Singular "They"

[R_1]

While I understand the desire for a gender-neutral pronoun, there really isn't any solution that doesn't really sound off or odd or inconsistent. In this case, I'm going to be talking about singular 'they'.

Let's start with a statement (I know it might not be correct, but bear with me here) : "A reader who has read this column may not like what they have read"

This can be interpreted into two ways. Either it is about a reader, or a reader thinking a group of individuals. That alone indicates that the usage of they is not always consistent, and it some cases, it requires clarification for one to understand what 'they is referring to.

That's my issue with 'they' at the moment, and I really would wish there was a more coherent neutral word or set of words that can be used to address just one of possible individuals without specifying gender. Oh well, who else don't really like having a viable alternative to this. Oh, and "its", don't even get me started on some quirks with that. I like clarify, and apparently "they" is a problematic word regarding clarity.

Now, I'm sticking with one, oneself, or just avoiding both one and they/their altogether unless I am 100 percent sure it doesn't have multiple interpretations.

[Groovy Teacakes]

There are lots of situations in the English language when a sentence could mean one of two things but the context makes it clear which is meant. I think in the situation you suggested it is reasonable to assume that "they" refers to the reader and that if the author was intending the other meaning they would have clarified it. I recon that they is used as a singular pronoun in that kind of context often enough that most people would not be confused.

As I said they is often used to talk about singular strangers of whom the gender is unknown and people get along fine with that so I don't understand why it should sound more jarring when talking about a specified person. They is just another one of those words with more than one meaning, like right (I know there I more I just can't think of them off the top of my head).

It's also probably easier to get people to use they as a singular, gender-neutral pronoun than to get them to use a new pronoun invented for this purpose.

[Larkaloke]

I do think it would be ideal if we had separate words for unknown groups and unknown/neutral people, but I also feel that using "they" is currently the easiest option. It has centuries of precedent, it is very commonly used, and nobody has to learn anything new. One/oneself is certainly valid, but it sounds more distant than they/their; it always is going to sound, at least to my ear, as though one is speaking purely in the theoretical rather than about somebody that they actually know.

In your example, to my eye, it looks rather obvious that "they" is referring to "a reader"; in all such constructions that is my first thought, and I have to take some time to think about it if it turns out that it is actually referring to a group of people (probably because "a reader" is the only subject referenced, so I'm going to assume that the sentence isn't changing objects mid-stride).

Of course, I also think it would be better if language was just completely gender neutral aside from when specifically talking about gender, but it would take a lot more work to get at least the English language to that point. Perhaps it will evolve that way eventually.

[Anthracite_Impreza]

They is perfectly valid and regularly used as a singular; refusing to use someone's pronouns just shows you don't respect *them*.

[Azazel]

I like to think that third person singular is the correct use of "they" and that if "they" is odd/off or needs replacing in any context then it's the usage for third person plural.

Now let's all put our heads together and come up with a new pronoun we can use for third person plural. To avoid confusion.

My personal favorite is "these mooks".

[R_1]

There are lots of situations in the English language when a sentence could mean one of two things but the context makes it clear which is meant. I think in the situation you suggested it is reasonable to assume that "they" refers to the reader and that if the author was intending the other meaning they would have clarified it. I recon that they is used as a singular pronoun in that kind of context often enough that most people would not be confused.

As I said they is often used to talk about singular strangers of whom the gender is unknown and people get along fine with that so I don't understand why it should sound more jarring when talking about a specified person. They is just another one of those words with more than one meaning, like right (I know there I more I just can't think of them off the top of my head).

It's also probably easier to get people to use they as a singular, gender-neutral pronoun than to get them to use a new pronoun invented for this purpose.

And, a lot of times, in those situations, there are misunderstanding which may not have been addressed, but would have been addressed with a much more coherent language. And no, one shouldn't really be expecting that someone expressing a statement would clarify at all. It doesn't help that "they" actually can cause issues in more formal environment where clarification is a must, and in some cases, efforts is required to attempt to reduce misunderstanding as much as possible such as using hand gestures to make sure other people gets that it is directed to a individual rather than any possible one or more individuals in a group.

