On "singular them".

[conuly]

I like singular them. English doesn't have a gender-neutral 3rd person singular plural, and "them" fits the slot nicely. I fully support the use of the singular them - if and only if it's the best way to cast a sentence.

Everyone passed their papers foward: this makes sense. Everyone can be construed as a plural, and it avoids "his or her".

So-and-so has won a prize, go congratulate them: this doesn't make sense. So-and-so is a person, even if we don't know so-and-so's gender. Why not say "So-and-so has won a prize, and should be congratulated"?

My current peeve, taken from neopets is "If you own a Bori, you can now paint them Starry.". Gah. First of all, you can paint "them" starry if you own one right now or not, just create/adopt a new bori and paint it. Secondly, the bori you own is NOT a them. It's a he or a she. This could've been avoided by adding "you'll be happy to know that" in the middle.

Comments

[genepool23.livejournal.com]

I think it would be perfectly suitable to call a Neopet an "It." People tend to personify animals and assign them gender pronouns but it is still acceptable to call an animal of unknown gender "it." Wouldn't the same hold true for digital "animals?"

[conuly]

I don't consider it acceptable to refer to animals with genders as it. Unless the animal has only one gender, like certain snails or worms.

[firingneurons.livejournal.com]

I love 'them' as singular! Stupid english.

[fjorab-teke.livejournal.com]

That seriously peeves me about the English language.

There is NO commonly-known (not that I know) non-gender pronoun more dignified than "it." I even feel awkward saying "it" for an animal.

Something else peeves me: there's no word that encompasses EVERYTHING including people. "Things that annoy me"...that can't include people (or even their actions, as it sounds derogatory to the person) unless I add that extra clause about "things people do which annoy me" in there each time.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

Singular 'they' is perfectly legitimate (http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html).

"So-and-so is a person, even if we don't know so-and-so's gender. Why not say "So-and-so has won a prize, and should be congratulated"?"

Because there's a major difference between telling people to do something, and telling them that it should be done.

"If you own a Bori, you can now paint them Starry.". Gah. First of all, you can paint "them" starry if you own one right now or not, just create/adopt a new bori and paint it. Secondly, the bori you own is NOT a them. It's a he or a she. This could've been avoided by adding "you'll be happy to know that" in the middle."

I don't see any problem with calling a virtual creature "it", but using them as an indefinite singular (in place of the cumbersome him or her) is correct. "You'll be happy to know that" would be extra words and an unwarranted assumption. How about simply saying "Boris can now be painted starry"?

[conuly]

1. I know it is, but sometimes it's awkward, and that awkwardness could be avoided with a little forethought.

2. Not really, especially not in this case.

3. It's awkward and ugly. But your suggestion works.

[theshiversbaby.livejournal.com]

Do you mean *any* animal, or do you mean an animal that is also a pet?

For instance, would you find it unacceptable to refer to a squirrel, bird, or fish as "it"? I have no problem with this and can't see how someone could justifiably object to it, but if you do I'd like to hear why.

[conuly]

Any animal that comes in human sexes. Animals which only have one sex don't count, neither do animals with more than two, but any animal in a binary sex system is either he or she.

This also applies to female ginko trees, the ones which leave messy berries all around.

[genepool23.livejournal.com]

I think it would be perfectly suitable to call a Neopet an "It." People tend to personify animals and assign them gender pronouns but it is still acceptable to call an animal of unknown gender "it." Wouldn't the same hold true for digital "animals?"

[conuly]

I don't consider it acceptable to refer to animals with genders as it. Unless the animal has only one gender, like certain snails or worms.

[firingneurons.livejournal.com]

I love 'them' as singular! Stupid english.

[fjorab-teke.livejournal.com]

That seriously peeves me about the English language.

There is NO commonly-known (not that I know) non-gender pronoun more dignified than "it." I even feel awkward saying "it" for an animal.

Something else peeves me: there's no word that encompasses EVERYTHING including people. "Things that annoy me"...that can't include people (or even their actions, as it sounds derogatory to the person) unless I add that extra clause about "things people do which annoy me" in there each time.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

Singular 'they' is perfectly legitimate (http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html).

"So-and-so is a person, even if we don't know so-and-so's gender. Why not say "So-and-so has won a prize, and should be congratulated"?"

Because there's a major difference between telling people to do something, and telling them that it should be done.

"If you own a Bori, you can now paint them Starry.". Gah. First of all, you can paint "them" starry if you own one right now or not, just create/adopt a new bori and paint it. Secondly, the bori you own is NOT a them. It's a he or a she. This could've been avoided by adding "you'll be happy to know that" in the middle."

I don't see any problem with calling a virtual creature "it", but using them as an indefinite singular (in place of the cumbersome him or her) is correct. "You'll be happy to know that" would be extra words and an unwarranted assumption. How about simply saying "Boris can now be painted starry"?

[conuly]

1. I know it is, but sometimes it's awkward, and that awkwardness could be avoided with a little forethought.

2. Not really, especially not in this case.

3. It's awkward and ugly. But your suggestion works.

[theshiversbaby.livejournal.com]

Do you mean *any* animal, or do you mean an animal that is also a pet?

For instance, would you find it unacceptable to refer to a squirrel, bird, or fish as "it"? I have no problem with this and can't see how someone could justifiably object to it, but if you do I'd like to hear why.

[conuly]

Any animal that comes in human sexes. Animals which only have one sex don't count, neither do animals with more than two, but any animal in a binary sex system is either he or she.

This also applies to female ginko trees, the ones which leave messy berries all around.