'They' enters the English language as a singular pronoun

Vixen · 11th December 2019, 12:22 AM

Not sure I approve of this.

Quote:

Merriam-Webster has named "they" its word of the year.

The US dictionary also recently added a new definition of "they", reflecting its use as a singular personal pronoun for non-binary people.

Searches for "they" on Merriam-Webster's website were 313% higher this year than they were in 2018.

British pop star Sam Smith came out as non-binary in March, and in September confirmed on Instagram that their pronouns were "they/them".

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50735371

It offends the principle of differentiating between singular and plural. It jars to see a news report in which one person is described as 'they'. It is probably all right if the aim is to avoid revealing gender.

I have never really liked Merriam-Webster for the way it readily discards convention and correctness.

zooterkin · 11th December 2019, 12:45 AM

Enters the language? That might have been news around 1300.
https://pemberley.com/janeinfo/austheir.html

Guybrush Threepwood · 11th December 2019, 01:01 AM

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Enters the language? That might have been news around 1300.
https://pemberley.com/janeinfo/austheir.html

I think historic usage is generally with an indefinite antecedent ('If any attendee needs the bathroom, they can use the facilities on the ground floor'). The usage with a specified antecedent ( 'Sam Smith is an English singer, they were (was?) born in 1992') is a new usage.

I'm not an expert, so would be unsurprised to be proved wrong about that.

Vixen · 11th December 2019, 01:10 AM

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Enters the language? That might have been news around 1300.
https://pemberley.com/janeinfo/austheir.html

Lay people, such as journalists and copywriters will get it wrong. Jane Austen was using dialogue; nota bene: it is in quotation marks reflecting a child's speech. Good novelists will capture exactly how people speak and local vernacular. People's speech is often very different from standard correct English.

I thought you would have known this.

But then you did, didn't you?

catsmate · 11th December 2019, 03:56 AM

Meh. Languages change.

zooterkin · 11th December 2019, 04:19 AM

Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood

I think historic usage is generally with an indefinite antecedent ('If any attendee needs the bathroom, they can use the facilities on the ground floor'). The usage with a specified antecedent ( 'Sam Smith is an English singer, they were (was?) born in 1992') is a new usage.

I'm not an expert, so would be unsurprised to be proved wrong about that.

You may be correct that this is a new usage, when referring to a specific individual of known gender (no, I don't want to get into discussing the ramifications of that), but whilst that's what the quoted text in the OP talked about, that's not what the OP itself was complaining about. Use of 'they' and 'their' when referring to a single (possibly unspecified) person is pretty much as old as modern English.

TragicMonkey · 11th December 2019, 06:20 AM

Is everyone clutching their pearls?

theprestige · 11th December 2019, 06:23 AM

Originally Posted by Vixen

Not sure I approve of this.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50735371

It offends the principle of differentiating between singular and plural. It jars to see a news report in which one person is described as 'they'. It is probably all right if the aim is to avoid revealing gender.

I have never really liked Merriam-Webster for the way it readily discards convention and correctness.

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. They tell you how words being used, not how they should used.

ahhell · 11th December 2019, 06:29 AM

Originally Posted by catsmate

Meh. Languages change.

Pretty much this, and in this case it isn't even changing that much.

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Is everyone clutching their pearls?

Certainly some are.

I will editorialize. If you want me to call you they, sure, why would I care. If you want me to use some word that didn't exist 3 years ago, ok but I think you're a bit of a twit, I'll probably forgot on occasion, sorry about that. If you announce your pronoun when entering the room, I'll think you're a narcissist and a twit.

Belz... · 11th December 2019, 06:31 AM

Originally Posted by Vixen

Not sure I approve of this.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50735371

It offends the principle of differentiating between singular and plural. It jars to see a news report in which one person is described as 'they'. It is probably all right if the aim is to avoid revealing gender.

I have never really liked Merriam-Webster for the way it readily discards convention and correctness.

Not just for "non-binaries", whatever that means, but simply when you don't know the person's sex/gender.

ahhell · 11th December 2019, 06:44 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

Not just for "non-binaries", whatever that means, but simply when you don't know the person's sex/gender.

Hasn't that always been the case though? Everyone I know uses and always has used they rather than he/she in that case.

Thermal · 11th December 2019, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood

I think historic usage is generally with an indefinite antecedent ('If any attendee needs the bathroom, they can use the facilities on the ground floor'). The usage with a specified antecedent ( 'Sam Smith is an English singer, they were (was?) born in 1992') is a new usage.

