5 ms·

> Matt left a key for me for when I returned, and I waited in their bed, eating boxed cookies they had left and listening to a playlist they had made, until my

by lytefm 6y ago

> Matt left a key for me for when I returned, and I waited in their bed, eating boxed cookies they had left and listening to a playlist they had made, until my eyes rolled shut. As a non-native speaker, can anyone explain to me why „they” is used here? To me, this reads as if another person was involved here and is utterly confusing.

AlgorithmicTime 6y ago
It's called singular they. It's been a thing for centuries.
- lytefm 6y ago
  Indeed, but for centuries it has only been used as a pronoun when referring to a non-specific person. The usage like in the article is only a recent phenomenon [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
StavrosK 6y ago
I had to read that paragraph four times, trying to see who the second person I missed was. It turns out the author doesn't want to mention Matt's gender, which is very confusing to me. She definitely didn't go for clarity here. EDIT: Apparently Matt identify as "they". I like to think of them as a collective.
cko 6y ago
I think it's known as a singular they, which is gender neutral and possibly more politically correct. When I was learning grammar back in the day it was a no-no.
- rsynnott 6y ago
  Languages change, often quite quickly. English, in particular, does not _have_ universal hard and fast rules about grammar; the correct grammar is what is used, not what’s ordained. Particularly in the late 19th and early 20th century, there was were attempts to impose hard rules, sometimes _new_ rules by reference to Ancient Greek and Latin, which were then believed to have immutable rules. Some of the grammarians writing the books introducing this even complained that great works of English literature didn’t obey the rules they’d just made up, which you’d think would have given them pause. In a sign that there’s nothing new under the sun, there’s at least one example where we have fragments from important second century Roman historical texts only because a fourth century Latin grammarian used one as an example of ‘incorrect’ grammar (in reality the language had just changed).
  - jdmichal 6y ago
    > ... sometimes _new_ rules by reference to Ancient Greek and Latin ... This is also where we get the idea of not ending a sentence with a preposition. That's a very Latin rule, but makes no sense in a Germanic language where prepositions are sometimes used not directly as prepositions but rather to modify a verb. Think of the sentence "I sit up" as an example.
  - dingaling 6y ago
    > the correct grammar is what is used, not what’s ordained. There are no ordained rules but if that grammar and lexicon is confusing, as in the case of 'they' noted above, then it is de facto invalid. The purpose of language is to communicate in an unambiguous and expressive manner. Not to make shortcuts for the locutor.

by lytefm 6y ago

AlgorithmicTime 6y ago

It's called singular they. It's been a thing for centuries.

lytefm 6y ago
Indeed, but for centuries it has only been used as a pronoun when referring to a non-specific person. The usage like in the article is only a recent phenomenon [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

StavrosK 6y ago

I had to read that paragraph four times, trying to see who the second person I missed was. It turns out the author doesn't want to mention Matt's gender, which is very confusing to me. She definitely didn't go for clarity here. EDIT: Apparently Matt identify as "they". I like to think of them as a collective.

cko 6y ago

I think it's known as a singular they, which is gender neutral and possibly more politically correct. When I was learning grammar back in the day it was a no-no.

rsynnott 6y ago
Languages change, often quite quickly. English, in particular, does not _have_ universal hard and fast rules about grammar; the correct grammar is what is used, not what’s ordained. Particularly in the late 19th and early 20th century, there was were attempts to impose hard rules, sometimes _new_ rules by reference to Ancient Greek and Latin, which were then believed to have immutable rules. Some of the grammarians writing the books introducing this even complained that great works of English literature didn’t obey the rules they’d just made up, which you’d think would have given them pause. In a sign that there’s nothing new under the sun, there’s at least one example where we have fragments from important second century Roman historical texts only because a fourth century Latin grammarian used one as an example of ‘incorrect’ grammar (in reality the language had just changed).
- jdmichal 6y ago
  > ... sometimes _new_ rules by reference to Ancient Greek and Latin ... This is also where we get the idea of not ending a sentence with a preposition. That's a very Latin rule, but makes no sense in a Germanic language where prepositions are sometimes used not directly as prepositions but rather to modify a verb. Think of the sentence "I sit up" as an example.
- dingaling 6y ago
  > the correct grammar is what is used, not what’s ordained. There are no ordained rules but if that grammar and lexicon is confusing, as in the case of 'they' noted above, then it is de facto invalid. The purpose of language is to communicate in an unambiguous and expressive manner. Not to make shortcuts for the locutor.