Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by bradleyjg | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

bradleyjg

Is “They is tall.” a grammatically valid sentence?

View on HN

Only if "They" is their given name and not a pronoun. If used as a pronoun, you can say "they are tall" in singular:

https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/grammar/si...).

Seems like a violation of the strict aliasing rule.

How so?

Because you use a "multiple" of pointers to refer to a single entity. (It's a C joke.)

That page you link to uses very ideological content - not philological as one could expect.

Not all will agree with those guidelines, they are far from universally acceptable.

Think about it this way, we're playing Guess Who, and you haven't asked about gender yet. You ask "Do they have dark hair?". It's obviously a question about a singular person, and that's the correct way to structure that question in English.

Certainly. But I referred to the presented guidelines, collectively - not to "singular they". I wrote and intended that _those linked guidelines_ are "not universal".

Singular they in English usage dates back 600-700 years. People can disagree with those guidelines all they want - they will have to deal with the fact that people choose to use singular they and they can get worked up over it or get used to it.

Do you feel the same way about generic he? It too has a long history.

Yes, generic he can be used in the singular as well.

It is clearly valid. I personally don't care if others use "he" as a generic, but seeing at some people don't feel included when it is used, I increasingly use "they". Not least when I don't know someones preference, because I consider the most inclusive option to be the most polite.

I don’t feel included by they.

You objectively are, and in the choice of who to care about that means I have absolutely no interest in catering to people upset that others are included.

There’s no difference objectively between generic he and generic they. Both cover everyone. You just prefer one to the other. That’s fine, so do I.

There is an objective difference between generic he and generic they: In many contexts you can not tell whether the "he" was intended to be generic or not.

I did not write anything about "singular they". I wrote against the legitimacy of those linked guidelines, which accidentally include "singular they".

The poster I replied to stated (I remember) that some use of language is made legitimate by some group laying out some guidelines. That some pretty random group («not philologists») lays out guidelines is maybe an "affiliation pass" for their group, but not universally valid.

You need grounds, good grounds. Check those guidelines...

How so philological? Language changes all the time due to practice. People don't need to justify their speech with philological arguments.

Yes, although in the case of singular they, its usage goes back to Chaucer, so it’s more established than most practices in modern English.

I believe they do. Practice must have a reasonable reference. People are free to contribute to the language - but with some competence.

Where's the ideological content?

Some people: "let's use, of already-established pronouns, the one that doesn't make any assumptions about people" You: "no, fuck you, other people's interpretation of what I say is strictly their problem, I'm gonna stick with 'he' no matter what other people feel or request, because I can"

The only ideology I can see here is the absolutist sort of "nobody can even suggest to me that I change a thing" or "I can't possibly cause offense if I don't mean to, so I don't need to think about word usage."

I don’t understand how it doesn’t make assumptions about people. In the case of a generic antecedent, sure that’s fine and well established historically. But in this case there’s a known antecedent, Michael Larabel.

I don’t know what Michael’s preferred pronouns are, but isn’t the original poster in this chain assuming it’s they/them and aren’t they more likely, statistically speaking, to be he/him?

Why does it somehow not count as misgendering when you they/them someone that prefers he/him or she/her?

> Why does it somehow not count as misgendering when you they/them someone that prefers he/him or she/her?

Because one appears to make an assumption about gender, whether or not you intended it to be taken as a generic, while the other objectively is generic.

As far as options go, they/them minimises assumptions. Yes, some people might still take offence, but given that most of the people who take offence at that takes offence because they oppose inclusiveness of others, I'm perfectly fine with not respecting their choice in the matter.

but given that most of the people who take offence at that takes offence because they oppose inclusiveness of others

You have some evidence of this or just the unshakable certainty of the self righteous?

I go by experience. There may be exceptions, but I've yet to see one, so I don't particularly care if there's a large pool of exceptions outside the horizon of my personal experience.

If you are an exception and have a good reason for taking offence that doesn't involve excluding others, do tell.

No, but "They are tall" is, which is gramatically plural but semantically singular.

Is it grammatically plural? In "You are tall", "you" can be singular, and then so should "are" be, if I am not mistaken.

(I'm not a native English speaker)

“You” was exclusively plural (singular equivalent was “thou”), but its meaning shifted to be either singular or plural a few hundred years ago. So “are” was indeed a plural-only conjugation until that shift happened.

Now “you” is shifting again: in formal English it is still singular or plural, but in colloquial American English — at least where I’m from — it can only be singular. The plural form is “you guys” or “y’all”, depending on dialect. (The “guys” in this pronoun shouldn’t be confused with the noun “guys”, which is usually only used for boys and men; “you guys” is used to refer to groups of any gender).

Exactly. There's loads of examples of such shifts in other languages, for example in Portuguese the formal you is conjugated in grammatical third person despite being semantically second person, arising from people being formally addressed in the third person ("Does the Right Honourable gentleman agree that...").

Same is true in Spanish, where "usted" ultimately derives from "vuestra merced".

For a completely different example, "on" in formal French means something like "one" in English: a pronoun for a general, unspecified person; as such, it takes singular conjugations. However, in colloquial speech, it means "we" and has almost completely replaced "nous" as a subject pronoun.

Thus: "il est" (he is); "on est" (we are, colloquial language); "nous sommes" (we are, standard language)

Is "You art tall." a grammatically valid sentence? Obviously not; don't be silly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com