I'm not an expert, so would be unsurprised to be proved wrong about that.

If 'they' is a singular pronoun, it would presumably be 'they was'. But people will think that sounds hillbilly-ish, and continue with 'they were'. Guess we're going full-on Royal speaking, then, and start referring to ourselves in the third person.

TragicMonkey · 11th December 2019, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by Thermal

If 'they' is a singular pronoun, it would presumably be 'they was'. But people will think that sounds hillbilly-ish, and continue with 'they were'. Guess we're going full-on Royal speaking, then, and start referring to ourselves in the third person.

One finds it's far fancier to refer to oneself thusly, rather than as a royal wee. Maximize one's fanciness, as the Caesars used to say. Fancinuum ad maximixus walrusidae. As true today as when it was written.

theprestige · 11th December 2019, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by Thermal

If 'they' is a singular pronoun, it would presumably be 'they was'. But people will think that sounds hillbilly-ish, and continue with 'they were'. Guess we're going full-on Royal speaking, then, and start referring to ourselves in the third person.

Royals don't speak of themselves in the third person. "We" is the first person plural. The monarch uses "we" to refer to themselves as the personification of the nation and its citizens.

Belz... · 11th December 2019, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by ahhell

Hasn't that always been the case though? Everyone I know uses and always has used they rather than he/she in that case.

I have no clue. I've been using it for a while but I know it from only a couple of years ago.

TragicMonkey · 11th December 2019, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Royals don't speak of themselves in the third person. "We" is the first person plural. The monarch uses "we" to refer to themselves as the personification of the nation and its citizens.

And the reptilian hive mind.

TragicMonkey · 11th December 2019, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

I have no clue. I've been using it for a while but I know it from only a couple of years ago.

I've always used "they" in speaking of unknown gender because it sounds too prissily English teacher old-fashioned to say "he", and too cumbersome to say "he or she".

Thermal · 11th December 2019, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Royals don't speak of themselves in the third person. "We" is the first person plural. The monarch uses "we" to refer to themselves as the personification of the nation and its citizens.

They know. They have heard the Royals speak for decades. But it's more fun to lampoon the pretense.

mumblethrax · 11th December 2019, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood

I think historic usage is generally with an indefinite antecedent ('If any attendee needs the bathroom, they can use the facilities on the ground floor'). The usage with a specified antecedent ( 'Sam Smith is an English singer, they were (was?) born in 1992') is a new usage.

I'm not an expert, so would be unsurprised to be proved wrong about that.

That's probably the most common usage today, but it's not strictly true historically.

Originally Posted by Shakespeare

There's not a man I meet but doth salute me
As if I were their well-acquainted friend

It does sound a bit strange to me sometimes, probably because we're unaccustomed to using morphologically plural constructions with apparently singular third person singular pronouns. But we'll probably get over it, like we did when thou disappeared from most dialects of English.

theprestige · 11th December 2019, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by Thermal

They know. They have heard the Royals speak for decades. But it's more fun to lampoon the pretense.

I don't think it is a pretense. Though, in these days of constitutional monarchy, the significance is largely vestigial.

Thermal · 11th December 2019, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

I They don't think it is a pretense. Though, in these days of constitutional monarchy, the significance is largely vestigial.

FTFY.

They meant the pretense of assuming the Royals speak of themselves thusly.

Also, not sure the peasantry felt the Royals spoke for them. Although they may have felt some kind of crude affiliation. Not being a British serf, hard for them to say authoritatively.

Varanid · 11th December 2019, 09:22 AM

I'm surely in the minority, but this irritates me to no end.
Why don't we just come up with a gender-neutral term instead?

I have no issue with any sexual orientation/identity a person chooses, but I refuse to call a single person "they" unless there's a legitimate reason to suspect that "they" are multiple entities.

I'll just use your name. Yes, it will be very awkward. I hope you hate it.

TragicMonkey · 11th December 2019, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by Varanid

I'm surely in the minority, but this irritates me to no end.
Why don't we just come up with a gender-neutral term instead?

I have no issue with any sexual orientation/identity a person chooses, but I refuse to call a single person "they" unless there's a legitimate reason to suspect that "they" are multiple entities.

I'll just use your name. Yes, it will be very awkward. I hope you hate it.

Because "they" is already in widespread use and has been for centuries. Adopting a new word is a difficult task and would take decades to spread, even if it faced zero opposition. "They" is far less irritating than the proposed "ze", for example.

theprestige · 11th December 2019, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by Varanid

I'm surely in the minority, but this irritates me to no end.
Why don't we just come up with a gender-neutral term instead?

