[quote=@whizzball1] But if "he" was common throughout those works as a gender-neutral singular pronoun, as in the usage you mention at the bottom of your post, then it would [i]certainly[/i] be mentioned at some point, because it is definitely relevant to the debate about GNSPs. However, in my searches, I haven't found anyone saying that "he" was used when the gender was unknown. Now that I fully understand what you're trying to say here, that is definitely interesting. My citation from Wagner is still relevant, that "him" said nothing about gender (except that it isn't feminine). I notice that you keep saying "we". Yes, [i]we[/i], in [i]Modern[/i] English, would use that, because that became natural to us after it was pushed in the nineteenth century. But the issue we're debating is--did [i]they[/i] of [i]Middle[/i] English use that? Um. I would have continued writing that paragraph, but at this exact moment I have just realised that, in light of what you just noted, my citation from Wagner basically means that it's likely that, in Middle English, they used "him" if they didn't know the actual gender. The problem still remains that we don't have any literary references from that time attesting to this, and this understanding is an inference based on the personal pronouns of that time, but it's enough to make me rethink my position, as I mentioned in my response to Blitz, because I can't reasonably contradict you without stretching my interpretation of my citations. [/quote] Refer to your second paragraph to answer this question. When I make an argument about older Englishmen, using "we" places me within their time. Yes, the concept applies. My point exactly. Though to match you there, I can't argue with actual examples because I don't read Middle English books. Regardless, this is close enough to discussed out in my eyes if it makes Blitz uncomfortable.