Singular 'they' is voted Word of the Decade by U.S. linguists

[toofarnorth]

I think TOO many people on here are using the fricative infundibular tense when they should be using the third person corpusclar imprecation.

[GroveHillWanderer]

16 hours ago, Salerno said:

It's not a "real thing" but sadly it is a "thing". The west is on a downward spiral IMO.

Using 'they' as a non-gender specific, singular pronoun is most definitely a "thing" and it has been in common usage since at least the 14th century. In some circumstances it's almost obligatory to use it. For instance, where you know that somebody has done something but you don't know who - and therefore you don't know what gender they are.

 

As an example, if someone in your family has taken the remote control and not put it back, you might say, "Who took the remote? When I find out who it was, they're going to get a piece of my mind."

 

You can't say, "he or she is going ..." because you don't know the gender of the person who took it.

 

Another example is when you need to construct a sentence that can apply to anyone, such as, "The patient should be told at the outset how much they will be required to pay."

Edited January 5, 2020 by GroveHillWanderer

[Salerno]

12 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

You can't say, "he or she is going ..." because you don't know the gender of the person who took it.

 

Actually that's exactly what I would say in formal writing "The patient should be told at the outset how much he or she will be required to pay."

 

But it's not exactly the point of the topic.

Edited January 5, 2020 by Salerno

[samran]

11 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Using 'they' as a non-gender specific, singular pronoun is most definitely a "thing" and it has been in common usage since at least the 14th century. In some circumstances it's almost obligatory to use it. For instance, where you know that somebody has done something but you don't know who - and therefore you don't know what gender they are.

 

As an example, if someone in your family has taken the remote control and not put it back, you might say, "Who took the remote? When I find out who it was, they're going to get a piece of my mind."

 

You can't say, "he or she is going ..." because you don't know the gender of the person who took it.

 

Another example is when you need to construct a sentence that can apply to anyone, such as, "The patient should be told at the outset how much they will be required to pay."

Yes but this example will not placate the chest thumpers.

 

 

[AgMech Cowboy]

On 1/4/2020 at 10:34 AM, JetsetBkk said:

They have linguists in America? 

Yip, they all came from England, because they figured out there was no hope to get the people in the UK to speak good English anymore. ????

[scottiddled]

14 minutes ago, Salerno said:

Actually that's exactly what I would say in formal writing "The patient should be told at the outset how much he or she will be required to pay."

 

But it's not exactly the point of the topic.

Not anymore. The gender-neutral "they" is now preferred in that situation in formal writing. Not only is it less cumbersome, but some would argue "he or she" is inaccurate because it assumes a gender binary. 

[Salerno]

1 minute ago, scottiddled said:

Not anymore. The gender-neutral "they" is now preferred in that situation in formal writing. Not only is it less cumbersome, but some would argue "he or she" is inaccurate because it assumes a gender binary. 

I'm sorry, did I intrude on your safe space or is there another reason you went to my profile and gave me sad emojis on three non-related threads at the same time? 

[Nyezhov]

I dont have pronouns. I have superlatives disguised as pronouns.

 

Hi Im Yezhov. My pronouns are  Your Worship or Fount of all Wisdom or Humongous Manliness or Most Sublime Universal Greatness or Hey You.

[Scott Tracy]

Goodness me. Spelling used in American English and British English has always been different in certain cases. British English spelling changes too, spelling for olde and shoppe, has changed to old and shop respectively as an example.

The words used as names for similar objects in both versions of English can also differ.

Understand also that languages evolve, they never remain unchanged. Thee and thou are considered obsolete now, as is the letter thorn.

This is the wonderful thing about the language, the ability to continuously change.

 

[Nyezhov]

11 minutes ago, Scott Tracy said:

This is the wonderful thing about the language, the ability to continuously change.

Middle English gives me a headache. I read Chaucer sometimes becasuse I am too wimpy to flagellate myself with my flagrum.

[scottiddled]

1 hour ago, Salerno said:

Actually that's exactly what I would say in formal writing "The patient should be told at the outset how much he or she will be required to pay."

 

But it's not exactly the point of the topic.

 

46 minutes ago, scottiddled said:

Not anymore. The gender-neutral "they" is now preferred in that situation in formal writing. Not only is it less cumbersome, but some would argue "he or she" is inaccurate because it assumes a gender binary. 

