• 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.

'They' enters the English language as a singular pronoun

Did you not see:



It's crystal clear from the context that Dr Keith was referring to around 100 million English speakers in the USA.

Why is it so clear? Well, because

a) the post of Dr Keith's in question was a direct response to/observation your post in which you'd very specifically referred to the USA: "However, I found something similarly related which refers to the USA"; and

b) Dr Keith's calculation from which he derived the 100 million number was clearly based upon the USA: he very obviously took your 30% statistic (which, remember, you'd already stated was in respect of the USA) and applied it to a rough estimate of the number of English speakers in the USA (I'm suggesting he used a figure of 300m - though the true number is around 235m) to arrive at 100 million.


So all of this adds up to the unequivocal conclusion that Dr Keith, when he referred to "English speakers", was referring to English speakers within the USA, and not to English speakers in the entire World.
 
This is a discussion we have had before. And it really doesn't matter whether the use of the pronoun is grammatically correct or not. If someone asks you to refer to them using the third person pronoun they/them, you do it. To not do so is at the very least rude.

My name is Andrew. I do not like being called Andy. If you call me Andy I will ask you not to. Would you continue to call me Andy after I have asked you not to? If not, why are pronouns different from nouns?
 
Guys, it's over. There's no point debating it. The linguistic community entering adulthood is using it in spoken language. As is the way of things, it's showing up more often in written language.

English-speakers apparently needed a gender-neutral pronoun. There wasn't one available, so they invented it out of materials already at hand. The word "astronaut" was an invention that caught on. People who are very exacting about one meaningless thing are called "soup nazis." The entire concept of the "friend zone" did not exist until November 3, 1994, when Joey said it on an episode of Friends.

Language evolves organically. It mutates constantly and sometimes those mutations turn out to be beneficial to enough language speakers that it kills off all its competitors. You can be a soup nazi about it, but you're changing nothing and aggravating yourself.

And while you're at it, stop trying to make "fetch" happen.
 
It's crystal clear from the context that Dr Keith was referring to around 100 million English speakers in the USA.

Why is it so clear? Well, because

a) the post of Dr Keith's in question was a direct response to/observation your post in which you'd very specifically referred to the USA: "However, I found something similarly related which refers to the USA"; and

b) Dr Keith's calculation from which he derived the 100 million number was clearly based upon the USA: he very obviously took your 30% statistic (which, remember, you'd already stated was in respect of the USA) and applied it to a rough estimate of the number of English speakers in the USA (I'm suggesting he used a figure of 300m - though the true number is around 235m) to arrive at 100 million.


So all of this adds up to the unequivocal conclusion that Dr Keith, when he referred to "English speakers", was referring to English speakers within the USA, and not to English speakers in the entire World.

No, we were discussing people who read literary fiction in general. He did not qualify his term with the words, 'in the USA'. He just said 'English speakers' so it is reasonable to assume he is referring to those publishers who publish in the English-speaking world who will be predominantly geared to the USA and the UK (for example, Amazon).

But whichever way you look at the statistics vanishingly few people read literary fiction once they have left school.

Carry on trying to argue against it.

I'll get into my listening pose.
 
Guys, it's over. There's no point debating it. The linguistic community entering adulthood is using it in spoken language. As is the way of things, it's showing up more often in written language.

English-speakers apparently needed a gender-neutral pronoun. There wasn't one available, so they invented it out of materials already at hand. The word "astronaut" was an invention that caught on. People who are very exacting about one meaningless thing are called "soup nazis." The entire concept of the "friend zone" did not exist until November 3, 1994, when Joey said it on an episode of Friends.

Language evolves organically. It mutates constantly and sometimes those mutations turn out to be beneficial to enough language speakers that it kills off all its competitors. You can be a soup nazi about it, but you're changing nothing and aggravating yourself.

And while you're at it, stop trying to make "fetch" happen.

Agreed new words and phrases happen because as anyone who has studied English knows, language is by consensus (for example, compare and contrast Chaucer's English with Ian McEwan's).

However, the rules of grammar, albeit unique to different languages pretty much remain the same, being based as it is on logic. Sure, there are plenty of examples of a singular being acceptable in vernacular as a plural (for example, a party, an organisation, a committee or a panel). Nobody will much care. However, when writing good English, care needs to be taken.
 
Indeed. Invented gender neutral pronouns such as hir and ze are fetches. They have been proposed but they never caught on because it's just easier to use they.

