Quick and Dirty Tips Podcasts

Episode Transcript

Email This Page

Sentence Fragments
Episode 30: December 15, 2006

View Comments (52) | Add Comment |

Subscribe to Comment

Grammar Girl here.

Today's topic is sentence fragments.

I often imagine that listeners are writing articles and essays and books, but I was recently reminded that some people make their living writing shorter things like headlines and ad copy, and that it's really hard work. It was Mark Twain who said, “I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.”

Unfortunately, when writers focus too much on brevity, sometimes they leave out important words and produce fragments instead of sentences. Entering stage left, we have a new podcast character. [Fanfare.] Welcome, Sir Fragalot! Sir Fragalot flounces around the countryside shouting sentence fragments at unsuspecting strangers.

Sir Fragalot

Over the next hill! A tree with wings! On DVD December 19!

Grammar Girl

Oh dear! Poor Sir Fragalot doesn't know that you can't magically make any set of words a sentence by starting with a capital letter and ending with a period (or an exclamation point). In the most basic form, a complete sentence must have a subject and a verb.

Sir Fragalot

Leaving town!

Grammar Girl

No, Sir Fragalot, you don't have a subject or a verb. It would be "I am leaving town" or "He is leaving town."

A verb is an action word that tells the reader what's happening, and a subject does the action of the verb. You can make a complete sentence with just two words: Squiggly hurried. Squiggly, our beloved snail, is the subject, and hurried is the verb.

Sir Fragalot

Hurried onward!

Grammar Girl

No, Sir Fragalot, it would be "Squiggly hurried onward." Squiggly is the subject; he's the one hurrying.

Sir Fragalot

Humph.

Grammar Girl

There's even a sentence form called the imperative that lets you make one-word sentences such as Run! Imperative sentences are commands. and the subject is always assumed to be the person you are talking to. If Squiggly looks at the aardvark and says, “Run!” the aardvark knows that he's the one who should be running. It's such a strong command that he knows it is imperative for him to run.

Sir Fragalot

Run!

Grammar Girl

Good job.

So you can make imperative sentences such as "Run!" with one verb, and you can make simple complete sentences such as "Squiggly hurried," with a subject and a verb, but there is also a case where you have a subject and a verb, but you still don't have a complete sentence. Ack! This happens when your fragment is a dependent clause, meaning that it depends on the other part of the sentence: the main clause. If you're dependent on your parents, then you need them. It's the same with dependent clauses; they need their main clauses.

Dependent clause fragments usually start with a subordinating conjunction such as because, although, or if. I'm going to need more examples to explain this one. It makes a lot more sense when you hear examples.

Let's go back to our simple sentence: "Squiggly hurried." I'm sure you all get that this is a complete sentence because it has a subject and a verb, but look at what happens if you put a subordinating conjunction in front of it: "Because Squiggly hurried." By adding that because, I've completely messed up the sentence; now I need the part that explains the because. The because makes the whole thing a dependent clause that can't exist on its own. (Well, it can exist, but it's a fragment and that's bad.) The dependent clause now only makes sense if it has a main clause; for example, "The aardvark was relieved because Squiggly hurried."

Another subordinate conjunction that can turn a sentence into a fragment is the word that: "That Squiggly hurried." [Note: This sentence can be read at least two ways. If that is an adjective, it is a complete sentence. If that is a subordinate conjunction, it is a dependent clause.]

Sir Fragalot

That Squiggly hurried.

Grammar Girl

Yeah, um, that doesn't make any sense, because it's a fragment; but you can tack it onto the same main clause we used before, turning it into the dependent clause it was meant to be, and it makes sense again. "The aardvark was relieved that Squiggly hurried."
To sum up, there are some easy tests to see if you have a fragment. The easiest test is to ask yourself if there is a verb. If there's no verb, then it's a fragment. Then, if there is a verb and no subject, ask yourself if the sentence is a command. If it's a command, then it's an imperative sentence, and if it's not a command, then it's a fragment. [Exception alert*] Finally, ask yourself if it is really a subordinate clause to the previous sentence. If it is, then it is a fragment. That last one is a little trickier, but I'm sure you can do it!
That's all.

