While the phasing does traditionally imply a plural subject, we have to accept that word definitions change over time as society brings change into common parlance. For example ‘Meme’ has completely changed meaning in the last 10-15 years. ‘Text’ has become a verb. Personally, ‘on accident’ drives me up the wall, but it’s become common use. ‘They’ has always (in my lifetime of about 40 years) been an indicator when gender is unknown. “Look at this article and see what they had to say.” and it’s evolved into a more personal usage that covers unknown, unsure, and undefined gender.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/ssingular-nonbinary-they As well as having it in the dictionary, Merriam webster wrote an article on the use of “they” in the modern context of referring to someone nonbinary or gender nonconforming. However, they note that that new usage isn’t even close to the first usage of the singular “they” – it’s been in usage since the 1300s to refer to someone with “unknown or unknowable gender” (as opposed to the more modern usage of known but nonbinary gender). “Unknown or unknowable gender” seems to fit pretty well here – changing of the language aside, this use of “they” has been… Read more »
I think the usage of “unknown or unknowable gender” is still very much in use. E.g if you write about a process, where you don’t know who will take part in it. Like when someone has to sign something, and you know that someone will be one person, but you don’t have any more information on that person. Then you’ll refer to that person as “they”.
I think the comedian John Finnemore makes the point about changing language well in this sketch about the word awesome and it’s changed usage. https://youtu.be/scS-Z70e4Xo
Comments like this are why I appreciate a rating system that still shows downvotes. It restores some faith in humanity to see this with a negative number below it.
Its very closed minded to enjoy seeing people who are inquiring about something being responded to negatively. You shouldn’t assume the posters inflection or tone just as you shouldn’t assume anything else about someone. A little empathy goes along way.
A little empathy goes a long way to knowing that insisting on a plural they in all contexts is rude, aside from just generally being incorrect, and is also often used in contexts wherein the insistence is used more to deny the existence of non-binary identities than any actual care for English grammar. I’m gonna assume you’re saying this more out of naivety; hopefully you’ll be better able to recognize the difference between genuine curiosity and “just asking questions” in the future.
Not every native English speaker has an equally strong grasp on the language. Frankly our education system in the USA is garbage. People end up learning more from those around them and you can end up with spotty or inaccurate knowledge in many areas. This is something of an edge case. A valid use of language and non gender specific pronouns but not one that is every day usage in many area’s of society. Even 20 years ago this level of verbal gymnastics just to avoid assigning gender would get you funny looks from most of the population. Even now… Read more »
Ah yes, because everybody has a perfect grasp of the English language. Surely nobody is a non-native English speaker that has only been taught that “they” is grammatically a form used for plural forms.
Hi, Peruvian here. A little of internet taught me that by now “they” is for the singular non-binary. In spanish we have worse issues with our heavily gendered language. Example: “everybody” translates to “todos” (male), todas (female), and by now “todes” (non-binary, not officially accepted, not widely used yet).
“Hey, [coworker], remember how we found that missing wallet yesterday? The owner didn’t have an ID in there. Did they ever come back and get it?”
We’ve been using “they” as an ambiguous singular for a long time. People are only complaining about it now because it’s being used by “the radical left”.
Not to mention, it may correct in more than one way for the X1, as the ruler of a soverign nation. British nobility have used a royal ‘we’ as a singular pronoun to refer to the monarch for centuries.
To be fair, that’s less about any sort of social norms/gender identity/etc, and more about rulers claiming God to be on their side. “We are displeased” = “God and I are displeased.”
“They” as in an unspecified member of the group “possible owners of the wallet”. Once the owner is identified, it’s no longer an ambiguous singular, but a specific singular.
“When the customer gets here, the package is for THEM. Make sure THEY get it.” It is entirely possible to refer to a singular entity with neutral pronouns. Assuming otherwise is being a pedantic douchebag, regardless of your views on gender.
Another example to add to the excellent ones already here:
A: “Hey, what do you know about the new employee starting next week?”
B: “Nothing, I heard they’re hiring someone for accounting, but haven’t heard anything else about them yet.”
