Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
I recently ran into a discussion on another forum that involved the use of gender neutral pronouns. Here's the basic thread ...
Which of these constructions is grammatically correct?
1. If your child wants to find the best school for a specific major, he should talk to a counselor. (uses the historically gender-neutral "he")
2. If your child wants to find the best school for a specific major, he or she should talk to a counselor. (fine for single use, can be awkward if repeated)
3. If your child wants to find the best school for a specific major, he/she or s/he should talk to a counselor. (concise variations of #2)
4. If your children want to find the best school for a specific major, they should talk to a counselor. (re-written to guarantee noun-pronoun agreement)
5. If your child wants to find the best school for a specific major, they should talk to a counselor. (the "controversial" gender-neutral "they")
Well, I've been using #5 for a long time, and occasional #4 (though that's not always possible in context). My editors never flagged that construction. I think #1 is seriously outdated, and non-intentionally sexist. I have no issues with "mankind" as being gender-neutral, as the corpus of that use is extensive.
#2 and #3 are both awkward, imho, especially if they need to be used more than once in the same sentence or paragraph.
A search for "singular they" yields 116,000 hits. A search for "gender neutral they" scores 13,500 hits. Apparently, the debate is ongoing. Then I found this at the Oxford Dictionaries, and learned that although the usage started in England, it's spreading and becoming more acceptable in US English. Being more of a descriptionist, I was pleased to see my preferred solution has a lot of support. But there's still a lot of hard-line holdout prescriptionists who disagree.
I'd be interested to hear what other forum members think about this. I know what Grant (ever the descriptionist) would say.
They as indefinite pronoun is common enough, as when the antecedent is someone, a person, whoever, etc . But does 'your child' above really fit that usage ? It seems kind of cold to refer to an individual as they. Though there is a degree generalization in 'your child,' it still seems too specific for they. In any case I doubt very much that there are many instances in literatures where they stands for a specific ( or half specific like so) person.
Robert said: I doubt very much that there are many instances in literatures where they stands for a specific (or half specific like so) person.
Ah, but there are. At least in literature from earlier times. This is from the Oxford Dictionaries I cited in my previous post.
Some people object to the use of plural pronouns in this type of situation on the grounds that it’s ungrammatical. In fact, the use of plural pronouns to refer back to a singular subject isn’t new: it represents a revival of a practice dating from the 16th century. It’s increasingly common in current English and is now widely accepted both in speech and in writing.
My point was that, even though I was taught to avoid that usage, I find I have gravitated toward it over the years. It's just a simpler way to express an idea than using the awkward "he or she" "he/she" "s/he" constructs when the gender is unknown.
It does seem kind of "cold" and "detached" to refer to an individual in that manner. Obviously you're on the prescriptivist side of this debate, and that's the kind of feedback I was looking for, thank you. I started this thread because I wanted to hear how fellow logophiles felt about this "singular they" trend. Simply declaring it ungrammatical is falling back on the rules without providing insights into the reasoning.
Correction: I previously used the terms "prescriptionist" and "descriptionist" instead of the proper "prescriptivist" and "descriptivist." My apologies.
I think it has become quite accepted. I take no issue with it even with "your child" when the gender of that child is unknown to the speaker. It sounds perfectly fine. If the speaker knows the gender, then I might find it jarring.
"At your child's last birthday, did they enjoy the day?"
* "At your daughter's last birthday, did they enjoy the day?"
Just because it isn't fully accepted, I would try to edit it out of formal writing by rephrasing. I'm not fond of "he or she" except in the the most occasional use and in the simplest of constructions.
For those who claim it is ungrammatical, refer them to "you" used as a singular. Unless they speak King James's English and use "thou" and "thee" when speaking to one person, they should admit the possibility of the plural taking on the role of the singular, and that, in fact, it could go from being ungrammatical to perfectly grammatical in fairly short order.
Glenn said
"At your child's last birthday, did they enjoy the day?"
* "At your daughter's last birthday, did they enjoy the day?"
My eighth-grade english teacher was a spinster, and she learned me right.
