this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2023
602 points (97.6% liked)

196

16601 readers
3524 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

ALT TEXT:

  • Panel 1: A person with the text "Singular 'they'" written on them smiling with open arms.
  • Panel 2: "Singular 'They'" beaten up by others who said, "Singular they is ungrammatical. It's too confusing," "How can anyone use plural pronouns for singular," and "Every pronoun should only have one purpose."
  • Panel 3: "You" hiding from the mob who was beating "Singular 'They'"
  • Panel 4: "German 'Sie'" hiding with even more fear next to "You"
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 80 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

I have normally used "they, their and them" when referring to a singular person for about twenty years because I thought that "he/she" and "his/hers" looked ridiculous in emails.

For example; "Next time the engineer feels like he/she needs to overhaul the code..." versus "Next time the engineer feels like they need to overhaul the code...". Clean and simple.

Example of current use:

Bob - "Hey Jo, Frank thinks we should tweak widget X."

Me - "Yeah well, they don't know what the fuck they're talking about."

I don't think that sounds weird.

[–] DharkStare 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Singular they sometimes works and sometimes it sounds odd. It usually sounds off when used by itself without following something explicitly singular.

"The customer forgot their wallet. Can you bring it to them?" sounds correct but if you just do

"They forgot to pay their bill" it sounds like you're referring to multiple people instead of a singular person.

Edit: Changed to a better example.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago (1 children)

“They left their wallet on the table” it sounds like you’re referring to multiple people instead of a singular person.

Does it? If multiple people left multiple wallets on the table, it would be, "They left their wallets on the table." Multiple people can't really leave a single wallet behind. Or at least that would be very unusual and unintuitive.

[–] DharkStare 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

True. I'll change it to a (hopefully) better example.

[–] idiomaddict 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

“A customer forgot to pay their bill” sounds totally normal to me though, you just need a reference before throwing a pronoun out there, if the context doesn’t clear up the number of people referred to.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"They forgot to pay their bill" it sounds like you're referring to multiple people instead of a singular person.

This sounds normal to me, how else would you word it?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BitSound 7 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Lots of people talk past each other on this. Singular they to refer to a known single person is an invention of the last few years and is the thing that a lot of people are up in arms about. It gets confused with the centuries-old usage of using it to refer to an unknown or undetermined person. Your first example is in line with the latter, and your second example is the new usage. TBH I'd be confused by your second example. Is Frank part of some larger group that doesn't know what they're talking about? Or is it only Frank that doesn't know what he's talking about?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not a thing of the last few years I've been using it for at least a decade.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Frank is such an idiot. Why did we ever let them onto this team?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 57 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I just don't get it, even before being aware of pronouns and such I used singular they all the time, e.g. "That's what they did" (referring to one person) or "They're thinking that aren't they?"

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago (8 children)

It's because there isn't actually confusion about this. This is transphobes making up something to be angry and confused about in order to rope in the ignorant to harass trans people. It's not acceptable to say "trans people are bad, we should ostracize them" currently. So transphobes find something that could be confusing (nonbinary people using they/them) and convince ignorant people (people who don't know much about trans people and/or have no opinion) that it's confusing and wrong and people should "correct" them. Then you get ignorant people saying things like "they isn't singular" or "I can't get used to they/them and don't like using it." This creates a continuous debate on if trans people deserve to self-identify and generates constant micro-aggressions (or just full aggressions) against their entire community.

It's really just a way for transphobes to create a hostile environment for trans people over literally nothing.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yeah, but you're using it to mean "I don't know which pronoun to use." This is a different meaning than what's being describes here.

What's being described here is a person who decided that they don't want to be referred to as he or she, and has chosen to make themselves plural instead of using the singular nongendered pronoun already present in English.

Since that is a grammatical error, and this is the internet, I am obligated to ridicule this person, regardless of how well their meaning is conveyed.

/s, by the way.

[–] Sage_the_Lawyer 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

"instead of using the singular nongendered pronoun already present in English."

Lmao. That shoulda given away the /s right there.

But uh, I think the pronoun you're talking about there is "they." 😜

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Actually, I was referring to 'it.'

People don't like using it for people, because it's traditionally only really used for objects ("It's a chair!" ) or creatures where the gender isn't identifiable or doesn't matter ("It's a bear!") , but that's the exact use case here.

A nonbinary person is a creature whose gender is either not identifiable or doesn't matter.

People just decided that it meant nonbinary people were objects, when in reality we use it for objects because they were the only truly nonbinary concepts we had.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 39 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

So, to explain the German „sie/Sie“, it can be used as one of the following:

  • formal version of both singular and plural you: used whenever you have or want to maintain a distance from someone, or with persons who demand respect/authority. Generally speaking, whenever you would say Mr/Mrs/Ms it’s „Sie“, if you’re on first name terms it’s „Du“. Fun fact: addressing an LEO, judge, etc. informally („Du“) is considered an insult, insulting someone is a misdemeanour (not kidding) in Germany, and you will usually be fined on the spot for doing so.

  • Used to reference a woman/girl who has been mentioned before: What about Sally, is she coming today?

  • Same as above but for inanimate objects or animals that are gendered female: Have you seen my camera, I have misplaced her. Look at the cat, she’s so cute. (In this case it’s a cat of either female or unknown gender, if you were talking about a male cat specifically, you’d use the male version of „cat“…)

  • Same as above, but for all groups of people, animals, objects, regardless of gender, like plural they: Look at the guys/nuns/politicians/cats/helicopters, they’re drunk as fuck!

