they

reesetee :-) Jul 21, 2010

ruzuzu I have just added the tag "why I adore this site" to this word. Jul 20, 2010

milosrdenstvi I came to a conclusion yesterday; that I could conscientiously use ambiguous singular 'they' but not generic singular 'they'.

Ambiguous 'they' is when I specifically do not wish to specify a gender, although the person in question usually has one.

"One of my friends was in Wyoming last month, and they saw a moose there."

I know of people, using 'they' this way, almost always use it as a euphemism for 'she', but I suspect that is an aberration.

Generic 'they' is when 'they' is used to refer to a non-specific person of singular number, which could be either male or female.

"Every person must stand on their own two feet."

I prefer the historical alternative of using the masculine singular pronoun to double as a generic. I have no exquisite reason beyond that I find it more euphonious, and it is a construct already in existence within the language, which I do not consider particularly nice to remove.

I cannot, however, honestly use the masculine singular in a case of deliberate ambiguity. Thus my preferred use there of 'they'.

They as a plural generic, of course, I have no trouble at all with. Oct 8, 2009

reesetee Thanks, Pro.

*sips echinacea tea* Feb 12, 2009

dontcry On cupcakes: Maybe they're frosted with icing....or iced with frosting?

On they: always plural (I always thought they wore hats)

On tags: I'm keeping all of my tags. I'm never going to use them again, but I'm not giving them up. I'm a hoarder -- but no longer a horker. Feb 12, 2009

chained_bear I don't actually know. What would happen to Wordie if everyone started using tags? Guess we could find out. That is kind of what they're there for. Feb 12, 2009

Prolagus See Wikipedia (and love the wordplay in their name!). Feb 12, 2009

bilby What's a flying wallenda? Feb 12, 2009

plethora Not frosted? Feb 12, 2009

reesetee I was trying to remember that tricksy rhetorical device too, sionnach. But since I am down with the flu, I don't really give a flying wallenda about all of this at present, except to say that anyone who feels it necessary to be nasty on Wordie shall be taken to the Wordshed and flogged vigorously with pasta tags, then pummeled for several minutes with iced cupcakes.

That's right. I said iced. Feb 11, 2009

sionnach
What would happen if the 10,817 registered users each put 7 tags on a word?

I'm trying to remember the name of the tricksy rhetorical device that bilby is employing here.

Since I rarely use tags, I would like to donate my non-used 7 tags per word to chained_bear, to use how- and whenever she sees fit .

For my old segocia, bilby, there is only one thing to be said.

Why do you hate freedom so much?

(While I don't find dogtags and fruittags and pastatags in the least bit offensive, I am puzzled as to why you feel it necessary to drag yarb in by his arms. tee-hee) Feb 11, 2009

rolig I guess I should say something since it was my comment that started this particular contretemps about tagging. There is certainly nothing wrong with Ms. Bear (or anyone) tagging as many words as she pleases "unremarkable." That in itself is an unremarkable tag (unlike others that have become objects of controversy), and I certainly did not mean to upbraid the tagger. I understand, I think, why she considers they an unremarkable word in the bigger scheme of things, or in a set of lists with such truly remarkable words as those collected by Ms. Bear. But from a different angle, no word is actually unremarkable, the most common words least of all, since they have centuries if not millennia of history behind them and can at times be all the more surprising because we tend to take them for granted. They in particular is a word of complex meaning, as the comments on this page indicate. That was the only point I wanted to make. There was no need to "expose" the tagger, who did nothing wrong. Feb 11, 2009