Natural language doesn't work that way.

I mean, sooner or later, if a gender-neutral term is needed, one will emerge. Right now, it looks like it's going to emerge by expanding the usage of "they".

But outside of technical jargon with obscure meanings and specific applications, simply coming up with a new term for everyone to use isn't really a thing.

Vixen · 11th December 2019, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

Not just for "non-binaries", whatever that means, but simply when you don't know the person's sex/gender.

The convention is to say 'he' and use the singular verb.

You might say 'they' to conceal the gender or it is important you avoid using 'he' (i.e., in an unsolved crime) but generally speaking it is not correct.

TragicMonkey · 11th December 2019, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by Vixen

The convention is to say 'he' and use the singular verb.

You might say 'they' to conceal the gender or it is important you avoid using 'he' (i.e., in an unsolved crime) but generally speaking it is not correct.

The convention is whatever the most people do. I'd say "they" has been the convention for some time now, outside of the schoolmarm population.

Vixen · 11th December 2019, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Natural language doesn't work that way.

I mean, sooner or later, if a gender-neutral term is needed, one will emerge. Right now, it looks like it's going to emerge by expanding the usage of "they".

But outside of technical jargon with obscure meanings and specific applications, simply coming up with a new term for everyone to use isn't really a thing.

Do what the Finns do. Just have one word for 'he' and 'she'. (Hän.)

bruto · 11th December 2019, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by Vixen

Lay people, such as journalists and copywriters will get it wrong. Jane Austen was using dialogue; nota bene: it is in quotation marks reflecting a child's speech. Good novelists will capture exactly how people speak and local vernacular. People's speech is often very different from standard correct English.

I thought you would have known this.

But then you did, didn't you?

Jane Austen used "they" in other than dialogue. I don't know where you were looking, but you should look again, and remember that at least some attributions will be in quotation marks because they are quoted from Austen, not because they are quotations in her work.

She habitually uses "they" where a statement tends to be general rather than specific to a single person, and might refer to either sex. She assiduously avoids "his or her" and similar constructions, and inserts "their" instead, generally to the advantage of her style. It is because this is such a frequent occurrence in her writing that Austen is often brought into such arguments.

e.t.a. while I'm at it, I'll address the prestige here: while it's true these days that the rule is for dictionaries to be descriptive rather than prescriptive, this has not always been presumed. The introduction of Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary was, at the time, accompanied by a storm of controversy when this change was made official. Up until that point, MW at least considered dictionaries to be at least in part prescriptive, following changes in language with some reluctance, and noting when usage was substandard, vernacular, and the like.

CORed · 11th December 2019, 10:11 AM

It's been a fairly common usage for some time. It does fulfill the need for something that English lacks: A non-gender-specific singular personal pronoun, which is often needed, whether for non-binary people, or just when the gender is unknown or all-encompasing. The downside is that it introduces some ambiguity in the meaning of "they", which may or may not be resolvable by context.

An older convention was to use "he" for the non-specific gender. This can also be ambiguous, and some would say that it's sexist. "It" could work, but that word is typically used for inanimate objects, or sometimes for animals.

It would, IMO be better to introduce a new word, but efforts to do that have failed to gain much traction. Using "they" as a singular does seem wrong to me, but complaining about it would likely be about as useful as shouting at clouds. As others in the thread have pointed out, langauges change. It doesn't annoy me nearly as much as misuse of the word "literal".

Belz... · 11th December 2019, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by Vixen

The convention is to say 'he' and use the singular verb.

No.

Quote:

You might say 'they' to conceal the gender or it is important you avoid using 'he' (i.e., in an unsolved crime) but generally speaking it is not correct.

How about you're talking about someone without knowing their gender, such as someone on the internet?

Vixen · 11th December 2019, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by bruto

Jane Austen used "they" in other than dialogue. I don't know where you were looking, but you should look again, and remember that at least some attributions will be in quotation marks because they are quoted from Austen, not because they are quotations in her work.

She habitually uses "they" where a statement tends to be general rather than specific to a single person, and might refer to either sex. She assiduously avoids "his or her" and similar constructions, and inserts "their" instead, generally to the advantage of her style. It is because this is such a frequent occurrence in her writing that Austen is often brought into such arguments.

e.t.a. while I'm at it, I'll address the prestige here: while it's true these days that the rule is for dictionaries to be descriptive rather than prescriptive, this has not always been presumed. The introduction of Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary was, at the time, accompanied by a storm of controversy when this change was made official. Up until that point, MW at least considered dictionaries to be at least in part prescriptive, following changes in language with some reluctance, and noting when usage was substandard, vernacular, and the like.

