Forum: Author Hangout

They am?

PotomacBob 🚫

Just heard a story on the radio - so it must be true. This is the week that Merriam-Webster added more than 500 new terms to its (their?) dictionary. One of those items is "they" - referring to one individual whose sexual identity is "non-binary" - meaning neither male nor female. They, in this case, Merriam-Webster says, requires a plural verb - just like you, also sometimes refers to one individual and requires a plural verb. The dictionary cites millions of uses of "they" in this way - especially on social media - as the compelling argument for this new entry.

Replies: Redsliver awnlee jawking Vincent Berg

Redsliver 🚫

@PotomacBob

This makes sense from the dictionary side of things. Dictionaries are made to reflect the uses of language. We say "the dictionary defines" when talking about the meaning of a word, but that's untrue. A dictionary reports the definition of a word after the culture has defined a word. Merriam-Webster said there are millions of uses in public of the word being used this way. Merriam-Webster is right to add the definition to They.

awnlee jawking 🚫

@PotomacBob

Millions of 'non-binary' people? Snorts derisively.

However 'they' has long been used for a person of unknown gender so it's a logical extension.

AJ

Replies: Vincent Berg Uther_Pendragon

Vincent Berg 🚫

@awnlee jawking

However 'they' has long been used for a person of unknown gender so it's a logical extension.

This is a slightly different usage (despite MW's objections, as it's applied to single individuals, rather than 'groups numbering into the millions'. If a person is uncomfortable being labeled as either male or female, it's now considered, when requested, to refer to them simply as 'they', rather than pigeon holing them.

Trust me, these people don't use that pronoun amongst themselves, but for the more judgmental in their lives, they're putting distance between their personal and public lives, telling them to 'keep your distance' until they learn to behave in civilized society.

This is mainly a war being fought among the old-folk like us, as most younger adults have no trouble with it. They simply don't expect everyone to fit in the old binary standards, and for many people to flow from one to the other until they finally find a label which fits them more naturally.

However, those of us who've had those same standards foisted on us whether we wanted them or not, have a hard time casting them aside now that the rest of the modern world is casting them aside.

Personally, if in doubt, I'll ask someone how they want me to refer to them. If they identify as male or female, as most do, they'll tell me. If they prefer something else (though rarely "they"), they'll tell me that too. But if you ask an older person, they'll stare at you like your hair is on fire.

Replies: Dominions Son joyR

Dominions Son 🚫

@Vincent Berg

If a person is uncomfortable being labeled as either male or female, it's now considered, when requested, to refer to them simply as 'they', rather than pigeon holing them.

I can agree with that. "They am" still goes off the rails.

Use of third party plural pronouns for second person singular where gender is unknown has a considerable history.

However, "am" is first person, second person would be "is". I could see "they is" for someone who doesn't want to be labeled as either male or female.

"They am" however implies a first person self reference. This makes no sense, because the normal first person pronouns (I, me) aren't gendered.

I don't blame the dictionary companies for this stuff, but "they am" is an attempt to push language in a particular direction for pure partisan, identity politics, culture war reasons.

Replies: awnlee jawking

awnlee jawking 🚫

@Dominions Son

"They am" still goes off the rails.

Nobody has suggested using 'they am'.

AJ

Replies: Dominions Son

Dominions Son 🚫

@awnlee jawking

Nobody has suggested using 'they am'.

I suggest you go back and look at the title of the op.

They am?

Replies: awnlee jawking

awnlee jawking 🚫

@Dominions Son

Since you failed to detect that as humorous, you must be either German or American ;)

From the actual post:

They, in this case, Merriam-Webster says, requires a plural verb

joyR 🚫

@Vincent Berg

If a person is uncomfortable being labeled as either male or female,

In that situation, 'it' works perfectly. 'It' is absolutely gender neutral.

Replies: helmut_meukel

helmut_meukel 🚫

@joyR

In that situation, 'it' works perfectly. 'It' is absolutely gender neutral.

IMO the first sentence is wrong, because 'it' implies the absence of a gender, so it's far from perfect.

HM.

BTW, how about an eunuch? Is it 'he' or 'it'?

