Pronoun chaos.

[Bloom.]

AP Style:

The singular “they” is a generic third-person singular pronoun in English. Also use “they” as a generic third-person singular pronoun to refer to a person whose gender is unknown or irrelevant to the context of the usage. ... Do not use “he” or “she” alone as generic third-person singular pronouns.

 

[stollcpa]

Co.H. seems outraged. I hope they gets over it.

Why is it you guys always accuse people of outrage?

Pointing out the idiocy of you woke liberals demanding what words we can use has nothing to do with outrage. It’s poking fun at the dumbasses pushing wokeness. Hell Pelosi lays down the law in the house and turns around and uses the pronouns she banned. Complete dumbassery.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

That's just utterly false.

If nothing else, I see it in job postings fed to me for contract work. Where the gender of the applicant is irrelevant. 'The applicant' should do (insert whatever criteria necessary) and provide whatever additional information they deem necessary.

It's they vs. he/she. The singular they and the general you. Very much part of communicating.

Nothing I said was false, and certainly not utterly false. I’ve had a fair amount of education, including postgraduate degrees. I do a lot of professional writing. Our organization’s publication editors work for me. Until the last two or three years none of us were taught that “they” was anything other than a plural pronoun. That’s a fact. Your post is false.

The plural/general “you” of course was taught, but that’s irrelevant.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

Nothing I said was false, and certainly not utterly false. I’ve had a fair amount of education, including postgraduate degrees. I do a lot of professional writing. Our organization’s publication editors work for me. Until the last two or three years none of us were taught that “they” was anything other than a plural pronoun. That’s a fact. Your post is false.

The plural/general “you” of course was taught, but that’s irrelevant.

What pronoun was used for an unknown antecedent? He/she?

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

Why is it you guys always accuse people of outrage?

Pointing out the idiocy of you woke liberals demanding what words we can use has nothing to do with outrage. It’s poking fun at the dumbasses pushing wokeness. Hell Pelosi lays down the law in the house and turns around and uses the pronouns she banned. Complete dumbassery.

Except, as Bloom just linked, there was no woke liberal idiocy. here Just someone trying to create that narrative, in this case, for the purpose of trolling.

 

[Bloom.]

Why is it you guys always accuse people of outrage?

Pointing out the idiocy of you woke liberals demanding what words we can use has nothing to do with outrage. It’s poking fun at the dumbasses pushing wokeness. Hell Pelosi lays down the law in the house and turns around and uses the pronouns she banned. Complete dumbassery.

If you think a reporter using their long used and taught AP style is an example of wokeness, then you're simply looking for something to complain about. @CO. Hoosier wanted to make an issue of something is the one with the problem, and they know it.


There you go, bucky, the singular 'they' again.

 

[outside shooter]

Why is it you guys always accuse people of outrage?

Describing a standard word usage in a news story as "chaos" seems to fit a common sense understanding that I have of someone being outraged. I don't know if I am one of "you guys" or not, though.

 

[Bloom.]

Nothing I said was false, and certainly not utterly false. I’ve had a fair amount of education, including postgraduate degrees. I do a lot of professional writing. Our organization’s publication editors work for me. Until the last two or three years none of us were taught that “they” was anything other than a plural pronoun. That’s a fact. Your post is false.

The plural/general “you” of course was taught, but that’s irrelevant.

Then you were poorly taught.

 

[MrBing]

Nothing I said was false, and certainly not utterly false. I’ve had a fair amount of education, including postgraduate degrees. I do a lot of professional writing. Our organization’s publication editors work for me. Until the last two or three years none of us were taught that “they” was anything other than a plural pronoun. That’s a fact. Your post is false.

The plural/general “you” of course was taught, but that’s irrelevant.

I agree with you. None of us who were educated more than a few years ago were taught about a singular they. It's being taught to my kids now. I don't like it and don't use it that way but it's going to be common in our future.

 

[stollcpa]

Then you were poorly taught.

Looks like you’re wrong. I am sure you won’t apologize to the poster.