That was likely the editors and proofreaders at the publishers who like to use 'house rules'.

mumblethrax · 11th December 2019, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by Vixen

Do what the Finns do. Just have one word for 'he' and 'she'. (Hän.)

A friend in high school tried teaching me a bit of Hungarian. I remember remarking that it was nice that Hungarian didn't have gendered pronouns, and his response: "Yeah. Don't worry, we make up for it by being sexist in about a million different ways."

I tend to think people invest far too much power in this stuff.

Vixen · 11th December 2019, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

No.

How about you're talking about someone without knowing their gender, such as someone on the internet?

Think about it. It is rare you need to know a person's gender.

Don't forget, subject pronouns (he, she, it, they) are usually preceded by a noun or proper noun.

For example: The boy kicked the ball. He then ran down the wing.

Nine times out of ten you already know to whom you are referring when you start using the term, 'he' or 'she'. And nine times out of ten it is not information needed.

Think of German with der, die and das. Who needs that stuff?

Dr. Keith · 11th December 2019, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by Vixen

That was likely the editors and proofreaders at the publishers who like to use 'house rules'.

Are you really trying to strip Austen of her authorship?

Bold. Completely wrongheaded, but bold.

Dr. Keith · 11th December 2019, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by Vixen

Think about it. It is rare you need to know a person's gender.

Don't forget, subject pronouns (he, she, it, they) are usually preceded by a noun or proper noun.

For example: The boy kicked the ball. He then ran down the wing.

Nine times out of ten you already know to whom you are referring when you start using the term, 'he' or 'she'. And nine times out of ten it is not information needed.

Think of German with der, die and das. Who needs that stuff?

A language that only works well nine times out of ten is like a bridge that only gets you nine tenths of the way across a river.

You are wrong about this issue, and your inability to seek out the facts and truth about the common usage of "they" as a singular pronoun in English for quite sometime is borderline weird for someone who espouses to have some strong feelings about the issue.

Vixen · 11th December 2019, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

Are you really trying to strip Austen of her authorship?

Bold. Completely wrongheaded, but bold.

Not at all, except it was quite usual for publishers to change things to conform with their 'house rules'.

Vixen · 11th December 2019, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

A language that only works well nine times out of ten is like a bridge that only gets you nine tenths of the way across a river.

You are wrong about this issue, and your inability to seek out the facts and truth about the common usage of "they" as a singular pronoun in English for quite sometime is borderline weird for someone who espouses to have some strong feelings about the issue.

You obviously didn't have a similar education to mine.

theprestige · 11th December 2019, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by Vixen

Do what the Finns do. Just have one word for 'he' and 'she'. (Hän.)

How would you propose implementing that?

Dr. Keith · 11th December 2019, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by Vixen

Not at all, except it was quite usual for publishers to change things to conform with their 'house rules'.

Yes, but her usage stood out at the time. There is no evidence that it was 'house rules' for her publisher. Unless you can find some evidence to support your claim I would prefer that you retract it as wild speculation.

Originally Posted by Vixen

You obviously didn't have a similar education to mine.

I don't really know. My education emphasized researching issues that were important to me or my concerns. If I care about something I dig into it and do the research necessary to develop an informed position about that thing. I don't just assume that what I was taught in school is right and plow forward without question. If I did I would have not made it very far at all in this world.

What did your education emphasize?

Vixen · 11th December 2019, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

Yes, but her usage stood out at the time. There is no evidence that it was 'house rules' for her publisher. Unless you can find some evidence to support your claim I would prefer that you retract it as wild speculation.

I don't really know. My education emphasized researching issues that were important to me or my concerns. If I care about something I dig into it and do the research necessary to develop an informed position about that thing. I don't just assume that what I was taught in school is right and plow forward without question. If I did I would have not made it very far at all in this world.

What did your education emphasize?

To be frank, it is expected that literary novelists can do whatever they like. Look at James Joyce with Ulysses or Thomas Pynchon with V. It seems pretty silly to me to seek these out as guardians of correct English grammar usage. IMV if you are an English/Creative Writing graduate and you thoroughly understand the rules then you have poetic licence to break them. Ditto music and art.

However, to come out with a new rule that music can be any old thing you want it to be and point to the Sex Pistols as an example of the 'new music' then real musicians who have studied the art for years might be offended even if they themselves add a few twinkly flourishes to their renditions.

