ALT TEXT:
- Panel 1: A person with the text “Singular ‘they’” written on them smiling with open arms.
- Panel 2: “Singular ‘They’” beaten up by others who said, “Singular they is ungrammatical. It’s too confusing,” “How can anyone use plural pronouns for singular,” and “Every pronoun should only have one purpose.”
- Panel 3: “You” hiding from the mob who was beating “Singular ‘They’”
- Panel 4: “German ‘Sie’” hiding with even more fear next to “You”
I have normally used “they, their and them” when referring to a singular person for about twenty years because I thought that “he/she” and “his/hers” looked ridiculous in emails.
For example; “Next time the engineer feels like he/she needs to overhaul the code…” versus “Next time the engineer feels like they need to overhaul the code…”. Clean and simple.
Example of current use:
Bob - “Hey Jo, Frank thinks we should tweak widget X.”
Me - “Yeah well, they don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about.”
I don’t think that sounds weird.
Singular they sometimes works and sometimes it sounds odd. It usually sounds off when used by itself without following something explicitly singular.
“The customer forgot their wallet. Can you bring it to them?” sounds correct but if you just do
“They left their wallet on the table” it sounds like you’re referring to multiple people instead of a singular person.
“They left their wallet on the table” it sounds like you’re referring to multiple people instead of a singular person.
Does it? If multiple people left multiple wallets on the table, it would be, “They left their wallets on the table.” Multiple people can’t really leave a single wallet behind. Or at least that would be very unusual and unintuitive.
True. I’ll change it to a (hopefully) better example.
“A customer forgot to pay their bill” sounds totally normal to me though, you just need a reference before throwing a pronoun out there, if the context doesn’t clear up the number of people referred to.
I agree.
“They forgot to pay their bill” it sounds like you’re referring to multiple people instead of a singular person.
This sounds normal to me, how else would you word it?
If it was a singular customer, I would say “He forgot to pay his bill” (or she/her depending on the gender).
Lots of people talk past each other on this. Singular they to refer to a known single person is an invention of the last few years and is the thing that a lot of people are up in arms about. It gets confused with the centuries-old usage of using it to refer to an unknown or undetermined person. Your first example is in line with the latter, and your second example is the new usage. TBH I’d be confused by your second example. Is Frank part of some larger group that doesn’t know what they’re talking about? Or is it only Frank that doesn’t know what he’s talking about?
No, it’s been used for at least 400 years.
It’s actually even older than that though. It’s over 600 years.
https://nyulocal.com/shakespeare-used-the-singular-they-and-so-should-you-6452240ca9e0
Your confusion here is exactly what I’m trying to clear up. We know the gender of the person in the Shakespeare quote you linked to (“man”), but nothing else. It’s a placeholder term that doesn’t refer to a specific, known individual. Shakespeare never said anything like “Here’s Frank, they’re a cool guy”, that would be considered ungrammatical until a few years ago.
Just here to support: English is a constantly evolving language. By way of example, historically, the word jealous has been that you’re afraid of someone taking something from you, like a relationship, it’s something you have, that you may lose due to someone’s influence. The term for wanting what someone else has, is envy. If someone has something you want, you are envious of them. But if you go find the definition for jealousy, it now includes that you want something someone else has, because people have conflated the word jealous with the definition of envy. What happened is that the definition of jealous changed. IMO, I’m not a fan of that one specifically, since we already have a word for envy, but it speaks to my point.
The language adapts to the common usage. Historically, they/them has been used as indirect singular/plural. The change that’s happening now, is that they/them is being used as direct and indirect singular/plural. In the past, the only direct singular for an individual has been he/she/you. There was no direct singular ungendered term, besides “you”, which is only applicable when the subject is the listener. Adding they/them to that is logical, the only alternative I see is to use a brand new word, one likely adapted from another language that already carries that singular and direct meaning. Authoring a new word for something like this isn’t new to English either, since many English words have roots in other languages, which is why grammar rules seem to have (and often do have) more exceptions than anything (like i before e, except after c, or congugating a word with “er” or something similar).
