Mm, well, loads of people have pointed out that the plural pronoun has been around for ye ages. It makes no difference. It's still considered strictly colloquial usage.
The Chicago Manual of Style lays down the law in this case; it is very clear on number with antecedent. In fact, I believe that it's entirely owing to Chicago that editing over to plural antecedents or using "he or she / his or her" came into widespread use in publishing head-spinningly fast as these things go. Where that manual goes, all others follow in lock-step. (Although, granted, the Associated Press manual has a habit of Doing Its Own Thang in some matters.)
That is, I started editing in the late 1980s, and "his or her" was already set in stone with the majority of publishers, but the older editors were still fuming madly over the whole idea. Thus, my (unverified) guesstimate is that it only dates from the late 1970s, which was when the push for "nonsexist" and/or "bias-free" styles really hit its stride in academia. (Note that it's never "her or his" or "she or he." The other major contender was alternating "her" and "his" with each use in the paragraph, which was an Insane Pain in the Ass in practice.)
So! Simple economics dictates that you won't be seeing "their" in widespread use in publishing. The vast majority of copyediting in publishing is now done by independent contractors. Those contractors would not get any work if they passed on a plural pronoun for a singular antecedent anywhere but in fiction. Until the publishers of Chicago make the call, everyone has better things to do with their time (heh).
This ramble brought to you by Not Really Awake Me. :D
But do editors outside of the US follow the dictates of the Chicago Manual of Style? In time I may hope the 'he or she' usage becomes a peculiarly American characteristic, like 'humor' and 'drive-thru.'
Keep in mind that the underlying point here is that publishing really is a hide-bound, conservative, anal-retentive industry that kowtows to AUTHORITY! like none other save the military. (God, notice how people still pick sides over split infinitives, ferchrissakes.) Changes do not occur often or lightly. But with this we saw what amounted to a massive shift in cultural / political perspective; and it was imposed in a low-key, subtle fashion, over a very short period. What we just accept now, no one would have accepted 50 years ago.
They might not accept it now, for that matter. Consider. If Chicago were to side with "his or her" over "his" right now, it would be all over Fox News and the Internet with shrieking galore from the Old Skool, and calls for boycotts of any publisher who adopted it. Many publishers then would then specify that they would follow the "previous edition." Again, this is conservative industry, and it would be clear that following the "new edition" would be making a rowdy political statement.
But the way it happened, no one really paid much attention to it. May well be one of feminism's stealthiest triumphs.
(Anyway, y'all can wave about Hart's Rules as much as you want, but I expect that Chicago has the larger impact on the Canadian publishing scene.)
I'm not really concerned about the Canadian publishing scene, which inevitably will be owned wholly by the Americans if it isn't already. Fortunately Canadian writing is nothing to uhh write home about, so no loss. But if Cambridge is throwing its weight behind 'their', one may hope publishing in the non-North American world will follow suit and return us to the more mellifluous option.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Oh, Geoff Pullman.
I like his posts at Language log.
That sounds an interesting book.
And I would get 15% off at CUP.
A hundred and twenty quid?!
However if the rest of the book is as clear as that I might be tempted to go searching the secondhand market.
no subject
no subject
The Chicago Manual of Style lays down the law in this case; it is very clear on number with antecedent. In fact, I believe that it's entirely owing to Chicago that editing over to plural antecedents or using "he or she / his or her" came into widespread use in publishing head-spinningly fast as these things go. Where that manual goes, all others follow in lock-step. (Although, granted, the Associated Press manual has a habit of Doing Its Own Thang in some matters.)
That is, I started editing in the late 1980s, and "his or her" was already set in stone with the majority of publishers, but the older editors were still fuming madly over the whole idea. Thus, my (unverified) guesstimate is that it only dates from the late 1970s, which was when the push for "nonsexist" and/or "bias-free" styles really hit its stride in academia. (Note that it's never "her or his" or "she or he." The other major contender was alternating "her" and "his" with each use in the paragraph, which was an Insane Pain in the Ass in practice.)
So! Simple economics dictates that you won't be seeing "their" in widespread use in publishing. The vast majority of copyediting in publishing is now done by independent contractors. Those contractors would not get any work if they passed on a plural pronoun for a singular antecedent anywhere but in fiction. Until the publishers of Chicago make the call, everyone has better things to do with their time (heh).
This ramble brought to you by Not Really Awake Me. :D
no subject
no subject
Keep in mind that the underlying point here is that publishing really is a hide-bound, conservative, anal-retentive industry that kowtows to AUTHORITY! like none other save the military. (God, notice how people still pick sides over split infinitives, ferchrissakes.) Changes do not occur often or lightly. But with this we saw what amounted to a massive shift in cultural / political perspective; and it was imposed in a low-key, subtle fashion, over a very short period. What we just accept now, no one would have accepted 50 years ago.
They might not accept it now, for that matter. Consider. If Chicago were to side with "his or her" over "his" right now, it would be all over Fox News and the Internet with shrieking galore from the Old Skool, and calls for boycotts of any publisher who adopted it. Many publishers then would then specify that they would follow the "previous edition." Again, this is conservative industry, and it would be clear that following the "new edition" would be making a rowdy political statement.
But the way it happened, no one really paid much attention to it. May well be one of feminism's stealthiest triumphs.
(Anyway, y'all can wave about Hart's Rules as much as you want, but I expect that Chicago has the larger impact on the Canadian publishing scene.)
no subject
no subject
*kof! splutter!* Ow the head and the throat hurts and there is wool in the brain.
I did find it informative, not quite sure how. That's me! ^__^