The Singular 'They': A Linguistic Debate

[Vanadium 50]

We use the generic "he" in place of "they," which is used as a placeholder in cases when there may be plurals.

We used to use "thou" for the second person singular.

It's fine not to want to adopt this use of "they". But "we've always done it this way" is neither true nor useful.

We used to say:
"Hwæt. We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon."

Today we would say (translation by Maurice Sagoff):

"Monster Grendel's tastes are plainish,
Breakfast? Just a couple Danish."

 

[Drakkith]

We use the generic "he" in place of "they," which is used as a placeholder in cases when there may be plurals.

Who are you referring to when you say "we"? I'm 36 years old and I have been using "they" at least as often as "he" in this context, and have probably been using it far more often. Using "he" actually sounds a little strange and if someone used it I would be expecting to find a male instead of recognizing that it is supposed to be neutral.

 

[melissaa]

Linguists study what language does.
They don't tell language what to do.

Well said
I don't really like the idea in the essay either.

 

[vela]

I don't really like the idea in the essay either.

Why not?

 

[atyy]

It has always bugged me that when writing the English language and trying to use pronouns for a singular individual of whose gender is not immediately apparent, the use of the male pronoun (e.g. he, his, etc.) has been considered the default "neutral" pronoun, when in fact that is frankly disingenous.

Singular "they" is fine, but it should not be considered disingenuous to use "he" as a neutral pronoun either. One should simply try to understand what people mean.

 

[AndreasC]

Singular they isn't ungrammatical, it has been used for a very long time. It is even used in Shakespeare.

 

[AndreasC]

Or even worse: "I fully agree with Mark. They is (are?) simply right."

They are. It's simple. I don't see the need for confusion. In most languages I know you has a plural and a singular form. In English it doesn't. Also the second person plural form of the verb to be is usually different. In English it is not. Do you find these incredibly confusing when using "you are"? No? Then I don't see why you should find singular "they are" incredibly confusing. It's a quite natural form that has been used for a really long time.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Singular "they" is fine, but it should not be considered disingenuous to use "he" as a neutral pronoun either. One should simply try to understand what people mean.

I disagree (as does Jeff Rosenthal in his essay). The use of language has an effect on the broader society (and vice versa). By using the male pronoun "he" as a neutral pronoun, we in broader society could be unconsciously reinforcing gender stereotypes.

For example, consider the sentence "The average physicist earns $80000 per year. So he lives comfortably compared to his other fellow workers." Because historically STEM fields like physics was (and often still is) male-dominated, by writing the sentence as above you may be unwittingly reinforcing the notion that STEM fields are for men only.

The use of the singular "they", while not without issues of its own, can largely prevent such reinforcement of stereotypes. And it feels more natural to use "they", given its use historically, rather than attempt to invent new pronouns.

 

[hmmm27]

For example, consider the sentence "The average physicist earns $80000 per year. So he lives comfortably compared to his other fellow workers."

Or, "The average physicist earns $80,000 per year, living comfortably in comparison to fellow workers". Which, also has some (unrelated) problems, but relieves the reader of having to mentally compensate (or not) for mis/disgenderization. The point being to keep ambiguous usage minimized.

A sci-fi novel recently read, I noticed that characters used their own gender pronouns for aspecific contexts. A man would refer to a third-party agenderic as "he"; a woman, "she".

(I don't recall explicitly non-binary characters in his writings yet, which of course doesn't preclude same, just the lack of importance of that characteristic to the story)

 

[AndreasC]

I disagree (as does Jeff Rosenthal in his essay). The use of language has an effect on the broader society (and vice versa). By using the male pronoun "he" as a neutral pronoun, we in broader society could be unconsciously reinforcing gender stereotypes.

For example, consider the sentence "The average physicist earns $80000 per year. So he lives comfortably compared to his other fellow workers." Because historically STEM fields like physics was (and often still is) male-dominated, by writing the sentence as above you may be unwittingly reinforcing the notion that STEM fields are for men only.

The use of the singular "they", while not without issues of its own, can largely prevent such reinforcement of stereotypes. And it feels more natural to use "they", given its use historically, rather than attempt to invent new pronouns.

