English has Rules, Just Like Japanese!

I'm appalled to see the wholesale devastation of my native tongue as the Shadowbringers expansion unfolds. We have a set of clear pronouns, including they, them, and their, all plural. Starting to use them as singular pronouns for reasons unclear is destructive and very disrespectful to English speakers, no matter who does it. It also obscures meaning and arrests the player's attention in ways that will be considered wholly risible as time goes by.

"The King decreed they have earned immediate execution!" is a representative trope. So you tell me, who is they? Are they the King or one of their subjects or all of them? I vote for the fool(s) who made this linguistic blunder. Off with their head(s) forthwith!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ananisapta

I'm appalled to see the wholesale devastation of my native tongue as the Shadowbringers expansion unfolds. We have a set of clear pronouns, including they, them, and their, all plural. Starting to use them as singular pronouns for reasons unclear is destructive and very disrespectful to English speakers, no matter who does it. It also obscures meaning and arrests the player's attention in ways that will be considered wholly risible as time goes by.

"The King decreed they have earned immediate execution!" is a representative trope. So you tell me, who is they? Are they the King or one of their subjects or all of them? I vote for the fool(s) who made this linguistic blunder. Off with their head(s) forthwith!

---

While English does indeed have some rules, it mainly has exceptions.
One rule it does NOT have is that they can only be used in plural. The use of singular they is perfectly correct English, and isn't a new invention either - it has been used since the 14th century or so.

Singular "they", a valid part of the English language since the 14th century according to Wikipedia, highly useful in all situations where you need to refer to a person without knowing their gender, and following all the same grammatical rules as the plural version.

Pixies are genderless, so you have a choice of "they" or "it". Except not really a choice, because we have social rules about not referring to a person as "it".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ananisapta

So you tell me, who is they?

---

Boy complaining about the rules of English but is asking "who is they?" and not "who are they?"... >w>
No one ever asks "How is they?"... >n>

College English class might be getting to your head a bit or you've got to be trolling.

I do find it odd that "they" became singular.
We used "person" and "one" to be singular, along with "it".
("Man" also used to be a neutral word, not referencing a gender, but an adult. There was only a word for a female adult, "woman" which means people HAD to use he word man for male, but they could choose between the two for females. As time went on, we shifted to using "man" to solely mean "male" simply because there was no word to only reference a male adult. I dont know when this took place, as it was a VERY slow transition, but was within the last 200 years or less. (Id imagine closer to 80-100 years)

While "it" is technically more correct, it oddly became considered rude to refer to a person as "it", even though "they" had the same context at the time.
But since occurrences of multiple people happened more often, "they" became more normal than "it" in singular cases.
Peopel came up with a counter to say "A person is" or "that person is" for referencing a singular person. Along with "One" such as "One would be remembered if".
But both of those seem to have died off in favor of "they".
(Despite "they" being the plural version of "it".)

It is a strange occurrence.

When I don't know someone's gender I say IT or THING. As in, "what is it!?" Or, "look at that thing!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wyvernheart

When I don't know someone's gender I say IT or THING. As in, "what is it!?" Or, "look at that thing!"

---

You wrote, you read it. Now do it again.
Ok.
Once more.
If after thrice, you still think it's okay.
Well, please, a number one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wyvernheart

When I don't know someone's gender I say IT or THING. As in, "what is it!?" Or, "look at that thing!"

---

And how would that work with the examples given in the Wikipedia article I linked earlier?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

"Somebody left their umbrella in the office. Would they please collect it?"
"The patient should be told at the outset how much they will be required to pay."
"But a journalist should not be forced to reveal their sources."

---

Could you write those sentences with "it"? Would that seem appropriate? Would it be better English?

Quote:

---

"Somebody left its umbrella in the office. Would it please collect it?"
"The patient should be told at the outset how much it will be required to pay."
"But a journalist should not be forced to reveal its sources."

---

It might be grammatically correct, but it's not the normal word you use in that situation.

There's nothing new or remarkable about using "they". You probably don't even notice it in most contexts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ananisapta

I'm appalled to see the wholesale devastation of my native tongue as the Shadowbringers expansion unfolds. We have a set of clear pronouns, including they, them, and their, all plural. Starting to use them as singular pronouns for reasons unclear is destructive and very disrespectful to English speakers, no matter who does it. It also obscures meaning and arrests the player's attention in ways that will be considered wholly risible as time goes by.

"The King decreed they have earned immediate execution!" is a representative trope. So you tell me, who is they? Are they the King or one of their subjects or all of them? I vote for the fool(s) who made this linguistic blunder. Off with their head(s) forthwith!

---

If you were as big of an English buff as you’d lead us to believe—complaining about grammatical choices of an English localization—you’d realize that singular “they”, “them”, and “their” are already widely used and widely accepted as grammatically correct.

“Could the individual with the red Ford Taurus parked in the Fire Lane please move their vehicle?”

“We found someone’s pet husky in our yard. Could the owner please call us at the following number? We would like to return him to them.”

“Someone parked their truck right behind of us! They’re completely blocking us in!”