I do think it would be ideal if we had separate words for unknown groups and unknown/neutral people, but I also feel that using "they" is currently the easiest option. It has centuries of precedent, it is very commonly used, and nobody has to learn anything new. One/oneself is certainly valid, but it sounds more distant than they/their; it always is going to sound, at least to my ear, as though one is speaking purely in the theoretical rather than about somebody that they actually know.

In your example, to my eye, it looks rather obvious that "they" is referring to "a reader"; in all such constructions that is my first thought, and I have to take some time to think about it if it turns out that it is actually referring to a group of people (probably because "a reader" is the only subject referenced, so I'm going to assume that the sentence isn't changing objects mid-stride).

Of course, I also think it would be better if language was just completely gender neutral aside from when specifically talking about gender, but it would take a lot more work to get at least the English language to that point. Perhaps it will evolve that way eventually.

For sure, it is the easiest option, but it is very problematic nonetheless. One, oneself does have the theoretical tone to it, but at least it is actually pretty damn clear that it is about just one person rather than a unknown individual within a group which "they" at times fail to distinguish and hell they at times fail to distinguish if it just one or more person. Assumptions can only go so far, and there's always that possibility that your assumption is wrong, so that doesn't help the issue with 'they'. I doubt English will evolve that way in our lifetime, but I do really sincerely hope the issue with 'they' actually get addressed as there's no way around the claim that it is so problematic.

They is perfectly valid and regularly used as a singular; refusing to use someone's pronouns just shows you don't respect *them*.

"Everyone thinks they are the best" "They is so good at this"

For the second part, it's easier to misunderstand as it only takes just one word to put it out of context which is "is". And not to mention, there are lots of differences between a pronoun directed at a individual, a pronoun being used to address individual in a group, and a group of individuals, and 'they' at times isn't coherent enough to clarify upon what is being addressed. If you can find me a good pronoun that isn't as problematic as they, sure, I'll use them, otherwise, you are forcing me to having to use hand gestures to clarify the usage of they because that's the only way one could minimize the chances of other people misinterpreting the usage of they/their.

EDIT: Oh, and I can't copy/paste within the Sandbox or I can't copy/paste from the Sandbox to outside the sandbox? Well, then... Gotta fix that.

[Anthracite_Impreza]

If there is more than one female in a group you'd have to point out which 'she', but I hear no one complaining about that.

[R_1]

If there is more than one female in a group you'd have to point out which 'she', but I hear no one complaining about that.

You're right, but for what it worth, it's still indicates that it involves just one person rather than multiple potential usage of they as I pointed out.

[Dodecahedron314]

1. People are generally pretty good at figuring things out from context. As such, using isolated sentences as examples of lack of clarity may not actually be an accurate argument, because the context for such sentences would make it much clearer which entity the pronoun refers to.

The singular "they" is clear enough for the Oxford English Dictionary and any number of grammarians and celebrated writers.

Using someone's pronouns is a matter of common courtesy and respect, not your personal opinion of them.

Believe it or not, the negative experience of having your pronouns invalidated is actually worse than the mild inconvenience that other people might face by having to clarify whom a sentence refers to on the off chance that this clarification is even required (in which case it's entirely likely that the sentence could have been phrased in such a way to avoid this ambiguity in the first place, and so this ceases to be an issue of pronouns altogether)! Imagine that! Shocking, I know, but please, attempt to contain your disbelief.

[Azazel]

Part of what I really love about the English language and certain other languages, is that context is leveraged so much to determine the meaning of a word. I find that there is a certain beauty, an elegance to it.

And as a mute person, let me tell you, people really need the extra practice in reading situations.

[R_1]

People are generally pretty good at figuring things out from context. As such, using isolated sentences as examples of lack of clarity may not actually be an accurate argument, because the context for such sentences would make it much clearer which entity the pronoun refers to.

With the possibility that the context isn't exactly always reliable, and a few isolated sentences is more than enough to suggest that there is some issues which makes it inconvenient for the communicator, and the word itself has some problems and especially when there is no indicator as to what context it is about. This is always going to be a issue mainly because of multiple usage of 'they', and regardless of literature history, there is still good reasons to avoid using "they" as singular pronouns as much as possible, and there are already ways to avoid those issues to prevent potential miscommunication. If one desire coherency, and making things clear as possible, then yes, you got reasons to avoid using "they" as singular, whenever possible.