I've noticed that one of my professors specifically always uses "she", I guess to kind of counteract the stereotype. Unfortunately in Greek there isn't a similar option to using "they", since it is a very strongly gendered language, even third person plural is gendered. Hell, even "nobody" is gendered, which doesn't even make sense if you think about it.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Hell, even "nobody" is gendered, which doesn't even make sense if you think about it.

It only doesn't make sense if you require that grammatical gender match biological gender. If you take the broader view that grammatical gender is a specific example of a noun class, the problem goes away. There is no need to tie them together, or even to have grammatical gender at all.

Another example is singular/plural. Not all languages do it the way English does. Arabic, for example, has singular/dual/plural. French has a remnant of this with seconde vs. deuxieme.

Other languages have different noun classes. Algonquin languages, for example, distinguish between animate and inanimate. You can see a bit of that in English, where "my shoulder" is correct, but "the shoulder of me" sounds odd. Or (although for different reasons), "pig" vs. "pork".

Italian has nouns that change gender when pluralized. "l'osso", "le ossa" (bones), "il dito", "le dita" (fingers).

English has a few residual vestiges of grammatical gender outside of pronouns. Ships and other vessels as "she" is the most well-known. There are a few words that take different forms when describing men or women, e.g. widow/widower. And of course borrowed words like fiance/fiancee.

 

[atyy]

I disagree (as does Jeff Rosenthal in his essay). The use of language has an effect on the broader society (and vice versa). By using the male pronoun "he" as a neutral pronoun, we in broader society could be unconsciously reinforcing gender stereotypes.

For example, consider the sentence "The average physicist earns $80000 per year. So he lives comfortably compared to his other fellow workers." Because historically STEM fields like physics was (and often still is) male-dominated, by writing the sentence as above you may be unwittingly reinforcing the notion that STEM fields are for men only.

The use of the singular "they", while not without issues of its own, can largely prevent such reinforcement of stereotypes. And it feels more natural to use "they", given its use historically, rather than attempt to invent new pronouns.

You could be, but not everyone, and not everyone who has ever used it that way. It is not good to deliberately misunderstand people.

 

[Mark44]

Do you find these incredibly confusing when using "you are"? No? Then I don't see why you should find singular "they are" incredibly confusing.

It's not the form of the verb that I was talking about -- it's the use of "they" when the antecedent is a single person.

 

[DaveC426913]

Not sure what's wrong with 's/he'. Pronounced sh-he, or even h-she it's pretty much one syllable.

 

[hmmm27]

Not sure what's wrong with 's/he'. Pronounced sh-he, or even h-she it's pretty much one syllable.

Oh, okay ; I had wondered about that in a couple of your previous posts, whether it was oral as well as written.

 

[AndreasC]

It only doesn't make sense if you require that grammatical gender match biological gender.

Right, but it does match biological gender in that type of usage in Greek, that's why it is not just that there is a single form but there are male, female and neutral (used only for objects and animals, not for people) form of the word nobody. The only cases where it is clear which you are supposed to use is when, for example, you are trying to say that none of the women you saw knew, or that none of the men showed up, or that you didn't find any dogs, etc. But you're stuck with the genders anyways, so people usually use the male form if it is ambiguous.

Another confusing thing is the gendered third person plural. I don't think there has been a single native Greek speaker who has never been momentarily confused about which form to use while referring to a group of people with mixed gender.

Overall idk how gender ended up that way in Greek but it's sometimes awkward even for native speakers. Ancient Greek actually also had dual, plus something analogous to dativ in German. I guess I'm glad it's not as confusing as it used to be!

 

[AndreasC]

It's not the form of the verb that I was talking about -- it's the use of "they" when the antecedent is a single person.

That is what I am talking about too. You said "they is?" in your post though.

 

[Mark44]

That is what I am talking about too. You said "they is?" in your post though.

Here's what I wrote way back in January:

Or even worse: "I fully agree with Mark. They is (are?) simply right."