I'm giving away five copies of Punctuate It Right this week. These are the winners: Kait, who has a Yahoo e-mail address; Steve from the University of California at Santa Barbara; Erin M.; Jenna from Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Richard B., who also has a Yahoo e-mail address. Please check your e-mail for instructions on how to receive your book.

Please send your questions and comments to feedback@quickanddirtytips.com or call the voicemail line at 206-338-GIRL (4475).

Finally, thanks to "Miss Peter" from the Music Nerve podcast for playing the part of Sir Fragalot.

More Reading

Parts of a sentence
Subordinating conjunctions
Sentence fragments

Diversions

Famous Quotes and Quotations
19th-Century Slang Dictionary

* I didn't have time to talk about it in the show, but there is another type of one-word sentence, called an exclamation, that doesn't have a verb or a subject. Exclamations usually express an emotion and end with an exclamation point. Here are some examples: "Ouch!" "Wow!" "Eureka!"

Comments (52) for Sentence Fragments | Subscribe to Comment

Beryl Singleton Bissell Says:
4/20/2009 6:00:18 PM

I'm delighted to have stumbled over a reference to your blog, Grammar Girl, in a post on Visual Thesaurus. http://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/candlepwr/1820/. Whereas I might have signed off with a "delighted to meet you," nod, I instead add the all important "I" to that fragment. I am delighted to have met you, Grammar Girl.

Shauna Says:
1/28/2009 10:23:33 PM

Thanks for the great tips.

Kathryn Says:
6/20/2008 7:53:34 PM

I did understand sentecne fragments already, but now I have a better understanding.

Joshua Hall Says:
6/20/2008 4:39:38 PM

very helpful thank you very much it was a learning experiance

hmm Says:
3/2/2008 11:40:58 AM

You know, sometimes sentence fragments are allowable. They can more quickly convey information, reduce redundancy, and improve clarity. That's why so many writers make use of them. Like this: "He jumped up the ledge. Saw the bridge. Decided to run." The subject is clear from the first sentence, so it doesn't need to be repeated in the next few. Of course, maybe I've just been reading too much Cormac McCarthy. >_>

Lina Abd El Moneim Says:
11/6/2007 1:20:40 PM

It has so many descriptions and so in-details for an 8th grader like mee~>....:$ but nice animationnnn :D

Tolak Says:
9/20/2007 8:59:39 AM

There are accusations that some of us are using sentence fragments. Who? Me? Should we consider implicit verbs, nouns, etc in this discussion? I do! They are important in understanding the sentence, because of being provided by the context.

Javan Says:
12/27/2006 11:51:38 PM

Just started listening, good information. Question: in the I.E., E.G., Oh My cast, you stated that and E.G. would always be followed by a comma. What about a colon, as in a list?

Grammar Girl Says:
12/26/2006 5:36:47 PM

Nice!

How about this: The raven flew up the avenue and over the weather vane to see the arrow affect the aardvark. The effect was eyepopping!

No, I think simpler is better.

Kaell Says:
12/22/2006 2:25:32 AM

Why is "it" not acceptable? Are there cases where "it" does not fit?

"When a student succeeds it should thank its teacher."

It's straightforward, non-gender biased, and not mixing plurals and singlars. Seems a simple solution to me.

Don Says:
12/20/2006 7:02:25 AM

Thanks!

By the way, Grammar Girl, I guess this peggs me as a freak, but this is one of only two podcasts that I do not allow iTunes to automatically delete

. I go back periodically and listen to the episodes again. It's a great grammar refresher course!

Thanks again for the show and Happy Holidays!

Don

Chris McAuliffe Says:
12/20/2006 4:10:42 AM

Hi Grammar Girl,

I loved your entry about the differences between "affect" and "effect." I recall that you gave the listeners a handy mneumonic for rembering the difference. You said they should remember the word "Aardvark," but I think I have one that is pretty accurate and much easier.

If you think of the letters in the word "Vane" as in "weather vane," then all you have to do is think: V -verb A - affect, N-noun E-effect. See? I teach remedial reading and writing so I've had to think up a slew of these (e.g., farther vs. further; that vs which, etc.)

Does the Vane trick work for you?

Thanks and keep up the great work.

Chris

Grammar Girl Says:
12/20/2006 3:24:02 AM

Don,

You're correct! It was a bad example. The other fix would be to use a plural noun: "That the snails hurried."

Wayne Says:
12/19/2006 8:22:53 PM

I really enjoyed your podcast this week. Not only are your podcasts helping me to improve my own writing, I am an English teacher, who uses it as a classroom project as well. I have my students listen to your show weekly. The students then look through the Los Angeles Times to find both good and bad examples of the grammar usage you discuss. It has been fun to catch the mistakes of professional writers.

Thank you for making grammar fun. My 9th grade English teacher made it a nightmare, but your enthusiasm for grammar is infectious.

lisa Says:
12/19/2006 8:10:53 PM

Your podcast is #15 on the list of iTunes Top Podcasts! Congratulations and keep up the good work!

Don Says:
12/19/2006 10:11:37 AM

Dear Grammar Girl:

I Love the show! Thanks for doing it!

I am far from the best writer in the world, and am always looking for ways to improve. This week's episode helped to exorcize a personal demon for me! Sentence fragments! (Oops... I did it again!)

You mentioned Schoolhouse Rock a while back. (I can't really say how long as I just discovered your show and have downloaded and listened to all the episodes since last week to get caught-up.) The Tale of Mr. Morton has always been one of my favorites. ("Mr. Morton is the subject of the sentence and what the predicate says, he does.")

I did have one question with the examples I heard today, though. In your example "That Squiggly hurried." You say that it is a sentence fragment. Does that not depend on the part of speech you are intending on for "that?"

Am I correct that your example uses "that" as an adverb?

In the case that you are using "that" as an adverb yes, it would be a sentence fragment. If, however, used as an adjective it wouldn't be.

"That Squiggly (as opposed to the hordes of other Squigglies out there) hurried." Using it in the example as stated, I do not think it would be appropriate to consider it an adjective since the subject is only mentioned once.

Would that be correct? If so, perhaps a better example would be "That Squiggly found." This example would be missing an object of the verb as well as having an ambiguous subject. "This is the error that Squiggly found."

Many thanks and again, I LOVE the show!

Don

Grammar Girl Says:
12/19/2006 2:51:38 AM

Thanks! "Dug" is the past tense of "dig" ("digged" is an archaic past tense of "dig").

Wm Says:
12/18/2006 10:36:50 PM

I digged the podcast.

Hmm, is that usage correct?

Eli Says:
12/18/2006 8:58:16 PM

I often listen to this podcast with both the ear of a writer who must conform to the prescriptive edicts of society and as a linguist who rails in favor of descriptivism, and oftentimes my two sides are at odds with one another.

However, in this podcast it was claimed that English has no word for a gender-ambiguous singular pronoun. My inner linguist screams at this: it does! Native English speakers use "they/them/their" all the time without thinking about it, correcting themselves, or sensing anything off-kilter about the sentence - and, trust me, people are very good about doing just that. Since the rules of internal grammar simply don't allow for a conflict in agreement between an antecedent and its anaphor, this "they" must be marked as singular in people's internal grammars. (In fact, I've heard many a use of "themself" in this context, though that still sounds ungrammatical to me.)

I must confess, though, that in formal writing the use of "they" sometimes (but not always!) sounds cumbersome or awkward. In this case, I usually use "he/him/his" because I don't see a need to change. (The arguments for moving to "she/her/hers" also necessitate a change in the way plurals in highly-gendered languages such as Spanish would work: a collection of unknown- or mixed-gender objects is always referred to with the male plural pronoun. Obviously this is a sign of the male-dominated society and needs to change! Er, sorry. Got a bit carried away there.) Either way one chooses, whiplash grammar (such a great new phrase!) should be avoided. However, I don't see a problem with using "they" even in formal writing simply because people must consciously force plurality on it.

KevPod Says:
12/15/2006 7:57:52 PM

GG,

I write the Police Log for a rural weekly paper. i derive the info from a dispatcher log, and the police try to keep things inspecific in terms of gender.

