Proper use of the word "their."

The tagline of the movie Lucy begins, "The average person uses 10% of their brain capacity."



My former proofreader used to always get upset when I used the word "their" as the possessive form for a single person. He always said it was only to be used when referring to something that belongs to two or more people. If that is correct, then wouldn't that make the tag line wrong? Or was my proofreader wrong? May "their" be used when referring to a non-specific person of either gender? Or might the word "average" imply we're really talking about a group of people?

I think a lot of us, including me, dread using he/she in such cases. Personally, at the risk of offending my more sensitive readers, just use "he" for gender neutral cases like, "The blackjack player should never touch his cards with both hands." However, this he/she dilemma should not be license to abuse the word "their."

The question for the poll is whether the tag line is proper English?

Quote: Wizard

I think a lot of us, including me, dread using he/she in such cases. Personally, at the risk of offending my more sensitive readers, just use "he" for gender neutral cases like, "The blackjack player should never touch his cards with both hands." However, this he/she dilemma should not be license to abuse the word "their."

The question for the poll is whether the tag line is proper English?

I'd say it is proper though evolving use to avoid using sexist pronouns. In formal terminology you would say "his or her." If you were typing a paper you would say "his or her." In ad copy you would make it less formal. English has less "formality" rules than some other languages so one gets some slack.

I once had a job where we could not use sexist terms unless there was no question of gender of the caller, not fun.

Quote: Wizard

The tagline of the movie Lucy begins, "The average person uses 10% of their brain capacity."


"The blackjack player should never touch their cards with both hands."

FYP lol

I think it's grammatically incorrect for the same reason you gave, especially when the next line uses "she" right after the use of "their". Keep it straight, Mr. Copywriter. Wonder how this was written, submitted for approval to a whole committee most likely, then approved by the studio, then nobody in the print or television industries called attention to the matter, to have it corrected. Lot of people missed it. Laziness? Apathy? Stupidity?....or just a sign of the times?

But this movie is marketed to the young-uns who won't notice, or even understand why it's wrong.

It is proper English. We've been through this once before and I cited an example where Shakespeare used it this way. if it was good enough for Shakespeare, it's good enough for you.

What should offend you, and all thinking people, is the 10% of the brain myth being repeated yet again (not entirely surprising coming from a guy who buys the notion of four or five elements).

BTW, in another board years ago someone asked: How come you never hear a doctor say "Luckily the bullet hit a part of the brain the patient doesn't use."

Quote: Nareed

It is proper English. We've been through this once before and I cited an example where Shakespeare used it this way. if it was good enough for Shakespeare, it's good enough for you.

I never said my memory was much good. I wish I could use the other 90% of my brain to remember more things like that. Can I trouble you to repeat the Shakespeare example?

Quote:

What should offend you, and all thinking people, is the 10% of the brain myth being repeated yet again...

A Comedy of Errors, Act IV, Scene 3

I asked my former proofreader, who I consider to be the best master of the English language I've ever known, about this. Here is his reply.

Quote: Anonymous

Of course it bothers me; it's grotesquely wrong. But no more wrong than 100 things I read every day in print or on the Internet that are wrong. The average American isn't capable of writing three sentences in a row without some sort of mistake. We're a nation of functional illiterates. Sad.

Anyway, the debate is endless, because, after enough illiterate people say or write something, eventually, purists like me lose to the overwhelming masses who are, ... well, asses. There are countless examples of aberrational spellings and pronunciations that have become "acceptable," if not "preferred" because enough clueless people say or write them.

He's missing a comma after "preferred."

Quote: Wizard

I asked my former proofreader, who I consider to be the best master of the English language I've ever known, about this. Here is his reply.

We did discuss this point at length some time ago.

I think grotesquely wrong is an overstatement. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Chesterfield, Ruskin, Austen, Shaw, Caesar, W. M. Thackeray, are cited as respected writers who have used the "singular they". Grammarians have been criticizing the "singular they" in favor of the "gender neutral he" for over a century. But most people will opt for it if given the choice.

(A) "The average American needs the small routines of getting ready for work. As he shaves or blow-dries his hair or pulls on his panty-hose, he is easing himself by small stages into the demands of the day."

(B) "The average American needs the small routines of getting ready for work. As they shave or blow-dry their hair or pull on their panty-hose, they are easing themself by small stages into the demands of the day."

Abbreviated pronouns have been proposed: 'e (for he or she) or 's (for his/hers); h' (for him/her in object case); "zhe" (also "ze"), "zher(s)" (also "zer" or "zir"), "shi"/"hir", and "zhim" (also "mer") for "he or she", "his or her(s)", and "him or her", respectively; 'self (for himself/herself); and hu, hus, hum, humself (for s/he, his/hers, him/her, himself/herself).

Quote: Pacomartin

(A) "The average American needs the small routines of getting ready for work. As he shaves or blow-dries his hair or pulls on his panty-hose, he is easing himself by small stages into the demands of the day."

That example shows the trouble of the lack of a gender neutral pronoun and I think is an extreme case to make a point. In my opinion, there is no good way to rewrite that sentence to be both correct and sound natural. Personally, I would have eliminated the reference to pantyhose and shaving and kept all the examples as things both sexes do on a daily basis and used "he/his" as the pronouns.

Quote:

Abbreviated pronouns have been proposed: 'e (for he or she) or 's (for his/hers); h' (for him/her in object case); "zhe" (also "ze"), "zher(s)" (also "zer" or "zir"), "shi"/"hir", and "zhim" (also "mer") for "he or she", "his or her(s)", and "him or her", respectively; 'self (for himself/herself); and hu, hus, hum, humself (for s/he, his/hers, him/her, himself/herself).

That has about as much chance of catching on as Esperanto does of being a universal language.

I wonder if the feminists in Spanish-speaking countries make a fuss over a group of mixed gender being referred to as masculine as English-speaking feminists do over "he/his" being used, sometimes, for a human being of nonspecific gender.