|
|
|
|
|
by the_third_wave
1211 days ago
|
|
Indeed, please learn English. Finding vague references to the use of plurals for individuals does not make this part of the vernacular just like 'pluralis majestatis' [1] does not do so. Language evolves so paper dictionaries from the beginning of the 21st century will not be entirely accurate but given the way some publishers of online dictionaries have taken to using their products to push language revolution instead of following language evolution those old paper books are more accurate guides to how people use it than their ideologically-driven on-line counterparts. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we |
|
It's been common place all my life and that's going on six decades now.
'Merkin English, however, likely has prescriptive rails and a lingering shrinking horror stemming from the inappropriate touch of Webster.
> those old paper books are more accurate guides to how people use it than their ideologically-driven on-line counterparts.
Exactly - see the full OED (Oxford English Dictionary) entry on the long historic use of 'they' over seven centuries and the many ways in which it has been (and continuous to be) used contemporaneously both as singular and plural.