It has been in usage a long time – and yet, it is still considered “improper” English by many a grammarian (though improper English is as nonexistent as Standard American English).
In the 18th century, there was a push away from singular they on the basis that it did not fit within the logic of the agreement paradigm as some understood it. Most (if not all) rules suggesting it is poor usage derive from this thinking.
But this is exactly the problem: the fact that singular they arose naturally is the point. If it does not fit within one’s understanding of the agreement paradigm, then that understanding is wrong. That is the key difference between prescriptivism and descriptivism, at least in the way those are often discussed in Linguistics.
If those grammarians cared about grammar as much as they claimed, they would be seeking to better describe it and not trying to change the way that others use it. When I say that they don’t understand “language change is pervasive and unstoppable”, I mean that prescriptivism is naturally conservative in suggesting that one should not deviate from some particular usage; that isn’t how language works.
PS- I assume your quoting is to suggest “ingrained”, but I’d argue that ingrained and engrained both work in this context. Even if we disagree there, spelling isn’t really about language either – simply one possible representation of it. Given that the purpose of language is information transfer, if I had put “ngrayned” above and you had gotten my meaning, then it would have served its purpose.
It has been in usage a long time – and yet, it is still considered “improper” English by many a grammarian (though improper English is as nonexistent as Standard American English).
In the 18th century, there was a push away from singular they on the basis that it did not fit within the logic of the agreement paradigm as some understood it. Most (if not all) rules suggesting it is poor usage derive from this thinking.
But this is exactly the problem: the fact that singular they arose naturally is the point. If it does not fit within one’s understanding of the agreement paradigm, then that understanding is wrong. That is the key difference between prescriptivism and descriptivism, at least in the way those are often discussed in Linguistics.
If those grammarians cared about grammar as much as they claimed, they would be seeking to better describe it and not trying to change the way that others use it. When I say that they don’t understand “language change is pervasive and unstoppable”, I mean that prescriptivism is naturally conservative in suggesting that one should not deviate from some particular usage; that isn’t how language works.
PS- I assume your quoting is to suggest “ingrained”, but I’d argue that ingrained and engrained both work in this context. Even if we disagree there, spelling isn’t really about language either – simply one possible representation of it. Given that the purpose of language is information transfer, if I had put “ngrayned” above and you had gotten my meaning, then it would have served its purpose.