Hacker News Reader

Comment by kazoomonger | Hacker News Reader

Singular they in the sense you're talking about is a very recent invention. The sense of "an unknown or unspecified person" has been around that long, yes. However using "they" to refer to a known single person is a recent invention that's been pushed with this bad argument about how it's been around forever.

I don't really have a strong opinion on this new sense of the word, but I do really dislike falsely involving Chaucer when pushing it.

Edit: This is the sort of disingenuous argumentation I'm talking about. Every single usage I saw skimming through did not refer to a single, known person:

https://pemberley.com/janeinfo/austhlis.html

View on HN

I just recently saw this on this as an example as a Recency illusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recency_illusion

It has a few references there that I have not confirmed myself but it does list a reference to Shakespeare.

Thanks for linking to a quote. Here's what that article shows as using singular they:

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

That's still not referring to a single, known person. The gender is known in this case due to "man", but it's still an unknown/unspecified man or men. I don't have a strong opinion about the recent push towards using singular they in this way, but I do really dislike the arguments for it that falsely try to add historical significance to their claims by invoking Chaucer or Shakespeare.

There are instances of "they" clearly referring to people whose gender is known as far back as Old English:

https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/200700#eid18519864

The word evolves, as all words evolve. But there's no point in saying that this specific distinction means that Chaucer wouldn't have recognized the use and instantly figured it out. Chaucer used they as a singular noun, and it makes perfect sense to apply that to specific individuals. It doesn't make sense to say that because Chaucer didn't use the word in precisely this fashion, it invalidates the very similar senses in which it was used.

I don't see an example of what you're talking about in your link, can you post a specific quote?

I'm honestly not sure what your point is in your second paragraph. My point is that Chaucer did not use "they" in the sense you're talking about. You're saying that people are now trying to use it in a very similar sense to how Chaucer used it. So we agree?

I don't disagree that it's a very similar sense, but that doesn't mean it's identical. So instead of invoking Chaucer, just say "it's close enough already, so let's just use it"

It's close enough already. Let's just use it.

That's been said many times. There are people who, nonetheless, say it's incompatible with previous usage. Such people are, demonstrably, completely fucking stupid. That's what the Chaucer is there for. Not that it helps, because nothing helps against complete fucking stupidity.

I'm not really sure what to make of your second paragraph (Mentioning Chaucer again when he's irrelevant because he didn't use singular they in the sense that is now being promoted).

Regardless, I appreciate the straightforwardness of your first paragraph.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com