Panel 1: A person with the text “Singular ‘they’” written on them smiling with open arms.
Panel 2: “Singular ‘They’” beaten up by others who said, “Singular they is ungrammatical. It’s too confusing,” “How can anyone use plural pronouns for singular,” and "Every pronoun should only have one purpose."
Panel 3: “You” hiding from the mob who was beating "Singular ‘They’"
Panel 4: “German ‘Sie’” hiding with even more fear next to “You”
In portuguese, nearly everything has a gender. Você (You) is one of the few exceptions, but for “they” we have either eles (male) or elas (female), which will depend on what is being referred to. IE: they, the athletes = eles, os atletas (male), OR elas, as atletas (female).
Another example: the group = o grupo; it (the group) = ele (o grupo). Doesn’t matter what makes the group, “the group” is “male”.
I find it interesting how gendered German is. In contrast, in my language the default for a word is gender neutral. you have to state the gender if you want to specify it, and you only do that if the gender is relevant e.g. “the driver handed me my change” would be “inabot sakin ng tsuper yung sukli ko”, but if you said “inabot sakin ng babaeng tsuper yung sukli ko” which means “the female driver handed me my change” then that means the gender of the driver is of relevance to the conversation.
an exception I can think of is spanish loanwords like “tindero/tindera” which is more commonly used to refer to shopkeepers and vendors here. we also use “ate/kuya”(sister/brother) when we talk to strangers e.g. “kuya alam nyo po kung saan yung pinakamalapit na sakayan ng dyip?” meaning “excuse me sir, do you know where the nearest jeepney terminal is?”.
overall, I find it interesting to look into languages with different ways of using things that seem complicated to me. really makes me think what “foreigners” might think is complicated in my language that I take for granted.
What is the singular reflexive form of “they”? “Themselves” sounds too plural. “Themself” is inventing a new word, which is not problematic, but if we’re going to invent new words we may as well start using “ve” or “ze” as gender neutral pronouns.
As somebody whose primary language is Dutch, the lack of an explicit plural “you” is one of the worst things.
If I’m talking to somebody, I can’t nicely refer to a group they are part of, because “you” means they themself specifically, “y’all” makes me feel like engineer TF2, and “you people” sounds condescending.
I hate English, it’s also the only language I’m fluent in, so it’s a love/hate relationship.
The disconnect that most people mistake here is between direct and indirect pronouns. Until recently, they/them has been used indirectly, to refer to someone who isn’t present. To use it while they’re present is uncomfortable for many not because it’s supposed to be plural, but because it’s supposed to be indirect. The only time you would (previously) say they/them in the presence of the individual in question, is to disregard them. An effort to make them irrelevant, like, I care so little about you that I’m not even going to recognise your presence.
They/them is very common as a singular pronoun. There’s a ton of good examples of it being used in this way in this thread.
The thing I love/hate about English is that it adapts to how people use it, and right now, we’re adapting they/them to be direct singular, instead of exclusively indirect singular. Unfortunately everyone knows this on some level, and while many are crying about it being plural (not understanding why it makes them uncomfortable), while it’s definitely not, it is indirect, and the non-binary folks have asked us to use it as a direct singular for them (which I support).
IMO, this is a change that can, and by all means, should happen.
The hate of English for me is when perfectly good under-used terms have their definition applied to more commonly (albeit incorrectly) used words, a prime example of this is jealous. Historically it has meant: fiercely protective or vigilant of one’s rights or possessions. Which, when applied to a relationship, results in the other definition for jealousy: feeling or showing suspicion of someone’s unfaithfulness in a relationship. However, people have used jealous under it’s newest definition for a while now, which is: feeling or showing envy of someone or their achievements and advantages. Which as the definition clearly shows, it’s simply a showing of envy, or the act of being envious. The problem I have is that this legitimizes the incorrect use of the word, when we have another word that already means that… Envious. One word co-opting the definition of another is simply a demonstration of the lazy nature of English speakers. We would rather redefine the commonly, and incorrectly used term than learn and use the correct one.
When it comes to they/them, there is no direct singular ungendered term for an individual besides “you”, which will always refer to the person being spoken to. So a new term, or a new definition of an existing term is required. Non-binary people seem to have unanimously agreed that the terms that they want to adapt for this purpose is they and them. I’m fully in support of this, and while it may be uncomfortable for people to adapt to this new usage, it’s something that should be done, and IMO, will be done.
Alternatively, we could co-opt a new word, either entirely unique, or derived from another language, for the direct singular ungendered person. This would probably be more comfortable for the more cis-normative population, but bluntly, getting all of the non-binary people, or at least the majority of them, to agree to the use of the new word, whatever it is, would be challenging at the very least, and it may, in a worst case, be rather insulting to those who prefer they/them, who wouldn’t want to change that just to appease some gendered people who are uncomfortable with they/them. It’s a valid option, but not one that I believe is viable.
