They was or They were.

[chrispenycate]

When the second person plural pronoun is used rather than the singular, for a singular subject ('you are' rather than 'thou art') the verb invariably follows the pronoun. In the case where, kicking and screaming, I am obliged to accept the plural third person pronoun replacing the singular when gender is unspecified, I expect the verb to follow. So, 'Were'!

 

[Nick B]

I am having similar issues now. There are many post humans in my work and as a result, obviously, hermaphrodites, asexuals and otber varients are cropping up. I am not using these just to fit into current feeling either, it seems to ke just an onvious thing that will happen when the human race can re-engineer itself into whatever it wants to be. So, some are established post human races, others are baseline humans (still by far the most numerous of human peoples) have just had themselves altered.
I am tending towards using 'it' instead of trying to fit new words into my work. I really don't like the xim/xer/hir type new words people are sometimes using. But, 'it' kind of sounds a bit bad. I use their names where possible, but sometimes they are un-named or their names are being used nearby so repeating them sounds rubbish. Any ideas?

 

[AnyaKimlin]

I am tending towards using 'it' instead of trying to fit new words into my work. I really don't like the xim/xer/hir type new words people are sometimes using. But, 'it' kind of sounds a bit bad. I use their names where possible, but sometimes they are un-named or their names are being used nearby so repeating them sounds rubbish. Any ideas?

It felt impersonal when talking about my husband. I'm increasingly using she.

However, if I listen to my daughter and her friends then they/them/their is winning out over the others so that's why I am sticking to they but learning to use it in the singular.

 

[Steven Sorrels]

I understand both sides of the points discussed, but "they was" still hurts my soul.

 

[Ronald T.]

Unfortunately, "they was" is illiterate and never correct, unless you use it within a dialect in which the user is uneducated.

Just one man's opinion.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

Unfortunately, "they was" is illiterate and never correct, unless you use it within a dialect in which the user is uneducated.

Just one man's opinion.

A rather dated opinion - in my opinion. The use of pronouns is changing as our understanding of gender changes. Using they as singular for a pronoun is increasing in usage and has increased a lot in the last few months since I first posted this. I'm far more secure and comfortable with they was these days.

Given the nature of my works I'd rather look illiterate than uneducated in gender issues.

Even the usage description in the OED has changed since I wrote this:
they - definition of they in English | Oxford Dictionaries
Usage
The word they (with its counterparts them, their, and themselves) as a singular pronoun to refer to a person of unspecified gender has been used since at least the 16th century. In the late 20th century, as the traditional use of he to refer to a person of either gender came under scrutiny on the grounds of sexism, this use of they became more common. It is now generally accepted in contexts where it follows an indefinite pronoun such as anyone, no one, someone, or a person, as in anyone can join if they are a resident and each to their own. In other contexts, coming after singular nouns, the use of they is now common, though less widely accepted, especially in formal contexts. Sentences such as ask a friend if they could help are still criticized for being ungrammatical. Nevertheless, in view of the growing acceptance of they and its obvious practical advantages, they is used in this dictionary in many cases where he would have been used formerly. In a more recent development, they is now being used to refer to specific individuals (as in Alex is bringing their laptop). Like the gender-neutral honorific Mx, the singular they is preferred by some individuals who identify as neither male nor female. See also he and she

 

[Ronald T.]

"They" is not the problem. The use of "was" is.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

"They" is not the problem. The use of "was" is.

But it's not being used in the same manner in the context of my story as the traditional singular they. When it's used for someone who is non binary that is their gender rather than a gender that can't be determined or isn't known by the user.

They being used as he or she or it so should be treated the same. I've seen a lot of change in this since I posted mine - clearly I was not alone in having a pause about it at that point. My husband is now she and rapidly becoming my wife so it's not as confused for us. Until there is something better when I am talking about someone who is non binary or who has chosen they as their gender for whatever reason then I'll treat it as he/she/it.

 

[Ronald T.]

I don't see how gender has anything to do with this incorrect usage.

But what do I know?

 

[HareBrain]

Until there is something better when I am talking about someone who is non binary or who has chosen they as their gender for whatever reason then I'll treat it as he/she/it.

I came across one a few weeks ago that seemed so neat I really hoped it would catch on, as I much preferred it to "they", with its possible confusion between singular and plural. But I'm now annoyed to find I can't remember what it was!

"They was" does of course get round the singular/plural issue. The only problem with it, for me, is that the combination is already established as a kind of yokel-talk, and trying to attach it to a different use will be an uphill battle. But who knows, it might become accepted usage. All such changes start with a few initial users.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

I don't see how gender has anything to do with this incorrect usage.

But what do I know?

Until recently they has been used when the user doesn't know the gender of the other person. However, it's now being used for people who are neither male nor female whether they are intersexed, just don't identify as either or are tentatively transitioning from male/female to the other gender. Basically the user knows the gender is undetermined by the person they are describing. It's not just a placeholder until the user finds out.