So, what will happen? Will there be a section on a passport for this new category? Should an employer be open to being sued if it accidentally refers to an employee as he or she when same has specified that he, she or 'they' wants to be referred to as 'they'?
 
So, what will happen? Will there be a section on a passport for this new category? Should an employer be open to being sued if it accidentally refers to an employee as he or she when same has specified that he, she or 'they' wants to be referred to as 'they'?

Yes, and cats will marry dogs and the apocalypse will happen.
 
I think it's perfectly clear from the actual posts.
 
Agreed new words and phrases happen because as anyone who has studied English knows, language is by consensus (for example, compare and contrast Chaucer's English with Ian McEwan's).

However, the rules of grammar, albeit unique to different languages pretty much remain the same, being based as it is on logic. Sure, there are plenty of examples of a singular being acceptable in vernacular as a plural (for example, a party, an organisation, a committee or a panel). Nobody will much care. However, when writing good English, care needs to be taken.


What the blazes are you talking about? Please explain through logic why it is "You are wrong" and not "You is wrong" when referring to one person. I'll wait.
 
Agreed new words and phrases happen because as anyone who has studied English knows, language is by consensus (for example, compare and contrast Chaucer's English with Ian McEwan's).

However, the rules of grammar, albeit unique to different languages pretty much remain the same, being based as it is on logic. Sure, there are plenty of examples of a singular being acceptable in vernacular as a plural (for example, a party, an organisation, a committee or a panel). Nobody will much care. However, when writing good English, care needs to be taken.


I am absolutely mistified how you can believe that new words arise organically (usually from combinations of old words) and simultaneously believe grammar is inviolate. Written language follows spoken. It may trail it by a number of years, but it follows it. There is no separate grammar category. So long as the linguistic community understands its own members, grammar is secondary.
 
So, what will happen? Will there be a section on a passport for this new category? Should an employer be open to being sued if it accidentally refers to an employee as he or she when same has specified that he, she or 'they' wants to be referred to as 'they'?

The passport issue is one of those things I have often heard as an objection to gender neutrality and the like, as if some apocalypse of inconvenience were about to happen. Back when civil unions were debated, similar concerns were touted, that nobody would know how to act and that we'd have to reprint all the forms for everything.

I'm reminded of an old Jules Feiffer cartoon, in which Miss Sacrosanct of the telephone company is explaining to a customer why there's an extra charge for making one's number unlisted - because they'd have to move every number in the phone book up one space!

I don't think we'd have to send off to Switzerland for new printing presses in order to add an "N" to the gender choices on a passport.
 
This is a discussion we have had before. And it really doesn't matter whether the use of the pronoun is grammatically correct or not. If someone asks you to refer to them using the third person pronoun they/them, you do it. To not do so is at the very least rude.

My name is Andrew. I do not like being called Andy. If you call me Andy I will ask you not to. Would you continue to call me Andy after I have asked you not to? If not, why are pronouns different from nouns?

Pronouns aren't for the benefit of the target, nouns are. Pronouns require a common understanding for the listeners. I can't recall a time when I used the third person in front of the person in question.

What I call someone outside of their earshot really isn't a concern of theirs save for some insult. Maybe.

If I'm in a situation where it requires me identifying you to a third party, and they know you well enough to know your preferred pronoun, then I might as well say your name. If they don't know, then it really doesn't matter how I refer to you, since it's not going to help them identify you. Not that a proper name would be of much service there either.


All that being said, I'm cool with the use of they for someone of unknown gender. It works in writing so much better than he or she. or He/She. I'm not sure how I would handle someone who wanted a special pronoun. I just don't think I'd remember their special demands. I don't care that much. Since I can't recall using 3rd person in front of someone, not sure it would come up. But my workplace is older than most, so maybe I've just avoided the problem by demographics.
 
However, the rules of grammar, albeit unique to different languages pretty much remain the same, being based as it is on logic.

I don't think there's a natural language in all of human history that has rules of grammar based on logic.

Rules of grammar are usually based on codifying the conventions of how people actually use the language.

English also has a set of grammar rules that are arbitrarily and illogically based on ancient Latin rules of grammar (themselves not entirely logical). And the trend in English as it is actually used by people has been to deprecate or just ignore those rules.
 
I don't think there's a natural language in all of human history that has rules of grammar based on logic.

