Yes, the expansion of singular “they” [is] absolutely established, and the least-disruptive of any of the alternatives.
My experience with plurals like they, them, etc. is that the people in question are utterly unknown, so these terms are used to apply to anyone without specificity. This occurs in user manuals and the like.
When you're speaking of a specific individual, either in print or verbally, there is no rational reason to use the plural. And doing so can be confusing, too. I'd be pretty angry as a firefighter if someone said "THEY are still in the burning building", or as law enforcement if someone said "THEY are still shooting", when what they really meant was a single person was involved.
People can live how they wish, but there's no justification for corrupting existing words in the language. Make up some new words if you must, but stop co-opting words and confusing normal conversation. I've gotten fed up enough with this nonsense that when someone aggressively insists I use "they/them" I tell them I'm very sorry that they ALSO suffer from multiple personality disorder. Sometimes I add "What is the name of the personality with whom I'm speaking at this moment?" "They" usually lose coherence at that point, to the entertainment of everyone in earshot.
In "Early Modern English", e.g. Shakespeare and the King James translation of the Bible, there is a distinction between singular/informal "thou" and plural/formal "you".
See pp 450-451 of D and B Crystal "Shakespeare's Words", Penguin, 2002.
That discussion includes interesting examples where the speaker's opinion of the other person changes during the speech.
I find it interesting that in modern French, German, and Dutch (etc.), God is addressed in the singular/informal second person, and that usage of "Thou" persists in modern English.
That's why I referred to "you" ("vous", "Sie", etc.) as "formal/plural".
Note that in German, the capitalized "Sie" is second person, but non-capitalized "sie" is third person.
In "Early Modern English", e.g. Shakespeare and the King James translation of the Bible, there is a distinction between singular/informal "thou" and plural/formal "you".
See pp 450-451 of D and B Crystal "Shakespeare's Words", Penguin, 2002.
That discussion includes interesting examples where the speaker's opinion of the other person changes during the speech.
I find it interesting that in modern French, German, and Dutch (etc.), God is addressed in the singular/informal second person, and that usage of "Thou" persists in modern English.Thou is specifically singular, but you has always covered both singular and plural.
In Danish there seems to be some German influences but still can't understand what is being said.
Luckily something like subtitles exist on TV.
We like to watch Scandinavian detective series and certainly need them to be able to follow what is being said. In Danish there seems to be some German influences but still can't understand what is being said. Looking at your example it seems to be even worse in Finish.
My experience with plurals like they, them, etc. is that the people in question are utterly unknown, so these terms are used to apply to anyone without specificity. This occurs in user manuals and the like. …
Pretty sure y'all (or you all) is singular most of the time. The plural version would be all y'all.
Here in the US, of course we've bastardized the language to suit our needs.
That's why we have words like youse (pronounced yoooz) as in youse guys for the plural. There's also you all for plural, which Way Down South has been contracted into y'all and of course from there somehow that became singular so they came up with y'all's because they think the apostrophe-s makes it plural. There's also all y'all and all y'all's and clearly all youse Europeans are just baffled by all of this.
Have you ever watched "midsomer murders" it is in a fictive county, but they drop like flies during the investigation. Hence the "murders"
But yes we do have subtitles for the "English" spoken programs. I don't need them that much and sometimes the translations are hilarious
Between the US and UK detectives I prefer the UK. I find them more subtle and less loud.
Luckily something like subtitles exist on TV.
We like to watch Scandinavian detective series and certainly need them to be able to follow what is being said. In Danish there seems to be some German influences but still can't understand what is being said. Looking at your example it seems to be even worse in Finish.
Here in the colonies, we like to watch the various BBC detective shows. We've learned that Cambridge is the Murder Capital of the EU.
However, the shows that take place in Scotland and Ireland require subtitles, because I know they speak a language called "English" but I'll be damned if I understand what they're saying.
I assume that our EU friends also have subtitles on when they watch shows that take place in any US city where a local dialect of English is spoken. "The Sopranos" is a good example. (So are "The Wire" and "Treme.") See the above comment about "youse," which is gabagool* Italian spoken by working-class people (of any cultural background, really) from places like Gowanus, Bushwick, Hoboken and Staten Island.
* gabagool is how we pronounce the Italian cured pork capicola. It's sorta like prozhute (spelled "prosciutto"), and it makes a nice sandwich.
Whoo boy, the state of graphical user interfaces (schematic capture, symbol creation) for spice-compatible circuit simulation on Linux, is bad.