Pronoun drama in /r/todayilearned when a user decides that using "they" to refer to a single person is wrong and he/she/it refuses to do so (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
19 ups - 12 downs = 7 votes
76 comments submitted at 06:49:23 on May 2, 2014 by awrf
>> Haha, wow. You're ridiculous. That's right. Dictionaries, literature and centuries of active use in the language are wrong because you've decided.
> You're ridiculous.
Love everything about it.
Good side point about "y'all" and "youse" in there. Despite there being a stigma associated with it (seen as a redneck or a blockhead) there really isn't a better way in English to directly address a group. Many other languages have this (the vostros pronoun in Spanish for example), I don't know why people have such an issue with it.
What does vostros mean? I looked it up, but the Wiktionary entry didn't explain how it was different from just saying you/yours.
Vosotros is you (plural, like you all/y'all), and is used primarily in Spain, while other Spanish-speaking countries use ustedes, iirc.
tu / su - you
vosotros - you all
Post also features an appearance by /u/david-me, whose thread, while mostly not being drama worthy on its own, shows him educating others on how to deal with gendered pronouns with empathy.
Oui! I'm all over the thread. don't mind me. Thanks for the username mention. I think I'll stop now anyhow.
Huh. I was taught that originally "you" was formal and "thou" was informal. TIL.
You were taught correctly, though slightly incompletely. In many Indo-European languages, the formal second person is the same as the plural, usted in Spanish, Sie in German, vy in Russian, Czech, etc. This was true in English, too.
Interesting fact: in Irish, we used to used the second person plural, sibh, as the formal second person singular pronoun instead of the informal/current which is tú, but that's long gone from the language.
However, sibh continued on as an address for the priest for a while after the this feature left the language, not because the priest was particularly esteemed (though he was in Irish society in the past), but because there was a possibility that he might be carrying the Eucharist, in which case you would be addressing both him & Jesus.
Anyway, this whole thing of having a different second person pronoun for formal means is called the T-V distinction, presumably after the French.
>However, sibh continued on as an address for the priest for a while after the this feature left the language, not because the priest was particularly esteemed (though he was in Irish society in the past), but because there was a possibility that he might be carrying the Eucharist, in which case you would be addressing both him & Jesus.
Interesting. It's fun to see archaic grammatical features get lexicalized in specific contexts. Religious language seems to be a common place for it - in English, for example we have brothers as the regular plural of brother, except for the retention of the more Germanic brethren in church contexts (it's still used in other organizations, but not as commonly).
Historical linguistics is neat.
It started off as thou for singular, you for plural, then gradually shifted to thou for informal, you for formal, and then we moved to what we have today, which is only "you" in standard usage, for all contexts. (in most dialects, anyway. A small number still use "thou" in certain contexts, such as speaking to children.)
Singular they is a longstanding part of English, in use for hundreds of years. People who bitch about it are ignoramuses who uncritically swallowed the prescriptivist bullshit a teacher fed them in grade school.
Tangentially, it seems like it ought to serve as a neutral pronoun, but it's dispreferred for people (and some animals, pets in my experience). My hypothesis is that there's a covert animacy category in the English syntax, which only finds expression in this case, unlike, say, Russian where's there's a reasonably robust and overt animacy category (for singular masculine nouns, at least).
>Your opinion is different from mine, therefore you are stupid
Thanks for that valuable insight.
>>Your opinion is different from mine, therefore you are stupid >Thanks for that valuable insight.
Your opinion is contrary to centuries of documented language usage by native speakers of English from multiple anglophone countries. It's demonstrably incorrect to say that singular they is ungrammatical. Your opinion is contrary to the world as it is. It is wrong.
I never called you stupid. I called you an ignoramus, an utterly ignorant person. I've no reason to doubt you're able to incorporate new information into your beliefs, and thus hold a correct opinion. If you'd prefer people think of you as stupid, I'm willing to do that for you, though.
>Your opinion is contrary to centuries of documented language usage by native speakers of English from multiple anglophone countries. It's demonstrably incorrect to say that singular they is ungrammatical. Your opinion is contrary to the world as it is. It is wrong.
You seem to have mistaken my argument for "that's not the way people do/have done it". My actual argument is "that's not the way people should do it". See, because that's what opinions, as you correctly called it, are. Not assertions of fact, but assertions of preferability.
>correct opinion
Whoaaaaa, there, buddy. Opinions can be correct or incorrect? That's not the One True Way Of Descriptivism…
>You seem to have mistaken my argument for "that's not the way people do/have done it". My actual argument is "that's not the way people should do it". See, because that's what opinions, as you correctly called it, are. Not assertions of fact, but assertions of preferability.