Rules are made to be broken. But first you should know them.

11th December 2019, 12:22 AM	#1
Vixen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Suomi Posts: 20,193	'They' enters the English language as a singular pronoun Not sure I approve of this. Quote: Merriam-Webster has named "they" its word of the year. The US dictionary also recently added a new definition of "they", reflecting its use as a singular personal pronoun for non-binary people. Searches for "they" on Merriam-Webster's website were 313% higher this year than they were in 2018. British pop star Sam Smith came out as non-binary in March, and in September confirmed on Instagram that their pronouns were "they/them". https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50735371 It offends the principle of differentiating between singular and plural. It jars to see a news report in which one person is described as 'they'. It is probably all right if the aim is to avoid revealing gender. I have never really liked Merriam-Webster for the way it readily discards convention and correctness.
	__________________ Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder, vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!

11th December 2019, 12:45 AM	#2
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Administrator Photo Contest Winner Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 47,970	Enters the language? That might have been news around 1300. https://pemberley.com/janeinfo/austheir.html
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20 Last edited by zooterkin; 11th December 2019 at 12:47 AM.

11th December 2019, 01:10 AM	#4
Vixen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Suomi Posts: 20,193	Originally Posted by zooterkin Enters the language? That might have been news around 1300. https://pemberley.com/janeinfo/austheir.html Lay people, such as journalists and copywriters will get it wrong. Jane Austen was using dialogue; nota bene: it is in quotation marks reflecting a child's speech. Good novelists will capture exactly how people speak and local vernacular. People's speech is often very different from standard correct English. I thought you would have known this. But then you did, didn't you?
	__________________ Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder, vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!

11th December 2019, 03:56 AM	#5
catsmate No longer the 1 Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 23,434	Meh. Languages change.
	__________________ As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.

11th December 2019, 04:19 AM	#6
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Administrator Photo Contest Winner Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 47,970	Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood I think historic usage is generally with an indefinite antecedent ('If any attendee needs the bathroom, they can use the facilities on the ground floor'). The usage with a specified antecedent ( 'Sam Smith is an English singer, they were (was?) born in 1992') is a new usage. I'm not an expert, so would be unsurprised to be proved wrong about that. You may be correct that this is a new usage, when referring to a specific individual of known gender (no, I don't want to get into discussing the ramifications of that), but whilst that's what the quoted text in the OP talked about, that's not what the OP itself was complaining about. Use of 'they' and 'their' when referring to a single (possibly unspecified) person is pretty much as old as modern English.
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20

11th December 2019, 01:01 AM	#3
Guybrush Threepwood Trainee Pirate Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: An Uaimh Posts: 3,033	Originally Posted by zooterkin Enters the language? That might have been news around 1300. https://pemberley.com/janeinfo/austheir.html I think historic usage is generally with an indefinite antecedent ('If any attendee needs the bathroom, they can use the facilities on the ground floor'). The usage with a specified antecedent ( 'Sam Smith is an English singer, they were (was?) born in 1992') is a new usage. I'm not an expert, so would be unsurprised to be proved wrong about that.

11th December 2019, 06:20 AM	#7
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 58,863	Is everyone clutching their pearls?
	__________________ You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.

11th December 2019, 06:23 AM	#8
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,530	Originally Posted by Vixen Not sure I approve of this. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50735371 It offends the principle of differentiating between singular and plural. It jars to see a news report in which one person is described as 'they'. It is probably all right if the aim is to avoid revealing gender. I have never really liked Merriam-Webster for the way it readily discards convention and correctness. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. They tell you how words being used, not how they should used.

11th December 2019, 06:29 AM	#9
ahhell Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 3,353	Originally Posted by catsmate Meh. Languages change. Pretty much this, and in this case it isn't even changing that much. Originally Posted by TragicMonkey Is everyone clutching their pearls? Certainly some are. I will editorialize. If you want me to call you they, sure, why would I care. If you want me to use some word that didn't exist 3 years ago, ok but I think you're a bit of a twit, I'll probably forgot on occasion, sorry about that. If you announce your pronoun when entering the room, I'll think you're a narcissist and a twit.
ahhell Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 3,353

11th December 2019, 06:31 AM	#10
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,292	Originally Posted by Vixen Not sure I approve of this. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50735371 It offends the principle of differentiating between singular and plural. It jars to see a news report in which one person is described as 'they'. It is probably all right if the aim is to avoid revealing gender. I have never really liked Merriam-Webster for the way it readily discards convention and correctness. Not just for "non-binaries", whatever that means, but simply when you don't know the person's sex/gender.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

