>refers specifically to one persontime to retire this nonsense, don't you agree?
>>25079731it can also refer to a person of a profession without a specified gender, saar
>>25079731>retire thisat least you acknowledge that it's been standard and proper english for centuries
>>25079731What word could replace it, "it"?
>>25079731Yes.>>25079759Not in the way you're imposing it, faggot.
>>25079731The best is when something in the news comes up, some crime or whatever, and you can't figure out how many suspects were involved.
>>25079770Post an example
>>25079759There isn't a standard or "proper" pronoun for cases where you refer to someone and don't know whether that person is a man or a woman. Hence why you'd see people using (mostly) either "he" or "they" until the mid-20th century.
>>25079773>(singular pronoun): Usage of they as a singular pronoun began in the 1300s and has been common ever since
>>25079795That doesn't contradict what I said?
>>25079795>>(singular pronoun): Usage of they as a singular pronoun began in the 1300s and has been common ever sinceNice, except that's not true.
Using the same word for both singular and plural has never been a problem for me, so why has it been for thee?
>>25079811It's incorrect. It doesn't matter that being wrong is something you're comfortable with.
>>25079815I see. Well, thou hast the right to thine own opinion on how to make thy speech singular and how to make it plural.
English isn't Latin. Singular they is correct.
>>25079731I've always used this to refer to a hypothetical individual of unknown gender and have seen it used as such long before pronouns became a culture war issue.
>>25079832because english is barbaric
>>25079772I'm too busy reading about the trannie who just shot up a school in Canada.
I read something from a writer's workshop today and a character used they/them pronouns and shit was so confusing. Multiple times I thought it was being used for an object that wasn't established.
>>25079759>>25079773>>25079795>refers specifically>specificallyassumed OP meant this kind of thing: "Angela Jackson had worked hard for six years to earn her degree, an especially impressive feat considering they are a single mother."this is not standard English
>>25079808>The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular they back to 1375, where it appears in the medieval romance William and the Werewolf.
>>25080593but not in a case like this>>25080576and this is what we have been hearing frequently hearing since ~2020
>>25080613not sure what you’re getting at with that one. your issue is with calling a person ‘her’ and then ‘they’ in the same sentence?
>>25080623I think so. It's not so much they as a truly unspecified human third person, nor even a specifically preferred pronoun, but rather - perhaps because overexposed to this idea (let's say correct) idea of singular they as possible pronoun - that the lazy stupid masses over- and misuse it. I've seen plenty of other twitter screencaps etc., where someone will refer to a clear picture of some guy as they, or someone will use they for a hypothetical unspecified woman ("when a woman…"; but if there's one thing you know *her* it's that it's a she), or they for an animal of unknown sex, even an inanimate object…
>>25080637are you esl?
>>25080643No, but Americans increasingly are.(Yes, I wrote 'idea' twice and meant to write 'about *her*', okay.)
>>25080649there’s several grammatical errors and the whole thing is awkwardly written. don’t think you’re the person to be lecturing others on standard english.
>>25080655Please: elaborate. I will give you awkwardness, totally; that, I admit to.
>>25080673sentences have missing subjects. you misused ‘nor’. run-on sentences. and an ungrammatical use of a semicolon.
>>25079731"They" is not a good "he-or-she" because it gets confused with the plural.In general I use "he" for "he-or-she" but it isn't ideal in every situation. Sometimes you do want a good euphonious word for "he-or-she".People have tried "ze", "xe" etc but they've never caught on. Largely, I think, because they just don't sound right.Perhaps, with a bit of social engineering, "thee" could made into the word for "he-or-she", since we don't really use it in its old-fashioned sense any more. But then you need variants for "her-or-him", "his-or-hers", etc.
Too much attention to a gender/pronoun is stupid in the first place. All the "he-or-she", "they", "xe/ze" sound equally gay.Since I adhere to the presumption of innocence when referring to an unknown person, I thereby use the only normal and default pronoun, the masculine one.
>>25080682english is a language of contexts. you can avoid confusion by anchoring it to a singular (student, someone, each, etc).>"thee" could made into the word for "he-or-she” dumb.
>>25080708i propose - purely in the interests of variety and justice - that we use ‘she’ instead.
>>25080715That would be an outright insult. The only thing I could expect as a response is a gauntlet thrown in the face.
>>25080724it’s a funny thought. that the default sounds ridiculous if you change the gender. shows how deep these things run.