I often find myself having to write "his or her," which is cumbersome. So I've settled on "hirs," combining the two.

No one's complained yet.

Thanks GG.

Grammar Girl Says:
12/15/2006 5:35:22 PM

One of the links at the bottom of the transcript (Guidelines for Non-Sexist Use of Language) makes a compelling argument that "he" is sexist whether you intend it to be or not and gives some interesting examples of situations where using "he" in a generic way is confusing. For example, "Each applicant is to list the name of his husband or wife."

Grammar Girl Says:
12/15/2006 5:25:58 PM

knew that no matter what I wrote on this topic I was going to make some people unhappy. If you check the poll results, you will see that there is a lot of disagreement about how to handle this problem.

I hope that you won't stop listening! If so, then you'll also have to stop reading Jane Austen, Lewis Carroll, Shakespeare, and other well-known writers because they all used "they" as a generic singular pronoun too.

Grammar Girl Says:
12/15/2006 5:21:27 PM

I know there are people who disagree (the poll would peg it at about 25% of listeners), but all of the major style guides that I checked say to avoid using "he" as a generic personal pronoun, so I thought it would be valuable to discuss the options.

Jared Says:
12/15/2006 4:15:55 PM

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. The same is true of pronouns. In the vast majority of composition, is 'he' (or 'she') really meant as a passive-aggresive slap to the opposite sex? Of course not.

If a singular pronoun is perceived as sexist, it's likely neither the author's intent, nor his...her...their...problem.

Ryan Says:
12/14/2006 12:33:56 AM

Ewww... you think they should be used as a generic singular pronoun?!? EWWW EWWW EWWW. Disgusting. Really disgusting. It's a plural pronoun. Letting it just become a generic singular pronoun eliminates the point of grammar rules. That's like saying "well enough people mistake they're/their/there, so we're going to just come up with one spelling." Booo. I may stop listening to your podcast because of this.

grammar purist Says:
12/13/2006 5:37:58 PM

I'll admit my age -- 54 -- and my bias: I chose "he." I think women are equally as good as men in just about anything they try to do, so don't color me old fashioned or bowing to men. I just don't have a problem with "he." I DO, however, have a problem with attempting to "fix a mistake" by creating another one. "They" used for a singular pronoun is wrong. Sorry, but there's no way around that. "They" is plural. If we're hoping general usage will somehow make it correct, then we'd better get ready to accept other usages I'm hearing more and more these days, like "We was just sitting there" and "Me and Bob said we'd go" or "He was talking to her and I." Give a middle-aged woman a break! I'm constantly mentally editing news commentators, preachers and just about anyone I hear these days. Common usage does NOT make it right. Someone has to try to hold back the tide of ignorance! And if we're the editors, we're the ones who have to do that.

Joe Says:
12/13/2006 4:08:55 PM

VERY EASY & SHORT SOLUTION:

The English language, as other Latin-based languages, defaults to the masculine.

I know people will argue how strongly English is based on Latin, because it's really a historical collage of languages.

Others will argue it's sexist or something or other because it's not the latest new-fangled feminist idea of the century (or decade), and explain to us how revisionist history is just "A-Okay" and we should all embrace new-age ideas.

So, ummm, the language was 'made' that way and I'm sticking to it. Default to masculine.

Greg Says:
12/12/2006 9:01:19 PM

I have recently had this issue as an Instructional Designer for miltary aircraft pilots. Here is most of the article I requested from the author to support my position.

Sex and the Singular Pronoun by Richard Lederer

You’re sitting at a table and after a long period of time elapses, someone finally brings the food. Why are they called the “waiter”? I’ve used this quip dozens of times in my talks and asked the audience if anyone has been offended by any grammatical atrocity I have uttered. Almost no one raises their hand. Yet some purists grow apoplectic about the use of the pronoun they to refer to indefinite pronouns, such as anyone, each, and everybody, or with singular nouns, as you’ve just experienced (without trauma, I reckon) twice in the previous two paragraphs. Why is this usage ubiquitous? One reason is that we have been doing it for centuries, all the way back to Middle English. It’s been more than 600 years (1387) since Geoffrey Chaucer wrote, in The Canterbury Tales, “And whoso findeth hym out of swich blame,/They wol come up . . . .”