11th December 2019, 06:44 AM	#11
ahhell Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 3,353	Originally Posted by Belz... Not just for "non-binaries", whatever that means, but simply when you don't know the person's sex/gender. Hasn't that always been the case though? Everyone I know uses and always has used they rather than he/she in that case.
ahhell Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 3,353

11th December 2019, 08:10 AM	#12
Thermal Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: East Coast USA Posts: 13,035	Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood I think historic usage is generally with an indefinite antecedent ('If any attendee needs the bathroom, they can use the facilities on the ground floor'). The usage with a specified antecedent ( 'Sam Smith is an English singer, they were (was?) born in 1992') is a new usage. I'm not an expert, so would be unsurprised to be proved wrong about that. If 'they' is a singular pronoun, it would presumably be 'they was'. But people will think that sounds hillbilly-ish, and continue with 'they were'. Guess we're going full-on Royal speaking, then, and start referring to ourselves in the third person.
	__________________ We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

11th December 2019, 08:24 AM	#13
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 58,863	Originally Posted by Thermal If 'they' is a singular pronoun, it would presumably be 'they was'. But people will think that sounds hillbilly-ish, and continue with 'they were'. Guess we're going full-on Royal speaking, then, and start referring to ourselves in the third person. One finds it's far fancier to refer to oneself thusly, rather than as a royal wee. Maximize one's fanciness, as the Caesars used to say. Fancinuum ad maximixus walrusidae. As true today as when it was written.
	__________________ You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.

11th December 2019, 08:25 AM	#14
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,530	Originally Posted by Thermal If 'they' is a singular pronoun, it would presumably be 'they was'. But people will think that sounds hillbilly-ish, and continue with 'they were'. Guess we're going full-on Royal speaking, then, and start referring to ourselves in the third person. Royals don't speak of themselves in the third person. "We" is the first person plural. The monarch uses "we" to refer to themselves as the personification of the nation and its citizens.

11th December 2019, 08:26 AM	#15
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,292	Originally Posted by ahhell Hasn't that always been the case though? Everyone I know uses and always has used they rather than he/she in that case. I have no clue. I've been using it for a while but I know it from only a couple of years ago.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

11th December 2019, 08:36 AM	#16
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 58,863	Originally Posted by theprestige Royals don't speak of themselves in the third person. "We" is the first person plural. The monarch uses "we" to refer to themselves as the personification of the nation and its citizens. And the reptilian hive mind.
	__________________ You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.

11th December 2019, 08:38 AM	#17
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 58,863	Originally Posted by Belz... I have no clue. I've been using it for a while but I know it from only a couple of years ago. I've always used "they" in speaking of unknown gender because it sounds too prissily English teacher old-fashioned to say "he", and too cumbersome to say "he or she".
	__________________ You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.

11th December 2019, 08:39 AM	#18
Thermal Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: East Coast USA Posts: 13,035	Originally Posted by theprestige Royals don't speak of themselves in the third person. "We" is the first person plural. The monarch uses "we" to refer to themselves as the personification of the nation and its citizens. They know. They have heard the Royals speak for decades. But it's more fun to lampoon the pretense.
	__________________ We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

11th December 2019, 08:58 AM	#19
mumblethrax Species traitor Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 2,636	Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood I think historic usage is generally with an indefinite antecedent ('If any attendee needs the bathroom, they can use the facilities on the ground floor'). The usage with a specified antecedent ( 'Sam Smith is an English singer, they were (was?) born in 1992') is a new usage. I'm not an expert, so would be unsurprised to be proved wrong about that. That's probably the most common usage today, but it's not strictly true historically. Originally Posted by Shakespeare There's not a man I meet but doth salute me As if I were their well-acquainted friend It does sound a bit strange to me sometimes, probably because we're unaccustomed to using morphologically plural constructions with apparently singular third person singular pronouns. But we'll probably get over it, like we did when thou disappeared from most dialects of English.

11th December 2019, 09:03 AM	#20
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,530	Originally Posted by Thermal They know. They have heard the Royals speak for decades. But it's more fun to lampoon the pretense. I don't think it is a pretense. Though, in these days of constitutional monarchy, the significance is largely vestigial.

