As a non-native speaker I try to get myself to accept they as gender-neutral third person singular as this is new to me. To achieve this I would like to have a better understanding on the usage and history.  So when speaking in singular would I say 'they are' or 'they is' and respecively 'they sit' or 'they sits'. The second sounds strange but would be more logical as third person singular has this special case.  Or does this stem from the "pluralisation" (would honorific be the correct word?) of higher ups /royals that it is in fact a plural that is used for a "respected" person and was repurposed for the common use.  According to  it is "they are", and "they sit" accordingly.
17170
There are many (duplicate) questions about the acceptance, popularity and history of singular they (and their, them and themself) around here, it even got a tag of its own. If I didn’t miss anything, however, the proper verb form hasn’t been questioned yet.  As we all know, English third person singular pronouns (it, she, he and one, +body), names (Alice, Bob, …) and nouns (student, teacher, …) demand the +(e)s suffix be added to the finite verb form in simple present, where some auxiliary verbs have a “special” form (is &lt; *bes / *ares and has &lt; *haves). All other subjects don’t, including plural third person pronoun they.  When the plural you replaced thou (with thee, thy / thine), the other marked verb form that had remained in English – i.e. suffix +(e)st or +t – vanished, too. The first and second persons only ever appear as pronouns (I, we; you), not names or nouns, so there was no strong inclination to keep the verbal inflection.  The second person precedent would suggest that singular they be used with uninflected verb forms which is how it’s usually encountered in the wild. Assuming that they someday replaces he and she (and maybe it) it would lead to disagreement with the words the pronoun stands in for:        Alice         goes to her   place  by herself.   Bob           goes to his   place  by himself.   Alice and Bob go   to their place  by themselves. – (common)   Alice and Bob go   to their places by themselves. – (separate)                  She  goes to her   place  by herself.   He   goes to his   place  by himself.   They go   to their place  by themselves.   They go   to their places by themselves.                  They ?goes to their place  by themself.   ditto   They  go   to their place  by themselves.   They  go   to their places by themselves.                  They ?go to their place  by ?themselves.   ditto   They  go to their place  by  themselves.   They  go to their places by  themselves.      So why doesn’t singular they afford s on present-tense verbs like all other third person singular subjects do?   I learned about singular they only long after I had been taught English as a second language in school. That’s why it’s still a conscious decision to use it and hence I could easily adapt to use s forms with it, but would that sound and look funny / strange / wrong to native speakers?
115961
Egalitarianism and anti-sexism seem to be strict norms in English-speaking societies. I think a majority of people advocate the use of they when referring to a specific definite person whose gender is unknown to the speaker--as shown, for example, in the comments to the following youtube video:     For example, such people think the sentence Leslie did their best is acceptable, where Leslie is the name of a person whose gender is unknown by the speaker.  When gender is irrelevant or unimportant, referring to a specific definite person as he(she) when the person's gender is known by the speaker may be considered as sexist by those advocates of egalitarianism and anti-sexism.  So my question to ELL is this:      Is referring to a specific definite person whose gender is known by the speaker as they acceptable?   For example, is the sentence      The police officer John Smith did their best.    acceptable when the officer's gender is known to the speaker?  Remark Since this question has several downvotes, I would like to make it clear that my question is ABSOLUTELY NEUTRAL. It's just a question. No more or no less.
1835
Is there a pronoun I can use as a gender-neutral pronoun when referring back to a singular noun phrase?  Each student should save his questions until the end. Each student should save her questions until the end.
21477
Should I say     Some people use the word "flat" to describe their phone when its battery is dead.   or     Some people use the word "flat" to describe their phones when their batteries are dead. (I wanted to use "their" here to refer to the phone's instead of the people's)   or      Some people use the word "flat" to describe their phones when their battery is dead. (I wanted to use "their" here to refer to the phone's instead of the people's)   Which one is grammatically correct and why?
53685
It is becoming more common for people to explicitly state the pronouns to be used in addressing themselves: he/him, she/her, or they/them. For example, a name tag for a conference might read:  Cory Lopez Some Company She/Her   Usage seems to have settled on the singular they and them as gender neutral pronouns. Alternatives that were once widespread in niche communities, such as sie/hir, seem to have died out.   Whether or not one agrees with this language  shift, the pairing between subject and object case is fixed.  It's difficult to imagine someone who uses "he" as his subject case using anything but "him" as object case, and it's even harder to imagine that such a person would succeed in getting people to use a non-obvious collection of personal pronouns. (And you may see what I did -- flat out assumed that "he" and "his" automatically go together.)  What are the roots of the practice of presenting subject and object case pronouns as opposed to just subject case, subject and possessive, or some other combination?   (Note: I am not interested in a discussion of the gender politics and cultural shifts involved, just the mechanics of how the current representation was chosen.)
110148
I'm having a hard time understanding whether to use plural or singular while making general sentences.   Doing a bit of research I found both can be used. For example:      Dogs are loyal animals.     A dog is a loyal animal.    (Both these sentences are talking about all/any dogs in general)      A child needs care.     Children need care.    (Both these sentences talk about all/ any children in general).  Now, as for the question: Recently, I looked up in the internet as to when is a definite article used. It says "We use the definite article in front of a noun when we believe 'the reader' knows exactly what we are referring to."  I think this statement is a general statement about the use of definite article. My first question,  am I right in thinking that this is a general statement?   Second question is, what if we use 'readers' in place of 'the reader'?  Will there be a change in meaning then? I'm asking this question because if this is a general statement then if I use 'a reader' or 'readers' in place of 'the reader' then it should all mean the same, i.e., all of them should be expressing 'any reader' just like the examples above (1 to 4). Right?  Another example:     (1)  Banks are financial institutions where 'a lender' meets 'a borrower'.   I guess this is also a general statement about banks. So can I phrase this sentence like this without any change in meaning?      (2)  Banks are financial institutions where 'lenders' meet 'borrowers'.   In sentence (1), 'a lender' expresses just one lender or any lender? In sentence (2), 'lenders' expresses more than one lender or any lender in general?
