Talk:Singular they: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:38, 26 June 2024 editAjd (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers19,756 edits →Prescription of they/them pronouns being used only for non-binary people: ReplyTag: Reply ← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:15, 27 June 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,301,698 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Singular they/Archive 8, Talk:Singular they/Archive 7) (botNext edit →
Line 9:		Line 9:
	\|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}		\|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 200K		\|maxarchivesize = 200K
	\|counter = 7		\|counter = 8
	\|minthreadsleft = 5		\|minthreadsleft = 5
	\|minthreadstoarchive = 2		\|minthreadstoarchive = 2
Line 21:		Line 21:
	\|indexhere=yes}}		\|indexhere=yes}}
	{{Archives\|bot=lowercase sigmabot III\|age=100\|minthreadsleft=5}}		{{Archives\|bot=lowercase sigmabot III\|age=100\|minthreadsleft=5}}

	== Singular and plural ]s of "they" versus singular and plural ] of "they" ==

	I hope it's obvious to all that "they" has both a ] ] and a ] sense whose meanings are contextually based. As formatted before my recent edit, '''Singular ''they''''' gives the impression of a widely accepted linguistics term (i.e., like '''prepositional phrase''' or '''transitive verb''') rather than a colloquial term to describe how the pronominal "they" can be used and construed in a singular sense. Indeed, the source I cited states, "This paper addresses general issues of pronominal binding and coreference, though its empirical focus is comparatively narrow, being mainly concerned with the distribution of so-called singular ''they'' in Modern English." (Italics in original.)

	To be clear, no one says, e.g., "This my friend Jay. I met ''singular'' them at school." Within the linguistics field, innumerable commentators acknowledge the ''sense'' of singularity often associated with "they," but the term ''singular they'' is often couched as "so-called" (e.g., , , just as soon as they might refer to a so-called ''plural they''.

