He/She... or the One?

[Italios]

I have no idea, but ''they'' refers to more than one person. And it's silly to say ''they'' to one person, as if he/she could not make up whether to be a boy or a girl.

While this one would rather not defend the singular 'they', this one will point out that the evolution of plural pronouns to singular pronouns has precedence in English - the pronoun 'you' was once exclusively plural and the pronoun 'thou/thee' was used as the singular.

You bring up a good point - you can now be used as bith singular and plural, why not they?

[Calimera II]

1. For me it sounds plural.
2. I think many girls have been called 'he' on the internet and nobody has ever cried because of that.
3. No, I will not. I strongly dislike the use of 'they', and I cannot think of an alternative.

1. For most it does not. There are general grammar rules that unfortunately trump your personal opinions. As the pronoun in a sentence automatically latches on to the nearest previous noun, they would be able to connect with a singular noun, thus it could be used singular.
2. You're right, not all do. I wouldn't, that's being overreactive. But better being safe than sorry.
3. Fine, they it is.

1. Could be. But for me it really does.
3. I will not use it. There must be some kind of general consensus on this issue before I utilise the term.

[Immoren]

If You can replace Thou as second person singular, why can't They be used as a gender-neutral Third person pronoun.

[Saint Kitten]

1. For most it does not. There are general grammar rules that unfortunately trump your personal opinions. As the pronoun in a sentence automatically latches on to the nearest previous noun, they would be able to connect with a singular noun, thus it could be used singular.
2. You're right, not all do. I wouldn't, that's being overreactive. But better being safe than sorry.
3. Fine, they it is.

1. Could be. But for me it really does.
3. I will not use it. There must be some kind of general consensus on this issue before I utilise the term.

3. For now it seems to be whatever doesn't offend someone, be it "one," "they," or "it."

[Calimera II]

1. Could be. But for me it really does.
3. I will not use it. There must be some kind of general consensus on this issue before I utilise the term.

3. For now it seems to be whatever doesn't offend someone, be it "one," "they," or "it."

Yup. I just call the person whatever he wants to be called. It's not much effort.

[Conscentia]

While this one would rather not defend the singular 'they', this one will point out that the evolution of plural pronouns to singular pronouns has precedence in English - the pronoun 'you' was once exclusively plural and the pronoun 'thou/thee' was used as the singular.

You bring up a good point - you can now be used as bith singular and plural, why not they?

Well 'you' is actually used exclusively as singular in most dialects of English these days. For the plural one would say 'you all' or 'y'all' or 'yous'/'youse' depending on dialect. The first two are formed mirroring the construction 'we all', while the last is 'you' plus the suffix 's' used to form plurals.

[Kristalmaan]

Except we already use they. A lot.

A huge segment of the population doesn't

Hence why there is work to be done

and perhaps the point can be better made by pushing a new pronoun instead

On what basis would you suppose this? Or, rather, have you looked into areas where this has been tried?

Personally, I use "they" as generic gender-neutral third person singular, both because it flows well and because most of the people I know who don't identify on the gender binary prefer it.

I am familiar with others who use e(y)/em/eir, ze/zem/zir, or another set of preferred personal pronouns, and have some trouble with people to actually respecting that choice and using them. Even folks who prefer they be called "they" find pushback, despite the fact that is isn't even asking folks to remember any new words, with given reasons from the speaker objecting to the singular use of "they" as grammatically incorrect, to insisting that there's no need for another singular pronoun, to no-reason-given stubbornness.

Based on this, I find it hard to imagine that the general population would take more easily to the use of a new third person pronoun than to either "they" (which has only to reach saturation in formal use) or "one" (which has to surmount slight changed in structure when used, and be popularized). But I also am only armed with personal observations, so I'd be interested in hearing about it if you know places where a third singular pronoun has been adapted into the local English!

[Italios]

1. Could be. But for me it really does.
3. I will not use it. There must be some kind of general consensus on this issue before I utilise the term.

3. For now it seems to be whatever doesn't offend someone, be it "one," "they," or "it."

It is questionable because it refers to an inanimate or non-human being, while they usually refers to a human.

[Italios]

You bring up a good point - you can now be used as bith singular and plural, why not they?

Well 'you' is actually used exclusively as singular in most dialects of English these days. For the plural one would say 'you all' or 'y'all' or 'yous'/'youse' depending on dialect. The first two are formed mirroring the construction 'we all', while the last is 'you' plus the suffix 's' used to form plurals.

Oh, it can be.

"You're the best!" (Referring to one person)

"You're the best!" (Can easily refer to multiple people here, no change)

While it is true that some dialects or langauge may add letters or words to emphasis the plural you, it's not necessary.

[Saint Kitten]

3. For now it seems to be whatever doesn't offend someone, be it "one," "they," or "it."

It is questionable because it refers to an inanimate or non-human being, while they usually refers to a human.

Yes. I personally wouldn't use it, and it just sounds odd to refer to someone as an it; almost in a derogatory sense, like you're subhuman.