 

[outside shooter]

In the 70s I was taught the utterly ridiculous rule to use "he" when you don't know the gender.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

What pronoun was used for an unknown antecedent? He/she?

As a kid and in college we were taught to use “he” if unknown. The convention seems to have changed over the years to “he or she” to “he/she,” but I’d only be guessing about whether it was taught that way in grammar school. I remember my daughter using s/he in K-12 so I’d guess that’s what she was taught or saw used.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

As a kid and in college we were taught to use “he” if unknown. The convention seems to have changed over the years to “he or she” to “he/she,” but I’d only be guessing about it was taught that way in grammar school. I remember my daughter using s/he in K-12 so I’d guess that’s what she was taught or saw used.

Everyone here was probably taught to use "he" in at least K-6, except for the whippersnappers like Hoodat. I have never seen s/he.
I was more referring to your publication editors. What have been those changes over time?

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Then you were poorly taught.

Actually, I’m very well educated and I actually learned a few things you apparently didn’t.

It seems to take very little for you to post like a dick. You’ve done it twice now. I have very low tolerance for that these days which results in me replying in kind. You can stuff any additional replies you may be considering straight up the old bunghole. I’m done with you.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Everyone here was probably taught to use "he" in at least K-6, except for the whippersnappers like Hoodat. I have never seen s/he.
I was more referring to your publication editors. What have been those changes over time?

That has never come up. We definitely use he or she if pronouns are used, which is rare.

It was a surprise for me a few years ago when I was told it’s now standard to use one space rather than two after a sentence!

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I agree with you. None of us who were educated more than a few years ago were taught about a singular they. It's being taught to my kids now. I don't like it and don't use it that way but it's going to be common in our future.

I think singular “they” is a fad. It creates confusion and chaos in most circumstances. It won’t last.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

That has never come up. We definitely use he or she if pronouns are used, which is rare.

It was a surprise for me a few years ago when I was told it’s now standard to use one space rather than two after a sentence!

I thought that was more of a computer thing...and that the word processor auto-spaced twice after end punctuations. Of course, I still hit the space bar twice.

So, are you saying that the situation of an unknown singular antecedent never came up, or that "he" is the standard, or your editors ask that publications be written to avoid it all together?

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

I think singular “they” is a fad. It creates confusion and chaos in most circumstances. It won’t last.

"The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular they back to 1375, where it appears in the medieval romance William and the Werewolf. Except for the old-style language of that poem, its use of singular they to refer to an unnamed person seems very modern."

That's a helluva fad.

Were you bitching about it back when the poet wrote:

Hastely hiȝed eche . . . þei neyȝþed so neiȝh . . . þere william & his worþi lef were liand i-fere.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I thought that was more of a computer thing...and that the word processor auto-spaced twice after end punctuations. Of course, I still hit the space bar twice.

So, are you saying that the situation of an unknown singular antecedent never came up, or that "he" is the standard, or your editors ask that publications be written to avoid it all together?

Took quite a while to break my habit of hitting the space bar twice.

No one here writes using a singular “they” to the best of my knowledge. To be honest if my editor showed me a sentence written that way, I’d have it rewritten.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

"The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular they back to 1375, where it appears in the medieval romance William and the Werewolf. Except for the old-style language of that poem, its use of singular they to refer to an unnamed person seems very modern."

That's a helluva fad.

Where you bitching about it back when the poet wrote:

Lol. For more than several generations students were taught “they” is plural. Obsolete English is real.

 

[outside shooter]

"The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular they back to 1375..

Where you bitching about it back when

646 years of nothing but CHAOS, I tell you

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Lol. For more than several generations students were taught “they” is plural. Obsolete English is real.

I LOVE a knock-down, drag-out grammar fight.

In Garner's Modern American Usage (3d ed., 2009), he writes:

". . . they has increasingly moved toward singular senses. Disturbing though these developments may be to purists, they're irreversible. And nothing that a grammarian says will change them."