I’m personally a fan of adapting they/them to be direct singular, on top of it’s current use. While it’s uncomfortable for some to use they/them in this manner, myself included, is rather make myself uncomfortable by using that, then make non-binary persons uncomfortable by using pronouns that make them uncomfortable. Besides, the definition of they/them is so close already, that this is a minor adjustment at most. It’s barely an inconvenience.
Sure, that’s a great discussion to have, and I’m glad you spelled it out well. I just dislike people trying to claim that using “they” to refer to a specific, known individual is “nothing new because Shakespeare did it”. He didn’t, and it muddies the waters of the conversation to spread falsehoods like that.
I get that. Irrespective of if Shakespeare used they/them in this way or not; I would challenge anyone to even have a conversation about someone, or tell a story and not use they/them to describe a singular individual. Fact is, it’s so common in speech, that people breeze past it without thinking about it, because it’s natural to use they/them as the indirect singular. Everyone has used they/them this way, and continue to use those words this way, without even realizing they’re doing it… like I just did.
The discussion of when/where/who started it, isn’t really material to the point that almost everyone uses it in this manner right now, even if they’re not introspective or analytical enough to realize they’re doing it… so I would argue that it’s not relevant to focus on the who/what/where/when/why of the use of the words in this context, but rather focus on what’s happening now.
Leave the discussions of who/what/where/when/why/how to the historians and the linguists. I agree that such discussions just muddy the waters of the reality of what the common usage of the words are, and therefore it should be set aside and left alone; at least by anyone who doesn’t hold a PhD in English literary studies or something…
It’s not a thing of the last few years I’ve been using it for at least a decade.
A few years is a loose term, but it was certainly not in use by Shakespeare, unlike what people try to claim.
To be clear, this example, where the singular they is used for a person of any gender, is confusing to you.
Example of current use:
Bob - “Hey Jo, Frank thinks we should tweak widget X.”
Me - “Yeah well, they don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about.”
Is Frank part of some larger group that doesn’t know what they’re talking about? Or is it only Frank that doesn’t know what he’s talking about?
Based on the above questions, the confusion is about attempting to identify if the singular they or plural they is being used.
But these variants with a person with an ungendered name or description are fine. Example with ungendered name:
Bob - “Hey Jo, Kelly thinks we should tweak widget X.”
Me - “Yeah well, they don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about.”
Example with ungendered description:
Bob - “Hey Jo, the engineer thinks we should tweak widget X.”
Me - “Yeah well, they don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about.”
If that is true, that the second and third examples are not confusing, then determining whether the singular they or the plural they is being used is not the source of the confusion. As in all three examples, we have a person who was previously referenced excluding the possibility of the plural they. In the first example Frank, in the second Kelly, and the third the engineer. All that has changed in the first example is that the singular they has no restrictions based on name or description. If that grammatical distinction is the source of the confusion, so be it, but let’s be clear on what the confusion is.
Source I used to unpick this, specifically the first table in section 3: https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/id/5288/
The root of the problem is that it’s an indirect reference to an individual. They/them is commonly (until very recently) referring to a party (singular or plural) that isn’t present. When you use it as a direct reference to someone who is present, most people feel like it’s incorrect because of the common usage of the term being indirect.
When speaking to someone about Joe: “Joe doesn’t know what they’re talking about” While directly: “Joe, you don’t know what you’re talking about”
Both are correct, and possibly the most correct forms of the statements. Substitute Joe for whatever name and it still works. Meanwhile, it’s uncommon, in Joe’s presence, when not taking to Joe, to refer to (assuming Joe is using gendered pronouns) him as a he/him. “Joe doesn’t know what he’s talking about”
Both cases are singular, but the difference of Joe being there changes “they” to “he”, and not taking directly to Joe changes “you” to “he”.
The problem isn’t plural vs singular, the problem is direct vs indirect reference.
To the best of my knowledge, using pronouns like he, she, they for a person who is present in the room during the conversation is not part of the most recent change to the singular they. That would be confusing, but I am not aware that that is happening. He, she, and they are still only for indirect references to a person as far as I know.
