Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Comments on Does using plural form for singular object make sense?

Parent

Does using plural form for singular object make sense?

+2
−0

Some people use they/them if they can't identity gender/sex (gender and sex isn't same). But when mentioning a single person should we use plural pronoun?

We know that "they/them" is plural form. But "he/she" is singular form. Recently, a person was telling me to use they/them if I don't know (or identify) his/her gender. But why plural form make sense for singular person?

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

0 comment threads

Post
+5
−1

One misconception: They/them has not been strictly plural for quite a long time. Even Shakespeare used it.

There's not a man I meet but doth salute me / as if I were their well-acquainted friend

(From Shakespeare's The Comedy of Errors, written sometime around the late sixteenth century)

Using they as a singular pronoun is perfectly fine, especially when you don't know the gender of the person (or when they are non-binary).

Historically, of course, "they" is plural. That is why it goes with the plural conjunction of verbs - "they are" and not "they is". However, the same can be said for "you" (which was also historically plural, with the singular being "thou"), and I don't think any modern speaker would ever argue that "you" cannot be singular. This just to say, history does not dictate modern language. Many authoritative English guides[1] accept it (at least informally), so if you look to them, then you should feel free to use it.

On another note, one thing that doesn't yet have a consensus is whether the singular referential should be "themselves" or "themself". The former is the historical one, the latter the more logical one.


  1. Pick from your favored style guide: MLA, APA, Chicago ↩︎

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

2 comment threads

You are (1 comment)
References (1 comment)
You are
Jirka Hanika‭ wrote about 3 years ago

I think that the parallel with "you are" could be made much more prominent and also made easier to understand for people to whom thou lovest me/I love thee/ye love me/I love you is no longer recognizable grammar. (Still, it's just a parallel process and not a compelling reason for anything new.) The rest of your answer is an appeal to an authority... and if somebody currently feels that something "doesn't make sense", then they typically don't want to hear that it "makes sense" to others. That said, I benefitted from both parts of your answer.