4 ms·

And we’ve literally born witness to yet another step in the trend of diluting our corpus of pronouns. The trend is very clearly from more articulate to less. “

And we’ve literally born witness to yet another step in the trend of diluting our corpus of pronouns. The trend is very clearly from more articulate to less. “They” and “their” for my whole lifetime were plurals. Now we’ve pretty much lost the mere clarity of knowing if the pronoun means 1 person or more than 1 person. Was watching “Adolescence” and the police mentioned “they” in regards to the victim of a crime. I was mistakenly under the impression that there weee multiple victims for much of the episode. I’m very clearly slow to adapt to the new definitions.

w10-1 6mo ago
The article points out that Chaucer used "they" to refer to singular unknown person, so the usage is very old. It seems more respectful than assuming they are male. I find myself wrong all the time, and I'm glad for the lesson!
- card_zero 6mo ago
  Leaning on Chaucer isn't sufficient, because it was once a pronoun used for people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_(pronoun) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_(pronoun) So maybe we should bring back it, or ignore Chaucer as an authority.
  - Hasnep 6mo ago
    The point isn't that we should all speak like Chaucer, it's that singular they isn't a new thing within our lifetimes.
    - danielheath 6mo ago
      I get what you’re saying, but Chaucer was not in _my_ lifetime.
  - DiogenesKynikos 6mo ago
    "They" has been used as a singular pronoun continuously since Chaucer. Shakespeare used it. Dickens used it. Even people who complain about the singular "they" use it when they're not paying attention. It's a regular part of the English language.
    - card_zero 6mo ago
      But not with continuity, not popularly over that whole time span. If it's something we're all accustomed to and comfortable with, why even mention that it was being used in the distant past? The article is trying to simultaneously argue "try this new term they, it's easy, everybody's saying it now, it's modern, you'll love it" and "this term is not at all strange and new, you're silly if you feel uncomfortable with it because it has always been used." It's trying to have it both ways in its wrangling. Do people also casually use it to refer to humans, or is it just me?
      - DiogenesKynikos 6mo ago
        In my experience, everyone who complains about the use of the singular "they" uses it themselves all the time when they're not thinking about it. The reason why there's any debate at all about the singular they is not because it's new and strange. It's because beginning in the mid-18th century, influential grammar textbooks started discouraging its use and advocating "he" in its place. Many generations of kids have grown up being told in school that the singular "they" is wrong, but despite that, it has remained a very standard part of spoken English.
        card_zero 6mo ago
        Really, are you sure singular they was in widespread intemperate use, like today, prior to these influential Victorian grammarians? OK, but they were influential, so they influenced the 1850s and subsequent decades, making this usage currently new and strange, because for a century or more people used he instead. Why deny that? To persuade them with the implication "we never got accustomed to saying he, turns out you didn't ever speak this way, it was just an illusion"? I'm not sure what matters in persuading people to speak differently, but saying that a term is being revived, rather than being a complete neologism, is ... admittedly a little bit persuasive, but it doesn't much help with the