Jump to content

Talk:Singular they/Archive 2007-04

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Citations needed

What's with all the citation-needed marks in the article? From the Wikipedia style guide: "This should be used sparingly; Wikipedia has a lot of undercited articles, and inserting many instances of {{citation needed}} is unlikely to be beneficial." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.237.124.70 (talk • contribs)

  • If you go through the archive, you will note 'singular they' is a contentious issue with lots of POV, strongly held opinions/beliefs, etc (I'm being diplomatic ;-) In an effort to 'put money in mouth', contributors have been encouraged to back up their statements with cites, so far this is working fine albeit slowly but for this particular page it seems to be a good solution to the alternative - revert & edit wars. Suffice it to say, this page appears to be working together for a better tomorrow. (us Linguists, cunning or not, are a strange breed) Bridesmill 19:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, Wikipedia also has a policy of verifiability, fact-based neutrality, along with guidelines such as "avoid weasel words". This article is a very nice illustration of weasel words: "grammar and usage guides ... state" (which guides exactly?); "others feel" (who?); "this is condemned as awkward" (who does the condemning?); "sounds less obstructive and more natural to many ears" (whose ears?); etc. In all those instances citations are needed (as are minor or major rewrites) so that these opinions can be properly ascribed to someone. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Why not just be descriptive here..? ie: "Singular they is used quite commonly (Maybe cite some google searches..? Not much else to do for that IMO). While deplored by style guides (cite elements of style et al) it fills a useful role in the English language (describe its role)" Wouldn't that be pretty safe? I agree with MarkSweep above, though. Dougalg 20:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Or something

We read: One solution in formal writing has often been to write he or she, or something similar, but this is condemned as awkward when used excessively (Fowler 1992, p. 257), overly politically correct, {{fact}} or both. Whenever I see or hear the phrase "politically correct" my eyes glaze over; but that aside, what is this "something similar"? And while I haven't looked at a recent revival of "Fowler", I'd have thought that the awkwardness of "he or she" is not a matter of its excessive use but of the ghastly chains of genitives, etc., that it compels: If an examinee raises his or her hand, an invigilator can ask him or her to write his or her specific question. . . . -- Hoary 15:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

My understanding on that 'something similar' bit is the use of modern pronouns; Spivak, Xe, Zhe etc. Just to confirm, Fowler's heartache with 'he or she' is indeed in excessive use, not in the complexities it adds - frankly, as you demonstrate, it becomes a dog's breakfast if used more than 'very' sparingly. And I also agree that when over-used it pushes political correctness to a level of sarcasm rather than just being sensibly gender-neutral. Bridesmill 15:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand -- although if you're agreeing with anyone about "political correctness" then that anyone is not me. I'll try to improve this part later today (my time) unless anyone beats me to it. Hoary 01:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that much of the academic community accept "he" as all-inclusive. Blootix 23:17, 29 April 2007

Sample sentences

Of the sample sentences that are embedded within the main text rather than in their own indented paragraphs, some are in quotation marks and others in both quotation marks and italics. The latter combination looks odd to me. I'd prefer either quotation marks or italics but not both. Am I unusual here? -- Hoary 15:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm anything but a format-nazi, BUT consistency within an article is paramount to legibility. I would prefer to see quotes (seems somewhat appropriate for quotations) Italics to me imply emphasis, so to use them without quote marks could be confusing. To use both would imply an empasised portion of a quote (as it 'he said "Get over here right now!"). So to use both all the time would imply to me that you are quoting someone who is yelling very loudly ;-). Good job on the cleanup, btw, though there are one or two grammatical niggles (I'll try to address those *after* my dayjob ;-). If there's an additional point I can make, there appears this sense that to say "'singular they' is great" implies you can use it willy-nilly with determinate antecedents (such as "The woman walked in to get their hair cut"); I think perhaps we need something which while acknowledging the occasional existence of this form in some speech, also explains why it is grammatically problematic. Bridesmill 16:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both of you: Consistency would be nice, and italics inside quotes are not needed. Based on a small sample of similar articles (grammatical gender, gender-neutral pronoun, plural of virus) it appears that the de facto standard is to use italics for cited word forms and double quotes for English glosses. For example, gender-neutral pronoun#Hungarian says the following:
ő ("he/she"), övé ("his/hers"), …
The present article almost conforms to the same implicit standard and can be fixed quite easily. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 17:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
And this is also in the Manual of Style: "Use italics when writing about words as words". --MarkSweep (call me collect) 17:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to improve this aspect of the article later today (my time) unless anyone beats me to it. Hoary 01:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

A grammatical problem?

Bridesmill writes above: I think perhaps we need something which while acknowledging the occasional existence of this form in some speech, also explains why it is grammatically problematic.

Here we may disagree. First, it's not a matter of "occasional existence": singular they is all over the place. Secondly, I don't regard it as grammatically problematic at all. I'd regard it as grammatically problematic if speakers of L1 English spontaneously produced examples that grated on my (L1 English) ear -- but they don't. Of course anyone can come up with hypothetical examples of singular they that are ungrammatical (e.g. *"The woman walked in to get their hair cut"), but these say nothing about the grammaticality of idiomatic examples. The usage does seem to be an issue for the kind of "grammarian" who might also say that since "me" can't be used for the subject of a verb, "What, me worry?" is wrong and should instead be "What, I worry?"* Perhaps "why it is grammatically problematic" just means "why prescriptivists fret about it"; if so, OK, but this hardly seems very important to me, and indeed one might suggest that they fret about this kind of thing because it's their livelihood. -- Hoary 01:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