I don’t think you’re wrong here; it’s just uncommon to refer to someone as they/them even indirectly while they are present and engaged in the conversation that’s happening, but may not be the directed recipient of the statement. In almost all cases, at least until recently, the pronouns he/she or him/her would be used instead; therefore it’s sort of awkward to use it as a direct pronoun in that context; but using they/them as a direct singular is not new in any capacity and I believe you’re correct on that. It’s just uncommon, and IMO, would generally come across as mildly dismissive or insulting toward the individual in question.
I believe the (former) dismissive/insulting nature of the context of referring to someone as they/them directly is the root of the discomfort most people (especially cis-normative persons) have around using the term for direct reference of a singular individual. Their brain is uncomfortable at the fact that they’re using (mildly) offensive language towards someone who they likely mean no offense to, meanwhile to use he/him or she/her instead is likely going to be far more offensive to someone who is non-binary, so the discomfort only lies within the speaker and their expectation of how what they are saying will be understood.
Your Kelly example is similarly confusing. The “engineer” example is also confusing, but because English already conflates those two meanings, I at least know that I’m parsing a confusable sentence and can pick up on context clues.
If I were writing that, I’d say “Yeah well, that engineer don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about.” The “they’re” is then not confusing at all.
“Yeah well, that engineer don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about.”
In this example, the engineer is the antecedent, the thing that is being referred to previously by the pronoun they. The only difference between the above example and this example
Example with ungendered description:
Bob - “Hey Jo, the engineer thinks we should tweak widget X.”
Me - “Yeah well, they don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about.”
is that the antecedent is in a previous sentence said by a different person. This is a common use case for pronouns in general during a conversation and also a common use case for the singular they. My point is this is not confusion related to the most recent change to the singular they, that restrictions to name and description have been lifted. That’s fine, but I think a lot of what people are saying about Shakespeare is relevant to this particular form of confusion, singular they vs plural they, because we have been using the singular they for quite some time.
Yep. Using “they” and “them” as singular pronouns is actually really common, but in it’s (until very recently) common usage, it’s usually an indirect singular pronoun, rather than a direct one.
I’m no linguist, so my terms may be a bit off, but when referring to a single person, or multiple people indirectly (without them involved in the conversation directly and/or, not talking directly to them). So for example, Joe went to fix the thing, and someone asks if the thing is being worked on… Yeah, Joe is on it, they will get it fixed.
That’s normal.
The pinch for most people, that they can’t seem to grasp, is that many seem to believe, whether they consciously realize it or not, that referring to someone as a “they” or a “them” directly is usually considered … For lack of a better term, rude. In the same vein as calling someone by their name but getting their name wrong. It’s impersonal which comes off, in their mind as insulting.
I’ll give you an example, Frank just did a stupid. While standing in a group with Joe and Frank, Joe says, “then they decided to do the stupid.”
Same with “they did it!” While accusing a singular individual.
The reason people don’t like calling someone “they” and “them” is because on some level, they realize that the language is either dismissive or accusatory of the individual in question. Akin to calling someone stupid or using an undesirable nickname for someone, like referring to them by their race, or doing so via a racial slur; this example is a bit extreme, but you get the idea.
There’s an absolute fuckload of examples of using they/them as singular pronouns, but people are still uncomfortable with it, often feeling like it’s wrong to refer to someone like that without really understanding why; and because they don’t understand why, they’ll never intellectually move past the taboo of it.
Non-binary people have reclaimed the word as their own, and have asked the rest of us who are comfortable with our gendered pronouns, to use these words as their pronouns. So while it feels wrong/insulting to do it, it’s actually insulting not to.
In German, the whole thing is another level worse because we don’t have something such as the sigular they, since our 3rd person plural is already a third person singular pronoun too, the female one, so enbies either use custom neopronouns or the third person neutrum, in English that would be “it”. And “it” is only used tor refer to objects, animals or monsters usually, so it feels like a whole other level of disrepect. I wish we had something as easy as the singular they. The latter is usually disrespectful but the former is usually dehumanizing and not even used for people you like, but only people you see as subhuman.
If you think gender neutrality in English is bad you should see other languages. Know steward/stewardess? In German almost every single profession is gendered like that. The solutions are constructs such as steward or stewardess, steward/ess, steward*ess, steward:ess (my favourite), stewardEss, steward_ess, the stewarding, and more. They aren’t standardised. Oh and did I mention all singular pronouns are gendered, so its actually the steward or the stewardess, the/the(f) steward/-ess, …?
