2012-04-18: The One Where We Make Fun of a Different Religio

[Michael Poe]

We actually advocate (not too seriously) that we all wholeheartedly adopt the singular "they", to accompany the singular "you" (in place of the old singular "thou"), and then we all adopt the royal/author's/mathematician's "we" for the first person; and then append "all" to whichever when we all want to get true plurals (similar to how Spanish appends 'otros', "others", and existing use of "you all").

Basically, drop "I" for "we" and all gender-specific third-persons for "they" (even if you know their gender), and continue existing use of "all" to emphasize plurality.

Well that certainly parses better than the "hen" thing Sweden is pushing for.

[Forrest]

We actually advocate (not too seriously) that we all wholeheartedly adopt the singular "they", to accompany the singular "you" (in place of the old singular "thou"), and then we all adopt the royal/author's/mathematician's "we" for the first person; and then append "all" to whichever when we all want to get true plurals (similar to how Spanish appends 'otros', "others", and existing use of "you all").

Basically, drop "I" for "we" and all gender-specific third-persons for "they" (even if you know their gender), and continue existing use of "all" to emphasize plurality.

Well that certainly parses better than the "hen" thing Sweden is pushing for.

The down side is, if the history of "you all" is anything to go by, in short order w'all'll be saying "w'all" and "th'all" in addition to the hated "y'all".

[BloodHenge]

Interestingly, I think the mistake may have come at least partially from English translations of the Bible, specifically Genesis 2:23, which reads in part, "She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." (According to The Unbound Bible, that's from the New American Standard Version, but I remember similar wording from the NIV and KJV.)

Interesting, you are correct, but that was not originally written in english.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0102.htm
וַיֹּאמֶר, הָאָדָם, זֹאת הַפַּעַם עֶצֶם מֵעֲצָמַי, וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי; לְזֹאת יִקָּרֵא אִשָּׁה, כִּי מֵאִישׁ לֻקְחָה-זֹּאת.
Woman = אִשָּׁה
Man = אִישׁ

I was reasonably certain that Genesis wasn't originally written in English (hence the English translations) and if I had to guess, I would have said it was originally written in Hebrew. However, I think it's likely that that phrase led militant feminists to hold up the word "woman" as an example of oppression, despite the fact that it has (apparently) a completely separate etymological derivation.

Personally, I don't even use the singular "they" because I think it sounds stupid (although I don't go around "correcting" people who do because it's technically an accepted use).

What do you use instead?

When I can't avoid using a pronoun for someone with an unknown or indeterminate gender, I use "one" (for hypothetical cases) or the generic "he" (for specific people known to exist). The latter may not be politically correct, but it is grammatically correct and, unless I've been misled, it's been an established use longer than the singular "they". (If the person turns out to be female and someone alerts me to this fact, I naturally use "she" instead.)

We actually advocate (not too seriously) that we all wholeheartedly adopt the singular "they", to accompany the singular "you" (in place of the old singular "thou"), and then we all adopt the royal/author's/mathematician's "we" for the first person; and then append "all" to whichever when we all want to get true plurals (similar to how Spanish appends 'otros', "others", and existing use of "you all").

Basically, drop "I" for "we" and all gender-specific third-persons for "they" (even if you know their gender), and continue existing use of "all" to emphasize plurality.

Well that certainly parses better than the "hen" thing Sweden is pushing for.

The down side is, if the history of "you all" is anything to go by, in short order w'all'll be saying "w'all" and "th'all" in addition to the hated "y'all".

What's wrong with "y'all"? As long as we avoid "you'uns", I think we'll be fine.

[RGE]

The latter may not be politically correct, but it is grammatically correct and, unless I've been misled, it's been an established use longer than the singular "they". (If the person turns out to be female and someone alerts me to this fact, I naturally use "she" instead.)

I operate under the assumption that grammar should facilitate my communication. So when grammar isn't doing its job by giving me a handy way to refer to a known poster by a gender neutral word other than said poster's handle, I make my own way by grabbing the closest third person word that isn't likely to be viewed as an insult. Which would be "they".

And using "she" instead of "he" only after being corrected isn't good enough for me. I'd rather use grammar that is guaranteed to be incorrect than risk a factual error. Because the message is (usually) way more important than the grammar.

I haven't used "hen" yet though. I guess it's just easier to violate the grammar of a foreign language.

Though that's not the entire truth. I don't think using the Swedish version of "they" would feel particularly wrong. We already have two versions for "they": "de" and "dom", and the latter of those even doubles as "them". And that's the one I could see myself use for "he/she". Because hey, what's one more usage, really? (Pronounced slightly different "dom" also means "verdict", so if this ever became a trend, the Swedish chef could change from "bork bork bork" to "dom dom dom".) to

[Forrest]

"de" and "dom", and the latter of those even doubles as "them". And that's the one I could see myself use for "he/she". Because hey, what's one more usage, really? (Pronounced slightly different "dom" also means "verdict", so if this ever became a trend, the Swedish chef could change from "bork bork bork" to "dom dom dom".) to

Farfar, får får får?

[BloodHenge]

The latter may not be politically correct, but it is grammatically correct and, unless I've been misled, it's been an established use longer than the singular "they". (If the person turns out to be female and someone alerts me to this fact, I naturally use "she" instead.)

I operate under the assumption that grammar should facilitate my communication. So when grammar isn't doing its job by giving me a handy way to refer to a known poster by a gender neutral word other than said poster's handle, I make my own way by grabbing the closest third person word that isn't likely to be viewed as an insult. Which would be "they".

And using "she" instead of "he" only after being corrected isn't good enough for me. I'd rather use grammar that is guaranteed to be incorrect than risk a factual error. Because the message is (usually) way more important than the grammar.

But to me, the singular "they" doesn't facilitate communication. In my mind at least, it raises questions about how many people you're talking about and makes word choice the subject of thought rather than the intended message of the sentence. It sticks out in my mind much like the hermaphrodite pronouns people have been kludging together, like "sie" and "hir". Recent resistance to the gender-indeterminate "he" is part of why I try to avoid pronouns in ambiguous cases and why I sometimes press "one" into service as a third-person singular pronoun when I'm not talking about a specific person at all. I guess I could use "he or she" and "him or her", but that's a bit of a mouthful. I basically see it as a situation with no good solutions, so I use the ones I find least distasteful, but other people have different taste.