No, I understand your point. You're wrong, though. The rules of a language are determined dynamically and collectively by the community of speakers of that language. You're very obviously out of step with most speakers of English, both currently and historically. Your personal pet peeves are utterly meaningless unless shared by a significant group of speakers, and outside a limited world of prescriptive grammarians pulling their peeves from their ass and citing them as preferable, nobody thinks singular they is wrong.
>Whoaaaaa, there, buddy. Opinions can be correct or incorrect? That's not the One True Way Of Descriptivism…
I don't think you understand what linguistic descriptivism means.
>The rules of a language are determined dynamically and collectively by the community of speakers of that language.
And when some of the community advocates for a change to the language, it's automatically wrong, and the actual merits need not be examined. Neat.
>I don't think you understand what linguistic descriptivism means.
Sure I do. It means anything anyone does is valid — unless the "descriptivists" have decided otherwise.
>Sure I do. It means anything anyone does is valid — unless the "descriptivists" have decided otherwise.
You could've saved yourself a lot of typing by saying "No, I do not understand what linguistic descriptivism means."
I have had it amply demonstrated to me on multiple occasions (amongst which is today) that it's just another form of telling people they can't, because we said so.
You're basically articulating what prescriptivism is, which is also what you're advocating. Language is defined by how people use it, and this is changing all the time. There is no "proper" way to speak a given language -- in every language of which I'm aware, the "proper" way of speaking is the prestige dialect of the ~~previous~~ older generation.
>You're basically articulating what prescriptivism is
I know I am. That's why I find it so hilarious to see so-called "descriptivists" railing against things in the exact way they claim to be too superior to even think of doing.
>which is also what you're advocating
I'm not. I'm advocating making a change, not holding back change.
>There is no "proper" way to speak a given language
And where did I say one thing was "proper" and another not?
More Comments - Click Here
K.
Always glad to see someone able to admit when he's run dry mentally.
I like singular they because you don't need to give an explanation on it like you would with any constructed pronoun. I've also found that people who have serious objections to it tend to be people I don't want to spend time around for various reasons; so it also makes a nice social litmus test.
I use "he" for a general person of indeterminate sex for exactly the same reason.
As a person who dislikes the practice of using "he" as the default gender, I genuinely appreciate your choice. Saves us both time!
Fight the good fight, friend. (Note: Choosing "she" as the default can be fun too…)
This is like refusing to use "you" as a second-person plural pronoun because it's the same word as second-person singular. Absolutely stupid.
Were there a viable alternative, I'd prefer it. Sadly, there isn't.
On the other hand, using the same thing regardless of number is perfectly cool, right? Therefore we should all start accepting "we" instead of "I". After all, that way you can forget one more stupid pronoun, and it promotes inclusivity, right? We're glad we all agree on that. Now excuse us while we get a soda.
They for third person plural:
[x] used by many (even most, though I dare not say) speakers of the language for hundreds of years
[ ] something you made up to be snarky
We for first person plural:
[ ] used by many (even most, though I dare not say) speakers of the language for hundreds of years
[x] something you made up to be snarky
Yep, these cases are precisely the same.
Fallacy of argument from tradition? Check.
Haha! You really know nothing about linguistics, do you? Language is determined by usage. The usage of they as a singular third person pronoun is a current reality & has been a reality for a long, long time. How else do you think languages develop, apart from through usage?
You have given no case for why they is improper. Your only argument is that another pronoun would disambiguate the situation. But there are a few points to take on board.
There is literally another pronoun that has this singular/plural ambiguity that is completely uncontroversial.
Just because you have particular trouble working out whether they is being used singularly or plurally doesn't mean a new standard is necessary. Context is a part of communication & people use it very well in a wide variety of different cases related to words sounding the same or looking the same when written down.
>You really know nothing about linguistics, do you?
I know it considers itself immune to the intellectual rigors other disciplines must adhere to…
>Language is determined by usage.
It is. That doesn't mean all sets of usages are equally useful or desirable.
>The usage of they as a singular third person pronoun is a current reality & has been a reality for a long, long time.
So what?
>How else do you think languages develop, apart from through usage?
Usage doesn't exist in a vacuum, nor is it justification for itself.
>You have given no case for why they is improper. Your only argument is that another pronoun would disambiguate the situation.
Yes, that's exactly my argument. This is not about what people currently do, or have ever done. This is about what is better. And I am advocating the position that getting rid of "singular they" would be better than keeping it.
>There is literally
…LIDDURULY!…
>another pronoun that has this singular/plural ambiguity that is completely uncontroversial.
So what?
>Just because you have particular trouble working out whether they is being used singularly or plurally doesn't mean a new standard is necessary. Context is a part of communication & people use it very well in a wide variety of different cases related to words sounding the same or looking the same when written down.