Not to mention this applies to plural froms too, historyically the male form was used for mixed and all-male groups, and the female one for female-only ones, but in many cases that leads to people only picturing the male version, especially in historically male fields. Same for the singular version when the gender is unspecified. And these versions still dont include nonbinary persons, or those who use neopronouns here. The latter aren’t much of a thing here, you are pressed to have anything gender neutral in language.
All of this doesn’t improve readability, “Liebe Mitbürger” (fellow citizens) becomes “Liebe Mitbürger und Mitbürgerinnen, und auch alle anderen” (dear citizens and citizens(f), and all the others too); “Der Fahrer bremst sein Fahrzeug” (the driver slows down his vehicle) becomes “Der/Die Fahrer/in bremst sein/ihr Fahrzeug” (the/the(f) driver/ess brakes his/her vehicle); “die Wissenschaftler befrageten Taxi- und Busfahrer. Jede einzelne Teilnehmer” (the scientists surveyed taxi and bus drivers. Every single participant) becomes “die Wissenschaftlerinnen befragten Taxi- und Busfahrerinnen. Jeder einzelne Teilnehmerin” (the scinetistesses surveyed taxi and bus driveresses. Every*(m) single participant*ess).
German schools try to avoid having to write out “Schüler und Schülerinnen” (students and studentesses) by abbreviating it to SuS, but that has its own issues as you can guess, Among Us was very popular here in Germany too, every student knows memes, and often hangs in online spaces. The teacher equivalent would be LuL, they didn’t even attempt that one. Can sound funny but is reality here, sadly until a few decades pass at least, if not much more. This is hard to change. And many hang onto the language, I love it too, more than English since its my own I think in still, I read books in etc. This will need a lot of energy to change somewhere reasonable. And it makes texts much longer in German compared to English, as it wasn’t egregious enough already, “the vehicle owners” ( as used in legal documents/law ) becomes "Der/Die Kraftfahrzeugeigentümer*innnen " . This is not very readable at all, especially to foreigners, and fucks up submenus in programs as well as a lot of other formatting. We can’t even dream of integrating nonbinary people into these expressions too at the moment yet now here, it is insanely compliated to get somewhere.
Its an absolute shitfest. English they/them is a piece of cake against that, and the poeple who still cry that much about it are oversensitive whiny bitches. In Germany they at least have some practical justifications, albeit I think the use outweighs the downsides, but I see some points. I will continue to use these so-called “gendered” expressions, and they are now recommended for scientific publications, but there is a whole culture war about that, and applying it to spoken language is a whole different level. Don’t get me started on dialects. The entire issue is so much fucked here - the gender-neutrality is what I love about English. Its one of its big adavantages. Cherish what you have already out there, its not a given. You are lucky for that situation. Be thankful for it. It is a great help.
Wow, that’s crazy. I can certainly empathize with you, though I can’t really understand how intense that struggle clearly must be.
I don’t have much more to say on that, so I’ll leave you with my best wishes.
Frank is such an idiot. Why did we ever let them onto this team?
Good example. There are a ton of these.
I just don’t get it, even before being aware of pronouns and such I used singular they all the time, e.g. “That’s what they did” (referring to one person) or “They’re thinking that aren’t they?”
It’s because there isn’t actually confusion about this. This is transphobes making up something to be angry and confused about in order to rope in the ignorant to harass trans people. It’s not acceptable to say “trans people are bad, we should ostracize them” currently. So transphobes find something that could be confusing (nonbinary people using they/them) and convince ignorant people (people who don’t know much about trans people and/or have no opinion) that it’s confusing and wrong and people should “correct” them. Then you get ignorant people saying things like “they isn’t singular” or “I can’t get used to they/them and don’t like using it.” This creates a continuous debate on if trans people deserve to self-identify and generates constant micro-aggressions (or just full aggressions) against their entire community.
It’s really just a way for transphobes to create a hostile environment for trans people over literally nothing.
Your comment makes it clear there is confusion. To clear it up, using singular they to refer to a specific, known individual is never something Shakespeare did, and is a recent invention. It’s not transphobic to be grumpy about people trying to introduce a new usage for an existing word. People as a whole don’t like change.