	In sum, this article equivocates with an unattested sentence like '''Singular ''they''''' <big>is</big> the ] pronoun '']''..." It would be factually correct but misleading to say, "The so-called '''singular ''they''''' is the ] pronoun '']''..." The edit I restored moments ago represents a faithful. scholarly reflection of linguists' near unanimity in parsing the singular versus plural sense involved without implying a singular versus plural pronominal ] of "they." --] 20:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
	: Nobody I know of is suggesting that "they" has a singular ''case'', and neither does this article. But your insertion of {{tq\|colloquial}} as a descriptor - which you have repeated in opening this Talk page discussion - is unattested in the sources cited and appears to be your ] interpretation (as is your aversion to "use", which is the term, well, used in the article's sources). ] (]) 21:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
	::{{Re\|Newimpartial}} Three points:
	::#The phrase, ''singular they'', is a colloquial term used by non-linguists in reference to a certain speech dynamic. Originally, grammarians, not linguists, used the phrase to disparage using "they" vis-a-vis a singular referent. That's why I've given four sources that agree the term, ''singular they'' is a misnomer: namely, a "so-called ''singular they''" in their words. My edit cited such a source for that very assertion. The current lead has no attestation whatsoever.
	::#The typeset in this article's lead contributes to the ambiguity whether a ] or a ] is what's being described. You say it's not a ''case'', and I agree. By default, it's a ''sense''. Specifically, the ''sense'' of the singular ] is what's being described in keeping with the sources say about it albeit via varying technical jargon tantamount to ''sense''. To say ''singular they'' is a "use" is tantamount to saying it's a ''case''. The simplest solution is to introduce the article as "Singular '''they'''" or "The singular sense of '''they''' to indicate SOP (i.e., ''sum of parts'') from discrete ] rather than a closed case that's separate from a so-called ''plural they'', as "'''Singular ''they'''''" implies.
	::#The sources I cited unanimously employ "use" as it corresponds to "they," not "singular they." When that term later occurs in scholarly papers, it's analogous to papers that deny the legitimacy of, say, ''flat Earth'' yet the papers proceed to use the term so that readers know they haven't shifted the discourse from that identified referent. I.e., they're still referencing the ''so-called'' flat Earth just like linguists (or you, or I, for that matter) are referencing the ''so-called'' ''singular they''. It's like using the misnomer, ''singular were'', as applied to "If I ''were'' you... or the misnomer of a ''singular are'' as applied to "''Aren't'' I right?" --] 22:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
	::: The fundamental problem here concerns the scope and focus of the article. As I understand it, the article (and its sources) are about the use of "they" for singular referents, and not about the term for this use. The focus of the lead needs to reflect the focus of the article. ] (]) 01:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
	::::{{Re\|Newimpartial}} You hit the nail right on the head. This article isn't about the use of a term; it's about the substance of what you very clearly stated. Can we agree that it's appropriate to indicate what you just said, tweaked but otherwise verbatim, at the top or the article to avoid confusion re what this article is about? I.e., {{About\|the use of the pronoun '''they''', together with its inflected and derivative forms, for singular referents \|the other senses and usage\|They}}
	::::--] 03:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
	::::: Obviously I'm OK with that, but I'd encourage other editors to weigh in. ] (]) 03:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
	::::::Whew!
	::::::<small>I'm marking this date down on my calendar. It's not hard to guess why. </small>
	::::::--] 04:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
	::::::__________
	::::::Two remaining points: (1) The typeface of the phrase, "singular they", in the lead; (2) The fact that the entire lead is unattested. Some easy solutions in the alternative:
	::::::#] '''they''' is the ] of the ] pronoun '']'' or its ] or derivative forms, ''them'', ''their'', ''theirs'', and ''themselves'' (or ]), as an ] (gender-neutral) singular pronoun."
	::::::#The ] ] of the ] pronoun '''they''', together with its ] or derivative forms ''them'', ''their'', ''theirs'' and ''themselves'' (or ]), is an ] (gender-neutral) singular pronoun."
	::::::#Unlike the ] ] of the ] pronoun '']'', the ] sense of '''they''', together with its ] or derivative forms ''them'', ''their'', ''theirs'' and ''themselves'' (or ]), is an ] (gender-neutral) singular pronoun."
	::::::All three are restatements of Bjorkman, inter alia. I.e., a ''singular they'' is not in use; ''a singular or plural number of co-referents'' is contextually indicated.
	::::::I prefer alternative #3 because it immediately distinguishes singular from plural associations with "they." The cited sources make that distinction by briefly defining "singular" and "plural." The options are hindered here at Misplaced Pages because the internal link to ''plural'' properly explains that grammatical concept; the internal link to "singular" is limited to its grammatical sense as covered lightly in the '''grammatical number''' article. --] 04:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
	::::::: Why do your first two {{tq\|restatements of Bjorkman}} (whose former university office I drove by this week, btw) use "sense", when Bjorkman dies not? Meanwhile, that third option looks UNDUE for the lead. ] (]) 13:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::Why? Because Bjorkman's actual text is unintelligible for anyone who's not familiar with linguistics. In Bjorkman's words, the ] or ] of ''singular they'' relates to "general issues of pronominal binding and coreference ... being mainly concerned with the distribution of so-called singular ''they'' in Modern English." (Italics in original.) The third restatement could just as well be phrased:
	::::::::*"Unlike the ] ] of '''they'''..."
	::::::::*"Unlike the ] ] of '''they'''..."
	::::::::*"Unlike the ] ] of '''they''' ..."
	::::::::All three options are analogous. However, alternatives like "Unlike the ] ] of '''they'''..." are wrong because Bjorkman doesn't ''define'' "they" but instead describes the singular '''sense''' of "they" according to its evident "usage." (I'd be happier with "'''''Singular'' they''' <big>involves</big> the use ...." Yet, that verbiage is a bit wormy from a technical standpoint, and it opens the door to criticism for violating the spirit of the ] guideline.)
	::::::::To reiterate, "'''''Singular'' they''' is the use ..." is wrong because the pronoun "they" is NOT a ''use''. The singular ''meaning'', singular ''sense'', or singular ''significance'' of "they" is what this article is about. --] 20:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
	{{Od}} Some quick comments: (1) I didn't have any difficulty with Bjorkman's writing, (2) I find that your suggestions for the lead section make it simultaneously further from the sources and more difficult for our readers and (3) your insistence that your reading of the sources is {{tq\|right}} and others are wrong is quintessential ]. ] (]) 20:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)<br>
	:Per ], I've restored the last stable version of the article. ] (]) 21:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
	::{{Re\|Woodroar}} Thanks for that explanation. Correct me if I'm wrong: wasn't the last stable version in which ] made a well-reasoned tweak rather than a wholesale reversion of my prior edit upon commenting on it? Regardless, I'd appreciate your substantive contributions on the merits. --] 22:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
	:::Looking at , I'd consider the 12 January version to be the status quo because of the (approximately) two-week gap in edits.
	:::Personally, my off-the-cuff opinion is that (a) terms like "referent" and "pronominal" and "inflected and derivative forms" make the lead section too technical for the average reader, and (b) I suspect that "In Linguistics" is ] for the first sentence. We're not Simple Misplaced Pages, of course, but we should aim for a basic definition before getting into finer technical details. As for the "linguistics" bit, my recollection of most sources is that they're very surface level, "this is what 'singular they' is about and here's how to use it", not the finer details of linguistic analysis. Of course, I could be entirely wrong on either or both! ] (]) 23:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
	::::Thanks for the feedback. I'll put it to good use re the call for simplicity. Glad you didn't mention "use" and "sense" as being overly technical. Plainly put, a singular '']'' of '''they''', and how that ''sense'' is used, constitutes this article's theme; it's not about how the ], "singular they", is used in the manner of a ''term qua term''. Cheers. --] 01:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

