3 ms·

Usage of 'they' in English seems to be fairly common and it has only made the language better.

tomp 15y ago
I'm not a native English spreaker, so I'm not really qualified to judge a language that is not mine, but anyways... this is not the English I've learnt. Now, I have nothing against new words or new meanings for old words, but I hate it when previously OK words suddenly get a negative status... It's natural for the (old) English language to use he for people in a general context, just as men can mean the same as people (at least that's how I've been taught). I don't find it very sensible to replace one ambiguity ("he" = he and person) with another ("they" = people or person), but I guess if you like speaking in that way, that's ok. Just don't force me do it, especially since "they" is objectively a worse word (longer, harder to say for foreigners). In general, I think that people are focusing too much on words (actions matter), and that equallity is ok, but freedom shouldn't suffer because of that. Also, some people take equality too far - I have a penis, and if you have a vagina, we are different, phisically much more than any other human with a penis. There are some things we do different (I'm probably stronger and need to urinate less often. You can give birth and can better feed infants.). We might have different interests, and there's nothing wrong with that. We also get different roles in life; when you give birth, you're phisically damaged and the child needs you, so it's better if I go to work and earn money (if financially necesaary) (at least that's what a gentelman would do).
- jinushaun 15y ago
  What are you talking about? The use of the third person singular gender-neutral "they" is very specific. It's just convenient. In fact, I wish English had a different word instead of recycling "they", which is technically a third person plural pronoun. I don't stop using he or she.
  - tomp 15y ago
    That's exactly what I'm talking about. Making language worse/harder to use in the name of gender equality (or any political agenda, really) is inappropriate. I wish there was another word too, but some of the problems would remain the same. That is, I sometimes get the feeling that the use of "he" to refer to a non-specific (could be male or female) third person is frowned upon, and the only alternatives are "he/she", "(s)he", "he or she" or "they", all of which are longer.
- gruseom 15y ago
  Singular "they" is the old English language. Generic "he" was codified by grammarians in the 18th century who wanted to make English more like Latin. But singular "they" never went away, and now it's making a move for the top spot. The interesting thing is that all the best writers, from Chaucer thru Shakespeare thru basically everyone you'd care to name, used singular "they" liberally in their writing. The idea that it's an improper or incorrect usage is nonsense and always was.
  - tomp 15y ago
    Really? I didn't know that. By "old", I meant 15 years ago, when I first learned english. What exactly did the singular "they" mean? Same as "it", just for people?
    - gruseom 15y ago
      Yep. There are some examples in a previous comment I wrote (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3688820 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3688820), though I overstated the case about generic he there. Wikipedia has pre-18th century examples of that too, so it seems that both forms coexisted (in what proportion, I don't know). In any case, it's a mistake to imagine that singular they is an archaic form being revived now for political correctness. It has been in widespread use all along.

tomp 15y ago

I'm not a native English spreaker, so I'm not really qualified to judge a language that is not mine, but anyways... this is not the English I've learnt. Now, I have nothing against new words or new meanings for old words, but I hate it when previously OK words suddenly get a negative status... It's natural for the (old) English language to use he for people in a general context, just as men can mean the same as people (at least that's how I've been taught). I don't find it very sensible to replace one ambiguity ("he" = he and person) with another ("they" = people or person), but I guess if you like speaking in that way, that's ok. Just don't force me do it, especially since "they" is objectively a worse word (longer, harder to say for foreigners). In general, I think that people are focusing too much on words (actions matter), and that equallity is ok, but freedom shouldn't suffer because of that. Also, some people take equality too far - I have a penis, and if you have a vagina, we are different, phisically much more than any other human with a penis. There are some things we do different (I'm probably stronger and need to urinate less often. You can give birth and can better feed infants.). We might have different interests, and there's nothing wrong with that. We also get different roles in life; when you give birth, you're phisically damaged and the child needs you, so it's better if I go to work and earn money (if financially necesaary) (at least that's what a gentelman would do).

jinushaun 15y ago
What are you talking about? The use of the third person singular gender-neutral "they" is very specific. It's just convenient. In fact, I wish English had a different word instead of recycling "they", which is technically a third person plural pronoun. I don't stop using he or she.
- tomp 15y ago
  That's exactly what I'm talking about. Making language worse/harder to use in the name of gender equality (or any political agenda, really) is inappropriate. I wish there was another word too, but some of the problems would remain the same. That is, I sometimes get the feeling that the use of "he" to refer to a non-specific (could be male or female) third person is frowned upon, and the only alternatives are "he/she", "(s)he", "he or she" or "they", all of which are longer.
gruseom 15y ago
Singular "they" is the old English language. Generic "he" was codified by grammarians in the 18th century who wanted to make English more like Latin. But singular "they" never went away, and now it's making a move for the top spot. The interesting thing is that all the best writers, from Chaucer thru Shakespeare thru basically everyone you'd care to name, used singular "they" liberally in their writing. The idea that it's an improper or incorrect usage is nonsense and always was.
- tomp 15y ago
  Really? I didn't know that. By "old", I meant 15 years ago, when I first learned english. What exactly did the singular "they" mean? Same as "it", just for people?
  - gruseom 15y ago
    Yep. There are some examples in a previous comment I wrote (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3688820 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3688820), though I overstated the case about generic he there. Wikipedia has pre-18th century examples of that too, so it seems that both forms coexisted (in what proportion, I don't know). In any case, it's a mistake to imagine that singular they is an archaic form being revived now for political correctness. It has been in widespread use all along.