17

I saw this meme on facebook:

enter image description here

So, was "their" truly a genderless 3rd person singular pronoun prior to some change in the 16th/17th century?

This Wikipedia article indicates that the genderless 3rd person singular pronoun was "it" for early English.

When I look at the etymology for "he" it doesn't give enough information. On the other hand, the etymology for "their" gives a hint that "their" was a gender neutral singular pronoun.

I'd like a rigorous answer, preferable something peer reviewed, that explains the source of this claim, if indeed it is true.

Astor Florida
  • 399
  • 2
  • 13
  • 14
    An important consideration is how common was its usage? It’s easy to find a handful of cases for its singular use. There’s a big difference between it having been used, and it having been used usually and frequently. – Just Some Old Man Oct 22 '21 at 01:48
  • 2
    Related, though about current/recent usage, may contain interesting links to references: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/48/is-there-a-correct-gender-neutral-singular-pronoun-his-vs-her-vs-their – Hulk Oct 22 '21 at 07:26
  • 5
    At the very least, it seems that Shakespeare also used "it" when referring not to a member of a group, but an individual with unspecified gender: https://english.stackexchange.com/a/172297 – Hulk Oct 22 '21 at 07:34
  • It might be worth tracking the origin of the quote - Le Guin studied this topic extensively, and may have backed this statement up with references. – Hulk Oct 22 '21 at 14:27
  • 1
    I figure a good way to answer this would be to find a grammar book (or similar) from the relevant time period that documents that use of the term. – Dave Oct 22 '21 at 15:05
  • Sorry to nitpick, but the timing is wierd: Shakespeare wrote in the latter part of the 16th century (late 1500's), so I guess the idea would be that he was working just at the time when the grammaticians were starting to have sway, but didn't (necessarily) jump on that bandwagon himself. The main point would be that Shakespeare, his contemporaries and any English speakers that preceded him are in the time frame you're asking about. – Dave Oct 22 '21 at 18:02
  • 1
    @Dave Even more, in Hulk's link above, Shakespeare used "it" instead of "their". Anyways, how can I say it more clearly than "prior to the 16th century"? – Astor Florida Oct 22 '21 at 18:51
  • 1
    @Dave Not even then. You would have to find a decent sample of books, ensure they were relatively commonly referred to, and record the proportion that document the use. If one book out of a hundred records the use and all 100 were considered canonical, it is not reasonable to conclude the use was common. – Just Some Old Man Oct 22 '21 at 23:42

3 Answers3

21

Yes, from the OED blog:

The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular they back to 1375, where it appears in the medieval romance William and the Werewolf. Except for the old-style language of that poem, its use of singular they to refer to an unnamed person seems very modern. Here’s the Middle English version: ‘Hastely hiȝed eche . . . þei neyȝþed so neiȝh . . . þere william & his worþi lef were liand i-fere.’ In modern English, that’s: ‘Each man hurried . . . till they drew near . . . where William and his darling were lying together.’

Since forms may exist in speech long before they’re written down, it’s likely that singular they was common even before the late fourteenth century. That makes an old form even older.

There's a few more examples in the free OED entries for they and their, and even more in the MED under they 1a(e). (These are both well-regarded sources on historical English, with the OED often being regarded as the best.)

As for how common it was, there's no definitive answer. In The Rise of Epicene They, the author did a proximity search for pronouns following "each/every [noun]" (or similar) in The Canterbury Tales, and found that 18% of the time the pronoun that followed was "they", arguing that this is a good measure for English at the time and place it was written (early 15th century, or earlier if the scribe was faithful to the version being copied).

When did the prohibitions on singular they begin? Androcentrism in Prescriptive Grammar cites a 1746 grammar rule, which it says is "best viewed as an unusually early and very incipient form of the attack on singular 'they", and quotes another source from 1795 that calls out singular they as one of "many violations".

(Singular they isn't one grammatical feature; it is many. There is diversity in when each came into use, but this answer mainly provides evidence for one or two types. I will expand on the other types if I find a suitable source.)