Replies: awnlee jawking Dominions Son joyR

awnlee jawking 🚫

@helmut_meukel

BTW, how about an eunuch? Is it 'he' or 'it'?

He.

AJ

Dominions Son 🚫

@helmut_meukel

how about an eunuch? Is it 'he' or 'it'?

Are we talking a standard castration as is done with animals today where they just remove the testicles, or was more done with traditional Eunuchs back in the ancient Mid East?

joyR 🚫

@helmut_meukel

IMO the first sentence is wrong, because 'it' implies the absence of a gender, so it's far from perfect.

Which is exactly WHY 'it' is perfect. No room to object that 'it' reflects the wrong gender.

Uther_Pendragon 🚫

@awnlee jawking

Millions of 'non-binary' people? Snorts derisively.

NO! Millions of uses of the word that way.

Ernest Bywater 🚫

I've never heard of this usage being called non-binary before, but when I was in high school back in the 1960s we were taught you could use they in this way as being gender neutral to cover male of female or single person or multiple people as long as you had not yet specified the relevant they as being a single person of a specific gender.

graybyrd 🚫

So they walked into the coffee shop, plunked they laptop on the other side of the table from me, and began typing noisily.

"Hey, they! What's up, you doin' the NaNoWriMo thing?"

"Yeh," they responded, batting long dark lashes at me. "It's my second year. You doin' it too?" they asked.

"Yeh, but I'm gonna give it up. This is gettin' too damn confusin' to keep up with. Nice meetin' you, they. Have a good season."

Replies: awnlee jawking

awnlee jawking 🚫

@graybyrd

This is gettin' too damn confusin' to keep up with

Merriam-Webster is actually being conservative. Search for 'non-binary pronouns' and you'll find a whole forest of them.

AJ

Replies: Vincent Berg

Vincent Berg 🚫

@awnlee jawking

Merriam-Webster is actually being conservative. Search for 'non-binary pronouns' and you'll find a whole forest of them.

Yeah, I forgot to specify before, there are plenty of non-binary pronouns, just none that conservative bastions like MW are willing to concede exist yet. But then, if you've ever written a story about such people, you've likely already learned more than MW is willing to even consider.

Remus2 🚫

Merriam-Webster has certainly changed since 96/being acquired by Safras.

Vincent Berg 🚫

@PotomacBob

Adding the usage makes sense, but it's absurd to suggest that, when used by an individual, that it's, by definition, a plural verb. Instead, it's typically a person request by an individual on how they want to be addressed, rather than a blanket statement about all non-Cis-gendered individuals.

Frankly, the only singular pronoun we have for the non-Cis-gendered is "it", which hardly applies to anyone who's not either a rock or a ham sandwich.

Vincent Berg 🚫

Ah, examples are worth a thousand dictionary entries. Here's one which seems to fit—despite my not knowing their binary status—from my newest story, just penned as I sat here, not connecting the two before then:

"A traveler," someone announced, pointing at her, despite the words not in synch with their moving beak.

In this usage, the "someone" and the singular "beak" indicates it's referring to a singular entity, although the ordinarily plural pronoun "they" indicates they don't fit into any standard pronouns we currently employ.

The usage remains singular, though the pronoun remains vaguely plural, though I seriously doubt I'll apply any connecting nouns or adverbs to their plural forms.

I'll have a inquire about their sexual identify as the story unfolds, but I'm not sure I'll appreciate the answer they might provide. ;D

BarBar 🚫

Which is exactly WHY 'it' is perfect. No room to object that 'it' reflects the wrong gender.

'It' is highly objectionable to the people involved since 'it' is the word we apply to an object rather than a person. If you describe someone as 'it' then you will announce yourself as being rude and inconsiderate in the worst possible way.

I agree with CW when he said:

this is mainly a war being fought among the old-folk like us,

Young folk simply don't have a problem with using they when appropriate. It feels awkward to me to use a sentence like "they has asked us to ..." but that's my problem not theirs.

Replies: Michael Loucks joyR

Michael Loucks 🚫

@BarBar

Young folk simply don't have a problem with using they when appropriate. It feels awkward to me to use a sentence like "they has asked us to ..." but that's my problem not theirs.