* As I hope is obvious, such a prescription would be utterly wrongheaded (it would flout most L1E speakers' ideas of what is and isn't idiomatic, and show an ignorance of syntax). Hoary 04:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I do fret about it because it's in part my livelihood - yes you hit the (other) nail right on the head too - Singular they is indeed 'all over the place'; and I don't have a problem with it - IF the antecedent is numerically and/or gender indeterminate. The problem arises when people assume that the prevalence of singular they in numerous studies (the aus one cited here, plus an eastern US one I recall a few years back) implies it is widely used dealing with determinate antecedants (as in the silly haircut example we are using). And if you read those studies, you will find that use of the singular they with a determinate antecedent is very much in the minority and very much restricted to the most informal speech (and focussed in lower educational/economic areas, in the case of the US study). I have no problem being descriptivist, but when the descriptivism does not identify some of the potential misunderstandings of overdoing it, then the ESL reader can easily get steered down a confusing path. These articles are about linguisitcs - but they are also about effective communication, which if not prescriptivism (I hate that POV word) need at least to explain why some things cause misunderstanding (my linguistic/educational/conflict studies background makes me schizoid that way LOL) Hope that all makes sense - I will try & draft up something reasonably neutral. Bridesmill 02:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

    • It's tempting, but the remaining controversy with this subject seems to revolve mostly around indeterminate gender; most usage and guides nowadays are accepting of indeterminate number, and reasonably accepting of determinate number with indeterminate gender (e.g."someone"). So I'm thinking that bit might be best left elsewhere. Bridesmill 12:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry I haven't contributed recently and also am unlikely to do so very soon: I've been up to my ears in singular-they-irrelevant editing in WP, and for the next few days must attend to the demands of the "real world". -- Hoary 13:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Non singular

This issue is greatly confused by the terms "singular" and "plural". The true distinction is "singular" and "non-singular". 

-2 volts 
-0.5 volts
-1 volts 
0 volts 
1 volt 
1.5 volts 
2 volts

The example given in this article cleverly constructs an empty set as the referent (the empty set of men who go into battle to die). 

Caesar: No, Cleopatra. No man goes to battle to be killed.
Cleopatra: But they do get killed.
  • You seem to think the above says "No men go..." which would be non-singular, and the number would be zero. As it is, what is written there is singular, and the number is one, as it would be in "Any man goes" or "Some man goes" or - equally disputably - "Every man goes". J Alexander D Atkins 00:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What happens if we complement the referent to a non-empty set: 

Caesar: No, Cleopatra. All men go to battle to not die.
Cleopatra: But they do get killed.

Or spell out the referent more explicitly: 

Caesar: No, Cleopatra. No man goes to battle to be killed.
Cleopatra: But those who go [to battle] do get killed.

Or blame the incongruity on the other party: 

Cleopatra: We should not send our men to die in battle. 
Caesar: No, Cleopatra. No man goes to battle to be killed.
Cleopatra: But they do get killed.

Or teach Ceasar some set theory: 

Caesar: No, Cleopatra. No man among those who go into battle goes to be killed.
Cleopatra: But they do get killed.

Or banish the complement: 

Encountering an unmarked grave: 

Cleopatra: This must be the bones of the Easter bunny. 
Caesar: No, Cleopatra. No man who never lived lies here. 
Cleopatra: They are more often buried than you suspect.

Now the word they is extremely problematic. When no man refers to an empty set variable selected from the empty set men who never lived we become extremely unclear on what Cleo is talking about.

Now I'm convinced of it. There are two anaphor targets here. In some variations the second anaphor target is more concealed than others, but in no case is Cleo refering back to the empty set. 

Caesar: No, Cleopatra. The set of men who go into battle wishing to die is empty. 
Cleopatra: But they do get killed.

What's Cleo going to say about Caesar's empty set other than contest its emptiness? It's hardly a valid anaphor target at all. Let's allow her to respond on the same slipperly level: 

Caesar: No, Cleopatra. No, Cleopatra. No man goes to battle to be killed.
Cleopatra: And no man flees from battle wishing to live?

Here she is attacking the double standard of lacking courage not reflecting desire to live. We all know that's what Caesar believes.

This no man business is a slippery rhetorical device: on Shaw's part, on Caesar's part, and on the part of this article aducing it as evidence. To my ear this passage does not illustrate what it pretends to illustrate. MaxEnt 02:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Most illuminatingly (and entertainingly) put. MaxEnt, feel free to edit the article to your considered satisfaction. -- Hoary 05:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
English grammarians have a word for non-singular: wikt:plural. At any rate, I think you're missing the point, which is that Cleopatra is using they to mean men, even though the antecedent is (the grammatically singular) no man. The traditional prescriptive grammar would require her to say instead, "But men do get killed." Yes, this is different from "Everyone who smokes is damaging their health", and especially from "Someone who smokes is damaging their health", but it's still a kind of singular they. Ruakh 14:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I always tell people that the deepest human conceptual mistake is switching around the with a. You say here the antecedent. Many of my examples provided additional antecedents she could potentially bind a sentence further back in the dialog. Anaphor resolution in human speech in known to be NP-complete involving grammatically allowable constructs at level of intricacy humans never employ. I couldn't find the best ref, but this one gets the idea across: [Anaphors are hard]. If only the previous sentence was allowed, it wouldn't be hard hard. MaxEnt 05:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

MaxEnt's explanation is somewhat convoluted, but he has a point - Ceasar is refering to a large group of men conceptually - as in 'not one of the soldiers'; technically you may be correct, but esp as we are talking about two separate sentences by two speakers, have always found the example suspect as well.Bridesmill 14:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, the complex object in this discussion is the human mind, but I've always had a fondness for Wittgenstein and Ayer and a dislike of Chomsky. Which of my examples could I leave out and still convince people? Not obvious to me. MaxEnt 04:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
But isn't that somewhat the point? Conceptually, the number is indeterminate, but grammatically, the antecedent is singular. older ≠ wiser 14:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Who says the human mind resolves antecedents on a purely lexical level? Chomsky might like to imply that (not that I know for certain), but I think this disregards the level of elision involved in most human speech; we tend to skip over boilerplate words (for spoken economy) when the conceptual antecedent is strong regardless of whether a subsequent referent is bound to the elided material; as far as I'm concerned it's an illusion that we manage to achieve lexical agreement as often as we do in the face of this practice. More recent results support the view that human lexical processes are not as literal as once depicted. That's why I approached this debate by posing many possible un-elisions.
I should also point out the dangerous rhetorical power granted to Caesar in forcing Cleopatra to bind her referents only to his spoken construction. When she says they she can also be regarded as contesting whether the empty-set lexical subject employed in Caesar's rhetorical sentence functions as content or euphemism. If both sentences had been uttered by the same party (e.g. Caesar) I would grant more authority to gramatical self-consistency; it troubles me that this example embeds a contest of wills. MaxEnt 04:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Shakespeare