	I find this entire discussion extremely difficult to follow; however, "singular ''they''" is in fact the widely-used term for the topic of this article, and the current opening sentence of the article ("'''Singular ''they''''' is the use in English of the pronoun ''they'' as an epicene (gender-neutral) singular pronoun") is a clear, concise, and accurate identification of what the topic of the article is. I do not think it needs or ought to be changed. ] (]) 21:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
	:{{Re\|Newimpartial}} Three simple questions:
	:#Do you agree that "they" has both a plural meaning and a singular meaning? If not it, explain why not.
	:#Do you know of any other Misplaced Pages article (esp. about a pronoun) that begins, "ABC is the ''use'' of XYZ..."? If so, kndly indicate which article(s).
	:#After noting that the current lead is unattested and unsourced, are you saying that you have your own ideas about how to remedy the status quo? If so, please offer those ideas. --] 02:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
	::Did you mean to address these questions to me, instead of to ]? If so, (1) sure, of course it does. (2) I don't understand the relevance of this question. It doesn't matter whether or not ''other'' articles are about a particular use of something, only whether or not this one is. (3) I don't think there is anything wrong with the status quo. Article ledes don't have to be sourced; they can just be a synopsis of information present elsewhere in the article. ] (]) 05:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
	::: Comment: Article ledes '''should not''' be sourced. The lead is a summary of the article proper and should contain only facts substantiated by the body of text. In other words, anything that needs a source (because it is not covered by the main text) should not appear in the lead. And anything that does not need a source (because it is sourced below) should have that ref removed (from the lead). In short, no refs in leads. ] (]) 12:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
	::: I oppose renaming the article. To be clear: Kent's purpose of question 2 likely was to carry a point across. Since you appear not to have caught this, allow me to be blunt. As I see the "relevance" is to make the following point: "if no other articles use that naming convention maybe that is a hint that we should not do that either" ] (]) 12:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
	::::{{Re\|AJD\|CapnZapp}} For clarity's sake, no one here has suggested renaming (or re-titling) the article. ] has agreed that it's apropos for the article's header to indicate:<br>
	:::::{{About\|the use of the pronoun '''they''', together with its inflected and derivative forms, for singular referents \|the other senses and usage\|They}}
	::::It's nonrelevant to me (but apparently a source of concern for Newimpartial) whether the lede is sourced and cited or not. Yet, I've now given five sources that, in paraphrase, discuss the singular ] of ''they''" as a concept distinct from the plural sense.
	::::Consequently, my point of contention is that the lede is not properly ''worded''. The current wording says "'''singular ''they'''''" is a <big>use</big>. That wording is unencyclopedic and borderline unintelligible, if not simply misleading (no pun intended), vis-a-vis all the sources and a rational interpretation of the plain meaning involved. By analogy, the encyclopedic sense of ] is not the ''use'' of the voice to produce musical sounds. The pronoun ] is not the ''use'' of a third-person pronoun relating to a grammatical subject. Etc.
	::::Balancing technical accuracy with cogency, I don't insist that "'''singular ''they'''''" is a <big>sense</big>..." is the only way to properly word, dare I say it, the sense, the meaning, the significance of singular ''they''. If there's a consensus for a redaction, then "'''Singular ''they''''' is <s>the use in ] of</s> the pronoun '']'' or its ] or derivative forms, ''them'', ''their'', ''theirs'', and ''themselves'' (or ]), as an ] (gender-neutral) singular pronoun" would satisfy my encyclopedic sensibilities and would better comport with the sources actually say. Such a redaction would be technically inaccurate but otherwise consistent with the plain meaning of its wording.
	::::For the umpteenth time, NO source says "singular ''they'', or any other pronoun, <big>is</big> a "use." Misplaced Pages is consistent in its ledes: "]" is not "the ''use'' of... ABC;" "]" is not "the ''use'' of... XYZ; "]" is not "the artful, scientific, and crafty ''use'' of heat to prepare food." In each case, the referent and the sense of the word don't equate to a "use.". Sorry for the need to indicate how this point is fairly straightforward, elementary, grammar school semantics. --] 15:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
	:::::{{re\|Kent Dominic}} How about {{tq\|In ], the pronoun '']'' or its ] or derivative forms, ''them'', ''their'', ''theirs'', and ''themselves'' (or ]), may be used as an ] (gender-neutral) singular pronoun.}}? It's customary to begin with the article title in boldface, but not absolutely required. ]] 15:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
	:This section starts with the noble aspiration "I hope it's obvious" but I'm afraid that very little is obvious here, at least to me. I must confess that I'm thoroughly confused. ''What are we actually discussing here?'' Maybe it would help it we could have the text that is being objected to, and its proposed replacement, both quoted here so that we can compare their relative merits? --] (]) 15:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
	::{{re\|DanielRigal}} The article ] is about instances where the word ''fascist'' has been used as an insult. It would be weird, though, for the first sentence of that article to read {{tq\|'''''Fascist'' (insult)''' is the use of ''fascist'' as an insult.}} Similarly, it sounds strange here to say that {{tq\|Singular ''they''}} (i.e., the <u>word</u> "they") {{tq\|is the use...}}. ]] 15:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
	::{{Re\|DanielRigal}} Obvious, if not basic and elementary:
	::#The pronoun "]" has not only a singular ] (i.e., meaning or significance) but also a plural sense.
	::#This article is about the singular sense. (See the template from my prior post.)
	::#This article describes the use of that singular sense.
	::#This article's lede says "'''Singular ''they''''' is the <big>use</big> in English of the pronoun they or its ] or derivative forms, ''them'', ''their'', ''theirs'', and ''themselves'' (or ]), as an ] (gender-neutral) singular pronoun." (Added big typeface of "use" for emphasis.) Wrong wording! Why? The singular "they" ≠ "use." Interpretation to the contrary convolutes the ordinary meaning of those two words.
	::Alternative wording to consider:
	::*'''Singular ''they''''' is the ] of the English pronoun they ..."
	::*'''Singular ''they''''' is the ] of the English pronoun they ..."
	::*'''Singular ''they''''' is <s>the use in ] of</s> the pronoun '']''..."
	::--] 16:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
	:::{{Re\|Genericusername57}} Thanks for concisely paraphrasing the point of my concern. --] 16:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
	::: Singular ''they'' '''is''' in fact the use of the pronoun ''they'' with a singular referent. For example, if I say "This sentence contains a singular ''they''," that means that ''they'' is '''used''' in the sentence with a singular referent. ] (]) 17:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
