This part is new (as mentioned on twitter): ‘4. Used to refer to a single person whose gender identity is nonbinary’. This comes together with a number of other updates and new words and terms,...
This part is new (as mentioned on twitter): ‘4. Used to refer to a single person whose gender identity is nonbinary’. This comes together with a number of other updates and new words and terms, including dad joke, defined as ‘a wholesome joke of the type said to be told by fathers with a punchline that is often an obvious or predictable pun or play on words and usually judged to be endearingly corny or unfunny.’
Edit: I'm shit at wording my ideas quickly and concisely, apparently. Sorry. I am actually quite pleased with this news, but I think it is not as good as it could be... because it's [/edit]...
Edit: I'm shit at wording my ideas quickly and concisely, apparently. Sorry. I am actually quite pleased with this news, but I think it is not as good as it could be... I am not a fan of this because it's got nothing to do with non-binary identity [/edit] unnecessarily limiting to hard link this to non-binary identity only, it is a generic, genderless, gender-neutral pronoun. That's why I use it and how I use it.
It should be amended to say "4. Used to refer to a single person without specifying their gender" or "1. : those ones : those people, animals things : that person".
This is covered by sense 3: "used with an indefinite third person singular antecedent". This is also what it says on Wikipedia: "It typically occurs with an unspecified antecedent. (...) In the...
This is covered by sense 3: "used with an indefinite third person singular antecedent". This is also what it says on Wikipedia: "It typically occurs with an unspecified antecedent. (...) In the early 21st century, use of singular they with known individuals has been promoted for those who do not identify as male or female." Historical uses of the singular they have been almost exclusively referring to an unspecified or unknown person.
No, that sense does not cover when the pronoun is used without a third person singular antecedent, i.e. "They stood behind the door and listened outside" may only refer to a non-binary person or a...
No, that sense does not cover when the pronoun is used without a third person singular antecedent, i.e. "They stood behind the door and listened outside" may only refer to a non-binary person or a group of persons with this whole definition.
It is correct that the said syntactic constuct was the historical precedent, but the current use is not like that, and indeed the same Wikipedia article says "Known individuals may be referred to as they if the individual's gender is unknown to the speaker." which is different from the unspecified-antecedent situation.
I sent them a message which I quote below which should help clarify my position.
I'm glad that you've officially recognised the recently-extended use of they as a singular pronoun. While I appreciate that, I think the new 4th sense is unnecessarily limiting: singular they is currently used as a genderles pronoun without being limited to the nonbinary identity. The new sense 4 does not recognise this and limits its use to non-binary people; the 3rd sense requires an antecedent; and the first sense is plural only. So the new situation of the definition is unnecessarily limiting in that it does not cover the use of "they" as a pronoun used in contexts other than plural, with antecedent, or non-binary gender identity, and given such use is productive and abundant, the definition should be amended, in my humble opinion.
My opinion is that it should be amended to say "4. Used to refer to a single person without specifying their gender" or "1. : those ones : those people, animals things : that person".
Meanings 3 and 4 cover two different cases. I have used this sense of "they" many times while writing user manuals: "The user opens the login page. They then enter their login id and their...
Meanings 3 and 4 cover two different cases.
3 —used with an indefinite third person singular antecedent
I have used this sense of "they" many times while writing user manuals: "The user opens the login page. They then enter their login id and their password." This is the same sense as your example: "I stood in the corridor and heard footsteps inside my room. The unknown person approached the door of my room. They stood behind the door and listened outside."
This meaning and usage has been around for centuries (with varying degrees of popularity). It refers to a single person whose gender is not known - whether because they're a generic user or because they're hidden behind a door.
4 —used to refer to a single person whose gender identity is nonbinary
This is the new addition. This refers to a single person who identifies as having a non-binary gender.
I did read your other comment before I wrote mine. I still think mine is relevant. Are you able to provide an example of using "they" which is not covered by meanings 3 or 4? What gap are you...
I did read your other comment before I wrote mine. I still think mine is relevant.
Are you able to provide an example of using "they" which is not covered by meanings 3 or 4? What gap are you seeing that isn't covered by these definitions? Because I don't see the gap you're concerned about.
"They stood behind the door and listened outside" is covered by meaning 3 - as I already pointed out. It's a case of the pronoun being used with an indefinite third person singular antecedent. Who...
"They stood behind the door and listened outside" is covered by meaning 3 - as I already pointed out. It's a case of the pronoun being used with an indefinite third person singular antecedent.
Who stood behind the door? A person. A person who you don't know. I already put this into context for you:
"I stood in the corridor and heard footsteps inside my room. The unknown person approached the door of my room. They stood behind the door and listened outside."
Please explain how your example does not use - explicitly or implicitly - an indefinite third person singular antecedent.
Antecedent is a grammatical term and means a preceding noun phrase that the pronoun is bound to. An indefinite person is not equal to a person whose gender is unknow or not mentioned. With the...
Antecedent is a grammatical term and means a preceding noun phrase that the pronoun is bound to.