When do you think it was first used in the manner?
I’m not sure, and I’d be interested in reading more from someone that actually has done their research and doesn’t claim that Shakespeare used singular they in that manner
If you’re not sure, and wouldn’t want to make a comment on it, why are you making a comment on it?
Sorry, I thought your question was asked in good faith. I’m commenting because the claim that Shakespeare used singular they to refer to a known, specific individual is factually incorrect. I don’t know the entire history of singular they, but I do have access to wikipedia just like you. It says ‘In the early 21st century, use of singular they with known individuals emerged for people who do not identify as male or female, as in, for example, “This is my friend, Jay. I met them at work.”’ Does that answer your question?
But that isn’t the only use case of “them” being singular.
And it’s embarrassing for you that you don’t know that.
Yeah, but you’re using it to mean “I don’t know which pronoun to use.” This is a different meaning than what’s being describes here.
What’s being described here is a person who decided that they don’t want to be referred to as he or she, and has chosen to make themselves plural instead of using the singular nongendered pronoun already present in English.
Since that is a grammatical error, and this is the internet, I am obligated to ridicule this person, regardless of how well their meaning is conveyed.
/s, by the way.
“instead of using the singular nongendered pronoun already present in English.”
Lmao. That shoulda given away the /s right there.
But uh, I think the pronoun you’re talking about there is “they.” 😜
Actually, I was referring to ‘it.’
People don’t like using it for people, because it’s traditionally only really used for objects (“It’s a chair!” ) or creatures where the gender isn’t identifiable or doesn’t matter (“It’s a bear!”) , but that’s the exact use case here.
A nonbinary person is a creature whose gender is either not identifiable or doesn’t matter.
People just decided that it meant nonbinary people were objects, when in reality we use it for objects because they were the only truly nonbinary concepts we had.
Some people like to be referred to as “it”, me included. It’s not super common though and generally something you don’t assume for obvious reasons.
So, to explain the German „sie/Sie“, it can be used as one of the following:
-
formal version of both singular and plural you: used whenever you have or want to maintain a distance from someone, or with persons who demand respect/authority. Generally speaking, whenever you would say Mr/Mrs/Ms it’s „Sie“, if you’re on first name terms it’s „Du“. Fun fact: addressing an LEO, judge, etc. informally („Du“) is considered an insult, insulting someone is a misdemeanour (not kidding) in Germany, and you will usually be fined on the spot for doing so.
-
Used to reference a woman/girl who has been mentioned before: What about Sally, is she coming today?
-
Same as above but for inanimate objects or animals that are gendered female: Have you seen my camera, I have misplaced her. Look at the cat, she’s so cute. (In this case it’s a cat of either female or unknown gender, if you were talking about a male cat specifically, you’d use the male version of „cat“…)
-
Same as above, but for all groups of people, animals, objects, regardless of gender, like plural they: Look at the guys/nuns/politicians/cats/helicopters, they’re drunk as fuck!
Great language, isn’t it.
Fun fact correction: if you happen to be Dieter Bohlen you are legally allowed to informally address everyone, including cops, and won’t be fined.
Yeah, that’s just the modern way of talking.
So if I can prove I’ve been duzing everyone my whole life, I can legally duz everyone?
In a nutshell, it’s like English’s they (plural animate or inanimate), it (for feminine objects, remember that german is a gendered language like french) she, and you (both singular and plural) combined.
Though, Sie meaning “you” is the polite version, used to address someone politely. For informal situations, there’s the impolite and always-singular “Du”
While there are different conjugations and capitalization between the different uses of Sie, in the end they all use the same word.
It’s not about politeness.
If you’re on first name terms, it’s extremely rude to switch back to the formal address. Like, „FYI whatever our relationship was, I just burned that“ rude.
And more and more, people who don’t know each other immediately skip the formal part. I personally find „Sie“ rude, and I’m using it only for people I don’t like.
So it’s not about politeness, it’s about not being rude?
Edit: rewrote everything because it’s actually easier than I was explaining it:
It’s not about being polite or rude, it’s an indicator of your relationship with the person/s you’re addressing.