	::::Hold on? Is this all just arguing about the (as far as I can tell perfectly correct) use of the word "use" in the opening sentence? If so, I have no idea why anybody thinks that is wrong. All of the alternatives offered above are less easily understood by a casual reader and seem no more correct or informative. Unless I am missing something fundamental here, this seems like a trivial matter and I see little to no point in this discussion. I guess the word "use" could be linked to ] if that is thought potentially helpful to some readers?
	::::One important point I would like to make is that we need to assume that the reader of the introduction of this (or any other) article could be a casual reader and we should take care not to confuse people in the first few sentences by assuming more knowledge than is common in a casual reader. We have the whole article body to dig into the details of the topic. While I believe this in general, I think this is especially true here. This is an ongoing "culture war" "topic" and it is likely that a lot of people find their way to this article trying to understand what the "culture warriors" are arguing about or just by following a link in an article about a non-binary person because they found the pronouns unfamiliar and just want to understand what is going on in simple terms. We want to help, not hinder, them in that quest for basic understanding. I would favour simplifying, not complicating, the first paragraph as much as possible. We can go into as much detail as any linguist desires in the article body. --] (]) 18:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
	:::::{{Re\|DanielRigal}} "{{tq\|I guess the word 'use' could be linked to Word sense if that is thought potentially helpful to some readers.}} Thanks for offering a practical solution. I wouldn't be overjoyed if your suggestion resulted in a consensus, but I'd let it go at that while shaking my head at the attenuated interpretation of "use."
	:::::So, are you saying an ordinary reader doesn't know what a "sense" is but readily knows what a "use" (esp. versus "usage," which is what's really intended) implies? Consider this sentence from Strombom as cited below: "(Re the Generic Male "He") This convention was viable in the sense that men were literate to a much larger extent than women." In that sentence, is "sense" so hard to construe? Try changing "sense" to "use" in that sentence and you might get a clearer picture why I keep saying "use" is comically or tragically wrong in the lead. --] 19:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
	::::::Your example is not comparable because "sense" actually is the more correct word is that case. That said, the more I stare at it the more I wonder either either word is really ideal there. OK. I don't want to overstate it. It's not awful, but I probably wouldn't have written it that way. I'd probably just have written it as "viable because".
	::::::In order to make "sense" the correct word here you would need to rejig the first sentence to introduce the word "used" later on, thus rending it as {{tq\|"Singular they is the sense in English of the pronoun they or its inflected or derivative forms, them, their, theirs, and themselves (or themself), '''where it is used''' as an epicene (gender-neutral) singular pronoun. It typically occurs with an unspecified antecedent, in sentences such as..."}}. That is correct but it is no better than the current text. It is longer and more complicated for absolutely no benefit. Anyway, I feel that further discussion is futile here. I fear that we are getting into ] territory. If you want to start an RfC on your preferred wording, in order to get a definitive answer, then you can but I don't see any point. --] (]) 19:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
	::::@]: Would you say {{tq\|A decoy drone is the use of a drone as a decoy}}? How about {{tq\|A punch bowl is the use of a bowl to serve punch}}? ]] 18:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
	:::::@], just a heads up that pings only work if the ping ''and'' your signature are added in the same edit. ] has some ways to fix a failed ping. ] (]) 18:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
	:::::@] Nope. The lexicographer in me would say say, "{{tq\|A decoy drone is a drone <small>that is</small> used as a decoy}}" and "{{tq\|A punch bowl is a bowl that is used to serve punch}}." Indeed, after reading your post, I'm reverting my most recent edit to the article in favor of "'''Singular ''they''''', along with its ] or derivative forms, ''them'', ''their'', ''theirs'', and ''themselves'' (or ]), is an ] (gender-neutral) ]." I hadn't known about the '''third-person pronoun''' article until moments ago. The link to that article should assist anyone who's in the dark. --] 03:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	:::::: The current wording of the article, which (to condense a bit) says "Singular ''they'' is a pronoun", is not correct. ''They'' is a pronoun, which has multiple uses. Saying "Singular ''they'' is a pronoun" implies that it's not the same pronoun as plural ''they''... but it is. What singular ''they'' is is a specific '''use''' of the pronoun ''they''. (It's also not quite accurate to say that singular ''they'' is a "sense" of ''they''. The '''sense''' of singular ''they'' is third-person epicene pronominal reference; singular ''they'' is the name for the '''use''' of ''they'' in that sense, not the name for the sense itself.)
	:::::: I don't understand why you're so hung up on other things ''not'' being described as "the use of" something; it may well be the case that other things aren't "the use of" something, but singular ''they'' is. If it makes you feel better, though, ] is the use of computers to process data; is the use of scientific principles to design and build machines; ] is the caustic use of irony; ] is the use of more than one language; a ] is the use of invalid reasoning, and (perhaps most relevantly) ] is the use of the auxiliary verb ''do'' to form negated clauses and questions. There is not some Misplaced Pages principle against defining a term as "the use of" something. ] (]) 06:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::{{Re\|User:Ajd\|AJD}} '{{tq\|"Singular they is a pronoun" is not correct}}' Agreed. '{{tq\|They is a pronoun.}}' I'm with you. '{{tq\|What singular ''they'' is is a specific '''use''' of the pronoun ''they''.}}' There we diverge. A use is a specific instance of implementation. When you refer to a person as "they," that's a ''use''. When such instances become a trend, that evinces a ''usage''. As I've said all along, the article's lede should be worded as "'''Singular ''they''''' is a ] of the pronoun ]..." (i.e., in contrast to the ] sense.) The current wording is mere appeasement of editors who think "sense" is too complicated. See your talk page for further comment. Cheers. --] 21:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::@] • I agree, that 'use' is correct in this instance, as the article describes the use of the word in a meaning different from its main meaning: the article seeks to explain its ''use'' as an epicene third-person singular pronoun, while the main meaning is a third-person plural pronoun.
	::::::::Adding the word ''sense'' makes it more difficult, because that would imply a widely-agreed-upon alternate/dual definition, which wide agreement does not exist. The reason is, that acceptance of such <strike>as</strike> a use, while widespread in the the English-speaking West, and maybe only the liberal parts of it, is insufficient in the wider English-speaking world. -<span style="text-shadow:7px 5px 7px #409fff;">] <small>/]</small></span> 00:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::::I'm not convinced you've recognized the distinction I make between a singular sense of the pronoun ''they'' and the sense as well as the use of the term, '''Singular they'''. That distinction is the root of my nearly forgotten rant about how the article equivocates. ] 14:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

