Thank God, the playpen is safe again!

I'm not sure I have anything review-worthy to say about it, or indeed time to write a review. I will say, though, that I spent yesterday devouring Triumff by Dan Abnett and think it would probably be well appreciated by fellow Ferrets, featuring as it does a swashbuckling degenerate hero, magic, terrible puns, and affectionate if sometimes predictable parodies.

DYNAMIC LIGHT-HEARTED TOPIC CHANGE GO NOW!!!

So, do you like adorable fancomics of popular video game franchises? Sure, we all do! In that case, you have absolutely no excuse for not taking a look at Peachi's livejournal, which features delightful skewerings of the Ace Attorney games, Professor Layton, the first three Metal Gear Solid titles (where she manages to make Volgin the funniest electokinetic bisexual sadist ever), and Persona 4, which now has a surprisingly awesome fandub.

It's more the fact that the conversation has already performed two or three complete laps of the same circuit, and I don't see it changing course any time soon. ;)

I'm sorry my obtuseness and irrationality have caused you such frustration. ;)

To be honest, if we never spoke about this again it'd be too soon for me.

I don't know how you guys feel about this conversation at this point. I'm ambivalent, or perhaps even polyvalent.

On the one hand there are a few things I'm quite keen to respond to, in particular the 'crap writer' argument, which both Arthur and Dan have repeated since my last contribution, and which I'm still inclined to think is misconceived.

On the other hand I'm persuaded to modify my position to some extent, especially with regard to proposition (1), in view of Dan's most recent points and Sister Magpie's observation about 'you' - a point that cuts both ways, of course, but that doesn't mean I can pretend it doesn't cut my way!

On the third hand I suspect a lot of people are finding this pretty tedious by now, and I'm slightly heading that way myself.

So what do we think? Carry on here? Carry on by e-mail or next time we meet up? Or [atrocious pun warning!] shall we just pronoun-ce this conversation finished?

I feel like I'm completely not following this convo correctly, but is the basic idea here that "they" is pretty much exactly like "you" in English, which also has the same form in singular and plural?

Granted, English speakers over the years have fought that one by using alternative constructions instead, but I'm not even sure if that's universal. For instance, in my country, if someone is saying "you" and referring to more than one person, instead of saying "you" they'll say "y'all," "you guys" or "youse." (And even those forms can be made more specific to the question. For instance, if you're referring to a group of people who might not all act as a group, instead of saying "Are y'all going to dinner?" you might say "are all y'all going to dinner?" (Or "all you guys" or "allayouse").

But "you" is still the correct word for second person singular and plural. And according to The Story of English (or what I remember seeing of it years ago), this instinct to make a difference between singular and plural was influenced by speakers of other languages who were used to having a different word.

The tool isn't the pronoun, the tool is the distinction between singular and plural pronouns. Which would inevitably be discarded by using 'they' routinely as a singular pronoun.

Except, as the article points out, "they" has been widely used as a singular pronoun for over four hundred years. Yet the English Language, and speakers of English, are still eminently capable of distinguishing between singular and plural.

I say (1) routinely using 'they' as a singular pronoun would mean that 'they' would no longer be reliable indicator of number and therefore would deprive the speaker or writer of one useful and well-established way to indicate number, and (2) that is a real, i.e. non-illusory, disadvantage

I'm denying (1), although if I didn't deny (1) I'd deny (2) as well.

My reasons for denying (1) are as follows:

Firstly and most simply, there is the empirical argument. "They" has been routinely used as a singular pronoun for centuries, yet it retains its connotations of plurality. It is these connotations of plurality which cause people - incorrectly - to insist that the singular use is ungrammatical when it is in fact perfectly legitimate.

Secondly, it is absurd to suggest that because a word is often used in one context, it cannot also retain its meaning in a second context. The word "anticipate" is often used to mean "excitedly look forward to" but it is still possible to use it to mean "foresee and take action to avoid".