It’s not like you can choose how you say something to set a certain tone. „Would you pass me the butter, please“ doesn’t get more polite using „Sie“.
Who you’re talking to defines what to use.
When you are introduced, it’s easy: „Hey Bob“ -> informal -> „Du“; „Hello Mrs. Robinson“ -> formal -> „Sie“. Mixing them up just doesn’t happen, except for very small children who sometimes use the informal „Du“ with „Mrs Krabappel“.
It only gets complicated because it also is used when you do not know each other, like on the street, at a restaurant, etc.
Then it’s a judgment call what to use depending on the context. Either there’s some social clue (age, location, class, etc.), or whoever goes first sets the tone, but it’s still pretty much along the lines of „would I call her Kathryn or Cpt. Janeway“.
-
What’s funny about those “grammar purist” people is singular “they” has been accepted common use in English for centuries, even older than singular “you”. For some reason society got it in our collective heads in the fairly recent past that it was improper grammar, though, and that’s what teachers often teach. I’m still not over my 5th grade teacher marking me down a point on an essay because I used singular “they”. You’re still wrong, Mrs. B.
Like many things, the damage was done by the British. Specifically one Bishop Robert Lowth. In 1762, he wrote a book of prescriptivist grammar rules starting with the premise that Latin is a perfect language, and any construction in English that doesn’t match Latin is a flaw. This is where those nonsense rules like “never end a sentence with a preposition” and “never split infinitives” come from, as well as the claim that the singular they (in common use at the time) should be phased out in favor of the generic he, because that’s what Latin does. The damage this one book did to the English language still has not been fully repaired.
Bring back thy/thine
You’re confusing two different usages. Singular they to refer to an unknown or undetermined person has centuries-old usage, yes. Using it to refer to a known single person is an invention of the last few years.
As somebody whose primary language is Dutch, the lack of an explicit plural “you” is one of the worst things.
If I’m talking to somebody, I can’t nicely refer to a group they are part of, because “you” means they themself specifically, “y’all” makes me feel like engineer TF2, and “you people” sounds condescending.
Just use y’all, it’s great
Y’all is good, all y’all is better.
You could say “you lot” like our British friends.
“All of you.”
…all y’all
…stateside it’s regional whether folks use ‘you all’, ‘you guys’, or something more-specific to address plural groups…
deleted by creator
Yeah, but that’s also an issue with “you”. I’d say make a new pronoun but that’s a whole other set of pains (e.g. I don’t like xe/xem because it looks bad, doesn’t fit with standard english. ze/zem is better or even something like ke or ge).
Hell, I’d be all for moving to an official constructed language for international communication but that’s a whole other other set of problems (who makes it, what should it be based on and how do we make it fair, how to get people to use it).
Basically there’s no good solution to language problems because prescriptivism doesn’t work and all languages suck in some ways.
For “you”, I’m glad I speak a dialect/accent with " y’all" so I don’t even run into that issue on the daily.
They is not just used to refer to singular people when they don’t use he/she pronouns. It’s literally been used as singular for hundreds of years.
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002748.html
deleted by creator
You can always use context clues. For example you go they for singular and they all for group.
deleted by creator
“all of them”
“them all”
We can adapt.
Yep agreed, the point was that people will tend towards the shorter “them” first, which may cause some initial confusion followed shortly with a “oh I meant them (singular)/ all of them”. Again thats really the only real " issue if you can call it that even to using the singular “they”
Yall
Too informal sounding for all situations.
I hate English, it’s also the only language I’m fluent in, so it’s a love/hate relationship.
The disconnect that most people mistake here is between direct and indirect pronouns. Until recently, they/them has been used indirectly, to refer to someone who isn’t present. To use it while they’re present is uncomfortable for many not because it’s supposed to be plural, but because it’s supposed to be indirect. The only time you would (previously) say they/them in the presence of the individual in question, is to disregard them. An effort to make them irrelevant, like, I care so little about you that I’m not even going to recognise your presence.
They/them is very common as a singular pronoun. There’s a ton of good examples of it being used in this way in this thread.
