posted
I just saw this in my nightly blog-reading and it amused me so I felt like sharing.
quote:Is "singular they" verbally and plenarily inspired of God?
Back in October of 2004, Geoff Pullum discussed a wall inscription where they had a singular definite antecedent: "This person is not ignorant. They are a prophet." Geoff wrote that
The pronoun form they is anaphorically linked in the discourse to this person. Such use of forms of they with singular antecedents is attested in English over hundreds of years, in writers as significant as Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Austen, and Wilde. The people (like the perennially clueless Strunk and White) who assert that such usage is "wrong" simply haven't done their literary homework and don't deserve our attention.
But Geoff left out the single most compelling example.
In the King James Version, Deuteronomy 17:
2: If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, 3: And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 4: And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and inquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: 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. [emphasis added]
Many people believe that the King James Version is "God's preserved word in English", or "verbally and plenarily inspired of God", or some similar formulation. Thus the Doctrinal Statement of the Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary says: "We believe that the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts which underlie the King James Version (the Masoretic text of the Old Testament and the Textus Receptus of the New Testament) are the preserved words of God. Furthermore, we believe that the King James Version of the Bible is God's preserved word in English and therefore, it shall be the official and only translation of the Holy Scriptures used by this Church and all of its ministries." And the Sword of the Lord's listing of What We Believe asserts that "We believe the Bible, the Scriptures of the Old Testament and the New Testament, preserved for us in the Masoretic text (Old Testament) Textus Receptus (New Testament) and in the King James Bible, is verbally and plenarily inspired of God. It is the inspired, inerrant, infallible, and altogether authentic, accurate and authoritative Word of God, therefore the supreme and final authority in all things." (See this compilation for more examples.)
quote:I'm pretty sure plenty of people would disagree with the KJV being the be-all and end-all of God's word.
Ummm....yep.
I actually knew someone who was so certain that the KJV was the "only" accepted word of God that he told my husband he was obviously not Christian because the Bible in hubby's front seat was NIV.
What I love are the people who claim that they read the "original" Bible and are talking about the KJV. Yes, it's definitely original. Jesus really spoke in English. *shakes head*
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: The quote didn't say that everybody agrees about the KJV. It just says that many people do believe it is all that.
And it's probably right.
And a chunk of those people complain about using "they" as a singular pronoun.
And that's why the OP is a funny.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, But the KJV did "fix" or "standardize" the English language in a very real way. The evolution of grammar, spelling and usage which had been very rapid and regional prior to the kjv was slowed and generalized. The secular impact of the book on the language was toward a standard usage. There have been "milestones" in other languages. Don Quijote comes to mind. But, I believe that the standardizing of English by the KJV is unpresidented.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Porter, when you say "many", do you mean most? Because in my experience, while I have met people who believe the KJV is "it" (in fact, one gave me a book for my birthday extoling that very fact), the majority of people I know in the Christian faith are not of that persuasion. In fact, I know "many" people who I consider far too liberal in labelling something "THE Word of God". And that's all I have to say about that, before I get myself into trouble .
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Leaving aside the issue of whether biblical English is in any way divine, the word actually IS "they" in the original Hebrew. That is, it is plural.
I have no idea if this supports the usage of they as a non-gender-specific singular in English or not.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
I find it funny that that quote is supposed to definitively show anything about English grammar.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Yes, it was a funny. Exactly as dkw described it. It made me laugh. And when I see the awful "zi" or "hir" set forward as gender-neutral pronouns, I can now whip out my ol' KJV Bible and say "Nuh-uh! God disagrees with you and says he alreay has a neutral pronoun for English!" That is, I can be as silly as the other person, and also make the point that we've had a gender-neutral pronoun for centuries, in works that help define the English language.
quote:Another suggested solution has been the creation of a new gender-neutral pronoun, such as tey, co, E, ne, thon, mon, heesh, ho, hesh, et, hir, na, per, po, or hann.
Of course, the vast majority of the singular-antecedent-plural-pronoun cases have significance far beyond any grammar debate. (As was mentioned in the first comment on that entry.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Leaving aside the issue of whether biblical English is in any way divine, the word actually IS "they" in the original Hebrew. That is, it is plural.
I have no idea if this supports the usage of they as a non-gender-specific singular in English or not.
It doesn't really, but that's not the point. It's a facetious appeal to the authority of God himself to establish once and for all that it's not incorrect to use they as a singular.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Understood. But even granting that (facetious) premise, does the fact that the original actually is "they" (and "them") support or contradict the case for using "they" in English as a singular pronoun?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I already said that it doesn't really support it, but now I'm not so sure about that. After all, Tyndale aimed to put the Bible into common English, and the KJV is essentially a revision of Tyndale's translation. I doubt they would have used "they" in such instances if it was ungrammatical in English.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except it's not particularly grammatical in Hebrew, and every time there is this lack of agreement, it is there for a reason.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But no matter what the original Hebrew was, the fact is that "they" is the most natural choice for instances like the one quoted. There are plenty of similar examples from English that predate the translation of the Bible.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apparently, coherence is not my strong point today.
Let me try again.
"They" is a perfectly acceptable genderless-single-second-person pronoun. This is clear from examples which predate English translations of the Bible. Therefore, using the Bible as a supporting example (leaving aside the question of whether it is an example that should be given more weight than any other example) is irrelevant.
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Apparently, coherence is not my strong point today.
Let me try again.
"They" is a perfectly acceptable genderless-single-second-person pronoun. This is clear from examples which predate English translations of the Bible. Therefore, using the Bible as a supporting example (leaving aside the question of whether it is an example that should be given more weight than any other example) is irrelevant.
Clearer?
It seems to me to be just as relevant as any other example in English. Just because you can find an example from 1300 doesn't mean that an example from 1600 is worthless.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