Thirdly, if you accept (which you say you do) that the singular usage of "they" is legitimate and common practice then it has already lost its ability to distinguish plural from singular. Either we insist that "they" can only be used to stand for plural nouns (which leads to such lovely constructions as "when the Fellowship descended into Moria, he encountered the Balrog") or we wave goodbye to the notion that the use of "they" necessarily implies plurality.

Fourthly, in correct usage, "they" (or any other pronoun) should only be used to refer to something that has already been referenced. Since the English Language distinguishes between singular and plural nouns it is almost *impossible* for the use of "they" in a well-constructed sentence to provide you with additional information about the plurality or otherwise of a noun. The only exceptions I can think of are the rare cases where a noun does not have a plural form (sheep, fish etc) all of these cases, however, are cases in which "it" is a more natural choice than "they" for a single object or creature, since "it" is already gender neutral.

As to proposition (2).

Firstly, I'm unconvinced that plurality is necessarily something you have to convey. The difference between "one" and "more than one" is not - to my admittedly over-mathematical mind - more significant than the difference between "two" and "twenty".

Secondly, I'm not convinced that a language is materially improved by having *numerically more* ways to make a distinction. English is not a richer language than Mandarin simply because we can distinguish between the first and third person by both verb-endings *and* pronoun use. Neither does English suffer from a lack of measure words.

Thirdly, if you *are* of the opinion that it is better to have more ways to express something than fewer ways, then surely it is better to permit ourselves multiple ways of referring to a single person of unspecified gender. Is it not better to be able to use "they" or "he/she" or (if we insist on being formally correct) "he" as our gender-neutral pronoun depending on the context rather than insisting that "they" be reserved exclusively for plural nouns.

I feel like at this point maybe I should mention that English does have a widely-recognised genderless singular (third person) pronoun: it.
Before anyone points out that it's dehumanising to call people "it", obviously that stands, but we do have one... There's also the neutral "one", which works in some cases (especially instructions and advice) if one reframes the phrase in question.

Of course, to some extent the reason it's a problem at all in English is tangled up with lopsided grammatical gender with most nouns lacking a formal gender. Ships being the only non-animal example I can think of offhand. If all our nouns had gender, you have noun-pronoun pairing and... actually, I suppose you end up with a different set of problems, because now in terms of gender equality etc. you're looking at which nouns have which gender, at least in terms of people- and job-nouns.

OK, I agree that it's a disadvantage, but for me it's pretty microscopic considering the serious disadvantages which would arise if English lacked a widely-recognised genderless singular pronoun.

I would also argue that it's far less of a disadvantage you suggest, because the distinction between singular and plural pronouns is conveyed as much through context (if not more) as it is through the pronoun itself, unless a writer has made said context muddy and confusing. In which case they're a crap writer, and they'd still be a crap writer regardless of what pronoun they'd used, because simply using one pronoun instead of another would not be sufficient to address the wider deficiencies in their writing.

The tool isn't the pronoun, the tool is the distinction between singular and plural pronouns. Which would inevitably be discarded by using 'they' routinely as a singular pronoun.

I glanced at the article but it's irrelevant to what I'm saying. I've never denied that singular 'they' is a legitimate and established usage in English. I'm not saying that people should never use it. I've never even said categorically that it shouldn't be adopted as the all-purpose genderless singular pronoun. You've mentioned several advantages of doing that, and I've acknowledged that they are real advantages. All I've been saying is that there is also a disadvantage, namely that it reduces the number of ways a user of English has to distinguish between singular and plural. All we're disagreeing about is that proposition. I say (1) routinely using 'they' as a singular pronoun would mean that 'they' would no longer be reliable indicator of number and therefore would deprive the speaker or writer of one useful and well-established way to indicate number, and (2) that is a real, i.e. non-illusory, disadvantage, and (3) it's a disadvantage that causes me personally to have serious reservations about routinely using 'they' as a singular pronoun. You seem to be denying either (1) or (2) or both. If you don't think you're denying either of those things than you've misunderstood what I've been saying, or I've miscommunicated what I was trying to say, and in fact we don't disagree.