Also, after a long discussion of the lack of a common-sex singular personal pronoun in English (which is fantastic), Garner posits:

"Though the masculine singular personal pronoun may survive awhile longer as a generic term, it will probably be ultimately displaced by they, which is coming to be used alternatively as singular or plural. This usage is becoming common --[examples given from a book, the NY Times, and the WSJ]

Speakers of AmE resist this development more than speakers of BrE, in which the indeterminate they is already more or less standard. That it sets many literate Americans' teeth on edge is an unfortunate obstacle to what promises to be the ultimate solution to the problem."

Without comment on the intention of the author in the original article that started this post, it is clear that the use of the singular they predates wokeness (which I suspect Garner holds in as high a regard as I do--not at all) and has been on the rise for quite awhile. Wokeness, though, has clearly amplified the adoption of its usage.

 

[NPT]

What pronoun was used for an unknown antecedent? He/she?

I try to always use s/he

On edit: One of my biggest mistakes is using the word YOU.... I mean it generically but I use it when replying to a thread and may not mean the YOU to mean the poster.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I LOVE a knock-down, drag-out grammar fight.

In Garner's Modern American Usage (3d ed., 2009), he writes:

". . . they has increasingly moved toward singular senses. Disturbing though these developments may be to purists, they're irreversible. And nothing that a grammarian says will change them."

Also, after a long discussion of the lack of a common-sex singular personal pronoun in English (which is fantastic), Garner posits:

"Though the masculine singular personal pronoun may survive awhile longer as a generic term, it will probably be ultimately displaced by they, which is coming to be used alternatively as singular or plural. This usage is becoming common --[examples given from a book, the NY Times, and the WSJ]

Speakers of AmE resist this development more than speakers of BrE, in which the indeterminate they is already more or less standard. That is sets many literate Americans' teeth on edge is an unfortunate obstacle to what promises to be the ultimate solution to the problem."

Without comment on the intention of the author in the original article that started this post, it is clear that the use of the singular they predates wokeness (which I suspect Garner holds in as high a regard as I do--not at all) and has been on the rise for quite awhile. Wokeness, though, has clearly amplified the adoption of its usage.

In many important contexts, the singular “they” will always be ambiguous, always be a source confusion, and will always need further clarification. You as a lawyer should know this.

 

[NPT]

That has never come up. We definitely use he or she if pronouns are used, which is rare.

It was a surprise for me a few years ago when I was told it’s now standard to use one space rather than two after a sentence!

They definitely don't use commas the way I was taught. A lot have been eliminated and I think rightly so.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

In many important contexts, the singular “they” will always be ambiguous, always be a source confusion, and will always need further clarification. You as a lawyer should know this.

I do realize it. I don’t like it and won’t use it (Garner correctly recommends writing around it in persuasive writing, which I do). But it can be confusing to use he or she alone and clunky to use he/she in non-legal writing or communication. This is the easy solution that speakers are adopting.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I do realize it. I don’t like it and won’t use it (Garner correctly recommends writing around it in persuasive writing, which I do). But it can be confusing to use he or she alone and clunky to use he/she in non-legal writing or communication. This is the easy solution that speakers are adopting.

Yes, any pronoun use can introduce confusion. Gendered pronouns have nothing to do with it.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

I LOVE a knock-down, drag-out grammar fight.

In Garner's Modern American Usage (3d ed., 2009), he writes:

". . . they has increasingly moved toward singular senses. Disturbing though these developments may be to purists, they're irreversible. And nothing that a grammarian says will change them."

Also, after a long discussion of the lack of a common-sex singular personal pronoun in English (which is fantastic), Garner posits:

"Though the masculine singular personal pronoun may survive awhile longer as a generic term, it will probably be ultimately displaced by they, which is coming to be used alternatively as singular or plural. This usage is becoming common --[examples given from a book, the NY Times, and the WSJ]

Speakers of AmE resist this development more than speakers of BrE, in which the indeterminate they is already more or less standard. That it sets many literate Americans' teeth on edge is an unfortunate obstacle to what promises to be the ultimate solution to the problem."

Without comment on the intention of the author in the original article that started this post, it is clear that the use of the singular they predates wokeness (which I suspect Garner holds in as high a regard as I do--not at all) and has been on the rise for quite awhile. Wokeness, though, has clearly amplified the adoption of its usage.

