They did at one time only refer to more than one person, which Silvanus said wasn't the case.
Singular they - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
"This use of singular they had emerged by the 14th century, about a century after the plural they. It has been commonly employed in everyday English ever since and has gained currency in official contexts. Singular they has been criticised since the mid-18th century by prescriptive commentators who consider it an error."
So the last 700 years, then.
Considering how often I see the "but <minority> is over-represented in <industry the majority forced them into>" argument, I wouldn't doubt this argument showing up
It didn't solely referred to multiple people. Hasn't for 700 years.
Jesus Christ, dude. How do you think society responded to girls acting like boys ~200 years ago?
This is a lie. I said it didn't solely refer to multiple people.
You're being a purist about those first 175 years, and disregarding the following 700 years of usage as a singular?
110.1051 - (2), in HB599. Its the policy of the state that its false to ascribe a pronoun that doesn't match biological sex. So when you referred to your friend as 'she'? You spoke falsely, according to the bill.
That's just a clear lie on your part.
You said there was never a time "they" only was used to refer to multiple people, that is wrong.
Again, you said "they" never was only a plural.Silvanus said:
Silvanus said:
Jesus. OK, yes, I overlooked the brief period in the thirteenth century when it was used that way, in favour of the 700 years since.
Dude, you're literally the only one talking about stereotypical behaviours determining pronouns. I don't even know why you're talking about tomboys.
It directly states your usage is 'false' in the eyes of the state gov. I didn't say there was a punishment. I said your own usage runs counter to the bill you're sticking up for.
I only did because you nitpick every thing I say like in the affirmative action thread because I didn't specify that the racist AA policy is the racist policy when that was literally what the thread was discussing from the start. I'm a stickler for using words based on their definitions. They is a pronoun for multiple people or a single unknown person.
The person doesn't have to be unknown.
OK, so you've just completely misunderstood the reason I said that, and thought I was saying behaviours are necessarily linked to pronouns. No.
I didn't say it would get you in trouble. The bill explicitly says the way you use the terms is false.
No, it is not wrong. "They" has been used to represent singular third person pretty much since its inception. In the last few centuries some people strongly argued that it should only be used for the plural and schools often taught it that way, but this was never established in common language use. Many people continued using "they" to refer to singular third person in everyday speech (usually when an individual's gender was indeterminate).
He's nitpicking about the period of ~1200 - ~1370s, when it was briefly used solely to refer to multiple people.
So, it is inappropriate to refer to Edward Longshanks as "they", in historical dramas set during his life? Good to know.
The person doesn't have to unknown (but usually is like student or driver) but it gets confusing if there's more than one person being talked about and someone in the group is a 'they', then when you go to mention that person with a pronoun, the listener is not gonna know if you're referring to that person or the group.
Do you get terribly confused if you're in a group with more than one man and someone says 'he'?
Because the issue is nothing to do with tomboys. I still have no idea why you even brought them up.
"And so" the way you used pronouns is false according to the bill. Can you acknowledge that, rather than shifting the conversation onto punishments?
I mean, 16 and 17 year olds can have jobs in Australia. It doesn’t strike me as something unusual in and of itself. Child labour tends to invoke thoughts of Oliver Twist.
16 and 17 year olds in the US can have jobs in every US state. They just also have a number of restrictions on the type of work they can do, the number of hours per week, and the times of day. Florida seems intent on rolling as many of those protections back as possible.
