Non-standard pronouns in writing

[SirKazum]

Not sure if this is the right place, because it's really an English grammar question, but since it concerns a work of fiction I'm writing... I've got a question on non-binary pronoun usage, and figured you guys would be the ones to ask.

In a sci-fi book I'm writing, there are alien races that don't have a gender division (in the specific case at hand, because they're hermaphrodites), so I thought I'd reflect that in writing by using "they" instead of either "he" or "she", as such characters are neither male nor female.

So far, so good. But then I came upon a construction that gave me pause, so I'd like to run it by you folks, to see if anyone more used to this kind of pronoun can tell me what's common usage.

Jekh was/were so taken aback at what they perceived as a sudden shift in attitude that they forgot to address the flagrant display of indiscipline.

Relevant part in bold. "They" is grammatically plural, so if I used the pronoun instead of the name, it would go "They were so taken aback". That's fine. But... "Jekh were"? That sounds weird to me. Maybe because, normally, when you introduce a singular third-person entity by a noun (whether proper or common) instead of a pronoun, the singular "was" naturally flows from it. But, if I use "was", it turns into a concordance problem when I introduce the pronoun "they" later on in the sentence.

So... when it comes to non-binary people or otherwise people referred to as "they", is any verb that has them as a subject always inflected as plural, even when that pronoun isn't there? Or is the singular inflection right in this case?

[Fyraltari]

Not sure if this is the right place, because it's really an English grammar question, but since it concerns a work of fiction I'm writing... I've got a question on non-binary pronoun usage, and figured you guys would be the ones to ask.

In a sci-fi book I'm writing, there are alien races that don't have a gender division (in the specific case at hand, because they're hermaphrodites), so I thought I'd reflect that in writing by using "they" instead of either "he" or "she", as such characters are neither male nor female.

So far, so good. But then I came upon a construction that gave me pause, so I'd like to run it by you folks, to see if anyone more used to this kind of pronoun can tell me what's common usage.



Relevant part in bold. "They" is grammatically plural, so if I used the pronoun instead of the name, it would go "They were so taken aback". That's fine. But... "Jekh were"? That sounds weird to me. Maybe because, normally, when you introduce a singular third-person entity by a noun (whether proper or common) instead of a pronoun, the singular "was" naturally flows from it. But, if I use "was", it turns into a concordance problem when I introduce the pronoun "they" later on in the sentence.

So... when it comes to non-binary people or otherwise people referred to as "they", is any verb that has them as a subject always inflected as plural, even when that pronoun isn't there? Or is the singular inflection right in this case?

Not an ebglish speaker and know no-one who uses non-binary pronouns, so obviously the most qualified here:

I suggest you use "they" as a singular neutral pronoun. Of course that means trading "Jekh were" for "they was" so that probably will look weird anyway.

In any case, I think the people on the LGBT+ Q&A thread may have more answers for you.

[SirKazum]

In any case, I think the people on the LGBT+ Q&A thread may have more answers for you.

I'll ask there, thanks for the suggestion!

[Peelee]

Not sure if this is the right place, because it's really an English grammar question, but since it concerns a work of fiction I'm writing... I've got a question on non-binary pronoun usage, and figured you guys would be the ones to ask.

In a sci-fi book I'm writing, there are alien races that don't have a gender division (in the specific case at hand, because they're hermaphrodites), so I thought I'd reflect that in writing by using "they" instead of either "he" or "she", as such characters are neither male nor female.

So far, so good. But then I came upon a construction that gave me pause, so I'd like to run it by you folks, to see if anyone more used to this kind of pronoun can tell me what's common usage.



Relevant part in bold. "They" is grammatically plural, so if I used the pronoun instead of the name, it would go "They were so taken aback". That's fine. But... "Jekh were"? That sounds weird to me. Maybe because, normally, when you introduce a singular third-person entity by a noun (whether proper or common) instead of a pronoun, the singular "was" naturally flows from it. But, if I use "was", it turns into a concordance problem when I introduce the pronoun "they" later on in the sentence.

