The singular they is proper English in my book. I would do it if I was chess.com because using "He" would cause a world of trouble from the politically correct and"he/she" is completely cumbersome and awful.
You aren't "picky" just pompous and not especially well educated.
Just wondering.... Am I the only one who is annoyed over and over and over by the failure of the system to used the language properly?
Maybe it's just me, but I have always thought that people who complain about the improper use of the English language should carefully and repeatedly check their own posts for improper spelling and grammar. (Note "used' in the above quote).
The singular "they" was used once or twice by Jane Austen, which causes all sorts of misguided English teachers to justify its use 6 to 8 times per sentence in modern usage.
In casual communication, unfortunately, "they" is becoming standard. You will never find it in an academic publication.
One of the many problems with the English language is that it has no third person singular neutral pronoun. "It," of course, fills the bill, but it fails miserably when used to refer to human beings: "Tomorrow, class, everyone should be sure to bring its book."
In cases where gender can be clearly inferred from the name, as in the case of Johnny, of course it is correct to use "he." Or if one praises "every Girl Scout for selling all her cookies," one would be perfectly correct.
But in the above-mentioned classroom scenario, we're stuck with either the awkward "his or her," or we're forced to defer to the slightly less than optimal "they."
Best practice would be to construct your sentences so as to avoid the conundrum entirely--"Tomorrow, class, be sure to bring your books." Failing that, "they" is perfectly acceptable in modern English usage.
Signed,
A former English teacher, not misguided
Thanks for your comments. However, my ancient brain just can't be reconciled with "they" as a singular pronoun. Since the comment is aimed at the person who disconnected wouldn't "you" be the most logical word to use?
Related to my original posting, I would like to ask a question on a separate subject. When I read my posting using Firefox it shows my comments as I sent them. However, when I read it using Chrome, nothing exists after the phrase 'to wit". I have had several other situations where the results on chess.com differ depending on the browser I use. For example, I am unable to use the tactics trainer on Chrome because the results of the problem don't show up on my screen! For the most part I prefer Chrome, but for some applications I just use Safari or Firefox. Since I use a Mac rather than a Windows system, perhaps that is part of the problem. I just don't know. Does anyone else have the same dificulty?
Since the comment is aimed at the person who disconnected wouldn't "you" be the most logical word to use?
"Johnny has disconnected. You have two minutes to get reconnected."
Huh?
I have heard English teachers say, "every Girl Scout shall be praised for selling their cookies." They are misguided.
His or her is not awkward when pronouns are few.
Decades ago in college, I had an Education professor urge he/she or s/he to avoid the sexist generic male pronoun. My professor in advanced composition called it "trendy bovine dung" (I'm paraphrasing). Over the course of the next ten years, I labored to use as few pronouns as possible. My writing improved as a consequence.
In the college courses that I have taught (history and literature), the singular they is forbidden because the writing must be formal, academic prose. The OP's rule remains in place for formal writing. In less formal writing, MSteen is correct. Chess.com's usage is acceptable, but it does aggravate "traditionalists" who are not old enough to remember the English of several hundred years ago.
My problem with "they" is not its occasional, defensible usage, but the excessive use by lazy writers and speakers. My adult son's kindergarten teacher's letter home on day one has been my example nearly two decades: "When your child arrives, have them put their coat in their locker." There are several ways to improve that sentence, to wit: "Your child's coat shall be stored in his or her locker." "When the children arrive, have them stow their coats in thier lockers." Agreement in number is still a valid and useful principle. Even a single "they" instead of "his or her" would be less aggravating than the string of three plurals added to one coat and one locker.
English is fluid and flexible, and ever changing. English teachers and grammarians do not all agree.
"You" would be correct for the person who has disconnected; it's a second person pronoun(yea, prolly don't have the exact term right).
The whole issue could be avoided with some better choices in sentence construction. E.g.:
"Johnny has disconnected and has 5 minutes to reconnect."
I agree.
RE: Chrome.
I have problems with Chrome and Slotomania on Facebook, and frequently Huffington Post pages load slowly or will not scroll well due to ads. But, I have had no problems with Chess.com's Tactics Trainer using Chrome.
