Language desk
< September 20	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 22 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 21

How old is use of singular they as a specific (e.g. nonbinary) person's pronoun?

Singular they says use of they to refer to a nonbinary person is a 21st-century thing. That seems surprising to me given how long singular they has been in use and how long other nonbinary pronouns have been in use — e.g. "Ve held up vis right hand; I reached down and took it, and began to haul ver up; ve shook vis head impatiently", using ve as a specific character's pronoun, is from a 20th-century book. Are there 20th-century (or earlier) examples of they being used as a specific individual's pronoun? -sche (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can look at "What's Your Pronoun: Beyond He & She" by Denis Baron (2020, ISBN 978-1-63149-604-2) for a whole long list of proposed third person singular gender-neutral pronoun proposals starting from 1792, but the great majority of them were invented to solve the generic masculine problem, and to have a pronoun that could refer to both men and women equally. Alternative gender identities aren't mentioned until 2003 on the list. "Ve" was coined in 1971, as part of an early 1970s period of feminist exuberance; some of the proposals from that period were used to refer to specific persons, but so that the listener or reader wouldn't be constantly (some would say unnecessarily) reminded of an individual's male or female status, not really to express alternative gender identities. However, in her 1928 novel "Orlando", Virginia Woolf uses "their" four times to bridge the transition of the character Orlando, who mysteriously and spontaneously transitions from male to female while sleeping (like Gregor Samsa I guess, but much less disgusting...). AnonMoos (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One use of singular they that I suspect arose in the 21st century is to refer to a known, specific individual who does identify as one of the two traditional genders, as in: "A friend of mine told me that they were interested in buying a new sofa for their living room", when the friend in question actually uses either "he/him" or "she/her" pronouns. Up until the 2010s or so, I only heard this usage when a gay or lesbian person was trying to conceal the gender of their partner (we called it "playing the pronoun game"), but since then I've heard it from younger people all the time, when they aren't actually trying to conceal the gender of the person they're talking about, they simply consider it irrelevant to the conversation. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here a 1992 use is quoted, apparently intended to conceal the gender of the referent of the pronoun, known to the speaker. --Lambiam 10:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My 1987 Chambers 20th Century Dictionary says "often used as a sing. (with pl. vb.) of common gender, he or she...". DuncanHill (talk) 11:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I can trace that definition at least as far back as the 1959 edition. DuncanHill (talk) 11:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1794:

In 1794, a contributor to the New Bedford Medley mansplains to three women that the singular they they used in an earlier essay in the newspaper was grammatically incorrect and does no ‘honor to themselves, or the female sex in general.’ To which they honourably reply that they used singular they on purpose because ‘we wished to conceal the gender,...

Bazza (talk) 10:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in seeing the original "honourable reply" -- if they really used the word "gender" rather than "sex" in 1794, I would find that surprising. I thought "gender" meaning anything other than grammatical gender was considered -- at least imprecise, well into the 20th century. --Trovatore (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, using singular they to conceal gender happens for non-LGBT-related reasons as well, which isn't surprising. But using it even though there's no desire to conceal gender really seems very new to me. It's almost as if indefinite noun phrases like "a friend of mine" are being treated as indefinite pronouns like "someone". —Mahāgaja · talk 13:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We could be overthinking this. It's quicker and easier to say "their" rather than "his or her" and no meaning is lost. 2A00:23C3:F780:EC01:945:BF17:9FE0:1DC6 (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's not quicker in cases where a known "him" or "her" is being referred to. I think force of habit might start coming into play. I use singular they so often when corresponding on the internet, it has bled over into face-to-face conversations where I know someone is a she/he, but "they" has just become more natural. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I personally remember people saying they when either they did not know or did not want to mention the gender of the person at least as early as the 1970s. But it was considered slang and the same person would have written "he or she." So it was spoken rather than written English. If one wants to find an example of its usage, TV scripts or transcripts would probably be a good place to look. TFD (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mahagaja -- That usage sounds like it falls solidly into traditional "singular they" going back to the 18th century to me. The hallmark of traditional "singular they" is indefiniteness, or lack of specific concrete information about what the pronoun refers to. If you're trying to conceal someone's identity ("My friend called, and they said..."), then there is a lack of specific information in the mind of the listener. "Singular they" used for the purpose of expressing an alternate gender identity seems to have exerted little influence on general usage before the 2000s. AnonMoos (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 6th ed, 2007: Use of they (with its counterparts them, their, and themselves) as a singular pronoun to refer to a person of unspecified sex has been recorded since LME [late Middle English, 1350-1469], and became more common in L20 [1970-1999] as the traditional use of he to refer to a person of either sex came to be regarded as sexist. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I appreciate these responses; but a lot of them miss what I'm trying to ask, perhaps because I couldn't think of a good way to phrase it: how long has they been used as someone's preferred / correct pronoun? Ve was proposed in the 1800s as a way of avoiding he/she, presumably for generic use, but by the 20th century there are examples of it as specific people's/characters' pronoun, e.g. the book I quoted above which refers to one of the characters as ve who moved vis hand next to ver etc (which I didn't interpret as just a conceit to reflect uncertainty or concealment of vis gender, I interpreted it as ve being the character's pronoun, although perhaps I'm wrong!). Other "neopronouns" also date to at least the 1970s-1990s. Given how long they has been in use for generic reference and for pronoun game, as you all say, it seems surprising to me that it'd only come to be used of specific people later (21st century) than "neopronouns", so I'm wondering what the earliest uses of they as someone's pronoun are, if any references keep track (sometimes dictionaries try to find the earliest cites) or if we can find early books where someone gives their own pronouns as they/them, etc. -sche (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think I get your point. The answers are all about singular they being used in situations where you are not specifying whether the person is a he or a she. But you are actually asking about situations where you are specifying that the person is neither a he nor a she. I don't think that usage could have occured much before the late 1990s at the earliest, and not to any great degree for another decade after that (as AnonMoos suggested). --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for your question about they vs neopronouns, I don't find it surprising. Using they for a specific person of a specific gender (even if that gender is not "male" or "female") comes across as a little off-putting to many people. It can seem to deny the individuality (both numerically and identity-wise), so there would be a desire for a true parallel to "he" and "she". Unfortunately, there were multiple options advanced (ve, xe, ze, etc) and none took hold in widespread usage. Which would leave singular they as the fall back ("Well, if no one can agree on a new term, we'll just expand the usage of an older one"). --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you speak Hindi?

I'm going to India and to avoid harassment by crooks I have to learn how to say in Hindi "I don't speak English". Now, according to Google Translate the sentence is: मैं अंग्रेज़ी नहीं बोलती हूँ - Is this the correct sentence? 147.236.232.254 (talk) 06:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are you going to do if the next thing they say is the Hindi expression for, "Give me your wallet"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a tourist. If I don't speak English I don't speak Hindi as well. 147.236.232.254 (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What country will you pretend to be from? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm living in a tiny tiny village 100 km from Dudinka, north Siberia. 147.236.232.254 (talk) 06:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already found it. [1] 147.236.232.254 (talk) 08:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you answer in Hindi, the mugger will think you speak Hindi. If you answer in Russian, he might leave you alone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or if they'd pick up a knife and a gun, you might respond with a puzzled look on your face as in -"Now, what is that peculiar utensil?" 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A good expression to retain after the robber has stabbed or shot the victim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 15:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I would say, speculating a bit... in India, generally speaking, the risk to get mugged in the streets isn't that big at all. In urban/touristic areas it's much more likely that your belongings would be stolen without out you noticing. So you'd rather pratice your language skills for filing a case for your insurance at the local police office. Moreover, reading "मैं अंग्रेज़ी नहीं बोलती हूँ" out loud would just sound weird and theatrical. Better just say "angrezi bol nehi nehi". Your mugger is unlikely to be a grammar pedant. --Soman (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Royal game

My Google-fu has failed me. I'm struggling to find references/sources/meaning for the phrase "royal game". I may have it all wrong but the meaning I recall is something that is untouchable/off limits/not done. My recollection is that it originated in England and that deer (and possibly other animals) were the exclusive property of the king no matter where they were. Hunting/killing "royal game" by commoners was punishable by death. Later it became idiomatic. For example:

Me: Hey dude! Check out that beautiful woman. I think I'll ask her out. Friend: Forget it. She's royal game.

Have I totally got it wrong? This question was inspired by the post above. When I traveled in certain countries I experienced 2 extremes. In some places tourists are regarded as "royal game" and the locals would not hassle you in any way for fear of the wrath of the authorities. Other places you're "fair game". 41.23.55.195 (talk) 13:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems well-attested [2]. 2A00:23C3:F780:EC01:945:BF17:9FE0:1DC6 (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK there are royal fish, and even Royal Swans (see also Swan upping), but I have never heard of animal species reserved to the British sovereign, and Hunting and shooting in the United Kingdom makes no mention of such. Other realms' mileage may vary.

You may be thinking of the heinous crime of hunting in the Royal forests, where ancient and complex laws governed which animals could be hunted and which actions (including collecting firewood) were permitted. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 20:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Verbarson -- Royal and aristocratic deer parks were well known in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, but most of them disappeared in the English Civil War of the 17th century, when their royal and noble owners could no longer protect them from the hatred that rural commoners had toward them. After that, upper-class hunters changed their main target from deer to foxes. We have an article Deer park (England), but it's quite odd that it seems to obfuscate why most of them disappeared (attributing it to changing upper class fashions)... AnonMoos (talk) 04:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

fuþorglbasm

What is the etymology of the wonderful Old Norse word fuþorglbasm? (Warning before you google: NSFW). Thanks The Great Zaganza (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be some sort of compound word, where I don't think there's any undisputed interpretation. This paper by Tommy Kuusela proposes that the first part should be read "fuð-ǫrg" where fuð means cunt and ǫrg is the feminine form of argr which means something like transgressively effeminate. It's unclear what that would correspond to in a female context. Kuusela would think it would mean something like slutty, whereas I'd guess it would rather be something like butchy. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One hypothesis is that the word would mean "nymphomaniac", and that it has been written down by a woman or queer man as sex magic. James E. Knirk, Carita Holm. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this word occurs on a line of its own, on the reverse of a stick with the line felleg er fuþ sin bylli.^[3] There appears to be a stick in which this line, with the variant spelling byrli, is accompanied by the shorter word fuðorg.^[4] I have seen no attempt at explaining the remaining part -lbasm, and one wonders if the transcription is correct. This is supposed to be an image; its quality is low, but it seems to me that the final rune is unambiguously a ᛉ (z). --Lambiam 08:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see now the inscription is in Younger Futhark, so the final rune is a ᛘ (m). --Lambiam 09:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]