Singular "They" in modern game writing

[rusty_shackleford]

Can't describe how much this bothers me, normal people do not write or talk like this. It's basically a bluesky dialect of English. Like reading a game written in ebonics.

[rusty_shackleford]

I'm NOT referring to people's preferred pronouns, fwiw. I mean using singular they or them in place of he or him.
It's ironic for people who go on about pronouns so much they refuse to actually use them where you're ******* supposed to.

"I'll tell them"
No, you'll tell HIM. It was ONE MAN.

[J1M]

Agreed. This is literally the worst thing to happen to games in the last 10 years.

Every time I read it, even in a game like WoW, it is like an air horn going off in the room. Aggravating and resets any immersion that was building.

[Cipher]

Yup. I hate it. I also hate it IRL when I see people that know that they are referring to a singular man or woman and still use "they". The programming has been successfully installed in their brains.

[Irenaeus]

I always correct it when I see it on the internet. "It's him!" or "It's her!"
They is plural, dems the rules.

[Valter]

I have developed the habit to automatically correct this nonsense in my mind whenever I read it.

[rusty_shackleford]

They is plural, dems the rules.

Not quite, but the usage of singular they is so narrow that if you're using it purposely it's almost certainly wrong:

I was using it for people of unknown gender in the 90s.

The singular indefinite they was used for a person of unknown gender for a very long time. Consider:
"Someone left their wallet."
If you knew that it was Whiteshark's wallet, you'd say: "WhiteShark left his wallet."
The modern nu-singular they is a definite they: "WhiteShark left their wallet."

The "akshually, singular they has always been used!" crowd is purposely conflating these two.


If you're having trouble understanding the difference, know that this is something that tripped up a bunch of style guides, and not even for pozzed reasons — chicago styleguide went back and suggested against using it in the 'modern' way after first recommending to do so.
https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qa ... q0018.html

---

The Builder, 1927, Volume 4

The person who lost their keys is specific, but not definite.
The reason you'd see "he/him" used in, for example, the AD&D PHB was because the reader is specific and definite. This is despite the author not knowing who the reader is, exactly. It is specific to the reader's context.

Notably it even tripped up stylistic guides who had to roll recommendations back because they realized how ******* awful it is

[Tweed]

Can't describe how much this bothers me, normal people do not write or talk like this. It's basically a bluesky dialect of English. Like reading a game written in ebonics.

It's jarring and makes everything unpleasant to read.

[rusty_shackleford]

I assume the reason you rarely see this crop up in TV shows etc., is because people are actually speaking and that's not how people speak

Maybe I'm wrong and it has also become popular there, but I see it a LOT in nu-game written content

[Stack of Turtles]

Personally, I like it. It really makes it easy to decide not to waste your time with something.

[Tweed]

I assume the reason you rarely see this crop up in TV shows etc., is because people are actually speaking and that's not how people speak

Maybe I'm wrong and it has also become popular there, but I see it a LOT in nu-game written content

Not just in the content itself, but all over places like wikis. It's ******* irritating.

[mercerxiv]

Yeah, not just games, some YouTube videos too. It always sticks out to me like someone scratching glass with nails. They was only ever used in regards of a singular person as honorific (their royal majesty) and not in any common vernacular. Other only option being referring to someone of unknown sex (which usually means unknown period). I suppose it's an easy way to spot a ****** these days, the improper use of they and forms spells libtard/moron trying to appease libtards.

[Valter]

I remember specifically in mystery media, where there's a killer and people don't know the identity, people would just tend to say "he or she" or "the killer". Any number of ways to make it clear who was being talked about, with no use of (((they)))

[mercerxiv]

Yeah, it wasn't universal even for unknown people. I would generally assume a he, and still do, and so did most people before this **** show.

[Norfleet]

"I'll tell them"
No, you'll tell HIM. It was ONE MAN.

What abouit the voices in his head? Don't they deserve to be informed also?

[WhiteShark]

Not quite, but the usage of singular they is so narrow that if you're using it purposely it's almost certainly wrong:

Note: it's even narrower than this! Just don't do it!

[Magick]

Ok if it refers to multiple (not this thread, I know), or the gender is COMPLETELY unknown (not met / seen), and contextually could be either.
Otherwise it's ******* stupid, yes. Just use him/her.

[Roguey]

Modern?

[rusty_shackleford]

Modern?

What does a webpage UI element have to do with video game writing?

[SoLong]

Not quite, but the usage of singular they is so narrow that if you're using it purposely it's almost certainly wrong:

Note: it's even narrower than this! Just don't do it!

You can use it if you don't know if the person you're talking to is a man or a woman (or if you're not even sure if it's a single individual).