So... when it comes to non-binary people or otherwise people referred to as "they", is any verb that has them as a subject always inflected as plural, even when that pronoun isn't there? Or is the singular inflection right in this case?

Eh. "You" can be single or plural, I see no reason for "they" to not also be able to if used as a single pronoun.

[BeerMug Paladin]

I think in a classical sense, "they" can be used as a singular pronoun, that usage is just rare.

It's just one of those things that is uncommon in the modern age, like how referring to the human species of both sexes used to simply be "man" or "mankind".

I think if you're writing fiction you can choose whatever convention you'd like.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Eh. "You" can be single or plural, I see no reason for "they" to not also be able to if used as a single pronoun.

IMnpHO, it's a bit trickier than that. It is plural, but the proper name is singular. So the correct sentence is:

Jekh was so taken aback at what they perceived as a sudden shift in attitude that they forgot to address the flagrant display of indiscipline.

But then, if you keep talking about Jekh without using their name, you should switch to plural, thus:

Jekh was so taken aback at what they perceived as a sudden shift in attitude that they forgot to address the flagrant display of indiscipline. They were so flabbergasted, in fact, that for a second their formal overalls slipped from their crestal flumbars, which would have caused quite the shock, had they not caught it in time.

(Do excuse me if they have neither formal overalls nor crestal flumbars, I just wanted an excuse to use "flabbergasted" in a sentence)

Grey Wolf

[Rynjin]

The form of the pronoun doesn't matter, it's the subject that does. The subject is Jekh (a singular person).

"Jekh was surprised" is the correct form. Starting the sentence with "they" still makes it "They were surprised", which works at least as far as colloquial English. When you're talking about a singular person with a third person pronoun you still use "were".

"Did you see how Becky reacted to that spider?" "Yeah, they were SO scared."

TL;DR: Do what sounds natural. Exact and perfect proper English doesn't read well anyway, save it for formal letters and stuff.

[LaZodiac]

An alternative fix would be: Jekh was so taken aback at what they perceived as a sudden shift in attitude that they'd forgot to address the flagrant display of indiscipline.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

An alternative fix would be: Jekh was so taken aback at what they perceived as a sudden shift in attitude that they'd forgot to address the flagrant display of indiscipline.

Wait, what? What's that "d" there an abbreviation of?

"They had forgot to address the flagrant display of indiscipline"?
"They would forgot to address the flagrant display of indiscipline"?

GW

[Fyraltari]

I'll ask there, thanks for the suggestion!

You're welcome.

Eh. "You" can be single or plural, I see no reason for "they" to not also be able to if used as a single pronoun.

Is "you" truly singular though?
It is applied to single individuals, yes but that is because the English are so formal they forgot to "thou" existed.

Both French and German when using plural pronouns for formality ("vous" and "Sie" respectively) use plural conjugation, so "Jekh was"/"They were" might just be the "correct" solution.

I don't know how (and if) other languages do this so maybe there is no rule?

[LaZodiac]

Wait, what? What's that "d" there an abbreviation of?

"They had forgot to address the flagrant display of indiscipline"?
"They would forgot to address the flagrant display of indiscipline"?

GW

Pretty sure it's the first of those. I'll admit this is something that probably goes more into the realm of slang/verbal writing than narration?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Is "you" truly singular though?

It is, for all intents and purposes. Except when it comes to verb conjugation, were it still uses the plural, as it always did.

Don't look or expect consistency in English. "You" is the singular second person pronoun that happens to use the plural conjugation. "You" is also the plural second person pronoun, and thus, naturally, uses the plural conjugation. Expecting it to make sense like French, Spanish or German is just not in the cards.

So the bottom line is that given the sentence "You are great at cards", you don't have enough context within the sentence to figure out how many people are good at cards. Could be one, could be many. But if instead the sentence is "You are a great card player", you know it's one single person, while "You are great card players", you know it is many.

And going meta, you also can't tell if by those "you" in "you know it is many", I mean "Fyraltari" or "everyone in this thread".

Edit:

Pretty sure it's the first of those. I'll admit this is something that probably goes more into the realm of slang/verbal writing than narration?

