3 ms·

The third-person singular "they" used to refer to specific people—officially it is a standard that all sensible right-thinking people accept. In private, I hear

The third-person singular "they" used to refer to specific people—officially it is a standard that all sensible right-thinking people accept. In private, I hear people complain regularly, unprompted, that it makes things unreadable, and that it is ridiculous in general.

msla 3y ago
Singular they has been used for centuries. It isn't a top-down imposition, it's a natural development of English. It is, in fact, older than singular you. If anything, the pushback against singular they is the imposition by self-appointed language lords onto people they arbitrarily decided weren't speaking correctly https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/ https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they...
- mathieuh 3y ago
  Yeah I file opposition to singular they in the same place as ending sentences with prepositions or splitting infinitives. Something for pedants to get worked up over without really understanding the issue.
  - Georgelemental 3y ago
    The issue is engenders confusion—"wait, how many people are we talking about, again?"
- fenomas 3y ago
  You're talking about a different usage than GP is. TFA explains the distinction: > Garner tracks the evolution of the third-person-singular “they,” starting in the 1300s, when it sometimes referred to unspecified individuals. (It’s still used that way today in such sentences as “This style guide will enlighten the reader in ways they never expected.”) But only in the 21st century has “they” been applied to specific, often nonbinary, individuals—as in “Alex asked that they be given a promotion.” This usage, Garner notes, took off with the rise of the transgender-rights movement following Obergefell v. Hodges.
  - bloak 3y ago
    It may make sense to distinguish more than two usages: 1. Referring to an expression like "everyone" or "someone" (not a noun): "If everyone minded their own business". This usage goes to back to Middle English. 2. Referring to a noun that refers to a person who gender clearly cannot be known by the speaker: "This style guide will enlighten the reader in ways they never expected." This usage seems fairly traditional but I'm not sure if it goes back as far as the previous one. I rather suspect it doesn't, in which case it wasn't a good example in the passage quoted above. 3. Referring to a noun that refers to a person whose gender could be known but happens not to be known, at least not yet: "The burglar injured their hand breaking the window; we have sent blood samples to the lab for analysis." 4. Referring to a noun that refers to a person whose gender is known to the speaker but the speaker does not want to reveal the gender: "We have another witness; they saw you leaving the scene." (It takes practice to do this. I have on several occasions heard people accidentally reveal the gender when they didn't want to.) 5. Non-binary people: "Alex asked that they be given a promotion."
    - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
      "They" has also long been used for individuals with known genders too. It might be considered informal, and the kind of thing that editors and style guides fuss over and "correct", but that's kind of how new words and usages enter a language. An example from thesaurus.com: > English speakers have been breaking new ground when it comes to they, resourcefully applying this to a specific and known singular, e.g., My best friend from high school is famous now—too bad we didn’t stay in touch after they moved to California.
      - bloak 3y ago
        I can't tell from that example what rule the speaker might be following. Are they perhaps using "they" because the listener doesn't know the friend's gender? I came across another, different case in which a young native speaker of British English used "they" instead of "she": in talking about a hypothetical female person. I asked the speaker why they had used "they" instead of "she" (I can be annoying at times) and they helpfully explained that if they had used "she" then it would have sounded as if the person really existed. (They were talking about a sister they didn't have, or something like that.)
- paganel 3y ago
  The GP just used the word "sinister" when he/she felt that the OP's usage of the word didn't match his/her understanding of it. It's safe to say that at this point it is indeed a top-down imposition of its usage.
  - mold_aid 3y ago
    It seems more likely that they/their understood the GP to be projecting unrelated political grievances on this usage issue without having the courage to just utter them. What exactly is the "top" in this top-down relationship?
    - paganel 3y ago
      It’s not unreasonable to think that whatever we say on this forum can be tracked to our real identity, and as such to our prospects of current and future employment. I feel that other people in here might feel that saying things out the way they really think might be detrimental to their employment status and hence to their well-being. In this respect it is a top-down imposition, it is true, with the “top” not being defined as a specific person or a specific group of persons. And going a little meta, it’s high time for the hosts of this forum to implement a delete functionality.
      - pjc50 3y ago
        > with the “top” not being defined as a specific person or a specific group of persons. So you're blaming a nebulous .. them?
      - emodendroket 3y ago
        If you really think it's so outre you face being blackballed for having the wrong opinion then probably going on about the shadowy forces not letting you state your opinion isn't that wise either, but I think that's an absurd level of paranoia.
        krageon 3y ago
rpastuszak 3y ago
> and that is ridiculous in general. What’s ridiculous about it specifically? I’ve studied linguistics and English is my 2nd/3rd language and I’ve never understood what all the fuss is about. (My native language is highly gendered and inflected and hearing the calque “they” from English still doesn’t stand out that much to me)
- mhb 3y ago
  It's ridiculous to overload a word that is commonly used and understood instead of inventing an unambiguous new word.
  - rpastuszak 3y ago
    But that’s a very common process that happens in virtually* every language.
    - mhb 3y ago
      So is inventing new words. Urban Dictionary much? Which do you prefer - a language that evolves to become more expressive or one that morphs into a miasma that requires disambiguation?
      - rpastuszak 3y ago
        I think you're describing a false dichotomy. A language can become more expressive through any of these processes (e.g. neologisms or shifting meanings described before), often working in tandem.
        mhb 3y ago
        And how does that relate to this specific example of it being ridiculous to use the ambiguous "them" as a singular pronoun instead of picking a new word? Are you saying that the use of "them" is more expressive or do you just want to abstract the issue into irrelevance?
emodendroket 3y ago
I have never heard that in private but I find it pretty easy to go online and find people carping in public with their real names attached. I guess the commissars don't have Facebook accounts.