C: *sniffs* “Gossiping again? Such a waste of time”
Last edited 3 years ago by Freddie
Seanbirch
3 years ago
I think if you’re the only one of your species on an alien planet, a fucking pronoun is the last thing you’d worry about.
This whole issue really isn’t so much about identity as it is about language. For Hungarians, this discussion can’t even happen.
The issue in the comments section is about language. The issue for the X1 is about identity. While the English language’s oddities did kickstart the question of “what is my gender” and then “what is my name,” it has since branched from that into the broader question of “Who am I?”
I’m sure that Hungarians understand that names and gender are part of who we are as individuals, even if their language doesn’t gender its pronouns.
Eldest Gruff
3 years ago
I’m trying to figure out if the Switch’s warranty covers your device becoming liberated from its human owner and gaining citizenship of a foreign nation without an extradition treaty.
So far, it’s looking like ‘no’. Damn, those Nintendo lawyers are thorough.
Normally he could. But Article 8, section B of the warranty states that in this case, his Switch can only be a secondary system, not primary. Any attempts to turn his old Switch from Primary to Secondary requires a diplomatic agreement between a US Ambassador and the ambassador of the country which the primary Switch is taking refuge in.
As Automatia is a hostile nation, it’d probably just be easier to start from scratch.
So if X1/Gizmo could also find a way to make the Switch independently sentient, and liberate it from Nintendo contracts, could it sue Ethan to be emancipated and receive ongoing support payments?
The GROWING nation of Automatia.
24
Oh Ethan. such priorities lol
At least he puts “give some space” above “need switch” – otherwise he would just storm in there…
oh very much so
Hopefully “need arms” , to um… play the switch, comes in there somewhere too.
he can get those back for free though! He might have to *buy* a switch!
DAMMIT Ethan priotities man
that’s understandable, that means he has to go back in there in the awkward lair
Them? So there’s more than one bot now?
While the phasing does traditionally imply a plural subject, we have to accept that word definitions change over time as society brings change into common parlance. For example ‘Meme’ has completely changed meaning in the last 10-15 years. ‘Text’ has become a verb. Personally, ‘on accident’ drives me up the wall, but it’s become common use. ‘They’ has always (in my lifetime of about 40 years) been an indicator when gender is unknown. “Look at this article and see what they had to say.” and it’s evolved into a more personal usage that covers unknown, unsure, and undefined gender.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/ssingular-nonbinary-they As well as having it in the dictionary, Merriam webster wrote an article on the use of “they” in the modern context of referring to someone nonbinary or gender nonconforming. However, they note that that new usage isn’t even close to the first usage of the singular “they” – it’s been in usage since the 1300s to refer to someone with “unknown or unknowable gender” (as opposed to the more modern usage of known but nonbinary gender). “Unknown or unknowable gender” seems to fit pretty well here – changing of the language aside, this use of “they” has been… Read more »
I think the usage of “unknown or unknowable gender” is still very much in use. E.g if you write about a process, where you don’t know who will take part in it. Like when someone has to sign something, and you know that someone will be one person, but you don’t have any more information on that person. Then you’ll refer to that person as “they”.
I think the comedian John Finnemore makes the point about changing language well in this sketch about the word awesome and it’s changed usage.
https://youtu.be/scS-Z70e4Xo
Yellow car
“Terrific” is my go-to word for describing how language changes, thanks for helping me add Awesome to the list
Comments like this are why I appreciate a rating system that still shows downvotes. It restores some faith in humanity to see this with a negative number below it.
Its very closed minded to enjoy seeing people who are inquiring about something being responded to negatively. You shouldn’t assume the posters inflection or tone just as you shouldn’t assume anything else about someone. A little empathy goes along way.
A little empathy goes a long way to knowing that insisting on a plural they in all contexts is rude, aside from just generally being incorrect, and is also often used in contexts wherein the insistence is used more to deny the existence of non-binary identities than any actual care for English grammar. I’m gonna assume you’re saying this more out of naivety; hopefully you’ll be better able to recognize the difference between genuine curiosity and “just asking questions” in the future.