Calling such a construction the "singular they" is as misleading as the usage itself. This travesty should be called "the he-avoidance they". The quotations are interesting - but are not meant to be he-avoidant (yes I just made up a word). My thoughts:

"There's not a man I meet but doth salute me/ as if I were their..." I call this the more-or-less-than-any problem. For example, in the singular we say "a man is" and use "he". Or in the plural we say "two men are" and use "they". But what about "The mission was dangerous, but to a man [he or they?] volunteered." The correct answer is "they" because the implication is more-than-any. Shakespeare's quote is expressed in the negative; simply turn it to positive and the meaning becomes clear: "All I meet salute me". Even if you say "Everybody I meet salutes me" you'd still use "they" because you mean more-than-any.

"Arise; one knocks. ... Hark, how they knock!" I looked this one up to provide the context. Over many lines there is an unidentified knocking at the door. "One knocks" is not numeric but rather someone/somebody/something knocks (unidentified). Later we get "how they knock!" suggesting it's loud enough for more than one (still unidentified). Later still we get "Who's there?" and still later "Who knocks so hard?" All unidentified. The focus in this passage is incessant, unidentified knocking - the speaker has no idea of number.

"...more audience than a mother, since nature makes them partial,should o'er hear the speech." Polonius the fool is speaking about mothers as a class rather than as a person. Here he is about to hide behind a curtain to eavesdrop on a conversation between Hamlet and his mother. Literally Polonius is saying, " more than just a mother needs to hear what Hamlet says because mothers are partial by nature." Nothing to do with singular neuter.

"I would have everybody marry if they..." We can agree that some common words such as "few" or "all" are plural because in each case we mean more than one We can further agree that some common words such as "everybody" and "everyone" are singular because we are really saying every body, every one. In other words we're saying each body, each one (we're focusing individually) - and we need a singular verb. Jane Austen is using "everybody" uniquely not as every single body but as a class. She is saying "allbodies" - "they" is the proper pronoun in this instance and is not a singular-neuter.

While they are all excellent quotations for illustrating the subtleties of English pronoun usage, ought we not better explain their nature and context before including them in this article? As it stands, it appears we are misquoting Shakespeare to sponsor a popular opinion. --Entangledphotons 03:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Like it or not, "singular they" is a, perhaps the, standard term. "He-avoidance they" is not a term that I have ever encountered. Thus the article should remain under its current title.
In the first quotation from Shakespeare that you discuss above, we're looking at what Shakespeare did write, and only secondarily at what he might have written.
You seem to make a good point about the second quotation.
On the third, if I understand you correctly, Polonius is moving between the singular-form generic and the plural used as generic. In the English of today, both are fully idiomatic; and in many (but not all) contexts they are interchangable: The Englishman is stoical / Englishmen are stoical (the examples are probably untrue, but are I think idiomatic).
You may have a point about the last, too. Canonically "every" and its compounds are singular, but in practice they creep toward the plural.
By "misquoting", do you mean "misinterpreting"?
It is not a matter of sponsoring a popular opinion, it's one of providing evidence for a proposal that's more or less taken for granted among scholarly grammarians such as Geoff Pullum but is still resisted by pop grammarians and "language mavens". -- Hoary 03:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
First of all, your example of "The mission was dangerous, but to a man they volunteered" is flawed, since "they" isn't referring to "a man," but rather to some earlier antecedent. Contrast "The mission was dangerous, but each man volunteered to risk his/their life," where traditional grammar would demand "his" but many might say "they."
Second of all, I think you're near a valid point, but not quite there. Historically, singular they has a long history of use with a quasi-plural sense. (It's "singular" in that its antecedent is grammatically singular, and therefore might be expected to use a singular personal pronoun; but I say it has a "quasi-plural" sense because it can generally be taken to refer to an entire group — e.g. "than a mother, since nature makes mothers partial".) Nowadays, people often use singular they without any sort of plural sense: "Someone told me they needed my help, but now I can't remember who it was"; I'm not sure if this has the same history.
I think this is the distinction that's being made in the first sentence of the "Modern reactions" section; if so, the article should make clear that the historical quotes we give support the style guides mentioned.
Ruakh 16:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
My “he-avoidance they” suggestion was meant mostly in jest. And of course we’re looking at what Shakespeare wrote, my rearrangement to the positive was for clarification only. You’re right though, I meant misinterpreting not misquoting – but really, what’s worse? And Ruakh, about the they in "to a man they volunteered" not referring to "a man"... isn’t that the point?
It also seems you’ve grouped a little prescriptivism in with bitty old English teachers and cantankerous “pop grammarians.” But you can't be descriptive unless you follow a prescription. I collect old motorcycles. I concede I have a few to many, but I refuse to admit I have a few too many.
On the other hand, there’s that story about Churchill’s proofreader not letting him end sentences with a preposition, and the ridiculous sentence constructions that ensued. So prescription is meant to guide, not dictate.
William Strunk published Elements of Style in 1918 - long before feminism or gender-sensitivity entered this discussion. He has a passsage discussing the use of "they" rather than "he" or "she". (Strunk comes down against such use, by the way). And you are correct; there is quasi-plural precedent. I'm against what is quickly becoming a he-avoidant prescription based on political correctness rather than - and sometimes despite a loss of - clarity (i.e. description). However, these distinctions are not made clear in the article, and especially not with regard to the quotes in “History”. How about we reword a few things; all in favor…? --Entangledphotons 17:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I was gonn clarify th Sapir-Worf reference but

