The Innovative Usage Thread

[R.Rusanov]

Does English take complements of its copula in the objective or subjective case?

I.e., which is correct: That is he/That is him, The leader is who/The leader is whom ?

Indoeuropean languages tend to make copular complements nominative, but I dunno about english

[jal]

I.e., which is correct: That is he/That is him

Both are correct. People will probably look at you funny though when you say "that is he" (let alone "it is I"). See also here: .


JAL

[Yng]

the prescriptively correct case is the nominative, e.g. 'it is I!' but with pronouns the objective case is less marked in modern english imo. But 'whom' itself is marked and has kind of lost to a significant degree its case properties in favour of pretentiousness properties so you can probably use it wherever you want with the caveat that you'll sound a bit ridiculous, especially if you use it in nominative places?

[linguoboy]

St Peter hears the bell ring at the Pearly Gates.

"Who's there?" he asks.

"It is I!"

"Go to Hell!" he roars. "We already have enough English teachers up here."

[alynnidalar]

Does English take complements of its copula in the objective or subjective case?

I.e., which is correct: That is he/That is him, The leader is who/The leader is whom ?

Indoeuropean languages tend to make copular complements nominative, but I dunno about english

I was taught in grade school that the "correct" way would be "that is he", but it's totally unnatural to me, and I always would say "that is him" (or "that's him"). I never was taught to use whom in school and I don't use it in any context (even though I'm a recovering grammar nazi, I never actually figured out when you were "supposed" to use "whom"...), so I'd say "the leader is who?"

[linguoboy]

It occurred to me just now that with singular they becoming more acceptable in prose, it's probably only a matter of time before we start seeing new explicit plurals parallel to "y'all", "yous", "you guys", etc. but I don't recall hearing any. Anybody have some to report?

[Viktor77]

It occurred to me just now that with singular they becoming more acceptable in prose, it's probably only a matter of time before we start seeing new explicit plurals parallel to "y'all", "yous", "you guys", etc. but I don't recall hearing any. Anybody have some to report?

No, and I don't know if I would agree. Y'all has a long history in this country and you don't see it in any prose outside of its speech community or unless employed as a rhetorical device.

Even though our language is in desperate need in my opinion of a standardized second person plural, we are a stubborn bunch and so would rather live with inconvenience. I think to an extent it might be interesting to look at the forms now used as markers of identity, and perhaps so much so that we do not want to rid that distinction by standardizing them, or choosing one over the other for standardization.

[Viktor77]

I should add that even though both pronouns solve a problem, singular they is considerably less marked. In fact it is so unmarked I can't tell you of a single anecdote where singular they marked any sort of regionality, class, age, etc. Whereas all of the second person plural forms are marked quite heavily, especially y'all and yous. This unmarkedmess I'd argue has allowed singular they to be mainstreamed quickly and enter standardized language. No one has any identity ties to it, and in speech its use goes amiss generally. Anyone who has objections to it are quite frankly being pedantic as it's generally a neutral unmarked innovation that should thus be easily accepted into the standard.

If you can give me anecdotal examples where this form is marked, especially outside of written discourse, I'm all ears.

Also just now reading up on the history of they singular it has been in use in prose for centuries, by many respected authors, and was only thwarted in the 19th century by prescriptivists favoring he. So herein it even has a historical precedent which favors its quick mainstreaming or perhaps rather re-mainstreaming.

[vtardif]

It occurred to me just now that with singular they becoming more acceptable in prose, it's probably only a matter of time before we start seeing new explicit plurals parallel to "y'all", "yous", "you guys", etc. but I don't recall hearing any. Anybody have some to report?

I know a fair number of people who are genderqueer and go by they pronouns. I find myself using 'they all' if a plural 'they' might be confused for a singular one.

[sirdanilot]

Using they in a singular way is stupid, so I don't use it. IF you must be gender neutral, use he/she, as this is done in all sorts of publications anyway (at least they do it in Dutch, hij/zij).

Swedish now also has this gender-neutral pronoun thing, and of course because Sweden is so incredibly progressive the thing actually does get some usage and then of course it may have some merit if it's here around to stay.