Not every native English speaker has an equally strong grasp on the language. Frankly our education system in the USA is garbage. People end up learning more from those around them and you can end up with spotty or inaccurate knowledge in many areas. This is something of an edge case. A valid use of language and non gender specific pronouns but not one that is every day usage in many area’s of society. Even 20 years ago this level of verbal gymnastics just to avoid assigning gender would get you funny looks from most of the population. Even now… Read more »
Ah yes, because everybody has a perfect grasp of the English language. Surely nobody is a non-native English speaker that has only been taught that “they” is grammatically a form used for plural forms.
Way to make assumptions there bucko.
Hi, Peruvian here. A little of internet taught me that by now “they” is for the singular non-binary. In spanish we have worse issues with our heavily gendered language. Example: “everybody” translates to “todos” (male), todas (female), and by now “todes” (non-binary, not officially accepted, not widely used yet).
“Hey, [coworker], remember how we found that missing wallet yesterday? The owner didn’t have an ID in there. Did they ever come back and get it?”
We’ve been using “they” as an ambiguous singular for a long time. People are only complaining about it now because it’s being used by “the radical left”.
Not to mention, it may correct in more than one way for the X1, as the ruler of a soverign nation. British nobility have used a royal ‘we’ as a singular pronoun to refer to the monarch for centuries.
To be fair, that’s less about any sort of social norms/gender identity/etc, and more about rulers claiming God to be on their side. “We are displeased” = “God and I are displeased.”
“They” as in an unspecified member of the group “possible owners of the wallet”. Once the owner is identified, it’s no longer an ambiguous singular, but a specific singular.
wow – looks like a lot of people mistook my “this is why it still doesn’t sound right in my head” for a “that’s why you’re wrong” …
“When the customer gets here, the package is for THEM. Make sure THEY get it.” It is entirely possible to refer to a singular entity with neutral pronouns. Assuming otherwise is being a pedantic douchebag, regardless of your views on gender.
To this, the pedanic douchebag would reply “sure, sure; it’s their package when they get here, but until they DO get here, the package is for ME!”
This has same intellectual energy as:
“They/them is plural, so why would an individual call themself that anyways”
(twitter post)
*slow clap*
Another example to add to the excellent ones already here:
A: “Hey, what do you know about the new employee starting next week?”
B: “Nothing, I heard they’re hiring someone for accounting, but haven’t heard anything else about them yet.”
C: *sniffs* “Gossiping again? Such a waste of time”
I think if you’re the only one of your species on an alien planet, a fucking pronoun is the last thing you’d worry about.
This whole issue really isn’t so much about identity as it is about language. For Hungarians, this discussion can’t even happen.
The issue in the comments section is about language. The issue for the X1 is about identity. While the English language’s oddities did kickstart the question of “what is my gender” and then “what is my name,” it has since branched from that into the broader question of “Who am I?”
I’m sure that Hungarians understand that names and gender are part of who we are as individuals, even if their language doesn’t gender its pronouns.
I’m trying to figure out if the Switch’s warranty covers your device becoming liberated from its human owner and gaining citizenship of a foreign nation without an extradition treaty.
So far, it’s looking like ‘no’. Damn, those Nintendo lawyers are thorough.
If only Nintendo had a good system for cloud saves… then he could just pick up an extra Switch lying around the shop and continue playing.
Normally he could. But Article 8, section B of the warranty states that in this case, his Switch can only be a secondary system, not primary. Any attempts to turn his old Switch from Primary to Secondary requires a diplomatic agreement between a US Ambassador and the ambassador of the country which the primary Switch is taking refuge in.
As Automatia is a hostile nation, it’d probably just be easier to start from scratch.
So if X1/Gizmo could also find a way to make the Switch independently sentient, and liberate it from Nintendo contracts, could it sue Ethan to be emancipated and receive ongoing support payments?
The GROWING nation of Automatia.
Gizmo could return the switch to it’s caretaker.
Like imagine being Captain Olimar on a planet full of Pikmin