Robert Paul wrote: "I still believe that sexual politics brought back the earlier usage [of 'their' as a singular pronoun]--so to speak--even though few recognized it as an earlier usage." I agree that sexual politics was the occasion for this interest in the usage of 'their'. While Robert's involvement in the Pronoun Wars is in the past and he can afford to remain indifferent now, there are those of us who still feel the effects of those Wars and, having any hope of a career that even modestly reflects that of Prof. Paul, must step carefully. Robert continues: "But that something happened in the 13th century does not strongly argue that it should guide us today. Indeed, to appeal to it as a precedence which legitimates current usage makes no sense when it comes from those for whom established practice is a merely descriptive expression. If anything goes, then an appeal to 'precedence' is of no use." I, of course, don't think that 'anything goes' just as I don't think that it makes sense to apply logical criteria to grammar. Grammar has logical form which is shown and therefore cannot be said. When I spoke of the history of the use of 'their' as a precedent, I was not suggesting that it found its legitimacy in the fact that it had been used. Rather, I was suggesting that this history may serve as a reason for the usage of 'their' in the singular. Furthermore, the fact that literature (eg. Shakespeare, Jane Austin) that includes this usage is still being read today gives more support. I, personally, find the landmines from the Pronoun Wars still lying around and so when I write, if I can find a pronoun that allows me to bypass these dangers, I am all too happy to use it. Sincerely, Phil Enns Toronto, ON ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html