I never heard of efforts for a gender-neutral pronoun in Dutch, incidentally. Because we already have 'het' as a gender-neutral pronoun, hahahahaha. But of course that has negative connotations. We sometimes use it jokingly if we cannot discern the gender of a person (not with people who actually have trouble with that, don't worry we are not such assholes).

[Matrix]

Using they in a singular way is stupid, so I don't use it.

Hey asshole, as stated before, us native English speakers have been using singular they for hundreds of years. And on top of that, "he/she" is clunky.

We use "you" for both singular and plural and get by just fine, so there really isn't any problem with using "they" similarly.

[jal]

Even though singular "they" (to which I'm trying to get accustomed and use it myself) is perfectly acceptable and recommendable as a gender neutral pronoun, there are plenty of authors/bloggers that use "ze" and "zir" as gender neutral pronouns instead of "they" and "their". I find it pretentious bullshit.


JAL

[sirdanilot]

Hey asshole,

Hey darling

We use "you" for both singular and plural and get by just fine, so there really isn't any problem with using "they" similarly.

Then why have many dialects formed a second person plural pronoun such as 'y'all' ?

If you want a gender-neutral pronoun, use 'it'.

[jal]

If you want a gender-neutral pronoun, use 'it'.

Really sirdani, you don't get to tell what native English speakers should or should not do with regards to correct English grammar. Really. *Really*.


JAL

[Acid Badger]

If you want a gender-neutral pronoun, use 'it'.

You can not tell native speakers of a language to use or not use words in a certain way just because their usage doesn't correspond to that of your native language.

/e: Yeah, what jal said.

[Matrix]

If you want a gender-neutral pronoun, use 'it'.

"It" is inanimate. It's an insult to refer to someone as an inanimate object, you know. Now go shove your backwards prescriptivist bullshit back up your ass.

[jal]

Now go shove your backwards prescriptivist bullshit back up your ass.

Although I really understand the sentiment, swearing at Sir D. has been proven to be ineffective.


JAL

[sirdanilot]

Language isn't as make-able as people seem to make it. English doesn't have a gender-neutral pronoun that is not inanimate and there are historical reasons for that. Shoving stuff like 'they is now a gender neutral singular pronoun' down peoples throats doesn't work.

Now am I saying that a gender neutral pronoun can or should never exist? Of course not. But an evoluton of such a category needs to go at a natural pace and it probably requires the presence of a 'gender neutral gender' for decades, and not only a marginal presence but a very prominent presence in the general population, including the - on this forum so negatively-view - lower classes and the rural population. There are cultures where there are three or more categories of 'gender' or 'gender' s more fluid anyway and then yes you can have pronouns that refer to these persons. I am not sure of an actually attested example but it'll surely be there.

And I think Swedish is much more prone for such a category to come into being than English, as the swedish population is much more 'progressive' than the English population. Swedes are also kings/queens (what's the gender neutral form of that hey) at being overly politically correct.

[jal]

I do not believe that English doesn't have has a gender-neutral pronoun that is not inanimate and there are historical reasons for that because I've never heard of it and I always assume that the limits of my knowledge equals the limits of reality. Shoving stuff like 'they is now a gender neutral singular pronoun' down peoples my non-native speaking throats doesn't work go well with me so I throw a fit.

There, fixed it for you. That said, you should really use Google more. Here's some links to catch up on: 1, 2, 3. See also here for a case of singular they when the gender is known (which may be a novel development).


JAL

[L'alphabētarium]

Swedes are also kings/queens (what's the gender neutral form of that hey)

Monarch?
I've also come across "quing", which is a blend of "queen" and "king", but I'm sure it's a joke. Or I hope it is.

"It" is inanimate. It's an insult to refer to someone as an inanimate object, you know.

True. Nevertheless it's been used excessively when referring to lots of animate beings. Like animals.
Or even human babies sometimes. Especially when they're newborn and pretty hard to recognise their gender so you just go with "it" and risk their parents' angry glance at you!

[Viktor77]

Using they in a singular way is stupid, so I don't use it.

