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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
…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.
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.
They has been a singular pronoun for centuries. It’s only nonsensical if you’re a brainlet sucking on the teat of outrage media
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.
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.
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.
https://www.englishgratis.com/1/wikibooks/english/singularthey.htm
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.
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.
Lol, they just had the exact same argument with me.
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.
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.
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.
Take a chill pill, read the article you linked and have a nice day.
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.
Touch grass.
Arguments made in bad faith (such as that made by Sawzall) deserve any ridicule. ¯\(ツ)/¯
Staple satire; filling, reliable, but a little hammy. 5/7 with rice?