ALT TEXT:

  • Panel 1: A person with the text “Singular ‘they’” written on them smiling with open arms.
  • Panel 2: “Singular ‘They’” beaten up by others who said, “Singular they is ungrammatical. It’s too confusing,” “How can anyone use plural pronouns for singular,” and “Every pronoun should only have one purpose.”
  • Panel 3: “You” hiding from the mob who was beating “Singular ‘They’”
  • Panel 4: “German ‘Sie’” hiding with even more fear next to “You”
  • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I have normally used “they, their and them” when referring to a singular person for about twenty years because I thought that “he/she” and “his/hers” looked ridiculous in emails.

    For example; “Next time the engineer feels like he/she needs to overhaul the code…” versus “Next time the engineer feels like they need to overhaul the code…”. Clean and simple.

    Example of current use:

    Bob - “Hey Jo, Frank thinks we should tweak widget X.”

    Me - “Yeah well, they don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about.”

    I don’t think that sounds weird.

    • BitSound@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Lots of people talk past each other on this. Singular they to refer to a known single person is an invention of the last few years and is the thing that a lot of people are up in arms about. It gets confused with the centuries-old usage of using it to refer to an unknown or undetermined person. Your first example is in line with the latter, and your second example is the new usage. TBH I’d be confused by your second example. Is Frank part of some larger group that doesn’t know what they’re talking about? Or is it only Frank that doesn’t know what he’s talking about?

        • BitSound@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Your confusion here is exactly what I’m trying to clear up. We know the gender of the person in the Shakespeare quote you linked to (“man”), but nothing else. It’s a placeholder term that doesn’t refer to a specific, known individual. Shakespeare never said anything like “Here’s Frank, they’re a cool guy”, that would be considered ungrammatical until a few years ago.

          • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Just here to support: English is a constantly evolving language. By way of example, historically, the word jealous has been that you’re afraid of someone taking something from you, like a relationship, it’s something you have, that you may lose due to someone’s influence. The term for wanting what someone else has, is envy. If someone has something you want, you are envious of them. But if you go find the definition for jealousy, it now includes that you want something someone else has, because people have conflated the word jealous with the definition of envy. What happened is that the definition of jealous changed. IMO, I’m not a fan of that one specifically, since we already have a word for envy, but it speaks to my point.

            The language adapts to the common usage. Historically, they/them has been used as indirect singular/plural. The change that’s happening now, is that they/them is being used as direct and indirect singular/plural. In the past, the only direct singular for an individual has been he/she/you. There was no direct singular ungendered term, besides “you”, which is only applicable when the subject is the listener. Adding they/them to that is logical, the only alternative I see is to use a brand new word, one likely adapted from another language that already carries that singular and direct meaning. Authoring a new word for something like this isn’t new to English either, since many English words have roots in other languages, which is why grammar rules seem to have (and often do have) more exceptions than anything (like i before e, except after c, or congugating a word with “er” or something similar).

            I’m personally a fan of adapting they/them to be direct singular, on top of it’s current use. While it’s uncomfortable for some to use they/them in this manner, myself included, is rather make myself uncomfortable by using that, then make non-binary persons uncomfortable by using pronouns that make them uncomfortable. Besides, the definition of they/them is so close already, that this is a minor adjustment at most. It’s barely an inconvenience.

            • BitSound@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sure, that’s a great discussion to have, and I’m glad you spelled it out well. I just dislike people trying to claim that using “they” to refer to a specific, known individual is “nothing new because Shakespeare did it”. He didn’t, and it muddies the waters of the conversation to spread falsehoods like that.

        • BitSound@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          A few years is a loose term, but it was certainly not in use by Shakespeare, unlike what people try to claim.

      • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        To be clear, this example, where the singular they is used for a person of any gender, is confusing to you.

        Example of current use:

        Bob - “Hey Jo, Frank thinks we should tweak widget X.”

        Me - “Yeah well, they don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about.”