Situation: You come home with your wife a day earlier than expected and find that your home (left in the care of your kids) looks like a massive party happened, with precisely zero effort to clean up afterwards.

You: For ****'s sake, they're getting the riot act for this!

You don't know which of your kids did this: could have been the son, the daughter, or both. So "they" is appropriate to use here, both logically and grammatically. Don't discard perfectly good grammar rules just because idiots try to co-opt and distort them.

[Stack of Turtles]

Not quite, but the usage of singular they is so narrow that if you're using it purposely it's almost certainly wrong:

Note: it's even narrower than this! Just don't do it!

You can use it if you don't know if the person you're talking to is a man or a woman (or if you're not even sure if it's a single individual).

Situation: You come home with your wife a day earlier than expected and find that your home (left in the care of your kids) looks like a massive party happened, with precisely zero effort to clean up afterwards.

You: For ****'s sake, they're getting the riot act for this!

You don't know which of your kids did this: could have been the son, the daughter, or both. So "they" is appropriate to use here, both logically and grammatically. Don't discard perfectly good grammar rules just because idiots try to co-opt and distort them.

... that's just a straightforward plural, though. You may not know whether one or both of your kids did it, but you DO mean both of them are getting the riot act when you say it.

Edit: and if you don't, you should say "whichever one of them did this is getting the riot act" instead, or you were in fact wrong.

[WhiteShark]

Not quite, but the usage of singular they is so narrow that if you're using it purposely it's almost certainly wrong:

Note: it's even narrower than this! Just don't do it!

You can use it if you don't know if the person you're talking to is a man or a woman (or if you're not even sure if it's a single individual).

Situation: You come home with your wife a day earlier than expected and find that your home (left in the care of your kids) looks like a massive party happened, with precisely zero effort to clean up afterwards.

You: For ****'s sake, they're getting the riot act for this!

You don't know which of your kids did this: could have been the son, the daughter, or both. So "they" is appropriate to use here, both logically and grammatically. Don't discard perfectly good grammar rules just because idiots try to co-opt and distort them.

It's ungrammatical.

Traditionally, grammatically singular they was only used in cases where the subject was semantically plural:

...and each one grammatically singular was an head of the house of their semantically plural fathers among the thousands of Israel.

Recently, it came to be used in cases of a singular, definite person of unknown sex; more recently still, it is becoming common to see it in reference to a singular, definite person of known sex.

[methoxetamine]

Can't describe how much this bothers me, normal people do not write or talk like this. It's basically a bluesky dialect of English. Like reading a game written in ebonics.

This made me ALT+F4 from Dragon Quest 3 remake in the first 10 minutes. I already knew it was pozzed so I was going to emulate it with a restoration patch, then in the opening handful of lines of dialogue the MC's mother refers to you (singular) as "them" ("I'm gonna go wake them up") and it just made me say **** this ****

[SoLong]

Edit: and if you don't, you should say "whichever one of them did this is getting the riot act" instead, or you were in fact wrong.

Obviously false, since "whichever one" assumes that only one of them did it, when it could have been both.

It's ungrammatical.

Write a letter of complaint to those 14th century grammar scholars then, I'm sure they'll be pleased to know they built the language wrong.

(I sometimes forget that being on the correct side of the gender language debate doesn't protect you from having fatal brain damage. Thank you for helpfully illustrating that fact.)

[Envuen]

Sometimes this is out of convinence for the dev when the player can create the character to play. In old games there used to be an "IF female=1" or "IF male=1 (normal version) ELSE (girl version)" case for every instance inside dialogue that referred to the main character, and after that the convo proceeded. This also meant that if there was a voiceover the actor had to record another take. Using singular they is stupid but takes less effort and is cheaper.

[Nigromancer]

I ran into an instance of this where someone (almost certainly from reddit) referred to a dragon as "they".

A dragon is an it you ******* ******!

[rusty_shackleford]

I ran into an instance of this where someone (almost certainly from reddit) referred to a dragon as "they".

A dragon is an it you ******* ******!

dragons aren't neuter, I'd say they're pretty masculine so I'd go with "him" — English has semantic(natural) gender

[Nigromancer]

dragons aren't neuter, I'd say they're pretty masculine so I'd go with "him" — English has semantic(natural) gender

So Huma was gay?

[Roguey]

dragons aren't neuter, I'd say they're pretty masculine so I'd go with "him" — English has semantic(natural) gender

Plenty of female dragons out there, a number of animal species where the female is deadlier. All animals default to it if you don't know the gender.

► cringe

[rusty_shackleford]

All animals default to it if you don't know the gender.

Kind of person to call a dog "good doggo"

And yes, semantic gender(natural gender) is a very real linguistic construct, look it up. It's ironic how little it's discussed considering it's the gender English actually has.