	=== Bjorkman paper===
	Since it was Kent who added the - and only as a citation for the lead paragraph - it is unfortunately not to be found in the restored "stable version" of the article (although it is a relevant, recent RS).
	In particular, I think the following quotation (from p. 2) ought to be used to back up article (main section) content: {{tq\|The contrast in acceptability between (2) and (3) has been made more striking by increased cultural visibility of nonbinary individuals—individuals who identify with
	neither masculine nor feminine gender, and so who cannot be referred to with either the singular masculine pronoun he or the singular feminine pronoun she. Many nonbinary individuals prefer singular they as a pronoun of reference, and they is sometimes said to have the advantage of being already part of English grammar, in contrast to fully innovative alternatives}}. ] (]) 17:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
	:I cited the Bjorkman paper to demonstrate how, in its entirety, it reflects the singular ] of "they," including its history, use, disparagement, and promotion over time. The paper doesn't ] "singular they." None of the reliable sources do. Most of them refer to the term, "singular they," as being ''so-called'' precisely because only non-linguists (including grammarians) use the term colloquially solely to distinguish the plural sense of ''they''.
	:Stormbom's paper rivals Bjorkman's and also (''essentially'', but not literally) refers to "singular they" as a ''sense'' (i.e., a meaning, an interpretation, a construction, etc.), not a "use." Stormbom tacitly defines singular ''they'' as one of several "epicene ... third-person singular pronouns." Tweaking that definition for Misplaced Pages's lede is fair enough and a simple enough task, but that's beside the point: The current lede senselessly (again pardon that pun) asserts that the pronominal "they" equals "use".
	:{{Re\|Newimpartial}} So far, you've neglected to reply to my three simple questions from above:
	:#Do you agree that "they" has both a plural meaning and a singular meaning? If not it, explain why not.
	:#Do you know of any other Misplaced Pages article (esp. about a pronoun) that begins, "ABC is the <big>use</big> of XYZ..."? If so, kindly indicate which article(s).
	:#After noting that the current lead is unattested and unsourced, are you saying that you have your own ideas about how to remedy the status quo? If so, please offer those ideas.
	:--] 18:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
	:: I have no intention of ]ing you on these matters. I am letting other editors enjoy the "fun". ] (]) 19:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