bilby The 'someone' who 'thought it was harsh' was yourself; I removed the tag. Are you complaining about that too now?
I apologise for any offence I may have caused in attempting to bring to light Wordie's current tagging arrangements, which I believe to be inadequate. As most of us are, I am loathe to directly criticise John as without him none of us would have this wonderful site. As such I think certain users, including yourself chained_bear, have made the tags an issue. What would happen if the 10,817 registered users each put 7 tags on a word, as you have sometimes done? (see, for example, notothere) We would have to scroll down for months to even see the comments.
I'm sorry but if my remaining 283 tags are a hanging offence then string me from the yarbarm. I can certainly see why my tags like shakespeare, pasta, joyce, palindrome, onomatopoeia, bi-sonic, ghosted, geography, fruit, misspelling, dog, etc. are offensive to the length and breadth of the known world.
Or, as reesetee counsels, 'If the tags annoy, just hide them. Easy enough.'
P.S. My tagging of a hare's breath with 'leprosy' is a joke. Feb 11, 2009

chained_bear Views I may not agree with? Really? Like the one you left on gunpowder and then removed when someone thought it was harsh?

I agree that tags could be a bit more transparent, but only because I've been stung by a couple that were unnecessarily mean. I reiterate my note on my profile from a few weeks ago, and I'm done caring about this.

The silver lining is that the phrase "passive-aggressive assmarmot" still makes me smile. Also, toejam. Feb 11, 2009

bilby S/h/it first appears on Wordie on 7457. Feb 11, 2009

plethora I'm sure I stole it from somewhere on Wordie... Feb 11, 2009

Prolagus S/h/it is really interesting, plethora. :) Feb 11, 2009

plethora I use they as a singular, non-gender specific pronoun, and I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Better they than the hideous hir. This was one of the few things my English teacher and I ever disagreed on.

She eventually won the argument, but for some reason, she didn't respond well when I replaced they with s/h/it in my practice essay. *puzzled*

Is JOO as in book or food, skip? Feb 11, 2009

skipvia Geez, si, you're really serious about this, aren't you? I got nothin' on they. How about going off on folks that pronounce jewelry JOO ler ee? Would that help? Feb 11, 2009

sionnach I really don't understand why people seem to want to get so exercised about tags. Good Lord, why do you all hate freedom so much?

Meanwhile, I notice that nobody has offered any credible defence for the "anyone who uses 'they' as a singular, non-gender-specific, pronoun is morally more turpitudinous (?) than babykillers and convicted felons" shibboleth. Just the same old helena handbasket handwringing and pointless comments to the effect that it's really not so difficult to rewire one's whole sentence, paragraph, or document. If it were really that straightforward, why do so many reasonable people find it an unacceptable "solution"?

Answer me that, freedom-haters!

(editor's note: this comment makes use of certain rhetorical devices, such as hyperbole and sarcasm, purely in the interests of stirring up a little entertaining trouble. The author of this comment is, at heart, a cuddly, peace-loving soul. Except when he is bored and in need of a little diversion) Feb 11, 2009

Prolagus I agree that tags should be more transparent – for instance, the tag page should show who used it and on which word. But this can be discussed on features.
Also, toejam. Feb 11, 2009

bilby I don't believe any of my tags are nasty. Some of them do reflect views that others may not agree with.

'i guess for some people three tags is far too many' has been used 1 time by chained_bear, 1 time total.
Feb 11, 2009

chained_bear Would that also go for the nasty tags you've been leaving, bilby?

This word's tagged as such, if anyone really cares, because I tagged all the words on one list. Feb 10, 2009

bilby Only the debate, as such. Rolig wondered out aloud: 'The real question here should be, why is this extraordinary word tagged "unremarkable"?' As tags are not that transparent, in that if you click on the tag it doesn't instantly identify who made it, I think it's fair to shed light upon who is making what tags. Feb 10, 2009

reesetee Bilby, what's with the tag reporting? Feb 10, 2009

kewpid they are people you don't like. Feb 9, 2009

skipvia "Chocolate chips in the gorp of life." What a lovely expression, ptery. Feb 7, 2009

bilby Tag: unremarkable has been used 114 times by chained_bear, 114 times total. Feb 7, 2009

pterodactyl What I think:

- Grey is cooler than gray, because it's phonetic. Phonetically-spelled words are the chocolate chips in the gorp of life.