On this topic, you may enjoy this book. Of course, I'll bet you have already read it...

 

[Univee2]

They definitely don't use commas the way I was taught. A lot have been eliminated and I think rightly so.

Commas rule. Just look at several Pandas. One eats shoots and leaves. The other is an assassin. He/she enters a restaurant to take out the chef after finishing a meal. He/she eats, shoots and leaves.

As an aside, we were taught that there should also be a comma after "shoots" in the last sentence in the prior paragraph but that rule has apparently been changed.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

Commas rule. Just look at several Pandas. One eats shoots and leaves. The other is an assassin. He/she enters a restaurant to take out the chef after finishing a meal. He/she eats, shoots and leaves.

As an aside, we were taught that there should also be a comma after "shoots" in the last sentence in the prior paragraph but that rule has apparently been changed.

One less comma than items in a series!!!

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

They definitely don't use commas the way I was taught. A lot have been eliminated and I think rightly

Commas rule. Just look at several Pandas. One eats shoots and leaves. The other is an assassin. He/she enters a restaurant to take out the chef after finishing a meal. He/she eats, shoots and leaves.

As an aside, we were taught that there should also be a comma after "shoots" in the last sentence in the prior paragraph but that rule has apparently been changed.

Only heathens fail to use the Oxford comma.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

On this topic, you may enjoy this book. Of course, I'll bet you have already read it...

I have not but just ordered it. Thank you!

 

[NPT]

Commas rule. Just look at several Pandas. One eats shoots and leaves. The other is an assassin. He/she enters a restaurant to take out the chef after finishing a meal. He/she eats, shoots and leaves.

As an aside, we were taught that there should also be a comma after "shoots" in the last sentence in the prior paragraph but that rule has apparently been changed.

Yep... I was taught that also

One less comma than items in a series!!!

Yep, that is true... I forget which way it is but Microsoft's grammar checker always wants to change "that" to "which" or vice versa.

 

[UncleMark]

In the 70s I was taught the utterly ridiculous rule to use "he" when you don't know the gender.

As a kid and in college we were taught to use “he” if unknown. The convention seems to have changed over the years to “he or she” to “he/she,”

Everyone here was probably taught to use "he" in at least K-6, except for the whippersnappers like Hoodat. I have never seen s/he.

I try to always use s/he

I too was taught to use "he" when unknown. I've since come to use "he or she" or "he/she" if it seems more appropriate. I've never used s/he. As has been mentioned, I was told to listen, and if it sounded odd it was probably wrong.

<diversigence>

And now we have "Latinx", the ungendered pronoun used to replace Latino/Latina. I'm certain this is recent, not having the history of the singular "they" that so many have cited.

IIUC, most Hispanics think it's lame as fvck.

</diversigence>

 

[TommyCracker]

Why is it you guys always accuse people of outrage?

Pointing out the idiocy of you woke liberals demanding what words we can use has nothing to do with outrage. It’s poking fun at the dumbasses pushing wokeness. Hell Pelosi lays down the law in the house and turns around and uses the pronouns she banned. Complete dumbassery.

For me it keeps going back to how the right seems to be focused on, IMO the dumbest shit when there are much bigger things out there that need energy....like getting through a pandemic, or healthcare reform, or updating our infrastructure, or the exiting of Afghanistan (notice how you didn't see a lot of 'woke libs' arguing against the exit of Afghanistan other than arguing the over-dramatic pearl clutching when it came up, but for the most part, yeah it was/is a crisis).

The right narrative has moved away from actually discussing relevant topics to trying too hard to pwn the libs/scare the base with dumb culture war nonsense.

COH is just feeding into the conspiracy laden base that has led to people truly believing that there are lizard people, there is a pedophile ring of prominent Democrats, that Hillary Clinton drinks baby blood, that Covid is a hoax...no just a flu...no a biological weapon, that vaccines for Covid are dangerous but (insert miracle drug here) works, that the election was rigged (in multiple states with different voting laws so the only thing you can try to tie together are Dominion software and when that didn't work Italian space lasers) and most recently that the white house has a person that controls a mute button on Biden.

