6 ms·

Does this article really not give a single example of use of singular 'they' or did I just read too fast?

jpmattia 11y ago
> or did I just read too fast? I must have read too fast as well. The author would have done well to include several examples, and they doesn't include any examples. Almost makes me feel like they is pranking me, to be frank.
- mhurron 11y ago
  > The author would have done well to include several examples, and they doesn't include any examples. There's your example.
  - dang 11y ago
    I think jpmattia was joking. But it's fascinating how, when someone mistakenly thinks that it's a new proposed rule and tries to apply it, they frequently come up with an awkward overcorrection, when they're almost certainly already using it naturally in their own speech without noticing. If anyone wants examples there are 500 years' worth here: https://web.archive.org/web/20150328135337/http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/sgtheirl.html https://web.archive.org/web/20150328135337/http://www.crossm.... And as many again from Jane Austen alone: http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/austhlis.html http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/austhlis.html.
    - mhurron 11y ago
      > I think jpmattia was joking. Honestly, with the way the comments are for this article, it's impossible to tell.
    - jpmattia 11y ago
      > I think jpmattia was joking. Guilty as charged, your honor. > But it's fascinating how, when someone mistakenly thinks that it's a new proposed rule and tries to apply it, they frequently come up with an awkward overcorrection I'd note that there is a great deal of verbiage about grammar rules requiring rewrite to allow singular they . For example: A foreign speaker would be well within bounds to look at the first google hit for "define are" [1] : are1 är,ər/ 2nd person singular present and 1st, 2nd, 3rd person plural present of be. Google should note that "are" is also 3rd person singular present, consistent with 500 years of usage. But we also have to point out that singular "are" is disallowed in cases other than they, and we can't even add a gender-specific conjugation, since the neuter "it" is still not paired with "are". Fortunately, rules in language are not subject to mathematical rigor, and people and authors and poets (and smartasses) are given free license to use language in any way that facilitates communication.
- mhurron 11y ago
  > The author would have done well to include several examples, and they doesn't include any examples. There's your example. I have no idea how this doubled up.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  > The author would have done well to include several examples, and they doesn't include any examples. Almost makes me feel like they is pranking me, to be frank. "Singular they" still normally pairs with plural forms of other words, not singular forms: "I talked with a person today. They were interested in grammar.". (Rather than "They was interested", which sounds completely wrong.)
  - jpmattia 11y ago
    > "Singular they" still normally pairs with plural forms of other words I'd point out those "plural forms" are now "singular forms" as well, so it looks like those terms will need refining.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > I'd point out those "plural forms" are now "singular forms" as well No, they're still plural, just as they are when combined with other grammatically plural pronouns that are used with singular semantics (the royal/editorial use of "we" and -- even more commonly -- "you", the second-person plural pronoun that has in virtually all uses displaces the singular one.)
      - jpmattia 11y ago
        Like I said: Those terms will need refining, and all you've done is add "grammatical" and "semantic" to differentiate the cases.
        dragonwriter 11y ago
        > Those terms will need refining But they won't. We've used "plural" and "singular" fine in referring to the grammatical features of verb tenses and the nouns/pronouns they agree with just fine for centuries, despite the fact that grammatical number of "we", "they", and especially "you" has often -- for longer than we've even had formalized descriptions of English grammar -- disagreed with semantic number. There's nothing new here to necessitate "refining" anything.
josu 11y ago
Examples: https://illinois.edu/blog/view/25/247504 https://illinois.edu/blog/view/25/247504
dragonwriter 11y ago
The article (blog post) links to an earlier blog post by the same author which contains previous discussion and plenty of examples of the singular they: https://illinois.edu/blog/view/25/247504 https://illinois.edu/blog/view/25/247504

> or did I just read too fast? I must have read too fast as well. The author would have done well to include several examples, and they doesn't include any examples. Almost makes me feel like they is pranking me, to be frank.

mhurron 11y ago
> The author would have done well to include several examples, and they doesn't include any examples. There's your example.
- dang 11y ago
  I think jpmattia was joking. But it's fascinating how, when someone mistakenly thinks that it's a new proposed rule and tries to apply it, they frequently come up with an awkward overcorrection, when they're almost certainly already using it naturally in their own speech without noticing. If anyone wants examples there are 500 years' worth here: https://web.archive.org/web/20150328135337/http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/sgtheirl.html https://web.archive.org/web/20150328135337/http://www.crossm.... And as many again from Jane Austen alone: http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/austhlis.html http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/austhlis.html.
  - mhurron 11y ago
    > I think jpmattia was joking. Honestly, with the way the comments are for this article, it's impossible to tell.
  - jpmattia 11y ago
    > I think jpmattia was joking. Guilty as charged, your honor. > But it's fascinating how, when someone mistakenly thinks that it's a new proposed rule and tries to apply it, they frequently come up with an awkward overcorrection I'd note that there is a great deal of verbiage about grammar rules requiring rewrite to allow singular they . For example: A foreign speaker would be well within bounds to look at the first google hit for "define are" [1] : are1 är,ər/ 2nd person singular present and 1st, 2nd, 3rd person plural present of be. Google should note that "are" is also 3rd person singular present, consistent with 500 years of usage. But we also have to point out that singular "are" is disallowed in cases other than they, and we can't even add a gender-specific conjugation, since the neuter "it" is still not paired with "are". Fortunately, rules in language are not subject to mathematical rigor, and people and authors and poets (and smartasses) are given free license to use language in any way that facilitates communication.
mhurron 11y ago
> The author would have done well to include several examples, and they doesn't include any examples. There's your example. I have no idea how this doubled up.
JoshTriplett 11y ago
> The author would have done well to include several examples, and they doesn't include any examples. Almost makes me feel like they is pranking me, to be frank. "Singular they" still normally pairs with plural forms of other words, not singular forms: "I talked with a person today. They were interested in grammar.". (Rather than "They was interested", which sounds completely wrong.)
- jpmattia 11y ago
  > "Singular they" still normally pairs with plural forms of other words I'd point out those "plural forms" are now "singular forms" as well, so it looks like those terms will need refining.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > I'd point out those "plural forms" are now "singular forms" as well No, they're still plural, just as they are when combined with other grammatically plural pronouns that are used with singular semantics (the royal/editorial use of "we" and -- even more commonly -- "you", the second-person plural pronoun that has in virtually all uses displaces the singular one.)
    - jpmattia 11y ago
      Like I said: Those terms will need refining, and all you've done is add "grammatical" and "semantic" to differentiate the cases.
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        > Those terms will need refining But they won't. We've used "plural" and "singular" fine in referring to the grammatical features of verb tenses and the nouns/pronouns they agree with just fine for centuries, despite the fact that grammatical number of "we", "they", and especially "you" has often -- for longer than we've even had formalized descriptions of English grammar -- disagreed with semantic number. There's nothing new here to necessitate "refining" anything.

josu 11y ago

Examples: https://illinois.edu/blog/view/25/247504 https://illinois.edu/blog/view/25/247504

dragonwriter 11y ago

The article (blog post) links to an earlier blog post by the same author which contains previous discussion and plenty of examples of the singular they: https://illinois.edu/blog/view/25/247504 https://illinois.edu/blog/view/25/247504