You might want to work on your grammar, my friend.
'Tis meet that some more audience than a mother, since nature makes them partial, should o’erhear the speech."— Shakespeare, Hamlet (1599);
Caesar: “No, Cleopatra. No man goes to battle to be killed.” Cleopatra: “But they do get killed” —Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra (1901);
In an 1881 letter, Emily Dickinson wrote “Almost anyone under the circumstances would have doubted if [the letter] were theirs, or indeed if they were themself.”
George Eliot (1859) – Adam Bede:
“It is too late to spare anyone when they are dead.”
And “Anyone” as a noun is an undetermined number and is often treated as plural. All of these are referencing an ambiguous potential-group, not a context-explicit singular individual.
So you would say that when referencing a singular specific person of undeterminate gender in the third person we should use is? Because I am quite sure that, if that has ever been correct at all, it certainly isn’t now. As per merriam webster:
A student was found with a knife and a BB gun in their backpack Monday, district spokeswoman Renee Murphy confirmed. The student, whose name has not been released, will be disciplined according to district policies, Murphy said. They also face charges from outside law enforcement, she said.— Olivia Krauth
E: also,
“Each member [of the women’s touch football team] found something they could improve on in the future.”
Dalby (Queensland) Herald (Nexis) 21 October 16, 2014 (as quoted in the oxford english dictionary)
Contradicts you as well unless you’d like to argue that “each man are fighting for himself” is correct.
The Cleopatra quote is talking about individuals; Individuals which we know make up a group, but individuals nonetheless.
“Anyone” is a similar concept. You talk about a single person(it’s right there in the word) and apply that condition to however many people. An example in a group of all men would be “anyone may leave the room if he so chooses” and even though it sounds weird, because we heavily favour the singular they, it absolutely works.
This has strong “everything is a conspiracy when you don’t understand how anything works” vibes. Your lack of understanding shouldn’t have to be everyone else’s problem.
I love the straw man interpretations everyone is pulling out of their assholes to try to justify their insane kneejerk reaction to someone using a singular verb to refer to a singular individual (and not an unspecified number of individuals).
“Ah yes, let us disregard basic grammar rules in order to make a stupid argument to ‘prove’ my point, that’s clearly what’ll convince people that my way is the right one”
I’m not the one disregarding the grammar rules. You are.
Wow, I did not expect people to assume I was a biggot for pointing out the issues this causes for clarity in language. Like it is legitimately confusing.
I’m not the one disregarding the grammar rules. You are.
You are.
You, in this case, is singular. Why are you using are?!
It turns out, “the issues this causes for clarity in language” don’t actually matter, and it doesn’t cause any issues. It’s perfectly clear “you” and “they” here are singular, despite the plural grammar. It is not confusing, as you clearly proved in your own comment by using “you are.”
Why does no one in this topic under the difference between second and third person? The rules are not the same between these, stop acting like this is a gotcha, you’re just proving your own ignorance on the topic.
But that’s not the reason for “you are!” It’s because you used to be plural! We stopped using it for plural and it’s exclusively singular now, yet it maintains the plural grammar.
It used to be “thou art” for second person singular and “you are” for second person plural. Now it’s “you are” for second person singular and usually “you all/y’all are” or “you guys are,” but sometimes “you are,” for second person plural. “They are” is in good company.
Grammar and language are made up. Stop arguing about the rules and just use it in the way that’s useful for communication with your contemporaries, or if you are going to argue about “maintaining the purity of the rules” then start using “thou art” for second person plural, so your peers can understand you.
Except I am not, they has been used singularly for centuries now.
Let me put it in a way that will make sense for you. Singular “they” is, more often than not, used when people do not know the gender or amount of a group. Whenever you speak of a corporation or company, it is extremely common to use “they” instead of “it”. E.g. “they are the ones in charge of making that decision”. In the example, you are speaking of a company or similar group, a singular entity by itself. However, since the speaker does not know who or how many people make this decision, the speaker uses a singular “they”.
This is but one example of how they has been used as a singular pronoun for ages, but let us digress a little bit. Why the fuck is the royal “we” allowed, but not the singular “they”? They both follow the same structure but inverse of each other, where the royal we is a way to say “I’m speaking of myself as a part of a bigger entity/community”. You can make an argument that both of these carry plural connotations, but my point is that grammar rules and language as a whole is way more nuanced than black or white.
So, please, save your spit and time with a counter argument that only pushes forward discriminating thinking and stop being a pussy about language change.
Btw, I’m not a native English speaker, which goes to show that I was actively taught about singular they, instead of picking it up intuitively like most native speakers do.
Edit PS: don’t even think of using my non-nativeness as a point against me, I know for a fact I have better grammar and care more about orthography than the average native speaker.
Huh? I’m a dummy–teach me this arcane English rule that i wasn’t aware of until now.
For what it’s worth though: Have you always held such righteous standards for dialogue? Hard to follow what people are saying when they (oops!) speak with the wrong perspective? You must struggle in the modern world, the way people eviscerate our language publicly pretty much 24/7. I’d feel bad for you if you seemed like a decent person.