glaring issue that it's still a major change from what we're used to: and there are additional valid complaints, firstly that it removes information, and secondly that it's used less sparingly than it was in the past. It's now commonly written, in formal texts where clarity matters. Ha, I see there was an 1850 act of parliament: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_Act_1850 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_Act_1850 This was for clarity in the phrasing of legislation. I've picked up a rumor that this 1652 book encouraged the use of he in gender neutral contexts: https://archive.org/details/bim_early-english-books-1641-1700_the-english-accidence-_poole-joshua_1652/mode/1up https://archive.org/details/bim_early-english-books-1641-170... but I can't find where. It might just be an exaggeration based on the part where it says "The Maſculine is more worthy than the Feminine, and the Feminine is more worthy than the Neuter." But there's no doubt that the 17th century, never mind the 19th, was stuffed with sexist bastards in influential positions. So what's the use in pointing at the past, or even at the present, to say that some of the time they used they? Fundamentally you still have to argue for why, or why not.
  - nagaiaida 6mo ago
    plenty of people prefer to go by "it", so i'm not sure this is the slam dunk you seem to think it is. no one is claiming chaucer as an authority; we're claiming you don't seem to know enough to be worth listening to in a debate about the usage of pronouns.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
etskinner 6mo ago
"They" has always (in our lifetimes) been used to refer to a singular person of unknown gender. For example "someone left their coat here. They must be cold"
- the_biot 6mo ago
  Indeed. What's new is not referring to someone of unknown gender as "they", but rather people identifying as non-gender-specific, and wanting to be referred to as "they". That's the part that feels so awkward, IMHO, not simply they as one person.
  - nagaiaida 6mo ago
    tell that to the public universal friend
- SoftTalker 6mo ago
  No that's incorrect. Use his/he or her/she if the coat appears to be one that would be worn by a male or female. If uncertain, use male pronouns, which are gender neutral in that scenario.
  - explodes 6mo ago
    There is a difference between "correct" and "how it is actually used by real people."
  - laichzeit0 6mo ago
    I must have missed the brief somewhere, but there was/is a very clear trend to replace the default male pronoun for gender neutrality with the female pronoun she. Just recently I noticed this in Judea Pearl’s Book of Why. When and why did this start happening? It feels so forced and unnatural. You can sense he’s trying to kiss someone’s ass or appease an authority. At least mix it up a bit at best if you truly give a crap.
  - msla 6mo ago
    Incorrect according to who? You? Your Sainted Mother? Sounds innovative to me, and hardly traditional. Saying male is somehow gender neutral sounds even more bizarre. No, usage makes correctness in language, not people trying to invent some weird conlang they wrongly insist is correct English.
FabHK 6mo ago
(It used to be "_borne_ witness", so fast enough in adapting to new ways?)
HK-NC 6mo ago
I get what you're saying, but I found myself naturally doing this when talking about gender ambiguous animals or hypothetical people just because it made more sense. Nobody taught me this. Same with using "one" instead of "you", which I've never heard anyone do outside of ridiculing royalty.
Natfan 6mo ago
"my doctor gave me some bad news" "oh, what did they say?" --- "the wait staff messed up my order" "how did they do that?"

