2

I am having a debate at work regarding the correct choice:

No investor has ever lost its capital.

or

No investor has ever lost their capital.

It seems to sound awkward to say "its capital" as opposed to "their capital". We are referring to a single investor (in a context where all investors are institutional entities).

tchrist
  • 134,759
Shannon
  • 21
  • "event lost their..."? Neither alternative is appealing, though the latter is slightly preferable to the former (unless the single investor is a corporation!) I would suggest "No investor ever lost capital" presumably followed by something like "by investing with us" or "by following these guidelines" – Dilip Sarwate Jan 19 '12 at 18:21
  • 2
    There might be (largely pointless) debate over his/her/their, but this one is just too basic. I'm now flagging such questions "too localised", because they're only relevant to questioners with very limited familiarity with English. – FumbleFingers Jan 19 '12 at 18:30
  • @FumbleFingers: A while ago (I tried to find the related question but failed) there was disagreement about this between native English speakers (comments were on fire). How do you expect non-native speakers to be able to handle it? – Irene Jan 19 '12 at 18:58
  • 1
    @Irene: I don't follow you. Surely you don't mean there was extended debate on whether a noun like "investor" is normally referenced by the inanimate pronoun "it"? OP here is clearly not thinking in terms of institutional investors like banks and pension funds. – FumbleFingers Jan 19 '12 at 19:30
  • @FumbleFingers: I was referring to the question you provided the link for. I believe that OP's confusion stems, at least partly, from the fact that "they" with a singular verb sounds strange to foreigners, so they are looking for alternatives, wondering all the way if they are doing the right thing. – Irene Jan 19 '12 at 19:39
  • @Irene: oic. I didn't really put that link in for OP's benefit anyway. Dilip Sarwate's comment had already indicated a plausible context for neuter "it's" (where I'd prefer "their" anyway). In most circumstances (and the first definition in any dictionary, I'm sure) "investor" normally indicates a person rather than an organisation. That's why "it's" sounds strange, even to people who don't like using "their" with a singular referent. OP still hasn't clarified his intended meaning of "investor", so I stand by my interpretation that it's the default one. – FumbleFingers Jan 19 '12 at 21:45
  • 1
    @FumbleFingers I am not sure if you are implying that this question is too ridiculous to come from someone quite familiar with English (such as a native speaker). This question is a result of a heated debate in my office with all Americans. Our clients span the globe and we were trying to determine the best answer. Are we not allowed to submit questions without being critized for using this forum for questions that may seem to you too basic? – Shannon Jan 19 '12 at 22:34
  • @Shannon: Of course you're allowed to submit your question. But note that you still haven't clarified that vital element of context (is your single investor a person or an organisation?). Surely you can see that the reason people are uneasy about "it's" is because the natural interpretation is "investor=person"? If your clients are all companies you have a possible case for ignoring that unease and just using "it's" anyway, but if not, what is unclear after checking out my link? – FumbleFingers Jan 19 '12 at 22:52
  • ...OOOPS! - I just checked out my own link! Sorry - it should have been Is it correct to use “their” instead of “his or her”?. I AM SORRY! – FumbleFingers Jan 19 '12 at 22:53
  • @FumbleFingers These are all institutional entities. – Shannon Jan 19 '12 at 23:20
  • @Shannon: I've edited that info into the question (not everyone will read this far down the extended comment chain). Had I realised that in the first place I wouldn't have voted to close, but I'm not going to beat myself up about it because if you'd been talking about it with people in the office you must/should have known that was crucial. The answer now is that logically/grammatically of course you can use "it's", but it'll sound odd to many people simply because it's an unusual usage, incorrect in most other contexts. Personally I'd just sidestep the whole issue by using their anyway. – FumbleFingers Jan 19 '12 at 23:31
  • You can’t really use it for a human agency. It is not actually neuter in English. English doesn't have neuters. It has animate and inanimate, and only once animate can male or female be assigned. No one asks whether the mare has had "its" foal yet. And no human being can ever be an it. If you don't know what their gender is, use they, which at least doesn't preclude the agent being animate. – tchrist Jan 20 '12 at 00:24
  • 1
    @FumbleFingers PLEASE could people not use it's in place of its as in "....for neuter "it's (where I'd...." or "...uneasy about "it's" is because..." or "...of course you can use "it's"....", especially when fine points are being debated? – Dilip Sarwate Jan 20 '12 at 02:56
  • @Dilip Sarwate: Don't blow a fuse! It's not like I don't no what's rite! Their only commence, and we all make misteaks now and then. You shirley dont want me watching you like a hawk forever and a day here on ELU weighting for you to slip up! – FumbleFingers Jan 20 '12 at 04:12
  • @tchrist: I think you are mistaken there. Henry is correct in saying OP can correctly use its if and only if all investors are "non-human". And a bank can invest, so it's perfectly valid to say the bank is an investor – FumbleFingers Jan 20 '12 at 04:20
  • @Shannon: Okay, I can't undo my (unduly precipitate) vote to close, but you've managed to generate a more interesting debate about the gender of "investor" than that boring business about whether Microsoft is singular or plural, so I've reversed my (also precipitate) downvote against the question. Not to mention that without this question I'd never have picked up on John Lawler's singular observation on the status of no investor as neither singular nor plural. So - many thanks for that, and apologies again for the bungled link before! – FumbleFingers Jan 20 '12 at 04:35
  • @FumbleFingers I am not blowing a fuse. Occasional occurrences of it's when its was intended can be attributed to proof-reading error; repeated misuse is another matter. Your reputation is high enough that you are likely a moderator of this stackexchange (certainly you have the power to close questions) and your writings carry great weight. So please keep in mind that if a clock strikes thirteen, the thirteenth stroke is not only wrong by itself, but it also casts some doubt on the validity of the previous twelve; and the fourteenth, fifteenth,.. strokes just add to the cloud of suspicion. – Dilip Sarwate Jan 20 '12 at 13:36