The singular "they" is clear enough for the Oxford English Dictionary and any number of grammarians and celebrated writers.

Still doesn't change the fact that there are evidences for its glaring issue that can't be avoided, and there are plenty of writers who are aware of the multiple-usage of they and the problem with they at times, and would avoid using they/their/them pronoun when referring to a individual as much as possible unless in the case of being requested to use those pronouns if one has the decency to respect pronouns.

• Using someone's pronouns is a matter of common courtesy and respect, not your personal opinion of them.
• Believe it or not, the negative experience of having your pronouns invalidated is actually worse than the mild inconvenience that other people might face by having to clarify whom a sentence refers to on the off chance that this clarification is even required (in which case it's entirely likely that the sentence could have been phrased in such a way to avoid this ambiguity in the first place, and so this ceases to be an issue of pronouns altogether)! Imagine that! Shocking, I know, but please, attempt to contain your disbelief.

I'm aware of the #3 point, and it's exactly why I mentioned I would use hand gesture as a measure to avoid miscommunication if I am speaking face-to-face involving a individual that would want addressed as such as I am aware that 'they' can be read as a individual of any group of 2 or more people or a group. And, in writings, I would probably have to try to do mental gymnastic to avoid certain possible interpretations while using those pronouns or I would rather avoid using those pronouns altogether and address using their name or something. And no, one isn't always likely to make a sentence phrased to avoid ambiguity, and a few sentences I have mentioned is more than enough to support that claim, and the pronouns issues isn't going away since those sentences would be repeated over time, and there is always the chance that a lot of those sentences has two or more possible interpretation which is problematic on it own.

[Azazel]

If we start eliminating words which are ambiguous without a well-established context, you'd have to butcher a third of the English language.

It's just kind of feeling like a selective argument; an argument you are using against one thing that personally bothers you but would not apply to other situations that same argument could be said to apply to. For instance:

"I saw her duck by the bank."

Did I see the person crouch near the financial institution? Or did I see her pet fowl at the riverside?

[Groovy Teacakes]

Using one/oneself as a third person pronoun makes very little sense. In my understanding one/oneself is often replaced, in less formal settings, by you/yourself and is therefore a second person pronoun. This makes it even to more contrary as a gender-neutral pronoun in place of him/her.

Reptilian, you make out like these issues with they/them are massive and "glaring" and hinder many people from using them, causing an unreasonable number of misunderstandings. There may be situations in which, grammatically, a sentence involving they/them is unclear, but in real life the confusion this actually causes is minimal.

Example: Two people find my wallet on the floor. The first one says: Oh look, someone dropped *their* wallet.

The sentence could mean that I have dropped my wallet, or that I have dropped a wallet belonging to me and several other people. However most people are going to assume the first was meant and there will practically never be an issue.

[R_1]

If we start eliminating words which are ambiguous without a well-established context, you'd have to butcher a third of the English language.

I'm with butchering just about a third of the language if it means that coherency issues are to be resolved. There are few words I would find that shouldn't be butchered such as asexuality considering its history. But, in the case of the word god, since pantheists exists and there's a long history showing how god is incoherent, I'm with butchering that word since its coherency is non-existent because for all I know, you could be talking about pancakes when you say god. But, that's never going to happen in this century, but might as well live with incoherent words and inconvenience in the mean time.

As for the duck example, while I know it's likely that it's about her body position, I'd also be wondering if it referring to an animal duck or hell, a plushie-duck. Stoop would be a better word honestly, but more people would use duck anyway.

Dunno about the last statement though.

[Calligraphette_Coe]

While I understand the desire for a gender-neutral pronoun, there really isn't any solution that doesn't really sound off or odd or inconsistent. In this case, I'm going to be talking about singular 'they'.

