Choice of pronoun/s?

[Tone]

With the current trend to avoid "he" or "she" and use "they", this oddly sounding item appeared in the Daily Mirror TV reviews on 7 May.
(And don't ignore the lack of "whom".)

It's writing about a father/daughter relationship (my bold).

"Genesis? He should have named her Judas. But don't forget who gave who away when they were a baby."

If we are supposed to accept that "they" can be used as a "non-gender-specific" singular pronoun, should that not be "when they was a baby"?

Tone

[Pete]

Should it be "who gave whom away"?

[Dave M]

The "non-gender-specific they" is always singular, but always takes the plural verb-form, I think, Tone: Someone has borrowed the laptop, but they are going to find the battery's flat

[Dave M]

Reading my last posting again, I see an an oddity. I said "always singular" when in the "non-gender-specific" form, because when plural they is already the form for all male, all female and mixed combinations.

[Tone]

because when plural they is already the form for all male, all female and mixed combinations.
(Oh sad to see the HOC missing, there.)

But you forgot to add "and neuter".

(ex. "I saw the houses in the valley below. They had red rooves.")

[Gosh, I feel all modern, using "ex.". ]

Tone

[Barry]

er ...

rooves?

[Tone]

Barry,

Quite deliberate, I assure you. (Hence the choice of example. )

SOED:
roof /ru:f/ n. & v.[OE hrof = OFris. hrof, (M)LG rof, MDu. roof (Du. roef cabin, coffin lid), ON hróf boat shed.]
A n. Pl. roofs, rooves /ru:vz/.

I recall that we did this before. I think that Sue supported me and does it (sorry, uses it) herself.

Tone

[Sue M-V]

I recall that we did this before. I think that Sue supported me and does it (sorry, uses it) herself.

I remember, too, Tone - but the Sue in question wasn't me, I'm afraid. I remember that "rooves" exists as an alternative, but I don't use it, and virtually never see it. (I can't say an unqualified "never", because you use it!) At the time, we discussed "dwarves" and "dwarfs", as well.

Sue

[Paul Doherty]

hoof, hooves, I suppose.

[ianm]

...and poof, pooves?
I think I have seen 'pooves' in writing by someone of 1930s-1950s vintage.
I'd use 'poofs' myself, if I ever had to. (That would be when quoting someone else because despite my cynicsm regarding political correctness, I can well imagine offence being easily given and taken with this particular word(s)).
(Ah, 2 closing parentheses and a full stop, thus an opener for a discussion on whether the full stop is necessary, and whether it's in the right place. I resisted the urge to place an exclamation mark in there as well.)

[Verbivore]

May 10, 2008 7:37:29 GMT ianm said:

...and poof, pooves?
I think I have seen 'pooves' in writing by someone of 1930s-1950s vintage.
I'd use 'poofs' myself, if I ever had to. [...]

ianm: Welcome!

I, too, would say poofs for the plural of poof; we don't use the pooves variant in Oz.

[Dave M]

I'd go ).) there, Ian - first bracket closes off the internal set, then we finish the sentence (which is entirely inside the brackets), then close the main brackets.

[Dave]

May 10, 2008 12:44:08 GMT Dave M said:

I'd go ).) there

I agree.

But then there's also the problem of this(these) ... word(s)

[Tone]

Sorry, Sue. Must have been some other (nearly as wonderful) person.

At the time, we discussed "dwarves" and "dwarfs", as well.

Did you have to bring the discussion down to that level?

Wasn't "pooves" used by Private Eye (magazine) some many a year ago?

Tone

[Bertie]

May 10, 2008 12:44:08 GMT Dave M said:

I'd go ).) there, Ian - first bracket closes off the internal set, then we finish the sentence (which is entirely inside the brackets), then close the main brackets.

Then you'd be wrong.