Rules of grammar are usually based on codifying the conventions of how people actually use the language.

English also has a set of grammar rules that are arbitrarily and illogically based on ancient Latin rules of grammar (themselves not entirely logical). And the trend in English as it is actually used by people has been to deprecate or just ignore those rules.
I agree. If the rules of grammar were based on logic, we would not have this thread at all, because there would already be an agreed-upon gender-neutral pronoun for situations where gender neutrality is clearly preferred. Grammarians of various sorts have argued this point for generations, and the fact that one of the most trusted dictionaries (the OED) and one of the most trusted references on usage (Fowler) openly disagree should be a pretty bright flare announcing that logic is not to be found here.
 
And that intrudes on the proper meaning of 'they' whether used colloquially as a singular or in its proper sense.

'They' has long been a solution to avoid assigning gender but to designate it as 'transgender' will throw up problems in meaning. So, if someone calls you 'they' what do they mean?

If someone calls you they it would be really weird. A bit like someone calling me he.

But if someone refers to you as they, then it simply means that they are not making a presumption as to your gender or identity. It means they are unsure whether you consider yourself male or female or neither.

Really it is the same use: not assigning a gender.

If it happened to me I would take it as a subtle sign that they respect that my gender may not be apparent, or that the gender that I appear may not be consistent with how I identify. I would consider it a nod in my direction that I get to choose who I am, not the person speaking. I would smile. Even though I don't think my gender is ambiguous.*

But that is just me. You do you.


*I used to think my sexuality was unambiguous but after a man hit on me at the gym a gay friend smirked and said something along the lines of "I can see someone thinking you are gay, but I can't imagine they were actually hitting on you." That comment fueled a lot of cardio work over the next few weeks.
 
So, what will happen? Will there be a section on a passport for this new category? Should an employer be open to being sued if it accidentally refers to an employee as he or she when same has specified that he, she or 'they' wants to be referred to as 'they'?
Pronouns aren't listed on passports. Gender is, and that's a different discussion.

And yes, misgendering someone could be considered a form of abuse or harassment.. So workplace codes of conduct may be violated, with all of the consequences.
 
Pronouns aren't for the benefit of the target, nouns are. Pronouns require a common understanding for the listeners. I can't recall a time when I used the third person in front of the person in question.

What I call someone outside of their earshot really isn't a concern of theirs save for some insult. Maybe.
It can happen. But even if not, word can get back. Let me get my creative hat on for a moment.

John: Oh, hey there Jane. Did you hear that Sam has come out as transitioning? I wonder what he wants to do that for.

Jane: I know, and actually they prefer they now.

John: Pfft, whatever.

Later...

Jane: Oh hey there Sam!

Sam: Hi, how you doing?

Jane: I'm great, but I was just speaking with John, and he still used the wrong pronoun when referring to you. I called him on it, but he seemed pretty dismissive. You might want to be aware of that the next time you're talking to him.

Sam: Oh, okay. Thanks for that.

If I'm in a situation where it requires me identifying you to a third party, and they know you well enough to know your preferred pronoun, then I might as well say your name. If they don't know, then it really doesn't matter how I refer to you, since it's not going to help them identify you. Not that a proper name would be of much service there either.

Hey, did you hear that Sam is transitioning? I don't know why Sam wants to do that. I wonder what Sam's parents think. Has Sam told Sam's grandmother yet?

All that being said, I'm cool with the use of they for someone of unknown gender. It works in writing so much better than he or she. or He/She. I'm not sure how I would handle someone who wanted a special pronoun. I just don't think I'd remember their special demands. I don't care that much. Since I can't recall using 3rd person in front of someone, not sure it would come up. But my workplace is older than most, so maybe I've just avoided the problem by demographics.
If you can recall someone's name, you can recall their pronoun.
 
However, the rules of grammar, albeit unique to different languages pretty much remain the same, being based as it is on logic. Sure, there are plenty of examples of a singular being acceptable in vernacular as a plural (for example, a party, an organisation, a committee or a panel). Nobody will much care. However, when writing good English, care needs to be taken.
In your first sentence you use a singular pronoun - "it" - to refer to "the rules" of grammar. I think maybe you should have used "they"? If course I understood what you meant, but don't you see any irony when you type "However, when writing good English, care needs to be taken"? I'm fact I'm pretty sure that should be, "When writing good English, one must take care." Otherwise you've got a dangling modifer.

