nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 2:
Line 2: + + + + + + + +
My comments, including why I reverted.
Sigh. Fair enough. You want to pretend that it is all the fault of liberals and feminists, despite it dating back centuries. If you want to look silly, then that is fine. I won't bother with this article again and will leave it looking ridiculous.--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 06:30, 23 February 2008 (EST) Meanwhile, maybe someone should look at this site: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/they or this one, http://englishbibles.blogspot.com/2006/09/singular-they-in-english-bibles.html if you want to continue pretending that the KJV Bible is feminist or liberal then there is little hope left --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 06:37, 23 February 2008 (EST)
Sigh. Fair enough. You want to pretend that it is all the fault of liberals and feminists, despite it dating back centuries. If you want to look silly, then that is fine. I won't bother with this article again and will leave it looking ridiculous.--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 06:30, 23 February 2008 (EST) Meanwhile, maybe someone should look at this site: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/they or this one, http://englishbibles.blogspot.com/2006/09/singular-they-in-english-bibles.html if you want to continue pretending that the KJV Bible is feminist or liberal then there is little hope left --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 06:37, 23 February 2008 (EST)
: Didn't you see my edit note that I would comment here shortly? If you did, does that mean that you've jumped to a conclusion without waiting to see what I had to say?
: Here is what I had already started typing:
: A few comments:
:* I couldn't see how your quote (I assume it to be one, despite the lack of quote marks) from Shakespeare supports your point. I'll have to admit that I never really studied Shakespeare, but I couldn't see in that quote that he ''is'' talking about the unknown-gender singular, rather than plural. Looking at it further, perhaps you are right; I'm not sure. But even if you are, my remaining points remain.
:* Your edit was poor in the sense of the flow of the article. The result of your edit was to have the article state that "they" refers to plural, then explain that it had a history of referring to the singular. That comes close to have the article contradict itself. At the very least, you could have made it say that it ''normally'' refers to the plural, but ''sometimes'' refers to the singular, then go on to explain its history of referring to the singular.
:* There is also the possibility of middle ground here. Perhaps the word ''does'' have a history of being used for the unknown-gender singular, but perhaps this use of the word has become far more common for the reasons that you deleted. In which case you can reinsert a form of your edit, but retain (and modify) what was already there. A common problem on Conservapedia is someone pushing a liberal view ''to the exclusion of'' the conservative view, rather than trying to accommodate both.
:If my second point was the ''only'' point I had, I would have simply fixed the flow myself. But the problems seemed greater than that, so I thought it best to revert and comment.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:42, 23 February 2008 (EST)