The thing I love/hate about English is that it adapts to how people use it, and right now, we’re adapting they/them to be direct singular, instead of exclusively indirect singular. Unfortunately everyone knows this on some level, and while many are crying about it being plural (not understanding why it makes them uncomfortable), while it’s definitely not, it is indirect, and the non-binary folks have asked us to use it as a direct singular for them (which I support).
IMO, this is a change that can, and by all means, should happen.
The hate of English for me is when perfectly good under-used terms have their definition applied to more commonly (albeit incorrectly) used words, a prime example of this is jealous. Historically it has meant: fiercely protective or vigilant of one’s rights or possessions. Which, when applied to a relationship, results in the other definition for jealousy: feeling or showing suspicion of someone’s unfaithfulness in a relationship. However, people have used jealous under it’s newest definition for a while now, which is: feeling or showing envy of someone or their achievements and advantages. Which as the definition clearly shows, it’s simply a showing of envy, or the act of being envious. The problem I have is that this legitimizes the incorrect use of the word, when we have another word that already means that… Envious. One word co-opting the definition of another is simply a demonstration of the lazy nature of English speakers. We would rather redefine the commonly, and incorrectly used term than learn and use the correct one.
When it comes to they/them, there is no direct singular ungendered term for an individual besides “you”, which will always refer to the person being spoken to. So a new term, or a new definition of an existing term is required. Non-binary people seem to have unanimously agreed that the terms that they want to adapt for this purpose is they and them. I’m fully in support of this, and while it may be uncomfortable for people to adapt to this new usage, it’s something that should be done, and IMO, will be done.
Alternatively, we could co-opt a new word, either entirely unique, or derived from another language, for the direct singular ungendered person. This would probably be more comfortable for the more cis-normative population, but bluntly, getting all of the non-binary people, or at least the majority of them, to agree to the use of the new word, whatever it is, would be challenging at the very least, and it may, in a worst case, be rather insulting to those who prefer they/them, who wouldn’t want to change that just to appease some gendered people who are uncomfortable with they/them. It’s a valid option, but not one that I believe is viable.
On top of that, these are the pronouns they have chosen. As a matter of respect for your fellow humans, we should let the non-binary people choose the words that they would like to use for their pronouns. Something which they have already done, and those terms are they/them. If we, as a species, have any respect for eachother at all, we’ll respect that decision, and adapt, regardless of the temporary discomfort we may have about it in the interim.
deleted by creator
It’s not change itself that I hate, it’s when the change makes language less useful. Example, “literally” meaning its opposite, “figuratively,” through common misuse. “It was literally the million-dollar question” used to mean that it was a question that, if answered, would actually be worth a million dollars rather than figuratively meaning it was an important one to answer. Now it’s unclear.
deleted by creator
Care to give examples?
deleted by creator
No, examples of words that mean two opposite things at the same time, since you apparently said that every single word in existence has always been that way. “Bad” comes to mind, though it’s a lot easier to tell from context which meaning it has compared to “literally.”
Another non-english example would be the german word “umfahren” which can mean both driving around or over something, depending on context
deleted by creator
I like you, you get me. Adapting the language to serve the common denominator isn’t great since the common denominator is generally an idiot. We, as a people, are fairly stupid on the whole. Codifying the literal opposite of a word into that words definition is reducing the clarity of the language, requiring further clarification for the uncertainty, suddenly a relatively terse statement becomes a long unwieldy mess of clarifications for all the idiosyncrasies of the words, since the words have so many contradictory meanings that the statement can be interpreted in any number of ways, instead of how it was intended.
Over time, the common meaning of terms has been diluted to the point where most statements need clarifying context to even be correctly understood.
deleted by creator
Or extensive, originally meant spread out, but is also used for comprehensive.
I don’t disagree with you, but the changes I tend to have a problem with, as samus12345 pointed out, is that it robs the statement of clarity. I just want language, any language, to be as specific as it can, so that misunderstandings are minimized because the words used have specific definitions, which are all similar. Instead of the contradictory definitions many words seem to have.
It’s by far not the majority of words that have this problem, but it’s definitely a non-trivial number of them that do.
deleted by creator
Another more cultural issue is the fact that there WAS a movement to create a new direct genderless pronoun, xe/xem. However, those who are hateful or resist this study of change to the language made a mockery of it.
