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
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