 

43 minutes ago, Salerno said:

I'm sorry, did I intrude on your safe space or is there another reason you went to my profile and gave me sad emojis on three non-related threads at the same time? 

I often wish I could be in three places at once. But alas, I'm only human.

 

Safe space? Just because I disagree with your position and cite the opinion of others (not me) on gender binaries doesn't mean I'm hunkered down in a safe space. I found several of your posts worthy of a sad emoji; do I have to justify that to you? Does it speak to your value as a human being? 

 

Relax. I just didn't like those posts. Don't let it ruin your day. I'm sure you're a wonderul person, etc. etc. etc.

[Salerno]

9 minutes ago, scottiddled said:

I often wish I could be in three places at once. But alas, I'm only human.

I think the saying "no such thing as a coincidence" is BS, but if someone views my profile and then gives three sad emojis at the same time I tend to lean towards it not being a coincidence.

 

11 minutes ago, scottiddled said:

Safe space? Just because I disagree with your position and cite the opinion of others (not me) on gender binaries doesn't mean I'm hunkered down in a safe space. I found several of your posts worthy of a sad emoji; do I have to justify that to you?

Nope don't have to justify at all. I have no issues if someone gives an emoji of any flavour, in fact it gives me a chance to perhaps look at an issue to see if there is a side to an issue I haven't taken into account. Most of the time I tend not to notice them except when they come at the same time which then peaks my curiosity.

 

15 minutes ago, scottiddled said:

Does it speak to your value as a human being?

Nope, but going to someones profile to give rapid sad emojis might.

 

16 minutes ago, scottiddled said:

Relax. I just didn't like those posts. Don't let it ruin your day.

I'll try to not let it do so 

[DannyCarlton]

1 hour ago, Scott Tracy said:

Thee and thou are considered obsolete now,

Not where I come from, hear them all the time.

[DannyCarlton]

1 hour ago, scottiddled said:

'm hunkered down in a safe space

What's a "hunker"?

[Jane Dough]

I demand recognition for Thailand for this invention.

 

They have been using they - khaw/khao - for yonks. 

 

Rooster

[sawadeeken]

3 hours ago, Salerno said:

I'm sorry, did I intrude on your safe space or is there another reason you went to my profile and gave me sad emojis on three non-related threads at the same time? 

what goes around comes around also...... LOL .....

[Salerno]

1 minute ago, sawadeeken said:

what goes around comes around also...... LOL .....

Diddums, did I hurt your feelings? BTW, might want to read posts before given them sad emojis, you might notice the post in question is actually on "your" side (as is the case of at least one of them you just did in an Iran thread) which makes a mockery of the sadness. Just saying 

[Monomial]

4 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Using 'they' as a non-gender specific, singular pronoun is most definitely a "thing" and it has been in common usage since at least the 14th century. In some circumstances it's almost obligatory to use it. For instance, where you know that somebody has done something but you don't know who - and therefore you don't know what gender they are.

 

As an example, if someone in your family has taken the remote control and not put it back, you might say, "Who took the remote? When I find out who it was, they're going to get a piece of my mind."

 

You can't say, "he or she is going ..." because you don't know the gender of the person who took it.

 

Another example is when you need to construct a sentence that can apply to anyone, such as, "The patient should be told at the outset how much they will be required to pay."

 

Hmm...actually the second sentence is more lazy writing. "They" as a gender specific singular pronoun I don't think has a long history of being proper use of the language. Lazy, possibly, but not proper.

 

In the first case (the theft), it is not that you don't know the gender which requires you to use they, it is that you don't know for sure if it was stolen by a single person or possibly by a group. They is referring back to who in this case, which may be singular or plural, and the punishment may need to apply to more than 1 individual.  If you said instead "which one of you", then the correct terminology (in modern language or to avoid pedantic, childish arguments) would indeed be "he or she".

 

"When I find out which one of you took it, he or she is going to get it."  "They" even sounds wrong in this context, because you would also need to conjugate the verb "to be" as are, which is clearly plural. Or are you honestly suggesting that anyone would actually say:

 

"They is going to get it."

 

I don't know. Maybe rednecks in the deep south...