That'd need to be "They'd forgotten", then. I'm sure that conjugation has a name, but it's been decades since I didn't bother to learn the conjugation names in the first place, I'm afraid.

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

IMnpHO, it's a bit trickier than that. It is plural, but the proper name is singular. So the correct sentence is:

Jekh was so taken aback at what they perceived as a sudden shift in attitude that they forgot to address the flagrant display of indiscipline.

But then, if you keep talking about Jekh without using their name, you should switch to plural, thus:

Jekh was so taken aback at what they perceived as a sudden shift in attitude that they forgot to address the flagrant display of indiscipline. They were so flabbergasted, in fact, that for a second their formal overalls slipped from their crestal flumbars, which would have caused quite the shock, had they not caught it in time.

(Do excuse me if they have neither formal overalls nor crestal flumbars, I just wanted an excuse to use "flabbergasted" in a sentence)

Grey Wolf

True. Fortunately, I'm covered by the whole "don't make it sound awkward" bit. Or, phrased better:

TL;DR: Do what sounds natural. Exact and perfect proper English doesn't read well anyway, save it for formal letters and stuff.

Not to mention that there's a lot of disagreement on what perfect proper English is to begin with. I'm looking at you, infinitive splitting and preposition ending decriers!

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Not to mention that there's a lot of disagreement on what perfect proper English is to begin with.

Perfect... proper... English? I'm not sure those words can be put together. It's like trying to picture what a legitimate bastard is. It seems to have an inherent contradiction in there.



GW

[Peelee]

Perfect... proper... English? I'm not sure those words can be put together. It's like trying to picture what a legitimate bastard is. It seems to have an inherent contradiction in there.



GW

It's easily solved by the mathematician's answer: perfect proper English is defined by the way that I talk. Problem solved!

[Fyraltari]

It is, for all intents and purposes. Except when it comes to verb conjugation, were it still uses the plural, as it always did.

Don't look or expect consistency in English. "You" is the singular second person pronoun that happens to use the plural conjugation. "You" is also the plural second person pronoun, and thus, naturally, uses the plural conjugation. Expecting it to make sense like French, Spanish or German is just not in the cards.

So the bottom line is that the sentence "You are great at cards", you don't have enough context within the sentence to figure out how many people are good at cards. Could be one, could be many. But if instead the sentence is "You are a great card player", you know it's one single person, while "You are great card players", you know it is many.

And going meta, you also can't tell if by those "you" in "you know it is many", I mean "Fyraltari" or "everyone in this thread".

Actually you have made me realize this is also how it works in French and German. "You are great at cards" would be "vous êtes doué(e)(s) aux cartes" and "you don't have enough context" "vous n'avez pas assez de contexte". In the former case (but not in the latter) there is enough information but only because the adjectives accords with the pronoun who would be singular (masculine or feminine) despite having a plural conjugation. Neat.

The rules of English are not really random, however messy they look, they simply reflects the many different people (andlanguage) that came to the island so it is not imposible to try and figure out the rules for this particular edge-case. As long as we remember that no one can really decide what is correct anyway (well SirKazum will ultimately decide what to use but you get my point).

[SirKazum]

Thank you all for your replies!

So, general consensus seems to be "Jekh was..." / "They were". Alright then. That's what I was going for initially, but I was afraid I'd run into some grammatical concordance issue there. But, from the response here, I guess it's perfectly fine to write like that

Eh. "You" can be single or plural, I see no reason for "they" to not also be able to if used as a single pronoun.

That's very true from a semantic point of view; grammatically, however, singular "you" still conjugates as plural, and (AFAIK) so does singular "they". Hence the confusion.

(Do excuse me if they have neither formal overalls nor crestal flumbars, I just wanted an excuse to use "flabbergasted" in a sentence)

Eh, that's a rather fine example, accuracy to a fictional character/race you haven't been introduced to notwithstanding

TL;DR: Do what sounds natural. Exact and perfect proper English doesn't read well anyway, save it for formal letters and stuff.