[Conscentia]

Well 'you' is actually used exclusively as singular in most dialects of English these days. For the plural one would say 'you all' or 'y'all' or 'yous'/'youse' depending on dialect. The first two are formed mirroring the construction 'we all', while the last is 'you' plus the suffix 's' used to form plurals.

Oh, it can be.
"You're the best!" (Referring to one person)
"You're the best!" (Can easily refer to multiple people here, no change)
While it is true that some dialects or langauge may add letters or words to emphasis the plural you, it's not necessary.

This one would say "you're all the best", or "you people are the best" for the plural.

[Forsher]

Unless I know their gender, I usually use they.

Cool, I guess. Not really what this thread is about.

Pretty sure using "one" as a pronoun just makes you sound pretentious.

One finds that this perception is influenced more by geographical contexts than the word one itself.

As of now, the use of the word ''they'' in its singular sense is only informal, and not formal. It will take time as well as a social movement to transform it into mainstream use in its singular gender-neutral sense.

Because this requires a fucking social movement like it's MLK all over again.

What's that bullshit about they not being mainstream? People use our inn singular all the time.

I can't ever think of having coming across a singular "our".

They is used in a singular sense in much the same fashion that you is used in a plural sense: generally it doesn't create ambiguity but sometimes it does. In both cases this happens because the default you is singular and the default they is plural.

I'm sure you'll make a real point eventually (or maybe not)

I've made my point: your threads are all stupid. Now you make yours.

And now you''re basically just griefspamming. And trying to occupy the moral high ground. Wow.

Using one as the replacement can sound rather clunky at times, and sound like you are constantly trying to be formal, as if you're reading someone's essay.

"(The) one is going to the park." Sounds so much worse than just "They are going to the park." They could be mistaken for multiple people, but it shouldn't be that hard to clear up in normal conversation if you were talking about one person anyways.

I am not sure that anyone would say that. One is generally to be thought of as a replacement for the general you that avoids the explicit statement of "It's the general you" and the subtext of "you moron, why didn't you realise that?". One is also used as an alternative to I. One finds that one's socks are damp. Or, more normally, something like, "'one must admire him for his willingness'" where one claims some broader extension of the point of view.

One would never understand your sentence as meaning anything other than a pretentious alternative to I.

I use they and one almost interchangeably. It covers male, female, and the non-binary!

One is more of an indefinite pronoun than personal pronoun. It's used when you're not referring to a specific noun ("one of those pencils") while they is more specific, used when you're referring to a group of people or one distinguished person.

That is not using one as a pronoun, compare and contrast "two of those pencils" and ' "Do you have any pencils?" "Actually I need a new one myself" '.

This one prefers indefinite pronouns.

Sticking a this in front of "one" completely defeats the point of using a one. Which is why you generally find it (alternatively, "which is why one generally finds it") only after someone says something using one (with what it applies) and someone else wants to point out that they are not caught by the one.

I have no idea, but ''they'' refers to more than one person. And it's silly to say ''they'' to one person, as if he/she could not make up whether to be a boy or a girl.

While this one would rather not defend the singular 'they', this one will point out that the evolution of plural pronouns to singular pronouns has precedence in English - the pronoun 'you' was once exclusively plural and the pronoun 'thou/thee' was used as the singular.

Which is why youse is ironic.

You bring up a good point - you can now be used as bith singular and plural, why not they?

Well 'you' is actually used exclusively as singular in most dialects of English these days. For the plural one would say 'you all' or 'y'all' or 'yous'/'youse' depending on dialect. The first two are formed mirroring the construction 'we all', while the last is 'you' plus the suffix 's' used to form plurals.

I disagree. I think the vast majority of English speakers recognise this as uneducated. I do not think that many dialects (at all, thus explaining the most) naturally walk around with you and, say, youse. You all and You lot can be contrasted as specifying a group and dealing with that group as a group, rather than multiple individuals as such.

[Conscentia]

It is questionable because it refers to an inanimate or non-human being, while they usually refers to a human.

Yes. I personally wouldn't use it, and it just sounds odd to refer to someone as an it; almost in a derogatory sense, like you're subhuman.

That implies that all things to which 'it' applies are sub-human. A very anthropocentric view.

[Italios]

One finds that this perception is influenced more by geographical contexts than the word one itself.

Incomparable - you don't say "He finds this perception is influenced more by geographical contexts" unless you're talking about a specific he. One, in this sentence, is indefinite and refers to anyone.

[Saint Kitten]

Oh, it can be.
"You're the best!" (Referring to one person)
"You're the best!" (Can easily refer to multiple people here, no change)
While it is true that some dialects or langauge may add letters or words to emphasis the plural you, it's not necessary.

This one would say "you're all the best", or "you people are the best" for the plural.

You can use "you" as a plural without saying "you all" because the "all" would be implied. For example, a teacher can say to her class "You all really need to study tonight!" or "You really need to study tonight!" and the message is still the same because both refer to the one group of people.