 

In fact, when I was in school, I was specifically taught that the masculine was the correct neutral term to use for people when you were unsure of gender. Using "they" would have resulted in being corrected and marked down.  There was never any notice given to your theory that it has a long history of being used in the manner you suggest.

 

It is only recently that the whole use "she" instead of "he" phenomenon has become popular due to the concerns about gender bias.  Never, not even once, have I seen anyone advocating to use "they".

 

[ivor bigun]

5 hours ago, samran said:

...and judging by this thread, the word ‘triggered’ was a close runner up. 

As i remember from when i was young Trigger was a horse ,so if you have been Triggered? i dread to think .

[Sujo]

Although its 2 words this answer really annoys me.

 

You going out tonight?

Yeah nah.

[Cory1848]

29 minutes ago, Monomial said:

 

Hmm...actually the second sentence is more lazy writing. "They" as a gender specific singular pronoun I don't think has a long history of being proper use of the language. Lazy, possibly, but not proper.

 

In the first case (the theft), it is not that you don't know the gender which requires you to use they, it is that you don't know for sure if it was stolen by a single person or possibly by a group. They is referring back to who in this case, which may be singular or plural, and the punishment may need to apply to more than 1 individual.  If you said instead "which one of you", then the correct terminology (in modern language or to avoid pedantic, childish arguments) would indeed be "he or she".

 

"When I find out which one of you took it, he or she is going to get it."  "They" even sounds wrong in this context, because you would also need to conjugate the verb "to be" as are, which is clearly plural. Or are you honestly suggesting that anyone would actually say:

 

"They is going to get it."

 

I don't know. Maybe rednecks in the deep south...

 

In fact, when I was in school, I was specifically taught that the masculine was the correct neutral term to use for people when you were unsure of gender. Using "they" would have resulted in being corrected and marked down.  There was never any notice given to your theory that it has a long history of being used in the manner you suggest.

 

It is only recently that the whole use "she" instead of "he" phenomenon has become popular due to the concerns about gender bias.  Never, not even once, have I seen anyone advocating to use "they".

 

Some of what you say is accurate, and I agree that, often, the use of “they” in a genderless singular sense comes down to lazy writing. As an editor, I was a stickler for this sort of thing and would optimally recast the sentence in the plural. “He or she” is awkward, and alternating between “he” and “she” seems excessively self-conscious. Sometimes, simply using “he” is the best solution, depending on the context.

 

However, language evolves, and the “rules” usually change to follow actual spoken usage. A few years ago, AP style changed its policy and said that the singular “they” was OK. And the most recent edition of the Chicago Manual of Style, the long-established bible of publishers and editors, threw in the towel on the issue and said that using the singular “they” was now fine, even in formal and scholarly writing. I now leave it up to the preference of authors I work with, and sometimes I raise the issue if I sense they haven’t thought about it, but I don’t try to “correct” them anymore.

 

Likewise, there are tons of examples of the singular “they” going back to Chaucer.

 

It’s a brave new world!

[scottiddled]

1 hour ago, Monomial said:

In fact, when I was in school, I was specifically taught that the masculine was the correct neutral term to use for people when you were unsure of gender. Using "they" would have resulted in being corrected and marked down.  

I can second your first sentence, as I was taught the same. But even then it was on the fringe of being antiquated.

 

As for your second sentence, I've never had that problem. You raise some valid points (including mentioning the awardness of subject-verb agreement when switching to "they"), but it's become accepted. In my circles, it's beyond that--it's really frowned upon to use the default masculine and "he or she" even gets some eye rolls.

 

Strangely enough, I was working on something a few years ago and struggling to use gender neutral pronouns. One paragraph got really convoluted as a result, and an editor gave me a stern "I get what you're trying to do here, but it's awkward as heck. Just use the masculine." It basically involved me writing in the abstract about a group of people who all happened to be men (but need not be men). 

[DannyCarlton]

2 hours ago, Monomial said:

In fact, when I was in school, I was specifically taught that the masculine was the correct neutral term to use for people when you were unsure of gender. Using "they" would have resulted in being corrected and marked down.  There was never any notice given to your theory that it has a long history of being used in the manner you suggest.

When I was at school I was taught that "one" was the correct gender neutral pronoun. As in, "One should always look where one's going".

 

Of course Her Majesty has the privelidge of using "we" which is known as "the Royal we" as in "We are not amused".