pronouns to abstract character

[Eclectic_Asininity]

You people should try to obsess over writing a good story rather than something as vapid as pronouns.

 

[Paul_Tromba]

If it is a concrete entity with its own definite actions affecting the real world on its own and not existing as a thought or an idea then it doesn't matter if it's the embodiment of time or the living number two.

Oh, it has no effect on the real world, only speaking to people via dreams and is only manifested based on each person's view of time. It can't do anything to effect the world accept by granting power over time to a person on occasion. Which I guess would count as effecting the real world but I would argue that since this is done at random and the person can do as they pleased.

 

[KrakenRiderEmma]

The dictionary is a pretty good resource on this, as they have lexicographers who study how words are used throughout history and in current times. Here's what Merriam-Webster has to say:

They, their, them, themselves: English lacks a common-gender third person singular pronoun that can be used to refer to indefinite pronouns (such as everyone, anyone, someone). Writers and speakers have supplied this lack by using the plural pronouns.

and every one to rest themselves betake—William Shakespeare
I would have everybody marry if they can do it properly—Jane Austen
it is too hideous for anyone in their senses to buy—W. H. Auden

The plural pronouns have also been put to use as pronouns of indefinite number to refer to singular nouns that stand for many persons.

'tis meet that some more audience than a mother, since nature makes them partial, should o'erhear the speech—William Shakespeare
a person can't help their birth—W. M. Thackeray
no man goes to battle to be killed.—But they do get killed—G. B. Shaw

The use of they, their, them, and themselves as pronouns of indefinite gender and indefinite number is well established in speech and writing, even in literary and formal contexts. In recent years, these pronouns have also been adopted by individuals whose gender identity is nonbinary, as illustrated in sense 3d above.

And Oxford English Dictionary has an article: A brief history of singular ‘they’ | Oxford English Dictionary (oed.com)
Plus here's the fancy OED citation:

Basically words like "they" and "them" have been used for hundreds of years to refer to a hypothetical person or an indefinite person. It was never controversial to do that until the 21st century when people started using they/them as a pronoun, then suddenly there was a backlash against using "they" to refer to an indefinite person as well.

However, if you look closely at how people talk about hypothetical people, English speakers use "they" as an indefinite pronoun all the time.

Examples:
"I don't know who it belongs to, but someone left their bookbag outside on the sidewalk!" People say this kind of thing all the time without thinking about it, and most do not naturally/automatically say "someone left his or her bookbag."

"I can't fill in for you as a restaurant host, I don't know what I'm doing! If a customer comes in and asks for a table, how am I supposed to know where they should sit?"

etc etc.

Summary: people think "singular they" for an indefinite person is wrong. It's not, nobody who studies language thinks so, and it's been used continuously for hundreds of years. It's only recently that people started insisting it was wrong, and that backlash is mostly about non-binary pronouns. But most of the usages of pronouns for indefinite / hypothetical people have nothing to do with that.

 

[AetherialCore]

I won't chastise someone for using either he or she when refering to an ambiguous professional in reference to the individual, but I do take issue with using words like they or them.

the usage of "they" and "them" and "their" as a singular pronoun is grammatically valid.

 

[Tyranomaster]

To clarify my previous post, if it is a non-abiguous situation, then using they or them is fine.

However, in the situation of a hypothetical doctor, using they could either refer to the individual or "doctors" as a general term, which can be confusing.

Most formal or informal writing is done while visualizing an individual (real or imagined) who is being referenced, and the author will use the pronoun of that person. If their grandmother was prominent in their life, and a doctor they looked up to, they're likely to use She as the pronoun in a hypothetical book about doctors.

The prevailence of certain pronouns in certain professions reflects the prevailence of those genders within the field (there may be a feedback loop).

 

[TotallyHuman]

Oh, it has no effect on the real world, only speaking to people via dreams and is only manifested based on each person's view of time. It can't do anything to effect the world accept by granting power over time to a person on occasion. Which I guess would count as effecting the real world but I would argue that since this is done at random and the person can do as they pleased.

That sounds concrete enough to me. Here is an analogy:

Oh the Sun is an abstract existence, my fellow blind sapient fungi dwarfs, one that is manifested based upon an individual's view of the infinite space above the world's ceiling. It can't do anything to affect the world except for granting us the power of photosynthesis. Which I guess counts as affecting the real world but I would argue that since it is done at random and the individual receiving its gift can do with it as he (actually abstract hypothetical individual) pleases it is not so.

