Talk:Singular they/Archive 2006-03

Wikipedia style
The article is not prescriptive, but what is the feeling about its use in articles? The single transferable vote article had a lot of singular theys and theirs, changed to he or she and his or her. Any views about which is less ugly? --Henrygb 00:46, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It's an important style question, but it might get more (and more relevant) response if you bring it up on an appropriate page in the Wikipedia namespace. If we have a discussion about it here, I'm sure a lot of users with a point of view to contribute would be turned off by having to look through a lot of stuff specific to this article. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 10:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I consider the use of "they" as a sigular pronoun, and other such use of plual pronouns in the sigular, to be a simple error. If I find such a use in a page I am editing, i will pretty much always change it. If possible I will use a wording that doesn't require "he", "him" or the like. I will use "he or she" in preference to they, or reword to passive voice or some other construction. In a long article it is possible to alternate he and she. I would prefer a newly invented pronoun, but so far there is nothing like widespred acceptance of any such device. Until there is, wikipedia should not use it -- except in articles about linguistics, or about such proposals as noteworthy events in themselves or the like. wikipedia is suppoed to reflect existing human knowledge, not be a place for creating new usage conventions. I have been known to use "s/he" in personal writing, but I don't think this is widely aceepted enough to have a palce in wikipedia yet.


 * If there is no other reasonable choice, I will use a generic "he" or the like, rather than a singular "they". DES 23:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, didst thou happen to read the article before forming that opinion? As the article notes, singular they is hardly a "new usage convention": it's centuries old, and is found in the works of Austen and Shakespeare. Further, why dost thou object to the use of any plural pronouns in the singular? Most readers will probably find it strange when thou insistest on using the singular thou and thee instead of the infinitely-more-common, but clearly plural, you. (I should note, I happen to agree that Wikipedia should avoid using singular they when there's a clean alternative, because it's pointless trying to convince would-be pedants that there's no reason to see it as incorrect. My disagreement is with thy reasoning, not with thy conclusion.) Ruakh 07:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes I did read the article. (Although the opnion is one I have held since long before Wikipedia was created.) Furthermore, i am quite well aware of the history of "thee" and "thou" and how "you" came to replace them. I note that the distinction was never as simple as that "thee" was sigular and "you" plural. As far back as we have records, or at least as far back as the OED traces, "you" was used in sigular but formal cirumstances, while "thee" was used in intimate ones.  The corresponding usage in the first person has left as a fossil the "royal we".  And you, Sir, hardly know me well enough to address me as 'thou'. (I grant that if one goes back to Primitive Indo-European, the distiction seems to have been purely one of sigular/plural, but not in even Old English.)


 * It is possible that sigular they will become a widely accepted and established standard. Language does change. It is also possible that anewly invented pronoun will become widely accepted -- the example of "Ms." shows that this is possible. (And yes, i know that "Ms" had ancient roots, but it had fallen so far out of active usage that it was in effect a new coinage.) In general i belive in adhering fairly strictly to established usage until a changed usage becomes widely accepted -- in such matters I am normlly an active member of the rear guard. The change to sigular they may happen, but it hasn't happened yet, and until it does, I will oppose it.