Most of the supposed insurmountability of the 'problem' lies in the majority digging in their heels in denial that there are people who don't fit into the paradigm of heterosexual tension that underpins soo much human interaction. The reason all proposed solutions sound odd or one off is because a lot of people *want* it that way. Any other way 'legitimizes' something they would rather not think about, in not thinking about it, relieves them of any expectation of empathizing with people whom they don't approve of. Even as they ramble on-and-on-and-on-ad nauseum about 'personal freedoms' and 'individuality'.

And so much context in human interaction is based on having knowledges of the subjects' sex and/or perceived gender-- anything else breaks an unspoken law, and what better way to deligitimize something than to deny it use of words.

To quote from V for Vendetta:

Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this

[remique]

Let's start with a statement (I know it might not be correct, but bear with me here) : "A reader who has read this column may not like what they have read"

There's actually nothing wrong with that sentence? Imprecise perhaps, but not incorrect. People have this weird misconception that we don't use the singular they in English; we do and it is grammatically correct. At least, in the vague, non-specific sense that you used it above.

The singular they has been in wide use in the English language since about the fourteenth century and it was only during the early 19th century that this idea that it wasn't correct came about. When we talk about the singular they being grammatically incorrect, it's usually in the instance of "they" being used to describe a specific, strongly-individualized person whose gender we don't know (eg. "This is my friend Alex, they live in Canada."). When used to describe an undefined, non-specific or hypothetical person, like the reader in your example, it is perfectly acceptable. But even that is changing.

Given the current increase in education and visibility of trans and nonbinary issues and the need for gender neutral pronouns, there's no reason at all why the singular they (in the specific sense of referring to a person who identifies with gender neutral pronouns and chooses to use they/them/their) shouldn't be brought into common use again. It was just people who started using it back in the fourteenth century and it was just another group of ideologically incompatible people who decided it shouldn't be considered "correct" later on. So there's no reason why people can't change the way we use it again.

In fact, if you do enough research, you start to find a lot of evidence that the reason the singular they fell out of popularity during the grammar boom of the 19th century is due to the insistence that he/him/his pronouns should be considered the default, neutral pronouns—an off-shoot of the sexist idea that the male/masculine experience should be considered the default human experience.

All things considered, I'm A-OK with the singular they and don't particularly care for it when people engage in this kind of faux-grammar policing rhetoric, frankly ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[ChillaKilla]

If you'd like to overhaul a significant portion of a language simply to correct coherency, maybe learn a language that makes sense in the first place :lol: try a language like Mandarin

[pegasusoftraken]

If we start eliminating words which are ambiguous without a well-established context, you'd have to butcher a third of the English language.

I'm with butchering just about a third of the language if it means that coherency issues are to be resolved.

The problem with language is that we have to convey an almost unlimited range of possible scenarios, ideas, and meanings in a comparatively small vocabulary. If we wanted everything to have a precise meaning we'd need to increase the size of the English language considerably so as to avoid using particular words in multiple contexts. Which itself would come with loads of difficulties in terms of learning it.

With singular "they" I think people tend to be okay with it once they become used to hearing it. It is ambiguous at times, but all pronoun usage is ambiguous sometimes - 3 billion people being referred to using the same pronoun "she" and another 3 billion with "he" isn't the most clear system that could have been devised. For that matter "you" has exactly the same problem as "they" in being both plural and singular, but there aren't many people arguing that we shouldn't use "you" to refer to an individual.

[Zsareph]

For the "they is so good at this" example, I'd like to point out that when using they as a plural or singular pronoun, it would still be "they are so good at this", in the same way "you are so good at this" doesn't become "you is so good at this" when being used as a singular you. I personally think if we can use "you are" for singular and plural purposes, we can also use "they are" in exactly the same way.

[R_1]

There's actually nothing wrong with that sentence? Imprecise perhaps, but not incorrect. People have this weird misconception that we don't use the singular they in English; we do and it is grammatically correct. At least, in the vague, non-specific sense that you used it above.

The singular they has been in wide use in the English language since about the fourteenth century and it was only during the early 19th century that this idea that it wasn't correct came about. When we talk about the singular they being grammatically incorrect, it's usually in the instance of "they" being used to describe a specific, strongly-individualized person whose gender we don't know (eg. "This is my friend Alex, they live in Canada."). When used to describe an undefined, non-specific or hypothetical person, like the reader in your example, it is perfectly acceptable. But even that is changing.

