You must log in or register to comment.
Hey! It works! Let me ask my wife if I can refer yo her by her tits she says no.
So close. Try, “Hey, babe, do you mind if I refer to this girl online by her tits?”
Wow! You can make my wife say yes?
So far, it hasn’t been too much of a challenge.
Oh daaamn!
Yeah yeah. Take it easy, she can’t fit all that.
as the kids say, this sent me 💀
My hot take: there’s no such thing as “singular they” because you don’t need a special case for using plural pronouns with a single person; the basic usage already allows that. The plural pronouns refer to a group of people of any size. That includes a group of size 1.
A group of only one person is still a group of people.
That’s why it has always been correct to refer to a single person using the plural pronouns; you’re not directly referring to the person but rather to the group consisting of just that one person.
The reason this confuses people isn’t because the usage is incorrect but rather because what they were taught is incorrect.
People are taught that plural pronouns only refer to more than one person and that has always been wrong.
To see why that’s wrong, consider what happens when the size of the group is neither exactly one or more than one. For example if the group is actually empty or if you don’t know how many people are in it.
In both those cases you need to use the plural pronoun.
If the plural pronouns are a valid choice for both a group of size zero and a group of size two, then it would be ridiculous to argue that they are not a valid choice for a group of size one.
Hot take? That’s simply not true.
From the Chicago Manual of Style:
5.51: Generic singular “they” Traditionally, a singular antecedent requires a singular pronoun. But even beforetheir, and themselves (or possibly themself) as generic singular forms—especially in speech and informal prose.
So, “They” is commonly used to refer to a singular person of unknown gender or sex. You’ll see it in the news occasionally.
“An intruder wearing a chicken mascot costume was caught on video breaking into a bank. They stuffed their costume full of $100 bills before fleeing the scene.”
Sure, writers will more likely not use pronouns at all, maybe saying “the assailant,” but when a pronoun is used, “they” and “their” would be perfectly fine.
I think you misunderstood what I’m saying.
I’m not saying you can’t use “they” when referring to a single person; I’m saying that when you do that you haven’t deviated from the simple usage in any way shape or form.
I’m saying there’s no “singular they” because using “they” in that context is just the same as any other usage of “they”. It isn’t any sort of exception to the base rules and so doesn’t require any special treatment.
you did though, it was your first line:
My hot take: there’s no such thing as “singular they”
pedantic language nerds on Lemmy? no way!
nm, the rest of the thread is the same… you are not alone.
It’s obvious what I meant from that is the opposite of how you are construing it. You need to actually read the entire comment.
it’s not obvious, sorry. if it were, people would be agreeing with you
Oh, I get what you’re saying.
However, I’m kindly informing you that posting who are professionally pedantic don’t agree with this.
Perhaps I’ve missed a style guide that does agree with you, in which case I would be happy for you to bring the receipts.
“My pronouns are set P of unkown size.”
when the group size is 1, it’s singular
OK, I’ll bite; do we need a concept for a “dual they” or a “ternary they”.
If so, then fine “singular they” deserves to be called out too. If not, then treating “singular they” as a special case just gives bigots space to claim that it’s some sort of deviation from the norm which then gives them cover for falsely claiming that usage is incorrect.
we don’t need a new pronoun, the existing singular “they” is fine. bigots don’t understand it, and think that it’s grammatically incorrect. they are wrong. we don’t need to cater to their ignorance.
I think sanskrit has singular, dual, and ‘three and above’ nouns and pronouns
I have (begrudgingly) gotten used to “singular they”. I accept that I am not an authority on how language is used, and this is how the language has evolved. I’d have preferred a separate singular non-gendered pronoun, but I wasn’t consulted because, again, not an authority on the subject. It is fine, I will adapt (and have already done so to some degree).
HOWEVER, I still have beef with what happened to “literally” and will bring it up any time semantic shift is the subject of conversation.
Gotten used to the singular they? Were you born in 900 or something? Seriously, the first written example we have of the singular they dates back to the 14th century.
Literally also dates back to the 1600s
Nothing happened to “literally”, its meaning is the same as always and it never means “figuratively”.
When people say “literally” to exaggerate, the word is part of the exaggeration, not describing the exaggeration.
They’re not literally “dead”, they’re “literally dead”. “Literally dead” is the state they exaggerate being in.
Can you explain the difference between the two? To me, either case still creates ambiguity and unnecessary confusion in the language.
Consider an expression “he was as happy as a kid in a literal candy store”, meaning as “as happy as a kid in a store literally made from candy”. “Literally” here modifies the nonexistent candy store and turns it into a store made out of candy. There is no contention here about whether the store exists or not, it’s just part of the exaggeration.