the second paragraph in the tagged section is the sloppy one.
While the grammatical aspects of referring to intersexual or transgender persons are important, I think the mention is slightly out of place here, on singular they.
the sapir-whorf reference is what made me tag this section, tho. I think politcal correctness, (one thing), equal rights (another, tho I get that language can oppress), and s-w (the idea that grammatical categories can shape the way a speaker thinks about the world/reality) cannot all be rattled off quite so casually. I'll be back. Ka-zizzlMc 16:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but a significant number of people with widely varying POV worked on this section, & it is a consensus product; the last sentence re. Sapir-Whorf ties it all together quite micely - if you check the footnoted references, they take you to all the places therein rtefered - in essence, the reason singular they exists the way it does in modern spoken (and to a large extent written) English, is because of those aspects. Given that, it begs to be mentioned here. If you have further concerns, we'd be happy to discuss & see what can be improved here. Bridesmill 02:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

k, for that section there are no footnotes, only 2 "citation needed" tags, and I clicked that fowler reference thing- it doesn't go anywhere. I see some ISBNs. you want I should buy th books? I agree that those aspects contribute largely to the sing.they phenomenon. Ka-zizzlMc 03:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
sorry I said it was sloppy. that was harsh. Ka-zizzlMc 03:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

on singular they (reposted, orig. addressed to bridesmill)

it seems like a lotta past talk to wade through, but I will if needed. could I possibly get a summary of the aspects of heretofore concensus that casts my edit here as innappropriate? I see what I added as a beefing up and strengthening of the tone that was already there. until I get a sense of the past debate, I will withhold final judgement. in th meantime,

to say

"the debate is tied into" certain questions

is no clearer or stronger than to say

those factors "will be relevant to understanding the phenomenon" until they are addressed.

you directly inspired my changes. on the talk page you said

the reason singular they exists the way it does in modern spoken (and to a large extent written) English, is because of those aspects.

Again, until I learn the relevant history, I will not re-revert or anything drastic. but, if I end up finding nothing compelling, I shall stick to guns I layed out here.

If you understand what I'm getting at, please come up with compromise version. don't just revert. I'll be around. thanks, Ka-zizzlMc 22:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Ka-zizzlMc 07:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

That diff makes several changes. Your mention of "natural speech" seems an unnecessary complication. Your change of "mother" to "parent" has been commented on above. "Variously formal contexts" is obscure. "Until they are, these will remain relevant factors in the understanding and appreciation of the perseverance of this usage" seems wordy and unclear. Incidentally, to me (not the person who reverted your change), the whole business about Sapir-Whorf etc is a red herring: "singular 'they'" is a simple fact of English grammar, and (unless you're a self-appointed "language maven", a stereotypical schoolmarm, etc.) nuances of its "meaning" are as irrelevant to its usage as is, say, the fact that was originally (I mean, centuries ago) comes from a verb other than be is to the "meaning" of was. -- Hoary 08:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I generally support what you said about the mention of SWH. Remove Mention of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. i feel it's kind of out of place. I think my version put it in a clearer context but I support removing the saipr-whorf mention in current form. Ka-zizzlMc 03:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
response to hoary's message
I'm cool w/ taking out the mention of natural speech tho I think it's relevant. the kinds of questions philosophy of language ask are relevant.
by "variously formal contexts" I meant to indicate that the social context in which we use language can inform linguistic choices in myriad ways. politeness is one of the best barometers for formality. anyone disagree or find this to be a wholly invaluable distraction yet? I just meant to allude quickly to all that in order to say that singular they has been observed to appear across a wide range of those contexts- from some of the least formal to some of the most formal. see Holmes- a kick-ass sociolinguistics text.
so still
to say
"the debate is tied into" certain questions
(the usage is common, and the debate over the usage is tied to issues [of] X, Y, & Z)
is not in anyway friendler to any concensus I can ascertain than
those factors "will be relevant to understanding the phenomenon" until they are addressed.
(to understand the commonness (or pervasiveness, simply: it happens quite often) of the usage, issues X, Y & Z must be addressed. until then, X, Y, & Z will remain relevant to understanding the commonness of the usage.)
I kind of assume that, to the extent possible, we all want to "get to the bottom" of what governs why & how the usage appears. issues X & Y are social or societal issues. I don't care who addresses them, but singularthey will be objected to by some as long as society is generally formed as it currently is. I'm not trying to impose an old-fashioned, pre-2006 gender model on anybody. I'm just saying singularthey usage is not a part of any serious "movement", as current version seems (to me) to suggest. whew. Ka-zizzlMc 03:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Usage is common and is tied to XYZ. Use of singular they, as expounded upon in refs, has several causes/roots - one of them is undeniably gender equity related, can also easily be categorized as a movement (in that it is a concerted effort by elements of society to change a form of behaviour (sexist usage in English language). One of the reasons this is seen to be important is (and has been academically) tied to Sapir-Whorf. I am not totally convinced myself as to either Sapir-Whorf's total validity, or whether or not you can socially engineer based on the SW hypothesis (which appears to be the aim of efforts to eradicate use of 'he' for subjects of indeterminate gender) But that would be original research (WP:OR) for which I have no time... Believe it or not, I held similar view to you at one stage, and I believe in specific cultural sub-sets your current & my former view is still valid (again WP:OR would raise its ugly head) but generically, at the very least in North America, what the article says appears to be true, and the research supports it. In other words, we already know the how & why of appearance of the usage in modern context. If the refs are insufficient, I have at least one additional paper/PDF on my box here - it will take me a few days to backtrack the URL (Unfortunately I have a day-job LOL).Bridesmill 14:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

k, thanks. refs are totally sufficient for me. /izl 17:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