4 Answers4

6

No problem. Singular they covers this situation perfectly.

Note, by the way, that the Noun Phrase no investor is neither singular nor plural - it's Zero.
Zero is not one and it's not more than one. So assigning Singular to it is purely arbitrary,
no matter how many investors there are.

The point is thus not whether no investor is singular or plural, but rather that
no investor is non-referential. That's the kind of Noun Phrase that singular they gets used with.

John Lawler
  • 107,887
  • Nor, I might add, after viewing the discussion above, is it the point whether no investor is neuter or human. They/their/them is completely appropriate in all these cases -- legal real humans, real legal humans, illegal real humans, animals, things, Martians, whatever. – John Lawler Jan 20 '12 at 02:08
  • +1 for opening my eyes to the non-singular, non-plural status of "no investor". But I'd like to give you a -1 at the same time for doing my head in over whether there even is a word for "singularity/plurality status" - and if so, what the hell is it? – FumbleFingers Jan 20 '12 at 04:39
  • Number. Singular number, plural number, dual number, paucal number. Person, number, gender, and case are the usual inflectional categories for Latin nouns (and adjectives; the Romans didn't distinguish them, since they behaved the same morphologically). – John Lawler Jan 20 '12 at 11:27
  • oic. So here on ELU "number category" or "number class" (in quotes) might be a reasonable way of indicating what some people see as a difference between "its" and "their"? I like that "paucal number" - never come across it before. – FumbleFingers Jan 20 '12 at 11:52
  • Nah, just *Number*; no "category" or "class" needed; it just confuses things. Singular is short for singular number, after all, just like Accusative is short for accusative case, and nobody would say "case class" here, would they? (I hope :-) – John Lawler Jan 20 '12 at 14:45
1

We tend not to use "its" for people. One would say

No investor has ever lost his or her capital.

or more simply

No investor has ever lost their capital.

although "their" as a gender-neutral singular possessive is not universally accepted.

choster
  • 43,403
1

I think its is fine only if all investors are neuter, such as companies or pension funds. It fails if any of them are human.

For me their works in these situations. Others may disagree

But you can avoid the "singular they" and gender issues by saying

No investors have ever lost their capital.

Henry
  • 20,183
1

To me, their just reads better, even knowing all investors are institutional entities. There is nothing wrong with its though (provided it's entirely clear you're not talking about individuals). This is purely a question of style.

David Schwartz
  • 10,162
  • 2
  • 36
  • 42