26492
I am writing an ad and would like to write: "Our team of economists are at your service and available by phone or email.  They will be happy to respond...".  I know that grammatically speaking, 'team' is the subject of the sentence and, being singular, would dictate that 'it' is "at your service".  BUT, it just feels better reading this and it evokes a picture of a bunch of economists doing what they do rather than a single unit".  Is what I'm doing OK?  Should I be arrested by the grammar police?
14846
I am reading a book. A paragraph begins with this sentence:     They say we Scots are a pessimistic people. Maybe it has to do   with the weather - all those dreary, rainy days.   I am searching for pronouns "they" but I couldn't find what it refers to because I could not find anything for it.  Can anyone help me about it?  This is the whole passage:     But to do that, you need to be more than usually canny.   And that provides an important clue as to just where the history   of insurance had its origins. Where else but in bonny, canny   Scotland?      Taking Cover      They say we Scots are a pessimistic people. Maybe it has to do   with the weather - all those dreary, rainy days.
80449
How do you know when to use singular or plural nouns if they're used as adjectives?  i.e.     32-bit computer vs 32-bits computer?      teacher union vs teachers union?      wedding planner vs weddings planner?      sport medicine vs sports medicine?      student council vs students council?   Which one is correct?
123343
I have some doubts about the usages of That and Who. Sometimes I read sentences such as. "You are someone I love" "You are someone WHO I love" Or "People were asked to describe the qualities they look for in a friend" "People were asked to describe the qualities THAT they look for in a friend"  Why in some of these sentences WHO or THAT are omitted and others are not. Could somebody help me with this? I'll appreciate it! Thanks a million.
94569
The plural of "person" is "people".  The plural of "people" is "peoples". Person-people-peoples is the only sequence like this that I know of, but I'm looking for another.  (The equivalent question is, is there another plural noun which has become a singular countable collective noun?)  EDIT  For those of you that think that people is nothing but a collective noun (and not an irregular plural, like mice), I urge you to consider:   Do you treat other collective nouns as plurals?  One person, two people, but one star, two galaxy? Do you treat other plurals as collective nouns?  You can certainly say "a galaxy of stars" but do you say "a mice of mouses"?    For those of you that think the customary plural of person is persons, try it on the next three, uh, persons you see: "Finish this sentence: 'one person, two _ ?' "
102874
I've been taught that a child is gender-neutral noun. But in the textbook on linguistics I've been reading, the noun is used as feminine. For example, a sentence in the book goes like this:     The child must also learn many aspects of grammar from her specific linguistic environment.   Is there an explanation for the use of the pronoun her instead of its?
58378
In a question like this one, for example,      Who have/has come?    Is the word "who" singular or plural? Or is it both plural and singular?   I have heard it’s plural. Please correct me if I am wrong.
11020
Could you please remind me what term linguists and the grammar people use to call it when it's used as a subject pronoun, but the funky thing is that it doesn't really refer back to anything in particular like he, she or we usually do which do refer back to a person or an animal that they stand for.  In grammar-speak, when it is used like that they say that it has no antecedent. I think I knew the term, but I unfortunately forgot it. I did a Google search, but the only thing I could find was empty subject. But the truth is that I don't think that's what they actually use in linguistics. Would you please refresh my memory?  Examples:        It's quite cold today outside. So, I don't really wanna go out.   Did I solve that math problem? Yes. Actually, it was very easy to get it cracked. There was really nothing to it!   Don't mention it! It's nothing. I really like to help people who are in need.
71249
What is the rule for singular noun objects of plural subjects? For example I and  agree that     They gave their word.   is better than     They gave their words.   To my mind, this is because each has but a single word to give and cannot give more. However, google seems to  on     They gave their life.   vs     They gave their lives.   As you can see in the linked N-gram, the second is far more common than the first. What's going on here? People (cats excluded) only have one life and it seems passing strange that they would be able, let alone willing, to give more.   If pressed, I would claim that the object should only be plural if each of the subjects has many. For example     They called their friends   If each of the "they" in question has only one of whatever object we are talking about I would call it ungrammatical to have that object in the plural form. Am I wrong?    EDIT:  This question was prompted by a comment on  on S&amp;F.SE defending the use of consciousnesses as the plural form of consciousness by referring to . The word was used in this sentence:     Looking for a story where people download their consciousnesses into bodies   It occurred to me that whether or not consciousnesses is correct, it should not be used in that (admittedly bizarre) context since each person only has one consciousness to download. I would have therefore said     Looking for a story where people download their consciousness into bodies   This to me seems like an equivalent sentence to they gave their word or they gave their life. In all three cases I would use the singular form of the noun since each of the subjects can only give (or download as the case may be) one.
21030
When speaking of a group of people and referring to a body part of which there is only one (e.g. head, nose, mouth, etc.), do we use the singular or plural form? Which of the following is correct, or are both possible?  Our stomach is full.  Our stomachs are full.
107489
I saw this sentence on Internet recently written by a native speaker, so I wondered why native speakers tend to use this grammar.   Explain to me why I should I use "is" instead of "are"? Is it grammatically correct?     "There is rice, meat and tomatoes on my plate"   Why "There are rice, meat and tomatoes on my plate" is not correct?