11th December 2019, 09:15 AM	#21
Thermal Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: East Coast USA Posts: 13,035	Originally Posted by theprestige I They don't think it is a pretense. Though, in these days of constitutional monarchy, the significance is largely vestigial. FTFY. They meant the pretense of assuming the Royals speak of themselves thusly. Also, not sure the peasantry felt the Royals spoke for them. Although they may have felt some kind of crude affiliation. Not being a British serf, hard for them to say authoritatively.
	__________________ We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

11th December 2019, 09:22 AM	#22
Varanid Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 2,284	I'm surely in the minority, but this irritates me to no end. Why don't we just come up with a gender-neutral term instead? I have no issue with any sexual orientation/identity a person chooses, but I refuse to call a single person "they" unless there's a legitimate reason to suspect that "they" are multiple entities. I'll just use your name. Yes, it will be very awkward. I hope you hate it.
Varanid Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 2,284	__________________ "I love the poorly educated" -- Donald Trump

11th December 2019, 09:31 AM	#23
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 58,863	Originally Posted by Varanid I'm surely in the minority, but this irritates me to no end. Why don't we just come up with a gender-neutral term instead? I have no issue with any sexual orientation/identity a person chooses, but I refuse to call a single person "they" unless there's a legitimate reason to suspect that "they" are multiple entities. I'll just use your name. Yes, it will be very awkward. I hope you hate it. Because "they" is already in widespread use and has been for centuries. Adopting a new word is a difficult task and would take decades to spread, even if it faced zero opposition. "They" is far less irritating than the proposed "ze", for example.
	__________________ You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.

11th December 2019, 09:39 AM	#24
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,530	Originally Posted by Varanid I'm surely in the minority, but this irritates me to no end. Why don't we just come up with a gender-neutral term instead? Natural language doesn't work that way. I mean, sooner or later, if a gender-neutral term is needed, one will emerge. Right now, it looks like it's going to emerge by expanding the usage of "they". But outside of technical jargon with obscure meanings and specific applications, simply coming up with a new term for everyone to use isn't really a thing.

11th December 2019, 09:54 AM	#25
Vixen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Suomi Posts: 20,193	Originally Posted by Belz... Not just for "non-binaries", whatever that means, but simply when you don't know the person's sex/gender. The convention is to say 'he' and use the singular verb. You might say 'they' to conceal the gender or it is important you avoid using 'he' (i.e., in an unsolved crime) but generally speaking it is not correct.
	__________________ Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder, vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!

11th December 2019, 09:57 AM	#26
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 58,863	Originally Posted by Vixen The convention is to say 'he' and use the singular verb. You might say 'they' to conceal the gender or it is important you avoid using 'he' (i.e., in an unsolved crime) but generally speaking it is not correct. The convention is whatever the most people do. I'd say "they" has been the convention for some time now, outside of the schoolmarm population.
	__________________ You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.

11th December 2019, 10:00 AM	#27
Vixen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Suomi Posts: 20,193	Originally Posted by theprestige Natural language doesn't work that way. I mean, sooner or later, if a gender-neutral term is needed, one will emerge. Right now, it looks like it's going to emerge by expanding the usage of "they". But outside of technical jargon with obscure meanings and specific applications, simply coming up with a new term for everyone to use isn't really a thing. Do what the Finns do. Just have one word for 'he' and 'she'. (Hän.)
	__________________ Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder, vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!

11th December 2019, 10:07 AM	#28
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 27,224	Originally Posted by Vixen Lay people, such as journalists and copywriters will get it wrong. Jane Austen was using dialogue; nota bene: it is in quotation marks reflecting a child's speech. Good novelists will capture exactly how people speak and local vernacular. People's speech is often very different from standard correct English. I thought you would have known this. But then you did, didn't you? Jane Austen used "they" in other than dialogue. I don't know where you were looking, but you should look again, and remember that at least some attributions will be in quotation marks because they are quoted from Austen, not because they are quotations in her work. She habitually uses "they" where a statement tends to be general rather than specific to a single person, and might refer to either sex. She assiduously avoids "his or her" and similar constructions, and inserts "their" instead, generally to the advantage of her style. It is because this is such a frequent occurrence in her writing that Austen is often brought into such arguments. e.t.a. while I'm at it, I'll address the prestige here: while it's true these days that the rule is for dictionaries to be descriptive rather than prescriptive, this has not always been presumed. The introduction of Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary was, at the time, accompanied by a storm of controversy when this change was made official. Up until that point, MW at least considered dictionaries to be at least in part prescriptive, following changes in language with some reluctance, and noting when usage was substandard, vernacular, and the like.
	__________________ I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver) Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard) Last edited by bruto; 11th December 2019 at 10:13 AM.