It was not until the eighteenth century that they in its third-person singular role was disparaged. That’s when such grammarians as Robert Lowth (yes, he of the anti-split-infinitive league) and Lindley Murray decreed that indefinite pronouns are singular. The reasons for this linguistic holding were more cultural than structural. In 1746, for example, John Kirkby's Eighty Eight Grammatical Rules included as rule # 21 that "the male gender was more comprehensive than the female." Thus we confront the matter of sex and the singular pronoun. While all other pronouns avoid reference to gender, the third-person-singular pronouns in English – he and she – are gender-specific. We are not fully comfortable with the male chauvinist “Each student should underline in his textbooks so that he can achieve his fullest academic potential” or the clunky “Each student should underline in his or her textbooks so that he or she can achieve his or her fullest academic potential.” They has long been a graceful solution to the most nettlesome problem in sexist language – the generic masculine pronoun – and to the grammatical stutter engendered by dancing back and forth between the sexes: “Each student should underline in their textbooks so that they can achieve their fullest academic potential.” They has been moving toward singular senses, in the manner of you, which can function both singularly and plurally. That’s the way we do it – and by we I mean we caring and careful speakers and writers. We’ve been doing it for centuries, and we’re doing it today: • Everyone attended the party, and they had a rockin’ time. • If somebody wants to cut class, we can’t stop them. • The cellular customer you have called has turned off their phone. • We are required by law to post the pharmacy’s number on the medication vial in case the customer has questions about their drug.

Jon Says:
12/12/2006 7:38:05 PM

I voted for "their", not because I think it is correct, but because I want it to be.

Jon Says:
12/12/2006 7:38:05 PM

I voted for "their", not because I think it is correct, but because I want it to be.

Neven Says:
12/12/2006 3:51:17 PM

Cards on the table: I'm male and I support the "they" solution as it only annoys people on debatable grammar grounds, which is always better than annoying people with sexism.

And to be sure, there is sexism here. Calling "he" an "inclusive" pronoun is willful ignorance of the fact that in the times when this "inclusiveness" was allegedly established, the "default person" WAS male! I don't mean that in a strictly linguistic sense; the default stranger, soldier, merchant, hero, friend, and foe was male. The human condition, as recorded in the vast majority of our books, is that of a man. I'm a fluent speaker of several languages and the problem of generic personal pronouns seems to be "solved" in all of them in this male-preferring way.

It's possible that throughout history, a random person you asked would have told you, "well, when I said 'man is the only animal who blushes' a minute ago, I obviously meant 'man or woman'; 'man' is just the word for either one of the two." Possible, but extremely unlikely.

It's too easy for men to note that "he" simply means "he or she" and call an end to the debate. I ask those who foam at the mouth at the "incorrectness" of using "they" as a singular pronoun: how is that worse than using "he" to refer to women?

Andrea - Just One More Book!! Says:
12/12/2006 2:16:34 PM

Thanks a tonne for spreading word of our "Just One More Book!!" Podcast.

My vote is for "they".

Andrea

Elijah Says:
12/12/2006 5:42:04 AM

I recall feeling surprised that the he/she conundrum is an issue at all when I heard your pod cast. As a 38 year old woman, I have grown up in a generation that is extremely aware of the sexism of the prevalent "he" pronoun. I still feel annoyed (not angry, I don't really like to walk around feeling angry over the "he" pronoun) when I read a book in which the author goes to great lengths in the forward to explain why he or she is using the pronoun "he" to refer to all of humankind. Grrrr...To me it has always been obvious that we need to be inclusive and use "he and she." It does not even sound awkward to me at this point in my life. Perhaps, because we are living in a transitional era, it is merely in a stage of sounding awkward, but if everyone used it I suspect its awkwardness would fade away and it would become standard and almost imperceptible. In other words, I can imagine a time when everyone uses "he and she" and it is not even a conscious thing for the writer or the reader. Just an idea...!

ironic1 Says:
12/11/2006 4:32:51 PM

While I answered the poll "his or her," I think it is acceptable to use "their" as a singular pronoun. If I were writing this sentence I would probably make the subject plural to avoid the issue entirely.