 

[DWinchester]

In my story Tenebroum I have three non-human characters: The lich is barely a person and uses it/they pronouns, a spirit that is all that remains of a dwarven fire god which uses he/him pronouns, and a river dragon which uses she/her pronouns. None of these characters have a true gender, and two of them never did, but they are given the pronouns that are the most suitable based on how they are presented to the audience.

You can have whichever pronouns in your story you want so long as they are consistent, and I think the audience will respect and enjoy it.

 

[TotallyHuman]

In my story Tenebroum I have three non-human characters: The lich is barely a person and uses it/they pronouns, a spirit that is all that remains of a dwarven fire god which uses he/him pronouns, and a river dragon which uses she/her pronouns. None of these characters have a true gender, and two of them never did, but they are given the pronouns that are the most suitable based on how they are presented to the audience.

You can have whichever pronouns in your story you want so long as they are consistent, and I think the audience will respect and enjoy it.

I'm not using it for writing, but to sate my curiosity.
Though neither the lich or the rest of the nonbiological beings here are abstract, just genderless. So the question here is not about "how do I refer to my particular very unique lich character here?"
But "how do I refer to all lich characters when employing an abstract idea of a lich in a sentence?"

Oh, it has no effect on the real world, only speaking to people via dreams and is only manifested based on each person's view of time. It can't do anything to effect the world accept by granting power over time to a person on occasion. Which I guess would count as effecting the real world but I would argue that since this is done at random and the person can do as they pleased.

Though I guess it could be an abstract character if "god of time" was not an actual entity but a namesake for a phenomenon of experiencing a warping of perception during some kind of mutation?
Then it'd be as abstract as number two, maybe?

 

[AetherialCore]

When a physicist observes a natural phenomenon, he does it by...

"When a physicist observes a natural phenomenon, the motherfucker does it by..."

there, problem solved!
i'm a writhing genusi

edit: This reply is cringe. What the hell am I even doing here? I'm getting back to write my shitty novel. Have a good time writing, Authors!

 

[Ilikewaterkusa]

In many books(usually textbooks) the authors use he, or sometimes she, when reffering to an abstract character they describe.
Something like:

When do people use "he" and when "she" when talking about an abstract entity?

it describes their metaphysical nature. For example, God is an abstract being but he is described as a father and a man due to his ordered nature

 

[Eclectic_Asininity]

the usage of "they" and "them" and "their" as a singular pronoun is grammatically valid.

No it's really not, you can't just fundamentally change the English language just because of some passing fad of mental illness. If this whole gender thing can last for 10-20 more years, than yeah maybe. But that's not very probable.

 

[AetherialCore]

No it's really not, you can't just fundamentally change the English language just because of some passing fad of mental illness. If this whole gender thing can last for 10-20 more years, than yeah maybe. But that's not very probable.

yes, it is valid.
it's not a recent thing influenced by the gender-thingy, but had been that way for centuries.
i read a book call "the mysteries of udolpho," which was from 1794, and remember seeing 'they' used as a singular pronoun for a person of unknown gender.
go learn the actual fundamentals of the english language that is not just your own notion of how the language should be; you won't be able to read the book unless you do.

 

[Eclectic_Asininity]

yes, it is valid.
it's not a recent thing influenced by the gender-thingy, but had been that way for centuries.
i read a book call "the mysteries of udolpho," which was from 1794, and remember seeing 'they' used as a singular pronoun for a person of unknown gender.
go learn the actual fundamentals of the english language that is not just your own notion of how the language should be; you won't be able to read the book unless you do.

Wow a single novel used it that way, I guess that's just a fact. I suppose if I use any word any way I want in my novel, that just means everyone else has to follow suite huh? Stop using the word "valid." There is no such thing as "validation." It just means whatever the greater opinion is, and believe it or not the greater opinion lies outside of the internet. But please, go pick and choose a few other random obscure examples to "prove your point."

 

[SailusGebel]

 

[AetherialCore]

single novel used it that way, I guess that's just a fact.

the fact is: there is one novel using it that way, and i only brought it up as an example.
what isn't a fact is: a single novel used it that way.

I suppose if I use any word any way I want in my novel, that just means everyone else has to follow suite huh?

no.
weird logic, but okay...?

Stop using the word "valid."

no.