In my writing, I generally go for "informal though correct". As in, some people might take issue with some things I write, but pretty much anyone would agree they're being annoyingly pedantic. (Assuming I don't make any mistakes, which is hardly a fair assumption - I'm talking about what I aim for, not what I do )

Not to mention that there's a lot of disagreement on what perfect proper English is to begin with. I'm looking at you, infinitive splitting and preposition ending decriers!

I'll be bolder than that and actually go out and say that complaining about split infinitives and preposition endings is ludicrous. English isn't Latin. Get over it.

Perfect... proper... English? I'm not sure those words can be put together. It's like trying to picture what a legitimate bastard is. It seems to have an inherent contradiction in there.

Eh, don't be so hard on poor ol' English. From my descriptivist point of view, there's no such thing as a "bad" language. It is what it is.

[Ibrinar]

Well if the main question is cleared up: I wonder what we would actually do when talking to such an alien species (in the near future before further linguistic shifts.). A species such as this would probably care as much about pronoun gender as a species with entirely different blood would care about what personalities japan associates with different blood types. A curiosity of a different cultures/species but little more. Since they have no gender it just wouldn't matter to them. Adjusting the way they are addressed is likely entirely about it being important to us not them. So I wonder whether we would just default to a pronoun or actually do the neutral thing.

[5a Violista]

IMnpHO, it's a bit trickier than that. It is plural, but the proper name is singular. So the correct sentence is:

This kind-of reminds me of another pronoun-thing in English: the royal we/majestic plural, and so using singular-noun plural-pronoun isn't that much of a novelty.

Singular member of royalty but plural 1st-person pronoun.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Well if the main question is cleared up: I wonder what we would actually do when talking to such an alien species (in the near future before further linguistic shifts.). A species such as this would probably care as much about pronoun gender as a species with entirely different blood would care about what personalities japan associates with different blood types. A curiosity of a different cultures/species but little more. Since they have no gender it just wouldn't matter to them. Adjusting the way they are addressed is likely entirely about it being important to us not them. So I wonder whether we would just default to a pronoun or actually do the neutral thing.

That is easy enough to test. Just pick any language that lacks grammar conventions you take for granted or vice versa.

A few examples:

This kind-of reminds me of another pronoun-thing in English: the royal we/majestic plural, and so using singular-noun plural-pronoun isn't that much of a novelty.

Singular member of royalty but plural 1st-person pronoun.

That's not a thing exclusive to English. The Catholic Pope, for example, also speaks like that in whichever language he uses (and then gets translated into a bunch of others). It is not "a singular member of royalty" - when a head of state uses it, it indicates they are speaking for the entirety of the people they are head of. Plural makes sense in that context. Arrogant, certainly, but arrogance comes with being the representative of millions.

Grey Wolf

[Brother Oni]

Well if the main question is cleared up: I wonder what we would actually do when talking to such an alien species (in the near future before further linguistic shifts.). A species such as this would probably care as much about pronoun gender as a species with entirely different blood would care about what personalities japan associates with different blood types. A curiosity of a different cultures/species but little more.

The obvious answer would be to ask them what they would like to be addressed as.

As for whether they'd care, it'd depend on the sensibilities of the individual. Undue belief in blood astrology can and has lead to problems ranging from trivial ("My horoscope forecast says to wear blue today") to more serious (discrimination against the AB blood group, especially in Japan's Taiwanese and Ainu minorities as AB blood is more common in those ethnic groups).

[snowblizz]

Well if the main question is cleared up: I wonder what we would actually do when talking to such an alien species (in the near future before further linguistic shifts.). A species such as this would probably care as much about pronoun gender as a species with entirely different blood would care about what personalities japan associates with different blood types. A curiosity of a different cultures/species but little more. Since they have no gender it just wouldn't matter to them. Adjusting the way they are addressed is likely entirely about it being important to us not them. So I wonder whether we would just default to a pronoun or actually do the neutral thing.

What we do would depend on our own baseline I imagine. I'd would probably assign a gender and be done with it, like everyone on-line I class as "dude" until I get some other indication.

Make sure all the diplomats meeting them speak languages which does not have gendered pronouns.

