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
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.