There is no such thing as "validation." It just means whatever the greater opinion is

i would also recommend using the dictionary to learn the correct meaning of vocabulary instead of distorting words definition to suit your needs.

and believe it or not the greater opinion lies outside of the internet.

and believe it or not, the great number of people could not resist writing their opinion on the internet, including you and me.
the internet is the future; and the future is now, old man.

obscure examples

"the mysteries of udolpho" was a novel of great importance for the 'gothic fiction' genre.
i don't think that's obscure, but i understand that not many people care.

addendum: replying to this guy somehow gives me a huge ego boost.
addendum 2: typos everywhere, my ego is now deminishing.

 

[Tyranomaster]

Another note to both the original author, and commentors: Language, and pronouns, are used to convey meaning or a story to your reader. To connect an idea from your head, into their head through the medium of language.

Feel free to use whatever pronouns, or even language you want to write in. Remember though, that if your audience can't relate or, worse, understand what you are saying, then the meaning is lost.

They and them are somewhat ambiguous, and don't convey the same mental image or interpersonal feel as he or she for the majority of the english speaking world. Most people don't have tactile experience with using they and them for an individual unless it was in the context of confusion (tertiary interaction refering to an individual of unknown gender either due to ambiguity or brevity of interaction).

Personal Anecdotal Evidence:

He was in a rush. (Conjures an image of a man hurrying somewhere. Feels like I am witnessing event)

They were in a rush. (Conjures an interaction where someone is telling me that someone else was hurrying somewhere. Feels like someone is telling me about an event that they witnessed)

 

[Eclectic_Asininity]

the fact is: there is one novel using it that way, and i only brought it up as an example.
what isn't a fact is: a single novel used it that way.

what isn't a fact: Somebody cares

no.
weird logic, but okay...?

It is weird, I'm still wondering why you said it.

no.

i would also recommend using the dictionary to learn the correct meaning of vocabulary instead of distorting words definition to suit your needs.

I would recommend getting a job.

and believe it or not, the great number of people could not resist writing their opinion on the internet, including you and me.
the internet is the future; and the future is now, old man.

Cringe.

"the mysteries of udolpho" was a novel of great importance for the 'gothic fiction' genre.
i don't think that's obscure, but i understand that not many people care.

Right, this doesn't change the fact that it's a single example that cannot denote the entire structure of grammatic literacy.

addendum: replying to this guy somehow gives me a huge ego boost.
addendum 2: typos everywhere, my ego is now deminishing.

Cringe.

 

[AetherialCore]

structure of grammatic literacy

you meant "grammatical structure," right?
otherwise, the sentense doesn't make any sense.
seriously, use a dictionary.

***your every other sentenses

doesn't add anything to the arguments.
in fact, they don't even help your points.
reading them is a ego boost; now my ego is back, rising to the roof.

it's a single example that cannot denote the entire structure of grammatic literacy.

an example is an example.
the example doesn't change anything; it only supports my original point: "it's not a recent thing influenced by the gender-thingy, but had been that way for centuries."

 

[LunaSoltaer]

(blabbing on the interweb)

Yeah, typos really really fuck with the adrenalin surge of swatting shit down on the internet.

I think the only thing here that raises an eyebrow from me is the whole using "valid" thing, and it's a valid use of the word, it just personally leaves a bit of a sour taste because a lot of people will use it as a bludgeon to slap people with and that just isn't, pardon the pun, valid.

You're not doing that though. Props to you.

(a lot less cool blabbing on the internet)

You joined this thread with a really, and I do mean Really, solid measage: pronouns SHOULDN'T be this all encompassing ever important thing.

Like after I post this, ill like that post because you're really on point....

And then you shit all over your own position by going after singular they instead of something actually asinine like neopronouns.

and THEN you degrade into personal attacks. Seriously, you're literally validating your oppositions grievances with you at this point.

I get you're applying prescriptive grammar to things, but the descriptive grammar has moved on, and there IS precedent for singularising a plural pronoun: Let me introduce you to the entire concept of You and why it conjugates as plural despite being a singular pronoun...

Because It Wasn't. We had a Separate second person singular pronoun. It was a cool Shakesperean-yearning thing called Thou.

Then it died, its usage replaced by you entirely.

All people are doing is adapting They to replace He As General Pronoun. This isn't wild, and has more of a root in the Women's Suffrage movements than gender.

Look, I Get the absurdity that has been modern discourse on gender and how it's being devalued into an aesthetic but you are Literally distracted if Singular They is your issue.

That or you're trolling, but I wish to assume good faith on your part. After all you did start strong.



If you hate Singular They, start campaigning to bring back Thou. If thou dost, I shall thee join.

 

[AetherialCore]

yooooooo.
the master shitposter is still reading the thread.
sensei, please give use your score!!!
which side is spitting fire???
wkwk