Threaded Order Chronological Order
| No, in this context, "they" is NOT plural | |
| Posted by: ryhog 10:37 am EDT 06/05/23 | |
| In reply to: Definitely NOT they “is” - gad90210 07:25 am EDT 06/05/23 | |
|
|
|
| First rule of grammar: context. Words do not necessarily have the same meaning or attributes in every context. When the meaning of words evolve in a lexicon, as they do, the rules must evolve with them. Like many words in English, "they" has taken on a new meaning. Resistance is futile. :-) | |
| reply to this message |
| re: No, in this context, "they" is NOT plural | |
| Posted by: Ann 10:38 am EDT 06/05/23 | |
| In reply to: No, in this context, "they" is NOT plural - ryhog 10:37 am EDT 06/05/23 | |
|
|
|
| AP Stylebook agrees. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: No, in this context, "they" is NOT plural | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 11:05 am EDT 06/05/23 | |
| In reply to: re: No, in this context, "they" is NOT plural - Ann 10:38 am EDT 06/05/23 | |
|
|
|
| Yes - but while the non-binary use of "they" is considered singular, the proper verb is indeed "are." The so-called "royal we" follows the same pattern - someone referring to themselves in first person plural (despite being one person) will still say "we are" not "we am." |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: No, in this context, "they" is NOT plural | |
| Posted by: ryhog 12:47 pm EDT 06/05/23 | |
| In reply to: re: No, in this context, "they" is NOT plural - Chromolume 11:05 am EDT 06/05/23 | |
|
|
|
| Reserving the right to research more (and be wrong), I don't think they are analogous. I think the royal "we" (aka the majestic plural) in its native form is the king speaking as the monarchy. And I think that when our friends use the expression, it is a form of jokey condescension in the sense of speaking for everyone. I think the circumstance with non-binary "they" is largely that it takes a little getting used to. But as I say I could be wrong. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| "they" | |
| Last Edit: BroadwayTonyJ 01:11 pm EDT 06/05/23 | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 01:09 pm EDT 06/05/23 | |
| In reply to: re: No, in this context, "they" is NOT plural - ryhog 12:47 pm EDT 06/05/23 | |
|
|
|
| Maybe "they" for a nonbinary individual is more like the "editorial we" instead of the "royal we". The "royal we" is reserved for a monarch, but anyone can use the "editorial we" depending on the circumstance. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: No, in this context, "they" is NOT plural | |
| Last Edit: Ann 12:16 pm EDT 06/05/23 | |
| Posted by: Ann 12:15 pm EDT 06/05/23 | |
| In reply to: re: No, in this context, "they" is NOT plural - Chromolume 11:05 am EDT 06/05/23 | |
|
|
|
| I'm not sure what you think I was saying, but I was agreeing with what I think ryhog was saying - a singular pronoun with a plural verb. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| CLARIFYING the original post | |
| Posted by: Theatergoer1978 01:01 pm EDT 06/05/23 | |
| In reply to: re: No, in this context, "they" is NOT plural - Ann 12:15 pm EDT 06/05/23 | |
|
|
|
| I never said the problem was the verb (see original post below). The error was referring to Ghee doing something "their whole lives." A person who uses they as pronoun is still ONE person, so it's "their whole life." Life, singular. Just like you'd say about this one person "After the show, they go to their home" (not homes!) or "They love their job" or whatever. I don't know why people went off on this whole are/is dispute when the last sentence in my post was clear what I was correcting. ORIGINAL POST: This month's Playbill has a story about J. Harrison Ghee of Some Like It Hot - who uses the pronouns they/them. That, of course, doesn't change the fact that they are one person, yet here's how the story reads: Ghee isn’t wasting any opportunity to express exactly who they are. The key to their confidence? A mantra that’s followed them their whole lives... That should be "their whole life" - They are ONE person, with one life! |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: CLARIFYING the original post | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 01:06 pm EDT 06/05/23 | |
| In reply to: CLARIFYING the original post - Theatergoer1978 01:01 pm EDT 06/05/23 | |
|
|
|
| Correct. But then TheHarveyBoy asked if "they is" would really be the correct phrase - and the discussion took off from there. I don't think anyone disputed your original point. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: No, in this context, "they" is NOT plural | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 12:55 pm EDT 06/05/23 | |
| In reply to: re: No, in this context, "they" is NOT plural - Ann 12:15 pm EDT 06/05/23 | |
|
|
|
| I did think you were, but wasn't entirely sure. Thanks. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.048514 seconds.