The Showtime series Billions has a character who is non-binary and goes by 'they'. After two episodes I didn't even notice unless one of the characters raised an eyebrow or asked a question about the 'preferred pronoun'.

The politics of the matter are another thing, but I don't want the thread locked. :-)

joyR 🚫

@BarBar

If you describe someone as 'it' then you will announce yourself as being rude and inconsiderate in the worst possible way.

I will not, however, be open to accusations of reflecting the wrong gender. :)

Replies: BlacKnight

BlacKnight 🚫

@joyR

I will not, however, be open to accusations of reflecting the wrong gender. :)

"Neuter" is a gender. English, like other Germanic languages, has three.

Though, like distinct grammatical cases, we basically only use them with pronouns these days.

karactr 🚫

Still wondering what is wrong about the pronoun "you".

Replies: Redsliver BarBar

Redsliver 🚫

@karactr

Still wondering what is wrong about the pronoun "you".

It's the o.

Replies: karactr

karactr 🚫

@Redsliver

It's the o.

Ohhhh. Same problem my grandkids seem to have with the word "no".

BarBar 🚫

@karactr

Still wondering what is wrong about the pronoun "you".

You still works perfectly well when you are talking to the person concerned. It doesn't work so well if you are talking to someone else about that person.

Replies: karactr

karactr 🚫

@BarBar

Well, if we are talking third person, they would still be acceptable. Personally, I just wish people would get over themselves about how they are referred to.

BlacKnight 🚫

"They" has been used as a gender-neutral third-person singular pronoun for far longer than any of us have been alive.

It still takes a third-person plural verb in that role, just as the second-person plural "you" does when used as second-person singular. (Because we've lost our actual second-person singular pronoun, "thou", which took a distinctly different second-person singular verb conjugation.)

Merriam-Webster is just acknowledging something that's been a done deal for well over a century.

Replies: Dominions Son

Dominions Son 🚫

@BlacKnight

"They" has been used as a gender-neutral third-person singular pronoun for far longer than any of us have been alive.

True, but it's use that way has been controversial all that time too.

Replies: BlacKnight

BlacKnight 🚫

@Dominions Son

True, but it's use that way has been controversial all that time too.

No, it really hasn't been. It's been common usage since at least the mid-19th century. The only people who've had a problem with it are the same people who think you can't split infinitives because it's impossible to do in Latin. And meanwhile everyone, probably including whatever grade-school English teacher told you that it's wrong, continues to use it that way.

Replies: Dominions Son

Dominions Son 🚫

@BlacKnight

meanwhile everyone, probably including whatever grade-school English teacher told you that it's wrong

Has nothing to do with anything any English teacher an any grade level told me. I've done some research on it on-line and every article I've found on it says that while the usage goes back to Shakespeare if not earlier, it has never been universally accepted.

Replies: Redsliver

Redsliver 🚫

@Dominions Son

Has nothing to do with anything any English teacher an any grade level told me. I've done some research on it on-line and every article I've found on it says that while the usage goes back to Shakespeare if not earlier, it has never been universally accepted.

Yeah, but universality isn't the thing. What matters is whether or not the denotation is used and understood. If you have a word, a context, an audience, and comprehension of your meaning, the word is used correctly. If those four things persist that becomes a viable definition whether or not it fits the structure taught in English classes. Thus, the dictionary plays catch up and adds the definition.

That it wasn't added long ago as uncertain of number or of gender (or of both) says more about the dictionary writers' than the definition's legitimacy. Same now that it is being added by instigation of non-binaryness.

Replies: Dominions Son

Dominions Son 🚫

@Redsliver

Yeah, but universality isn't the thing.

It is if you want to contend that it's completely uncontroversial.

Replies: Redsliver

Redsliver 🚫

@Dominions Son

I don't contend that it's even mildly uncontroversial. I contend that controversy is not scale tipping in relevance. Controversy is reflected in the choices made by lexicographers and dictionary people. A controversial definition is still a definition, therefore it can have a place in the dictionary.

Reply to topic

Forum: Author Hangout

They am?

WARNING! ADULT CONTENT...