• -RJ-@lemmy.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Person 1: Is your friend Bob coming over? Person 2: No, they can’t make it, they’re busy

    One Bob, and we all know it’s one Bob, no confusion. Look for context. It’s not that hard.

    • CluckN@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Person 1: Are Bob and Janice coming over? Person 2: They can’t make it.

      Sometimes additional context is needed.

        • Garbanzo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Bad example. Having the ‘but’ in there introduces ambiguity. We can’t tell if Janice is contradicting Bob and saying they both won’t be coming, or if it’s just Janice speaking for themself.

          • Syn_Attck@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Agreed it’s a bad example. When already using the specific identifier of names, using general identifiers isn’t needed, and is rarely done. Most people would just say Bob is coming but Janice can’t make it.

      • Devccoon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Your example is unambiguously plural. It’s not a good illustration of “they” creating confusion.

        It’s truly not a problem. I could contrive a reason to talk about a couple (they plural) and a nonbinary person (they singular) and end up with sentences where you don’t know which I’m referring to, but the exact same issue happens if I’m telling a story about two “he” or “she” subjects. And it’s solved in the same way.

      • Syn_Attck@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Person 1: Are Bob and Janice coming over? Person 2: They can’t make it.

        Alternative:

        Person 1: Are Alice and Janice coming over? Person 2: She can’t make it.

        Alternative:

        Person 1: Are Alice and Janice coming over? Person 2: Alice can’t make it.

        This is far less difficult than you’re trying to force it to be.

    • A Phlaming Phoenix@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      And also because when people try to use neopronouns they take as much flak for that if not more. Imagine this same argument: “I’m not used to these newfangled pronouns. Why can’t they just use normal ones?”

      • Blaze@dormi.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        We have that in French, the amount of discussions the new pronoun (“iel”, as a mix between “il” et “elle”) is absurd

      • SigmarStern@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        As someone speaking German, a brutally gendered language, let me tell you, they/them is awesome and I’d love to have something similar in German. There is so much fighting and discussions about “gendern” and it consumes so much energy that could be better spent elsewhere. And conservatives are having a field trip with this.

        Looking for a new word is equally as hard if not way harder than using what already works fine.

        • Tywèle [she|her]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yes I would love for the German language to have an equivalent for they/them. It’s also so awkward talking about someone who is non binary and neither uses he/him nor she/her and you always have to refer to them by their name.

  • neptune@dmv.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Conservatives would probably get mad about that too so “they” works just fine

    • pantyhosewimp@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      2nd person singular: ya’ll

      2nd person plural: all ya’ll

      Using “youins” for second person plural is considered archaic.

  • Carrolade@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    “They” is the traditional English-language pronoun when an unknown person could be of either gender. “Mommy, my teacher said a funny thing at school today!” “Oh? What did they say?”

    Teacher is singular, but assigning a gender would feel awkward if one doesn’t know, so “they” is used instead.

  • PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    “Every customer should be greeted when they walk into the store.”

    The singular “they” is traditional in English - it is very much proper English and has been around (iirc) since the 17th century. It’s only a big deal now because conservatives want to make gender a factor in elections.

    • Impound4017@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Well said! My go-to example is ‘If someone calls and I’m not here, tell them they can leave a message’ because it covers both they and them in a singular usage.

      Sidenote: I also hate the way that some people act like languages are static things, despite the known history of languages to shift and change over time. English is arguably a German creole; we don’t get to act all sanctimonious now.

      • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        If we actually followed the “your gender identity is mildly inconvenient to me so should be banned” crowd and made everything unambiguously gendered, language would become far more awkward.

        “If someone calls and I’m not there, tell him or her that he or she can leave a message”.

        We could start doing this right now – every time they he or she uses the word “they”, insist they he or she repeats themselves himself or herself in a way that leaves no gender ambiguity…

        • dgmib@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          That could get really awkward if some of the neopronouns become common.

          “… tell him or her or zim or xyr or thon that he or she or ze or xe or thon can leave a message… “

    • coolmultitool@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      That’s a good explanation. English isn’t my native language, and I always found the they/them weird sounding. With that sentence of the customer you made it click for me. Thanks!

      • PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Thanks!

        I have always loved the OED. As a kid I used to sit in the library and just read it. It was always a dream of mine to buy my own copy and just have it the way people used to have encyclopedias.

    • gregorum@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      i had an English teacher in high school that insisted sentences like this were grammatically incorrect (subject/verb disagreement, number), and should be, “Every customer should be greeted when he or she walks into the store,” or “All customers should be greeted when they walk into the store.”

      I found them annoying.

  • ABCDE@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    It is much quicker to understand they as a neutral instead of introducing new language and trying to disseminate that through textbooks. This way, there’s no need for any (or many) edits, we can just maintain existing grammar with new understanding.

    English already has another form which refers to singular and plural: ‘you’. I assume that people who suddenly take umbrage are just kicking up a fuss for the sake of it, or simply didn’t stop to think about what they’ve been using all this time.

  • Deestan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Entering academia early 2000s, I saw people refer to authors of research papers as “they” as a default to sidestep gendering.

    On one hand it’s nice to not insert gender where it isn’t needed, but on the more practical hand it wasn’t always possible to tell by name either. European names can have different gender in different regions, or be all Sztrkökla, and names from Asia are even harder to guess.

    • ABCDE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      names from Asia are even harder to guess

      Good luck in Cambodia where Samnang and many other names can be used for both male and female names.