11th December 2019, 10:11 AM	#29
CORed Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Central City, Colorado, USA Posts: 9,995	It's been a fairly common usage for some time. It does fulfill the need for something that English lacks: A non-gender-specific singular personal pronoun, which is often needed, whether for non-binary people, or just when the gender is unknown or all-encompasing. The downside is that it introduces some ambiguity in the meaning of "they", which may or may not be resolvable by context. An older convention was to use "he" for the non-specific gender. This can also be ambiguous, and some would say that it's sexist. "It" could work, but that word is typically used for inanimate objects, or sometimes for animals. It would, IMO be better to introduce a new word, but efforts to do that have failed to gain much traction. Using "they" as a singular does seem wrong to me, but complaining about it would likely be about as useful as shouting at clouds. As others in the thread have pointed out, langauges change. It doesn't annoy me nearly as much as misuse of the word "literal".

11th December 2019, 10:18 AM	#30
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,292	Originally Posted by Vixen The convention is to say 'he' and use the singular verb. No. Quote: You might say 'they' to conceal the gender or it is important you avoid using 'he' (i.e., in an unsolved crime) but generally speaking it is not correct. How about you're talking about someone without knowing their gender, such as someone on the internet?
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

11th December 2019, 10:19 AM	#31
Vixen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Suomi Posts: 20,193	Originally Posted by bruto Jane Austen used "they" in other than dialogue. I don't know where you were looking, but you should look again, and remember that at least some attributions will be in quotation marks because they are quoted from Austen, not because they are quotations in her work. She habitually uses "they" where a statement tends to be general rather than specific to a single person, and might refer to either sex. She assiduously avoids "his or her" and similar constructions, and inserts "their" instead, generally to the advantage of her style. It is because this is such a frequent occurrence in her writing that Austen is often brought into such arguments. e.t.a. while I'm at it, I'll address the prestige here: while it's true these days that the rule is for dictionaries to be descriptive rather than prescriptive, this has not always been presumed. The introduction of Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary was, at the time, accompanied by a storm of controversy when this change was made official. Up until that point, MW at least considered dictionaries to be at least in part prescriptive, following changes in language with some reluctance, and noting when usage was substandard, vernacular, and the like. That was likely the editors and proofreaders at the publishers who like to use 'house rules'.
	__________________ Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder, vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!

11th December 2019, 10:20 AM	#32
mumblethrax Species traitor Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 2,636	Originally Posted by Vixen Do what the Finns do. Just have one word for 'he' and 'she'. (Hän.) A friend in high school tried teaching me a bit of Hungarian. I remember remarking that it was nice that Hungarian didn't have gendered pronouns, and his response: "Yeah. Don't worry, we make up for it by being sexist in about a million different ways." I tend to think people invest far too much power in this stuff.

11th December 2019, 10:25 AM	#33
Vixen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Suomi Posts: 20,193	Originally Posted by Belz... No. How about you're talking about someone without knowing their gender, such as someone on the internet? Think about it. It is rare you need to know a person's gender. Don't forget, subject pronouns (he, she, it, they) are usually preceded by a noun or proper noun. For example: The boy kicked the ball. He then ran down the wing. Nine times out of ten you already know to whom you are referring when you start using the term, 'he' or 'she'. And nine times out of ten it is not information needed. Think of German with der, die and das. Who needs that stuff?
	__________________ Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder, vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!

11th December 2019, 10:30 AM	#34
Dr. Keith Not a doctor. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 21,964	Originally Posted by Vixen That was likely the editors and proofreaders at the publishers who like to use 'house rules'. Are you really trying to strip Austen of her authorship? Bold. Completely wrongheaded, but bold.
	__________________ Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God. He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.

11th December 2019, 10:33 AM	#35
Dr. Keith Not a doctor. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 21,964	Originally Posted by Vixen Think about it. It is rare you need to know a person's gender. Don't forget, subject pronouns (he, she, it, they) are usually preceded by a noun or proper noun. For example: The boy kicked the ball. He then ran down the wing. Nine times out of ten you already know to whom you are referring when you start using the term, 'he' or 'she'. And nine times out of ten it is not information needed. Think of German with der, die and das. Who needs that stuff? A language that only works well nine times out of ten is like a bridge that only gets you nine tenths of the way across a river. You are wrong about this issue, and your inability to seek out the facts and truth about the common usage of "they" as a singular pronoun in English for quite sometime is borderline weird for someone who espouses to have some strong feelings about the issue.
	__________________ Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God. He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.