POV

Is it just me, or does this article at one point say that (paraphrase) "while prescriptivists denounce it, it has long been accepted", while then descending into two whole sections explaining why it must be incorrect? 81.104.165.184 18:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There are several of us who have worked on this page over the past while, we have very differing opinions on the merits (& even definition) of prescription & description & 'singular they' itself. Since we all seem to feel that it works as it stands, and in spite of our (very) different personal POVs we find it acceptable, I see no sense in calling it either POVish or disputed (well, it was disputed for a while but there seems to be reasonable mutual understanding now).Bridesmill 18:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Who's "we"? Did Wikipedia suddenly acquire an editorial board while I wasn't looking? As far as I'm concerned, those sections are not written in a neutral tone. For a start, it first says that Shakespeare used the singular they, while then going on to say that actually, he couldn't have used the singular they, because that would be wrong, taking a prescriptive "singular they isn't quite right" stance - WP doesn't do prescription, so it's not NPOV. 81.104.165.184 10:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This article seems to me more an argument as to why prescriptivists are concealing the history of the language than a neutral explanation of the nature of the controversy. Certainly even descriptivists have some standards of writing and speech that warrant improvement. When a HS teacher employs the neutral "they" to avoid using the gendered "he" (in reference to the boys football team) or the gendered "she" in reference to an all-girl cheerleading squad or softball team, there is a problem. Jane Austen used "they" in a singular sense all over her writings, but not in such a sloppy manner as American public school teachers and television news broadcasters.JStripes 01:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
NPOV means representing all viewpoints in proportion to their number of adherents. In this case, that means both prescriptivist and descriptivist viewpoints must be presented, as there are lot of people on either side of this question. (Incidentally, Bridesmill said who "we" was in his first sentence, and didn't claim it constituted an editorial board.) Now, regarding your Shakespeare comment: the article explains that Shakespeare used singular they in a certain kind of context (i.e., when the referent was of ambiguous number), but that he couldn't have used it had the referent been a specific person. Ruakh 18:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
"Who's we?" is a rhetorical question (since "there is no 'we'"). My main concern is that the article doesn't really seem to distance itself sufficiently from the actual debate itself, as there should not be the slightest implication anywhere that the use is wrong (equally, there should be no implication that it is right either). The bits marked with {{fact}} are particularly problematic, and probably need some hefty rewording. Proportion is not really relevant to NPOV, especially in situations such as this, where the proportions on either side of the debate are not known. 81.104.165.184 21:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I kinda thought that the sections marked with {{fact}} were either self evident, easy to find refrences for, or that the {{fact}} link itself was placed in such a place to to be ambigious about what fact it was saying needed a refrence. Lets have a look:
He would not have used it ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] if the referent had been an identifiable person, such as the mother of Hamlet.
This looks liek the person who added the tag did not understand the sentence. This sentence basically says "If the sentence were a diffrent one that refered to a person by name then the correctness of they would not be in question. Do we need a citation to say that "Hamlet's mother can help their birth." is gramatically incorrect?
Few people today would easily use he where Shaw used they, but according to traditional grammar,‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] phrases ...
This is claiming that few people today would say (from the discussion on this example above) "But those who go [to battle] do get killed." instead of "But they do get killed." To me this is one that any native speaker of english can answer with no refrence which of those two would I say? Though I don't think a study on the use of singular they in this grmatical case woudl be hard to come by.
One solution in formal writing has often been to write he or she, or something similar, but this is condemned as awkward when used excessively (Fowler 1992, p. 257), overly politically correct, ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] or both.
The disput here is weather people think that using he or she rigdidly is politically correct since there is a refrnce for the first part of the sentence. Again I don't think this is much of a fact to dispute but if you want to be picky I dont see how you could find it problematic, and probably need some hefty rewording. Not problematic since it would be easy to refrence,and is self evident enough that personally I dont think it needs any.
Today, grammar and usage guides that have accepted singular they state ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] that ...
since the tag is before the part of the sentence that claims what such guides say I can only assume this one is contending that there are NO grammar and usage guides that have accepted singular they, this one actually needs no refrence because if it were not true then this woudl not be disputed grammar. Also the article mentions a number of experts and I suspect that some of them have written in usage guides. However the second part of the sentence purporting to describe what such guides say shoudl probbly refer to at least one of them.
Others ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] say that there is no sufficient reason not to extend singular they to include specific people of unknown gender ....
Again no one reading this could reasonably believe that this is not true (even if it would be nice strictly speaking for it to have a refrence), so sure add a refrence here but again this one is not problematic, and probably need some hefty rewording.
So yea I am not saying all the {{fact}} refrences are bogus but I don't think any of them are alarming, likely to be argued untrue by anyone, or worthy of adding a NPOV tag. Dalf | Talk 05:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


Methinks we've been trolled. "...as there should not be the slightest implication anywhere that the use is wrong (equally, there should be no implication that it is right either)" A dispute de facto exists over this usage; how can anyone write an article about this dispute without implying that there are several at least perceived wrongs and what they are? The fact that several folks with nearly opposing POVs on this seem to be in agreement on what is written and have no worries with the NPOV of the article, and all was fine until an anon showed up should be a hint. Bridesmill 14:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC) erm - the fact tags on items which, again, folks on both sides of this debate have no qualms with and seem to be self-evident is somewhat aggravating and peurile. Yes, I will put some cites on those if that will make you happy (though it will take a few days as I have a life to deal with) But I am afraid that if this continues we are going to have one of those ugly articles with a footnote on every single word. What exactly is the debate and question of neutrality here?Bridesmill 14:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between saying that something is perceived to be wrong, and implying that it is wrong. As for your implication that "We all agreed before, so all must have been well", I again point out that there is no "we" on Wikipedia. In the cases listed above, some of them are ambiguous, and not self-evident. Of course, it would help if some of the jargon ("pronominal coreferent"? "gender-determinate antecedent"?) were explained - most other technical articles at least have a link out to some article where you could find out what it means. In the case of "He would not have used it ...", the words used make the context ambiguous - when it previously read "could", it read as if there was something restraining him from doing so. I'll take that {{fact}} out, but the sentence still needs a rewrite to be understandable by normal people. In the case of usage guides, the {{fact}} is clearly tagged on to the word "state", implying that an example is needed of which guides state it. "Some ..." and "Others ..." - WP:WEASEL, examples are needed of people from both sides ("Others, such as ..."). Remember, the article needs to distance itself from the actual debate. As for Shaw, you must bear in mind that not all WP readers will necessarily know "traditional grammar". "And finally, ..." the section under "Modern reactions" needs some work to conform to WP:ASR. Are we all clear? 81.104.165.184 12:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

There are now no {fact} tags left; everything is cited with the exception of the very self-evident no man and no one are grammatically singular . There are now thus cites for the 'some' and 'others' and therefore no longer weasel. Unfortunately, understanding of phrases such as 'Gender-determinate antecedent' is obligatory for discussion of the subject; those who don't understand this are unlikely to understand the problems of singular they in the first place; simplifying this article any further would suggest a Simple English wiki entry; the requirement by numerous commentators for acedemic citations (pro and con) on the subject also take this away from the realm of a simple article (in other words, in terms of readability and academic thouroughness, we can't have our cake and eat it too). My point on the 'we' above was that we in this case includes a number of people with very different POVs on the issue; thus not sure that there is anly remaining need for the NPOV tag. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bridesmill (talk • contribs) .