Laurel
  • 30,040
  • 9
  • 132
  • 118
  • 12
    Hardly my area of expertise, but "they drew near" could have meant "they" as a group in that context, IMHO. Besides, the translation was apparently terrible. https://www.bartleby.com/211/1303.html – Fizz Oct 22 '21 at 22:30
  • 7
    “Since forms may exist in speech long before they’re written down, it’s likely that singular they was common even before the late fourteenth century. That makes an old form even older.” This is more than a stretch; it seems like desperation to reach a desired conclusion. A few instances being pointed out is not enough to conclude it was common. – Just Some Old Man Oct 22 '21 at 23:36
  • 1
    I kind of quibble with "each" preceding the "they". Yes, technically singular, but the topic clearly is "a group". Anyway, the larger issue is that what you're quoting is the oldest known instance, which is not evidence of its commonplace use. I find it odd the quote itself is making the bold claim of commonplace use based solely on oldest known instance. So I won't downvote you, since they aren't your words. –  Oct 23 '21 at 00:56
  • 3
    Oh boy, big problem. At the bottom of that blog post, which contains many big and unsourced claims, is the following disclaimer: *"The opinions and other information contained in the OED blog posts and comments do not necessarily reflect the opinions or positions of Oxford University Press."* You've not actually quoted the OUP! –  Oct 23 '21 at 01:09
  • 9
    @fredsbend I don't understand the notice and I don't see any problem here. The blog post was written by a "Professor of English and linguistics" and it serves as a nice quotable intro for the many examples given by the OED and MED, found in the links. The notice is boilerplate; clearly the OED/OUP does believe that's the first example, of the several that they offer. – Laurel Oct 23 '21 at 01:47
  • 3
    @Laurel The notice means precisely that you cannot conclude the OED agrees with what’s being said. That’s literally just what it means. The laurels of the writer are not relevant to the soundness of the reasoning present; believing otherwise is committing the argument by authority fallacy. – Just Some Old Man Oct 23 '21 at 03:06
  • 4
    @JustSomeOldMan (and others)... Please visit the links given in the answer, especially the first dictionary link to [they](http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/200700#eid18519864). The quote given by the blog is the first (i.e. oldest) of several old sources that the OED explicitly lists out. – Laurel Oct 23 '21 at 03:11
  • 2
    It's an unsourced *opinion* piece, and labeled as such. The problem is self evident. –  Oct 23 '21 at 04:32
  • 8
    @Laurel The article " Androcentrism in Prescriptive Grammar" does it for me. That article seems to be a list of grammarians endorsing the Latinization of English; specifically they were trying to endorse the use of "he" instead of a variety of alternatives. Their efforts are an indication of usage; they would not have tried to proscribe something that didn't happen. – Astor Florida Oct 23 '21 at 08:44
  • @axsvl77 Can you point out in the article evidence for “their” being used commonly for the singular before 1500 (the 16th century)? – Just Some Old Man Oct 23 '21 at 18:11
  • After reviewing your update, I'm removing the notice. To improve this answer, I would move the last half beginning *"As for how common it was"*, to the top. The claim-heavy and unsourced blog post is really quite a poor citation. Your update actually attempts to answer the question, instead of just repeats the claim. –  Oct 24 '21 at 14:46
  • @fredsbend OUP are a publisher, it hardly matters whether they endorse what they publish, since they aren't the subject-matter experts in this instance. If a professor writes something about their own area of expertise then it shouldn't matter whether the publisher agrees with them. – kaya3 Oct 27 '21 at 16:48
  • 1
    @kaya3 See how far that gets you if you quote an NYP or WaPo op-ed here. It'll get deleted quick. We're being soft here because it's a touchy subject. –  Oct 27 '21 at 19:33
  • @fredsbend Not sure exactly what point you're trying to make here - you seem to be saying that in general on skeptics.SE, subject-matter experts should only be cited when their publishers agree with them. If subject-matter experts' opinions get deleted on this site simply because of the venue they're published in, doesn't that strike you as a bad policy for truth-seekers? By the way, you described this as an "unsourced opinion piece" but I read it and saw plenty of references to sources. – kaya3 Oct 27 '21 at 19:46
3

I'm afraid I can't give you a peer-reviewed answer. However, the use of the singular "they" by Shakespeare is well documented.

NYUlocal's discussion of the Swedish "hen", also claims the singular "they" was used in The Canterbury Tales, Hamlet, Mansfield Park, and The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

More to the point, in "A Comedy of Errors Shakespeare uses these lines:

There's not a man I meet but doth salute me
As if I were their well-acquainted friend

And there's this from "The Rape of Lucrece":

Now leaden slumber with life's strength doth fight;
And every one to rest themselves betake,
Save thieves, and cares, and troubled minds, that wake.