- People have been using they as a singular gender-neutral pronoun for centuries now. If centuries of use doesn't make a word legitimate, what does?

- Browsing Wordie while a cat sits in your lap and washes itself is a lovely way to spend a cold winter evening. :-) Feb 7, 2009

reesetee Hmm. Actually, I see both spellings in other places as well (other than books, that is). The dictionaries I've bothered to check only say that one is a variant spelling of another. Interesting. Feb 6, 2009

rolig In my dictionary (the Oxford American), grey is defined as "British spelling of gray." Maybe you read a lot of books printed in the UK, ReeseTee. Feb 6, 2009

reesetee Why is grey vs. gray considered a transatlantic conflict, I wonder? I see both spellings in equal measure here. Feb 6, 2009

rolig The real question here should be, why is this extraordinary word tagged "unremarkable"? Not only is they spelled with an e where one might expect an a, it is a personal plural pronoun that might refer to no one in particular, or everyone (e.g. "well you know what they say"), and even to singular persons of indefinite gender (e.g. "everyone should fill out the form they received in the mail"; "if someone did this on purpose, they should apologize"). And in fact, it may even refer to non-animate things (neuter gender): "She threw out his clothes because they were to painful to look at." Unremarkable, indeed! Feb 6, 2009

bilby I'm sure grey grey is much greyer than gray grey. Try spending some time in London :-( Feb 6, 2009

rolig Bilby, you provocateur! Why do you hate freedom? There's no point stirring up old transatlantic conflicts. Feb 6, 2009

bilby Now let's try it with grey! Feb 6, 2009

jennarenn Sung to the tune of The Farmer in the Dell.

There is no a in they.
There is no a in they.
Cross out the a and put in an e,
There is no a in they. Feb 6, 2009

mollusque Following up on the comments from nine months ago: Good use of their in the singular at berdache. Aug 17, 2008

mollusque Presumably they weren't of the slack variety. Nov 19, 2007

chained_bear Note: "themself" disappeared in thirty years--from 1540 to 1570--because that's how long it took us all to find the bastards and kill them.
;)
(that was a joke.) Nov 19, 2007

reesetee But there are many big pictures. Yes, my skin crawls when I hear these usages because I happen to be one of those grammar mavens (read: editors) who drive sionnach so crazy. (Unless, sionnach, you're referring to another group. :-)) Using "they" and "themself" in these ways may satisfy a need or fill some language niche, but I think in many cases (certainly not all), that "need" is to be sloppy or careless. Does anyone even bother to teach English grammar anymore in the first place?

My two cents.... Nov 19, 2007

oroboros Those with the big picture! Nov 18, 2007

mollusque Interesting question c_b. I'd have to see the context to judge ambiguity or tell if my skin would crawl. "Themself" in place of "himself" or "herself" is the same to me as "they" in place of "it". "Themself instead of "themselves" is currently substandard, but "themself" is the older form: OED2 says it was the normal form to circa 1540, but disappeared circa 1570.

As an evolutionary biologist, I'd consider "themself" and "themselves" as memes competing with one another. Current linguistic pressures favor resurgence of "themself", but as a singular form. This is essentially niche displacement that makes it easier for the forms to coexist. I don't seen compelling reason to resist "themself", and it sounds more normal to me already just having heard it in my head over the last few minutes while writing this. Nov 18, 2007

chained_bear Mollusque--do you count "themself" as unintended ambiguity? Because that's the emphatic form of using "they" in place of a singular pronoun. (I think I saw it on Facebook today and my skin almost literally crawled.) Or is it simply an Abomination in the Eyes of the Lord? (sorry--leading question...) Nov 18, 2007

vanishedone I use 'he'. Offence is in the ear of the hearer.

Anyway, she murdered 'heo'.