Hello everyone. I've read everything down to this point. Just have to chip in at this point. Discussion above did make it clear that no man and no one are NOT conceptually singular. I dare you to find a source that says they are! ;) The good humoured analysis above mused over whether they refered to an "empty set". There was also talk of "singular" and "plural" being the wrong categories for this article. Both "non-singular" and "indeterminate number" were proposed as being more descriptive of the usage of they.

It's great that "we" editors can form consensus. Something's adrift if these key issues are still not part of the consensus. The OED is very clear that indeterminacy is common to usage of "they" from ME to present. We've at least got to get our consensus up to speed with that, wouldn't "we" think?

Let me make the point that no citation is needed for the fact that "no man" and "no one" are not singular. Every native speaker knows it without reference. Consider the following:

  • Arrogant Alastair: No one believes the crazy idea that no one is understood as a singular in English.
  • Brilliant Betty: Yes they do!
  • Arrogant Alastair: No they don't!
  • Brilliant Betty: Woops, I meant, "Yes she does!"

What confuses us is focussing on: singular – no one / plural – none of them. These have grammatical verb agreement: no one walkS / none of them walk. However, that's just grammar, prescriptive or descriptive comes to the same thing, who cares, everyone says it the same. It happens because English forces subject and verb together. By reflex we make these agree.

What matters, though, is people are not dumb. They understand the meaning, and they construct both replies and subordinate clauses based on the semantics, not the grammar. To say "there does not exist a pig that can fly" is to say "all pigs are flightless". What are we talking about? Semantically? We are talking about the group of all pigs. Normal people don't think in "empty sets" when they use negatives, they think in terms of the logically equivalent plurality implied by the universal a negated existential implies.

Others, help me, please check out how you internalise your own language, don't we all do the same? Now we just need to find whoever has written it in their books. Alastair Haines 08:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a start. I found this.
Cheers Alastair Haines 12:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Driveby Insulting

I have the THEY userbox on my userpage. Some anonymous user came to my talk page and just posted "Rubbish" about THEY. I thought it was funny. Really, they should have come here. mitchsensei June 27 1am-ish

I'll declare my colours, I'm a {{user singular they:No}}. But it warn't me promise. I don't think no grammar gonna stop me abusin dat to make me point more better by breakin it. Alastair Haines 08:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Foreign languages

Would it be appropriate to include a comment about foreign languages in which agreement between the various parts of a sentence is much stronger than it is in English, and the use of a plural-form pronoun simply could not be contemplated to be applied to a singular entity? My knowledge is of French and Spanish, both of which have specific rules that the masculine form of a pronoun is used unless it is known that the referent noun is feminine. Also, both have a distinction between genders in the third person plural pronouns, and the rule is that masculine is used unless all the members of the group referred to are feminine. Note that, in these languages, nouns that we would regard as common (ungendered) are always one or the other.--King Hildebrand 23:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it would be inappropriate, per se, but I don't think that speculation on why singular they is so English-specific would contribute much to the article. (And if we do include such speculation, I don't think we need to look so far: English is the only language I know of that has a mandatory gender distinction in the singular third-person personal pronouns, but not in the plural third-person personal pronoun. Replacing French il/elle with ils or elles, or Spanish él/ella with ellos or ellas, or the like, will make no difference, because doing so won't remove the burden of assigning a gender. It's also less necessary, in that il/elle and él/ella indicate grammatical gender, not natural gender — you can simply use the noun personne/persona and use feminine pronouns and adjectives without implying anything about the actual person you're referring to.) Ruakh 00:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There are others - in Russian 3S is on, ona, ono while 3P is oni. Some of the question delves into the whole question of gender sensitivities, which appear to be much stronger in English, which is for all intents and purposes grammatically a genderless language (sure, a few remain, like ships being feminine, but not many). Lots of food for thought and philosophy, but not sure if there are any real answers out there yet. Curiously, in French, it appears to be more an issue in Quebec (very exposed to English culture) than in France. In terms of why 'they' in particular can be used in that way; in inflected language where word order is less critical, word form is more critical - certainly in Russian one wouldn't want to toss around plural forms with even number-indeterminate referents, let alone single referents; and on top of that the gender-neutral issue just doesn't exist.Bridesmill 00:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You know, before I made that statement, I actually went to check on Russian, and found that Russian grammar's table of personal pronouns doesn't actually identify each pronoun's person, gender, and number; very unhelpful. BTW, regarding "ships being feminine," apparently that's no longer universal; Lloyd's List started using it a few years back, and apparently it's not alone.[1] (That's really not here nor there, but I thought you might be interested.) Ruakh 00:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Let me go fix that right now...Unfortunate about ships; I'd heard rumours to that effect, though we still call them "her"; again the obsession on 'gender neutral'; I think in many ways that whole debate has missed the point - but that's a personall opinion

Bridesmill 01:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC) Just changed it - does it make sense now?Bridesmill 01:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The United States Navy is far from gender neutral in its language - as a female I was a marksman and had several other qualifications whose official title was -man. We would also man the hose during firefighting exercises and man the rails when we entered a new port, but our ship was an it. Durova 01:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

First sentence.

I don't think they is really "the gender-neutral third-person plural pronoun" when it is used with a singular antecedent, so the sentence reads in a self-contradictary fashion. Perhaps inserting "otherwise" before "gender-neutral" would fix this?

