> As recently as 15 years ago, using "they" to refer to a single individual was derided by many as grammatically incorrect.
> The recent acceptance comes down to two factors
Here is a couplet from Shakespeare's "A Comedy of Errors" (1623):
> There's not a man I meet but doth salute me
> As if I were their well-acquainted friend
And the King James Version (1611) of the Bible has this for Deuteronomy 17:5:
> Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
And these are not fringe publications, but some of the most widely-distributed texts in the English language. That makes singular "they" even older than singular "you"! I find it hard to understand the justification for opposing singular "they" even from a prescriptive perspective.
Singular "they" is very old and was not frowned upon when those were written. But there was a long period from 1800~2000 where it was maligned, particularly in formal writing. This shift was apparently down to grammarians of 18th and 19th century who promoted a "gender-neutral" "he".[0]
> The recent acceptance comes down to two factors
Here is a couplet from Shakespeare's "A Comedy of Errors" (1623):
> There's not a man I meet but doth salute me
> As if I were their well-acquainted friend
And the King James Version (1611) of the Bible has this for Deuteronomy 17:5:
> Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
And these are not fringe publications, but some of the most widely-distributed texts in the English language. That makes singular "they" even older than singular "you"! I find it hard to understand the justification for opposing singular "they" even from a prescriptive perspective.