Asher Says:
12/11/2006 7:00:37 AM

I also use "one". It might sound archaic, but at least I don't have the PC Police going after me.

Asher Says:
12/11/2006 7:00:37 AM

I also use "one". It might sound archaic, but at least I don't have the PC Police going after me.

Grammar Girl Says:
12/11/2006 3:00:28 AM

That's an interesting point!

I could say that in current times people are more accepting of change, but you could argue back that since Shakespeare used their as a singular generic personal pronoun, and it hasn't been widely adopted (whereas many of his other words have been), that it's never going to happen for their.

Tyler Says:
12/11/2006 1:39:13 AM

Although I take this more as humor than anything, I must bring up that there have been several neologistic attempts to rectify this awkward situation. Unfortunately, none of them are any less awkward. Nevertheless, here are the gender neutral pronouns proposed for the English language:

1. "Ou" - there is recorded use of this in some late medieval dialects; however, it has clearly fallen out of common parlance.

2. The relatively unsourced "E" E laughed I hit het Hets face bled I am hets E shaves hetself

3. Following these are the somewhat nerdy Ve pronouns, found in science fiction: Ve, ver, vis, vis, verself

And variations thereof: Sie, hir, hir, hirs, hirself Xe, xem, xyr, xyrs, xemself Ze, mer, zer, zer, zemself (OR Ze, hir, hir, hirs, hirself) Zie, zir, zir, zirs, zirself Thon, thon, thons, thon's, thonself

4. And finally, the wonderfully named "spivak" pronouns, created largely by dropping the discriminatory early letters: Ey, em, eir, eirs, emself

How very useful indeed!

For more information, see and corroborating sources.

DesignDroide Says:
12/10/2006 5:43:37 AM

I think that you are right in saying that people should use "they"/"their" I believe that it just makes sense in conversation. e.g.(thanks for the posting ;) ), "When i am taking with any one they do not care if I use 'they' or 'their'". However when you are talking with some one and say "When i am taking with any one he/she OR s/he OR he OR she do not care if I use 'they' or 'their'" in my second example there are many different and unclear way of saying what I want to say. I have never gotten yelled at by my teacher (PhD) in fact she promotes that I use "they or "their" I think that people like you and i( and my teacher) are simply leading the way for a better more easy to write form of english

Quintus Says:
12/10/2006 3:29:38 AM

He, His, and Man are inclusive. It is political correctness that has made things ridiculously and needlessly confused. If I told you, a beautiful woman, that there was a hungry "man-eating tiger" on the other side of your door, would you go through the door because you thought it would only eat boys? I didn't think so;)

Mike Says:
12/10/2006 3:18:49 AM

This "His" vs. "Her" thing is a pet peeve of mine as well. The masculine pronoun was traditionally understood as inclusive of both sexes. The more recent sensitivity to sexism has put the expression "his" into a difficult spot. There is no way I know of to get around using "his" without being awkward. I've read scholarly articles, written by men, where "her" or "she" is used generically throughout the article- it comes across as artificial and awkward. "Their" is not a valid substitute. E.G. "Anyone can find their soul mate if they search diligently." These all too common expressions mismatch singular and plural pronouns.

Keri-Lynn Says:
12/10/2006 12:32:20 AM

I personally have no problem using his as a generic possessive pronoun but in scholarly papers this often a touchy issue. It's annoying to have male editors accuse you of sexist language! I've noticed some people alternate the use of "his" and then "her," but doing this seems to intrude on the flow of thought. In my opinion, writing "his or her" is awkward and wordy. What I usually do is write "their" depending on my audience. I think it's a fair communicator for non-gender specific statements and it isn't so awkward. I use "one" on occasion but it can sound a little pretentious.