(Also, the citation for "Fowler 1992" later on in the article is broken, which I'm not sure how to fix) JulesH 21:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Bad example

“Are they coming?” is simply a bad example for illustrating the use of the singular they. There’s nothing singular about it. I can’t think of a better example, but surely someone can. —Frungi 09:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It can easily be singular:
—"Did you invite someone?"
—"Yeah."
—"Are they coming?"
—"I think so."
Ruakh 00:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Then use that conversation as an example. Out of context, there’s no reason not to think it’s plural; it’s a bad example. —Frungi 05:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Never mind, I added context myself.
What do you mean, there's no context? The preceding text is, "singular they […] always takes the same verb forms as plural they; for example". If someone doesn't understand that they're about to get an example of the verb forms singular they takes, then I don't think there's much we can do for them. Ruakh 15:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I think Frungi is basically saying that in an example using singular "they", the pronoun's antecedent should be present in the example. Powers T 15:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
If that's indeed what he's saying, then I completely disagree; adding an antecedent in that example would simply be confusing. (Keep in mind that the point of that example is simply to demonstrate the choice of verb form.) Ruakh 18:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, it's not really useful to demonstrate that singular they takes a plural verb without demonstrating that the "they" in the example is actually singular. Powers T 16:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
What was wrong with the change I made? If the singular they has a singular pronoun to refer to, it just makes it that much clearer that it’s singular, especially when nothing else in the example does. —Frungi 09:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Manual of Style

There's a discussion going on at the Manual of Style about singular they. Feel free to drop a line. Strad 03:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's talk

There's a bit of disagreement between a few editors atm. Ruakh has been involved with this page for some time. A couple of other editors are anonymous. There's a fair bit of good, but unattributed material being added. I suggest we interact a bit here on the talk page. I think we may be able to agree to an overall presentation that hangs together, clarifies what the issues are, using facts in the literature.

Here's a suggestion from me, please let us know what you think.

Section 1: Basic Meaning

  • They [+0] definition: they has a long tradition of usage where antecedent is indeterminate (explain from literature what this means for non-grammarians).
  • Uncontentious examples: someone, anyone, no one, every one, each, all, any, "a worker ...", etc.
  • Plural interpretation of these examples of indeterminacy.

Section 2: Issue and Proposed Solutions

  • Late twentieth century move for "gender inclusive" language in general.
  • Traditional generic he.
  • They [+gender issue]: indeterminacy of they suitable and has precedent for indeterminacy with regard to gender.
  • Other alternatives and stylistic concerns:
  • cumbersome she or he
  • generic she
  • confusing alternation of generic he and generic she
  • (s)he can't be read aloud
  • thon xe and other suggestions to coin a word
  • rephrase the sentence

Section 3: Current Practice

  • Examples of unambiguously singular they where gender is indeterminate.
  • Examples of same that feel forced, inappropriate or unclear. (infelicity not simply grammatical prescriptivism)

Summary:

  • Traditional solution of generic masculine is ruled as inappropriate in almost all settings.
  • Singular they comprehensible and accepted in all spoken regsiters and dialects.
  • Many style guides however still recommend rephrasing sentence in formal writing.

If anyone cares to know my own approach. I helped with the backgammon article here at Wiki. Consider the following. "Backgammon is a game for two players. They take it in turns to role the dice, except on the first role, where they both roll one die. After that, before rolling the dice a player has to decide whether to double. If they decide to double ..." This is problematic. I recommended, and others accepted, generic she throughout the article.

Please record it here if you think any of the above are false, unattributable or misrepresent a position. Please note if there are any major considerations not covered, or if the weighting favours any particular view.

Even more helpfully though, if you have suggestions for "cannonical" sources for any of the points above. Please note those, 'cause ultimately that's what this article needs to rest on. Alastair Haines 03:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

New thoughts

I've changed my mind on some of this.
  • Each person said their last goodbye.
This is not a use of singular they. This article should address only singular uses. Alastair Haines 10:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Certainly not! "Singular they" is the standard term for use of the pronoun they (and its forms them/their/theirs/themselves/themself) with grammatically singular antecedents (such as "each person"). —RuakhTALK 14:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
He he, that's just the point! Until I read the literature I thought that too. Each is a distributive pronoun and takes either singular or plural pronouns. You can't tell whether a pronoun is singular or plural from the antecedent each.
  • A writer takes care with their sources.
Now that's singular!
If anyone wants to use they with each, number agreement can't be held against them.
The facts are out there. Is no one singular or plural? Alastair Haines 14:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
And I suppose you would say "Each person have said their last goodbye"? (By the way, singular they is perfectly grammatical in many of its uses, so the statement "If anyone wants to use they with each, number agreement can't be held against them" is not an argument against calling each-antecedent-ed they "singular they".) —RuakhTALK 15:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

By your argument "person have", singular they is always plural because it is always "they run" or whatever.

But it just shows you are a prescriptivist. Good for you. "They is perfectly grammatical in many of its uses". You feel you can pronounce judgement on what is grammatical or not. More precise use of grammatical is to use it to describe language use that displays regular patterns, especially when these have no semantic content in themselves, e.g. die Sonne in German. Noun class agreement systems are broken in many languages when semantic distinction is important. That is, agreement shifts to the real life referent, rather than staying with the conventional class of the antecedent word.

Use of they with all, every are examples of plural they. Use of they with A student or other generic singulars is singular they. Use of they with each, any, someone, and other distributive pronouns needs more information from context to determine if there is any sense of singular or plural with the usage. In contexts where genericity or gender neutrality is an issue, i.e. with people as antecedents, all uses are epicene whether singular or plural.

The issue regarding epicene they is between modern prescriptivists who assert it is grammatical in any singular usage, and other modern prescriptivists who assert it is so only with distributive antecedents. Wiki should not take sides, nor prescribe what is grammatical.

What is more important is what style guides say about it the "feel" of the use of singular they.

  • A duck will eat all they can.
A clearly singular (not indeterminate number) use of they: "As an example to everyone else, I want you to tell the next person who comes in late that they're fired." LeeWilson 01:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • When the Sun is high, they cause most heat.