It's "At yuour child's last brthday, did he enjoy tyhe day?" and "At your daughter's last birthday, did she enjoy the day?" or my knuckles get severely rapped with a ruler. No, not a nun. a Presbyterian.
In the English language, the feminine specifies a female person, while the masculine is indefinite. For instance, an actress is always female, but an actor may be either male or female, and a stewardess isd always female, but a steward may be male or female. It even works for proper nouns. You won't find any guys named Michelle, but Michael may be male or female.
At one time, Claire was the feminine form of Clair and Clare was indefinite, but on the last couple of decades, people asl me why I have the female middle name. I tell them I was named for my uncle Clair, who was a marine drill sargeant. Not at all true; Clair was his middle name, and he was a machinist's mate on a Navy destroyer in WWII, but my story is effective in shotting them up....
deaconB said
It's "At yuour child's last brthday, did he enjoy tyhe day?"
I doubt very much that he will work at all except for a boy. If a girl, the parent's reply would likely be "No, Tommy's birthday is not till next month, but thanks, Cathy enjoyed hers very much."
Here's a sure test: Say your friend has a new baby girl. Pretend you don't know, ask: "What's his name." I bet your house the reply will come back: "No, it's a girl."
Glenn said
I think it has become quite accepted. I take no issue with it even with "your child" when the gender of that child is unknown to the speaker. It sounds perfectly fine. If the speaker knows the gender, then I might find it jarring."At your child's last birthday, did they enjoy the day?"
* "At your daughter's last birthday, did they enjoy the day?"
That they would be automatically understood as the group of friends at the party. I just can't see any circumstances where that statement can refer to just the individual. But it could be one of the things that your mind subconsciously throws out, so I will keep my ear open, but I doubt very much that I will hear it in that way.
Heimhenge said
Robert said: I doubt very much that there are many instances in literatures where they stands for a specific (or half specific like so) person.
Ah, but there are. At least in literature from earlier times. This is from the Oxford Dictionaries I cited in my previous post.
Some people object to the use of plural pronouns in this type of situation on the grounds that it’s ungrammatical. In fact, the use of plural pronouns to refer back to a singular subject isn’t new: it represents a revival of a practice dating from the 16th century. It’s increasingly common in current English and is now widely accepted both in speech and in writing.
My point was that, even though I was taught to avoid that usage, I find I have gravitated toward it over the years. It's just a simpler way to express an idea than using the awkward "he or she" "he/she" "s/he" constructs when the gender is unknown.
I see that your post is about gender references, but there is this other issue of whether the usage is valid for a person.
I still don't see any examples, ancient or modern, where they stands for a specific person.
There are a bunch of examples in here for instance, but they are all for non-specific references, like anyone, a person, whoever, etc. The lack of usages for specific individual among those many examples, must be significant.
Here's the deal with the Oxford example ("Your child...they..") : It can make sense if as a statement in a printed material, like a manual, a set of instructions, because then it is as an impersonal reference. But it as personal verbal communication-- I just don't see it.
"They who hesitates is lost"?
"The soldier on duty? They are my wife."?
"They is no lady, they is my wife"?
"That child that's crying? They are yours?" may well be followed by a punch in the nose, "Jessica is not THAT fat!"
No man is an island, but women sometimes are?
The best man for the job is never a woman?
Isn't the plural supposed to be reserved for royalty, editors, and people with tapeworms?
"Is they is or is they not my baby?"The SCOTUS says your spouse need not be of a different sex, but using a plural to refer to marital partners suggests polygamy, which SCOTUS hasn't addressed in the last century. Anyone who says you should use a plural for a single person, well, they am abusive of our language.
deaconB said
The SCOTUS says your [emphasis mine] spouse need not be of a different sex, but using a plural to refer to marital partners suggests polygamy, which SCOTUS hasn't addressed in the last century. Anyone who says you should use a plural for a single person, well, they am abusive of our language.
