Consider this part of the following Hillary Clinton ad (I saw it broadcast in Columbus, Ohio):
“Her life’s work has been about breaking barriers and so would her presidency, which is why for every American who’s not being paid what they’re worth, who’s being held back by student debt or a system tilted against them, and there are far too many of you, she understands that our country can’t reach its potential unless we all do,”
Could political messages from heavily-funded, consultant-advised candidates such as Hillary be the best guide to the current psychology of the American people? From the above it would seem that we can infer that American voters want the government to set wages (so that everyone can be paid “what they’re worth”), presumably as part of a planned economy. They also want the government’s welfare program for universities made explicit by turning all of that extra tuition cash that was shoveled out as loans to be converted to gifts. (If these are in fact the things that we want, why not vote for Bernie?)
Readers: What else can we learn from political ads that you’ve seen? And is looking at ads from the most popular candidates a sensible approach to understanding our country?
[Separately, the ad may show the incompatibility of traditional English grammar with current gender thinking. “for every American who’s not being paid what they’re worth” would ordinarily be “for every American who’s not being paid what he or she is worth” but that doesn’t work if there are more than two genders.]
Our current economic system is producing far more losers than winners, so it is natural that politicians will tailor their appeal to losers – that’s where the votes are. If the market sets the value of your services below a level that will provide you with the standard of living that you desire, WHY NOT have the government set the price higher? If the value of your college debt exceeds the value of your degree, WHY NOT have the government cancel that debt. Modern America, from top to bottom, is all about socializing loses and privatizing gains, so why not try to get yours?
Awkwardly, although “they” is an acceptable singular pronoun (for many decades now), it must be matched to a plural verb.
I think “he or she” is just too formal for modern colloquial speech (like “whom”). If there’s anything Hillary can’t afford this year, it’s to appear out of touch.
As to your larger point, all expensive advertising is designed to reflect the collective psyche. It ain’t pretty.
Americans are almost invariably paid far more than their labor is worth in the global economy.
If Hillary is serious about addressing the problem of overpaid Americans, and there are far too many of them, she’ll take measures to lower American wages and spending power, thereby allowing the US to reach its full potential.
Philg: [Separately, the ad may show the incompatibility of traditional English grammar with current gender thinking. “for every American who’s not being paid what they’re worth” would ordinarily be “for every American who’s not being paid what he or she is worth” but that doesn’t work if there are more than two genders.]
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?cat=27
What is “traditional English grammar”, anyway? Much of standard modern English is “incompatible” all sorts of “traditional English grammar.
Andrew: “I think “he or she” is just too formal for modern colloquial speech (like “whom”).”
Singular “they” replaces the “traditional” genderless “he”.
Andrew: “Awkwardly, although “they” is an acceptable singular pronoun (for many decades now), it must be matched to a plural verb.”
“He or she” everywhere is akward. (Why is “he” always first anyway?) Singular “they” is just unfamiliar or new (it’s not really “akward” at all).
@davep: I think you missed my meaning. “They” replaces the gender-neutral “he” as a third person singular pronoun, but it’s awkward that “they” takes a third person plural verb even when its referent is singular.
@andrew: I think you missed my meaning. “They” replaces the gender-neutral “he” as a third person singular pronoun, but it’s awkward that “they” takes a third person plural verb even when its referent is singular.
No, I got that (that’s an old complaint about the usage).
It isn’t really “awkward” at all. You just think the applicable grammar rule is one that must be followed. Who knows we’re you are getting that rule any way.
The subject (“every American “) is singular. It would be odd (even more awkward) to not to match the verb to that.
Your assumptions are not supported by Secretary Clinton’s ad’s words. There are really no specific policies proposals included in the ad. There’s also no reason to assume that a majority of the population agrees with the sentiments expressed.
@davep. There are some languages that follow strict rules. English isn’t really one of them, and English grammar is clearly descriptive (some would say conscriptive), not prescriptive. So, OK, fair enough. The complaint is old, but the ambiguity is eternal. So far, anyway.
I’m confused by your last sentence. “Every American” is singular, and the singular verb matches. I certainly wouldn’t argue for a plural verb there. I don’t see anything confusing in that case.
“They” has a mostly-accepted singular form. “You” has a universally-accepted singular form, which also takes the plural-appearing verb. So I guess it all works out. I’m going back to Latin.