It's entirely possible to have highly defined gender roles yet not have gender specific pronouns.

[SirKazum]

This kind-of reminds me of another pronoun-thing in English: the royal we/majestic plural, and so using singular-noun plural-pronoun isn't that much of a novelty.

Singular member of royalty but plural 1st-person pronoun.

As Grey_Wolf_c said, there's an element of semantic plurality there... but in any way, grammatically, "we" and "you" are different from "they" in one key aspect: you refer to things or people by name in 3rd person, not in 1st or 2nd. If you're using 1st or 2nd person, the pronoun is always there, so there's no confusion about how to conjugate. My problem was with how to conjugate with a name, which is 3rd person singular, which refers to a person for whom the pronoun is "they", which conjugates as 3rd person plural. But anyway, that's all cleared up

That is easy enough to test. Just pick any language that lacks grammar conventions you take for granted or vice versa.

A few examples:

SO MUCH YES. People so often fail to realize that other languages don't work like their own; IMO that's, by far, the most common problem people have when learning a foreign language. I think my talent for learning languages (I don't think it's haughty to acknowledge that, with how uncanny it is) may come from a mindset in which I can easily drop all assumptions about the situation at hand and approach it like I truly know nothing.

And apropos of the video, I wonder what would happen if the most widely-spoken and influential languages in the world had strong evidentiality baked into them... whether people would be less prone to fall for fallacies and fake news. Probably not

The obvious answer would be to ask them what they would like to be addressed as.

But I think they might as well say something in the spirit of "hey, it's your language, use whatever you think is appropriate". If I had to guess, I'd say that's the most likely response, actually. So, again, it might fall back on our decision.

Personally, I'd be all for using "they" (after all, I'm already doing that in fiction), but I suppose what would happen in practice (if those aliens showed up today, anyways) would be that people would refer to them using gendered pronouns/language, probably male. No, strike that - certainly male, as long as gendered language is used at all. Otherwise, if you uniformly used female pronouns, people would always ask "where are the dude aliens" (and the fact that they wouldn't with uniformly male-addressed aliens is telling).

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Actually you have made me realize this is also how it works in French and German. "You are great at cards" would be "vous êtes doué(e)(s) aux cartes" and "you don't have enough context" "vous n'avez pas assez de contexte". In the former case (but not in the latter) there is enough information but only because the adjectives accords with the pronoun who would be singular (masculine or feminine) despite having a plural conjugation. Neat.

Yes, but that's because you are using formal language. In everyday conversation, you probably would use "tu" rather than "vous", which would give away that you're talking to a single individual rather than a group.

But really, I was exaggerating for effect. I know every language can be put in a position where context would be required to understand how many people are being talked to. Western languages, for example, do not have a way to distinguish between a group of two people versus three or more, as other languages do. Adverbs instead would need to be included in the sentence to give that context. English simply goes a step further and doesn't distinguish between one and many. It's hardly a difference.

GW

[Ibrinar]

That is easy enough to test. Just pick any language that lacks grammar conventions you take for granted or vice versa.

A few examples:

To be honest I don't get your meaning, how is that a test for that?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

To be honest I don't get your meaning, how is that a test for that?

You wondered what it's like to talk to people that don't have a a gendered language. Now, English already being fairly ungendered (compared to, say, French), that might be hard to find. But, for example, you are completely used to verbs having a time-dependent conjugation system that you probably don't even realize that you are shackled by it. So if you want to test what it is like to talk to someone who has a language unshackled by such a limitation, find a Chinese speaker, and ask them about how that language manages without requiring verbs to be time-conjugated, and how that affects their overall view of the world.

There are endless ways in which your language, no matter which one you happen to use, limits your way of thinking, because you think in that language, and if the language lacks a way to form a sentence, you have a hard time to think about that. As was exemplified in the video, in English you can't form a sentence about a person and dancing that is not placed in past, present or future tense. Learning other languages is enormously helpful in examining these ideas that you couldn't otherwise. It is posited, with a certain degree of sense, that this is the reason why bilingual+ speakers are far less likely to suffer from Alzheimers: their brains are wired for multiple languages, which means they have multiple pathways to examine the same concepts, one for every language, which gives their brains a resilience against some of those pathways failing.

