Singular They

Depending on your point of view, the use of they in the singular is

The easiest way to avoid gender-specific language (not sexist as the term implies certain assumptions about a writer's frame of mind that are probably false.)
The most heinous atrocity visited upon the English language in the last 100 years. Actually, it was widely used until the 11th or 12th centuries, when the latin-speaking grammarians declared "he" to be the generic 3rd person pronoun, just as it is in that language. The plural "they" was never stomped out of common usage, though.
- With all that we Americans have done to the language, SingularThey is the most heinous atrocity visited upon the language? That makes me feel better... :)
Well-intentioned, but violates the norms of common sense and grates on the ear (I am in this camp).
- "They" grates more than "he or she"? AmericanCulturalAssumption -- AnonymousPragmatist?
  - Note, this was ment as a question to the original poster. The AnonymousPragmatist? thinks singular they is just fine. "His or her" or "he or she" grates on my nerves. And don't get me started on "he" one time and "she" the next.
- "they" is certainly preferable to "s/he" (which I've never known how to pronounce)
- "They" sounds perfectly natural and is frequently used BritishCulturalAssumption -- AnonymousGrammarian?

Why not use the existing English language third person singular gender non-specific pronoun: "he"? Don't confuse proper grammar with gender politics.

Because it's frequently ambiguous?

Why not use "they"? We use "you" now, almost exclusively, and that's plural. -- NickBensema And that's dative and accusative declination of "ye" -- AlexeiMarine?

[discussion of plural you (and the Southern U.S. construct "y'all" moved to PluralYou)

In contexts like "everyone should give their variables meaningful names" or "has anyone lost their pencil", "they" has been used by native speakers of English for centuries. To me, at least, it feels entirely natural in such sentences - more so than any other pronoun would. There are other contexts, usually when the gender of the pronoun's antecedent is not clear, where "they" does grate the ear, but does so less than alternatives such as "he" or "he or she".

You could say "everyone should give meaningful names to variables" and "has anyone lost a pencil", the possessive is extra fluff in these cases.

This is not to say that "they" can be used strictly as a singular pronoun (though it seems quite possible that it will be in a few centuries), but apparently singular uses of it do seem to be standard English in some cases. In any case, it seems like an oversimplification to treat SingularThey as nothing more than a well-intentioned but incorrect innovation in usage. People do use SingularThey to avoid gender specific language, but when they do, they are generalizing from uses of "they" that were already accepted.

-- MossCollum

The use of the singular "they" is very frequent in England. I can say "Anyone wanting to come to the party should write their name on the list" and nobody will bat an eyelid. I could write "When the user sees a password verification window they should re-enter their password" and this would be acceptable in a user manual.

I think this usage is more acceptable in England because the grammar of plurals is different anyway, we use plural forms for collective nouns and organization names:

Chelsea are [not] the greatest football team.
Selfridges are having a sale
Help, police, a gang of hooligans are turning over my dustbin!

AmericanCulturalAssumption In those three examples, you are talking about the group as a whole, and so it is more correct to say "Selfridges is ..." etc. However, if you are talking about the behaviour of the group internally, you would use the plural form. So, "The Union is disagreeing" would mean they are united in their disagreement. "The Union are disagreeing" would mean they are fighting amongst one another internally. -- AnthonyLauder

BritishCulturalAssumption In the UK, "The Union are disagreeing" would be ambiguous. We would probably say "The Union are disagreeing amongst themselves" or ".. have internal disagreements", or "The Union are unanimous in disagreeing [with the management]"

Mrs Slocombe would say "I am unanimous in that!" (an AreYouBeingServed cultural assumption.)

That's funny about the AmericanCulturalAssumption, since I'm British myself. I was recounting (above) one of the lessons learned from my English Master at school, who paced up and down forcing us to remember all these very British rules. -- AnthonyLauder

Ah, I bet they taught you not to split infinitives too. I remember such lessons well. It seems a strangely British thing that they teach grammar that is entirely different from that which you hear on the television, in books or in normal conversation. My sister is a teacher and assures me that this formal teaching of obsolete grammar no longer takes place. Don�t forget "to end a sentence with a preposition is a practice up with which I will not put". While we're at it, let's not forget that things differ from but are similar to. "Different to/than" implies that the speaker or writer is not a native English speaker.

Apparently that is a misquote from Churchill - see http://www.cornerstoneword.com/edgepage/grammar/grammar.htm . Which includes this classic: The Guinness Book of Records once kept records of the most prepositions at the end of a sentence, giving pride of place to the anti-Australian boy who complained to his bedtime-book-reading dad, "What did you bring that book, that I don't want to be read to from out of about Down Under up for?"

Contrast with: SpivakPronouns

Where language is used purely as a tool of communication, singular "they" is used without hesitation, when gender distinctions aren't the point of what's being communicated. Us educated types trip over grammatical "correctness" and forget that fitness to the purpose is the most important aspect of any tool. This is my favorite link to discussions of singular "they", in a forum devoted to one of the, um, great mistresses of language as a tool of communication: http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html. -- JudyHawkins

The examples in that discussion were interesting; I found that Austen's use of "they" and "their" was not grating to the eye or ear, unlike some modern usages. -- JohnWebber

The problem also exists in German, despite the availability of three genders (masculine, feminine and neutral). For example, the word for student is "Student". But a female student is a "Studentin" (-in as suffix usually indicates feminine gender). When addressing or talking about a mixed group of students, it's necessary in German to say "Studenten und Studentinnen" (the plural forms of the nouns), or revert to the neologism "StudentInnen?", which is about as attractive as s/he. This problem exists for most German nouns which refer to a profession or state: Arbeiter/Arbeiterin (worker), Politiker/Politikerin (politician); in English, at least we don't have this problem! -- JohnWebber

actor/actress yes we do, also I'd have thought it was less of a problem in a language were all nouns have a gender anyway.

In Turkish, the word "O" is used for he/she/it. And "Onlar" is used for "they", which is hes/shes/its (-lar is plural postfix as -s in English). -- SavasAlparslan

Chinese is similar; the word "keuih" is Cantonese for he/she/it (the closest English pronunciation would be "koi" like the fish, but even that isn't very close). Similarly, "keuihdeih" is they, the suffix -deih is used for plurals (though only with a few certain words; it isn't a general plural form). Mandarin Chinese has a similar construct.

"They" is simply a third person reference, and is perfectly appropriate when gender is unclear: for example, "Tell the next customer that they will have to wait until tomorrow for an appointment". -- AnthonyLauder

Beg to differ: "they" is not appropriate in third person singular. Use instead "he" or "she" but do not buy into PC speak on the grounds that you may violate someone's right not to be offended. There are languages having third-person-gender-neutral pronouns, English isn't one of them. Danish, for example, has "sin" for either "his" or "her" ('Hun tog sin hat og gik sin vej' = 'She took her hat and went her way,' while 'Han tog sin hat og gik sin vej' = 'He took his hat and went his way') allowing a sentence that English doesn't support: 'Man kan gaa sin vej i fred' = 'One may go his/her way in peace' -- English just doesn't have a his/her pronoun, and to usurp "their" to do the job is a grammatical error. -- GarryHamilton

Nonetheless, the SingularThey is commonly used; to argue that it is incorrect requires a rather odd definition of English, namely one that has little to do with the language as it is actually used. This reflects the ancient conflict of PrescriptiveVsDescriptiveGrammar? (which is a HolyWar, and thus not really worth arguing about).
Agreed, though it galls me that people take liberties with the language and justify it as "common usage" -- it's a good thing spoken language is interpreted, not compiled. (See also: PurityOfEnglish) -- GarryHamilton
Even formal (non-spoken?) languages change over time. Although many have precise specifications, in practice the grammar is usually determined by what the compiler allows. The same could be said about spoken languages. -- NickRusso?

"One may go one's way in peace." or "Everyone may go their way in peace." are both correct. They have slightly different meanings. ("One" is closer in meaning to "anyone" than "everyone".) -- DavidSarahHopwood

Should those who disapprove of the singular "they" be required to say "You is"? :?) Only if those who approve of the singular "they" are required to say "They is".

I'm an editor. I believe in good grammar. When language hinders communication, however, it defeats its purpose.

Our forebears would laugh out loud - or at least puzzle over - the "proper" English we speak today. Times change, and language must follow. It serves the people, not vice versa.

That said, I do enjoy people who use language to express their rigidity about language. It's like teaching a parrot to say, "I'm a parrot, and you're not."

Not Singular, Not Plural

The difficulty is in finding an appropriate pronoun for "one." "One" is a concept and does not have either a singular or plural. It is similar to "water," so the pronoun "it" might seem appropriate, except that "it" also has a connotation of being less than human. Thus the most grammatically correct option is rejected out of hand. This leaves the following alternatives.

He - This probably has the most historical basis and is usually unnoticed by readers.
S/He - This is an admirable attempt to create a new pronoun, except that it only works in written text.
Alternate He and She (usually at a paragraph by paragraph level) - This also is usually unnoticed by readers, but requires a little more effort by authors. It can be time consuming to maintain when adding, deleting, or inserting paragraphs. It is also very difficult to keep track of in oral speech.
They - This is usually unnoticed in oral speech but is found to be jarring in written text by some readers in certain contexts. In other contexts, it is unnoticed. For example, "They are spying on me." "Someone is spying on you?" would probably not raise objections.
You - This has the advantage of being non-specific in terms of plurality versus singularity. Use of "you" as an indefinite third person pronoun is quite common in written text and oral speech. It has the disadvantage, though, of also being the second person pronoun and can cause a general statement to be interpreted as a personal attack. For example, compare "One should strive to use proper grammar." with "You should strive to use proper grammar." Of the various alternatives, this is the only one that I would strongly advise speakers and writers to avoid.
We - This is sometimes used as an alternative to "you." The intent is to dull the personal implications of a statement by including the author as well. This can backfire, however, if the audience rejects the author as a member of the group.

See PluralYou