The language wasn’t butchered. And I’d honestly hate to see what you consider disrespectful if you think using these pronouns in a correct, singular manner is disrespectful to English speakers.

Sincerely,
A Native English Speaker

"They" often refers to Lalafells

e.g:
They rule Uldhah
They are cute but mischevious
They ride Rogadyn mounts
They spam emotes when they see you
and so on...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

And how would that work with the examples given in the Wikipedia article I linked earlier?
Could you write those sentences with "it"? Would that seem appropriate? Would it be better English?
It might be grammatically correct, but it's not the normal word you use in that situation.
There's nothing new or remarkable about using "they". You probably don't even notice it in most contexts.

---

"Seem" is almost subjective in this case, due to what Ive said prior.
Obviously it seems wrong (though partly because it wasnt done correctly) but none the less, their, they, them are proper plural versions of it.
Theys, thems, and theirs, should be incorrect, just as "its" should be incorrect.
(Not possessive, but plural neutrals.)
also, im going to adjust what you wrote a tiny bit. (the last 2 were fine, but ironically should have been plural in patient/journalist)

Quote:

---

"It left its umbrella in the office. Would it please collect it?"

---

or

Quote:

---

"Someone left ones umbrella in the office. Would one (or that person) please collect it?"

---

("He" would have been gender neutral in the past and fit rather well too, before it was corrupted to mean adult male. But this only applies if the person is limited to the adult age.)

Quote:

---

"The patient should be told at the outset how much one will be required to pay."

---

Quote:

---

"The patients should be told at the outset how much they will be required to pay."

---

-

Quote:

---

"But a journalist should not be forced to reveal ones sources."

---

Quote:

---

"But journalists should not be forced to reveal their sources."

---

Back to the point, inserting "it" sounds wrong to us, because we've made it wrong.
But this never should have been the case. We ascribed the word "it" to mean objects/animals, because we assume we werent animals (we are) and because we didnt see nongendered people in the past. Even more so when we were far more focused on gendered roles back then.
So how could there be a situation where a person doesnt have a gender? Only when a situation had an unknown person, or will have an unknown person. but again, due to gender roles, this also limited the number of people that could meet the requirements, usually by gender.
example: "Once the position is filled for the job "the person" will be required to this list of activities."
the job was already long since decided which gender was going to be doing the tasks.

but in the case of something like theft, the perpetrator could be referenced genderless, if it was a crime that was considered to be common among both genders.
The word "it" would be used so rarely, it would come off as jarring. (along with how people didnt want to be associated with animals.)
The dog went and got "its" bone.
The dog can be male or female. Sometimes the gender is known, and it still works fine.

They/Them/Their applies to the only situation in which humans can be multiple genders, when in a group.
So no one batted an eye when the use of they, them, their started being used for people.
And it grew in use for singular pronouns.
But it was slang, and eventually considered normal use of the word.

They is used in conversational english. Consider the following sentences:

"Hey Barbara, where is the candidate that we are interviewing today?"
"They're across the hall getting coffee"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonnycbad

They is used in conversational english. Consider the following sentences:

"Hey Barbara, where is the candidate that we are interviewing today?"
"They're across the hall getting coffee"

---

This has been repeated twice on the 1st page. (Technically 3 times if you count a link)

If the OP is so concerned with proper English, why dont we go back to using thou as a colloquial term for you.

Also to set this straight, since some people might be confused. It refers to something that either lacks a gender or has not been assigned a gender. They refers to something that has no gender distinction but has a gender. Basically, it is genderless, and they is gender neutral.

Singular they has been a thing in modern English due to the fact that the language doesn't have a third person singular pronoun that is both gender neutral and of indefinite number that can be used to refer back to another s. The plural pronouns they, them, their and themselves are commonly used by someone using English when they have need of such a pronoun. For example, the previous sentence made use of it to refer to the pronoun "someone."

Fun fact:

Just this week, Merriam-Webster officially added the word "they" to their dictionary as a singular pronoun for someone whose gender identity is non-binary.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/they

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gula

College English class might be getting to your head a bit or you've got to be trolling.

---

One of my degrees is in literary criticism and writing, if they were an actual academic linguist and not just an armchair linguist they would know this is a perfectly proper way to use the term "they".

Don't blame higher education on this one, just like most ppl claiming to be an expert, they likely got this info from a meme or a facebook post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mhaeric

Just this week, Merriam-Webster officially added the word "they" to their dictionary as a singular pronoun for someone whose gender identity is non-binary.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/they

---

It may also be relevant to note how Merriam-Webster's editors decide what to put in the dictionary

Quote:

---

To be included in a Merriam-Webster dictionary, a word must be used in a substantial number of citations that come from a wide range of publications over a considerable period of time. Specifically, the word must have enough citations to allow accurate judgments about its establishment, currency, and meaning.

---

This means there isn't a magic judge of all things arbitrarily deciding to "make changes to the English language". MW adds words to the dictionary when the words have enough staying power, demonstrated by both recent and extended widespread use from a variety of sources.

