Them, Themself as a singular pronoun

[JayUtah]

Language changes. Using a plural as a gender-neutral singular pronoun still makes me twitch a little, but that's because I grew up in an era when grammar was drummed into our little heads.

I twitch too. I was taught by no fewer than three professional female journalism editors, under which I worked a summer in my youth as a layout editor, and also a matronly female librarian whom I served as an assistant for years, that the male pronouns were to be used where gender was uncertain or where a neutral gender was indicated. But to each his own, I guess.

I facetiously advocate the contrivance "thon" and "thonself" (allegedly Middle English, but probably a neologistic portmanteau, that+one) to solve the problem of a gender-neutral personal pronoun. And I think we should resurrect the thorn to spell it with, þon, in homage to political correctness run amok. Yes language changes, which means that there is no "correct" way to misuse third-person plural for a third-person singular.

 

[Agatha]

They say "thou" in Yorkshire? Sounds awesome!

Aye. In South Yorkshire it's more thee and thar, and in Sheffield it's dee and dar, which is why Sheffielders are called deedars*. In West and North Yorkshire thou and thy are equally used with thee and thar. My father in law (may he RIP) used thee/thou/thy/thar and almost never used you/your/you're.

*Sheffielders:Nar den dee, wots dar doing darn dere? (Now then you, what are you doing down there?)
Rest of Yorkshire: Eyup laddo, dost thar know thyssen? (so, young man, do you what you are doing?)

I use s/he and her/his, but occasionally them(selves). Shakespeare and Jane Austen are perfectly good role models. Language evolves and even split infinitives are acceptable at times. :shudder:

 

[Minoosh]

Orwell's sixth rule:

Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

 

[angrysoba]

I twitch too. I was taught by no fewer than three professional female journalism editors, under which I worked a summer in my youth as a layout editor, and also a matronly female librarian whom I served as an assistant for years, that the male pronouns were to be used where gender was uncertain or where a neutral gender was indicated. But to each his own, I guess.

I expect each of these editors was following the house rules of his publication.

 

[angrysoba]

"Themself" is unnecessary in this example. It should be stricken entirely.

This gets my vote. What is "themself" doing here?

 

[GlennB]

For my money "themself" is horribly lumpy. In spoken English one might talk oneself into a corner () and have to use it, but in written English, as here, I'd find a way to avoid it.

 

[Puppycow]

"Themself" is unnecessary in this example. It should be stricken entirely.

This gets my vote. What is "themself" doing here?

Yes, I see your point but it also doesn't answer my question.

If you want to know, I was checking a translation and the Japanese translator put "itself" there: "the user itself" because the user's gender is unspecified. That is clearly wrong, but I was wondering what to change it to. The Japanese said ユーザ自身 so while you could leave it out and it would still make sense, it wouldn't capture that nuance of the Japanese original.

 

[Nova Land]

I use s/he and her/his, but occasionally them(selves).

I am fond of s/he, as well as h/er (for her or his), wo/man (as in no wo/man is an island) and wo/men (as in all wo/men are created equal).

Unfortunately in practice these aren't workable because people tend to insist on pronouncing them in awkward and over-emphasized ways rather than their natural pronunciations. For example I would routinely hear s/he pronounced (even by feminists) as she-he rather than simply as she.

It's funny; nobody I know feels a need to stress or mispronounce the words he or man when they're used to mean man or woman, but almost everyone seems to feel a need to stress or mispronounce she or woman in odd ways when they're used that way.

If people are able to tell from context alone that he or man is being used to include both sexes, then it should be equally possible to tell from context alone that she or woman is being used that way. But psychologically it's not.

Which is too bad, since s/he visibly includes both she and he and wo/man visibly includes both woman and man. If a pronoun is needed to indicate male or female then she (or s/he) makes a lot more sense than he. But since people don't seem comfortable using she that way, they and them and themself seem the best alternatives. At least people are able to pronounce they and them naturally, and most people understand the intended meaning without difficulty.

 

[Craig B]

... Which is too bad, since s/he visibly includes both she and he and wo/man visibly includes both woman and man. If a pronoun is needed to indicate male or female then she (or s/he) makes a lot more sense than he. But since people don't seem comfortable using she that way ...

No it makes no sense at all. The entire reason for this discussion is that people do not - any longer - feel comfortable using he that way either, so a pronoun that is - to the ear as well as to the eye - non gender specific is being sought. To use she and her would be no improvement over he and him.

 

[Nova Land]

No it makes no sense at all. The entire reason for this discussion is that people do not - any longer - feel comfortable using he that way either, so a pronoun that is - to the ear as well as to the eye - non gender specific is being sought. To use she and her would be no improvement over he and him.

There are some people who do not feel comfortable using he and man to express the concept of people in general, since it means using masculine words to identify a person who might be female. There are other people who have no problem with that at all, having been raised to believe that using he and man are the grammatically proper way to identify people in general.

Similarly there are some people who do not feel comfortable using they, them, and themself to express the concept of people in general, since it means using plural words to identify a single person. There are other people who have no problem with that.

In other words, neither of these is a perfect solution.

Another option, also imperfect, is the use of s/he. I did not claim it made perfect sense; I said it made more sense than the use of he.

And it does. He both sounds identical with and looks identical with the pronoun used to identify males; s/he sounds identical with the pronound used to identify females, but looks different. It visually includes both male and female. Since what is desired is a word to identify a single person who might be either female or male, that makes more sense than the use of a word which visually includes only one sex.

S/he is socially not a workable solution, because people in practice aren't able to pronounce it comfortably. Therefore in practice them is probably a better solution then s/he. But since there are people who are not comfortable with them since it's plural, I think it's worth looking at and considering s/he in trying to understand the various possibilities and in trying to understand why different people accept some possibilities and reject others.

 

[Craig B]

There are some people who do not feel comfortable using he and man to express the concept of people in general, since it means using masculine words to identify a person who might be female. There are other people who have no problem with that at all, having been raised to believe that using he and man are the grammatically proper way to identify people in general.
...
I think it's worth looking at and considering s/he in trying to understand the various possibilities and in trying to understand why different people accept some possibilities and reject others.

Yes. I think it's obvious that the consensus of speakers of English is now such that a non gender specific pronoun is being sought, and to return to a gender specific one in that context makes no sense at all. That is why that possibility has been rejected.

As to plural pronouns taking on singular meanings; I have already given the example of the quasi universal displacement of the singular "thou" by the plural "you". The consequent introduction of a singular "yourself" has caused no difficulty whatsoever; so I can't see any obstacle to the use of "themself" once people become accustomed to it.

 

[Belz...]

Well then, "themselves" doesn't matter either. But "themself" is better because it indicates the singular number of "them" more clearly.

But it's butt ugly!

 

[Craig B]

But it's butt ugly!

Butt is it uglier than "yourself"? Or "Ourself" (see Google)

archaic, used instead of ‘myself’ by a sovereign or other person in authority. "witnessed ourself at Southampton this thirteenth day of October"​

 

[Belz...]

Butt is it uglier than "yourself"? Or "Ourself" (see Google)

archaic, used instead of ‘myself’ by a sovereign or other person in authority. "witnessed ourself at Southampton this thirteenth day of October"​

Not my fault that English is an ugly language.

 

[Nova Land]

I think it's obvious that the consensus of speakers of English is now such that a non gender specific pronoun is being sought, and to return to a gender specific one in that context makes no sense at all. That is why that possibility has been rejected.

Ah, but you're overlooking something obvious! While it's true that in oral communication s/he sounds identical to she so could be considered a return to a gender-specific pronoun, in written communication s/he includes both she and he so is gender-inclusive rather than gender-specific.

So while s/he might not be the best option for spoken communication, it might be the best option for written communication. There's no (grammar) law which says they have to be the same.

 

[Craig B]

Ah, but you're overlooking something obvious! While it's true that in oral communication s/he sounds identical to she so could be considered a return to a gender-specific pronoun, in written communication s/he includes both she and he so is gender-inclusive rather than gender-specific.

So while s/he might not be the best option for spoken communication, it might be the best option for written communication. There's no (grammar) law which says they have to be the same.

Of course it's not a question of grammar law, but as I wrote before: that the consensus of speakers of English is now such that a non gender specific pronoun is being sought, and to return to a gender specific one in that context makes no sense at all.

Why we should stop at written communication, and be content with gender specificity for spoken communication is not at all clear to me.

 

[JayUtah]

I expect each of these editors was following the house rules of his publication.

No, in each case they were the ones who set the house rules for usage. And the librarian had no house rules to follow; she just had a graduate degree in English.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

...
I facetiously advocate the contrivance "thon" and "thonself" (allegedly Middle English, but probably a neologistic portmanteau, that+one) to solve the problem of a gender-neutral personal pronoun. And I think we should resurrect the thorn to spell it with, þon, in homage to political correctness run amok. Yes language changes, which means that there is no "correct" way to misuse third-person plural for a third-person singular.

This is the kind of crazy I like, especially the /þ/ spelling suggestion.

 

[alexi_drago]

No, thatself or itself makes more sense, them is more than one.

What happened to the oranges
I ate them.

What happened to the orange
I ate it/that.

Then you have herself/himself

Not themself though, that is a contradiction in itself.

 

[Slowvehicle]

This is the kind of crazy I like, especially the /þ/ spelling suggestion.

Move to resurrect the handwritten othography: ƴ.

Thus, ƴon and ƴonself....