It may be technically true but is quite misleading to say that English has permitted the use of "they" for "he" or "she" for centuries, as if literate authors in English have been using it in some consistent and recurring way over the years.
Yes, Chaucer did use "they" in this manner. He also used thousands of other forms of Middle English that have long since passed into oblivion. Remember that Chaucer wrote in the 1300s, when, for example, the word "knave" meant, simply, "young boy." A lot has changed since then. Relying on Chaucer as authority, then, is a real stretch.
Setting aside Chaucer, only scattered evidence exists of "they" being used to refer to a singular antecedent.
In Indo-European languages generally, the principle of concord is thoroughly ingrained - singular nouns, for example, need to be matched with singular verb forms and plural with plural. This is a transcending principle that is central to the grammar of all Indo-European languages.
For this reason, it is jarring to our ears to hear, for example, "Sally went to the store and, after shopping, they [instead of she] returned home". It is like saying, "Sally are a liar." Both violate the rule of concord and plainly sound jarring and illiterate.
In the strong pull to abandon the synechdoche of using "he" as a part representing the whole (of any form of singular antecedent), modern grammarians are really straining to find an alternative (as is the point of this article), but using "they" to represent the singular is such a blatant violation of the principle of concord that it will not fly as "good English" unless one is prepared to undermine a principle that affects not only pronoun usage but lies at the heart of grammar generally.
Comments
It may be technically true but is quite misleading to say that English has permitted the use of "they" for "he" or "she" for centuries, as if literate authors in English have been using it in some consistent and recurring way over the years.
Yes, Chaucer did use "they" in this manner. He also used thousands of other forms of Middle English that have long since passed into oblivion. Remember that Chaucer wrote in the 1300s, when, for example, the word "knave" meant, simply, "young boy." A lot has changed since then. Relying on Chaucer as authority, then, is a real stretch.
Setting aside Chaucer, only scattered evidence exists of "they" being used to refer to a singular antecedent.
In Indo-European languages generally, the principle of concord is thoroughly ingrained - singular nouns, for example, need to be matched with singular verb forms and plural with plural. This is a transcending principle that is central to the grammar of all Indo-European languages.
For this reason, it is jarring to our ears to hear, for example, "Sally went to the store and, after shopping, they [instead of she] returned home". It is like saying, "Sally are a liar." Both violate the rule of concord and plainly sound jarring and illiterate.
In the strong pull to abandon the synechdoche of using "he" as a part representing the whole (of any form of singular antecedent), modern grammarians are really straining to find an alternative (as is the point of this article), but using "they" to represent the singular is such a blatant violation of the principle of concord that it will not fly as "good English" unless one is prepared to undermine a principle that affects not only pronoun usage but lies at the heart of grammar generally.