Given the current increase in education and visibility of trans and nonbinary issues and the need for gender neutral pronouns, there's no reason at all why the singular they (in the specific sense of referring to a person who identifies with gender neutral pronouns and chooses to use they/them/their) shouldn't be brought into common use again. It was just people who started using it back in the fourteenth century and it was just another group of ideologically incompatible people who decided it shouldn't be considered "correct" later on. So there's no reason why people can't change the way we use it again.

In fact, if you do enough research, you start to find a lot of evidence that the reason the singular they fell out of popularity during the grammar boom of the 19th century is due to the insistence that he/him/his pronouns should be considered the default, neutral pronouns—an off-shoot of the sexist idea that the male/masculine experience should be considered the default human experience.

All things considered, I'm A-OK with the singular they and don't particularly care for it when people engage in this kind of faux-grammar policing rhetoric, frankly ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I think what people have a issue is how "they" is used at times, and as I have mentioned with examples, there are just times when 'they' isn't clear. Ideally, there really should be another pronoun which can be used to address the issue with 'they' at times. 'They' could refer to three things, and at times, it is not clear on what one of the three thing 'they' refer to (See above comments). That's a issue, and you know it.

And yeah, grammar usage are changing over time, and I think either way, language improve over time, and continue adapting as new information and new usage and learned revision over time. 'they' is a word that is kinda being addressed just about everywhere, and there are studies dedicated to its effectiveness and/or limitations. Right now, it is acceptable, but studies already shows that it isn't without problems that needs to be addressed. Gender-neutral pronoun search alternatives is a whole lot of can of worms that I'm not getting into here, but there does need to be a real alternative to they/their/them if one insists that they/their/them shouldn't be used in certain manner.

And, I seen that he/his was used a gender-neutral pronoun before, but I do find it incredibly sexist myself. I agree there.

If we start eliminating words which are ambiguous without a well-established context, you'd have to butcher a third of the English language.

I'm with butchering just about a third of the language if it means that coherency issues are to be resolved.

The problem with language is that we have to convey an almost unlimited range of possible scenarios, ideas, and meanings in a comparatively small vocabulary. If we wanted everything to have a precise meaning we'd need to increase the size of the English language considerably so as to avoid using particular words in multiple contexts. Which itself would come with loads of difficulties in terms of learning it.

With singular "they" I think people tend to be okay with it once they become used to hearing it. It is ambiguous at times, but all pronoun usage is ambiguous sometimes - 3 billion people being referred to using the same pronoun "she" and another 3 billion with "he" isn't the most clear system that could have been devised. For that matter "you" has exactly the same problem as "they" in being both plural and singular, but there aren't many people arguing that we shouldn't use "you" to refer to an individual.

Or you know, acknowledge that there are some words that already exists, and doesn't really need to be removed if there is another word which has a similar definition, and the usage of that word should be removed instead, and then butcher out words that clearly is nonsense such as 'god' (pantheists, and panentheists kinda make 'god' so incoherent that we might as well take god out of the dictionary since god is no longer useful anymore since there isn't any actual meaning to it). That way, you may have a similar amount of words.

As for he/she, I for one, would never refer to 3 billion people as a 'she', and asides, if you're talking about 3 billion people, you should really hope that your statement works for 100 percent of them.

[R_1]

For the "they is so good at this" example, I'd like to point out that when using they as a plural or singular pronoun, it would still be "they are so good at this", in the same way "you are so good at this" doesn't become "you is so good at this" when being used as a singular you. I personally think if we can use "you are" for singular and plural purposes, we can also use "they are" in exactly the same way.

He is, she is, they is....

They are, he are, she are.

You see what's odd here? They is, and he are, she are sounds way out of place.

For plural you, and single you, I always see you as something that involves the you yourself. Not seeing a issue there.

