In defense of the singular "They"

Paneer set down the urn and stuttered, his cummerbund rattling. "Madame, have you seen the bagpiper in the sauna?"

"No," she responded curtly, sipping her shrimp cocktail, "but I have heard them, and if they wish for their limbs to remain intact they must take their tomfoolery elsewhere."

What's wrong with this passage? Cummerbunds aren't typically rattled, nor are shrimp cocktails sipped, and such a humid environment can't be good for a set of bagpipes. But if Madame's pronoun use bothered you most, take a deep breath, 'cause I'm about to defend that decadent, vapid huss to the death.

First, know you're not alone. When the American Heritage Dictionary took a sentence similar to the one Madame uttered to a group of 'usage panelists,' 82% of them considered the sentence unacceptable.¹ 'They' and its variants have traditionally implied plurality, and the subject of the sentence in question stands alone, just one typical student in a crowd of first- through sixth-years. Likewise, there's only one bagpiper in Madame's sauna (I imagine two or more pipers with two or more pipes would get rather crowded in there). Why should Madame deal with more? Moreover, what alternatives has she got?

1. Gendered third-person singular pronouns

"No, but I have heard him, and if he wishes for his limbs to remain intact, he must take his tomfoolery elsewhere."

Now, Madame may be married but she's a modern woman, and understands that bagpipers these days haven't always got a pipe-and-bags set underneath the kilt. But nor will she assume the opposite in her speech, thrusting her politics into the simple statement:

"No, but I have heard her, and if she wishes for her limbs to remain intact, she must take her tomfoolery elsewhere."

(One of my high school English teachers used "her" as the pronoun in her syllabus, and instead of paying attention to the material I constantly got distracted by the subtle feminism implied and involved in her teaching. Assuming the female pronoun: well-intended, but not always desirable.)

It still stands that Madame hasn't seen this bagpiper (let alone this bagpiper's bits), and therefore can't make either assumption in this age and culture of genderfuck. "He" and "she": I'm afraid you're useless here.

2. (New!) Gender-neutral pronouns
SPIVAK PRONOUNS: Michael Spivak, some math guy, came up with these and used them in his textbooks. Basically what you do is drop the "th" off of "they" and its relatives.² Sounds simple enough, but try it out loud:

"No, but I have heard em, and if ey wishes for eir limbs to remain intact, ey must take eir tomfoolery elsewhere."

And I do mean "try it out loud." It ought to sound something like, "I have heard 'em, and if A wishes for air limbs to remain intact, A much take air tomfoolery elsewhere." Out loud, hazy (lacking the concrete consonant core). In print, sort of awkward-looking. And is it worth the effort to introduce new words - pronouns, no less; necessary and frequent - into the English language? Especially if these pronouns are kind of lame?

More examples of new pronouns...

TWIN OAKS 'CO': This one commune out in Virginia has taken to using "co" as an all-inclusive pronoun. Apparently the more hardcore members substitute any and all third-person pronouns with "co"³, which I think is a bit ridiculous. Let's try it out:

"No, but I have heard co, and if co wishes for co limbs to remain intact, co must take co tomfoolery elsewhere."

Mmm, awkward. The Twin Oaks co has the opposite problem out loud as the Spivak pronouns: the hard c seems a bit too kicky and forceful.

BALTIMORE 'YO': This one fascinates me. Apparently as far back as 2004, some inner-city Baltimore kids have been using 'yo' as a gender-neutral pronoun.⁴ How grassroots! How punk rock! How super-secretly passionate about the English language!

"No, but I have heard yo, and if yo wishes for yo limbs to remain intact, yo must take yo tomfoolery elsewhere."

Feminist scholar Brenda Wrigley calls it "crass and disrespectful" ⁵, but then, so was the word 'pants' maybe 200 years back.⁶ Language evolves, Brenda. No, my objection to this particular pronoun comes from its ambiguity: out loud, it floats somewhere between "you" and "yours." Tough to distinguish, tougher to get used to.

I think of these newfangled lingual creations as the sort of indigo children of pronouns. Nice to think about, and 'special,' I guess, but ultimately sort of impractical when forced into the 'real world' (and be forced into the real world they must, someday).

3. Plural subjects
This is what Strunk & White's Elements of Style recommends (I have the fourth edition), and I can see why: it's inclusive, nonspecific, and applies to everybody - makes a law. No exceptions: any and all bagpipers had better get out of Madame's sauna if they value their limbs! But in context, it can be out-and-out wrong:

"Have you seen the bag-piper in the sauna?"

"No, but I have heard them, and if they wish for their limbs to remain intact, they must take their tomfoolery elsewhere."

Paneer says there's one bagpiper in the sauna; maybe Madame heard two or three? Either way, we don't know who to trust: Paneer's eyes, or Madame's will to remain grammatically correct.

4. Second-person subjects
Same situation as before: ideal, and recommended by Strunk & White, but in certain contexts, inaccurate (if not ridiculous).

"No, but as a bagpiper, if you wish for your limbs to remain intact, you must take your tomfoolery elsewhere."

What's Madame accusing Panner of, here? All he did was bring her the cocktail. Generic "you" works when hypothesizing, but not when making demands.

And finally, 5. Multiple third-person gendered pronouns
We're all familiar with this one...

"No, but I have heard him or her, and if he or she wishes for his or her limbs to remain intact, he or she must take his or her tomfoolery elsewhere."

