Merrian-Webster Adds Nonbinary Pronoun "They" To Dictionary

Post Reply New Topic

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/merriam-webster-adds-nonbinary-they-pronoun-dictionary-n1055976

I'll stick the rules of English grammar on which I was raised.

"They" is second person plural. That's it.

In Middle English, "his" was the third person neuter possessive, as well as the third person masculine possessive.

Ergh? I thought I just posted on the same topic a few hours earlier...

well ... now no one can argue it's not proper english anymore.

turns out that was a lot simpler than the opponents made it appear.

I have a 17 year-old cousin that identifies as “they”. As a person who has seen way too many attempts to correct people for identifying as “autistic” instead of “person with autism” I am not going to be “that person” who disrespects such a personal choice. But PERSONALLY for this change averse autistic I am not comfortable using “they” for one person. “Non binary” makes more sense to me.

Despite the above Merrian-Webster made the correct decision for the correct reason. A dictionary should reflect actual usage and not make grammatical, scientific, or moral judgements.

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. This same dictionary also has "literally" having the alternate meaning of "figuratively", because people are dumb.

I've always thought that "they" should have been an accepted gender neutral pronoun. "his" was confusing even if grammatically correct.

Only seems reasonable that the dictionary finally recognizes one of the ways the word is actually used.

The same thing happened with the word condescend.

Ultimately, using literally like that isn't because people are dumb, no more than someone calling their large friend Tiny is a result of people being dumb.

This seems like an insult.

Like calling someone "it".

As, it seems to indicate *plural identities* (they = he / she)

Bully: "HEY, 'THEY', GET OVER HERE".

If there were people who expressed a preference for 'it' as their personal pronoun, referring to them as 'it' wouldn't be insulting, even if that word choice would be in any other context.

English is the most ad hoc language ever with a bunch of rules that are routinely broken. The only rule that really matters is how is a word used and understood.

Even before the sensitivity to the concerns of non-binaries, they was used as a term for 3rd person of ambiguous gender. It's only sensible that it won out over the other attempts to make a gender neutral 3rd person term.

This should upset literally no one.

No. Calling the biggest dude in the room "Tiny" is obviously playing around. But if you say "she literally dumped on me" (when she didn't literally defecate on you)then its unclear whether or not you understand the difference between literally and figuratively. Which means you make yourself LOOK dumb. Which is a rather dumb thing to do.

You're right, but only if the person doesn't know what 'literally' literally means. If they do, it's obviously playing around and you'll be the one left looking foolish if you attempt to insist that person 'looks dumb'.

"Oh no, when I said she literally dumped on me, I didn't mean she literally dumped on me, even though I used the word "literally" and was obviously trying to convey outlandish and outrageous behaviour on her part. How silly are you?".

This is exactly the sort of dillution of language that makes me say that this sort of thing is dumb.


And your point only works if the alleged litteral course of events is impossible, such as "I litterally died", which is a dumb expression, but at least it's manifestly untrue.