In the discussion of a funny misplay in the card game Hearthstone, someone has an issue with using "their" as a gender neutral pronoun (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
57 ups - 21 downs = 36 votes
82 comments submitted at 10:33:21 on May 13, 2014 by mynameistoey
Damned right, the singular-they is an abomination and whoever uses it should be spanked. So sayeth The Book of Rage
What singular gender neutral pronoun do you prefer then? I kind of like singular they because it has quite a big basis in history.
Singular-they does not have a basis in history. It has a basis in cases where no one minds such as with words like "anybody" or "somebody". People who complain about the singular-they don't mind those cases. Using those cases to show historic use is a giant fucking straw-man.
English has a gender neutral pronoun, 'it', what you mean is gender-unspecified. "it" communicates a lack of gender or even personhood. I think "he or she" works fine though.
You appear to be making a category error where you erroneously believe that scholars and linguists are the ones who guide and shape language as it develops. The number one rule of linguistics is that what is popular is language. "They" as a gender neutral singular pronoun has been in common usage for quite some time and has seen a recent surge in usage correlated with the large increase in non-binary gender discussion. People like it, people use it, and it fits with the rest of the language. You're simply going to have to deal with that.
Some examples for you, a couple nearly five centuries old: http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/sgtheirl.html#kjvph23
Notably, the Shakespeare example is exactly how singular they is used today.
You're not required to use singular they, but it's perfectly correct.
> It has a basis in cases where no one minds such as with words like "anybody" or "somebody". People who complain about the singular-they don't mind those cases
Every single one of those cases is with "anyone", "nobody" and "no one" etc, no one ever complained about those uses of the singular they. It's a straw man, nothing more.
I'm not complaining about "everybody gets what they deserve" and similar sentences. I'm complaining about sentences like "this reddit user gets what they deserve.", see the difference?
You're complaining about a perfectly valid use of they/their. Using the singular form doesn't bother the rest of the english speaking world, why does it bother you?
>Singular-they does not have a basis in history.
TIL words like band-aid, internet and redditor aren't real words because they're too new.
Fascinating.
Either they are ignorant of this extremely common usage or they are just a troll. If the former I don't understand their aversion to the usage, probably just their stubborness mixed with arrogance. If they are just a troll, well whatever floats their boat I guess. Then again, perhaps their educational system failed them or english is their second language and they still need to learn.
Don't you know Shakespeare used singular they?
The case where they agrees with anybody & everybody is pretty obviously a case of the singular-they. It might feel different to you, but it's definitely singular.
> It has a basis in cases where no one minds
& if you & another few people would simply stop minding, then no one would mind. Meanwhile, the rest of the majority of English speakers will do as we see fit.
> The case where they agrees with anybody & everybody is pretty obviously a case of the singular-they. It might feel different to you, but it's definitely singular.
Call it what you want, I never complained about this usage. In fact, I use it myself daily. No one ever complained about using they with 'anybody' or 'everybody'.
It's a straw man, nothing more. I complained about something and you reply back "Yes, but this some-what related but fundamentally different thing you didn't complain about is happening for centuries!".
Do you honestly not see a difference between a sentence like:
and
?
> Call it what you want, I never complained about this usage.
OK.
> Singular-they does not have a basis in history.
&
> It has a basis in cases where no one minds such as with words like "anybody" or "somebody".
If anybody & everybody are singular, which they ostensibly are, then it's having a basis, by your admittance, in these cases directly conflicts with your saying that it doesn't have a basis in singular cases. This is my point.
> It's a straw man, nothing more. I complained about something and you reply back "Yes, but this some-what related but fundamentally different thing you didn't complain about is happening for centuries!".
You literally brought up anybody & everybody in the post to which I replied.
> Do you honestly not see a difference between a sentence like:
>> Everybody and their cat vote Republican these days.
> and
>> A Republican and their cat voted Republican yesterday.
> ?
Yes, obviously they are different sentences. But they (or, rather, a derivative of it) is being used in both cases to refer to something or -body that is singular. Both types of usage are pretty commonly found in the English language canon. Speakers of English understand both cases. Speakers of English use both cases. It is, simply put, correct & uncontroversial English, by any reasonable standard.
If you wouldn't say "They is a Republican," then you shouldn't say "A Republican and their cat voted Republican yesterday" is "correct and uncontroversial."
> If you wouldn't say "They is a Republican," then you shouldn't say "A Republican and their cat voted Republican yesterday" is "correct and uncontroversial."
