5 ms·

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 pr

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
        boredhedgehog 4y ago
        That's interesting, but obviously, it's also a case where a plurality is implied. The speaker has a group of men in mind and doesn't know which of them she's talking about. There is an uncertainty involved, but it can't be about the sex of the person, as you note yourself.
        gwd 4y ago
        I'm pretty sure you're confused about what "plural" means. Consider all the following situations: 1. "Everybody should bring their own books to class". 2. "If anybody has left their book at home, they should ask the teacher to borrow one." 3. "Can the person who left their book at their desk please collect it at reception." 4. "Someone has written to say that they left their book at their desk." 5. "The author shows their bias here." 6. "Joanna has written to say that they left their book at their desk." Gramatically speaking, none of these are plural. In the case of #1, there are many people involved, but it "resolves" down to individual actions, since each person has a separate book. In #2 it's an indefinite number of people -- it could be 0 or 1 or 50; but again, it "resolves" down to an individual and that person's actions. In #3-6, it's clearly one specific person, with various degrees of uncertainty about who that person might be or what that person is like. In all cases except #6, you can replace "their" with "his or her", which was the prescribed way of writing this in my grammar classes. I'll grant you that #6, where you refer to a specific known person as "they/them/their", is new. But #5, which is what we're talking about here, 1) sounds perfectly natural to me as a native English speaker, 2) was the sort of thing the grammar classes explicitly taught against, 3) is a natural extension of 1-4.
- xenocratus 4y ago
  That's a really interesting insight, thanks for sharing. Something new for me to be aware of in the future :)

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
      - boredhedgehog 4y ago
        That's interesting, but obviously, it's also a case where a plurality is implied. The speaker has a group of men in mind and doesn't know which of them she's talking about. There is an uncertainty involved, but it can't be about the sex of the person, as you note yourself.
        gwd 4y ago
        I'm pretty sure you're confused about what "plural" means. Consider all the following situations: 1. "Everybody should bring their own books to class". 2. "If anybody has left their book at home, they should ask the teacher to borrow one." 3. "Can the person who left their book at their desk please collect it at reception." 4. "Someone has written to say that they left their book at their desk." 5. "The author shows their bias here." 6. "Joanna has written to say that they left their book at their desk." Gramatically speaking, none of these are plural. In the case of #1, there are many people involved, but it "resolves" down to individual actions, since each person has a separate book. In #2 it's an indefinite number of people -- it could be 0 or 1 or 50; but again, it "resolves" down to an individual and that person's actions. In #3-6, it's clearly one specific person, with various degrees of uncertainty about who that person might be or what that person is like. In all cases except #6, you can replace "their" with "his or her", which was the prescribed way of writing this in my grammar classes. I'll grant you that #6, where you refer to a specific known person as "they/them/their", is new. But #5, which is what we're talking about here, 1) sounds perfectly natural to me as a native English speaker, 2) was the sort of thing the grammar classes explicitly taught against, 3) is a natural extension of 1-4.
xenocratus 4y ago
That's a really interesting insight, thanks for sharing. Something new for me to be aware of in the future :)