>>25080680>It's not so much X as A, nor even [X as] B, but rather that YCommon elliptical usage, not incorrect. Strictly, it is a matter of X (X being 'using "they" as/like…'), what is at issue is Z. Accounting for the ellipsis, a standard usage of 'nor'.> – because overexposed to –The subject of this parenthesis is not yet introduced, but it is the masses: because the masses [are, might be (ellipsis)] overexposed. One of the rhetorical awkwardnesses, I own it. Could have better been placed after the subject.>I've seen plenty of other twitter screencaps[,] etc., where someone will X, or someone will Y, or [will use] 'they' for A, [or] even [for] B…Simple elliptical sentence listing examples. Common usage.>refer to a clear picture of some guy as 'they'To the guy in the picture, and not to the picture itself, certainly. A syntactical oddity, sure, but unlikely to be misunderstood.>("when a woman…"; but if there's one thing you know [about] *her* it's that it's [or: she is - but I did not want to use another 'she'] a 'she')Trailed-off quotation of one such scenario (the idea is that someone will say, "When a woman [etc. etc. and then will use 'they' for this hypothetical, unspecified *woman*]"). I know you will say that a semicolon should not be followed by a conjunction, but this (e.g., semicolon + 'but' or 'and') is widely attested and has been used by various important writers from the beginning of the twentieth century and before.Every use of 'they' in my original post was a mention, and so should strictly speaking have been in quotation marks, but, writing informally, I discarded this and thought it would be understood. But given the length and stilted prose, I concede that it *could* mislead.Given the main clauses greentexted above, and accounting for all common ellipses, there are no "missing subjects". Further piled-up clauses, parentheses (whether set off with the eponymous punctuation marks or with dashes, here hyphen-minuses, because we are on the internet and are not AI), and the length of a sentence do not a run-on make, however awkwardly constructed, to which (said awkwardness) I have already effusively admitted. It might be that I left out another word in this post: such things happen. But are we going to be so frightfully boring when, groping his way, one aphasic poster finally comes out and - stiltedly, stiltedly - decides to write something the only way he can, viz. by the sentence? And (not to steer away from the thread topic at hand even more) have you anything to add about the content of what I posted, the examples, etc.? Ah, ah, it's good whatever.
>>25079731For a singular person of unknown gender it's fine. I'm only annoyed when some dumbfucks still use "they" to refer to singular people of known gender, as in every pronoun in their vocabulary has been replaced by "they".
>>25080747i know i've asked you this already, but are you absolutely sure you're not esl?
>>25080770Quite - easily - sure. What about yourself? an underread zoomer?
>>25080798a playwright once said something about brevity being the soul of wit.
>>25079731but what if you're talking to a demonically 'legion' type entity that's possessed multiple people?you're dealing with one collective/gestalt will.perhaps this is more often the case than not when dealing with "NPCs" or other subjective objects/monads?
>>25079770>>25079772 >>25080106Wrecked that smug troon.
>>25079772nta but don't be facetious.pretending it has never happened doesn't help your case.
>>25082478I think he’s making a point - how much of a big deal is it really if nothing comes to mind?
>>25080908Then you should use "it" since the entity is ultimately singular. It should also use "I/me" pronouns instead of "we/us," but hivemind media rarely does this to prevent dumb audience from getting confused.
Gender in language is autism.
>>25079731They did exactly this with singular "you", that one is still grammatically plural and most people don't even notice
>>25079869Silence, Mario
>>25082768This is how Americans view the metric system and cursive writing btw
>>25082478>>25082559Who would recall the combination of keywords necessary in order to search out old specific news articles, they randomly came across in passing at some unknown point, that are buried in a mountain of random articles almost exactly like them? The fact that a troon shot up a school (yet again) is enough to know they're committing crimes and it's obvious to anyone who isn't a disingenuous faggot that refering to suspect(s) as they and them muddles language to the point a reader has no idea if there are multiple suspects or just one.
>>25082949You can go the the trouble of a long, blood-thirsty polemic (and/or make a thread and/or contribute to an ongoing discussion) but nothing specific has registered? I’d start to question why that is.
>>25082763Do you have multiple wills inside you?Have you ever had to change your own mind or fight yourself from falling back to sleep?
>>25079731Read Shakes Spear, loser
>>25082993>You can go the the trouble of a long, blood-thirsty polemicYou're thinking of your MANifesto, troon.
>>25082993Wait, is it MANifesto or MA'AMifesto? Either way you're still a sick freak.
>>25083238that’s right I’m a big strong trans man
>>25083248You're a mentally ill freak who will likely die by suicide at some point in the near future. Until then at least you have being disingenuous about your language games.
>>25083256rattled.
>>25083260When trannies are involved in crimes they/them pronouns result in muddled reporting. Simple as.
>>25083284Singular they has been used for centuries. It’s standard English. Languages use context. Are you as emphatic about ‘fish’ also being singular or plural?
>>25083303>Singular they has been used for centuriesNot in the way you're promoting. You know people see through your lies and it just makes them hate you even more, right?
>>25083320>people see through your lies and it just makes them hate you even moreyou can just talk normally you know
>>25083335Truth hurts, fag. Now go take your SSRIs and pretend people aren't staring at you in disgust when you go to the grocery store.