      • my_hat_stinks@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        You get gender-neutral names in English-speaking countries too, eg Alex, Jordan, and Dylan. It’s just not possible to reliably guess everyone’s gender from their name alone.

  • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    This isn’t a new thing, so you’re just having trouble with centuries old English, not something brand new.

  • ted@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    one always thinks of a plurality of people

    Speak for yourself! I don’t immediately think plural when “they” is used.

  • kbal@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Unfortunately you’re at least ten years too late in trying to get people to ask themselves this question

      • kbal@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Nah. Maybe twenty years tops. That so many people fell for the fallacious line of argument you’re thinking of was part of the difficulty in trying to push for any of the various theoretically “better” choices that are still available should humanity unexpectedly swerve in the direction of caring about such things.

        • then_three_more@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          What would you say are better? I find singular they much more elegant than a lot of the new words that were made up. The fact that to apply it to a known individual, rather than an unknown individual seems like a natural extension of the usage that has existed for centuries.

          • kbal@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            I don’t really have a preference myself, but Richard Stallman’s continued insistence that “per” is the right answer is the example that comes to mind.

            As he puts it, “most languages have genderless singular third-person pronouns which are distinct from the plural pronouns. English deserves to have them too.”

            Perhaps in a hundred years, once the old way of making the distinction is long forgotten, a new one will arise.

            • then_three_more@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 months ago

              Always say “they”. This violates the grammar of English so deeply that it feels terribly wrong. It also results frequently in confusing expressions in which the referent of “they” is unclear.

              I totally disagree with this. Singular they has been in use since the 14th century or so. It’s so deeply ingrained in the language that is perfectly simple to understand. In fact I’d say that people who claim to not understand it are doing so intentionally.

              Perhaps a new word will develop naturally as you say. But personally I don’t see a need for it.

              • kbal@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                8 months ago

                Not all of the complaints are motivated just by deliberate obstinance. I’m old enough that it was genuinely confusing for me at first in some situations, but young enough that I got used to it after some years. There are still plenty of people out there who haven’t done enough conversing with those who habitually default to “they” to get used to it. Not all of them are as old and cranky as Mr. Stallman.

        • june@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Are you saying that the singular use of ‘they’ is only about 20 years old?

          • kbal@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            Obviously it’s been used in some grammatical situations as a singular third-person pronoun since forever. It’s just as easy to come up with example phrases that would not sound in any way odd to a 20th-century person as it is to come up with examples from the 17th century. But its recent popularity as an all-purpose stand-in for “he” and “she” is indeed unprecedented, and even if it weren’t it’d be a notable change.

            • june@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 months ago

              But it’s not a stand in for he or she. It’s a term to address people when gender is ambiguous.

              This is hundreds of years old and not just something that’s come into vogue recently.

              • kbal@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                8 months ago

                Of course it is not that it’s somehow a “stand in for he or she” inherently in current usage. It’s just that it has recently replaced those other pronouns in places where for some time they had held near-universal prevalence among most users of this language.

                Just as some people who’ve never known the old ways think those people who still aren’t accustomed to it are putting on an act when they say it’s weird and confusing, I suppose it would be easy for those who’ve lived through the change to mistakenly assume that young people are being disingenuous when they act as if there’s been no change for hundreds of years and there’s nothing to remark on here. If you’re old enough to have seen it happen, the change in usage seems very obvious. If not, perhaps it isn’t.

                • erin (she/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  I think the issue is that the “new” usage of “they” is seen as different, or incorrect, when that’s simply not the case. The strict usage of “they” as only a plural pronoun is not “correct.” It’s revisionist. Historically, “they” has been used as both a singular and plural pronoun, and it can be found in conversation and literature going back hundreds of years. At some point, we revised that they should be only plural, and that’s why it feels like things are changing in our current lifetimes. We aren’t changing how the word is used, we’re going back to how it’s been used for centuries.

                  Language is not a set of rules and strictures. It’s fluid, and the way people use words becomes grammatically correct. If these things could not change, then language couldn’t exist. You can feel uncomfortable that language has changed from what you’ve known, but don’t hold it back, or complain about the next generation. Language will change in their lifetimes too. Overall, it’s a good thing and pushes us to understand each other in the manner appropriate for the times. Right now, an easily recognizable and commonly accepted gender neutral, singular pronoun is more valuable to language than a strict usage or a new word for the use case.

                  “They left their bag.” “They went that way.” “I’ll find them later.”

                  All these examples could refer to either singular or plural cases, and maybe that confuses some people, but I think it’s very simple to determine with even the barest bit of context. It’s better than defaulting to “he” for any unspecified gender, as was “correct” for the last few decades, and allows for non-binary people to be referred to without needing oft-criticized neo-pronouns.

                  TLDR: Times change. We need to get with it.

  • jbrains@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    One does not do this. The singular “they” is many hundreds of years old.

    If it confuses you, then I understand your confusion. Please read about the history of the singular “they” in order to resolve your confusion.

  • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    I totally get your opinion, because I used to share it and even created a similar post on Reddit a few years ago. Just start using it and you’ll be surprised how quickly it becomes natural. There’s no good reason not to do something that is easy and can potentially prevent people from feeling uncomfortable.

  • morphballganon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    confusing and difficult

    It’s really not, if you try. Have you tried? No. So give it an earnest shot before you lament your woes and push for others to bend over backward for you.