• Cethin@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    https://www.englishgratis.com/1/wikibooks/english/singularthey.htm

    There’s not a man I meet but doth salute me / As if I were their well-acquainted friend — Shakespeare, The Comedy of Errors, Act IV, Scene 3, 1594

    'Tis meet that some more audience than a mother, since nature makes them partial, should o’erhear the speech. — Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act III, Scene 3, 1600–1602

    So lyke wyse shall my hevenly father do vnto you except ye forgeve with youre hertes eache one to his brother their treaspases. — Tyndale’s Bible, 1526

    All of these are centuries old, and each of them know the gender of whom they speak of. You are incorrect. Please update your knowledge and don’t correct someone for something you didn’t at least look up.

    • Thymos@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yeah, those examples are precisely what I mean. The article you linked to explains exactly what I mean, even stating that Shakespeare wouldn’t have used “they” if he knew the gender of the person he referred to.

      The referents in these cases are general, not specific people. “Not a man” - no one, not referring to a specific person. “Some more audience than a mother” - someone else than a mother, not a specific person. “Each one” - not a specific person but every person.

      If you look at dictionary definitions over the centuries, you’ll find singular they mentioned, but always specifically for this general meaning.

      As an added note I don’t think it makes a difference if the current use is new or not, and it shouldn’t matter in this debate. Language changes all the time, even if people resist it.

        • Thymos@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          Yeah, it’s silly. I think the whole linguistic discussion is irrelevant. It’s a new phenomenon, which is great. I love how language evolves.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        …even stating that Shakespeare wouldn’t have used “they” if he knew the gender of the person he referred to.

        I literally gave two examples of him doing so. What are you talking about?

        Sure, they aren’t referring to any specific person, but the gender is clearly stated. Your prior reasoning was that it was improper if the gender is known, not if the person is known. Stop shifting goalposts and just accept new information when it’s presented.

        As an added note I don’t think it makes a difference if the current use is new or not, and it shouldn’t matter in this debate. Language changes all the time, even if people resist it.

        Yes, that’s correct. Someone was the first to use singular they. The argument about being grammatically correct is fairly stupid, because it’s clear it is now. However, some people make an appeal to tradition saying it wasn’t but it always has been for as long as they’ve been alive.