Therefore all words should be muddied together, because, hey, people will figger it out, amirite? I mean, who cares about language anyway? Screw it!
Out of interest, why do you deign to speak English when you could speak something like Lojban, if ambiguity makes you so uncomfortable?
> I know it considers itself immune to the intellectual rigors other disciplines must adhere to…
Care to explain what you're talking about?
> It is. That doesn't mean all sets of usages are equally useful or desirable.
It sort of does. If something is used by a significant part of the population, that means it's understood by a significant part of the population, which makes it inherently useful &, by extension, desirable.
> Yes, that's exactly my argument. This is not about what people currently do, or have ever done. This is about what is better. And I am advocating the position that getting rid of "singular they" would be better than keeping it.
On what grounds? Again, pretty much everyone is able to simply discern what singular they means in context. The same way as English speakers discern here from hear in spoken language & discern the difference between set as a verb & set as a noun. Why do we need to change the convention for they because you have trouble disambiguating?
>> The usage of they as a singular third person pronoun is a current reality & has been a reality for a long, long time.
> So what?
This means that it's clearly workable & not ambiguous when taken together with context.
> …LIDDURULY!…
I don't even know. What's wrong with me using the word literally there?
> So what?
Well, how do you feel about you? Should that be changed too? Do you use you as the plural second person pronoun? I'm sure someone as careful to be unambiguous as you (when you're not speaking Lojban), uses y'all, yous or ye.
> Therefore all words should be muddied together, because, hey, people will figger it out, amirite? I mean, who cares about language anyway? Screw it!
Where did I express this "all words should be muddied together" sentiment? You think that because I don't actively want to pressure the English language into changing to remove homophones & the like, rather than, you know, just letting is evolve in the manner it's been doing for hundreds of years, that I don't care about language. Fair enough, but I really don't follow your reasoning.
>>I know it considers itself immune to the intellectual rigors other disciplines must adhere to…
>Care to explain what you're talking about?
Ooh, I can probably help there! /u/Atario thinks that language is a scientific discipline that can have rules set about it when then must be adhered to by everyone who speaks that language, instead of just a study of human behavior that attempts to define the rules that naturally come about and are constantly changing!
It's not argument from tradition, it's argument from examining actual facts about human language use in the world over time, as opposed to applying arbitrary rules someone decided to pull out of their ass. Otherwise known as having a basic idea what one's talking about.
It's exactly argument from tradition. People have done it for a long time, therefore people should keep doing it forever. Pretty much the textbook definition.
You would be wrong. If someone said, "it's happened therefore right" then that would be an argument from tradition. What is being said is "Language is determined by use. People use this construction, therefore the communicative function of language is meant and as such right".
No, it's an analysis of the actual state of affairs that exists, treating language as what it actually is, an organically developed communication system the rules for which are dynamically determined by the community of speakers. When we look at the history, it's to see what the community of speakers has been doing diachronically which helps us analyze trends over time and see how firmly rooted a given feature is in the language.
And apparently advocating for changes to that communication system is not "organic" and therefore to be disallowed.
> And apparently advocating for changes to that communication system is not "organic" and therefore to be disallowed.
Certainly not. Calling the use of they as a third person singular pronoun "wrong" is, well, wrong, since it is correct according to the common usage of the word by those who actually speak the language. It's also perfectly grammatical.
Edit: according to
Tautological statement is tautological. Usage A is right because people use it; people can use it because it's right.
More Comments - Click Here
>And apparently advocating for changes to that communication system is not "organic" and therefore to be disallowed.
So, you acknowledge that the current state of affairs is such that singular they is correct, and you're advocating for a change. Thank you.
Advocating for changing grammars not disallowed. It's just that it requires the assent of a critical mass of the individuals in the speech community. And you really can't force that, unless you have something like a national language academy and the force of law behind you. And even then, you're just pissing into the wind, because people say whatever they want to anyway.
I think we've more or less established that your full of shit here.
>So, you acknowledge that the current state of affairs is such that singular they is correct, and you're advocating for a change. Thank you.
Wrong. I acknowledge that a lot of people do it. You are the one saying usage implies superiority.
>you really can't force that
Good thing I never proposed forcing it, then.
>I think we've more or less established that your full of shit here.
Projection is so ugly.
More Comments - Click Here
SnapShot
(mirror | open source | create your own snapshots)
"...but you have to pick your battles."
I love that the battle chosen resulted in great grammar drama. Brava!
"Great"? Pretty weak, really. I have arguments this "greatly dramatic" regularly. Welcome to the Internet, I suppose…
This guy created not one but two alt accounts when banned. He just absolutely cannot not have the last word. Love it.