Grey Wolf

[Ibrinar]

No I wondered about talking to/about aliens who don't have a gender in english or another gendered language. (Well their language wouldn't have a gender of course but when talking in their language the answer is kinda obvious.) But thanks that clears up what you meant.

[Red Fel]

Just to be difficult, I'm going to raise a different grammatical issue.

To wit: You are using "they," here, as a singular, not as a plural. That is, you are ascribing a new meaning to it - singular, alternative-sex pronoun.

As such, singular references should be used. "They was," as opposed to "they were," would be appropriate, for this use of "they" only, because this use of "they" is indeed singular.

Consider it this way. Suppose we had an extant, singular, alternative-sex pronoun that applied here. Let's call it "smeerp." Now, let's use your sentence, with "smeerp" inserted where appropriate.

"Jekh was so taken aback at what smeerp perceived as a sudden shift in attitude that smeerp forgot to address the flagrant display of indiscipline. Smeerp was so flabbergasted, in fact, that for a second smeerp's formal overalls slipped from smeerp's crestal flumbars, which would have caused quite the shock, had smeerp not caught it in time."

It functions as a singular pronoun. Here, you're simply using the word "they," in the absence of a suitable substitute, as a singular pronoun, and ought to treat it as such. Yes, that will be jarring to an audience accustomed to seeing "they" as a plural, but as long as you promptly and firmly establish this as a grammatical rule, it works.

Alternatively, because this is an alien race, it would not be inappropriate to use an alien word - a number of authors do it. It would pretty quickly become clear that this is how smeerp describe smeerpselves. Nor is this uncommon even in reality - there are a number of real-world cultures where an alternative sex or gender is culturally recognized, and that culture has developed a specific term to describe it.

Another alternative is that this hermaphroditic race ascribes duality to themselves, and each think of themself as a plural. That is, because each is both male and female, each is essentially two-people-made-one, and therefore think of themselves in the plural. In which case, the sentence would actually read:

"Jekh were so taken aback at what they perceived as a sudden shift in attitude that they forgot to address the flagrant display of indiscipline. They were so flabbergasted, in fact, that for a second their formal overalls slipped from their crestal flumbars, which would have caused quite the shock, had they not caught it in time."

[Grey_Wolf_c]

No I wondered about talking to/about aliens who don't have a gender in english or another gendered language. (Well their language wouldn't have a gender of course but when talking in their language the answer is kinda obvious.) But thanks that clears up what you meant.

OK, so what you want is to talk to an agendered individual who grew up using an ungendered language? OK, fair enough, not as easy, but I do believe there are languages in the world that don't use genders (Tagalog used to be one, but unfortunately, got influenced by Spanish after colonization), and agendered people, while rare, do exist, so with a bit of effort, you might be able to find someone that fits both at the same time?

To wit: You are using "they," here, as a singular, not as a plural. That is, you are ascribing a new meaning to it - singular, alternative-sex pronoun.

I'm sorry, "new"? "They" has been used as a singular pronoun for individuals whose gender is unknown (or in this case, both/neither) in English at least for 600 years. It predates modern English. It is hardly a modern development.

"And whoso fyndeth hym out of swich blame, They wol come up…" ~Chaucer

GW

[Ibrinar]

Agendered people are quite different from aliens without a gender. Imagine for instance how meaningless the word atheist would be in a world that never had any religion/believe in gods. Agendered people very much are aware of the concept of gender they grew up in a world with gender and as far as I can tell many do care about the concept and many have preferences for pronouns. Agender is a gender identity if gender just didn't matter to you, you probably will go with whatever sex you got assigned at birth. For an hermaphrodite species it would be something that they have probably observed in animals but well if butterfly/Caterpillar could speak and their language signified their stage in the life cycle would you care which they use when speaking about you? (Though I guess in that case one stage is older and prettier so some would probably consider being addressed as a butterfly stage being more positive.)

Edit: Though yeah since it won't matter to the aliens we would probably treat them like someone agender.