Macquarrie and Robinson, translating Heidegger's Being and Time, rendered 'das Man' as 'the they' because 'the one' doesn't work in English. Inauthentic Dasein just does what one does. Nov 18, 2007

mollusque I think "they" is in the process of filling a gap in the language. Orally, "they" is often used in place of "he" or "she", especially where "it" would be insulting. It (they) can function not only to avoid sexism, but to protect confidentiality.

Using "they" this way in informal writing is fine with me. I did it in my comment on sought yesterday (and didn't notice until I looked it over before posting it). I let "they" stand because I didn't want "he" vs. "she" to distract from the main idea.

In formal writing, one can usually find ways to avoid the situation. Last year I rewrote the constitution of an organization to be gender-neutral without its being too stilted. Avoiding "he", "she" and "they" on the fly in conversation (without sounding like a bureaucrat) is harder. I think it's fascinating to watch the language evolve this way. Why fight it? Are there cases where unintended ambiguity results from saying "they" instead of "he" or "she"? Nov 18, 2007

skipvia To me, "they" refers to Tom and Dick Smothers. Nov 17, 2007

john I just use 'she.' I figure 'he' had it for a few thousand years, so if we use 'she' until the scales are balanced, it'll give us until 4007 to come up with an acceptable gender neutral alternative. Nov 17, 2007

yarb I agree that alternating 'he' and 'she' is often confusing. The trouble is, sionnach, 'they' isn't 100% clear either.

In the absence of a neuter singular pronoun, I think I favour rewriting, although this is sometimes difficult. There's nothing dishonourable in ducking a problem where none of the proposed solutions seem acceptable. Nov 17, 2007

sionnach Notice how "they" is increasingly being used as a neuter singular pronoun, to avoid saying he or she?

Yes, and I embrace it wholeheartedly. It satisfies an obvious need. The standard advice by the horrified mandarins and keepers of the flame (sorry, uselessness) tends to be:

1. use one of he or she, but for reasons of political correctness, using the same one all the time is unacceptable, so keep switching it around at random to ensure a 50% distribution across the genders.

yeah, like that's really going to foster clear, unambiguous communication!

2. rewrite the sentence to circumvent the issue.

THE HELL I WILL! This is the single most irritating "remedy" that grammar mavens have the gall to keep on suggesting. Because it's not a remedy at all, just an idiotic ducking of the issue.

Fortunately, in another ten years this particular 'issue' will have been laid to rest. Nov 17, 2007

uselessness Yes. It annoys me to no end. Admittedly, there are times when we need a good neuter singular pronoun, but that's not it. I guess I'm rather politically incorrect these days, but I think using he is a good old standard that people understood. It's not really worth getting upset about, in my opinion, but then again I'm a man. ;-)

I think part of the problem is also the increasing frequency of addressing collective units in the plural. When Microsoft does something, for example, it does it as one entity, not as "them" or "they." Nov 17, 2007

yarb Yes mollusque, and I'm not sure I like it. Do you think there's a gap in the language here? Nov 17, 2007

mollusque Notice how "they" is increasingly being used as a neuter singular pronoun, to avoid saying he or she? Nov 17, 2007

reesetee No! It's true! Sep 17, 2007

uselessness They Live. Sep 17, 2007

reesetee I always thought They were in some grand, wood-paneled conference room. And it always seemed necessary to capitalize the word. ;-) Sep 17, 2007

trivet For me, "they" were little old ladies sitting around a quilt. Sep 17, 2007

npydyuan Ha! Nice. I always thought "they" were a vast, faceless corporation, running everything Illuminati-style. Sep 17, 2007

uselessness "You know what they say..."

As a kid I always imagined "them" to be a married couple sitting in the den passing time by making up stupid phrases to tell their friends the next day. I vowed to find these people when I grew up, and stop them from confusing the language so much. Sep 17, 2007

patiomensch In place of "their," e.g. "He went to they field and threw they ball." This is a reference to Tobias Wolff, by the way. Apr 13, 2007