OBRAVE new world that hath such people in it. Last week, I came across a phenomenon – a Church of England clergyman so politically-correct it set your teeth on edge. He had given permission for an independent organisation to hold a service in his church. This organisation had thoughtfully printed its own order of service and invited the clergyman to read the written prayers. He did so – after a fashion. But where the printed original said, as it might have been, “We pray that every man may keep his courage...” the priest altered the line and read: “We pray that every person may keep their courage.”

There are two things to be said about this.

First, the violence thereby being perpetrated on the English language, for “every man”

means “each and every man” and as such it is singular, while “their” is plural. But this is a minor crime overshadowed by the more serious offence against the compilers of the original order of service by changing the words they had intended.

Clearly, the clergyman would rather risk offending the worshippers than transgress the rules of political-correctness. All the wonderful modern and emancipated people do it. The Reverend Lucy Winkett, Thought for the Day’s redoubtable exponent of the logical inconsistency, came on the radio to comment on the death of John Tavener.

She said: “When a composer dies, their voice is lost...” But John Tavener was a man and thus a single entity. Therefore, as we were taught in primary school, the word should not have been their but his.

I find offensive this widespread arrogance on the part of the contemporary high-minded who blithely disfigure our language in order to preserve their politically-correct prejudices.

Their arrogance is combined with ignorance as they do not understand that “man”

is a noun with at least two meanings in English: it can refer to the individual man or generally to the whole of humankind, women as well as men. And, as a man, I insist on being referred to by the correct classification. And let us say “sex” and not “gender”. I am a man and I take “sex”. A noun is a part of speech and has “gender”.

Where do we stop with this bowdlerising of English in the name of the new and mangled etiquette? Must manhole covers henceforth be referred to as person-hole covers? Will cricket’s deep third man become deep third person? Must Harry Lime no longer be the third man but merely the third person? And must my manhood in future become my person- hood?

Unfortunately, the desecration goes further.

While “man” is forbidden, its vulgar replacement “guy” has become universal and compulsory. When I was a lad, a guy was a rough-hewn hombre, a cowboy in the Wild West or a hoodlum played by Humphrey Bogart.

But now everybody is called “guy” - even women and girls, those creatures some used to refer to as “gals”.

This, too, is offensive. I do not like obsequious waiters such as the fawning Basil in Fawlty Towers. I do not expect or desire him to call me “sir”. But I do cringe when, halfway through the meal, the waiter (or waitress) approaches our table and asks: “Are you guys enjoying your meal?” The Psalm says: “What is man that thou art mindful of him and the son of man that thou visitest him?” Are we instead to endure: “What is person or guy that thou art mindful of them and the son/daughter of person/guy that thou visitest them?”