And back to that first sentence - I find it highly debatable that the rules of grammar are based on logic.
 
In your first sentence you use a singular pronoun - "it" - to refer to "the rules" of grammar. I think maybe you should have used "they"? If course I understood what you meant, but don't you see any irony when you type "However, when writing good English, care needs to be taken"? I'm fact I'm pretty sure that should be, "When writing good English, one must take care." Otherwise you've got a dangling modifer.

And back to that first sentence - I find it highly debatable that the rules of grammar are based on logic.
I assumed that "it" in this case refers to the grammar, not the rules. This is not to say that Vixen's usage was without fault. My assumption, which saves the sense of the pronoun, was done at the cost of ignoring cumbersome structure and a poorly placed pronoun which a strict grammarian might accuse of dangling.

I would be lenient regarding Vixen's English because I'm pretty sure it's a second language, and it's usually pretty good. I would be less lenient regarding her attempts to instruct the rest of us.
 
In your first sentence you use a singular pronoun - "it" - to refer to "the rules" of grammar. I think maybe you should have used "they"? If course I understood what you meant, but don't you see any irony when you type "However, when writing good English, care needs to be taken"? I'm fact I'm pretty sure that should be, "When writing good English, one must take care." Otherwise you've got a dangling modifer.

And back to that first sentence - I find it highly debatable that the rules of grammar are based on logic.
Passive voice is not against the rules of grammar. There are circumstances where active voice is preferred, but nothing mandates it.
 
Passive voice is not against the rules of grammar. There are circumstances where active voice is preferred, but nothing mandates it.
What I should have said is that while the meaning was perfectly clear, someone into diagramming sentences would hit some snags with that post. Of course usually when I get picky about other people's usage I inevitably wind up committing similar sins.

There was a legendary HS journalism teacher who trained a cohort at my old newspaper. One of his sayings was, "Parse that puppy." He made his students tear down sentences and rebuild them as tighter, more cogent prose. That was also my style of editing. But the students of this of teacher already had that down - I didn't have to fix their stuff.

It wasn't the passive voice I was talking about; it was the dangling modifier. But it did come out as kind of dickish.
 
I assumed that "it" in this case refers to the grammar, not the rules. This is not to say that Vixen's usage was without fault. My assumption, which saves the sense of the pronoun, was done at the cost of ignoring cumbersome structure and a poorly placed pronoun which a strict grammarian might accuse of dangling.

I would be lenient regarding Vixen's English because I'm pretty sure it's a second language, and it's usually pretty good. I would be less lenient regarding her attempts to instruct the rest of us.
I didn't mean to come across as a dick - but I stand by my points, which were nevertheless petty and pedantic.

Education threads usually quickly peter out, but topics about grammar, usage etc. take on a life of their own.
 
Grammar isn't law, it's just a collection of traditions. The point of it is to sound the least awkward, for communicatory ease; therefore to consider it more along the spectrum of style than any sort of actual rule would be maximally appropriate. There are several peculiarities in what I just wrote, but did anyone have trouble understanding what I said? I would say I made some unusual but not erroneous sentence construction.
 
Grammar isn't law, it's just a collection of traditions.


Grammar is whatever a linguistic community wants it to be, so long as they understand each other. Arriving in the deep south, I was pretty taken aback when someone asked me, "Is you is, or is you isn't?" It was even more horrifying that the speaker was the chair of the political science graduate school.

Yet, when the gentleman wrote a scholarly article, he had no problem slipping into the rules of that linguistic community.

There's no one, right way. Manuals of style are just the rules that have been adopted by a specific linguistic community - and even those are in constant flux.
 
Grammar is whatever a linguistic community wants it to be, so long as they understand each other. Arriving in the deep south, I was pretty taken aback when someone asked me, "Is you is, or is you isn't?" It was even more horrifying that the speaker was the chair of the political science graduate school.

Yet, when the gentleman wrote a scholarly article, he had no problem slipping into the rules of that linguistic community.

There's no one, right way. Manuals of style are just the rules that have been adopted by a specific linguistic community - and even those are in constant flux.

You were quite right to be taken aback, the correct form is "Is you is, or is you ain't"
 
It can happen. But even if not, word can get back. Let me get my creative hat on for a moment.

John: Oh, hey there Jane. Did you hear that Sam has come out as transitioning? I wonder what he wants to do that for.