I came across one a few weeks ago that seemed so neat I really hoped it would catch on, as I much preferred it to "they", with its possible confusion between singular and plural. But I'm now annoyed to find I can't remember what it was!

That's the problem I have the alternatives are very forgettable. Maybe it's just lack of usage.

"They was" does of course get round the singular/plural issue. The only problem with it, for me, is that the combination is already established as a kind of yokel-talk, and trying to attach it to a different use will be an uphill battle. But who knows, it might become accepted usage. All such changes start with a few initial users.

I've been surprised how quickly its been adopted and is changing.

 

[Abernovo]

Late to the party. I tend to go with were, partly for the reason given by HareBrain - too many examples of bad grammar in speech has tainted the usage. That said it might change with time. Perhaps we may reclaim that wording.

As someone who uses singular 'they' in speech and writing, I stick with are/were, and it seems to work. Nobody's pulled me up on it yet, anyway.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

As someone who uses singular 'they' in speech and writing, I stick with are/were, and it seems to work. Nobody's pulled me up on it yet, anyway.

I've had enough unpleasant emails because I referred to my transwoman wife as my husband along with many other things I've got "wrong". At the moment any tiny thing can be decried and complained about.

 

[tinkerdan]

Also late to the party.

One way that I view this is that in using they as singular you overreact and try to create a way to force it singular to your normal way of thinking by making it they was. Yet in the same sense using you singular 'you were' works fine so I think that its not the singular nature of they that is the problem but trying to force were into a strictly plural nature along with they.

It is also hindered by that same perception creating a conflict about what exactly you mean by they when the sentence is by itself out of context.
Personally I believe that once the context establishes that they is singular they were will roll off properly and still remain singular.

In a way it seems like it's an attempt to try to enforce a rule of grammar to accentuate the unusual usage of the word they and perhaps drawing that much attention to it would be just like using hir.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

In a way it seems like it's an attempt to try to enforce a rule of grammar to accentuate the unusual usage of the word they and perhaps drawing that much attention to it would be just like using hir.

I think anything we used at the moment would be unusual and draw attention to itself. There's no getting round that. Over the next few years I am confident there will be a decision taken on how we handle this. Some languages have already done so.

I feel uncomfortable treating someone who is non binary for whatever reason as different to he and she or even xie or hir etc As I wrote they were I felt it lacked the personal. Perhaps it's different because for me it wasn't academic, this was the person I was married to. After using it for months I no longer find they was strange. I've also never associated dialect with uneducated. Growing up my local dialect would use youse and they was. The people I grew up with weren't stupid and uneducated but the media portrayed them as such. In Scotland they now teach the uneducated dialects in schools.

 

[Abernovo]

I'm not sure I go along with @tinkerdan on the usage of they being unusual in this context, seeing as it has been used since Shakespeare's time, at least. However, I do completely agree that it's the idea of were being seen purely as a plural which is at fault, as are/were has not been exclusively singular for a long time. There is precedent in the body of the Royal We. Ah, the idiosyncrasies of language.

I've had enough unpleasant emails because I referred to my transwoman wife as my husband along with many other things I've got "wrong". At the moment any tiny thing can be decried and complained about.

You may get complaints from those outside the relationship, but the main issue is how the person theirself wishes to be addressed and referred to, which may change with time, as you are we well aware, I'm sure. After all, isn't it all about personal respect?
Best wishes to you and yours.

p.s. Doric is a fine literary leid, not at all uneducated.

 

[tinkerdan]

Perhaps I should explain.
I meant that they their them might be used in the singular but not gender specific; in fact, usually it's specifically gender non-specific. So the unusual part would be forcing it into a gender specific pronoun--which after some minor research seems less unusual because there are some other people trying hard to make this the norm.

Also I just read a sample in short story that uses hir and thanks to this post I had a full grasp of it without having to look things up.

 

[Abernovo]

Just a little afterthought, following a conversation with a German speaker, and also chatting in Bulgarian.

Singular they are (my preference in this) could be looked upon as following a standard Indo-European language convention. In German you can be du (singular) or Sie (plural, but also formal or polite form); there are a couple of other possible words which could be translated as you in English, such as ihnen (Kann ich ihnen hilfen = may I help you), etc. In Bulgarian, there are also differences between singular you, and plural or polite yous, with -те referring to both they and you, depanding upon the situation.

In English, we don't have that. We only have a plural (or more correctly, I suspect, a polite) you: you are. It is possible to say you is, but only within certain dialects and patois. The use of they are for a single person could, I believe, be considered as following a similar rule. It is a demonstration, however unwitting, of good manners.

And, as said previously, it's nothing new, harking back to William Shakespeare (now there was one for writing gender-nonconforming characters) and beyond. Sorry to all for the musings on linguistics.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

My issue is a personal one. It's not about language it's about people.

They are implies the gender they is somehow different to he or she.

 

[Abernovo]

It's always about people, and that's why I like the polite form of are, as it shows respect in my eyes, but I accept it does imply a dichotomy between binary and non-binary genders, which is far from ideal. Sorry if I caused any offence. None was intended.