Submitted by noOne000Br t3_1250u9k in Jokes
GuairdeanBeatha t1_je1yot4 wrote
You mean THEY couldn’t figure IT out? WE are amazed!
ArtBuilder t1_je225g5 wrote
(they and we arent singular so I dont know why they are marked in capitals, help)
Interesting_Pudding9 t1_je242ye wrote
They has been used as a singular pronoun for hundreds of years
Umpteenth_zebra t1_je25pv4 wrote
But we has never, except the Royal wee, which is rare.
Baked-Smurf t1_je29esn wrote
And royalty has been referring to themselves as "we" for probably about as long
Worried_Click_4559 t1_je26596 wrote
Isn't THEY and WE non-singular? Or can individuals now also choose to be plural, if they so desire?
speck480 t1_je26s9f wrote
Singular they goes back to Middle English, it's not something that just happened "now."
Worried_Click_4559 t1_je2a0ls wrote
Yes. You're right. I stand corrected as to its use. Haven't seen it attributed to Middle English (but haven't had time to research it thst much). Seems that the APA (American Psychological Association - whoever they are) also include "ze" and "hen" as less common opfions. Whoda thunk it. Live and learn. Thanks.
speck480 t1_je2bv2p wrote
There are a few appearances in Chaucer (although tbf the grammatical rules governing pronouns changed significantly between Middle and Modern English, so it's harder to identify.)
sprucewizard t1_je27lq4 wrote
this.
rldr t1_je2c2gd wrote
But not these /s
sprucewizard t1_je2gq1u wrote
correct.
Gahvandure2 t1_je2eyl7 wrote
Also the royal "we."
carlemil10 t1_je2kay0 wrote
What in god's holy name are you blathering about?!
Gahvandure2 t1_je2lbzi wrote
You know, the editorial?
snazzychica2813 t1_je2kuwg wrote
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Singular "they"
Predates singular "you"
elrach06 t1_je29bld wrote
Dude, you have a singular they in your second sentence...
Worried_Click_4559 t1_je2amcc wrote
Right you are! (I think I'll ask my high school for a refund.)
Puzzleheaded-Fill205 t1_je2a4ud wrote
"individuals" is plural.
elrach06 t1_je2b982 wrote
But the "they" is referring to a single individual "coosing to be plural," not all individuals collectively.
Wasteland-Scum t1_je2ktd4 wrote
Remind me too never compete against you in a grammar slam.
Puzzleheaded-Fill205 t1_je3abv3 wrote
Why? They are clearly wrong.
Wasteland-Scum t1_je55b28 wrote
I agree. I'm saying you're, like, gooder at grammar than most.
Puzzleheaded-Fill205 t1_je3a9ie wrote
No. If it were singular the verb would be chooses, not choose. Read the sentence again. If individuals choose, as opposed to if an individual chooses.
EDIT: Actually, in this specific example they used "can," which overrides the plural / singular distinction on the verb "choose," making it an infinitive regardless if the subject is singular or plural. ("We can choose. He can choose. I can choose. They can choose." etc...) Nevertheless, my point stands: The subject of the sentence is the word individuals, which is plural. They used "they" to refer to "individuals."
And to clarify, I agree 100% that singular they is a common usage that has been correct for centuries. You just picked a bad example because in their second sentence the "they" was referring to "individuals," which is plural, not singular. Thus it was not an example of singular they.
MinisculeInformant t1_je2an2d wrote
English has four genders: masculine, feminine, neuter, and nonspecific. There are four third-person singular pronouns: he, she, it, and they. Each corresponds to one grammatical gender.
"They" has been used as a singular pronoun since at least the time that Chaucer wrote the Canterbury tales, close to a thousand years ago. However, recently it has become associated with non-binary people (NBs) who prefer to be referred to as "they" rather than by a gendered pronoun. Many people in the USA are bigoted against NBs, and bigots would generally rather be hateful than factually correct.
Personally, I vastly prefer "they" over the slew of neopronouns that have been invented in the last few years.
DrachenDad t1_je2pbni wrote
>There are four third-person singular pronouns: he, she, it, and they.
Only one is gendered, she. He loosely, don't forget that any gender specific wording attributed to a penis haver is actually for all humans apart from the word male.
Worried_Click_4559 t1_je2dkrb wrote
Thanks for the advanced English grammar lesson. If I ever get that "refund" I'll send it to you.
Your last line, however, seems a bit opinionated. Such negativity doesn't bother me at all. Did my original comment (admittedly wrong) bother you? It shouldn't have.
MinisculeInformant t1_je2ey9i wrote
I wasn't one of the people who downvoted you, if that's what you're asking. I guessed (and it seems to be confirmed) that you just aren't used to thinking of "they" as singular.
I'll admit I am a bit opinionated on the subject of neopronouns; I have strong prescriptivist tendencies when it comes to changing language and I dislike meaningless gibberish. I won't hate or mock someone if they prefer neopronouns, but I feel like it's either reinventing the wheel (since we already have NB pronouns) or trying to force more grammatical genders into the language.
Worried_Click_4559 t1_je2w74s wrote
Downvotes really don't hurt me. I've already been permanently banned from various topics on Reddit due to my non-Liberal stance.
I'm a midwesterner and will continue to believe what I believe, but will consider intelligent arguments from "the other side." I will admit it when I'm shown to be wrong, but will take a bullet just not to cower.
I grew up trusting science but have lived long enough to see it politicized.
We Boomers trusted asbestos, cops and Washington. My Dad, a European immigrant, used to laugh at me for that. He was right. He would have never taken the vaccine like I did. I'm glad my youngest daughter fought against it for her and her kids.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments