Minor things that bother you

[CoreySamson]

I really dislike the use of the word "they" as a personal, gender-neutral, singular pronoun. It messes up grammar and causes confusion when used as such. I wish English had a better one than "it", which is not appropriate when referring to humans. I like using "he/she", but I would be fine with creating a new term for the idea (such as "che" or "zhe", dunno, just spitballing here), or even just using "he" as a gender-neutral pronoun (probably the best option).

I have to start saying "y'all" (shudder even typing that) instead of saying "you guys" for the simple fact that a gendered term is in the saying. There is no chance 'he' will ever become gender-neutral when 'they' does the job far better.

We are moving quickly towards a society where people are referred to as specifically as possible ('he' or 'she' if absolutely certain), or a term without any gendering ('they'). I really don't see why this is problematic.

Just to be clear, "they" is fine in certain situations, like this sentence:

"If someone is a NIMBY, then they are a freeway-hater."

I have no problem with "they" being used when referring to a vague pronoun like "someone", as it could mean either one person or many (although I would prefer "he/she" in this sentence). What I do have a problem with is when it's used like this:

"Jordan is a NIMBY, therefore they are a freeway-hater."

Jordan is not plural is this scenario (as evidenced by the word "is" immediately after it), so the subject and the linking verb in the sentence do not agree, as "are" is a plural linking verb. Now plug in "che" or "he/she" into the sentence instead, and suddenly the sentence's syntax actually agrees with itself. Using "they" instead brings confusion (is Jordan more than one person? Was there some other person named in a previous sentence that also is a freeway hater? Was there a typo?)), and quite frankly, looks sloppy. Sorry if I'm being a grammar Nazi.

And jakeroot and kkt, how do y'all feel about Spanish? The gender-neutral term for "they" in Spanish is "ellos", which is a masculine pronoun. I could name several other Spanish words that also follow that pattern.

[jakeroot]

You're making up rules. "They" can be used both in singular and plural syntax.

Does it sound amazing? No, but it's correct.

[DTComposer]

Language is a fluid, ever-evolving construct; it always has been and always will be a reflection of the society in which it is used. At the end of the day, if there is comprehension and context, then the language has done its job.

Sorry if I'm being a grammar Nazi.

And yet you use the phrase "if someone is a NIMBY." NIMBY did not originate as a noun; it is an acronym for a phrase that has evolved to be used as a noun. Language evolves. Each individual can have their preferred level of formality or floridity, but no individual gets to be a linguistic gatekeeper.

[tolbs17]

666

[CoreySamson]

Language is a fluid, ever-evolving construct; it always has been and always will be a reflection of the society in which it is used. At the end of the day, if there is comprehension and context, then the language has done its job.

Sorry if I'm being a grammar Nazi.

And yet you use the phrase "if someone is a NIMBY." NIMBY did not originate as a noun; it is an acronym for a phrase that has evolved to be used as a noun. Language evolves. Each individual can have their preferred level of formality or floridity, but no individual gets to be a linguistic gatekeeper.

That is very true. After all, this is the "Minor things that bother you" thread, not the "Minor things that bother everyone" thread. Everyone has their own opinions, and what bothers me may not bother you.

[kevinb1994]

666

I guess some of us are on the highway to hell

[Big John]

I really dislike the use of the word "they" as a personal, gender-neutral, singular pronoun. It messes up grammar and causes confusion when used as such. I wish English had a better one than "it", which is not appropriate when referring to humans. I like using "he/she", but I would be fine with creating a new term for the idea (such as "che" or "zhe", dunno, just spitballing here), or even just using "he" as a gender-neutral pronoun (probably the best option).

I have to start saying "y'all" (shudder even typing that) instead of saying "you guys" for the simple fact that a gendered term is in the saying. There is no chance 'he' will ever become gender-neutral when 'they' does the job far better.

We are moving quickly towards a society where people are referred to as specifically as possible ('he' or 'she' if absolutely certain), or a term without any gendering ('they'). I really don't see why this is problematic.

Just to be clear, "they" is fine in certain situations, like this sentence:

"If someone is a NIMBY, then they are a freeway-hater."

I have no problem with "they" being used when referring to a vague pronoun like "someone", as it could mean either one person or many (although I would prefer "he/she" in this sentence). What I do have a problem with is when it's used like this:

"Jordan is a NIMBY, therefore they are a freeway-hater."

Jordan is not plural is this scenario (as evidenced by the word "is" immediately after it), so the subject and the linking verb in the sentence do not agree, as "are" is a plural linking verb. Now plug in "che" or "he/she" into the sentence instead, and suddenly the sentence's syntax actually agrees with itself. Using "they" instead brings confusion (is Jordan more than one person? Was there some other person named in a previous sentence that also is a freeway hater? Was there a typo?)), and quite frankly, looks sloppy. Sorry if I'm being a grammar Nazi.

And jakeroot and kkt, how do y'all feel about Spanish? The gender-neutral term for "they" in Spanish is "ellos", which is a masculine pronoun. I could name several other Spanish words that also follow that pattern.

FYI, a NIMBY is not necessarily a freeway hater.  They just don't want it going through their backyard. A BANANA is a hater of all freeways.

[Scott5114]

I have no problem with "they" being used when referring to a vague pronoun like "someone", as it could mean either one person or many (although I would prefer "he/she" in this sentence). What I do have a problem with is when it's used like this:

"Jordan is a NIMBY, therefore they are a freeway-hater."

Jordan is not plural is this scenario (as evidenced by the word "is" immediately after it), so the subject and the linking verb in the sentence do not agree, as "are" is a plural linking verb. Now plug in "che" or "he/she" into the sentence instead, and suddenly the sentence's syntax actually agrees with itself. Using "they" instead brings confusion (is Jordan more than one person? Was there some other person named in a previous sentence that also is a freeway hater? Was there a typo?)), and quite frankly, looks sloppy. Sorry if I'm being a grammar Nazi.

So what if, in this example, Jordan does not particularly feel male or female, and has asked everyone to refer to them with "they/them" pronouns? Or what if Jordan is male and gets really upset when they're referred to as female, but we don't know them well enough to know which they are? Are we to say "nah, sentence syntax is more important to me than you being happy and comfortable?" If so, you've got some messed up priorities, because Jordan is a sentient person with feelings, and whether its syntax is correct a sentence care less could not.

If it bothers you that much, say "Jordan is a NIMBY, therefore they is a freeway-hater." Congrats, now everything matches lexically with the role it's playing in the sentence. "But 'they' is plural so–" Yeah, like English doesn't have any other words where the plural and the singular are the same word. Take some time to look over data on moose.

Intelligence comes from learning what they teach you in school, wisdom comes from knowing when it's appropriate to apply it and when it's not.

[hotdogPi]

Jordan is a country.

[J N Winkler]

The real problem with using they with singular meaning is a matter of sociolinguistics.  Despite being attested to as far back as the 14th century, it isn't universally considered part of the Ausbausprache we refer to as "formal" or "standard" English.

These days, I tend to pluralize constructions to avoid using they as a singular pronoun, he as an (implicitly genderless) universal pronoun, or he or she (considered excluding of persons of nonbinary gender).

[GaryV]

If "they" is used as a singular pronoun, why do we use plural verbs with it?  For one person the sentence should read, "They is going home."  For 2 or more people, "They are going home."

[Scott5114]

If "they" is used as a singular pronoun, why do we use plural verbs with it?  For one person the sentence should read, "They is going home."  For 2 or more people, "They are going home."

Probably just because we've been trained through repetition to always follow "they" with a plural verb, such that "they is" feels incorrect. If enough people were to use the "they is" construction, it wouldn't seem strange and wrong.

The real problem with using they with singular meaning is a matter of sociolinguistics.  Despite being attested to as far back as the 14th century, it isn't universally considered part of the Ausbausprache we refer to as "formal" or "standard" English.

Well, Ausbausprache isn't standard English either.

When I was younger I was a lot more rigid regarding proper English, and prided myself on always following standard English rules. Then I befriended a descriptivist linguist, who opened my mind to the idea that language is a social construct, the rules of standard English are not universal Rules of the Universe handed down from on high on some sort of scroll or something, and that it is really the people speaking the language that decide how it is to be spoken, not a teacher in a classroom, a textbook editor, or tweed-jacket academic.

Because when you get down to it, any time someone prescribes rules for the behavior of a group of people, it is done for the benefit of someone, and often times the person making the rules has an incentive to bend the rules so that it is to their benefit.  Establishing unnatural grammar rules that do not follow usage on the ground is a brilliant way to divide the "haves" from the "have nots". If these rules are promulgated as part of basic education, it becomes trivial to pick out those that did not receive that education, because they write and speak differently than everyone else. Now, find a way to limit the ability of people you don't like to receive that education, perhaps by charging more money for it than they can afford . . .

[texaskdog]

People that make names out of the first letter of words to spell something out but skip words.  Past Leaders United in Service is "PLUIS" not "PLUS"

[Takumi]

Jordan is a country.

Jordan is also a unisex name, so someone who does not know the gender of a specific Jordan somehow could use Jordan they/them as a precaution.

Edit: I was drunk

[1995hoo]

I suppose this could be considered minor or major:

Gas stations that only display the price for the lowest-octane grade of gas, or for that grade and diesel. Display all three grades, dammit! Unless I know a given station usually charges less than the others nearby, or unless I'm stopped at a red light and I have time to look at the GasBuddy app, I'll pick a station that shows the price for 93 octane over one that doesn't simply because I know prior to pulling in what price I'll see.

[kurumi]

I really dislike the use of the word "they" as a personal, gender-neutral, singular pronoun. It messes up grammar and causes confusion when used as such. I wish English had a better one than "it", which is not appropriate when referring to humans. I like using "he/she", but I would be fine with creating a new term for the idea (such as "che" or "zhe", dunno, just spitballing here), or even just using "he" as a gender-neutral pronoun (probably the best option).

I have to start saying "y'all" (shudder even typing that) instead of saying "you guys" for the simple fact that a gendered term is in the saying. There is no chance 'he' will ever become gender-neutral when 'they' does the job far better.

We are moving quickly towards a society where people are referred to as specifically as possible ('he' or 'she' if absolutely certain), or a term without any gendering ('they'). I really don't see why this is problematic.

We were discussing this in person a short time ago, where Texas was ahead of the rest of the country on this issue :-)

[jakeroot]

I have to start saying "y'all" (shudder even typing that) instead of saying "you guys" for the simple fact that a gendered term is in the saying.

We were discussing this in person a short time ago, where Texas was ahead of the rest of the country on this issue :-)

Credit where credit's due!

With that: a minor thing that bothers me: having to say "y'all" now

[sparker]

FYI, a NIMBY is not necessarily a freeway hater.  They just don't want it going through their backyard. A BANANA is a hater of all freeways.

A bit of an ecological fallacy here.  A BANANA, by definition (the first letter of the acronym stands for "build") wants to see nothing constructed; this includes but isn't limited to freeways/Interstates.  And while any number of BANANAS may also be RE/T enthusiasts, it can't be definitively stated that all BANANAS want to see teardowns in general.  So they aren't specifically freeway "haters"; their opposition is directed at freeways planned but not yet constructed.

Intelligence comes from learning what they teach you in school, wisdom comes from knowing when it's appropriate to apply it and when it's not.

Hate to burst a bubble here, but intelligence has nothing to do with taught subjects and how well they were learned/absorbed.  Intelligence, in a practical sense, is the ability to analyze one's environment -- which may or may not include items gleaned from formal education -- determine what is relevant and what is not, and apply it to the situations one encounters.  Separating the real from the wishful and/or manufactured is more often than not part of that process (and that includes parsing out the "separate realities" so often posited these days).  Stanford-Benet, the folks who have administered various forms of "IQ" tests over the past century, have always endeavored (but not always successfully) to differentiate innate human intelligence from accumulated learning; this encompasses resource (and privilege!) differences between groups of test subjects due to the differing bounded rationalities endemic to the lives and/or daily routines of those subjects.   

[Scott5114]

Intelligence comes from learning what they teach you in school, wisdom comes from knowing when it's appropriate to apply it and when it's not.