NOTE: I can't copy and paste on Sandboxie. :/

[Dodecahedron314]

For the "they is so good at this" example, I'd like to point out that when using they as a plural or singular pronoun, it would still be "they are so good at this", in the same way "you are so good at this" doesn't become "you is so good at this" when being used as a singular you. I personally think if we can use "you are" for singular and plural purposes, we can also use "they are" in exactly the same way.

He is, she is, they is....

They are, he are, she are.

You see what's odd here? They is, and he are, she are sounds way out of place.

For plural you, and single you, I always see you as something that involves the you yourself. Not seeing a issue there.

NOTE: I can't copy and paste on Sandboxie. :/

This is neither the first case nor the last case in which the English language is irregular because it's evolved descriptively rather than prescriptively. I doubt there's any language out there without its irregularities. Are you also suggesting that we cease using the word "think" because the past tense isn't "thinked" but "thought", and the past tense of the similarly-ending word "drink" isn't "drinked" or "drought" but "drank"?

[Azazel]

Be glad you weren't born in Japan! Did you know, in the Japanese language, pronouns are rarely used at all; One must always glean from context who the sentence is referring to. Perhaps you should spend some spare time poring over linguistics: some languages have less overall ambiguity than others, and you might find one that you are more comfortable with.

I mean, nothing wrong with a certain language being incompatible with your minds preferred mode of processing communication or otherwise uncomfortable. I know if I were a native French (or other Latin language) speaker I'd be a very unhappy camper. Everything is gendered. I think we can all at least agree how much nonsense that is. But Latin languages nevertheless have major cultural significance, and I would not advocate forcibly "correcting" those all the way down to the grammatic level.

As for you/you... Come that I think about it, I have encountered many times when ambiguously singular/plural "you" has been cause for confusion, far more often than I have heard complaints about "they" being confusing.

[Zsareph]

For the "they is so good at this" example, I'd like to point out that when using they as a plural or singular pronoun, it would still be "they are so good at this", in the same way "you are so good at this" doesn't become "you is so good at this" when being used as a singular you. I personally think if we can use "you are" for singular and plural purposes, we can also use "they are" in exactly the same way.

He is, she is, they is....

They are, he are, she are.

You see what's odd here? They is, and he are, she are sounds way out of place.

For plural you, and single you, I always see you as something that involves the you yourself. Not seeing a issue there.

NOTE: I can't copy and paste on Sandboxie. :/

I am perfectly aware that "they is" sounds out of place. My point is that I feel this is irrelevant, as when using they as a singular pronoun, we would still use plural verb forms in the same way we use plural forms of verbs when using the singular you. Therefore it would be:

Singular- I am, you are, he is, she is, they are

Plural- We are, you are, they are

What I'm trying to say is that they as a singular third person pronoun works in exactly the same was as you does as a singular second person pronoun. Even if, despite this, you still find singular they weird and hard to get used to, it's hardly the most irregular thing in the English language, as Dodecahedron has pointed out.

[pegasusoftraken]

The problem with language is that we have to convey an almost unlimited range of possible scenarios, ideas, and meanings in a comparatively small vocabulary. If we wanted everything to have a precise meaning we'd need to increase the size of the English language considerably so as to avoid using particular words in multiple contexts. Which itself would come with loads of difficulties in terms of learning it.

With singular "they" I think people tend to be okay with it once they become used to hearing it. It is ambiguous at times, but all pronoun usage is ambiguous sometimes - 3 billion people being referred to using the same pronoun "she" and another 3 billion with "he" isn't the most clear system that could have been devised. For that matter "you" has exactly the same problem as "they" in being both plural and singular, but there aren't many people arguing that we shouldn't use "you" to refer to an individual.

Or you know, acknowledge that there are some words that already exists, and doesn't really need to be removed if there is another word which has a similar definition, and the usage of that word should be removed instead, and then butcher out words that clearly is nonsense such as 'god' (pantheists, and panentheists kinda make 'god' so incoherent that we might as well take god out of the dictionary since god is no longer useful anymore since there isn't any actual meaning to it). That way, you may have a similar amount of words.

As for he/she, I for one, would never refer to 3 billion people as a 'she', and asides, if you're talking about 3 billion people, you should really hope that your statement works for 100 percent of them.

