Anwulf, what's the book about?

Jeremy, I, somewhat, concur.

D. A. Wood, all I said was that nouns can be used as adjectives. I prefer American English over U. S. English.

Actually, Perfect Pedant, that was simple mistake on my part. You should clearly have understood that it was mistake. You can't tell me that all of your posts and writing come out flawless. I am pretty strict when it comes to grammar rules, but I refuse to adhere to what some people call orthodox without a decent reason as to why it should be that way. Unlike most people, I'm obsessed with being grammatically correct in my writing, not posts however.

Both you and D. A. Wood are the type pedants that I do not like.

We should remove the exceptions? That is plain stupid. And if you took out the exceptions, then the language would cease to grow and would become stagnant.

Nouns can be used as adjectives.

D. A. Wood,

In correct, formal grammar everyone and everybody are singular subjects and if we followed it precisely to the dot everyone/everybody and they/them/their would never occur. If you question the nominative singularity of those words, then please consult a grammar book on subject-verb agreement, and you will find that it states everyone/everybody is a singular subject.

On the popular thing, yeah, some things may be popular, but that doesn't mean they're wrong, just as saying that obscure things are right.

As for laziness, it's a hassle to get everyone who speaks English to agree to change the holy rules of English. Prescriptivists feel that you'd be desecrating the language by making an exception. Oh, here's a news flash: English is full of exceptions. And doesn't language emerge because of popular consensus, primarily for communication? Can we even call our language a language considering that numerous things are contested?

In regards, to English in isolation, sure we have borrowed things in the past, but I'm sure we're far enough along to clearly classify English grammar as its own and that qualified writers know what they're doing.

And finally, I don't think the use of they/them/their is really more about not having a singular pronoun that refers to either or both masculine, feminine, or unknown sex antecedents, so if you want to create the pronoun, fine by me, but have fun getting prescriptivists to agree with you!

Brus,

The slippery slope argument relies on fallacious logic.

Oops: "...that is why they/them/their is used." That should be "shouldn't be used."

Brus,

Everybody is a singular subject and so takes on a singular verb that is why they/them/their is used; there is whole case load of pronouns you would think should take a plural verb but don't. I agree with you that 'they' shouldn't completely take the spot of he/she/it but in certain cases when the gender is unknown or when someone is being general. I would agree with you that the use of they/them/their when the antecedent is completely and utterly known is ridiculous and stupid.

I'm sorry but using they, them, and their when referring to an genderless singular is not a bad thing, except maybe to prescriptivists. Consulting my Warriner:

"In conversation, you may find it more convenient to use a plural personal pronoun when referring to singular antecedents that can be either masculine or feminine. This form is increasingly popular in writing as well and may someday become acceptable as standard written English."

And:

"Strict adherence to the rule of pronoun-antecedent agreement may lead to a construction so absurd that no one would use it:
Did everybody leave early because he wasn't enjoying himself?"

All in all, why can't a plural personal pronoun be used in certain genderless singular pronoun cases? I wouldn't call it lazy to add an addendum to the pronoun they.