 * I might add, nowhere in my comments did I say anything about the usage being new. I said it was wrong -- accoring to the current rules of english usage. It is an error with a long history, yes. It is still an error -- until and unless it becomes common enough to be the new establised rule. DES 15:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Re: "I might add, nowhere in my comments did I say anything about the usage being new": In opposing Wikipedia's using singular they, you wrote "wikipedia is suppoed to reflect existing human knowledge, not be a place for creating new usage conventions"; I interpreted that to mean that you considered the use of singular they to be one such "new usage convention." My apologies if I misunderstood. Ruakh 15:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I intended that to refer to the possibility of using a newly invtend sigular pronoun, such as "sie" or a form such as "s/he". the statement about wikipedia not being for new conventions followed my saying "I would prefer a newly invented pronoun..." Sorry if that wasn't clear. DES 17:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Regarding the rest of your points: fair enough. I still disagree with your opinion that singular they is wrong, but as we're not disagreeing about whether Wikipedia should use it, I guess it doesn't matter that much. Ruakh 15:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * By the way, you're mistaken that singular you goes back as far as the OED traces; it gives uses of plural you going back to circa 897, and of singular thou and thee going back to circa 825, but only gives uses of singular you going back to the 1300s. (Singular they, by this approach, is a bit younger, going back to the 1500s, though I've heard it claimed elsewhere that it goes back further than that.) Further, at the entry for the pronoun thou, it explicitly notes that you did not start to be used as a singular pronoun at all until sometime during the Middle English period. Ruakh 16:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the correction, it seems that my memory was wrong on this point, and that the change froma a purely sigular/plural thee/you distinction, to an intimate/formal one, to the near total disuse of 'thee' and related forms, was quicker than i had recalled. Still, i claim that the same sort of change for they hasn't been accomplished yet. DES 17:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * As the article also notes, singular they has historically referred to an unknown number of persons, not a single person of unknown gender. The proper pronoun for a single person of unknown gender is he.  No exceptions.  Rogue 9 15:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Your point being what, exactly? Ruakh 04:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you think? Using singular "they" to denote a single person of unknown gender is improper grammar.  Period.  Therefore, it should not be used in that manner, on Wikipedia or anywhere else.  Rogue 9 12:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * But I still don't understand your point in posting the comment. Your comment was curt to the point of rudeness, yet made no attempt to specify what statement of mine it was expressing disagreement with. You also have not clarified what you mean by "single person", which is not an expression that had been used in this discussion until you used it, and which is ambiguous to the point of meaninglessness. Obviously, they has historically been used been used in singular contexts; what distinction are you drawing between single and singular? By single person do you mean single, specific person? Or what? Ruakh 14:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "Prescribing that everyone should use "he" for single person of unknown gender with no exceptions is sexist. Period.  Of course there are exceptions, and more importantly, language evolves and society evolves.  Society is rapidly evolving away from patriarchal and sexist assumptions.  Using "he" for singular person of unknown gender is making a sexist assumption, just as using "she" for singular person of unknown gender would be equally sexist.  For example, it would be possible to write (but I wouldn't for multiple reasons): "Considering the way Rogue 9 likes to force gender into language where it is unnecessary, is she French?"  Most of us are evolving away from sexism.  Modern competent writers can easily write using gender-neutral language. Hu 13:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If one has a policy of using he as a third-person, singular, gender-neutral person pronoun, then referring to an unknown person as he is not making any assumption about the person's gender: it is simply applying one's general policy. Ruakh 14:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Should we assume you are being facetious here? Nobody has time nor the place in general writing to state or refer to or read a 20 page statement about their writing "policies".  These days, people can (willfully) sexistly or thoughtlessly apply the masculine gender to third person singular situations, or they can take a modern approach and write using gender-neutral wording. It is not hard. Hu 18:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What the heck? Who said anything about a 20-page statement of policies? You have a policy against using he in a gender-indeterminate context; that doesn't mean that your policy is recorded anywhere but in your head (and now in this discussion). Similarly, there are people with the policy of using he in preference to he or she, singular they, etc. when they can't find a way to rephrase a sentence to avoid the issue. This doesn't mean that such people assume that all indeterminate people are male; rather, it means that they think he is an appropriate pronoun for use with an indeterminate person, or a specific person of indeterminate gender. If you disagree, fine; but that doesn't make them (or their policy) sexist or thoughtless. Ruakh 22:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You
First off, I am aware that at one time, we had "thou" for singular and "you" for plural, but I am not convinced that is the reason "you" takes the same verb form as a plural. After all, "I" takes the same form as the plural as well (for every verb except "am") and "I" was never a plural. Plus, even when "you" was primarily used as a plural, it was also the polite or more formal pronoun for either singular or plural second person, so "you"'s transition to singular does not really parallel singular they that closely. I'm sure we could find a better example, but it may mean looking outside of English. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 20:59, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It's true that English doesn't generally make a simple singular-plural distinction in its verbs, but singular you definitely took/takes the forms that plural you took/takes, not the forms that singular thou took. That said, I don't think there's anything to say that singular they takes a "plural" verb form; rather, it takes the same verb form as plural they. Ruakh 23:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Verb forms
"singular they takes third-person plural verb forms"

Surely that is a contradiction in terms.

If you are accepting that the singular they is a valid part of the English language, then it takes third-person singular verb forms, albeit ones specific to they rather than he and she.


 * We might call it that if it ever becomes established enough that that's how people understand it, as in the case of you. However, for now, the verb forms are plural in people's minds. The point is that we don't say they is. kwami 2005 July 3 02:47 (UTC)

edit
Hi Ruakh,

You blanket reverted my recent edits. Could we discuss what you believe is POV? A lot of the changes I made were cleaning up the wording, eliminating some redundancy, adding appropriate links, highlighting, etc, and had nothing to do with particular claims.

Thanks, kwami 20:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I seem to have misread the diff. I thought you deleted a huge section and added a new one, but that's just because Wikipedia's best-guess-diffs aren't perfect. My apologies; I should have read more closely before reverting. I'll undo my revert (though I do plan to make some changes to what you wrote). Again, my apologies. Ruakh 00:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

More shakespeare ("they" with singular antecedent).
Perhaps one of this article’s maintainers would like to add these appropriately. (Taken from ).