Similarly you can say “I’m so dead-tired I might as well be literally dead for all the good I’ll be at work today.” Here the state you’re saying you might as well be in is “literally dead”. Not just “dead-tired”, not just “dead to the world”, but “literally dead”. But it’s still clear that no real death has occurred, just an hypothetical one as part of the exaggeration.
Now let’s exaggerate even more and say we’ve reached that hypothetical state of literal deadness, how would you say it? “Sorry I can’t work I’m literally dead” is one way, but now it’s unclear because this also could mean that you have actually died. How about “sorry I am in the state of being literally dead”? A bit awkward but at least it’s clear you’re not REALLY in the state of literal death, you’re just exaggerating that you’re in that state.
People use “literal” as an intensifier to the exaggeration, by modifying the exaggeration from within, not from outside of it commenting on the truth of it.
If you get this multiple times I’m sorry, I’m on a train and internet is patchy
Asking “how are they doing” when referring to a singular third person has literally always been normal english. The singular they has basically always been fine and proper english.
Shakespeare had no problem with singular they, by the way.
I also found it natural to use before I had a concept of those existing outside the gender binary. “Who left their umbrella?”
Mentioning semantic shift here doesn’t seem to do anything but make me imagine you are grandpa Simpson yelling at passing clouds.
i’m totally grandpa simpson about this. “Literally” is literally a lost cause.
I want to make fun of you for being older than Shakespeare. Even Shakespeare was less of a boomer about singular they
Literally literally means figuratively.
i know, and it upsets me.
The singular “they” isn’t even the first time English has specifically appropriated a plural pronoun for the singular for the sake of social respect!!!
We don’t even use the second person singular “thou” anymore, we just use “you” for both of them!
TIL ‘thou’ is second person singular
At one point in American history the singular they was normal and accepted but the singular you was deeply controversial
I would love to see what the discourse would’ve looked like if they had the internet back then.
It should be noted that really it was the collapse of the t-v distinction (formality) rather than the singular-plural distinction, it’s just that it’s a less relatable to the modern era thing to say that it was a fight over if “thou” has a place or if “you” should once again encroach upon its role and take the role of the singular informal tense as well. Long story short the Quakers refused to use the formal because all people should treat all people as friends and anti Quaker sentiment contributed to the death of “thou”. Because nothing pisses people off like being told everyone should treat everyone well.
Here’s an article about it
Another fun bit of 18th century culture wars involving the Quakers is The Public Universal Friend, a nonbinary preacher in late 18th century new England. It went better than you’d think and worse than you’d hope.
As a side note, if I’m talking to you, I won’t be using “they”, that’s only for talking about you
I get the sentiment but tits are plural, a better analogy is needed
Only weirdos talk to tits, I, as a gentleman, always address each individually (by their preferred pronouns ofc).
/s
When he was 2, one of my nephews decided to name my tits after the main characters of his favorite TV show. I thought it was so funny that I still introduce them to partners as Bingo and Rolly.
Lol.
Better than:
- Tom & Jerry
- Mario & green Mario
- Finn & Jake
- Patrick & SpongeBob
- Fox & Dana
- Beavis & ButtheadOhh, Bingo & Rolly are sweater puppies, now I get it!
Lefty and righty?
I still sometimes get those two wrong …
Every single person who complains that “they” is weird has, without the slightest wisp of a shadow of a doubt, said something along the lines of “yeah their coat is just over there” or “I think they were saying that…”. They can already do it, and it’s not hard, they just really wanna hate.
I’m fine with ‘they’, but I think you’re misrepresenting the very real problem that is inserting a 3rd-person pronoun as a personal pronoun due to the existing patterns ingrained and interpreted through speech.
It doesn’t hurt me to try and make the conscious change, I do actively try for the people in my life, but it DOES flow weird in my brain and takes more mental effort to keep straight. At least, it still does, it might get easier with more time, I don’t know.
They has always been a 3rd person personal pronoun just like he/she/it have as far as I know. The thing that people find upsetting is that people want to go back to using it as a singular after some grammarians decided everyone should use he or her for a while.
We’ve been doing it for hundreds of years. If you really want to fix something then come up with a plural for “you”; that would be far more helpful.
You may not notice those times you say “they” like in the examples I already gave, but you do say it, and the only thing tripping you up is that you’re thinking about it. It’s like breathing, it’s weird when you’re paying attention but it’s not wrong and you’ve always done it.
“You” is the plural of “thou”. It even has plural grammar (“you are”, not “you is”)
I thought you was the more respectful form of thou in singular, and “ye” was the plural form of that. In Ireland you still hear ye used for plural you sometimes.
By more respectful i mean similar to usted in Spanish or vous in French
You’re saying that as if you speak to an individual and say “you is”. Do you do that?
That’s almost the opposite of what I said.