	My opinion of course, but I highly encourage Kent to ] here. Call it a hunch if you like, but this seems like retaliatory editing as a result of the ] and ]. <span style="background-color: white">] ]</span> ♠ 20:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
	:<small>Oi vey, that's an informative bit of context. ] (]) 23:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)</small>

	*Is it possible to "singular 'they'" somebody? As in, "oi, dontchoo singular they ''me'', pal!🤜" 🤔 ] 18:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
	** I support of the first sentence as an improvement over the status quo. ]] 18:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
	*This discussion is bonkers. '''''THEY''''' is a lexeme, which appears in dictionaries as the lemma ''they''. It has two senses. (I) A third-person plural pronoun, and (II) A third-person singular pronoun. This article is about the second sense of the lemma ''they'', which we are calling "singular they", with various formatting options that seem to change by the day. "Singular they", in this sense, is a third-person gender-neutral singular pronoun. "Singular they" is not the ''use'' of a third-person gender-neutral singular pronoun. "Singular they" is a pronoun, which can be used. None of the sources, Bjorkman included, describe "singular they" as a ''use''. ] 17:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	*: You're right that it's bonkers, but your own comment gets derailed here and it ends up contradicting itself. '''They''' is a lexeme that has two senses, yes, absolutely. That means that saying "singular ''they'' is a pronoun" is false—''they'' is a pronoun, and singular ''they'' is the name given to one use of it. ] (]) 19:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	*::{{Re\|Tewdar\|AJD}} Some of this discussion is bonkers, excluding what Tewdar just said. Neither the current lede (for which I bear responsibility) nor the last stable lede reflects Tewdar's wisdom. Both Tewdar's replacement lede and my initial edit of lede along those lines were reverted. Also, AJD is 100% right to say '{{tq\|"singular ''they'' is a pronoun" is false}}'. So far, however, the fickle consensus here has run riot over iterations re wording like, "'''Singular ''they''''' is a sense of they..." My most recent edit definitely needs tweaking if not wholesale revision, not a mere reversion to the last stable lede. I hope whoever's on deck to bat next has better luck with the reversionistas than I've had. --] 21:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	*:::I'd prefer to analyse 'plural they' and 'singular they' as two distinct pronouns that can be either marked or unmarked for plurality, actually. ] 10:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
	: *Hey everyone, Bjorkman (2017) here! (Apologies for the pseudonymous wikipedia account.) I agree with everything ADJ has said, here and in other threads: it is totally coherent to describe singular <i>they</i> as a use of <i>they</i>. The reason it's sometimes referred to as "so-called" is to emphasize that this isn't a different pronoun than "plural" <i>they</i>, instead we have one pronoun <i>they</i> in English that's nonspecific for number (just like <i>you</i> is). So "singular <i>they</i>" is the name given to a collection of uses where <i>they</i> either refers to a single person or has a singular noun phrase as its antecedent (because in sentences like: "Nobody forgot their lunch." <i>their</i> doesn't actually refer to any individual). The current opening sentence is slightly incoherent, by contrast, because singular <i>they</i> is indeed not itself a pronoun. I'd recommend revising back to "Singular <i>they</i> is the use in English of the pronoun <i>they</i> as a gender non-specific singular pronoun." (I'd avoid "epicene" because it excludes the use of singular <i>they</i> to refer to nonbinary people, who aren't gender-unknown or gender-nonspecific.) ] (]) 20:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	::"{{tq\|Slightly incoherent}}" is a charitable characterization. I wrote the current lede, which is better described as a fine example of linguistic hooey. You and Tewdar and AJD are right to lambaste it. In apology: the current lede carries forward what I deem to be the uninformed consensus here. I'd been waiting in vain for a knowledgeable editor to tweak or revise the current lede (rather than to merely revert it). The so-called "singular they" clearly ''has its discrete and observable uses''; however, see for a concise rationale for characterizing '''singular ''they''''' as a "]" rather than ''as a "use"'' in the lede. --] 22:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
	:I think the stable wording ("'''Singular ''they''''' is the use...") was good, and am inclined to restore that wording if there's not consensus for a different one here, as I agree "'''Singular '']'''''...is a pronoun..." reads weirder/worse... but I'd like to circle back to Gnu's point that although it's ''common'' to have an article's title be repeated as the first 2-3 words of the lead, it's not required. Expanding on the wording Gnu suggested above, and with allowance for subbing in whichever descriptors we decide are appropriate ("epicene" vs "gender non-specific", "singular" vs "third-person"), what if we said something along the lines of:
	::{{tq\|In ], the pronoun '']'' or its ] or derivative forms, ''them'', ''their'', ''theirs'', and ''themselves'' or ], may be used as a <kbd></kbd> pronoun; when used this way, it is referred to as '''singular ''they'''''."}}
	:?] (]) 20:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
	:::The prior wording disregards the ], as indicated below in the '''Problematic lede: a quick take''' thread. --] 16:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

