• Sawzall@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    59
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    I’m off the pronoun thing. Just stop. Be whoever, whatever you want. Your pronoun does not define you. You can’t make English nonsensical. ‘They took a bath.’

    • Dearth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      They has been a singular pronoun for centuries. It’s only nonsensical if you’re a brainlet sucking on the teat of outrage media

      • Thymos@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        6 months ago

        This is only true if the referent is unknown. The new thing about singular they is that it is now being used for known referents. Which is perfectly fine of course, but not centuries old.

        • TheFinn@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          I’m not centuries old but I’ve used it to refer to individuals when I didn’t know their gender, and also when it wasn’t necessary to indicate gender to determine who I was talking about.

          I’m almost fifty and went to private schools if it helps.

          • Thymos@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            Oh sure, I use singular they a lot too. And I have no problem using it for non-binary people. I just don’t like wrong information being posted online without it being disputed.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          https://www.englishgratis.com/1/wikibooks/english/singularthey.htm

          There’s not a man I meet but doth salute me / As if I were their well-acquainted friend — Shakespeare, The Comedy of Errors, Act IV, Scene 3, 1594

          'Tis meet that some more audience than a mother, since nature makes them partial, should o’erhear the speech. — Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act III, Scene 3, 1600–1602

          So lyke wyse shall my hevenly father do vnto you except ye forgeve with youre hertes eache one to his brother their treaspases. — Tyndale’s Bible, 1526

          All of these are centuries old, and each of them know the gender of whom they speak of. You are incorrect. Please update your knowledge and don’t correct someone for something you didn’t at least look up.

          • Thymos@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            Yeah, those examples are precisely what I mean. The article you linked to explains exactly what I mean, even stating that Shakespeare wouldn’t have used “they” if he knew the gender of the person he referred to.

            The referents in these cases are general, not specific people. “Not a man” - no one, not referring to a specific person. “Some more audience than a mother” - someone else than a mother, not a specific person. “Each one” - not a specific person but every person.

            If you look at dictionary definitions over the centuries, you’ll find singular they mentioned, but always specifically for this general meaning.

            As an added note I don’t think it makes a difference if the current use is new or not, and it shouldn’t matter in this debate. Language changes all the time, even if people resist it.

              • Thymos@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                6 months ago

                Yeah, it’s silly. I think the whole linguistic discussion is irrelevant. It’s a new phenomenon, which is great. I love how language evolves.

            • Cethin@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              …even stating that Shakespeare wouldn’t have used “they” if he knew the gender of the person he referred to.

              I literally gave two examples of him doing so. What are you talking about?

              Sure, they aren’t referring to any specific person, but the gender is clearly stated. Your prior reasoning was that it was improper if the gender is known, not if the person is known. Stop shifting goalposts and just accept new information when it’s presented.

              As an added note I don’t think it makes a difference if the current use is new or not, and it shouldn’t matter in this debate. Language changes all the time, even if people resist it.

              Yes, that’s correct. Someone was the first to use singular they. The argument about being grammatically correct is fairly stupid, because it’s clear it is now. However, some people make an appeal to tradition saying it wasn’t but it always has been for as long as they’ve been alive.

      • WalrusDragonOnABike [they/them]@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        26
        ·
        6 months ago

        How dare thou use “you” as a singular for Sawzall. He/she/xi/fae/ze/whatever clearly identify with 1000-year old English. What would someone do with verbs after singularly “you”? Put plural verbs like “are” there? Would be ridiculous.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yeah dude, that Shakespeare guy didn’t know English at all when he used the singular they! We should go tell him! Oh, that was over 400 years ago, and wasn’t even the originator of it? Oh no. The language has been ruined for so long!

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Dude, Shakespeare is basically the epitome of English writing.

          If your argument is that it’s new, well you’re fucking wrong because one of the most renowned writers of English used it centuries ago, as well as some translations of the Bible and other things.

          If your argument is that grammar changes well then I’m sorry you’re several centuries behind on this development. This one isn’t new, however much of how we speak and write today is significantly newer. Notice no “thou art” or anything like that in either of our comments.

          https://www.englishgratis.com/1/wikibooks/english/singularthey.htm

          There’s not a man I meet but doth salute me / As if I were their well-acquainted friend — Shakespeare, The Comedy of Errors, Act IV, Scene 3, 1594

          'Tis meet that some more audience than a mother, since nature makes them partial, should o’erhear the speech. — Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act III, Scene 3, 1600–1602

          So lyke wyse shall my hevenly father do vnto you except ye forgeve with youre hertes eache one to his brother their treaspases. — Tyndale’s Bible, 1526

          All of these are centuries old, and each of them know the gender of whom they speak of. You are incorrect. Please update your knowledge and don’t correct someone for something you didn’t at least look up.

    • acargitz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      6 months ago

      “Make” English nonsensical? Lol, English is already one of the most nonsensical European languages!

    • Sas [she/her]@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Singular they is older than singular you. So that is “thy pronoun doesn’t define thee” for thee, olden English person. I forbid thee from slandering yon fine folk whilst unlearnéd in the history of speech.

    • adderaline@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      language changes. we don’t speak like people did last century. gay used to mean happy. we can make english “nonsensical”. we have, and we are, and we will. and you can’t fucking stop it any more than you can stop kids from making slang. as much as you hate it, you know how the singular they works, and have no reason to be a little bitch about it. its in the dictionary. suck it up and stop whining.

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      lollol you’re just a few years away from complaining that kids don’t speak properly anymore