w10-1 6mo ago

The article points out that Chaucer used "they" to refer to singular unknown person, so the usage is very old. It seems more respectful than assuming they are male. I find myself wrong all the time, and I'm glad for the lesson!

card_zero 6mo ago
Leaning on Chaucer isn't sufficient, because it was once a pronoun used for people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_(pronoun) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_(pronoun) So maybe we should bring back it, or ignore Chaucer as an authority.
- Hasnep 6mo ago
  The point isn't that we should all speak like Chaucer, it's that singular they isn't a new thing within our lifetimes.
  - danielheath 6mo ago
    I get what you’re saying, but Chaucer was not in _my_ lifetime.
- DiogenesKynikos 6mo ago
  "They" has been used as a singular pronoun continuously since Chaucer. Shakespeare used it. Dickens used it. Even people who complain about the singular "they" use it when they're not paying attention. It's a regular part of the English language.
  - card_zero 6mo ago
    But not with continuity, not popularly over that whole time span. If it's something we're all accustomed to and comfortable with, why even mention that it was being used in the distant past? The article is trying to simultaneously argue "try this new term they, it's easy, everybody's saying it now, it's modern, you'll love it" and "this term is not at all strange and new, you're silly if you feel uncomfortable with it because it has always been used." It's trying to have it both ways in its wrangling. Do people also casually use it to refer to humans, or is it just me?
    - DiogenesKynikos 6mo ago
      In my experience, everyone who complains about the use of the singular "they" uses it themselves all the time when they're not thinking about it. The reason why there's any debate at all about the singular they is not because it's new and strange. It's because beginning in the mid-18th century, influential grammar textbooks started discouraging its use and advocating "he" in its place. Many generations of kids have grown up being told in school that the singular "they" is wrong, but despite that, it has remained a very standard part of spoken English.
      - card_zero 6mo ago
        Really, are you sure singular they was in widespread intemperate use, like today, prior to these influential Victorian grammarians? OK, but they were influential, so they influenced the 1850s and subsequent decades, making this usage currently new and strange, because for a century or more people used he instead. Why deny that? To persuade them with the implication "we never got accustomed to saying he, turns out you didn't ever speak this way, it was just an illusion"? I'm not sure what matters in persuading people to speak differently, but saying that a term is being revived, rather than being a complete neologism, is ... admittedly a little bit persuasive, but it doesn't much help with the glaring issue that it's still a major change from what we're used to: and there are additional valid complaints, firstly that it removes information, and secondly that it's used less sparingly than it was in the past. It's now commonly written, in formal texts where clarity matters. Ha, I see there was an 1850 act of parliament: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_Act_1850 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_Act_1850 This was for clarity in the phrasing of legislation. I've picked up a rumor that this 1652 book encouraged the use of he in gender neutral contexts: https://archive.org/details/bim_early-english-books-1641-1700_the-english-accidence-_poole-joshua_1652/mode/1up https://archive.org/details/bim_early-english-books-1641-170... but I can't find where. It might just be an exaggeration based on the part where it says "The Maſculine is more worthy than the Feminine, and the Feminine is more worthy than the Neuter." But there's no doubt that the 17th century, never mind the 19th, was stuffed with sexist bastards in influential positions. So what's the use in pointing at the past, or even at the present, to say that some of the time they used they? Fundamentally you still have to argue for why, or why not.
- nagaiaida 6mo ago
  plenty of people prefer to go by "it", so i'm not sure this is the slam dunk you seem to think it is. no one is claiming chaucer as an authority; we're claiming you don't seem to know enough to be worth listening to in a debate about the usage of pronouns.

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

etskinner 6mo ago

"They" has always (in our lifetimes) been used to refer to a singular person of unknown gender. For example "someone left their coat here. They must be cold"

the_biot 6mo ago
Indeed. What's new is not referring to someone of unknown gender as "they", but rather people identifying as non-gender-specific, and wanting to be referred to as "they". That's the part that feels so awkward, IMHO, not simply they as one person.
- nagaiaida 6mo ago
  tell that to the public universal friend
SoftTalker 6mo ago
No that's incorrect. Use his/he or her/she if the coat appears to be one that would be worn by a male or female. If uncertain, use male pronouns, which are gender neutral in that scenario.
- explodes 6mo ago
  There is a difference between "correct" and "how it is actually used by real people."
- laichzeit0 6mo ago
  I must have missed the brief somewhere, but there was/is a very clear trend to replace the default male pronoun for gender neutrality with the female pronoun she. Just recently I noticed this in Judea Pearl’s Book of Why. When and why did this start happening? It feels so forced and unnatural. You can sense he’s trying to kiss someone’s ass or appease an authority. At least mix it up a bit at best if you truly give a crap.
- msla 6mo ago
  Incorrect according to who? You? Your Sainted Mother? Sounds innovative to me, and hardly traditional. Saying male is somehow gender neutral sounds even more bizarre. No, usage makes correctness in language, not people trying to invent some weird conlang they wrongly insist is correct English.

FabHK 6mo ago

(It used to be "_borne_ witness", so fast enough in adapting to new ways?)

HK-NC 6mo ago

I get what you're saying, but I found myself naturally doing this when talking about gender ambiguous animals or hypothetical people just because it made more sense. Nobody taught me this. Same with using "one" instead of "you", which I've never heard anyone do outside of ridiculing royalty.

Natfan 6mo ago

"my doctor gave me some bad news" "oh, what did they say?" --- "the wait staff messed up my order" "how did they do that?"