	== Prescription of generic he ==

	Hi! This is my first time proposing an edit, but I have been researching this topic for some time. Under the section "Prescription of generic ''he''," it could be useful to add an example of where the singular ''they'' was replaced in later editions of a book by ''he''. The first instance that comes to mind is "The Pardoner's Prologue" in Chaucer's ''The Canterbury Tales''. The Ellesmere Manuscript, one of the original copies of the text, reads, "And whoso fyndeth hym out of swich blame, / They wol come up." <ref>{{cite web \|title=The Ellesmere Manuscript \|url=https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/ellesmere-manuscript \|website=British Library \|access-date=15 February 2022}}</ref> However, most modern copies, including the Norton translation, change the pronoun to ''he'': "And whoso findeth him out of swich blame, / He wol come up." <ref>{{cite book \|last1=Chaucer \|first1=Geoffrey \|title="The Pardoner's Prologue and Tale" \|date=2018 \|publisher=W.W. Norton & Company \|location=pp. 330-343 \|edition=The Norton Anthology: English Literature}}</ref>

	] (]) 13:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

	:That's an interesting detail and it might be nice to include it if we can but we need to be careful. We should probably have a reference talking about that change rather than just referencing the two versions of the text and making the comparison ourselves. As it stands we don't know who changed it, when and how intentional the change was. --] (]) 00:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

	:But this is awesome, and the change to ''he'' (then perhaps in the name of less ambiguity) was maybe pointless:
	::"And whoso fyndeth hym out of swich blame, / They wol come up."
	:— because 'whoso' and 'they' refers to one and the same grouping of one or more people, so the antecedent is plural from the outset (one or more persons from a group of people).
	:The later modification changes the meaning:
	::"And whoso findeth him out of swich blame, / He wol come up."
	:— because "/ He" might now refer to the "him of such blame". -<span style="text-shadow:7px 5px 7px #409fff;">] <small>/]</small></span> 00:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
	{{ref-talk}}

	== ''Garner's Modern English Usage'' ==		== ''Garner's Modern English Usage'' ==

Revision as of 12:15, 27 June 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Singular they article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

English Language High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Language, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the English language on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.English LanguageWikipedia:WikiProject English LanguageTemplate:WikiProject English LanguageEnglish Language
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Gender studies High‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
Cleanup : edit to see
Collaborate : see /Collaboration
Copyedit : edit to see
Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender
Expand : edit to see
Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes
Merge : edit to see
Notability : edit to see
NPOV : edit to see
Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia
Photo : see Misplaced Pages requested photographs of gender studies
Split : History of feminism
Stubs : see Gender studies stubs
Translate : see /translation
Update : edit to see
Verify : Riot grrrl
Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Linguistics: Applied Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Garner's Modern English Usage

Citing a 2003 edition (at least two editions behind) is not reasonable. This needs to be replaced by citation to the current edition (2022), the wording in which has very likely changed on this, since it is evidence-based. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. DuncanHill (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I've updated to the 2016 edition, which (still) verifies the claim. I'll check the 2022 edition if I can find it. Woodroar (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Where to add precedent in the article?