jwodder
  • 494
  • 2
  • 9
  • 13
hdhondt
  • 5,856
  • 1
  • 35
  • 26
  • 1
    Hmmm. From this, it is hard to determine how standard it was in spoken language. – Astor Florida Oct 22 '21 at 11:11
  • 5
    This could be interpreted as cherry picking. “What proportion of singular pronouns used are singular “their”s?” is the real question. – Just Some Old Man Oct 22 '21 at 12:04
  • 2
    Though I think that this answer could be improved by better filling out where/how Shakespeare's use is "well documented", I think the thrust of this answer is on track: if "the father of modern English" regularly used they/their/themslelves etc. for singular 3rd person, then considering it a "normal" usage seems reasonable to me. – Dave Oct 22 '21 at 15:16
  • 1
    @axsvl77: What do you mean by "spoken" language? Do you contrast spoken language with written language, or do you think along the lines of colloquial vs. formal language? Because if you're interested in the former, then you're probably out of luck: due to, well, technical constraints we simply don't have many reliable sources of spoken archaic English. – Schmuddi Oct 22 '21 at 15:29
  • @Schmuddi I guess I meant "communicate" but perhaps most people weren't writing very much. In my OP, the meme makes a claim that there was a concerted effort in the 16th century to change the old language. – Astor Florida Oct 22 '21 at 16:52
  • You quote some of Shakespeare's usage, which isn't the question, while a comment (not yours) takes that as evidence of common use, which is the question. Is that your intention for this answer? –  Oct 24 '21 at 15:12
  • 1
    @fredsbend while it doesn't necessarily indicate common use, it does imply that people would not have found it particularly unusual. And, the question does not ask for evidence of common use, it asks whether "their" was a singular pronoun. – hdhondt Oct 24 '21 at 23:50
  • "Unusual" is a difficult word. For whom? The listener or speaker? In what context? What dialect? That also puts a lot of faith that Shakespeare's writing was reflective of people's talking ... Anyway, the OPs comment on your post indicates common use as the target, which does the original claim I think. The OP said: *Hmmm. From this, it is hard to determine how standard it was in spoken language.* –  Oct 25 '21 at 00:32
2

The question could be answered by comparison of the King James Bible (1611 version) with the Wycliffe Bible (1382) but would require some considerable research.

Here are two examples I found myself, which indicate that 'they/their/them' was not used singularly prior to the 16th century:

2 Kings 14:12

1611 every man to their tents

1382 ech man in to his tabernaclis

Philippians 2:3

1611 better than themselves

1382 heiyer than hym silf

Source Textus Receptus Bibles

Care would need to be taken in certain passages since the Wycliffe is translated from the Latin Vulgate whereas the KJV is translated from the Koine Greek text and the Masoretic Hebrew text but in these two examples above, the sense is the same, despite different source texts, and the comparison is valid in English.

The Oxford English Dictionary has traced the singular 'they' back to 1375 and 1450 but this does not suggest that it was common usage, only that it is seen in example:

a. With an antecedent that is grammatically singular, but refers collectively to the members of a group, or has universal reference (e.g. each person, everyone, nobody).

Sometimes, but not always, used to avoid having to specify the gender(s) of the individual(s) being referred to; cf. sense A. 2b.

a1375 (▸c1350) William of Palerne (1867) l. 2179 Hastely hiȝed eche wiȝt..til þei neyȝþed so neiȝh..þere william & his worþi lef were liand i-fere.

c1450 (▸?c1400) Three Kings Cologne (Cambr. Ee.4.32) (1886) 6 Noman was hardy in all þat countrey to sette aȝens hem, for drede þat þey hadde of hem.

Laurel
  • 30,040
  • 9
  • 132
  • 118
Nigel J
  • 756
  • 4
  • 11
  • The OED link is not to the OED but to the Textus – mmmmmm Oct 23 '21 at 11:40
  • This particular OED page does not require a subscription. (It's the same one I used in my answer.) Two further comments: 1) One source won't necessarily be reflective of every other source for the next 200+ years (especially when it's the Bible, where the language is often more faithful to other languages). 2) You cannot use the number of dictionary entries to determine frequency. There are other examples not in that (see MED) that weren't included, probably for the sake of space. – Laurel Oct 23 '21 at 13:22
  • 4
    Your examples do not indicate that "they" was not used as a singular pronoun prior to the 16th century. They indicate that *at least one person* in the 14th century *used "he"* as a generic singular pronoun. – Obie 2.0 Oct 23 '21 at 16:25
  • 1
    I like the idea, Nigel, especially since the KJV was translated expressly to be in the "common tongue". However, your approach appears to be original research, which is not allowed. The remainder of the answer is rather lackluster on its own. If you can find a source that does what you're doing here with these bible translations, then we'd be ok. –  Oct 24 '21 at 15:07
  • @fredsbend Thank you. I actually agree with that summation. It was the best I was able to do. – Nigel J Oct 24 '21 at 15:24