They're not changing our language; they're documenting how our language naturally changes with society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rongway

It may also be relevant to note how Merriam-Webster's editors decide what to put in the dictionary



This means there isn't a magic judge of all things arbitrarily deciding to "make changes to the English language". MW adds words to the dictionary when the words have enough staying power, demonstrated by both recent and extended widespread use from a variety of sources.

They're not changing our language; they're documenting how our language naturally changes with society.

---

Agreed. A word is nothing more than something that conveys meaning between two people. As those people change, the words can change as well with enough common use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rongway

It may also be relevant to note how Merriam-Webster's editors decide what to put in the dictionary



This means there isn't a magic judge of all things arbitrarily deciding to "make changes to the English language". MW adds words to the dictionary when the words have enough staying power, demonstrated by both recent and extended widespread use from a variety of sources.

They're not changing our language; they're documenting how our language naturally changes with society.

---

Which in this case, the use of the word they in a singular sense has been around since roughly the 1300s. The use of word they to refer to someone who identifies as gender non-binary has been documented as early as the 1950s and likely was used long before that since we have been naturally using the singular form of it for centuries. Both are considered correct English.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaraD_

also, im going to adjust what you wrote a tiny bit. (the last 2 were fine, but ironically should have been plural in patient/journalist)

---

Technically it's not what I wrote - I copied the usage examples from the Wikipedia article I'd linked in a previous post.

And I disagree that they "should have been plural". It's clear from the context that the sentence is referring to a single person of unspecified gender, with "they" able to be replaced by "he or she". It can be rephrased to be a plural, but it's not necessary, and possibly not correct depending on the context.

eg. The first sentence (or something like it) could be part of a procedure manual for how a doctor should carry out a consultation.
1. Greet the patient
2. [...]
X. Tell the patient how much they will need to pay.

You wouldn't use "patients" because it's part of a guide for how to deal with a single patient. You could use "he or she" but it's simpler to use "they".

Also on your altered example:

Quote:

---

"The patient should be told at the outset how much one will be required to pay."

---

I know "one" is hardly used as a pronoun now, but that doesn't read correctly. I'm not clear on the rules but I think it needs to be used in both parts of the sentence ("one should be told at the outset how much one will be required to pay") and you can't switch them around halfway through like that. That's my gut feeling, and the examples of usage on the Wikipedia page seem to support that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

I know "one" is hardly used as a pronoun now

---

"Well one doth not suffice"
-Sophia the Goddess

Lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eloah

"Well one doth not suffice"
-Sophia the Goddess

Lol

---

I never actually considered this as a statement using “one” as a pronoun. Since Sophia uses it when she’s summoning her shadows for the mimic/Execution mechanic, I interpreted it as “one of me isn’t enough”—so in a numerical sense. Not as a pronoun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HyoMinPark

I never actually considered this as a statement using “one” as a pronoun. Since Sophia uses it when she’s summoning her shadows for the mimic/Execution mechanic, I interpreted it as “one of me isn’t enough”—so in a numerical sense. Not as a pronoun.

---

While I meant it more as a joke, the quote above is an instance where a word acts as both a subject and a modifier. You arent incorrect in your interpritation, since that is literally what she is saying. But since the sentence has no subject, One becomes the subject, making it both an adjective and a noun. And when you think about it pronouns can sorta fall into that category too. But I am no linguist, so don't quote me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eloah

While I meant it more as a joke, the instance above is an instance where a word acts as both a subject and a modifier. You arent incorrect in your interpritation, since that is literally what she is saying. But since the sentence has no subject, One becomes the subject, making it both an adjective and a noun. And when you think about it pronouns can sorta fall into that category too. But I am no linguist, so don't quote me.

---

I also misread your quote—I’m fairly certain she says “Where one doth not suffice.” Not “Well”.

Noun phrases can include pronouns—or it can just include a noun (usually with a determiner). But noun =/= pronoun. Since we’re discussing “one” being used as a pronoun, I don’t think this sentence demonstrates that if one were to parse it, since it would likely be determined that “one” here serves as a noun. Not a pronoun. But this is obviously beyond the scope of a mere joke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HyoMinPark

I also misread your quote—I’m fairly certain she says “Where one doth not suffice.” Not “Well”.

Noun phrases can include pronouns—or it can just include a noun (usually with a determiner). But noun =/= pronoun. Since we’re discussing “one” being used as a pronoun, I don’t think this sentence demonstrates that if one were to parse it, since it would likely be determined that “one” here serves as a noun. Not a pronoun. But this is obviously beyond the scope of a mere joke.

---

In the context of the quote, where and well would essentially mean the same thing, so that's more on someone hearing capability, since the meaning of the sentence remains the same. As far as One goes, I wasn't calling it a pronoun per se, it is a noun, but it's an adjective at the same time, and pronouns offer a similar function, conveying two pieces of information in one word. Like she is singular female, we, multiple collective, stuff like that. Similar to adverbs, but I dont think we has a proper term for an adjective noun, that's why I said a pronoun is the closest thing.