People are always going to resist and mock, not on the word choice, but that it represents something that they hate.
my language doesn’t have gendered pronouns so we just use “siya” for singular they and “sila” for plural.
I’m curious what other languages specify if “they” is singular or plural and how?
If you are curious I wrote several paragraphs about German gendered language:
I find it interesting how gendered German is. In contrast, in my language the default for a word is gender neutral. you have to state the gender if you want to specify it, and you only do that if the gender is relevant e.g. “the driver handed me my change” would be “inabot sakin ng tsuper yung sukli ko”, but if you said “inabot sakin ng babaeng tsuper yung sukli ko” which means “the female driver handed me my change” then that means the gender of the driver is of relevance to the conversation.
an exception I can think of is spanish loanwords like “tindero/tindera” which is more commonly used to refer to shopkeepers and vendors here. we also use “ate/kuya”(sister/brother) when we talk to strangers e.g. “kuya alam nyo po kung saan yung pinakamalapit na sakayan ng dyip?” meaning “excuse me sir, do you know where the nearest jeepney terminal is?”.
overall, I find it interesting to look into languages with different ways of using things that seem complicated to me. really makes me think what “foreigners” might think is complicated in my language that I take for granted.
So in your language it is the same as in English? I’m happy English is relatively ungendered.
…english has it but for some reason folks feel more dehumanised by gender-neutral solitary agency than by gender-ambiguous collective emergency…
when you realize they singular was sjw invented
Actually it’s older than people think. Shakespeare used it for stuff like “Every knight grabbed their sword”, and even for talking about a specific person it’s not a new phenomenon to use singular they if the gender doesn’t matter (so I was told in a linguistics sub over on r*ddit when I insisted it was new)
The only new thing is that people say, it’s their prefered pronoun.
See my other comments in this thread, but Shakespeare did not use singular they to refer to a specific, known person. That is a new invention.
I inserted a comma to make my meaning more clear, I hope. I’m not a native speaker so sorry if it was ambiguous
TIL sjws invented a part of language… half a millennia ago.
Wouldn’t that just make it… part of the language at this point?
Removed by mod
My language kinda sucks because we don’t have a singular they :(
invent one
I hope we do eventually. The lack of it is a serious pain in the ass.
I’m pretty sure plenty of singular theys have been invented in your language. It’s just that it’s not widely used at all and people would never understand you if you try to use it in a sentence.
In German I heard dei (like they, but with a d sound)
Clearly, we need more pronouns. Maybe something called, idk… neopronouns
“Where’s Bobby?”
“They went to the store.”
Is just as grammatically correct as “He went to the store” or “At the store.”
thankfully Chinese has always had a singular they, “他.”
for your convenience:
- 我: I, 我們: we
- 你: you, 妳: feminine you, 你們: plural you
- 他: he or sing. they, 她: she, 他們 plural they
by the way, 他 used to be he, she, or sing. they. the usage of 她 as she and 妳 as you (for females) is relatively recent. even now, you could replace all the ones with a “女” on its left with its “亻” counterpart and no one will say a thing. they are also pronounced identically.
Isn’t “You” always singular? The words it’s accompanied by make the overall statement plural. Like “you guys” or “you all”. My brain might be slow this morning, but I can’t think of any instance where it’s plural without an accompanying word.
Youused to be just second person plural,thouwas second person singular. At some point,thoufell out of favour and we started using justyouAlright, I can think of a few instances given that context. Funny how it’s original usage is now relatively uncommon.
You can see it’s still grammatically plural even when used as a singular with the other words that go around it too. “You are” instead of the singular “is”.
It can even make singular things kinda behave like they’re plurals. Like “The Lemmy user is posting comments” vs. “you, the Lemmy user are posting comments”
Back in the day it was “thou art posting comments” (singular) and “ye are posting comments”(plural). With “ye” becoming “you” over time. Although they also had more funky letters like ȝ and þ and stuff.
Nope, you can be 2nd person plural. You can refer to a group of people as “you”
For example, imagine a security guard saying to a group of shoppers “you need to leave the store”.
When you really need to make sure everyone knows you’re speaking to them.