[alynnidalar]

We use "you" for both singular and plural and get by just fine, so there really isn't any problem with using "they" similarly.

Not agreeing with sirdanilot here ("they" is absolutely frequently used grammatically as a singular third-person pronoun, and I don't understand how anybody interested in linguistics could fail to realize this), but just want to point out that "you" as a plural second-person pronoun is vanishingly rare in my own speech--I almost exclusively use "you guys", and there's been multiple times I've hemmed and hawed for several minutes over whether or not I can use it in an email at work, because "you" as a plural feels so *wrong* to me, yet I don't want to come across as informal to somebody who doesn't speak my dialect!

[Viktor77]

We use "you" for both singular and plural and get by just fine, so there really isn't any problem with using "they" similarly.

Not agreeing with sirdanilot here ("they" is absolutely frequently used grammatically as a singular third-person pronoun, and I don't understand how anybody interested in linguistics could fail to realize this), but just want to point out that "you" as a plural second-person pronoun is vanishingly rare in my own speech--I almost exclusively use "you guys", and there's been multiple times I've hemmed and hawed for several minutes over whether or not I can use it in an email at work, because "you" as a plural feels so *wrong* to me, yet I don't want to come across as informal to somebody who doesn't speak my dialect!

As someone who comes from the same dialectal region as you I can confirm that I too have an aversion towards 'you' in the plural. And I could never use 'you guys' in a formal email.

[Sumelic]

Using "you" in the singular in the subject position can be a little ambiguous, so I might avoid it in many cases, but there's no ambiguity in phrases like "some of you" or "any of you" or "take out your lab notebooks". I only have an optional "you all" or "you guys", not a grammaticalized pronoun, so I don't know; are there people who consistently use "some of y'all" or "any of y'all"? "All of y'all"? I don't even know what a plural-marked 2nd person possessive pronoun would be... "all y'all's"? "youses"?

Language isn't as make-able as people seem to make it. English doesn't have a gender-neutral pronoun that is not inanimate and there are historical reasons for that. Shoving stuff like 'they is now a gender neutral singular pronoun' down peoples throats doesn't work.

Now am I saying that a gender neutral pronoun can or should never exist? Of course not. But an evoluton of such a category needs to go at a natural pace and it probably requires the presence of a 'gender neutral gender' for decades, and not only a marginal presence but a very prominent presence in the general population, including the - on this forum so negatively-view - lower classes and the rural population. There are cultures where there are three or more categories of 'gender' or 'gender' s more fluid anyway and then yes you can have pronouns that refer to these persons. I am not sure of an actually attested example but it'll surely be there.

And I think Swedish is much more prone for such a category to come into being than English, as the swedish population is much more 'progressive' than the English population. Swedes are also kings/queens (what's the gender neutral form of that hey) at being overly politically correct.

Way to not get the point. Using "they" in contexts where gender is unknown or irrelevant isn't a feature of some kind of progressive social elite-speak, it's something that even these lower-class and rural speakers will use. Calling this use of "they" stupid, like you did, is the elitist attitude, the kind of thing that a boss might give as a reason for rejecting the job application of someone who didn't get the prescriptivist position shoved into their heads at school. But of course, you know better than us what the social connotations of English pronoun use are, I'm sure... (Also, your use of the nonce-word "make-able" here completely undermines your point: it sounds stupid, but I still understood you. Similarly, it's not hard to understand the use of "they" as a singular pronoun, even when the concepts it's used for are extended a bit.)

[Nortaneous]

even if singular 'they' wasn't marked as hell before, it is now. good job tumblr

2P plurality marking varies -- you can hear people say "y'all" and then switch to "you" once the plurality has been established, or say "all y'all" and switch to "y'all" [or maybe even "you"]. "y'all's" is the possessive form, but marking plurality is probably less common there, and people who would say "y'all" might say "your"

I *think* there might be a distinction between, like, "alright y'all, take out your notebooks" [each person has their own notebook] and "where's y'all's tractor?" [the tractor is collectively owned and for whatever reason can't be referred to with just the definite article; maybe there are two groups of people who each have a tractor]