4 ms·

> it's language feature of English since people didn't like using "it" to describe people, so "he" is a default singular pronoun. .... Did "they" get removed f

• cpach 4y ago
  Nope.
• gwd 4y ago
  > .... Did "they" get removed from the dictionary or something? When I was growing up, it was explicitly taught in school as being incorrect grammar to use "they" for an ungendered third-person singular pronoun. At some point I decided that was a stupid policy for lots of reasons, and explicitly decided to go ahead and use it anyway. But it still feels weird.
  • xenocratus 4y ago
    Cambridge Dictionary [1] says the following about "they": "used to refer to a person whose gender is not known or does not need to be mentioned" To me that pretty much sums it up. [1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/they https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/they
    • gwd 4y ago
      Remember that the Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries are trying to be descriptive: that is, they're trying to see how people are actually using words. People actually use "they" as described there, and have been doing it for hundreds of years [1], and so it's in the Cambridge Dictionary. What is taught in schools is prescriptive: They're trying to teach people "proper English" (sometimes called "prestige dialects"). So they tell you not to use "ain't", not to use double negatives ("I didn't do nothin'!"), not to say "literally" when you're speaking figuratively ("My head literally exploded!")... and not to use the singular "they" ("Can the owner of the blue car turn their lights off"). I retain the first three of those rules, in spite of the fact that I'm pretty sure the Cambridge Dictionary has entries for "ain't" and "figuratively" that violate them; but I have deliberately chosen to reject the last one. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
      • boredhedgehog 4y ago
        > have been doing it for hundreds of years Dubious. The cited historical examples all refer to mass nouns or nouns with an implied plural. Usage with a concrete, singular person doesn't seem to be older than a few decades.
        • gwd 4y ago
          We're not talking about a case where there's a concrete singular person; we're talking about using it to describe a "person whose gender is not known". If you don't know the author's gender, using "they" has hundreds of years of precedent.
          • boredhedgehog 4y ago
            > We're not talking about a case where there's a concrete singular person; we're talking about using it to describe a "person whose gender is not known". But that's the same thing. The crucial point being, we know it's one person. > If you don't know the author's gender, using "they" has hundreds of years of precedent. Citation please? The older the better. But mind, one addressee only.
            • gwd 4y ago
              > Citation please? The older the better. But mind, one addressee only. OK, here's one from "Emma", written by Jane Austen. Emma and Mr. Knightley are discussing Harriet Smith, and Emma asks: "Who is in love with her? Who makes you their confidant?" [1] In this case, "their" is one specific person, a man who works for Mr. Knightley, has fallen in love with Harriet Smith, and came to ask Mr. Knightley his advice. (Using 'they' rather than 'he' here is a bit strange, though, unless Emma was a lot more progressive than is generally thought about such matters; but hey ho.) There are dozens of other examples, but most of those are of a generic situation, rather than a specific person whose gender is not being mentioned. [1] https://pemberley.com/janeinfo/austhlis.html https://pemberley.com/janeinfo/austhlis.html
              • 4y ago