        Is Frank part of some larger group that doesn’t know what they’re talking about? Or is it only Frank that doesn’t know what he’s talking about?

        Based on the above questions, the confusion is about attempting to identify if the singular they or plural they is being used.

        But these variants with a person with an ungendered name or description are fine. Example with ungendered name:

        Bob - “Hey Jo, Kelly thinks we should tweak widget X.”

        Me - “Yeah well, they don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about.”

        Example with ungendered description:

        Bob - “Hey Jo, the engineer thinks we should tweak widget X.”

        Me - “Yeah well, they don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about.”

        If that is true, that the second and third examples are not confusing, then determining whether the singular they or the plural they is being used is not the source of the confusion. As in all three examples, we have a person who was previously referenced excluding the possibility of the plural they. In the first example Frank, in the second Kelly, and the third the engineer. All that has changed in the first example is that the singular they has no restrictions based on name or description. If that grammatical distinction is the source of the confusion, so be it, but let’s be clear on what the confusion is.

        Source I used to unpick this, specifically the first table in section 3: https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/id/5288/

        • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The root of the problem is that it’s an indirect reference to an individual. They/them is commonly (until very recently) referring to a party (singular or plural) that isn’t present. When you use it as a direct reference to someone who is present, most people feel like it’s incorrect because of the common usage of the term being indirect.

          When speaking to someone about Joe: “Joe doesn’t know what they’re talking about” While directly: “Joe, you don’t know what you’re talking about”

          Both are correct, and possibly the most correct forms of the statements. Substitute Joe for whatever name and it still works. Meanwhile, it’s uncommon, in Joe’s presence, when not taking to Joe, to refer to (assuming Joe is using gendered pronouns) him as a he/him. “Joe doesn’t know what he’s talking about”

          Both cases are singular, but the difference of Joe being there changes “they” to “he”, and not taking directly to Joe changes “you” to “he”.

          The problem isn’t plural vs singular, the problem is direct vs indirect reference.

    • 🐝bownage [they/he]@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I honestly have never understood why people take the effort to write he/she instead of singular they? Like it’s 2 words instead of 1, why bother? Even in academic articles which typically have word count limits lol

      • abraxas@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Not an expert, but I’ve followed the growth of this word a little on-and-off.

        Disambiguity can be important in a language. But it’s complicated. Many times we use “he”, “she”, or “he/she”, gender is not required. Back in the 1800’s, the standard was to use “he” when gender was uncertain, unimportant, or ambiguous to a conversation. Obviously it had to do with the presumed defaultness of the male gender.

        For a while, people toyed with “it” or “which”. Honestly, my personal feeling is that it was the way insult could easily be taken (or given) with “it” that it died out.

        “They” probably should not be used in cases a less ambiguous word is more appropriate… But that’s when the bigots come out. In most cases, the most appropriate word to reference a person is that person’s preferred pronoun if you know it, even if it’s a genderfluid pronoun. Why? It’s significantly more descriptive than “him” or “her”. But these same people who consider “they” too general would break down to acknowledge any person having a gender identity different from their birth sex (and probably their genital birth sex for intersex folks, at that).

        What all the offense is REALLY about is that they want to pretend some people are fiction, or subhuman. I think “it” would settle well with those folks. Which is why I’m glad that isn’t a default.

    • DharkStare@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Singular they sometimes works and sometimes it sounds odd. It usually sounds off when used by itself without following something explicitly singular.

      “The customer forgot their wallet. Can you bring it to them?” sounds correct but if you just do

      “They forgot to pay their bill” it sounds like you’re referring to multiple people instead of a singular person.

      Edit: Changed to a better example.

      • Neato@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        “They left their wallet on the table” it sounds like you’re referring to multiple people instead of a singular person.

        Does it? If multiple people left multiple wallets on the table, it would be, “They left their wallets on the table.” Multiple people can’t really leave a single wallet behind. Or at least that would be very unusual and unintuitive.

          • variants@possumpat.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            “They forgot to pay their bill” it sounds like you’re referring to multiple people instead of a singular person.

            This sounds normal to me, how else would you word it?

            • DharkStare@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              If it was a singular customer, I would say “He forgot to pay his bill” (or she/her depending on the gender).

    • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yep. Using “they” and “them” as singular pronouns is actually really common, but in it’s (until very recently) common usage, it’s usually an indirect singular pronoun, rather than a direct one.

      I’m no linguist, so my terms may be a bit off, but when referring to a single person, or multiple people indirectly (without them involved in the conversation directly and/or, not talking directly to them). So for example, Joe went to fix the thing, and someone asks if the thing is being worked on… Yeah, Joe is on it, they will get it fixed.

      That’s normal.

      The pinch for most people, that they can’t seem to grasp, is that many seem to believe, whether they consciously realize it or not, that referring to someone as a “they” or a “them” directly is usually considered … For lack of a better term, rude. In the same vein as calling someone by their name but getting their name wrong. It’s impersonal which comes off, in their mind as insulting.

      I’ll give you an example, Frank just did a stupid. While standing in a group with Joe and Frank, Joe says, “then they decided to do the stupid.”

      Same with “they did it!” While accusing a singular individual.

      The reason people don’t like calling someone “they” and “them” is because on some level, they realize that the language is either dismissive or accusatory of the individual in question. Akin to calling someone stupid or using an undesirable nickname for someone, like referring to them by their race, or doing so via a racial slur; this example is a bit extreme, but you get the idea.

      There’s an absolute fuckload of examples of using they/them as singular pronouns, but people are still uncomfortable with it, often feeling like it’s wrong to refer to someone like that without really understanding why; and because they don’t understand why, they’ll never intellectually move past the taboo of it.

      Non-binary people have reclaimed the word as their own, and have asked the rest of us who are comfortable with our gendered pronouns, to use these words as their pronouns. So while it feels wrong/insulting to do it, it’s actually insulting not to.

      • Fakeaccount12312@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        In German, the whole thing is another level worse because we don’t have something such as the sigular they, since our 3rd person plural is already a third person singular pronoun too, the female one, so enbies either use custom neopronouns or the third person neutrum, in English that would be “it”. And “it” is only used tor refer to objects, animals or monsters usually, so it feels like a whole other level of disrepect. I wish we had something as easy as the singular they. The latter is usually disrespectful but the former is usually dehumanizing and not even used for people you like, but only people you see as subhuman.

        If you think gender neutrality in English is bad you should see other languages. Know steward/stewardess? In German almost every single profession is gendered like that. The solutions are constructs such as steward or stewardess, steward/ess, steward*ess, steward:ess (my favourite), stewardEss, steward_ess, the stewarding, and more. They aren’t standardised. Oh and did I mention all singular pronouns are gendered, so its actually the steward or the stewardess, the/the(f) steward/-ess, …?

        Not to mention this applies to plural froms too, historyically the male form was used for mixed and all-male groups, and the female one for female-only ones, but in many cases that leads to people only picturing the male version, especially in historically male fields. Same for the singular version when the gender is unspecified. And these versions still dont include nonbinary persons, or those who use neopronouns here. The latter aren’t much of a thing here, you are pressed to have anything gender neutral in language.

        All of this doesn’t improve readability, “Liebe Mitbürger” (fellow citizens) becomes “Liebe Mitbürger und Mitbürgerinnen, und auch alle anderen” (dear citizens and citizens(f), and all the others too); “Der Fahrer bremst sein Fahrzeug” (the driver slows down his vehicle) becomes “Der/Die Fahrer/in bremst sein/ihr Fahrzeug” (the/the(f) driver/ess brakes his/her vehicle); “die Wissenschaftler befrageten Taxi- und Busfahrer. Jede einzelne Teilnehmer” (the scientists surveyed taxi and bus drivers. Every single participant) becomes “die Wissenschaftlerinnen befragten Taxi- und Busfahrerinnen. Jeder einzelne Teilnehmerin” (the scinetistesses surveyed taxi and bus driveresses. Every*(m) single participant*ess).

        German schools try to avoid having to write out “Schüler und Schülerinnen” (students and studentesses) by abbreviating it to SuS, but that has its own issues as you can guess, Among Us was very popular here in Germany too, every student knows memes, and often hangs in online spaces. The teacher equivalent would be LuL, they didn’t even attempt that one. Can sound funny but is reality here, sadly until a few decades pass at least, if not much more. This is hard to change. And many hang onto the language, I love it too, more than English since its my own I think in still, I read books in etc. This will need a lot of energy to change somewhere reasonable. And it makes texts much longer in German compared to English, as it wasn’t egregious enough already, “the vehicle owners” ( as used in legal documents/law ) becomes "Der/Die Kraftfahrzeugeigentümer*innnen " . This is not very readable at all, especially to foreigners, and fucks up submenus in programs as well as a lot of other formatting. We can’t even dream of integrating nonbinary people into these expressions too at the moment yet now here, it is insanely compliated to get somewhere.

        Its an absolute shitfest. English they/them is a piece of cake against that, and the poeple who still cry that much about it are oversensitive whiny bitches. In Germany they at least have some practical justifications, albeit I think the use outweighs the downsides, but I see some points. I will continue to use these so-called “gendered” expressions, and they are now recommended for scientific publications, but there is a whole culture war about that, and applying it to spoken language is a whole different level. Don’t get me started on dialects. The entire issue is so much fucked here - the gender-neutrality is what I love about English. Its one of its big adavantages. Cherish what you have already out there, its not a given. You are lucky for that situation. Be thankful for it. It is a great help.

        • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Wow, that’s crazy. I can certainly empathize with you, though I can’t really understand how intense that struggle clearly must be.

          I don’t have much more to say on that, so I’ll leave you with my best wishes.

  • Solivine@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I just don’t get it, even before being aware of pronouns and such I used singular they all the time, e.g. “That’s what they did” (referring to one person) or “They’re thinking that aren’t they?”

    • The Cuuuuube@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Welcome to outrage politics. People decide to bring a common language feature back or into the mainstream and so the outrage gang has to get outraged

    • Neato@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s because there isn’t actually confusion about this. This is transphobes making up something to be angry and confused about in order to rope in the ignorant to harass trans people. It’s not acceptable to say “trans people are bad, we should ostracize them” currently. So transphobes find something that could be confusing (nonbinary people using they/them) and convince ignorant people (people who don’t know much about trans people and/or have no opinion) that it’s confusing and wrong and people should “correct” them. Then you get ignorant people saying things like “they isn’t singular” or “I can’t get used to they/them and don’t like using it.” This creates a continuous debate on if trans people deserve to self-identify and generates constant micro-aggressions (or just full aggressions) against their entire community.

      It’s really just a way for transphobes to create a hostile environment for trans people over literally nothing.

  • Pengui@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    What even is “singular they”?? First time hearing of this. Is it some pseudo gender thing promoted by the lgbtqia+ communities?

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s using they to refer to a single person. Some people think it’s only supposed to be used for a group, but that’s completely wrong. It’s been used to refer to singular people since at least Shakespeare, if not longer. For example: “if some_one_ tells you they is singular, they are mindlessly consuming right wing media and not considering if it’s actually correct.”

    • Sekoia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      … you’ve not heard of singular they, a pronoun used in english by Shakespear himself, that existed before singular you?

      “Oh, somebody forgot their jacket” has existed since forever.

  • yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    So, to explain the German „sie/Sie“, it can be used as one of the following:

    • formal version of both singular and plural you: used whenever you have or want to maintain a distance from someone, or with persons who demand respect/authority. Generally speaking, whenever you would say Mr/Mrs/Ms it’s „Sie“, if you’re on first name terms it’s „Du“. Fun fact: addressing an LEO, judge, etc. informally („Du“) is considered an insult, insulting someone is a misdemeanour (not kidding) in Germany, and you will usually be fined on the spot for doing so.

    • Used to reference a woman/girl who has been mentioned before: What about Sally, is she coming today?

    • Same as above but for inanimate objects or animals that are gendered female: Have you seen my camera, I have misplaced her. Look at the cat, she’s so cute. (In this case it’s a cat of either female or unknown gender, if you were talking about a male cat specifically, you’d use the male version of „cat“…)

    • Same as above, but for all groups of people, animals, objects, regardless of gender, like plural they: Look at the guys/nuns/politicians/cats/helicopters, they’re drunk as fuck!

    Great language, isn’t it.

  • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I hate English, it’s also the only language I’m fluent in, so it’s a love/hate relationship.

    The disconnect that most people mistake here is between direct and indirect pronouns. Until recently, they/them has been used indirectly, to refer to someone who isn’t present. To use it while they’re present is uncomfortable for many not because it’s supposed to be plural, but because it’s supposed to be indirect. The only time you would (previously) say they/them in the presence of the individual in question, is to disregard them. An effort to make them irrelevant, like, I care so little about you that I’m not even going to recognise your presence.

    They/them is very common as a singular pronoun. There’s a ton of good examples of it being used in this way in this thread.

    The thing I love/hate about English is that it adapts to how people use it, and right now, we’re adapting they/them to be direct singular, instead of exclusively indirect singular. Unfortunately everyone knows this on some level, and while many are crying about it being plural (not understanding why it makes them uncomfortable), while it’s definitely not, it is indirect, and the non-binary folks have asked us to use it as a direct singular for them (which I support).

    IMO, this is a change that can, and by all means, should happen.

    The hate of English for me is when perfectly good under-used terms have their definition applied to more commonly (albeit incorrectly) used words, a prime example of this is jealous. Historically it has meant: fiercely protective or vigilant of one’s rights or possessions. Which, when applied to a relationship, results in the other definition for jealousy: feeling or showing suspicion of someone’s unfaithfulness in a relationship. However, people have used jealous under it’s newest definition for a while now, which is: feeling or showing envy of someone or their achievements and advantages. Which as the definition clearly shows, it’s simply a showing of envy, or the act of being envious. The problem I have is that this legitimizes the incorrect use of the word, when we have another word that already means that… Envious. One word co-opting the definition of another is simply a demonstration of the lazy nature of English speakers. We would rather redefine the commonly, and incorrectly used term than learn and use the correct one.

    When it comes to they/them, there is no direct singular ungendered term for an individual besides “you”, which will always refer to the person being spoken to. So a new term, or a new definition of an existing term is required. Non-binary people seem to have unanimously agreed that the terms that they want to adapt for this purpose is they and them. I’m fully in support of this, and while it may be uncomfortable for people to adapt to this new usage, it’s something that should be done, and IMO, will be done.

    Alternatively, we could co-opt a new word, either entirely unique, or derived from another language, for the direct singular ungendered person. This would probably be more comfortable for the more cis-normative population, but bluntly, getting all of the non-binary people, or at least the majority of them, to agree to the use of the new word, whatever it is, would be challenging at the very least, and it may, in a worst case, be rather insulting to those who prefer they/them, who wouldn’t want to change that just to appease some gendered people who are uncomfortable with they/them. It’s a valid option, but not one that I believe is viable.

    On top of that, these are the pronouns they have chosen. As a matter of respect for your fellow humans, we should let the non-binary people choose the words that they would like to use for their pronouns. Something which they have already done, and those terms are they/them. If we, as a species, have any respect for eachother at all, we’ll respect that decision, and adapt, regardless of the temporary discomfort we may have about it in the interim.

    • power@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      People have been crying about language change in all languages since the dawn of speaking. You can look back to relatively recently with the Romans, they’d always complain about non-standard dialectal and colloquial speech and how the youth are ruining our language, or people from X geographical area are butchering Latin rather than using the standard dialect (Classical Latin).

      It’s no different today. People (upon political/cultural motivation) complain about using “they” as a gender-neutral singular pronoun, saying it’s confusing (even though we’ve used it as a singular pronoun for those of unknown gender since “they” was borrowed into English), but don’t bat an eye at “you” which was first a plural only (as opposed to singular “thou”) and then gradually shifted to a formal singular pronoun, then to just the only second person pronoun for both numbers. People also complain about pronunciations of words like nuclear, asks, comfortable, etc.

      The myth of mispronunciation is a plague upon human language.

      • samus12345@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not change itself that I hate, it’s when the change makes language less useful. Example, “literally” meaning its opposite, “figuratively,” through common misuse. “It was literally the million-dollar question” used to mean that it was a question that, if answered, would actually be worth a million dollars rather than figuratively meaning it was an important one to answer. Now it’s unclear.

        • power@thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Literally (ha) all linguists would disagree with you there. The word “literally” here has gone through the same evolution that EVERY WORD GOES THROUGH. EVERY WORD YOU SPEAK went through the same thing where you would call it “less clear” or “useless” or whatever.

          Language is always unclear. You do not have the same perception of words as someone else does. If we arbitrarily assigned some word uses as “useless” based on someone’s personal idea of what’s useful, we wouldn’t have language. A lot of people would call articles useless (words like “the” or “a/an”), a lot of people would call pronouns useless (I/you/they/etc.), a lot of people would call marked tense useless (no more past tense or future tense!). A lot of languages don’t have these features. English speakers might think grammatical case is useless. Why do you get to decide what’s useless or not? Why is using “literally” as something for emphasis useless to you, and why do you think it’s so objective that you should have the authority to remove that from the language?

            • power@thelemmy.club
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Of languages that don’t have articles? Russian, Japanese, pretty sure Arabic, a majority of synthetic languages have no articles.

              Japanese has no pronouns depending on what you consider a pronoun, pro-drop languages like Spanish or Italian don’t use subject pronouns except for emphasis.

              Chinese languages have no tense. Burmese, Malay, Indonesian, Thai, Vietnamese have no tense. Pirahã has only future tense. Japanese only has 2 tenses, one is past and one is combined present and future.

              Pirahã is also debated to have no number system and no names for colors.

              There’s plenty of features that people who speak a language think is necessary that plenty of other languages just don’t have. Languages are extraordinarily different and fluid. Word meanings shifting over time, in the case of “literally” where it starts meaning something very different is one of the most common, and gives you the words like “black” in English (which came from the same word that “white” in other languages like French or Spanish came from).

              • samus12345@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                No, examples of words that mean two opposite things at the same time, since you apparently said that every single word in existence has always been that way. “Bad” comes to mind, though it’s a lot easier to tell from context which meaning it has compared to “literally.”

                • Clacker@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Another non-english example would be the german word “umfahren” which can mean both driving around or over something, depending on context

  • DominicO@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    my language doesn’t have gendered pronouns so we just use “siya” for singular they and “sila” for plural.

    I’m curious what other languages specify if “they” is singular or plural and how?

      • DominicO@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I find it interesting how gendered German is. In contrast, in my language the default for a word is gender neutral. you have to state the gender if you want to specify it, and you only do that if the gender is relevant e.g. “the driver handed me my change” would be “inabot sakin ng tsuper yung sukli ko”, but if you said “inabot sakin ng babaeng tsuper yung sukli ko” which means “the female driver handed me my change” then that means the gender of the driver is of relevance to the conversation.

        an exception I can think of is spanish loanwords like “tindero/tindera” which is more commonly used to refer to shopkeepers and vendors here. we also use “ate/kuya”(sister/brother) when we talk to strangers e.g. “kuya alam nyo po kung saan yung pinakamalapit na sakayan ng dyip?” meaning “excuse me sir, do you know where the nearest jeepney terminal is?”.

        overall, I find it interesting to look into languages with different ways of using things that seem complicated to me. really makes me think what “foreigners” might think is complicated in my language that I take for granted.