The problem with reducing the number of words with a similar definition is that in most of those cases the definitions and connotations of the words are not the same. So with fewer words to choose from you would need to make cruder and cruder approximations. To take the ducking by a bank example mentioned previously, you could use the word stoop if referring to her body position, but duck also conveys a quick movement which stoop doesn't. So if we did get rid of duck as meaning to quickly move downwards, then we are left with stoop covering scenarios where somebody is stooping down to tie her shoes, and "stooping" (i.e. "ducking") to avoid being hit by a tree branch outside the bank or stooping/ducking to avoid being seen by someone... So really if we want to be more clear in usage we need more words to differentiate these scenarios, fewer just leads to more scenarios being described with the same word - which leads to the issue of ambiguity. Logically if we collectively have the same number of concepts, scenarios and objects we want to describe, then to reduce the average number of concepts, scenarios, and objects assigned to each word (i.e. reduce ambiguity), then we need to increase the number of words available to describe things.

Another example raised with the word "god". I'll grant you that the word covers such a wide range of meanings as to be meaningless (without context at least). But getting rid of the word doesn't solve the problem. People will still have the concept of god, and use a word to convey that. If they can't use the word god then maybe deity or some other word you might prefer. But this just transfers the multiple meanings of god onto another word, which still doesn't resolve the issue of ambiguity.

Also to clarify my 3 billion comment was referring to half of people on the planet being assigned the same pronoun - obviously we don't usually talk about all women at the same time using her, but in any given situation of using pronouns typically half will be assigned "she" and the other half "he", my point is that this doesn't make for a particularly efficient system of referring to individuals at all, and so all pronoun usage is full of ambiguity. So I don't follow the logic is singling "they" out as being ambiguous, when all other pronouns suffer the same problems. I'd understand avoiding using any pronouns so as to be more clear (and sometimes I myself do just use peoples names to avoid pronoun issues), but I don't get why people have such a particular distaste for using "they" as a gender-neutral pronoun if that's somebody's preferred pronoun.

[nanogretchen4]

I like singular they a lot. It's so much less cumbersome than "he or she" and so much less confusing than the universal he. People absolutely used to get confused all the time about whether he was referring to a person of unknown gender or to a male specifically. Hilarious sentences resulted, like "If someone needs an abortion he should ask his parents." With singular they you nearly always use one person's name or a description of a single person at the beginning of the sentence or paragraph, so using singular they for the next few sentences is not confusing. In case of possible confusion it's time to use a name or descriptor again.

[Calligraphette_Coe]

Deer.

Sheep.

Moose.

Aircraft.

Enough said?

[ChillaKilla]

Deer.

Sheep.

Moose.

Aircraft.

Enough said?

Fish

Pants

Shorts

Scissors

Pliers

Bison

Salmon

Offspring

[R_1]

I finally can copy and paste within sandboxed browser. Finally! Almighty Jesus Christ, I had to take 6 hours dedicated to solving it.

For the "they is so good at this" example, I'd like to point out that when using they as a plural or singular pronoun, it would still be "they are so good at this", in the same way "you are so good at this" doesn't become "you is so good at this" when being used as a singular you. I personally think if we can use "you are" for singular and plural purposes, we can also use "they are" in exactly the same way.

He is, she is, they is....

They are, he are, she are.

You see what's odd here? They is, and he are, she are sounds way out of place.

For plural you, and single you, I always see you as something that involves the you yourself. Not seeing a issue there.

NOTE: I can't copy and paste on Sandboxie. :/

I am perfectly aware that "they is" sounds out of place. My point is that I feel this is irrelevant, as when using they as a singular pronoun, we would still use plural verb forms in the same way we use plural forms of verbs when using the singular you. Therefore it would be:

Singular- I am, you are, he is, she is, they are
Plural- We are, you are, they are

What I'm trying to say is that they as a singular third person pronoun works in exactly the same was as you does as a singular second person pronoun. Even if, despite this, you still find singular they weird and hard to get used to, it's hardly the most irregular thing in the English language, as Dodecahedron has pointed out.

