True or False: "English lacks a standard gender-neutral second-person plural pronoun."

Just because something is written down, doesn't mean that it is the truth, makes sense, or is relevant. It doesn't mean it's not either.

There's a lot of context needed for that one quote, and there's a lot missing even then.

The problem at hand is what to do about 'guys'. So some facts:

• 'guy'is entirely male gendered. The sentence

?That guy is pregnant

sounds wrong because males do not get pregnant.

• 'guys' is questionably gendered. It's supposed to mean 'that familiar group of people'. It was losing its gender for a while, being very acceptable for even all female uses, but as the author give many examples, people are starting to shy away from it.

• 'you' is both the plural and singular second person plural, but has for a long time been more associated with singular, which makes room for a new plural to disambiguate.

Any possible replacement should fit (not necessarily at the same time) the following examples:

Will you please move to the back of the room?

Hey you, go to the back of the room.

To answer your question directly then:

"English lacks a standard gender-neutral second-person plural pronoun." is false because it has 'you', but no one uses 'you' to -address- a group anyway.

So the article is accurate in noting that 'you guys' feels gendered enough to avoid, "y'all" sounds (in most formal and informal American situations) too 'regional' (I doubt it would fly at all outside the US). IN a locative use (addressing a group) many suggestions have been made, but one can use in a natural manner:

• Everyone
• Everybody
• You all

---

To understand some of that article, make sure to consult these ELU questions: Is 'guy' gender neutral, What is a feminine version of 'guys'?, and especially Did English ever have a formal version of 'you'?

In comments...

John Lawler said...

English lacks a standard anything.

English dialects cover all bases, just not for everybody playing the same game. Or, in this case, a recent rhyme answers the question: Roses are red/Violets are blue/Singular they's older/Than singular you.

and also...

It wasn't a word; it was a paradigm. Just as I, me, my, mine was and still is the first person singular pronoun paradigm, the second person singular (and familiar) paradigm in Early Modern English was thou, thee, thy, thine, and the second person plural (and polite) paradigm was ye, you, your, yours.

Cascabel said...

I think what they mean is there is no plural form that differentiates the singular "you" from the plural "you"...such as "you guys" or "all y'all".

Bold Ben said

There are three forms of the second person singular familiar pronoun which correspond to the three forms of the first person singular and the third person masculine and feminine pronouns (the third person neuter only has two forms).The nominative (corresponds to 'I', 'he', she and it) is 'thou', the accusative (corresponds to 'me', 'him'. 'her' and 'it') is 'thee' and the possessive (corresponds to 'mine', 'his', 'hers' and 'its') is 'thine' The verbs parts used with the nominate case are also specific, for example 'thou hast', 'thou sittest', 'thou art'.

how about "you folks", in lieu of "you guys"?