be inventive here if we want to have both singular and plural gender-neatral pronouns, and to be able to tell them apart. And inasmuch as we want clear communication, I'm pretty sure that we do want both, even if some of us haven't yet noticed that. The drift towards adopting they/thior/them as singulars got stuck partway because, so long as we also (and even pimarily) regard them as plurals , they are highly ambigous in any number of contexts.  So, we evidently need to either invent some  singulars (or commissuon some redundant or vulgar singulars) or else nab the plurals, and invent some new plurals.

How to get people to agree on any one particular solution is a bloody great big problem.  Yeah.  Maybe lobbying for one particular solution and calling people bigots when they fail to fall in line is the only fast way forward.  I don't like it , though.  And I like it even less that the proposed solution only adresses half the problem and leaves us no better off, linguistically.

Oops! ranting again 

[Walkie]

Over ten years of attempting to avoid I and you variants has shown they can't always be avoided, though didn't mean to imply always avoiding pronouns is possible, but rather a desire to try avoiding pronouns in general. The new insight of dictionary changes also shifts that idea to them/they/their being completely acceptable singular alternatives when pronouns can't be avoided. Initially assumed the point of the first holly holly holly sentence was to mock the idea of trying, and the second was a continuation of that mockery while also contradicting previous statements implying variants of they shouldn't be used. Though okay. Holly, while holding the keys to both cars parked outside, the other belonging to spouse Ash, decided to drive to Mum's house instead.  Both had bought a holly wreath, and since only one was needed, the other was deemed superfluous. It's worth considering, maybe what's been holding ME back is stubbornness and unwillingness to try.

Intersting rely.  Thanks   (virtually)

Over ten years of attempting to avoid I and you variants has shown they can't always be avoided, though didn't mean to imply always avoiding pronouns is possible, but rather a desire to try avoiding pronouns in general.

I'd noticed that you avoid first person singular. I knew somebody else who did that. I found their prose really difficult to read, and when I asked why they avoided pronouns , was told it was basically, for the sake of concision.
I don't find yours difficult to read. Not sure if that's because you're more proficient with language , or I'm now more used to it?
Also  it seems you have motives other than concision? am curious.

Initially assumed the point of the first holly holly holly sentence was to mock the idea of trying

Well, yeah. Was making fun of the idea, cos I like making fun    , can't deny that.  But making a serious point, nonetheless. i.e. I really do believe that such constraints would be utterly unworkable., in general.  But if you personally  want to stretch them as far as they'll realistically stretch , and enjoy the challenge, I see no harm in that. Not mocking you as a likeably quirky individual , just the idea.  Was impressed by your adept responses.

I think that any attempt to demand  such proficiency  and stubborn determination of everybody would fail utterly, and result in outrageous grammatical constructions all over the place . But appreciate that's not your intention (though it sounded that way at first)

[Jack]

I'd noticed that you avoid first person singular. I knew somebody else who did that. I found their prose really difficult to read, and when I asked why they avoided pronouns , was told it was basically, for the sake of concision.
I don't find yours difficult to read. Not sure if that's because you're more proficient with language , or I'm now more used to it?
Also  it seems you have motives other than concision? am curious.

Practice. In the beginning it was more difficult to read. Brevity is also important in writing, but unrelated to pronouns. It's probably a couple reasons; the main one being a desire to practice projecting as impersonal which was helpful in creating a persona to use in a professional setting where text communication is primary. Part of the reason could simply be something to do. In the past, once chose to blog as a removed first person present tense narrator, for the purpose of writing about past memories. It's hard to know how a third-first person present tense narration of the past comes across to the reader, but it was interesting to do.

[Leto729]

As a man that is all that I can be in the end.

It is to bad that it has in this world that the word man has a negativity with some people.

People that are Political Correct are wrong. There will never be perfect world, in a imperfect world.

So people that think this do not understand this.

[Pyraxis]

Kevv's back!