So, singular “you” also has this “plural grammar” you mention and we don’t say “thou” anymore. So what’s your point, then?
That was my point.
You said find a plural for “you”.
I said that “you” is already a plural.
That’s it, there’s nothing deeper.
It’s like you didn’t read their comment at all before replying. Singular they feels natural as a 3rd person pronoun for a party whose gender is unknown. When using it to describe a known person, it feels like you’re talking about an unknown person even though you do know them. It does feel weird to say and makes me pause any time I have to say it
Literally you already do it without a problem. You have, and I would bet large sums of money on it, said in regards to someone well know to you “they forgot it at home” or something to that effect. You already do this without thinking, the only extra layer is that you’re trying not to get it wrong, not that it’s difficult to get it right.
Just practice some more. You still won’t be perfect but these people literally do not care at all so long as you’re trying and aren’t attempting to take their rights away. They have bigger fish to fry.
If the person is well known to me, I would say he/she (if that’s their pronouns), not the 3rd person “they”
Oh, to be there when you say “they” haha
Or to watch you struggle to force yourself to say he/she so I “lose”.
It’s ok, we’ve only been doing it for hundreds of years; it’s just a passing fad, right?
I feel like you’re obtusely ignoring the difference in context between how the non-binary “they” is used (which is a new phenomenon) and how the 3rd person of indefinite gender “they” is used
I don’t know why you’re being downvoted. You’re correct. Plural they is at least as old as Shakespeare. The notion that it’s only singular is modern.
No one is saying to use it only as a singular, and the singular form of they has written record predating Shakespeare
People really don’t want to treat trans people properly and they’ll even pretend shit they already do easily is somehow weird and too difficult. I’m just a cis dude over her, with a host of non-binary friends, and for the most part I just say “they” and haven’t died yet. And I fuck it up sometimes and don’t get hung from the rafters like these goons think will happen, probably because the only scenario they know is when they get it wrong on purpose or are otherwise agitating someone.
Your anger is on a completely irrational level. I don’t understand trans mentality, because I don’t feel like a man or woman — I just feel like me — though I want what’s best for them (the same as anyone) but referring to someone in the 3rd person makes me feel like I’m referring to someone with schizophrenia or multiple personality disorder. There’s even an old Seinfeld episode about a guy that refers to himself in the 3rd person and comedy ensues, because nobody does that.
Just because culture and language doesn’t fulfill your requirements or align with your expectations, doesn’t mean that the people of that culture or language are malicious and hateful towards you. The world is not required to bend to your feefees. Hell, the only reason I don’t care about pronouns is because I struggle to remember names… People tend to get offended when you forget their names as it is, now I have to add another dimension I’ll undoubtably fuck up… I can accept trans people being the way they are without giving a fuck, but apparently I can’t expect the same acceptance for my brain being the way it is, and if I don’t dot my I’s and cross my T’s as you see fit I risk being called a bigot, so fuck me I guess…
They is running late?
They’re running late?
You is not very smart, is you?
Again, second person vs third person.
It would seem jakr is not smart one.
You are not the smart one.
Fail.
You might want to work on your grammar, my friend.
'Tis meet that some more audience than a mother, since nature makes them partial, should o’erhear the speech."— Shakespeare, Hamlet (1599);
Caesar: “No, Cleopatra. No man goes to battle to be killed.” Cleopatra: “But they do get killed” —Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra (1901);
In an 1881 letter, Emily Dickinson wrote “Almost anyone under the circumstances would have doubted if [the letter] were theirs, or indeed if they were themself.”
George Eliot (1859) – Adam Bede: “It is too late to spare anyone when they are dead.”
Cleaopatra is clearly refencing a plural group.
And “Anyone” as a noun is an undetermined number and is often treated as plural. All of these are referencing an ambiguous potential-group, not a context-explicit singular individual.
So you would say that when referencing a singular specific person of undeterminate gender in the third person we should use is? Because I am quite sure that, if that has ever been correct at all, it certainly isn’t now. As per merriam webster: A student was found with a knife and a BB gun in their backpack Monday, district spokeswoman Renee Murphy confirmed. The student, whose name has not been released, will be disciplined according to district policies, Murphy said. They also face charges from outside law enforcement, she said.— Olivia Krauth
E: also, “Each member [of the women’s touch football team] found something they could improve on in the future.”
Dalby (Queensland) Herald (Nexis) 21 October 16, 2014 (as quoted in the oxford english dictionary)
Contradicts you as well unless you’d like to argue that “each man are fighting for himself” is correct.
The Cleopatra quote is talking about individuals; Individuals which we know make up a group, but individuals nonetheless.
“Anyone” is a similar concept. You talk about a single person(it’s right there in the word) and apply that condition to however many people. An example in a group of all men would be “anyone may leave the room if he so chooses” and even though it sounds weird, because we heavily favour the singular they, it absolutely works.
This has strong “everything is a conspiracy when you don’t understand how anything works” vibes. Your lack of understanding shouldn’t have to be everyone else’s problem.
You are singularly really dumb.
Second person vs third person, dummy. If you’re going to insult someone’s intelligence, at least be right about it.
As opposed to arguing about fake rules that don’t even exist in modern English, maybe just apply the slightest bit of logic. Language doesn’t work the way you are insisting it does, it’s not math.
Thy lizard brain clearly art too small to comprehend they were making…
Huh? I’m a dummy–teach me this arcane English rule that i wasn’t aware of until now. For what it’s worth though: Have you always held such righteous standards for dialogue? Hard to follow what people are saying when they (oops!) speak with the wrong perspective? You must struggle in the modern world, the way people eviscerate our language publicly pretty much 24/7. I’d feel bad for you if you seemed like a decent person.
What arcane English rule?
Your rebuttal to my issue with the third person handling of a singular they, was you using the second person…as if that was related. Do you still not understand the difference? It’s not that I didn’t understand you, you were just wrong to use it as a counter example to what I said. Damn, you doubled down by showing how poor your comprehension skills are.
And you think you have me figured out as a terrible person because I pointed out, in just 3 words, a grammatical inconsistency. Real quick to jump to judgement there.
Sure pal
Edit: tagged you they/them
Have a nice weekend, champ
No, you dummy. The reason we use “are” with “you” is because it was originally plural. However, language is mutable and ever-changing. You is almost exclusively used as singular now, yet it keeps the plural “are”. The point being, your statement that “they is” is wrong doesn’t prove anything. We use the “wrong” grammar for words all the time and we don’t care, until you can do it to hurt someone.
“Ah yes, let us disregard basic grammar rules in order to make a stupid argument to ‘prove’ my point, that’s clearly what’ll convince people that my way is the right one”
- your stupid ass
I’m not the one disregarding the grammar rules. You are.
Wow, I did not expect people to assume I was a biggot for pointing out the issues this causes for clarity in language. Like it is legitimately confusing.
I’m not the one disregarding the grammar rules. You are.
You are.
You, in this case, is singular. Why are you using are?!
It turns out, “the issues this causes for clarity in language” don’t actually matter, and it doesn’t cause any issues. It’s perfectly clear “you” and “they” here are singular, despite the plural grammar. It is not confusing, as you clearly proved in your own comment by using “you are.”
Except I am not, they has been used singularly for centuries now.
Let me put it in a way that will make sense for you. Singular “they” is, more often than not, used when people do not know the gender or amount of a group. Whenever you speak of a corporation or company, it is extremely common to use “they” instead of “it”. E.g. “they are the ones in charge of making that decision”. In the example, you are speaking of a company or similar group, a singular entity by itself. However, since the speaker does not know who or how many people make this decision, the speaker uses a singular “they”.
This is but one example of how they has been used as a singular pronoun for ages, but let us digress a little bit. Why the fuck is the royal “we” allowed, but not the singular “they”? They both follow the same structure but inverse of each other, where the royal we is a way to say “I’m speaking of myself as a part of a bigger entity/community”. You can make an argument that both of these carry plural connotations, but my point is that grammar rules and language as a whole is way more nuanced than black or white.
So, please, save your spit and time with a counter argument that only pushes forward discriminating thinking and stop being a pussy about language change.
Btw, I’m not a native English speaker, which goes to show that I was actively taught about singular they, instead of picking it up intuitively like most native speakers do.
Edit PS: don’t even think of using my non-nativeness as a point against me, I know for a fact I have better grammar and care more about orthography than the average native speaker.
“They are running late”. We’ve been using the singular “they” for hundreds of years, it isn’t that difficult. German uses third person plural for polite second person singular, it’s not that weird to have third person plural be third person singular, too, especially when English makes no distinction between between “you” and “you”.
Anyway, it’s simple shit.
We also use “they” singular if we don’t know the gender of a person, like when we haven’t met them yet.
In that sense it was a very logical choice for non-binary people in my opinion.
You are almost there, well done for trying
Nope, that’s actually correct. You may need to re-attend grade school
I love watching someone flounder around with 100% arrogance.
“They did a great job on the last project. They are a valuable member of the team”
Are they very tall?
The tits?
It’s an inherited property, so yeah them too
I kinda hate that this gets so much exposure. Obviously it’s very dependent on where people live and this is purely anecdotal but I have never in my life met a person that wanted to be called by a pronoun that did not match their outward appearance.
Why do conservabitches act like it is so difficult? Only 1 person they ever met; and usually they don’t even meet them they’re reacting to a social media post. You can’t make an adjustment for ONE person in the entirety of your existence???