By the way, did you read Bryn's article? It provides a very compelling argument that singular "they" is correct, and has been correct for a while. If retaining tools in the toolkit is of paramount importance, why ditch singular "they" when you can keep it next to "he" and "she" for those situations that demand it?

Some tools don't work every time, but that isn't a good reason to throw them away.

When was anyone talking about throwing the tools away? When???

The only tool I have advocated discarding is "he or she" or "s/he", because a) it's ugly as sin and b) it reinforces the gender binary. I've not advocated throwing away any of the tools you've used in those examples. Dan has not advocated throwing away any tools at all, so far as I can see.

Other business: Steven Moffat's reboot of Sherlock Holmes sounds quite promising. Front Row liked it.

Mopping up:

Look, here's the rule of thumb I personally propose to work by when it comes to single pronouns, if that helps make my stance any easier to understand

It does, thanks. You see I find it rather strange to think of using gendered and non-gendered pronouns in the same conversation. I'd be all, 'Wait, are we rejecting the binary model in this conversation or not?' Using genderless pronouns only with respect to one person in a group would feel bizarrely othering.

With respect to discarding tools, I would argue that tools absolutely should be discarded if their use is actually, in a small way, causing harm.

Agreed, and I think I tried to say that at some earlier point. But of course it applies only rather indirectly to 'they' because the use of 'they' as usually plural isn't harming anyone. Before you can use this reasoning to support the use of 'they' as singular you have to establish not only that 'he' and 'she' and 'he or she' are causing harm but also that singular 'they' is the only viable alternative, which is QED and ND (nóndum démónstrátum = not yet proven).

Except it's not "other ambiguities" it's "the same ambiguity".

Basically what Shim said. Partly my fault because I used 'other ambiguities' in an unclear way. I think what I'm calling an ambiguity you're calling an instance of ambiguity, and what you're calling an ambiguity I would call a type of ambiguity. But it doesn't matter, so I'll adopt your terminology. The point is that some instances can be avoided by either of two different methods (rephrasing or use of different pronouns) and some can be avoided using only one method (rephrasing) because the other doesn't help (because the appropriate pronouns are the same anyway). The fact that one method works in both instances is not a good reason for causing the other method not to work in either instance. Nor does the fact that rephrasing works in both instances mean that rephrasing is the best method in both instances, which is what you're saying when you say both problems are caused by bad writing. It isn't bad writing to write 'The patient waited, trying not to let himself think about what he would say when they came back.' The appropriate pronouns happen to be different, and therefore using pronouns is a perfectly proper way to write the sentence. 'The patients waited, trying not to let themselves think about what they would say when they came back' is bad writing, because the appropriate pronouns are the same and therefore the use of pronouns is not a valid method for avoiding this particular instance of ambiguity. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a perfectly appropriate method for a perfectly good writer to use in the previous instance. Some tools don't work every time, but that isn't a good reason to throw them away. The distinction between singular and plural pronouns is a tool that we have. It works in some instances, such as the former of the two examples above. The fact that it doesn't work in other instances, such as the latter, is not a good reason to deny that it's a useful tool worth keeping.

What have I done? What have I done?

Calm down, dear: it's only a commercial disagreement about words.

In the cold light of day, I suppose you're right. Metaprocrastination is presumably faffing about instead of doing the faffing you were going to do instead of work.

It's all procrastination. Unless you're hell-bent on using up your prefix ration. ;)

Completely tangential: I went on the computer to do some work, and accidentally came to Ferretbrain, where I procrastinated. Then I went and talked to my housemate about procrastinating on FB. Now I'm writing a post about telling my housemates about procrastinating on FB, which must surely be metametaprocrastination?

In a similar vein, some languages distinguish relatives by maternal/paternal, which English doesn't. Losing this distinction would not be disastrous, but would make the language more ambiguous.

German makes it harder to distinguish "girlfriend"/"boyfriend" from "friend". American English does this with "girlfriend" sometimes. Welsh distinguishes "lover" from "friend", but doesn't indicate its gender and also uses it as a term of affection, leading to different ambiguities. Manx has gendered words for "girlfriend"/"boyfriend" and non-gendered "friend". Clearly, you don't need any specific set of these distinctions, but each one lost means more ambiguous language. Going back to the earlier discussion, Dan's examples are all talking about ambiguity over which friend is meant, whereas Jamie is highlighting the loss of distinction between "lover" and "friend".