Grammatically correct, accurate in definition, but not quite as eloquent and elegant as I imagine Madame would like to be. It's tough not to trip over the r sound in "or," especially when sliding into the harsh sh in "she."

Given these (highly biased, I admit) examples, I feel like "they" is the best choice for a singular ambiguous third-person pronoun, especially in vernacular or casual English. It in one word covers what "he or she" does in three, has the specificity and no-nonsense attitude that "you" and plural "they" don't, and is far more familiar than "ey," "co," or even "yo." Concise, direct, and easily understood. Just like I like my English.

"I understand your concern," choked Paneer, "and will be sure the bagpiper gets themself and their devil-instrument out of the steam room."

Okay, I might need a while to get used to "themself."

¹ The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition (2000). The sentence in question: "The typical student in the program takes about six years to complete their coursework."
² Spivak pronouns @ Everything2.com.
³ Visitor Guide - Twin Oaks Intentional Community.
⁴ 'Yo' Being Used As 'Gender-Neutral Pronoun' - Big News Day.
⁵ ibid.
⁶ Wacky Neighbor: Etymology of Pants.

Well, I am a white person...

I wasn't going to post until I finished my "singular they" entry, but it would be in poor form if I didn't acknowledge Stuff White People Like #99:

When asking someone about their biggest annoyances in life, you might expect responses like “hunger,” “being poor,” or “getting shot.” If you ask a white person, the most common response will likely be “people who use ‘their’ when they mean ‘there.’ Maybe comma splices, I’m not sure but it’s definitely one of the two.”

... Another important thing to know is that when white people read magazines and books they are always looking for grammar and spelling mistakes. In fact, one of the greatest joys a white person can experience is to catch a grammar mistake in a major publication. Finding one allows a white person to believe that they are better than the writer and the publication since they would have caught the mistake. The more respected the publication, the greater the thrill. If a white person were to catch a mistake in The New Yorker, it would be a sufficient reason for a large party.

Stuff White People Like is primarily hilarious, mostly accurate, and definitely deserves a look - if you've been trapped under an Internet Rock and haven't visited it yet.

A Lament, Declaration, and Proposal.

Marx would not approve: I am way more needs than ability. I'm short and stocky, and though I can carry my own weight I'm easily exhausted and, to be honest, pretty greedy about the fruits of my labor. If I'm going to cook for you or compile you a mix CD, you at least have to love me for it.

But the English language: there's something I can contribute to and draw from. My writing is pretty creative, but I'm left-brain enough to have a knack for proofreading and copy-editing. I'm the best speller I know - and trust me, I've known plenty of English teachers in my day. And I've exhausted my friends' ears with my myriad and robust opinions on grammar and punctuation. So I turn to the Internet, where someone's bound to care enough to disagree vehemently with me. Or agree vehemently. The vehemence is what matters.

Now, I'm no knee-jerk slasher of passive voice, and you can't swing a dead cat around those last two paragraphs without hitting a sentence fragment. But I'll tell you what: my biggest concern, as a writer, is effective language. Honestly, if you know what you're saying, more often than not the words and sentences and paragraphs figure themselves out. But if you want grammar to work for you, you've got to know its rules! I liken grammar to a constitution: the law of language, deciding which words go where. You can live a perfectly healthy life without ever reading the Constitution, out there alone in the boondocks where the only harm is hurricanes. But if you want to live it up - meet people, move to the city, learn things, take to the streets, listen and be heard - you've got to know your rights.

Shouldn't the same go for your language?

Between SAT mania and Internet short-hand, I feel like grammar has reached - or maintained - a stuffy, outdated status. Grammar enthusiasts are up there with antique bicycle connoisseurs and ham radio hobbyists. It's a frivolous luxury, a rich pastime usually occupied by graying academics in opal-colored sweaters. But although not everyone rides a Penny Farthing or spurns Skype for the CB, English is something that belongs to almost anybody. It's spoken by up to 1.8 billion people worldwide, and is an official or dominant language in over 70 nations (sovereign and not). And access, and theory, costs nothing. English is free to learn, free to speak, free to write. There's no official headquarters of the English language to submit to. The people own the language: why don't we treat it that way?

I'm not saying all praises to txtspeak, spelling is fascist, write how you talk. I'm not saying fuck grammar conventions. They're just that: conventions. The English-speaking society has decided on these rules and regulations of arranging English. And if you ask me, most of them make sense. All complete sentences require a subject and verb. Fair enough, anything worth discussing throughout history involves a person and an action. It's good to know that periods always indicate the end of a sentence; it gives you a break between this thought and the next. It's worked for as long as I can remember. But language evolves with its people (imagine trying to rattle off quick email reminders in Shakespearean English!), and though evolution is natural, you don't have to wait around for change. If it doesn't make sense to you, write in a way that does. Change your writing! Have a discussion! Pick sides! Care about your language! Make English exciting!

On the other hand, what do I know? I'm only a quarter through my Bachelor's in Writing, Literature and Publishing. That's why I'm not setting out to write a book. Ink is permanent. Pixels die. Books take up physical space. Blogs - unless you're Ted Stevens - can't clog up your tubes. It's easier to change my mind on the Internet than in print; it's easier to write new blog entries than get new editions published. This blog is an attempt to explore and document my own English: what I hear, what I read, what I think, what I learn. Self-indulgent? Sure, but then, so is the Internet. Nobody here is forcing you to care. About me. About English. It's all up to you and me.