Talk:List of English words with disputed usage

Notice of RFC

Talk:Common_English_usage_misconceptions#RfC:_Hyphens.2FDashes_misconception

Please help improve this related article. Comments should be placed at that Talk page rather than here.

Manual of Style

This is irregular.

The Manual of Style links here, yet this article appear to be an ordinary article, not a "metaarticle" directed at Wiki editors.

Please clarify if the advice and recommendations given here apply to the Wikipedia Manual of Style.

See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Contested_vocabulary. CapnZapp (talk) 12:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Singular they

The entry for "they" is confusing, because there are at least three different ways of using "they" with a singular meaning.

1. One is where the subject is grammatically singular but the sentence is a generalisation that potentially applies to a wider range of people or things, for example "Anyone wishing to claim expenses must inform the office of their name and address and the amount spent". This has been usual for centuries (see Singular they), even if sometimes disputed on prescriptive grounds.
2. Another is where the subject is clearly singular logically as well as grammatically, but the identity of the person is not known, for example "Will the person who left their car across my driveway please remove it?" This is more definitely informal.
3. Far more recent is the use of "they" for a known person who identifies as non-binary or intersex. This is often insisted on by the people in question: the awkwardness is not so much in the word "they" itself as in the fact that it has to be followed through e.g. by using plural verbs.

I am not passing judgment on the correctness of any of these usages, but only arguing that they are separate questions that should not be confused. Perhaps it should also be mentioned that the question relates at least equally often to the use of "them" or "their". --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Other possible scenarios I can see are when referring to:

• A contact, typically online, whom one knows only by a unisex name or nickname and isn't sure of the person's gender.
• Somebody who is going through a gender identity crisis or transition.
• Knowing the person's gender but deliberately concealing it for whatever reason.
• An animal of a species that cannot easily be sexed by human eyes (when one feels the traditional "it" isn't appropriate).

Among both your original list and these, people may accept or reject particular uses. Furthermore, another cause of awkwardness is when it isn't immediately clear in the context that it's talking about one person. — Smjg (talk) 13:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

And now for something completely different....

"Many verses of the King James Bible begin with and (though this could be regarded as a Hebraism), as does William Blake's poem And did those feet in ancient time (a.k.a. Jerusalem)."

The first sentence doesn't appear relevant, because the beginning of a verse isn't necessarily the beginning of a sentence. If this were talking about sentences beginning with "and", where they may be at the starts of verses, it would be relevant, but that isn't what it says. That said, I'm not overly familiar with the KJV in this regard, so am not sure whether that translation has a new sentence for every new verse. But even so, it would be much more relevant to say that the KJV has sentences beginning with "and" than to say that it has verses beginning with "and".

And why has And did those feet in ancient time been singled out for mention – just because it's the only one that whoever wrote the statement could think of? "And Can It Be" and "Puppy Love" both begin with the word "and". This is even before you consider the probably hundreds or even thousands many more songs/poems that have the word beginning a sentence somewhere therein.... — Smjg (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)