On top of that, these are the pronouns they have chosen. As a matter of respect for your fellow humans, we should let the non-binary people choose the words that they would like to use for their pronouns. Something which they have already done, and those terms are they/them. If we, as a species, have any respect for eachother at all, we’ll respect that decision, and adapt, regardless of the temporary discomfort we may have about it in the interim.
People have been crying about language change in all languages since the dawn of speaking. You can look back to relatively recently with the Romans, they’d always complain about non-standard dialectal and colloquial speech and how the youth are ruining our language, or people from X geographical area are butchering Latin rather than using the standard dialect (Classical Latin).
It’s no different today. People (upon political/cultural motivation) complain about using “they” as a gender-neutral singular pronoun, saying it’s confusing (even though we’ve used it as a singular pronoun for those of unknown gender since “they” was borrowed into English), but don’t bat an eye at “you” which was first a plural only (as opposed to singular “thou”) and then gradually shifted to a formal singular pronoun, then to just the only second person pronoun for both numbers. People also complain about pronunciations of words like nuclear, asks, comfortable, etc.
The myth of mispronunciation is a plague upon human language.
It’s not change itself that I hate, it’s when the change makes language less useful. Example, “literally” meaning its opposite, “figuratively,” through common misuse. “It was literally the million-dollar question” used to mean that it was a question that, if answered, would actually be worth a million dollars rather than figuratively meaning it was an important one to answer. Now it’s unclear.
I like you, you get me. Adapting the language to serve the common denominator isn’t great since the common denominator is generally an idiot. We, as a people, are fairly stupid on the whole. Codifying the literal opposite of a word into that words definition is reducing the clarity of the language, requiring further clarification for the uncertainty, suddenly a relatively terse statement becomes a long unwieldy mess of clarifications for all the idiosyncrasies of the words, since the words have so many contradictory meanings that the statement can be interpreted in any number of ways, instead of how it was intended.
Over time, the common meaning of terms has been diluted to the point where most statements need clarifying context to even be correctly understood.
Literally (ha) all linguists would disagree with you there. The word “literally” here has gone through the same evolution that EVERY WORD GOES THROUGH. EVERY WORD YOU SPEAK went through the same thing where you would call it “less clear” or “useless” or whatever.
Language is always unclear. You do not have the same perception of words as someone else does. If we arbitrarily assigned some word uses as “useless” based on someone’s personal idea of what’s useful, we wouldn’t have language. A lot of people would call articles useless (words like “the” or “a/an”), a lot of people would call pronouns useless (I/you/they/etc.), a lot of people would call marked tense useless (no more past tense or future tense!). A lot of languages don’t have these features. English speakers might think grammatical case is useless. Why do you get to decide what’s useless or not? Why is using “literally” as something for emphasis useless to you, and why do you think it’s so objective that you should have the authority to remove that from the language?
Of languages that don’t have articles? Russian, Japanese, pretty sure Arabic, a majority of synthetic languages have no articles.
Japanese has no pronouns depending on what you consider a pronoun, pro-drop languages like Spanish or Italian don’t use subject pronouns except for emphasis.
Chinese languages have no tense. Burmese, Malay, Indonesian, Thai, Vietnamese have no tense. Pirahã has only future tense. Japanese only has 2 tenses, one is past and one is combined present and future.
Pirahã is also debated to have no number system and no names for colors.
There’s plenty of features that people who speak a language think is necessary that plenty of other languages just don’t have. Languages are extraordinarily different and fluid. Word meanings shifting over time, in the case of “literally” where it starts meaning something very different is one of the most common, and gives you the words like “black” in English (which came from the same word that “white” in other languages like French or Spanish came from).
No, examples of words that mean two opposite things at the same time, since you apparently said that every single word in existence has always been that way. “Bad” comes to mind, though it’s a lot easier to tell from context which meaning it has compared to “literally.”
I have never said that every single word in existence has had 2 opposing definitions at once. I simply said all words went through the process where people think the “new” uses are confusing. And one of the most common mechanisms for that is something being used in a seemingly opposite way than its common definition. But since you asked, here’s some of them: dailywritingtips.com/75-contronyms-words-with-con…
And some examples of words that used to mean one thing but now mean something completely different or even opposite: Every word. Lol, I’m not kidding, almost no words have ever meant the same thing over a long period of time (usually the ones that have are things like “water” or “horse” which our ancestors needed to survive over time). But some specific examples would be: Awful, Terrific, Nimrod, Trust (noun).
Semantic drift is one of the most important concepts in linguistics. It is THE REASON we have separate languages. The reason we have French and English and German and Russian as different languages is semantic drift (and phonological shifts for the pronunciation part).
I don’t disagree with you, but the changes I tend to have a problem with, as samus12345 pointed out, is that it robs the statement of clarity. I just want language, any language, to be as specific as it can, so that misunderstandings are minimized because the words used have specific definitions, which are all similar. Instead of the contradictory definitions many words seem to have.
