everybody...their

[Douglas G. Wilson]

>"A player has to be responsible for their actions in this league." --
>Ernie Grunfeld

What would Mr. Grunfeld say if asked about this utterance? [I have no idea;
I've never met him.]

He might say: "Oops, I meant 'his'." [OK, we all make boo-boos.]
He might say: "I feel one should use 'their' in all cases, to advance
sexual equality." [OK, each man has his notions, but I don't have to like
them.]
He might say: "I think the plural pronoun must be used since 'actions' is
plural." [If my opinion were solicited, I would strongly object.]
He might say: "I meant that each individual player must be responsible for
the actions of all the players." [Hmm ....]
Etc.

>But grammatically incorrect according to whose grammar?

Mine (in the context of my message), although I will try to adapt it to be
reasonably consistent with the consensus of learned and thoughtful
specialists as well as with current literature, etc. I do not suggest that
anyone is constrained to correctness according to my opinion -- not even
me. Since I have both children and thoughts, I cannot simply ignore the
entire subject.

>Is this any different from saying that everyone says "Who do you like?"
>"although this is grammatically incorrect"?

A little different, in that "responsible for his actions" (correct) would
sound perfectly natural IMHO. I'm a little ambivalent on "Who do you like?".

>If the claim is that the "their" (with sex-indefinite or even
>sex-presupposed but non-specific reference) is inconsistent with
>traditional usage, you're conceding that it's not a valid claim. If your
>claim is that it's "illogical" to have a plural pronoun with a singular
>antecedent ...

I make neither claim. I think that grammaticality is only partly dependent
on tradition, and only partly dependent on (external) logic.

>Bodine and others have observed that it's equally illogical to have a
>singular masculine pronoun with a possibly female antecedent ...

Such observations are incorrect IMHO. I contend that "he" acts both as
masculine and as common-gender pronoun. Furthermore, grammatical gender
need not correspond to sexual characteristics of the referent.

There may however be some problems with "he" vs. "it": for example, I think
"The committee shall consist of Mr. X, Mrs. Y, and Miss Z. Each member
shall cast his vote by noon tomorrow." is perfectly fine; but what about
"The committee shall consist of Mr. X, the Y Corporation, and the
Department of Z. Each member shall cast [?his/its] vote by noon tomorrow."?

>or for that matter (we might add) to ask "Who's there?" when you hear two
>people knocking and shouting outside your door (rather than "Who're there?").

A case where what seems most consistent with external logic doesn't seem
consistent with usual usage. Grammatically, I have no problem with either.

 >Were the well-known feminists Chaucer and Shakespeare making the same
political point when they used "their" with singular non-specific antecedents?

I don't think so. As in the case of Grunfeld, I haven't met these
gentlemen, though. Use in quoted dialogue would not have the same
implications as self-expressive use, of course. And my (or our) grammar may
deviate a little from Shakespeare's and a lot from Chaucer's.

-- Doug Wilson