The chief objection to singular they seems to be "it is not grammatical." But there is precedent for such a change. Originally, "you" was exclusively plural, with "thou/thee" being used to indicate the second person singular. Early Modern English began losing this form, with it disappearing in Modern English by around 1750 (outside of rural dialects and some religious communities.) We have used "you" in both a singular and plural sense for centuries with very little in the way of confusion. I would be happy to write this out with references for the article, but I am not sure where it would best fit in. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Good idea. Maybe an addition or note near the beginning of the "Inflected forms and derivative pronouns" section, where there is a reference to "singular you"? Funcrunch (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah, excellent. I will have that done this weekend. TechBear | Talk | Contributions

MOS:DLIST

This article is massively violating MOS:DLIST by abusing the <dd>...</dd> element (wikimarkup :) as a visual indentation mechanism, producing all kinds of bogus list markup in the rendered result, which is a major accessibility problem. That markup is only for use inside description lists AKA definition lists AKA association lists (despite the fact that we regularly abuse the shit out of it on talk pages for visual indentation; our articles have accessibility guidelines to comply with that our talk pages do not.

Doing this:

Intro text here:
: Example text here

is wrong. This is even worse, since it creates two different kind of broken lists at once:

* Intro text here:
: Example text here

All of the examples that are actual quotations should probably be done with {{blockquote|1=Quoted text here|author=Author Name|source=Other source details}}

Examples that are not quotations should be formatted with {{block indent|1=Example text here}}.

For cases where there are groups of introductory statements followed by one or more illustrative examples, presently mis-coded as stuff like:

* Intro text here:

: Example text here

: 2nd example text here

the proper markup is:

; Intro text here:

: Example text here

: 2nd example text here

since that is a valid DLIST.

~~If one or another of those example entries in such a list needs to be a block quotation itself, use {{gbq}}, a version of {{blockquote}} designed to work inside DLIST markup.~~
Edit: That is no longer necessary; WP:TemplateStyles are now used by {{glossary}} to adjust display of {{blockquote}} inside a d-list, so the old {{gbq}} CSS-tweaking wrapper for {{blockquote}} has been made obsolete and no longer exists. If for some reason {{glossary}} is not wanted to be used, and the {{blockquote}} display in situ is producing an undesirable amount of vertical whitespace, this can be adjusted with custom CSS as {{blockquote|1=|style=}}, but it's simpler just to wrap the d-list with {{glossary}}. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC); updated: 12:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Fixed the lion's share. — Remsense聊 20:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Singular vs Plural

Normally I would object to using plurals where singular is appropriate but then I thought of the following. What is plural? It appears that in English we don't add s for just more than 1, we also add s for less than 1. For example I have 1 orange. I have 1.1 oranges. I have 0.9 oranges. Note we don't say I have 0.9 orange. We use a plural construct for some reason. Now we can argue than if a bit of skin drops off you, you are no longer 1 Fred, but potentially 0.99999999999 Freds... if you can use 0.9 oranges because the complete orange is not present, why cant you use Freds when not complete Fred is present? If you can now use such plurals and of course as humans we are never the full human we were a moment ago given skin sheds all day long as dust, it should be justifiable to refer to part of a Fred as they. Its not singular, it is less than 1. 120.21.231.181 (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Prescription of they/them pronouns being used only for non-binary people

The sentance In the early 21st century, use of singular they with known individuals emerged for people who do not exclusively identify as male or female makes it sound as if the only people to use they/them pronouns are trans and/or non-binary. As people frequently use Misplaced Pages to find information or correct people do other editors think this should be changed? It also suggests that non-binary identities started in the 21st century, even if we ignore non-binary identities before the term was coined I believe this is inaccurate as the term gained popularity in the 1990's. I'd suggest

In the late 20th century, the use of singular they with known individuals started to become more common as a personal pronoun

EnbyEditor (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I like the suggested edit. Perhaps, we could add at the end of the sentence ", especially among people who do not exclusively identify as male or female." or something similar to acknowledge that it is primarily used by us queer folks. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. "In the late 20th century" will be unsourced, but it's not more unsourced than the current "In the early 21st century". It would help if someone could find a source that gives a timeline. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The early 21st century is sourced in the article body (not the lede) with a reference to the OED, whose earliest citation for they in this sense is 2009, and American Speech, which reports a citation from 2008. Both the 2009 citation and the 2008 citation frame this use of they as a neologism, and the authors of the American Speech column describe it as "genuinely new", writing in 2016. Earliest citations are not proof of earliest usage, of course, but I'd like to see some evidence for the late 20th century or at least some source suggesting it before putting it in the article. AJD (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe this OED page implies this is the case towards the end there, but I find the wording confusing so I'll try to find a better source tomorrow when I'm not so tired EnbyEditor (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree; I don't think that article says anything suggesting that the sense of they that we're discussing here was used before the 21st century. AJD (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I think my suggestion removes the idea that primarily queer people use singular they as their pronouns EnbyEditor (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Categories: