• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Them, Themself as a singular pronoun

Is "them" and "themself" acceptable professional English (as a singular pronoun)

  • Yes, it makes sense.

    Votes: 17 60.7%

  • Heavens no! Her majesty would not be amused! *clutches pearls*

    Votes: 10 35.7%

  • On planet X, the preferred pronouns are xe, xem, xyr, and xyrself

    Votes: 1 3.6%
  • Total voters
    28

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Puppycow
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
29,826
Location
Yokohama, Japan
So what is the general consensus in 2016. Assume you are writing not just on an internet forum, but something for a client or for your company and it needs to be professional. I am currently editing a document and the term "user" comes up a lot, and I don't like "he or she", "himself or herself". I'd like to just us "them" and "themself" as pronouns for this user. What do you think?
 
Who ****** cares? Apart from pedants . Imagination and vision please . Depth and breadth , are "musts ". Have you ever met anybody who picks up on minor grammar niggles who is not a crashing bore and numbingly small minded ?
 
Minoosh said:
No.
Click to expand...
Well then, "themselves" doesn't matter either. But "themself" is better because it indicates the singular number of "them" more clearly.
Minoosh said:
I've fallen into the habit of allowing "themselves" sometimes. It doesn't parse but everyone understands it.
Click to expand...
This turning plural into singular pronouns is not new. The singular second person "thou" has everywhere in English, except perhaps in parts of Yorkshire, been displaced by the plural "you"; and nobody has a problem with "yourself", as opposed to "yourselves".

I have seen a pontifical encyclical in which the Pope refers to his own person as "Ourself", while using the "Royal We", even further exalted by a capital letter.
 
Craig B said:
Well then, "themselves" doesn't matter either. But "themself" is better because it indicates the singular number of "them" more clearly. This turning plural into singular pronouns is not new. The singular second person "thou" has everywhere in English, except perhaps in parts of Yorkshire, been displaced by the plural "you"; and nobody has a problem with "yourself", as opposed to "yourselves".

I have seen a pontifical encyclical in which the Pope refers to his own person as "Ourself", while using the "Royal We", even further exalted by a capital letter.
Click to expand...

They say "thou" in Yorkshire? Sounds awesome!
 
The usage dates back to medieval times. It doesn't always scan right but it is correct.

What about "enables them to visually check?" If the previous sentence is obviously talking about the user, the identity can carry forward for a sentence or two until someone else is addressed and muddies up who "they" is.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Can you provide a sentence you are struggling with to provide a little context?
Click to expand...


I can't provide examples from puppycow's document, but here's an example of where a skeptic might want to use themself.

First, let's run through some sentences using other pronouns:

I'd like to see the evidence for myself.
Would you like to see the evidence for yourself?
She'd like to see the evidence for herself.
He'd like to see the evidence for himself.​

These all look acceptable, yes?

They'd like to see the evidence for themselves.​

And that looks acceptable when referring to a group of people, yes?

Now suppose we are referring not to a group of people in general but to one person in general -- i.e. one hypothetical person who could be either male or female. In that case, the simplest way of expressing the thought seems to me to be

They'd like to see the evidence for themself.​

They in this sentence means she or he (but is much shorter and less awkward) and themself is the corresponding pronoun parallel in use to myself, yourself, herself, himself, themselves, in the previous examples.
 
Puppycow said:
. . . enables the user themself to visually check . . .
Click to expand...

I'm too lazy to argue the case as to acceptability, since I might have to go so far as to google around (shudder), but this particular example seems like a step up from "him or herself," an otherwise necessary but cumbersome locution.:twocents:
 
Nova Land said:
They'd like to see the evidence for themself.​

They in this sentence means she or he (but is much shorter and less awkward) and themself is the corresponding pronoun parallel in use to myself, yourself, herself, himself, themselves, in the previous examples.
Click to expand...

One would like to see the evidence for oneself​

This works too, and I use "one" like that from time to time. I think it sounds a bit archaic, so it might not work in every setting. It also sounds non-specific, a bit like saying that someone, anyone, would like to see the evidence, instead of a specific person.
 
Craig B said:
What about the split infinitive? Is it a problem?
Click to expand...

Split infinitives are a perfectly grammatical construct in English. The idea that they are not is a relic of the 19th Century, when certain academics wanted to make English more like Latin, where infinitives cannot be split. But in the case of Latin there is a good reason you cannot split the infinitive form of a verb: they are single words, not compounds like in English.
 
crescent said:
One would like to see the evidence for oneself​

This works too, and I use "one" like that from time to time. I think it sounds a bit archaic, so it might not work in every setting. It also sounds non-specific, a bit like saying that someone, anyone, would like to see the evidence, instead of a specific person.
Click to expand...


Yes, one is useful for a gender-neutral term, but it's more of a substitute for I than for he or she. One wonders, for instance, generally means something like I wonder, and other people like me might also wonder.

But suppose at some point you had asked in a thread for a person to present the evidence they claim to have. Suppose further that you are away from posting for a couple of days, and the person you had been requesting evidence from keeps refusing to present the evidence and instead keeps going on about how they've seen it and it's really really good and how irrational and unskeptical you're being by refusing to accept that.

Given that set-up, which of these sounds better as something I might post to try to get this person to understand your request for the evidence:

(a) I think what crescent was saying is that one would like to view the evidence for oneself.​

or

(b) I think what crescent was saying is that they would like to view the evidence for themself.​

Either one could serve, but to my ears the second sounds much better.
 
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.

It would be nice if we could agree on a gender-neutral pronoun, but it seems as if every special snowflake wants their own choice. So rather than having to keep all the ze & xe & zie & fnargwobbles in mind, I'll use a plural.

(Personally, I like "one" too, but one does tend to feel as if one is making Royal Pronouncements.)
 
deadrose said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Minoosh said:
They say "thou" in Yorkshire? Sounds awesome!
Click to expand...
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:
 
JayUtah said:
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.
Click to expand...

I expect each of these editors was following the house rules of his publication.
 
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.
 
theprestige said:
"Themself" is unnecessary in this example. It should be stricken entirely.
Click to expand...

angrysoba said:
This gets my vote. What is "themself" doing here?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Agatha said:
I use s/he and her/his, but occasionally them(selves).
Click to expand...


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.
 
Nova Land said:
... 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 ...
Click to expand...
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.
 
Craig B said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Nova Land said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Argumemnon said:
But it's butt ugly!
Click to expand...
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"​
 
Craig B said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Nova Land said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 said:
...
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.
Click to expand...

This is the kind of crazy I like, especially the /þ/ spelling suggestion.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom