Talk:Singular they

Moved lots of debates, some form ancient times, to /Archive 2005-05

---

Wikipedia style

The article is not prescriptive, but what is the feeling about its use in articles? The single transferable vote article had a lot of singular theys and theirs, changed to he or she and his or her. Any views about which is less ugly? --Henrygb 00:46, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's an important style question, but it might get more (and more relevant) response if you bring it up on an appropriate page in the Wikipedia namespace. If we have a discussion about it here, I'm sure a lot of users with a point of view to contribute would be turned off by having to look through a lot of stuff specific to this article. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 10:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I consider the use of "they" as a sigular pronoun, and other such use of plual pronouns in the sigular, to be a simple error. If I find such a use in a page I am editing, i will pretty much always change it. If possible I will use a wording that doesn't require "he", "him" or the like. I will use "he or she" in preference to they, or reword to passive voice or some other construction. In a long article it is possible to alternate he and she. I would prefer a newly invented pronoun, but so far there is nothing like widespred acceptance of any such device. Until there is, wikipedia should not use it -- except in articles about linguistics, or about such proposals as noteworthy events in themselves or the like. wikipedia is suppoed to reflect existing human knowledge, not be a place for creating new usage conventions. I have been known to use "s/he" in personal writing, but I don't think this is widely aceepted enough to have a palce in wikipedia yet.

If there is no other reasonable choice, I will use a generic "he" or the like, rather than a singular "they". DES 23:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, didst thou happen to read the article before forming that opinion? As the article notes, singular they is hardly a "new usage convention": it's centuries old, and is found in the works of Austen and Shakespeare. Further, why dost thou object to the use of any plural pronouns in the singular? Most readers will probably find it strange when thou insistest on using the singular thou and thee instead of the infinitely-more-common, but clearly plural, you. (I should note, I happen to agree that Wikipedia should avoid using singular they when there's a clean alternative, because it's pointless trying to convince would-be pedants that there's no reason to see it as incorrect. My disagreement is with thy reasoning, not with thy conclusion.) Ruakh 07:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes I did read the article. (Although the opnion is one I have held since long before Wikipedia was created.) Furthermore, i am quite well aware of the history of "thee" and "thou" and how "you" came to replace them. I note that the distinction was never as simple as that "thee" was sigular and "you" plural. As far back as we have records, or at least as far back as the OED traces, "you" was used in sigular but formal cirumstances, while "thee" was used in intimate ones. The corresponding usage in the first person has left as a fossil the "royal we". And you, Sir, hardly know me well enough to address me as 'thou'. (I grant that if one goes back to Primitive Indo-European, the distiction seems to have been purely one of sigular/plural, but not in even Old English.)

It is possible that sigular they will become a widely accepted and established standard. Language does change. It is also possible that anewly invented pronoun will become widely accepted -- the example of "Ms." shows that this is possible. (And yes, i know that "Ms" had ancient roots, but it had fallen so far out of active usage that it was in effect a new coinage.) In general i belive in adhering fairly strictly to established usage until a changed usage becomes widely accepted -- in such matters I am normlly an active member of the rear guard. The change to sigular they may happen, but it hasn't happened yet, and until it does, I will oppose it.

I might add, nowhere in my comments did I say anything about the usage being new. I said it was wrong -- accoring to the current rules of english usage. It is an error with a long history, yes. It is still an error -- until and unless it becomes common enough to be the new establised rule. DES 15:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: "I might add, nowhere in my comments did I say anything about the usage being new": In opposing Wikipedia's using singular they, you wrote "wikipedia is suppoed to reflect existing human knowledge, not be a place for creating new usage conventions"; I interpreted that to mean that you considered the use of singular they to be one such "new usage convention." My apologies if I misunderstood. Ruakh 15:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I intended that to refer to the possibility of using a newly invtend sigular pronoun, such as "sie" or a form such as "s/he". the statement about wikipedia not being for new conventions followed my saying "I would prefer a newly invented pronoun..." Sorry if that wasn't clear. DES 17:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the rest of your points: fair enough. I still disagree with your opinion that singular they is wrong, but as we're not disagreeing about whether Wikipedia should use it, I guess it doesn't matter that much. Ruakh 15:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By the way, you're mistaken that singular you goes back as far as the OED traces; it gives uses of plural you going back to circa 897, and of singular thou and thee going back to circa 825, but only gives uses of singular you going back to the 1300s. (Singular they, by this approach, is a bit younger, going back to the 1500s, though I've heard it claimed elsewhere that it goes back further than that.) Further, at the entry for the pronoun thou, it explicitly notes that you did not start to be used as a singular pronoun at all until sometime during the Middle English period. Ruakh 16:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, it seems that my memory was wrong on this point, and that the change froma a purely sigular/plural thee/you distinction, to an intimate/formal one, to the near total disuse of 'thee' and related forms, was quicker than i had recalled. Still, i claim that the same sort of change for they hasn't been accomplished yet. DES 17:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You

First off, I am aware that at one time, we had "thou" for singular and "you" for plural, but I am not convinced that is the reason "you" takes the same verb form as a plural. After all, "I" takes the same form as the plural as well (for every verb except "am") and "I" was never a plural. Plus, even when "you" was primarily used as a plural, it was also the polite or more formal pronoun for either singular or plural second person, so "you"'s transition to singular does not really parallel singular they that closely. I'm sure we could find a better example, but it may mean looking outside of English. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 20:59, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

It's true that English doesn't generally make a simple singular-plural distinction in its verbs, but singular you definitely took/takes the forms that plural you took/takes, not the forms that singular thou took. That said, I don't think there's anything to say that singular they takes a "plural" verb form; rather, it takes the same verb form as plural they. Ruakh 23:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)