Maximilian Says:
12/10/2006 12:21:28 AM

One problem with this poll is that my answer varies depending on the type of writing involved. I chose based on the sorts of writing I mostly do, but since I'm an engineer correct grammar is rarely a major concern anyway! Not quite sure why I even listen to this podcast; I just enjoy it.

Heath Says:
12/9/2006 2:38:53 PM

For what its worth, here's the solution to that problem that I've been using. The subject of the example is a "he", the object "she". I do this because I am male; were I female I would reverse the genders, subject becoming "she" and object "he". I have found this to be a fairly effective solution, especially since it helps avoid pronoun confusion later on in the text when referencing the example.

Sam Says:
12/9/2006 8:59:55 AM

You say in this podcast that you believe that "they" and "their" will become acceptable in this case because this usage is already common, but I once read that this incorrect usage has been common since the 16th century, so your reasoning may not be entirely accurate. If it has not yet become acceptable after centuries of common usage, I don't see it ever being generally accepted as proper.

Jessi Says:
12/9/2006 5:55:25 AM

I rather like examples that alternate between using "he" and "she." As long as the gender stays consistent within each example, I don't find it confusing at all.

That said, I'm a fan of using "their" when other choices seem awkward.

The example sentence in your poll just seemed to call for "he or she," perhaps because it would be so easy to reword it if you do want to use "their." In fact, if I were writing it, I would use "Patients who lie endanger their health." This sentence seems much more natural to me.

Daniel Abraham Says:
12/9/2006 12:28:32 AM

I applaud your championing of they-singular. (And why not? We already have you-plural.) I believe it's the best solution, and I'm willing to defend its use to my readers and my editor.

Kim Choy Says:
12/8/2006 10:48:33 PM

I voted for the "he or she" in the poll but I'm just as liable to use "one" in writing. I confess, however, that I haven't written anything for a more chic audience lately.

Doctor Smith Says:
12/8/2006 9:23:18 PM

I sometimes wonder if this confusion is really just a result of something that was lost in the education surrounding the English language.

I'm left with the distinct impression that the influence of political correctness, something that seems to be limited to the English-speaking world, has filled the void left by poor education.

I remember that when I was younger, I was taught to use "he" when the gender of the subject is unknown. Such a usage is supported by dictionary definitions of "he" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/he). This, or so I was taught, is one of the rules that comes from the French influence on the English language. Since I'm familiar with this rule, I don't encounter any comprehension difficulties when I encounter "he" used to refer to a person of undefined gender, but I do get mentally jostled by anything else.

I've also noticed that this confusion only seems to be limited to unilingual anglophones (this would be a proof by anecdotal evidence). I've never noted this confusion in anyone who is multilingual. And, as far as I'm aware, it's just not an issue in other languages that only have pronouns for male and feminine subjects.

Sorry, that was a bit of a long rant. I'll get off my soapbox now.

Elizabeth Says:
12/8/2006 6:42:47 PM

Thank you so much for mentioning that always using female pronouns is just as sexist as always using male pronouns! In my college comp class, they taught us that you should (1) avoid using singular generic pronouns, (2) use he or she, or (3) use the female pronoun. I mentioned to the teacher that the last is just a sexist as always using a male pronoun, and she said that she knew but this was the style guide for the school. I just use he or she, even if it is a bit awkward.

Jim G. Says:
12/8/2006 1:16:32 PM

Like most writers, I wrestle with this constantly. You are the second grammar pro who's given me a way out. Richard Letterer also recommends using "they", so I took that as permission. Still, it seems odd and, as you suggested, I feel that somewhere an English teacher is looking over my shoulder, rolling her eyes and saying, "Tsk, tsk."

-Jime

Ran Says:
12/8/2006 5:29:57 AM

I still experience a pleasent jolt of surprise when a feminine pronoun jumps at me unexpectedly in he middle of a sentence (when God made the world, she was only joking!). It is so refreshing, reminding yet again, even in the midst of the unending barrage of messages to the contrary hitting us from all directions, there are plenty of "generic" situations in which one's gender simply does not matter. Could it be that men and women are still more alike then they are different? The subversive little feminine pronoun half way through the sentence says yes! It is elegant and fun and I enjoy it whenever I see it!