Joyce Carol Oates:
"they" will not become a part of general usage, not for political reasons but because there would be no pronoun to distinguish between a singular subject ("they") & a plural subject ("they"). language seeks to communicate w/ clarity, not to obfuscate; that is its purpose.
https://twitter.com/joycecaroloates/status/1445581438175223816
It’s remarkable how blissfully unaware people can be of their own ignorance. So let’s count the ways this is wrong:
1. Fun fact, the pronoun “you” is singular and plural, and has been for centuries, and English seems to still function.
2. Singular “they” has existed longer than any one of us, included Ms. Oates. Again, English still seems to function.
3. If we really do need a plural “they,” then it’s perfectly permissible to just coin one. “They all” comes to mind.
4. With thirty seconds of Googling, you can verify for yourself that there are plenty of languages that mark plurality only optionally, or not at all. These languages all appear to function. Not surprising that Ms. Oates didn’t know this, but it is surprising she didn’t bother looking it up before making a pronouncement.
5. There are countless ways that English is ambiguous, and it still functions. We do not distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first person plural pronouns, unlike, say, Hawaiian. We do not mark whether we witnessed something directly or only heard of it from others as part of our verb tenses, unlike, say, Turkish. We do not distinguish, typically, between groups of two and larger groups like, say, Slovenian. And so on.
6. Finally, the purpose of language is not to communicate with clarity. It can be used in that way, but it can be used in just the opposite. Many a politician, or lawyer, for example, uses language to obfuscate. You can object to them doing so, but you can't deny that they're using language.
Posts