Great language, isn’t it.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Fun fact correction: if you happen to be Dieter Bohlen you are legally allowed to informally address everyone, including cops, and won't be fined.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, that's just the modern way of talking.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Fried_out_Kombi 38 points 1 year ago (3 children)

What's funny about those "grammar purist" people is singular "they" has been accepted common use in English for centuries, even older than singular "you". For some reason society got it in our collective heads in the fairly recent past that it was improper grammar, though, and that's what teachers often teach. I'm still not over my 5th grade teacher marking me down a point on an essay because I used singular "they". You're still wrong, Mrs. B.

[–] Ultraviolet 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Like many things, the damage was done by the British. Specifically one Bishop Robert Lowth. In 1762, he wrote a book of prescriptivist grammar rules starting with the premise that Latin is a perfect language, and any construction in English that doesn't match Latin is a flaw. This is where those nonsense rules like "never end a sentence with a preposition" and "never split infinitives" come from, as well as the claim that the singular they (in common use at the time) should be phased out in favor of the generic he, because that's what Latin does. The damage this one book did to the English language still has not been fully repaired.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Bring back thy/thine

[–] BitSound 4 points 1 year ago

You're confusing two different usages. Singular they to refer to an unknown or undetermined person has centuries-old usage, yes. Using it to refer to a known single person is an invention of the last few years.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (5 children)

As somebody whose primary language is Dutch, the lack of an explicit plural "you" is one of the worst things.

If I'm talking to somebody, I can't nicely refer to a group they are part of, because "you" means they themself specifically, "y'all" makes me feel like engineer TF2, and "you people" sounds condescending.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just use y'all, it's great

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I hate English, it's also the only language I'm fluent in, so it's a love/hate relationship.

The disconnect that most people mistake here is between direct and indirect pronouns. Until recently, they/them has been used indirectly, to refer to someone who isn't present. To use it while they're present is uncomfortable for many not because it's supposed to be plural, but because it's supposed to be indirect. The only time you would (previously) say they/them in the presence of the individual in question, is to disregard them. An effort to make them irrelevant, like, I care so little about you that I'm not even going to recognise your presence.

They/them is very common as a singular pronoun. There's a ton of good examples of it being used in this way in this thread.

The thing I love/hate about English is that it adapts to how people use it, and right now, we're adapting they/them to be direct singular, instead of exclusively indirect singular. Unfortunately everyone knows this on some level, and while many are crying about it being plural (not understanding why it makes them uncomfortable), while it's definitely not, it is indirect, and the non-binary folks have asked us to use it as a direct singular for them (which I support).

IMO, this is a change that can, and by all means, should happen.

The hate of English for me is when perfectly good under-used terms have their definition applied to more commonly (albeit incorrectly) used words, a prime example of this is jealous. Historically it has meant: fiercely protective or vigilant of one's rights or possessions. Which, when applied to a relationship, results in the other definition for jealousy: feeling or showing suspicion of someone's unfaithfulness in a relationship. However, people have used jealous under it's newest definition for a while now, which is: feeling or showing envy of someone or their achievements and advantages. Which as the definition clearly shows, it's simply a showing of envy, or the act of being envious. The problem I have is that this legitimizes the incorrect use of the word, when we have another word that already means that.... Envious. One word co-opting the definition of another is simply a demonstration of the lazy nature of English speakers. We would rather redefine the commonly, and incorrectly used term than learn and use the correct one.

When it comes to they/them, there is no direct singular ungendered term for an individual besides "you", which will always refer to the person being spoken to. So a new term, or a new definition of an existing term is required. Non-binary people seem to have unanimously agreed that the terms that they want to adapt for this purpose is they and them. I'm fully in support of this, and while it may be uncomfortable for people to adapt to this new usage, it's something that should be done, and IMO, will be done.

Alternatively, we could co-opt a new word, either entirely unique, or derived from another language, for the direct singular ungendered person. This would probably be more comfortable for the more cis-normative population, but bluntly, getting all of the non-binary people, or at least the majority of them, to agree to the use of the new word, whatever it is, would be challenging at the very least, and it may, in a worst case, be rather insulting to those who prefer they/them, who wouldn't want to change that just to appease some gendered people who are uncomfortable with they/them. It's a valid option, but not one that I believe is viable.

On top of that, these are the pronouns they have chosen. As a matter of respect for your fellow humans, we should let the non-binary people choose the words that they would like to use for their pronouns. Something which they have already done, and those terms are they/them. If we, as a species, have any respect for eachother at all, we'll respect that decision, and adapt, regardless of the temporary discomfort we may have about it in the interim.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (4 children)

my language doesn't have gendered pronouns so we just use "siya" for singular they and "sila" for plural.

I'm curious what other languages specify if "they" is singular or plural and how?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

My language kinda sucks because we don't have a singular they :(

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I hope we do eventually. The lack of it is a serious pain in the ass.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Clearly, we need more pronouns. Maybe something called, idk... neopronouns

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"Where's Bobby?"

"They went to the store."

Is just as grammatically correct as "He went to the store" or "At the store."

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

thankfully Chinese has always had a singular they, "他."

for your convenience:

  • 我: I, 我們: we
  • 你: you, 妳: feminine you, 你們: plural you
  • 他: he or sing. they, 她: she, 他們 plural they

 

by the way, 他 used to be he, she, or sing. they. the usage of 她 as she and 妳 as you (for females) is relatively recent. even now, you could replace all the ones with a "女" on its left with its "亻" counterpart and no one will say a thing. they are also pronounced identically.

load more comments
view more: next ›