From dictionary.com
Origin:
1150–1200; Middle English < Old Norse their they (replacing Old English hī ( e )); cognate with Old English thā, plural of thæt that
—Usage note
Long before the use of generic he was condemned as sexist, the pronouns they, their, and them were used in educated speech and in all but the most formal writing to refer to indefinite pronouns and to singular nouns of general personal reference, probably because such nouns are often not felt to be exclusively singular: If anyone calls, tell them I'll be back at six. Everyone began looking for their books at once. Such use is not a recent development, nor is it a mark of ignorance. Shakespeare, Swift, Shelley, Scott, and Dickens, as well as many other English and American writers, have used they and its forms to refer to singular antecedents. Already widespread in the language (though still rejected as ungrammatical by some), this use of they, their, and them is increasing in all but the most conservatively edited American English. This increased use is at least partly impelled by the desire to avoid the sexist implications of he as a pronoun of general reference.
I have heard English teachers say, "every Girl Scout shall be praised for selling their cookies." They are misguided.
His or her is not awkward when pronouns are few.
Decades ago in college, I had an Education professor urge he/she or s/he to avoid the sexist generic male pronoun. My professor in advanced composition called it "trendy bovine dung" (I'm paraphrasing). Over the course of the next ten years, I labored to use as few pronouns as possible. My writing improved as a consequence.
In the college courses that I have taught (history and literature), the singular they is forbidden because the writing must be formal, academic prose. The OP's rule remains in place for formal writing. In less formal writing, MSteen is correct. Chess.com's usage is acceptable, but it does aggravate "traditionalists" who are not old enough to remember the English of several hundred years ago.
My problem with "they" is not its occasional, defensible usage, but the excessive use by lazy writers and speakers. My adult son's kindergarten teacher's letter home on day one has been my example nearly two decades: "When your child arrives, have them put their coat in their locker." There are several ways to improve that sentence, to wit: "Your child's coat shall be stored in his or her locker." "When the children arrive, have them stow their coats in thier lockers." Agreement in number is still a valid and useful principle. Even a single "they" instead of "his or her" would be less aggravating than the string of three plurals added to one coat and one locker.
English is fluid and flexible, and ever changing. English teachers and grammarians do not all agree.
Those "improvements" are not improvements at all but new meanings. ""Your child's coat shall be stored in his or her locker." is truly awful - a passive sentence that doesn't instruct you to do anything. Perhaps the valet or the coar check lady will but the coat in the locker?
" "When the children arrive, have them stow their coats in thier lockers." is nearly as bad. This is a different instruction asking you to order all the children to put their coats in their lockers.
This pedantic grammar that leaves your writing ambiguous or meaning something other than what is intended is the worst possible writing. I'd give you an "F" for either of those sentences.
I have heard English teachers say, "every Girl Scout shall be praised for selling their cookies." They are misguided.
His or her is not awkward when pronouns are few.
Decades ago in college, I had an Education professor urge he/she or s/he to avoid the sexist generic male pronoun. My professor in advanced composition called it "trendy bovine dung" (I'm paraphrasing). Over the course of the next ten years, I labored to use as few pronouns as possible. My writing improved as a consequence.
In the college courses that I have taught (history and literature), the singular they is forbidden because the writing must be formal, academic prose. The OP's rule remains in place for formal writing. In less formal writing, MSteen is correct. Chess.com's usage is acceptable, but it does aggravate "traditionalists" who are not old enough to remember the English of several hundred years ago.
My problem with "they" is not its occasional, defensible usage, but the excessive use by lazy writers and speakers. My adult son's kindergarten teacher's letter home on day one has been my example nearly two decades: "When your child arrives, have them put their coat in their locker." There are several ways to improve that sentence, to wit: "Your child's coat shall be stored in his or her locker." "When the children arrive, have them stow their coats in thier lockers." Agreement in number is still a valid and useful principle. Even a single "they" instead of "his or her" would be less aggravating than the string of three plurals added to one coat and one locker.
English is fluid and flexible, and ever changing. English teachers and grammarians do not all agree.
Those "improvements" are not improvements at all but new meanings. ""Your child's coat shall be stored in his or her locker." is truly awful - a passive sentence that doesn't instruct you to do anything. Perhaps the valet or the coar check lady will but the coat in the locker?
" "When the children arrive, have them stow their coats in thier lockers." is nearly as bad. This is a different instruction asking you to order all the children to put their coats in their lockers.
This pedantic grammar that leaves your writing ambiguous or meaning something other than what is intended is the worst possible writing. I'd give you an "F" for either of those sentences.
Your miserable failure to distinguish an em-dash from an en-dash, as well as your inability to use quotation marks correctly disqualifies you from ever being in a position to grade my sentences. Some folks are in desperate need of a little pedantry from time to time.
