On the confused and confusing idiotic use of "they" as a singular pronoun
ConversazioniPedants' corner
Iscriviti a LibraryThing per pubblicare un messaggio.
1proximity1
"On the confused and confusing idiotic use of "they" as a singular pronoun"
in which it is shown through examples "Why fucking morons should not instruct others in good language-usage and style."
____________________
"They", a plural pronoun, refers to more than one individual referent.
A boy, your son, is "he", not "they." A girl, your daughter, is "she", not "they."
And in this case,
... "We used to call people like that anti-social forces. They still exist. We just pretend they don't. Or worse, we excuse their behavior. We coddle them. We fund them. Wall Street sends them money in the hope that they will be destroyed last. The rest of us just look on confused. We don't really know what's happening, but the destroyers know. They know exactly what's going on." ...
__________
(emphasis added in the relevant part, above)
from Tucker Carlson's Fox News monologue of Monday, 22 June, 2020: "The real reason mobs across the country are tearing down American monuments"
the pronoun for the referent "Wall Street" is, in this case, not "they" but, rather, "it."
That's because, not least, "they" makes the sentence in question mean that Wall Street (here a collective noun) sends them (i.e. "people once referred to in a group as "anti-social forces") money in the hope that they (which syntactically must refer to these same and most-recently-mentioned people, as anti-social forces) will be destroyed last."
But that makes a hash and nonsense of Carlson's point, which is, rather, that Wall Street sends the people, identified as anti-social forces, money in the hope that it, (i.e. Wall Street) will (or "shall") be destroyed last--that is, after all the other targets which hadn't sent a kind of desperate protection-money, are destroyed by these voracious anti-social forces.
Thus, the sentence, properly written, should read,
"Wall Street sends them money in the hope that it will be destroyed last."
2andyl
Absolute rubbish.
Firstly, you don't mention the first uses of they / their in the Tucker Carlson piece. Once you use they in the second and third sentence, and their in the fourth, to switch to "it" in the seventh would be bad writing.
Secondly, referring to people as it seems to be completely wrong anyway. I would say that the people are a mass noun, not a collective noun in this case. Or at least form multiple different groups of "anti-social forces", thus justifying the plural they.
Thirdly, even if you insist it is a collective noun in British English it is very common to see collective nouns being treated as plurals.
Finally, singular they can be traced back to the 14th century where it appears in William and the Werewolf, and its use is quite normal and unremarkable. So it would be perfectly fine anyway in my idiolect even if it referred to a singular person.
Firstly, you don't mention the first uses of they / their in the Tucker Carlson piece. Once you use they in the second and third sentence, and their in the fourth, to switch to "it" in the seventh would be bad writing.
Secondly, referring to people as it seems to be completely wrong anyway. I would say that the people are a mass noun, not a collective noun in this case. Or at least form multiple different groups of "anti-social forces", thus justifying the plural they.
Thirdly, even if you insist it is a collective noun in British English it is very common to see collective nouns being treated as plurals.
Finally, singular they can be traced back to the 14th century where it appears in William and the Werewolf, and its use is quite normal and unremarkable. So it would be perfectly fine anyway in my idiolect even if it referred to a singular person.
3thorold
>1 proximity1: "Wall Street sends them money in the hope that it will be destroyed last."
"it" would be standing for "money" there, by the normal rules.
"it" would be standing for "money" there, by the normal rules.
4proximity1
>2 andyl:
fucking nonsense.
The same point regarding the use of "it" as the pronoun for the collective noun, "Wall Street," applies equally in all the instances of Carlson's commentary.
I neither have to mention them all nor take them in order of their appearance in the commentary. That you should imply that, if I don't do so, there's something amiss about my point--that is fucking nit-picking nonsense.
_____________________
>3 thorold:
Consider:
You apparently don't know what's going on.
Does it make sense in the context of the paragraph as cited that "Wall Street" should send its money to "anti-social forces" in the hope that ("it")--i.e. Wall Street's money-- should be "destroyed last"?!
If "Wall Street" hoped to preserve its money as long as possible from destruction, while hoping that, in the "end", this money is destroyed at last, then why shouldn't "Wall Street" itself simply see to its money's destruction?
You show an amazing capacity to tie yourself up in idiotic knots just to defend what ought to be obvious as nonsense.
fucking nonsense.
The same point regarding the use of "it" as the pronoun for the collective noun, "Wall Street," applies equally in all the instances of Carlson's commentary.
I neither have to mention them all nor take them in order of their appearance in the commentary. That you should imply that, if I don't do so, there's something amiss about my point--that is fucking nit-picking nonsense.
_____________________
>3 thorold:
Consider:
"... "We used to call people like that anti-social forces. They still exist. We just pretend they don't. Or worse, we excuse their behavior. We coddle them. We fund them. Wall Street sends them money in the hope that they (?) will be destroyed last. The rest of us just look on confused. We don't really know what's happening, but the destroyers know. They know exactly what's going on." ...
You apparently don't know what's going on.
Does it make sense in the context of the paragraph as cited that "Wall Street" should send its money to "anti-social forces" in the hope that ("it")--i.e. Wall Street's money-- should be "destroyed last"?!
If "Wall Street" hoped to preserve its money as long as possible from destruction, while hoping that, in the "end", this money is destroyed at last, then why shouldn't "Wall Street" itself simply see to its money's destruction?
You show an amazing capacity to tie yourself up in idiotic knots just to defend what ought to be obvious as nonsense.
7proximity1
>6 dtw42: "Problem solved." ?
That depends, of course, on how you frame the "problem."
I've already posted an example of Carlson's point and idea properly and correctly formulated in good English, as opposed to what he'd written, and that's to be found at the end of >1 proximity1: in bold-face
If the problem was a single sentence's syntactical fault, I shouldn't and wouldn't have posted this thread.
That depends, of course, on how you frame the "problem."
I've already posted an example of Carlson's point and idea properly and correctly formulated in good English, as opposed to what he'd written, and that's to be found at the end of >1 proximity1: in bold-face
If the problem was a single sentence's syntactical fault, I shouldn't and wouldn't have posted this thread.