The verb should agree with the subject. The implied subject, from the first sentence, is Mark. Instead of using any pronoun in the second sentence, one would write, "Mark is simply right." Since a pronoun is simply a placeholder for an unnamed person or thing, it seems to me that the verb should not shift from a singular form to a plural form.

A sentence that says, "They are simply right" would imply, without further context, that two or more members of some group are correct.

 

[DrClaude]

The verb should agree with the subject. The implied subject, from the first sentence, is Mark. Instead of using any pronoun in the second sentence, one would write, "Mark is simply right." Since a pronoun is simply a placeholder for an unnamed person or thing, it seems to me that the verb should not shift from a singular form to a plural form.

A sentence that says, "They are simply right" would imply, without further context, that two or more members of some group are correct.

I completely disagree. As a French speaker, it is natural for me that the verb follows the pronoun, even if it is a plural pronoun designating a single person.

 

[AndreasC]

The verb should agree with the subject

Not in the sense you imply. Many languages (for instance German or my native Greek) have more polite forms for second person singular which utilize plural forms. In Greek it is replaced by second person plural, in German by third person plural (sort of, it's the same but the first letter is capitalised). I know many other languages utilize similar forms, these are just the ones I am most familiar with. In both of these cases, the verb doesn't agree with what you call the implied subject.

Something similar has also existed in English for a long time (and I am not just talking about singular they, which, as has already been said, is even found in Shakespeare). It is the "royal we", or "majestic plural": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we

Anyways, language prescriptivism is a very flawed idea overall. However singular they isn't even a neologism.

 

[Mark44]

I completely disagree. As a French speaker, it is natural for me that the verb follows the pronoun, even if it is a plural pronoun designating a single person.

Does this happen in any case other than second person, with the difference between tu (familiar) and vous (polite)? The distinction between familiar form and polite form holds in Spanish and other Romance languages, as well as in Russian and other Slavic languages.

Not in the sense you imply. Many languages (for instance German or my native Greek) have more polite forms for second person singular which utilize plural forms.

Addressed above. Other than English, in which some are attempting to replace he or she with they, I'm not aware of any languages in which third-person plural is used in place of third-person singular.

 

[AndreasC]

Other than English, in which some are attempting to replace he or she with they, I'm not aware of any languages in which third-person plural is used in place of third-person singular.

So? I don't see the point. Your assertion was that the verb has to agree with the implied subject. Except there are many forms in many languages including English where that doesn't happen.

I'm not aware of any languages other than German where second person singular is replaced with third person plural, does that mean that German is wrong?

And again, singular they is NOT a neologism, so you shouldn't pretend like it is. It's only about a century younger than plural they.

 

[Mark44]

So? I don't see the point. Your assertion was that the verb has to agree with the implied subject.

I gave my reasoning in post #53, part of which is copied below.

The implied subject, from the first sentence, is Mark. Instead of using any pronoun in the second sentence, one would write, "Mark is simply right." Since a pronoun is simply a placeholder for an unnamed person or thing, it seems to me that the verb should not shift from a singular form to a plural form.

And again, singular they is NOT a neologism, so you shouldn't pretend like it is.

Months ago I said that I didn't care that it had been used one or more centuries ago - my argument is about grammar logic: i.e., that a plural pronoun should not be used to refer to a single person, particularly for third person pronouns.

 

[AndreasC]

I gave my reasoning in post #53, part of which is copied below.

Yes, and I explained why it is wrong in my posts...

my argument is about grammar logic

There is no such thing as "grammar logic". There are rules and exceptions to the rules, and they are all post hoc additions to codify the way language is used and understood. The primary thing is how language is used and understood, not the rules. It's like blaming observed reality for not being in accordance to physical prediction. It is confusing to me why second person plural and singular should be the same form, but that doesn't mean the "grammar logic" of English is broken. I guess it might have been if such a thing existed.

 

[Mark44]

Yes, and I explained why it is wrong in my posts...

And I don't buy your explanation. BTW, I'm done here.

 

[AndreasC]

And I don't buy your explanation. BTW, I'm done here.

OK, so instead of reiterating yours, why don't you express your disagreement and address the point I made?