I think I forgot to mention that I do notice a decreasing use of "you are" in plural form, and "they are" in singular form, but that could be just me, but literally looking back at my memory, it really does seem to me that way. But, yeah irregularity just might be my pet peeves, and ambiguity is also another one of my pet peeves since in a ideal world, there should be universal language which attempts to address all of those at once, and one that is close to my preferred language which is English. Mathematics is great, but it's not for communication like this, but at least mathematics is actually somewhat consistent. I still can't be arsed to try to learn another language when it takes me over 20 years just to learn one at a proficient level, and neither I see a incentive to.

Oh, and as for gendered language (whoever mentioned it), that's a good complaint about Spanish, and other languages which is so heavily gendered.

The problem with reducing the number of words with a similar definition is that in most of those cases the definitions and connotations of the words are not the same. So with fewer words to choose from you would need to make cruder and cruder approximations. To take the ducking by a bank example mentioned previously, you could use the word stoop if referring to her body position, but duck also conveys a quick movement which stoop doesn't. So if we did get rid of duck as meaning to quickly move downwards, then we are left with stoop covering scenarios where somebody is stooping down to tie her shoes, and "stooping" (i.e. "ducking") to avoid being hit by a tree branch outside the bank or stooping/ducking to avoid being seen by someone... So really if we want to be more clear in usage we need more words to differentiate these scenarios, fewer just leads to more scenarios being described with the same word - which leads to the issue of ambiguity. Logically if we collectively have the same number of concepts, scenarios and objects we want to describe, then to reduce the average number of concepts, scenarios, and objects assigned to each word (i.e. reduce ambiguity), then we need to increase the number of words available to describe things.

Another example raised with the word "god". I'll grant you that the word covers such a wide range of meanings as to be meaningless (without context at least). But getting rid of the word doesn't solve the problem. People will still have the concept of god, and use a word to convey that. If they can't use the word god then maybe deity or some other word you might prefer. But this just transfers the multiple meanings of god onto another word, which still doesn't resolve the issue of ambiguity.

Also to clarify my 3 billion comment was referring to half of people on the planet being assigned the same pronoun - obviously we don't usually talk about all women at the same time using her, but in any given situation of using pronouns typically half will be assigned "she" and the other half "he", my point is that this doesn't make for a particularly efficient system of referring to individuals at all, and so all pronoun usage is full of ambiguity. So I don't follow the logic is singling "they" out as being ambiguous, when all other pronouns suffer the same problems. I'd understand avoiding using any pronouns so as to be more clear (and sometimes I myself do just use peoples names to avoid pronoun issues), but I don't get why people have such a particular distaste for using "they" as a gender-neutral pronoun if that's somebody's preferred pronoun.

For the first two paragraph, I think that we can agree that there's no real good solution to those issues, and those issues may or may not be resolved, and if it is, we'll be long dead.

And looking at another look at he/she pronouns, now I can see what happens when people uses too many pronouns, and yep, those pronouns are more of a problem at times. But, those pronouns are only decent when there is a indicator as to what he/she/they refers to. But, nonetheless, I'd still argue that he/she/ze pronouns is tad less problematic at times, but in a ideal world, there should more sets of pronouns to reduce ambiguity or having ways not to use them.

[remique]

I think what people have a issue is how "they" is used at times, and as I have mentioned with examples, there are just times when 'they' isn't clear. Ideally, there really should be another pronoun which can be used to address the issue with 'they' at times. 'They' could refer to three things, and at times, it is not clear on what one of the three thing 'they' refer to (See above comments). That's a issue, and you know it.

Not... really? Please don't presume what I know based on your individual (mis)interpretation of how language works. Imprecision does not automatically equate to incorrect grammar and you haven't actually bothered to address any of the points I made concerning the history and usage of the singular they.

Language is imprecise because people are imprecise. There is no possible way that you could eradicate this problem, even if you did completely lobotomize the English language. It's an exercise in futility, at best.

I'm not really interested in arguing about this—I've made my points as best I can and your opinion is ultimately your own. I can only say again that I find this stringent defence of the English Language and its Grammatical Virtues to be antiquated and completely out of touch with current studies and movements within the academia of linguistics. Language changes. And I sincerely doubt the singular they is going to drop out of common parlance any time soon.