 * There’s not a man I meet but doth salute me
 * As if I were their well-acquainted friend
 * – Shakespeare, Comedy of Errors, Act 4, Scene III.


 * Now leaden slumber with life's strength doth fight;
 * And every one to rest themselves betake,
 * Save thieves, and cares, and troubled minds, that wake.
 * – Shakespeare, The Rape of Lucrece.

porges 04:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * We already have one quote from Shakespeare, and I'm not sure that adding two more would really contribute anything; but if you disagree, of course you should be bold and add them yourself. Personally, I think the Shakespeare quote we already have is one of the best, since it emphasizes the point that singular they can be used even when the referent's sex is known. (Dr. Pullum makes the case that this is the case in the first of your quotes as well, but I feel that "a mother" is more obviously exclusively female than "a man" is male, if that makes any sense.) Ruakh 06:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I do wonder, though, if the Shakespear quotes are quite as clear as implied. Yes, they is used in a grammatically singular situation, but in each of the three cases there could be an implicit plurality. In English we say "A number of people were at the meeting" (contrast German "Eine Anzahl war") because English privileges implicit plurality over grammatical singularity. In the modern inclusive-language situation the meaning is singular on every level: "Someone has been here and left their book on the table". I'd be interested to see an example of that in Shakespeare! --Doric Loon 22:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Reflexive
Has anyone else noticed a nacient tendency to make the reflexive LOOK singular?
 * Traditional: Someone has made a fool of themselves.
 * Possibly developing: Someone has made a fool of themself.

Is it original research to mention this, or do we have to find it in a grammar book first? I'll bet in 30 years it's standard! --Doric Loon 22:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless I'm missing your point, that information has been in the article for more than three years now . . . ? Ruakh 04:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No, you got the point, I just missed the reference. Sorry --Doric Loon 12:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah! So correctly, this would be: "Someone has made a fool of himself." Somehow I doubt the political correctivists would squirm with this revision. --Entangledphotons 17:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand
What does the use of the singular they replace? Is it him? From quotes in the article ...


 * I would have everybody marry if they can do it properly. – Jane Austen, Mansfield Park, 1812-1814

Does that even make sense as, "I would have everybody marry if he can do it properly"?


 * Caesar: No, Cleopatra. No man goes to battle to be killed.
 * Cleopatra: But they do get killed.
 * – George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra, 1901

What, should the second line here be, "But he does get killed"? It doesn't seem right to me. Ah well, thanks for the help. --Cyde Weys votetalk 03:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I should also mention that the article needs to be made clearer and state exactly what the use of the singular they is replacing, because I read the whole thing I didn't grok it. --Cyde Weys votetalk 03:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In many of they&#39;s singular uses today, he or he or she could be used instead, but in the examples that you cite, other techniques would be needed to eliminate the singular they: "I would have everybody marry who can do it properly," perhaps, and "But men do get killed." Just because prescriptivists claim something is wrong, that doesn't mean they'll tell you how to fix it. ;-)


 * BTW, your use of the word "should" bothers me. The second line should be as it is; Shakespeare was writing for real life. Singular they is appropriate in most real-life contexts, but perhaps to be avoided in writing for a pedantic English teacher.


 * Ruakh 04:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, Shakespeare was writing lines for a fictionalized dialogue between two foreign historical characters. We can not be too quick to copy something because it is from Shakespeare.  Perhaps he had a reason for using a certain construction over another besides either "grammatical accuracy" OR "real-life appropriateness."  64.12.116.203 01:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you seriously suggesting that Shakespeare (or, as I think is the case here, Shaw) tried to make Cleopatra sound foreign, antiquated, or colloquial? She was supposed to "talk like an Egyptian"? That idea seems outlandish to me; as a sovereign, her language would be particularly correct, and the audience can be presumed to have precisely no idea how an ancient Egyptian who learned modern English as a second language would talk. 187.143.8.151 (talk) 12:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Disgusting
Let the record show that I consider this sort of thing to be completely revolting. 209.128.158.230 21:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Let the record show that this is not defined in the context of your post and I find anonymous cowards making vague refernces insulting something unknown disgusting. I invite you to speify they. Fatalserpent 22:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Politically correct
This article says something about being overly politically correct. What's wrong with too much political correctness?? Georgia guy 01:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? --Lukobe 01:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a question that I want to know the answer to. Does any Wikipedia article have a section about the answer to this question?? Georgia guy 01:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess you can read Political correctness Lukobe 01:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)