An indefinite person is not equal to a person whose gender is unknow or not mentioned. With the current definition the following sentence is not grammatical:
@cadadr declared that they will try to not get involved in unproductive arguments online.
because the sex and gender of the subject is known and not enby. There is no reason to exclude that use case.
The sex and gender of "cadadr" is not known to all people. Many people here have no idea who's behind that username - or most usernames here. Try reframing that sentence with a different user:...
The sex and gender of "cadadr" is not known to all people. Many people here have no idea who's behind that username - or most usernames here.
Try reframing that sentence with a different user: "user", for example, or "nmg", or "imperialismus", or any other user. Do you know everyone's gender here? No, you don't. So, how would you write that sentence about a user whose gender you don't know?
The username becomes the preceding noun phrase that the pronoun is bound to - but you don't know the gender of the person that noun phrase represents. That's exactly what meaning 3 is about.
3 says indefinite and that means words like "no one" or "everyone". A grammatical class of words. A proper name is definite. You're being stubborn about stuff you don't know. I'll leave you alone...
3 says indefinite and that means words like "no one" or "everyone". A grammatical class of words. A proper name is definite.
You're being stubborn about stuff you don't know. I'll leave you alone in that.
This part is new (as mentioned on twitter): ‘4. Used to refer to a single person whose gender identity is nonbinary’. This comes together with a number of other updates and new words and terms, including dad joke, defined as ‘a wholesome joke of the type said to be told by fathers with a punchline that is often an obvious or predictable pun or play on words and usually judged to be endearingly corny or unfunny.’
Edit: I'm shit at wording my ideas quickly and concisely, apparently. Sorry. I am actually quite pleased with this news, but I think it is not as good as it could be...
I am not a fan of thisbecause it'sgot nothing to do with non-binary identity[/edit] unnecessarily limiting to hard link this to non-binary identity only, it is a generic, genderless, gender-neutral pronoun. That's why I use it and how I use it.It should be amended to say "4. Used to refer to a single person without specifying their gender" or "1. : those ones : those people, animals things : that person".
Edit: fix bad wording of my idea.
This is covered by sense 3: "used with an indefinite third person singular antecedent". This is also what it says on Wikipedia: "It typically occurs with an unspecified antecedent. (...) In the early 21st century, use of singular they with known individuals has been promoted for those who do not identify as male or female." Historical uses of the singular they have been almost exclusively referring to an unspecified or unknown person.
No, that sense does not cover when the pronoun is used without a third person singular antecedent, i.e. "They stood behind the door and listened outside" may only refer to a non-binary person or a group of persons with this whole definition.
It is correct that the said syntactic constuct was the historical precedent, but the current use is not like that, and indeed the same Wikipedia article says "Known individuals may be referred to as they if the individual's gender is unknown to the speaker." which is different from the unspecified-antecedent situation.
I sent them a message which I quote below which should help clarify my position.
Meanings 3 and 4 cover two different cases.
I have used this sense of "they" many times while writing user manuals: "The user opens the login page. They then enter their login id and their password." This is the same sense as your example: "I stood in the corridor and heard footsteps inside my room. The unknown person approached the door of my room. They stood behind the door and listened outside."
This meaning and usage has been around for centuries (with varying degrees of popularity). It refers to a single person whose gender is not known - whether because they're a generic user or because they're hidden behind a door.
This is the new addition. This refers to a single person who identifies as having a non-binary gender.
Please see my other comment, it explains better what I'm after.
I did read your other comment before I wrote mine. I still think mine is relevant.
Are you able to provide an example of using "they" which is not covered by meanings 3 or 4? What gap are you seeing that isn't covered by these definitions? Because I don't see the gap you're concerned about.
There is an example in my other comment.
"They stood behind the door and listened outside" is covered by meaning 3 - as I already pointed out. It's a case of the pronoun being used with an indefinite third person singular antecedent.
Who stood behind the door? A person. A person who you don't know. I already put this into context for you:
Please explain how your example does not use - explicitly or implicitly - an indefinite third person singular antecedent.
Antecedent is a grammatical term and means a preceding noun phrase that the pronoun is bound to.
An indefinite person is not equal to a person whose gender is unknow or not mentioned. With the current definition the following sentence is not grammatical:
because the sex and gender of the subject is known and not enby. There is no reason to exclude that use case.
The sex and gender of "cadadr" is not known to all people. Many people here have no idea who's behind that username - or most usernames here.
Try reframing that sentence with a different user: "user", for example, or "nmg", or "imperialismus", or any other user. Do you know everyone's gender here? No, you don't. So, how would you write that sentence about a user whose gender you don't know?
The username becomes the preceding noun phrase that the pronoun is bound to - but you don't know the gender of the person that noun phrase represents. That's exactly what meaning 3 is about.
3 says indefinite and that means words like "no one" or "everyone". A grammatical class of words. A proper name is definite.
You're being stubborn about stuff you don't know. I'll leave you alone in that.