Jane: I know, and actually they prefer they now.

John: Pfft, whatever.

Later...

Jane: Oh hey there Sam!

Sam: Hi, how you doing?

Jane: I'm great, but I was just speaking with John, and he still used the wrong pronoun when referring to you. I called him on it, but he seemed pretty dismissive. You might want to be aware of that the next time you're talking to him.

Sam: Oh, okay. Thanks for that.

Jane sounds like a dick.
 
What the blazes are you talking about? Please explain through logic why it is "You are wrong" and not "You is wrong" when referring to one person. I'll wait.

I believe it stems from old English, German and French traditions (and even Finnish!) when to address someone in the plural form was considered the polite way to do it. It probably had some kind of logic once.
 
In your first sentence you use a singular pronoun - "it" - to refer to "the rules" of grammar. I think maybe you should have used "they"? If course I understood what you meant, but don't you see any irony when you type "However, when writing good English, care needs to be taken"? I'm fact I'm pretty sure that should be, "When writing good English, one must take care." Otherwise you've got a dangling modifer.

And back to that first sentence - I find it highly debatable that the rules of grammar are based on logic.

I used 'is' as 'the rules of grammar' was being used in this context as a collective noun which makes it singular. If I was referring to the actual rules of grammar then it would be 'are'.
 
I assumed that "it" in this case refers to the grammar, not the rules. This is not to say that Vixen's usage was without fault. My assumption, which saves the sense of the pronoun, was done at the cost of ignoring cumbersome structure and a poorly placed pronoun which a strict grammarian might accuse of dangling.

I would be lenient regarding Vixen's English because I'm pretty sure it's a second language, and it's usually pretty good. I would be less lenient regarding her attempts to instruct the rest of us.

My first language was Finnish. However, I have been speaking English since age four. I was almost always top in French (often getting 98 - 100% in the exams) and usually top or near top in English and German (in a class which had a couple of German and Swiss descent pupils) in the creme de la creme stream of a sought after grammar school. Do you know, I was the English teachers' pet*. They liked me because I showed appreciation of the works of literature they put in front of us. The culture was extremely competitive and we were expected to do at least two hours homework every day. Although I was consistently top or near top in every subject I was particularly good at languages and I believe it's because I have have a logical bent.

*This really irked one of my school friends, who slammed me up against the wall because I beat her in the English exam, which was her only good subject.

Not instructing anybody. Just debating how this will work.
 
My first language was Finnish. However, I have been speaking English since age four. I was almost always top in French (often getting 98 - 100% in the exams) and usually top or near top in English and German (in a class which had a couple of German and Swiss descent pupils) in the creme de la creme stream of a sought after grammar school. Do you know, I was the English teachers' pet*. They liked me because I showed appreciation of the works of literature they put in front of us. The culture was extremely competitive and we were expected to do at least two hours homework every day. Although I was consistently top or near top in every subject I was particularly good at languages and I believe it's because I have have a logical bent.

*This really irked one of my school friends, who slammed me up against the wall because I beat her in the English exam, which was her only good subject.

Not instructing anybody. Just debating how this will work.



My first language was Cumanagoto. However, I have been speaking Yiddish since age four. I was almost always top in Tambora (often getting 43 - 119% in the exams) and usually top or near top in Minaean and Guanche (in a class which had a couple of Na'vi descent pupils) in the creamy, buttery stream of Hogwarts. Do you know, I was the Astapori teachers' pet*. They liked me because I showed appreciation of the works of literature they put under the floorboards. The culture was extremely competitive and we were expected to do at least twenty-two hours homework every day. Although I was consistently top or near bottom in every subject I was particularly good at languages and I believe it's because I have a left and upwards bent.


*You know it's true because it's on the internet.
 
I used 'is' as 'the rules of grammar' was being used in this context as a collective noun which makes it singular. If I was referring to the actual rules of grammar then it would be 'are'.
I think that's a stretch, as a phrase serving as a collective noun is expected to include the container, or to be bounded by quotation marks, italics, etc., that identify it as a collective. Robert's rules of order are rules for conducting business. Robert's Rules of Order is a book containing those rules. The bag of marbles is, but the marbles in the bag still are. The collection is, but the objects in it still are. In some cases, at least, the people is, but people still are, and we're straying now into territory where shots are occasionally fired. If there is a known collective called "the rules of grammar," it was not well defined.
 
Back
Top Bottom