Hate to burst a bubble here, but intelligence has nothing to do with taught subjects and how well they were learned/absorbed.  Intelligence, in a practical sense, is the ability to analyze one's environment -- which may or may not include items gleaned from formal education -- determine what is relevant and what is not, and apply it to the situations one encounters.  Separating the real from the wishful and/or manufactured is more often than not part of that process (and that includes parsing out the "separate realities" so often posited these days).  Stanford-Benet, the folks who have administered various forms of "IQ" tests over the past century, have always endeavored (but not always successfully) to differentiate innate human intelligence from accumulated learning; this encompasses resource (and privilege!) differences between groups of test subjects due to the differing bounded rationalities endemic to the lives and/or daily routines of those subjects.   

Intelligence = knowing all of that
Wisdom = knowing it's not really relevant to the point I was making

[sparker]

Intelligence comes from learning what they teach you in school, wisdom comes from knowing when it's appropriate to apply it and when it's not.

Hate to burst a bubble here, but intelligence has nothing to do with taught subjects and how well they were learned/absorbed.  Intelligence, in a practical sense, is the ability to analyze one's environment -- which may or may not include items gleaned from formal education -- determine what is relevant and what is not, and apply it to the situations one encounters.  Separating the real from the wishful and/or manufactured is more often than not part of that process (and that includes parsing out the "separate realities" so often posited these days).  Stanford-Benet, the folks who have administered various forms of "IQ" tests over the past century, have always endeavored (but not always successfully) to differentiate innate human intelligence from accumulated learning; this encompasses resource (and privilege!) differences between groups of test subjects due to the differing bounded rationalities endemic to the lives and/or daily routines of those subjects.   

Intelligence = knowing all of that
Wisdom = knowing it's not really relevant to the point I was making

Actually -- since employment of lexicon is often inexorably linked to "separate realities" (I'd need more than my usual few paragraphs to parse that one out), it addresses at least a recurring factor within the lexicon, and the ensuing discussions thereof.  Basically, it points those discussions backward to ascertain how what is learned/absorbed within a specific group or set of circumstances differs from that taken in from elsewhere.  That applies to lexicon; until a usage becomes commonplace enough to be applied by disparate groups over an extended time frame, it is often considered an anomaly or break from an established norm and, depending upon the bounded rationality employed by any of those groups, potentially a point of contention or argument. 

[Scott5114]

Spelling it out more explicitly, since now I'm starting to think my point wasn't clear–it's all well and good to know what the rules of standard English are. It is a good idea to not embrace those rules so rigidly that you make a boor out of yourself by refusing to deviate from them for the sake of being polite to your conversational partner.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Two road annoyances: when you stop for someone at a crosswalk and they walk unnecessarily slowly across, especially if they don't wave; and when a biker bikes in the road when there is a parallel bike path- not a sidewalk, but signed, paved bike route- that they could be using. I'm in favor of more bike paths, so not using them after they've been built gets to me.

Pedestrians in general.

1. Those who see you coming, close enough where they can't safely cross in front of you; they take a bunny hop into the street to try to force you to have to stop for them.

2. People who start crossing on on a red light or other time when they are prohibited from doing so, then lollygag their way across the street when you have the right of way.

[jakeroot]

I particularly like it when I'm crossing on a walk sign and almost get run over by someone turning left on a solid green, and then almost get run over again by someone turning right on red.

Oh wait, what thread is this?

[texaskdog]

At the grocery store, when the old lady in front of me in line (it's always an old lady) has a bill of $9.48, and after peeling the five and four ones off her stack, goes digging through her coin purse until she finds exactly 48 cents.

The word "trickeration" used by football announcers.

having worked in a drive-thru for a long time...

'hey, i just want to get rid of some pennies...

well, what makes you think i want them?

Once I was at Subway, not a tipping business.  I always threw the coins in their tip jar whatever it was, without thinking.  One time it was a penny and the guy went off on me and insisted I take it back.

[texaskdog]

I really dislike the use of the word "they" as a personal, gender-neutral, singular pronoun. It messes up grammar and causes confusion when used as such. I wish English had a better one than "it", which is not appropriate when referring to humans. I like using "he/she", but I would be fine with creating a new term for the idea (such as "che" or "zhe", dunno, just spitballing here), or even just using "he" as a gender-neutral pronoun (probably the best option).

Correct it is plural.  At least in German you have "der" "die" or "das"