4 ms·

As a non native speaker I find it difficult sometimes to parse who/what exactly is/are the subject of a phrase because of the use of the same pronoun on singula

by mtrovo 7y ago

As a non native speaker I find it difficult sometimes to parse who/what exactly is/are the subject of a phrase because of the use of the same pronoun on singular and plural forms. This already happened with “you” and I’m having a hard time to believe it’s a good idea to use they as a neutral singular rather than a new word just for that. Is there any historical reason to use it like this?

umanwizard 7y ago
For what it's worth, the formal language is “worse” than the colloquial one in one way: you being plural is only a thing in standard writing, at least in my dialect of English. I basically never use plural you and systematically use you guys (pronounced quickly, as one word), which has become the plural second-person pronoun in at least some dialects of English.
- ghaff 7y ago
  >you guys You'll find those who will object to this in a mixed gender setting. Things like y'all and you folks are probably preferred in at least some contexts. (Having said that, I still reflexively use you guys a lot and I know lots of other people, including many women, who do as well.)
  - umanwizard 7y ago
    People can dislike it if they want. It’s my native language and I don’t intend to change it to accommodate other people’s tastes.
Pfhreak 7y ago
It's been historically used this way for hundreds of years. If I recall correctly, Shakespeare used singular they in some places. Just like "you", context clues are usually sufficient to disambiguate.
- azangru 7y ago
  > It's been historically used this way for hundreds of years. It's been historically used _occasionally_. Sure neither King James' Bible nor Shakespeare's plays abound in singular they; but there are occasional examples of it in both.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Chris_Chambers 7y ago
The historical reason is that cultural marxists that have been infiltrating and subverting American educational institutions since WW2 keep deliberately screwing with the language in insidious ways to keep their North America region human cattle under mind control. They ultimately want to erode the foundation of our ability to understand basic concepts like self-respect, family, and rebellion.
nilkn 7y ago
“Ye” used to be plural and “thou” singular. At some point, it became common to refer to royalty in the plural, even if you were addressing a single person (e.g., the king). As time went on, this practice was generalized so that you would refer to anyone in a socially superior position relative to you in the plural. The effect of this eventually was that referring to someone with “thou” carried the implication that you viewed them as having lower social status than yourself. Once “thou” became risky to use due to the potential to cause offense, it rapidly fell out of common usage and “ye” and “you” took over (eventually just “you”), thus causing English to lose the plural form altogether. Now we have colloquialisms like “y’all” or “y’ins” or “you guys” or “you all” to make up for this.

by mtrovo 7y ago

umanwizard 7y ago

For what it's worth, the formal language is “worse” than the colloquial one in one way: you being plural is only a thing in standard writing, at least in my dialect of English. I basically never use plural you and systematically use you guys (pronounced quickly, as one word), which has become the plural second-person pronoun in at least some dialects of English.

ghaff 7y ago
>you guys You'll find those who will object to this in a mixed gender setting. Things like y'all and you folks are probably preferred in at least some contexts. (Having said that, I still reflexively use you guys a lot and I know lots of other people, including many women, who do as well.)
- umanwizard 7y ago
  People can dislike it if they want. It’s my native language and I don’t intend to change it to accommodate other people’s tastes.

Pfhreak 7y ago

It's been historically used this way for hundreds of years. If I recall correctly, Shakespeare used singular they in some places. Just like "you", context clues are usually sufficient to disambiguate.

azangru 7y ago
> It's been historically used this way for hundreds of years. It's been historically used _occasionally_. Sure neither King James' Bible nor Shakespeare's plays abound in singular they; but there are occasional examples of it in both.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Chris_Chambers 7y ago

The historical reason is that cultural marxists that have been infiltrating and subverting American educational institutions since WW2 keep deliberately screwing with the language in insidious ways to keep their North America region human cattle under mind control. They ultimately want to erode the foundation of our ability to understand basic concepts like self-respect, family, and rebellion.

nilkn 7y ago

“Ye” used to be plural and “thou” singular. At some point, it became common to refer to royalty in the plural, even if you were addressing a single person (e.g., the king). As time went on, this practice was generalized so that you would refer to anyone in a socially superior position relative to you in the plural. The effect of this eventually was that referring to someone with “thou” carried the implication that you viewed them as having lower social status than yourself. Once “thou” became risky to use due to the potential to cause offense, it rapidly fell out of common usage and “ye” and “you” took over (eventually just “you”), thus causing English to lose the plural form altogether. Now we have colloquialisms like “y’all” or “y’ins” or “you guys” or “you all” to make up for this.