Singular they is only ever used in English when used to avoid reference to gender of generic human antecedent. It arises by analogy with the ambiguous semantic number in generic antecedents using distributive pronouns. They has always been used in such cases. Alastair Haines 03:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Singular they is only ever used in English when used to avoid reference to gender of generic human antecedent, sez Alastair Haines. Wrongo! See Geoff Pullum, "Singular they with known sex". -- Hoary 10:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Ha ha! Right oh! Good example of a writer who doesn't know a singular from a plural! Note the very first word -- Any girl. English speakers have been using they with distributive pronoun antecedents way back into at least Middle English. If your writer is correct that it is singular use, then he's wrong about it being new. He's wrong either way. Thanks for proving my point. :D Cheers mate! Alastair Haines 10:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Steady on, old chap. You may wish to reconsider your charge of an inability to distinguish singular from plural in view of the identity of the author. The coauthor/coeditor of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language may indeed make such a mistake, but it would seem unlikely.
Here's the utterance: Any girl who is interested must simply be born female and between the ages of 18 and 45. They must have an IQ above 130 and they must be honest.
Semantically, this may I think be either singular or plural: it's not obvious whether it's closer to (a) A girl who is interested must simply be born female and between the ages of 18 and 45. She must have an IQ above 130 and she must be honest or to (b) All girls who are interested must simply be born female and between the ages of 18 and 45. They must have an IQ above 130 and they must be honest.
Syntactically, it's very clearly singular: Compare Any girl who is interested and *Any girl who are interested. (Well, the latter gets an asterisk in my idiolect; I don't know about yours.)
Now, you're free to use "singular" and "plural" for a purely semantic distinction, but if you do this you'd better have the rhetorical equivalent of a red flag in your comments about them, because, at least in linguistics contexts, the terms are usually syntactic. -- Hoary 10:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks mate, undoubtedly he knows far more than me, but it's not me v him. Looks like it's Oxford v Cambridge. I'll add a bit more in a moment. Keep thinking it through for yourself. Any girl. How many girls? Any girl who is interested. How many? Fewer! We're talking a plural entity here. Singulars don't get smaller in number. Anyway, I'll just go fetch a source on distributive pronouns before I go on. Alastair Haines 11:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't quite follow your argument, but the fact that you're asking how many strongly suggests that this is an appeal to semantics; whereas my point was that, semantics aside, any is syntactically singular. Oxford v Cambridge is an interesting notion: I wonder if I'll hear about some OUP grammar that treats any as singular. (Incidentally, this Cambridge grammar isn't just any old grammar; it is indisputably the largest grammar of recent decades and in the view of most linguists it's the best there is.) -- Hoary 11:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the concession regarding semantics. Yes, the article was quite clear it was semantically plural also. The issue is syntactic singularity. Even the best make mistakes sometimes. I can give you this for the moment. Merriam Webster online says All is "singular or plural in construction". Back again soon. Alastair Haines 11:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
"Another way of referring to an antecedent which is a distributive pronoun or a noun modified by a distributive adjective, is to use the plural of the pronoun following. This is not considered the best usage, the logical analysis requiring the singular pronoun in each case." Baskervill & Sewell who also give examples like:
  • Every one must judge of their own feelings. —Byron.
  • Had the doctor been contented to take my dining tables, as anybody in their senses would have done. —Austen.
  • If the part deserve any comment, every considering Christian will make it themselves as they go. —Defoe.
  • Every person's happiness depends in part upon the respect they meet in the world. —Paley.
  • Every nation have their refinements —Sterne.

At least these examples prove the second part of my point. Even if Lennon was using singular, the article was wrong to suggest this usage is new. The example from Sterne is just stunning! Would you ever write that? Alastair Haines 11:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The following gives two examples to make the point that any is used quite comfortably with either singular or plural pronouns. From American Heritage Dictionary of English Usage.

"When used as a pronoun, any can take either a singular or plural verb, depending on how it is construed: Any of these books is suitable (that is, any one). But are any (that is, some) of them available?"

I doubt I'll find anyone who says any different. It would appear the language hasn't changed regarding this in a thousand years. Any X does not imply singular X, in English syntax. Any X is followed by singulars or plurals. Other elements in the context must be examined to decide. Look at Lennon's second sentence,

  1. They must have an IQ above 130 and they must be honest.
  2. The girls must have an IQ above 130 and the girls must be honest.
  3. The girl must have an IQ above 130 and the girl must be honest.

What was Lennon thinking when he used they? Sentence 2 or sentence 3? Or is it impossible to know? My money is on Lennon thinking more than one girl would be interested. And he was right!

This is why peer-reviewed sources are so important. Even the best slip up without the benefit of peer-review.

Alastair Haines 11:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue is syntactic singularity. Or not. Unfortunately I wrote the comment above when I was very sleepy, and more unfortunately I'm sleepier now. Still, I misspoke myself: "singular they" is syntactically plural but semantically singular: Anyone who says (*say) you're in their seat will need to show some evidence if they want (*wants) to be taken seriously: syntactically plural. ¶ What was Lennon thinking when he used they? Sentence 2 or sentence 3? Or is it impossible to know? My money is on Lennon thinking more than one girl would be interested. Yes, but he may have been considering them one by one. Cf: Any applicant for this bursary should have a course average of over 65% and should have been assigned a dissertation supervisor: We can assume that there will be many applicants, but this is a description of a single (generic) applicant.-- Hoary 14:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Yay! Stay with me please, that's exactly the point. Generic! Generic antecedents is what this is all about. They are a special class, both semantically and syntactically. English is flexible enough (or ambiguous enough, or unspecific enough) that with distributive pronoun antecedents, generic pronouns either singular or plural work syntactically. Though generic singulars are somewhat prefered. The logic is the same, but there is a slightly different nuance semantically. It's no surprise generic singular they is recommended by some, because it's always been used that way. But there's no surprise it is resisted, because it's always been somewhat awkward. That is what this article should say. It's NPOV, accurate, verifiable and leaves people from both camps with plenty of facts to continue their political wrangling. It also addresses issues even experts get themselves in a knot about. We can do good here at Wiki. Can you see how generic singulars are conceptual hybrids? Look at Stern quoted above again! Alastair Haines 15:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Singular_they/Archive_2007-04&oldid=1062925200"