From dictionary.com
Origin:
1150–1200; Middle English < Old Norse their they (replacing Old English hī ( e )); cognate with Old English thā, plural of thæt that
—Usage note
Long before the use of generic he was condemned as sexist, the pronouns they, their, and them were used in educated speech and in all but the most formal writing to refer to indefinite pronouns and to singular nouns of general personal reference, probably because such nouns are often not felt to be exclusively singular: If anyone calls, tell them I'll be back at six. Everyone began looking for their books at once. Such use is not a recent development, nor is it a mark of ignorance. Shakespeare, Swift, Shelley, Scott, and Dickens, as well as many other English and American writers, have used they and its forms to refer to singular antecedents. Already widespread in the language (though still rejected as ungrammatical by some), this use of they, their, and them is increasing in all but the most conservatively edited American English. This increased use is at least partly impelled by the desire to avoid the sexist implications of he as a pronoun of general reference.
Precisely what I referred to in my reference to "traditionalists" who are younger than several hundred years. Nonetheless, the frequency of the usage by these writers contrasts markedly with today's usage. They are being deployed as evidence by folks who encourage lazy expression.
I'm annoyed that every sentence has an exclamation mark at the end of it! Example: http://www.chess.com/sitemap !
The English Language can be spoken and written on different levels. If this were a college paper the writing would be considerably different. But it is not and informal idiomatic writing is acceptable. If you must nit pick do so only at a picnic.
I have heard English teachers say, "every Girl Scout shall be praised for selling their cookies." They are misguided.
His or her is not awkward when pronouns are few.
Decades ago in college, I had an Education professor urge he/she or s/he to avoid the sexist generic male pronoun. My professor in advanced composition called it "trendy bovine dung" (I'm paraphrasing). Over the course of the next ten years, I labored to use as few pronouns as possible. My writing improved as a consequence.
In the college courses that I have taught (history and literature), the singular they is forbidden because the writing must be formal, academic prose. The OP's rule remains in place for formal writing. In less formal writing, MSteen is correct. Chess.com's usage is acceptable, but it does aggravate "traditionalists" who are not old enough to remember the English of several hundred years ago.
My problem with "they" is not its occasional, defensible usage, but the excessive use by lazy writers and speakers. My adult son's kindergarten teacher's letter home on day one has been my example nearly two decades: "When your child arrives, have them put their coat in their locker." There are several ways to improve that sentence, to wit: "Your child's coat shall be stored in his or her locker." "When the children arrive, have them stow their coats in thier lockers." Agreement in number is still a valid and useful principle. Even a single "they" instead of "his or her" would be less aggravating than the string of three plurals added to one coat and one locker.
English is fluid and flexible, and ever changing. English teachers and grammarians do not all agree.
Those "improvements" are not improvements at all but new meanings. ""Your child's coat shall be stored in his or her locker." is truly awful - a passive sentence that doesn't instruct you to do anything. Perhaps the valet or the coar check lady will but the coat in the locker?
" "When the children arrive, have them stow their coats in thier lockers." is nearly as bad. This is a different instruction asking you to order all the children to put their coats in their lockers.
This pedantic grammar that leaves your writing ambiguous or meaning something other than what is intended is the worst possible writing. I'd give you an "F" for either of those sentences.
Your miserable failure to distinguish an em-dash from an en-dash, as well as your inability to use quotation marks correctly disqualifies you from ever being in a position to grade my sentences. Some folks are in desperate need of a little pedantry from time to time.
You mean my typing is casual so I can't comment on your inability to write clearly. Hmmmm.... No - now I can comment on your inhability to think clearly as well. This is the usual shtick. Good writing is good thinking. If you can't think, you can't write. That's why you wrote "improvements" that changed the meaning of the sentence.
And I have far more qualifications than are needed to give you an "F". Silly man...
There's a good summary of the issue at http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/he-or-she-versus-they. Some of the self-proclaimed professors here advocate only one of several possibilities without acknowledging its pitfalls.
Chess.com's usage is acceptable. Nonetheless, the OP is not alone in wondering if there might be another way to express the meaning. Indeed, there are several ways.
Just wondering.... Am I the only one who is annoyed over and over and over by the failure of the system to used the language properly?
I'm not talking about non-native speakers who make minor errors, but about the messages from chess.com itself. To wit, "Johnny has disconnected. They have 5 minutes to reconnected. They have 5 minutes to reconnect."
Can't chess. com decide whether Johnny is one person or several persons?
Huh? Pretty picky aren't I?