Clearly "you" is a plural pronoun. At one point "you" was exclusively plural in English, just as at one point "they" was once exclusively plural. By your use of "your" above -- which I take as being used without irony -- you appear to be using the plural pronoun for a single person, as I am here. Otherwise, you are implying that multiple people had one shared spouse -- also poly-something-y. Are you including yourself in those who "am" abusive of our language?
Glenn said
Clearly "you" is a plural pronoun. At one point "you" was exclusively plural in English, just as at one point "they" was once exclusively plural.
It's my understanding that you (singular) and ye (plural) were formal use, while thou (singular) and thee (pplural) were familiar use about 600 years ago. Was you exclusively plural before that, or after that?
To answer thou on the other question, I are often abusive of the language when chauvinists use the language to abuse minorities. Women are a majority and to pervert thew language to shame fat folk is reprehensible.
It was before that. Certainly in Old English the analogous pronouns were used strictly in to indicate singular versus plural. The transition comes sometime during Middle English.
The transition is a bit of a muddle. Probably under the influence of other European languages such as French, around the middle of the 1600s, you began to be employed as a polite form for the 2nd person singular. By the end of the 1700s, thee thou thine forms had all but disappeared except in some limited groups and specialized uses. It took about 150 years from start to finish, sort of.
It is still around. For example, it is still employed in the fixed expression holier than thou.
It is probably fair to credit the King James Bible for some of its persistent use in religious contexts. The KJV bible uses thouto address even God. The KJV was translated in the very early 1604-1612, which I think is before the formal / informal notion grew up in English.
Ironically, in my lifetime I have heard many objections to Bible translations that use you to address God on the grounds that you is too informal, and one should use the formal thou when addressing God. To those I wish to play a sad trombone and bid them farewell with thanks for playing.
Sad trombone is far from an original. Use it without licensing fees.
/ Sad Trombone website
Sad Trombone widget
Sad Trombone "not so easy, was it?" FAIL button
Always grateful for any mention of my instrument. Thanks, Glenn.
Dan, in your list of examples, #1 is the way I was taught, and the construction that first forms in my brain, but I avoid it like the plague, because I'm in agreement with those who object to the gender bias. For #2 I agree with Glenn — only very occasionally, if you have to. #3 is just awful: it is horribly contrived, and only serves to draw attention to itself and away from the sense of the sentence. I like #4 because I'm comfortable with the pluralness across the board, but it simply doesn't work in all cases. The writer may have a valid reason for using the singular; and though I have a kneejerk objection to it, I think #5 is the best choice. It's here to stay, so let's call it correct and move on to dessert.
I wonder if this is something that is in transition in the language right now. I'm 50 and have a 15 year old son. He regularly refers to individual friends as "they" when talking to me. It bugged me for a while - was he trying to hide something? or did he not know proper grammar? - but then I heard the episode that talks about singular they. It doesn't bother me any more, although I do still notice it.
https://waywordradio.org/third-person-singular/
I'm wondering if this shift (re-emergence?) is co-incident to or because of the growing recognition of power issues surrounding pronouns (e.g. using male pronouns as default) or gender identity more broadly. Grant or Martha, do you know if there is evidence to explain the trend?
Your first instinct is sound: what better way to hide information about someone than to make the person out vague, undefined, in other word impersonal, as in 'they.'
Another possibility is your son quite responsibly takes account of the fact that you do not need much knowledge about the friend to understand the main story.
Does he ever say something like "I love Kate , and they love me too " ? Of course not; it's wrong, or else deliberately made absurd.
The issue with they is not really about plurality or gender; It's about how appropreately to refer to a person: On a scale from total generality to intimate knowledge, where do you want, either as affectation or as required by propriety, to place the person ? (And then to make that binary choice whether to use the word.)
By the way, the point about you being singular is as weak as anything can be weak. It is like to say because ... well, just about any absurd logic can fit here.
Robert said
By the way, the point about you being singular is as weak as anything can be weak. It is like to say because ... well, just about any absurd logic can fit here.
You IS singular, for many people. Them illiterate southerners say "y'all" for the plural, but up here in Indiana, it's enunciated corrected, as "you all".
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)