It’s by far not the majority of words that have this problem, but it’s definitely a non-trivial number of them that do.
There is no such thing as a specific as possible language. Language is literally JUST ambiguity. Again, every word you use right now was complained about when its definitions slowly shifted in the same way you complain about words “losing their clarity”. That’s called LANGUAGE CHANGE.
Another more cultural issue is the fact that there WAS a movement to create a new direct genderless pronoun, xe/xem. However, those who are hateful or resist this study of change to the language made a mockery of it.
People are always going to resist and mock, not on the word choice, but that it represents something that they hate.
thankfully Chinese has always had a singular they, “他.”
for your convenience:
我: I, 我們: we
你: you, 妳: feminine you, 你們: plural you
他: he or sing. they, 她: she, 他們 plural they
by the way, 他 used to be he, she, or sing. they. the usage of 她 as she and 妳 as you (for females) is relatively recent. even now, you could replace all the ones with a “女” on its left with its “亻” counterpart and no one will say a thing. they are also pronounced identically.
I’m pretty sure plenty of singular theys have been invented in your language. It’s just that it’s not widely used at all and people would never understand you if you try to use it in a sentence.
Actually it’s older than people think. Shakespeare used it for stuff like “Every knight grabbed their sword”, and even for talking about a specific person it’s not a new phenomenon to use singular they if the gender doesn’t matter (so I was told in a linguistics sub over on r*ddit when I insisted it was new)
The only new thing is that people say, it’s their prefered pronoun.
It’s just a generic he or she, I’ve seen it used for years and never thought it’s related to any gender identity issues. Also they is easier to type than he/she. It’s similar to how vous can be used for plural or singular. Although maybe it’s not a thing in places that don’t also speak French.
It’s using they to refer to a single person. Some people think it’s only supposed to be used for a group, but that’s completely wrong. It’s been used to refer to singular people since at least Shakespeare, if not longer. For example: “if some_one_ tells you they is singular, they are mindlessly consuming right wing media and not considering if it’s actually correct.”
This misses an important distinction that singular they was never used to refer to a known, specific individual until recently, and was certainly never used by Shakespeare that way.
See my other comments in this thread as well, but using singular they to refer to a specific, known individual was never something that Shakespeare did, and that is the usage that people are up in arms about. Your example uses singular they to refer to an unknown person, which is a usage that’s been around for centuries, yes.
So, to explain the German „sie/Sie“, it can be used as one of the following:
formal version of both singular and plural you: used whenever you have or want to maintain a distance from someone, or with persons who demand respect/authority. Generally speaking, whenever you would say Mr/Mrs/Ms it’s „Sie“, if you’re on first name terms it’s „Du“. Fun fact: addressing an LEO, judge, etc. informally („Du“) is considered an insult, insulting someone is a misdemeanour (not kidding) in Germany, and you will usually be fined on the spot for doing so.
Used to reference a woman/girl who has been mentioned before: What about Sally, is she coming today?
Same as above but for inanimate objects or animals that are gendered female: Have you seen my camera, I have misplaced her. Look at the cat, she’s so cute. (In this case it’s a cat of either female or unknown gender, if you were talking about a male cat specifically, you’d use the male version of „cat“…)
Same as above, but for all groups of people, animals, objects, regardless of gender, like plural they: Look at the guys/nuns/politicians/cats/helicopters, they’re drunk as fuck!
In a nutshell, it’s like English’s they (plural animate or inanimate), it (for feminine objects, remember that german is a gendered language like french) she, and you (both singular and plural) combined.
Though, Sie meaning “you” is the polite version, used to address someone politely. For informal situations, there’s the impolite and always-singular “Du”
While there are different conjugations and capitalization between the different uses of Sie, in the end they all use the same word.
If you’re on first name terms, it’s extremely rude to switch back to the formal address. Like, „FYI whatever our relationship was, I just burned that“ rude.
And more and more, people who don’t know each other immediately skip the formal part. I personally find „Sie“ rude, and I’m using it only for people I don’t like.
Edit: rewrote everything because it’s actually easier than I was explaining it:
It’s not about being polite or rude, it’s an indicator of your relationship with the person/s you’re addressing.
It’s not like you can choose how you say something to set a certain tone. „Would you pass me the butter, please“ doesn’t get more polite using „Sie“.
Who you’re talking to defines what to use.
When you are introduced, it’s easy: „Hey Bob“ -> informal -> „Du“; „Hello Mrs. Robinson“ -> formal -> „Sie“. Mixing them up just doesn’t happen, except for very small children who sometimes use the informal „Du“ with „Mrs Krabappel“.
It only gets complicated because it also is used when you do not know each other, like on the street, at a restaurant, etc.
Then it’s a judgment call what to use depending on the context. Either there’s some social clue (age, location, class, etc.), or whoever goes first sets the tone, but it’s still pretty much along the lines of „would I call her Kathryn or Cpt. Janeway“.
Add comment