It's exhausting, dumb and a complete waste of energy.

So keep on working about 'wokeness' or 'cancel culture' while the rest of us worry about stuff that actually matters, like trying to get this infrastructure bill passed bipartisanly without using reconciliation.

 

[mcmurtry66]

For me it keeps going back to how the right seems to be focused on, IMO the dumbest shit when there are much bigger things out there that need energy....like getting through a pandemic, or healthcare reform, or updating our infrastructure, or the exiting of Afghanistan (notice how you didn't see a lot of 'woke libs' arguing against the exit of Afghanistan other than arguing the over-dramatic pearl clutching when it came up, but for the most part, yeah it was/is a crisis).

The right narrative has moved away from actually discussing relevant topics to trying too hard to pwn the libs/scare the base with dumb culture war nonsense.

COH is just feeding into the conspiracy laden base that has led to people truly believing that there are lizard people, there is a pedophile ring of prominent Democrats, that Hillary Clinton drinks baby blood, that Covid is a hoax...no just a flu...no a biological weapon, that vaccines for Covid are dangerous but (insert miracle drug here) works, that the election was rigged (in multiple states with different voting laws so the only thing you can try to tie together are Dominion software and when that didn't work Italian space lasers) and most recently that the white house has a person that controls a mute button on Biden.

It's exhausting, dumb and a complete waste of energy.

So keep on working about 'wokeness' or 'cancel culture' while the rest of us worry about stuff that actually matters, like trying to get this infrastructure bill passed bipartisanly without using reconciliation.

"For me it keeps going back to how the right seems to be focused on, IMO the dumbest shit when there are much bigger things out there that need energy"

so too is the converse. the left seems focused on doing silly shit like this THEN the right responds. i guarantee it wasn't the right that gave this legs; it was lgbtq accdg to the article.

 

[T.M.P.]

woke

that's a propaganda slogan and a racial dog whistle.

There's no such thing as "woke" it' represents a false caricaturization of liberal that "y'all" created to circle jerk each other into more outrage.

It's a sure sign you read bullshit from bullshit sources.

 

[TommyCracker]

"For me it keeps going back to how the right seems to be focused on, IMO the dumbest shit when there are much bigger things out there that need energy"

so too is the converse. the left seems focused on doing silly shit like this THEN the right responds

Why then do I find myself arguing the, again IMO, the dumbest shit with my right wing friends?

From Mr. Potato Head's nuts to pizza gate to miracle home remedies to Covid conspiracies like Fauchi actually created Covid to most recently if Biden has somebody muting him (it first was an internet thing than Fox news started playing into it and then it actually got brought up and laughed down by Blinken in a congressional hearing).

When I tune into Tucker it seems his whole show is 'if 'they' can do that then what will they do next? What's going to stop 'them' from doing this to you!!!????!!'.

It leads to hand wringing over the dumbest shit and it's so prevalent that it feels like it's 80% of the rights energy in the right wing media, social media and right wing leaders (again, a damn congressman asked our SOS who controls the Biden mute button. Jesus H Clownshow).

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I too was taught to use "he" when unknown. I've since come to use "he or she" or "he/she" if it seems more appropriate. I've never used s/he. As has been mentioned, I was told to listen, and if it sounded odd it was probably wrong.

<diversigence>

And now we have "Latinx", the ungendered pronoun used to replace Latino/Latina. I'm certain this is recent, not having the history of the singular "they" that so many have cited.

IIUC, most Hispanics think it's lame as fvck.

</diversigence>

As James Carville says, nobody talks like that (Latino, communities of color, etc,) and Democrats should stop doing it.

 

[UncleMark]

As James Carville says, nobody talks like that (Latino, communities of color, etc,) and Democrats should stop doing it.

Thirty years ago my brother lived on the Northern Cheyenne rez in Montana, working for a mission school there. He said the Indians called themselves Indians, and would snicker when anyone called them Native Americans.