[Conscentia]

This one prefers indefinite pronouns.

Sticking a this in front of "one" completely defeats the point of using a one. Which is why you generally find it (alternatively, "which is why one generally finds it") only after someone says something using one (with what it applies) and someone else wants to point out that they are not caught by the one.

You haven't played Mass Effect, have you?

While this one would rather not defend the singular 'they', this one will point out that the evolution of plural pronouns to singular pronouns has precedence in English - the pronoun 'you' was once exclusively plural and the pronoun 'thou/thee' was used as the singular.

Which is why youse is ironic.

The inhabitants of Liverpool don't use it ironically.

Well 'you' is actually used exclusively as singular in most dialects of English these days. For the plural one would say 'you all' or 'y'all' or 'yous'/'youse' depending on dialect. The first two are formed mirroring the construction 'we all', while the last is 'you' plus the suffix 's' used to form plurals.

I disagree. I think the vast majority of English speakers recognise this as uneducated. I do not think that many dialects (at all, thus explaining the most) naturally walk around with you and, say, youse. You all and You lot can be contrasted as specifying a group and dealing with that group as a group, rather than multiple individuals as such.

How is 'you all' uneducated? It's an entirely valid way to speak.
In the UK at least, 'you all' may be used when you're addressing a group that you, as an individual, aren't a part of.

[Saint Kitten]

Yes. I personally wouldn't use it, and it just sounds odd to refer to someone as an it; almost in a derogatory sense, like you're subhuman.

That implies that all things to which 'it' applies are sub-human. A very anthropocentric view.

I feel that if you're using "it" as an insult you probably have that view, but that's really beside the point.

[Conscentia]

This one would say "you're all the best", or "you people are the best" for the plural.

You can use "you" as a plural without saying "you all" because the "all" would be implied. For example, a teacher can say to her class "You all really need to study tonight!" or "You really need to study tonight!" and the message is still the same because both refer to the one group of people.

This one can't dispute that example. This one concedes. 'You' may be plural and singular.

[Forsher]

One finds that this perception is influenced more by geographical contexts than the word one itself.

Incomparable - you don't say "He finds this perception is influenced more by geographical contexts" unless you're talking about a specific he. One, in this sentence, is indefinite and refers to anyone.

No, in all sentences. Well, more everyone rather than one, but close enough, eh? I am not sure why you have put a he there when it is absolutely clear that was nothing at all like what I was going for.

[New haven america]

Ban the English language.

[Italios]

Incomparable - you don't say "He finds this perception is influenced more by geographical contexts" unless you're talking about a specific he. One, in this sentence, is indefinite and refers to anyone.

No, in all sentences. Well, more everyone rather than one, but close enough, eh? I am not sure why you have put a he there when it is absolutely clear that was nothing at all like what I was going for.

Because he, in genderless cases, would be substituted by one.

[Forsher]

Sticking a this in front of "one" completely defeats the point of using a one. Which is why you generally find it (alternatively, "which is why one generally finds it") only after someone says something using one (with what it applies) and someone else wants to point out that they are not caught by the one.

You haven't played Mass Effect, have you?

No, but I would assume that if "this one" appears there, your usage here is not actually the same.

Which is why youse is ironic.

The inhabitants of Liverpool don't use it ironically.

If people used it ironic, then the existence of youse would not be ironic.

Pay closer attention to your own sentences, man. "the pronoun 'you' was once exclusively plural"

I disagree. I think the vast majority of English speakers recognise this as uneducated. I do not think that many dialects (at all, thus explaining the most) naturally walk around with you and, say, youse. You all and You lot can be contrasted as specifying a group and dealing with that group as a group, rather than multiple individuals as such.

How it 'you all' uneducated? It's an entirely valid way to speak.
In the UK at least, 'you all' may be used when you're addressing a group that you, as an individual, aren't a part of.

I was referring more to "yous, youse" etc. etc. than you all, for instance. You may notice that I specifically distinguished between youse and you all... "contrasted".

[Valystria]

This is why I refer to everyone as she by default.

We already have a gender-neutral pronoun though, they.

No, "they" is not acceptable. Come up with an explicitly singular pronoun.

[Immoren]

This is why I refer to everyone as she by default.

We already have a gender-neutral pronoun though, they.

No, "they" is not acceptable. Come up with an explicitly singular pronoun.

Why is singular "they" unacceptable if singular "you" is acceptable?

[Conscentia]

You haven't played Mass Effect, have you?

No, but I would assume that if "this one" appears there, your usage here is not actually the same.

The Hanar in Mass Effect use 'this one' in place of the pronoun 'I'. That is exactly how this one is using it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPLSWWnHV2I

The inhabitants of Liverpool don't use it ironically.

If people used it ironic, then the existence of youse would not be ironic.
Pay closer attention to your own sentences, man. "the pronoun 'you' was once exclusively plural"

What?