Except it's not "other ambiguities" it's "the same ambiguity".

I think it's only the same from one point of view, as in, it's an ambiguity about who is who. I believe what Jamie's saying is roughly:
* "they" usually means the third person plural, just as "she" and "he" are feminine and masculine 3S respectively.
* using "they" as a neutral 3S creates the possibility of an ambiguity that previously did not exist (it does not exist, for example, if we use "it" as the neutral pronoun).
* the fact that it is possible to envisage situations where "she", "he" or "they" are ambiguous is irrelevant, because the problem being raised is [the creation of a new possible ambiguity that makes language more ambiguous overall], not [that pronouns are ambiguous]

Dan's examples are of situations where a pronoun that always refers to a specific group (she, he, they) is ambiguous where more than one example of that group exists. The same is true if we are discussing a number of cats, or boxes, or anything.

"The box is on the table, next to the cat and the box. When you go in, put the box on top of the box."
(Yes, it's a rubbish example, I know)
Anything that has more than one potential referent becomes ambiguous. However, if (for whatever reason) we decide to refer to cats as "boxes", we can point to at least one situation where it creates new ambiguity:
"The box is on the table, next to the box and the box. When you go in, put the box on top of the box."

What have I done? What have I done?

The fact that other ambiguities sometimes occur is irrelevant. The two variants of my sentence that you offer, Dan, only show that English lacks certain tools. It has only one singular third-person feminine pronoun and only one plural third-person pronoun. Therefore it cannot use pronouns to resolve the ambiguities in those sentences, and they have to be resolved by more extensive re-writing.

Except it's not "other ambiguities" it's "the same ambiguity".

The ambiguity occurs because it is always possible for two things to be legitimately describable by the same pronoun. This problem cannot be avoided by the use of gendered pronouns, or plural-identifying pronouns, or racially-coded pronouns, or different pronouns for tall and short people. The SAME PROBLEM arises.

Trying to solve the problem of "two things legitimately being described by the same pronoun" by creating arbitrary categories of pronouns to distinguish them is unhelpful, because it only solves the specific case where a singular individual is interacting with a plural group. In the same way, gendered pronouns do not help resolve ambiguity except in the situation where you have exactly one man talking to exactly one woman. In each case the ambiguity arises from bad sentence structure.

I'm not sure that has a great deal of weight if it's a conversation in which everyone is being referred to using the same set of genderless pronouns

When would you do that though?

Look, here's the rule of thumb I personally propose to work by when it comes to single pronouns, if that helps make my stance any easier to understand:

Subject is being talked about in the abstract rather than being an actual person, gender not relevant to discussion: "They".

Subject is being talked about in the abstract rather than being an actual person, gender is relevant: "He" or "she" as appropriate for the hypothetical example being talked about.

Subject is an actual human being who identifies with a particular gender: "He" or "she", whichever they're identifying with.

Subject is an actual human being who does not identify with a particular gender, has expressed preference with respect to pronouns: Use the pronouns they prefer.

Subject is an actual human being who does not identify with a particular gender, has not expressed preference wrt pronouns, would be socially awkward to ask which pronoun they prefer: "They".

Subject is an actual human being whose gender identity is being kept mysterious for a particular reason, perhaps because they are a character in a story and a plot twist needs to be kept under wraps: "They".

Obviously that's not going to be a universal rule, no language issue ever is, but it's a million light years away from the "six different people and one transperson" example and heading rapidly in the opposite direction.

With respect to discarding tools, I would argue that tools absolutely should be discarded if their use is actually, in a small way, causing harm. Using "he" as a gender-neutral term is arguably just such a tool; you could argue that "he or she" is similarly troubling because it reinforces the gender binary (and it puts he first, as though "he" were the default and "she" were the alternative).