Your rebuttal to my issue with the third person handling of a singular they, was you using the second person…as if that was related. Do you still not understand the difference? It’s not that I didn’t understand you, you were just wrong to use it as a counter example to what I said. Damn, you doubled down by showing how poor your comprehension skills are.
And you think you have me figured out as a terrible person because I pointed out, in just 3 words, a grammatical inconsistency. Real quick to jump to judgement there.
Imagine the people who jumped down my throat because they kneejerk assumed I was dead naming, use that very things they attacked me over as their go to insult.
As opposed to arguing about fake rules that don’t even exist in modern English, maybe just apply the slightest bit of logic. Language doesn’t work the way you are insisting it does, it’s not math.
No, you dummy. The reason we use “are” with “you” is because it was originally plural. However, language is mutable and ever-changing. You is almost exclusively used as singular now, yet it keeps the plural “are”. The point being, your statement that “they is” is wrong doesn’t prove anything. We use the “wrong” grammar for words all the time and we don’t care, until you can do it to hurt someone.
I’m the one arguing for that use. EVERYONE ELSE here decided to shit on me for it. So many people here wanting to argue about grammar that can’t even fucking comprehend what they read.
Where did I hurt anyone? You’re assigning shit to a vague statement on grammar that I never said it implied. Hair triggers the lot of you.
It’s because “they is” is not correct usage, even if it’s used as singular, just as “you is” isn’t. Saying “they is” makes it sound like you’re pointing out that it doesn’t work so therefor it must be plural. It’s “they are” even if used as singular.
“They are running late”. We’ve been using the singular “they” for hundreds of years, it isn’t that difficult. German uses third person plural for polite second person singular, it’s not that weird to have third person plural be third person singular, too, especially when English makes no distinction between between “you” and “you”.
They is running late?
You is not very smart, is you?
Again, second person vs third person.
It would seem jakr is not smart one.
You are not the smart one.
Fail.
You might want to work on your grammar, my friend.
'Tis meet that some more audience than a mother, since nature makes them partial, should o’erhear the speech."— Shakespeare, Hamlet (1599);
Caesar: “No, Cleopatra. No man goes to battle to be killed.” Cleopatra: “But they do get killed” —Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra (1901);
In an 1881 letter, Emily Dickinson wrote “Almost anyone under the circumstances would have doubted if [the letter] were theirs, or indeed if they were themself.”
George Eliot (1859) – Adam Bede: “It is too late to spare anyone when they are dead.”
Cleaopatra is clearly refencing a plural group.
And “Anyone” as a noun is an undetermined number and is often treated as plural. All of these are referencing an ambiguous potential-group, not a context-explicit singular individual.
So you would say that when referencing a singular specific person of undeterminate gender in the third person we should use is? Because I am quite sure that, if that has ever been correct at all, it certainly isn’t now. As per merriam webster: A student was found with a knife and a BB gun in their backpack Monday, district spokeswoman Renee Murphy confirmed. The student, whose name has not been released, will be disciplined according to district policies, Murphy said. They also face charges from outside law enforcement, she said.— Olivia Krauth
E: also, “Each member [of the women’s touch football team] found something they could improve on in the future.”
Dalby (Queensland) Herald (Nexis) 21 October 16, 2014 (as quoted in the oxford english dictionary)
Contradicts you as well unless you’d like to argue that “each man are fighting for himself” is correct.
If you used any other pronoun other than “they” it would be is and faces
The student also faces charges. S/He faces charges. They face charges. - this is only because we’re conditioned based on they being plural.
Yeah? The pronoun is what causes it to be plural. This is how the grammar works. I don’t understand what your argument is here.
That’s clear you don’t.
The number of people you’re talking about causes it to be plural, not the misuse of a plural pronoun.
The Cleopatra quote is talking about individuals; Individuals which we know make up a group, but individuals nonetheless.
“Anyone” is a similar concept. You talk about a single person(it’s right there in the word) and apply that condition to however many people. An example in a group of all men would be “anyone may leave the room if he so chooses” and even though it sounds weird, because we heavily favour the singular they, it absolutely works.
This has strong “everything is a conspiracy when you don’t understand how anything works” vibes. Your lack of understanding shouldn’t have to be everyone else’s problem.
I love the straw man interpretations everyone is pulling out of their assholes to try to justify their insane kneejerk reaction to someone using a singular verb to refer to a singular individual (and not an unspecified number of individuals).
It’s one of those things that’s never a problem until it might help someone else feel more comfortable and then suddenly it’s this whole thing.
“Ah yes, let us disregard basic grammar rules in order to make a stupid argument to ‘prove’ my point, that’s clearly what’ll convince people that my way is the right one”
I’m not the one disregarding the grammar rules. You are.
Wow, I did not expect people to assume I was a biggot for pointing out the issues this causes for clarity in language. Like it is legitimately confusing.
You, in this case, is singular. Why are you using are?!
