4 ms·

Why can't we just make a new pronoun that is "they" but singular? Like "Theya". Theya is my friend. It's singular, non gendered, and then we can just get rid

Why can't we just make a new pronoun that is "they" but singular? Like "Theya". Theya is my friend. It's singular, non gendered, and then we can just get rid of every pronoun except "they" and "theya".

ghaff 3y ago
Because it's much easier to get people to use an existing pronoun in a way that historically would have been considered a bit sloppy than it is to get them to adopt a new non-sex gendered but non-neutral coined pronoun. (It's actually been tried in the past.)
- dctoedt 3y ago
  It worked pretty well with "Ms." back in the day. (I know, I know, it's not a pronoun.)
  - klodolph 3y ago
    Honorifics are more of an “open class”… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Part_of_speech#Open_and_closed_classes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Part_of_speech#Open_and_closed... This really just a way of rephrasing what the parent comment says. By some reckonings, in English, pronouns are a closed class, and verbs are an open class. Some languages have it the other way around, where you can invent new pronouns but not new verbs (you have to take a noun X and say “do X” or something like that).
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Ms. did have its own political angle but but when it did finally become mainstream in the late 60s/early 70s, I'm not sure that there were too many people ready to go to the mat for public honorifics that distinguished whether a woman--and only a woman--was married or not. (And at least some people who probably reflexively opposed the change at first, changed their mind later on.) But honorifics are tricky and some people feel very strongly about them--e.g. Dr. for someone with a PhD.
WorldMaker 3y ago
It's easier to do what happened to "you" (also previously the plural), form entirely new plurals akin to "you all". "They all" reads pretty well to me and I'm personally very curious if "th'all" works as well as "y'all" and have been subtly experimenting with it to see who notices.

ghaff 3y ago

Because it's much easier to get people to use an existing pronoun in a way that historically would have been considered a bit sloppy than it is to get them to adopt a new non-sex gendered but non-neutral coined pronoun. (It's actually been tried in the past.)

dctoedt 3y ago
It worked pretty well with "Ms." back in the day. (I know, I know, it's not a pronoun.)
- klodolph 3y ago
  Honorifics are more of an “open class”… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Part_of_speech#Open_and_closed_classes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Part_of_speech#Open_and_closed... This really just a way of rephrasing what the parent comment says. By some reckonings, in English, pronouns are a closed class, and verbs are an open class. Some languages have it the other way around, where you can invent new pronouns but not new verbs (you have to take a noun X and say “do X” or something like that).
- ghaff 3y ago
  Ms. did have its own political angle but but when it did finally become mainstream in the late 60s/early 70s, I'm not sure that there were too many people ready to go to the mat for public honorifics that distinguished whether a woman--and only a woman--was married or not. (And at least some people who probably reflexively opposed the change at first, changed their mind later on.) But honorifics are tricky and some people feel very strongly about them--e.g. Dr. for someone with a PhD.

WorldMaker 3y ago

It's easier to do what happened to "you" (also previously the plural), form entirely new plurals akin to "you all". "They all" reads pretty well to me and I'm personally very curious if "th'all" works as well as "y'all" and have been subtly experimenting with it to see who notices.