That's perfectly true, because I would say "They are a Republican" like the majority of English speakers instead.
BURNED.
> If anybody & everybody are singular, which they ostensibly are, then it's having a basis, by your admittance
You assume that the phrase "singular they" is unidiomatic. Typically when people use the phrase "singular they" they don't mean in concord with "anybody" and "somebody" and related phrases.
It should be pretty obvious from the phrasing I used.
> You literally brought up anybody & everybody in the post to which I replied.
Yes, I literally said I didn't mean that usage.
> Yes, obviously they are different sentences. But they (or, rather, a derivative of it) is being used in both cases to refer to something or -body that is singular. Both types of usage are pretty commonly found in the English language canon. Speakers of English understand both cases. Speakers of English use both cases. It is, simply put, correct & uncontroversial English, by any reasonable standard.
And one is a usage that is as the link pointed out centuries old and the other is only something that has popped up in the last 30 years because people are afraid of writing "his or her".
> Typically when people use the phrase "singular they" they don't mean in concord with "anybody" and "somebody" and related phrases.
I would have assumed that it is pretty unidiomatic, because it would seem to me that it naturally refers to contexts where the noun to which it relates is, well, singular.
> Yes, I literally said I didn't mean that usage.
But you contradicted yourself (per a usual definition of singular they) by separating the case of anybody & everybody from the cases where they agrees with a singular noun. How was I to know that you were using a personal definition that excludes those cases?
> And one is a usage that is as the link pointed out centuries old and the other is only something that has popped up in the last 30 years because people are afraid of writing "his or her".
You think they as a gender-neutral pronoun just turned up in the last 30 years? I mean, this is a pretty bold claim considering anybody can just easily provide you with counterexamples. In fact, some pretty well-respected counterexamples, too.
> I would have assumed that it is pretty unidiomatic, because it would seem to me that it naturally refers to contexts where the noun to which it relates is, well, singular.
That's the thing with idiomatic phrases, they aren't what they seem. I've never seen someone complain about the singular they with aspecific pronouns.
> But you contradicted yourself (per a usual definition of singular they) by separating the case of anybody & everybody from the cases where they agrees with a singular noun.
Under the assumption that the phrase is unidiomatic.
> How was I to know that you were using a personal definition that excludes those cases?
When someone "contradicts" self 1 sentence later like that. It tends to follow?
> You think they as a gender-neutral pronoun just turned up in the last 30 years? I mean, this is a pretty bold claim considering anybody can just easily provide you with counterexamples. In fact, some pretty well-respected counterexamples, too.
No, again, it depends what it refers to. All the examples listed on those sites are referent to words like 'anybody' and 'everybody' and 'no one', those uses are ancient and I never criticized those uses as well.
> No, again, it depends what it refers to. All the examples listed on those sites are referent to words like 'anybody' and 'everybody' and 'no one', those uses are ancient and I never criticized those uses as well.
Do I have to copy counterexamples for you? Are we really doing this?
> There's not a man I meet but doth salute me,
> As if I were their well-acquainted friend.
--- William Shakespeare
> And how easy the way a man or woman would come in here, glance around, find smiles and pleasant looks waiting for them, then wave and sit down by themselves.
--- Doris Lessing
> Little did I think... to make a... complaint against a Person very dear to you,... but dont let them be so proud... as to make them not care how they affront everybody else.
--- Samuel Richardson
> that it is their duty, each to endeavour to give the other no cause for wishing that he or she had bestowed themselves elsewhere
---Jane Austen
More Comments - Click Here
So what is we supposed to use? You're okay with 'he'?
I swear, it's just a nonstop battle of the sexes. Can't even play a card game without worrying about labeling. I'm just...I'm done, y'all. I'm a man now.
Welcome to the Patriarchy- I'll handle your induction.
First off we need to stop by stores to pick up some Privilege for you then I hope you've had lunch because today is going to be a busy day of oppression.
Sounds otherworldly! D:
^Gets ^popcorn ^:3
> Singular-they does not have a basis in history.
"Epicene they", or "singular they" has been around for centuries in cases that cover an entire gamut of examples.
Also prescriptivist grammarians are always wrong - Cnut couldn't hold back the tide.
>and whoever uses it should be spanked.
Hmmm ;) They ^they ^^they ^^^they ^^^^they ^^^^^they
P.S. don't light the grail shaped beacon.
Mm? ;)