msla 3y ago

Singular they has been used for centuries. It isn't a top-down imposition, it's a natural development of English. It is, in fact, older than singular you. If anything, the pushback against singular they is the imposition by self-appointed language lords onto people they arbitrarily decided weren't speaking correctly https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/ https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they...

mathieuh 3y ago
Yeah I file opposition to singular they in the same place as ending sentences with prepositions or splitting infinitives. Something for pedants to get worked up over without really understanding the issue.
- Georgelemental 3y ago
  The issue is engenders confusion—"wait, how many people are we talking about, again?"
fenomas 3y ago
You're talking about a different usage than GP is. TFA explains the distinction: > Garner tracks the evolution of the third-person-singular “they,” starting in the 1300s, when it sometimes referred to unspecified individuals. (It’s still used that way today in such sentences as “This style guide will enlighten the reader in ways they never expected.”) But only in the 21st century has “they” been applied to specific, often nonbinary, individuals—as in “Alex asked that they be given a promotion.” This usage, Garner notes, took off with the rise of the transgender-rights movement following Obergefell v. Hodges.
- bloak 3y ago
  It may make sense to distinguish more than two usages: 1. Referring to an expression like "everyone" or "someone" (not a noun): "If everyone minded their own business". This usage goes to back to Middle English. 2. Referring to a noun that refers to a person who gender clearly cannot be known by the speaker: "This style guide will enlighten the reader in ways they never expected." This usage seems fairly traditional but I'm not sure if it goes back as far as the previous one. I rather suspect it doesn't, in which case it wasn't a good example in the passage quoted above. 3. Referring to a noun that refers to a person whose gender could be known but happens not to be known, at least not yet: "The burglar injured their hand breaking the window; we have sent blood samples to the lab for analysis." 4. Referring to a noun that refers to a person whose gender is known to the speaker but the speaker does not want to reveal the gender: "We have another witness; they saw you leaving the scene." (It takes practice to do this. I have on several occasions heard people accidentally reveal the gender when they didn't want to.) 5. Non-binary people: "Alex asked that they be given a promotion."
  - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
    "They" has also long been used for individuals with known genders too. It might be considered informal, and the kind of thing that editors and style guides fuss over and "correct", but that's kind of how new words and usages enter a language. An example from thesaurus.com: > English speakers have been breaking new ground when it comes to they, resourcefully applying this to a specific and known singular, e.g., My best friend from high school is famous now—too bad we didn’t stay in touch after they moved to California.
    - bloak 3y ago
      I can't tell from that example what rule the speaker might be following. Are they perhaps using "they" because the listener doesn't know the friend's gender? I came across another, different case in which a young native speaker of British English used "they" instead of "she": in talking about a hypothetical female person. I asked the speaker why they had used "they" instead of "she" (I can be annoying at times) and they helpfully explained that if they had used "she" then it would have sounded as if the person really existed. (They were talking about a sister they didn't have, or something like that.)
paganel 3y ago
The GP just used the word "sinister" when he/she felt that the OP's usage of the word didn't match his/her understanding of it. It's safe to say that at this point it is indeed a top-down imposition of its usage.
- mold_aid 3y ago
  It seems more likely that they/their understood the GP to be projecting unrelated political grievances on this usage issue without having the courage to just utter them. What exactly is the "top" in this top-down relationship?
  - paganel 3y ago
    It’s not unreasonable to think that whatever we say on this forum can be tracked to our real identity, and as such to our prospects of current and future employment. I feel that other people in here might feel that saying things out the way they really think might be detrimental to their employment status and hence to their well-being. In this respect it is a top-down imposition, it is true, with the “top” not being defined as a specific person or a specific group of persons. And going a little meta, it’s high time for the hosts of this forum to implement a delete functionality.
    - pjc50 3y ago
      > with the “top” not being defined as a specific person or a specific group of persons. So you're blaming a nebulous .. them?
    - emodendroket 3y ago
      If you really think it's so outre you face being blackballed for having the wrong opinion then probably going on about the shadowy forces not letting you state your opinion isn't that wise either, but I think that's an absurd level of paranoia.
      - krageon 3y ago

rpastuszak 3y ago

> and that is ridiculous in general. What’s ridiculous about it specifically? I’ve studied linguistics and English is my 2nd/3rd language and I’ve never understood what all the fuss is about. (My native language is highly gendered and inflected and hearing the calque “they” from English still doesn’t stand out that much to me)

mhb 3y ago
It's ridiculous to overload a word that is commonly used and understood instead of inventing an unambiguous new word.
- rpastuszak 3y ago
  But that’s a very common process that happens in virtually* every language.
  - mhb 3y ago
    So is inventing new words. Urban Dictionary much? Which do you prefer - a language that evolves to become more expressive or one that morphs into a miasma that requires disambiguation?
    - rpastuszak 3y ago
      I think you're describing a false dichotomy. A language can become more expressive through any of these processes (e.g. neologisms or shifting meanings described before), often working in tandem.
      - mhb 3y ago
        And how does that relate to this specific example of it being ridiculous to use the ambiguous "them" as a singular pronoun instead of picking a new word? Are you saying that the use of "them" is more expressive or do you just want to abstract the issue into irrelevance?

emodendroket 3y ago

I have never heard that in private but I find it pretty easy to go online and find people carping in public with their real names attached. I guess the commissars don't have Facebook accounts.