>>25083344 I’m saying try keep a level head.
>>25083348You're writing nonsense because you have no actual argument.
>>25083356do you ever listen to yourself?standard practice for you to haplessly turn up the volume in a discussion about grammar?
>>25083363>trying to crybully on 4chanLol
>>25083382think you’re a bit mixed up. I’m a 6’1 trans man I’d batter you
>>25083385>trannie loses argument and starts fantasizing about violence All too common.
>>25083394yep - come apartment 2, 68 broadwick st if you want knocking out in front of both your mates.
>>25083402Stay mad, troon.
>>25080593>1375The year when wokeism started. Grim times
>>25083402Handsome bastard
>>25082559a specific article isn't likely to come to mind, but we've all experienced it so asking for a citation is disingenuous
>>25083402cutecutecutecuuuuuuuuute
>>25079795This is patently false, and I know the passage to which you are referring. Interpreting it in that way shows a fundamental misunderstanding of grammar, and likely a lack of training in any grammatical arts, or at least an innate tendency to submit yourself to moral and intellectual slavery.
>>25079832Latin is the language in which a singular may be used to refer to many. English, properly spoken, does not allow for this.
>>25080637You clearly don't know English.
I prefer to do it because I probably have some form of autism and using 'they' feels like a more distant way to refer to someone versus she or he.
Male until proven otherwise is reasonable. No need for this faggotry.
>>25079731What did they mean by this?
>>25083839>clear post listing examples of how others misuse english>because it concerns 'they' and mentions 'preferred pronouns' (despite stating that that is not the issue) discord trannies come out the woodwork and gaslight with esl and when proven wrong deflect as is their wontyou hate ta see it!
>>25084854Using it for a hypothetical unspecified woman is licherally in Shakespeare. Modern singular they is more expansive than traditional singular they but that example is sound even in the traditional use.
>>25083402ur hot. and you look like you're funny i have no clue why you're on 4ch
>>25085035What's next, defending the intransitive "lay"?
>>25079731It's retarded, it always sounds like they're schizo with multiple personalities. But it is good as well since as soon as you see anyone write in american (aka tard) english you can just stop and discard it.
>>25079766In finnish its more common to call someone "it" than s/he. I think in turkish too.
>>25083402wonderful and handsome!
>>25085349oh shit that's the guy who fucked a nasty single mom once and now thinks he's hot shit lmao
>>25085354what a lucky mom!
>>25079731I have never adopted this nonsense so there's nothing to retire
>>25079869Latin is barbaric too.
>>25085346that's quite insulting in English
>>25083888i chuckled
>>25079731'He' being the neutral third person should return, feminists replacing it with 'they' has led to some confusion.
>>25086641>inb4 "at some point 'they' was in use!"It's recent enough for old men to complain about the transfer from 'he' to 'they' in the late 90s, even pre-tranny fad.
>>25079773one
>In the 18th century, grammarians began objecting to its use, arguing that a plural pronoun cannot take a singular antecedent, though this did not stop its common usage.Since this is about when literature peaked, I'm liable to agree
>>25086645>'he' to 'they' in the late 90snot believing this.post examples
when a nigga laying nekkid on they back in yo crib, wyd?
>>25079731It's true that singular they was used centuries ago. But that was always for a hypothetical individual of indeterminate sex. Since the 80s or 90s progressive boomers started trying to force that upon people so that they wouldn't use "he" (which was the other common singular pronoun for hypothetical people). It was seen as too exclusory of women. It's like how they tried to force "Ms" on people instead of Mrs or Miss.Now though, the new change has been to use "they" to refer to known people. This is to accommodate for the idea that people can be neither he nor she if that's what they (he or she) decide(s).So whenever anyone says "but we've had singular they for hundreds of years" they are correct but the sleight of hand is that we haven't had it in the way that they're trying to force upon everyone else - that was a boomer creation which laid dormant for a few decades then arose once more around 2013 when transsexualism became popular (which coincided with homosexuals finally being fully tolerated).
>>25087257>Since the 80s or 90sno, no, no>progressive boomersno, no, no>Since the 2010s and full-on from 2020 to 2024, malding millennials...fify
>>25083402Post nipples (they must be pink)
>>25080576Right? I'm so tired of this nonsense the nonbinary narcissists push like they've outsmarted you. >someone left this bag behind. I bet they'll come back for itFine >I saw a woman accidentally walk off without her bag. I bet they'll come back for it. Not fineSimple as.
>>25083402qt!!!!!!!top 5 authors?
>>25083094Yes and you still don't see me using we/us individually
>in everyday life, they and their are going the way of you in the 18th century. The pronoun you was once regarded as a plural, the singular forms being thou (nominative) and thee (objective). Gradually, beginning in the 1300s, you came to be regarded as alternatively singular or plural.
i'll just leave this here
