Talk:They

What is the grammatical rule?

My child Alex is amazing, I love her very much. My child Alex is amazing, I love him very much. My child Alex is amazing, I love them very much. My child Alex is amazing, I love it very much. There is something lost in the last two sentences. I'm not an expert in grammar, but they seem impersonal, as if the child is an object, a concept or a group, not a person. The use of 'they' and 'it' when referring to a person seems somehow dehumanizing, and loses the individual. 'They' has the same amount of persona as the word 'it'. 'It' is an object. 'They' is a group, a collective. I, you, he, she, these are individual designations, I can have a relationship with these. 'It' and 'they' seem like words I would use to describe a cause, a political party or an eating utensil. The pronoun seems to denote different meanings of words, I love her is individual deep love, I love it is superficial love, I love them is impersonal love. If a daughter asks her father to start referring to her as they, their and them, it's asking her father to express his deep individual love in an impersonal way, and it hurts. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontier teg (talk • contribs) 17:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Singular They

An anonymous user had changed "is a special case of this pronoun" to "is an incorrect use of this pronoun". I reverted it back. It is NPOV to state that it is incorrect. The article already documents that this usage is disputed. Wikipedia ought not to judge this correct or incorrect, only acknowledge how people actually use the word, and link to the dispute.--RLent (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC).
As a matter of fact, I find the example sentences cited for the putative use of singular "they" not quite informative:

1. I say to each person in this room: may they enjoy themselves tonight!
2. Anyone who arrives at the door can let themself in using this key.
3. "If a person is born of a ... gloomy temper ... they cannot help it."— Chesterfield, Letter to his son (1759)

- Although the first example is grammatically correct, it sounds stylistically awkward: you would expect the person "I" to address each person rather as follows: "may you enjoy yourselves tonight!". The potentially harsh tone of commands can be softened with the impersonal "they", but obviously, the hortative nature of the wish of enjoyment rather requires a "personal touch"!
- In the second example, the impersonal pronoun "anyone" requires a matching, impersonal anaphor, hence "they". Ditto for the last example, with "a person" being synonymous with the impersonal pronoun "anyone".
In short, these examples merely illustrate the impersonal use of "they" (which is obviously frequently attested in the English language), but not its singular use. BTW, "impersonal" is not the same as "gender neutral".

3p miller (piz zip)

3p miller real name bobby Johnson born 1989 miller a singer a leader of the band piz zip has a green deer friend named moon star called him 3p 3p smokes, drink and bad behaver yellow hair age (23) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.222.168.102 (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

3p miller (piz zip)

3p miller real name bobby Johnson born 1989 miller a singer a leader of the band piz zip has a green deer friend named moon star called him 3p 3p smokes, drink and bad behaver yellow hair age (23) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.222.168.102 (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous

As noted by many historians, singular "they" was often used as "de facto" gender-neutral pronoun along with the presumption of "he". Also within the last 100 years or so "they" has become taboo for gender neutral pronouns. It seems silly to omit one group of people by potentially offending another (using "her" as a gender neutral pronoun in place of "he"). Likewise, it also seems silly to invent a pronoun when the language already has use of another one (itself a borrowed word). "They" was a commonly used pronoun for 3S, until British parliament ordered "he" be used for a generic 3S. To say "they" 3S is taboo when it has historical precedent is ostrich-like behavior :-) http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Singular_they.html http://www.psmag.com/culture/gender-neutral-pronouns-actually-doomed-67600/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.145.224.113 (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

name

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

---

They → They (pronoun) – article about word 73.183.64.164 (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Article about the word should remain as the primary topic of the term "They". No sufficient reason has been provided otherwise. An article about the word, or any other subject, does not automatically disqualify it from being a primary topic. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is clearly the primary topic. Kennethaw88 • talk 14:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per above, and per WP:CONCISE. Johnny338 (talk) 03:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per above - Clearly a primary topic. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Did you notice this one? You are just wasting your time adding this individually. Next time, follow this format.

== Requested moves ==
{{subst:requested move
| new1 = New title for page 1 with the talk page hosting this discussion
| current2 = Current title of page 2
| new2 = New title for page 2
| current3 = Current title of page 3
| new3 = New title for page 3
| reason = Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please default to Google Books or Google News Archive before providing any web results. Do not sign this.
}}

j3j3j3...pfH0wHz 07:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

@3oWh pF0wHz: - Please Assume Good Faith and read WP:CIVIL while you're at it, The IP is probably new and not aware of bundling them and you having a go at him isn't helpful!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.