It turns out, “the issues this causes for clarity in language” don’t actually matter, and it doesn’t cause any issues. It’s perfectly clear “you” and “they” here are singular, despite the plural grammar. It is not confusing, as you clearly proved in your own comment by using “you are.”
Why does no one in this topic under the difference between second and third person? The rules are not the same between these, stop acting like this is a gotcha, you’re just proving your own ignorance on the topic.
But that’s not the reason for “you are!” It’s because you used to be plural! We stopped using it for plural and it’s exclusively singular now, yet it maintains the plural grammar.
It used to be “thou art” for second person singular and “you are” for second person plural. Now it’s “you are” for second person singular and usually “you all/y’all are” or “you guys are,” but sometimes “you are,” for second person plural. “They are” is in good company.
Grammar and language are made up. Stop arguing about the rules and just use it in the way that’s useful for communication with your contemporaries, or if you are going to argue about “maintaining the purity of the rules” then start using “thou art” for second person plural, so your peers can understand you.
Except I am not, they has been used singularly for centuries now.
Let me put it in a way that will make sense for you. Singular “they” is, more often than not, used when people do not know the gender or amount of a group. Whenever you speak of a corporation or company, it is extremely common to use “they” instead of “it”. E.g. “they are the ones in charge of making that decision”. In the example, you are speaking of a company or similar group, a singular entity by itself. However, since the speaker does not know who or how many people make this decision, the speaker uses a singular “they”.
This is but one example of how they has been used as a singular pronoun for ages, but let us digress a little bit. Why the fuck is the royal “we” allowed, but not the singular “they”? They both follow the same structure but inverse of each other, where the royal we is a way to say “I’m speaking of myself as a part of a bigger entity/community”. You can make an argument that both of these carry plural connotations, but my point is that grammar rules and language as a whole is way more nuanced than black or white.
So, please, save your spit and time with a counter argument that only pushes forward discriminating thinking and stop being a pussy about language change.
Btw, I’m not a native English speaker, which goes to show that I was actively taught about singular they, instead of picking it up intuitively like most native speakers do.
Edit PS: don’t even think of using my non-nativeness as a point against me, I know for a fact I have better grammar and care more about orthography than the average native speaker.
You are singularly really dumb.
Second person vs third person, dummy. If you’re going to insult someone’s intelligence, at least be right about it.
Huh? I’m a dummy–teach me this arcane English rule that i wasn’t aware of until now. For what it’s worth though: Have you always held such righteous standards for dialogue? Hard to follow what people are saying when they (oops!) speak with the wrong perspective? You must struggle in the modern world, the way people eviscerate our language publicly pretty much 24/7. I’d feel bad for you if you seemed like a decent person.
What arcane English rule?
Your rebuttal to my issue with the third person handling of a singular they, was you using the second person…as if that was related. Do you still not understand the difference? It’s not that I didn’t understand you, you were just wrong to use it as a counter example to what I said. Damn, you doubled down by showing how poor your comprehension skills are.
And you think you have me figured out as a terrible person because I pointed out, in just 3 words, a grammatical inconsistency. Real quick to jump to judgement there.
Sure pal
Edit: tagged you they/them
Have a nice weekend, champ
Imagine the people who jumped down my throat because they kneejerk assumed I was dead naming, use that very things they attacked me over as their go to insult.
And in a manner I cannot even see.
Pick a lane.
As opposed to arguing about fake rules that don’t even exist in modern English, maybe just apply the slightest bit of logic. Language doesn’t work the way you are insisting it does, it’s not math.
No, you dummy. The reason we use “are” with “you” is because it was originally plural. However, language is mutable and ever-changing. You is almost exclusively used as singular now, yet it keeps the plural “are”. The point being, your statement that “they is” is wrong doesn’t prove anything. We use the “wrong” grammar for words all the time and we don’t care, until you can do it to hurt someone.
Hey dummy. I never said “they is” is wrong.
I’m the one arguing for that use. EVERYONE ELSE here decided to shit on me for it. So many people here wanting to argue about grammar that can’t even fucking comprehend what they read.
Where did I hurt anyone? You’re assigning shit to a vague statement on grammar that I never said it implied. Hair triggers the lot of you.
It’s because “they is” is not correct usage, even if it’s used as singular, just as “you is” isn’t. Saying “they is” makes it sound like you’re pointing out that it doesn’t work so therefor it must be plural. It’s “they are” even if used as singular.
Removed by mod
They’re running late?
“They are running late”. We’ve been using the singular “they” for hundreds of years, it isn’t that difficult. German uses third person plural for polite second person singular, it’s not that weird to have third person plural be third person singular, too, especially when English makes no distinction between between “you” and “you”.
Anyway, it’s simple shit.
We also use “they” singular if we don’t know the gender of a person, like when we haven’t met them yet.
In that sense it was a very logical choice for non-binary people in my opinion.
You are almost there, well done for trying
Nope, that’s actually correct. You may need to re-attend grade school
I love watching someone flounder around with 100% arrogance.