The first verifiable use of singular they for when the gender is unknown was in a novel some 100 years ago. The concept of ‘they’ as a personal pronoun was only developed in the latter half of the last century in the UK and has only been formally taught there for about three decades.
I think I would prefer two new sets of pronouns: one for when the gender is unknown, and another as personal pronouns other than he/she.
One could also think of they as that new pronoun. A lot of languages reuse sounds (including English) even in fairly common grammar components so one could think of this as a new word with a familiar sound assigned to it.
That was an interesting read. I think you “over-quoted” me here. Only the first sentence is about singular they for when the gender is unknown. I can’t remember where I picked up the thing with the ~100 year old novel. I read it somewhere. But that might have been specific to use of singular they in the US or something. And I might misremember the number entirely. What’s really fascinating is that Shakespeare even uses ‘they’ when the gender is known. I wonder, though, whether that allows for any inference on how people spoke back then? After all, it’s prose for the theatre and Shakespeare is credited with inventing a lot of new language, not all of which would have stuck (I’d assume).
One could also think of they as that new pronoun. A lot of languages reuse sounds (including English) even in fairly common grammar components so one could think of this as a new word with a familiar sound assigned to it.
You’re right of course. Though, that adds another meaning to an existing word and hence increases the ambiguity I mentioned. I know it’s common among all natural languages (that I know of) to have multiple context-dependant meanings for some words. The computer scientist in me, that prefers interacting with compilers over humans, finds that revolting ;-)
Let’s party in party of the party. (celebrate, in company of, political organization)
Shakespeare used the singular they in his works. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002748.html
One could also think of they as that new pronoun. A lot of languages reuse sounds (including English) even in fairly common grammar components so one could think of this as a new word with a familiar sound assigned to it.
That was an interesting read. I think you “over-quoted” me here. Only the first sentence is about singular they for when the gender is unknown. I can’t remember where I picked up the thing with the ~100 year old novel. I read it somewhere. But that might have been specific to use of singular they in the US or something. And I might misremember the number entirely. What’s really fascinating is that Shakespeare even uses ‘they’ when the gender is known. I wonder, though, whether that allows for any inference on how people spoke back then? After all, it’s prose for the theatre and Shakespeare is credited with inventing a lot of new language, not all of which would have stuck (I’d assume).
You’re right of course. Though, that adds another meaning to an existing word and hence increases the ambiguity I mentioned. I know it’s common among all natural languages (that I know of) to have multiple context-dependant meanings for some words. The computer scientist in me, that prefers interacting with compilers over humans, finds that revolting ;-)
Let’s party in party of the party. (celebrate, in company of, political organization)