themself or themselves in singular

PAndora   Thu Mar 18, 2010 6:01 am GMT
When 'them' is used to designate an unidentified person, do you use "themselves" or "themself"? For example:

<<Would you bother attempting to stop some person killing themself/themselves?>>

The little red spell check line appears under "themself". Doesn't it exist? Should it be invented?
mark   Thu Mar 18, 2010 6:25 am GMT
It would never be used with "brother" because you know that the brother of whoever you're talking to is a man/boy. So you'd use "himself".

However, you'd say things "Somebody stole my money! they can go eff themself" because "somebody" has an unknown gender.
St. Louisan   Thu Mar 18, 2010 1:02 pm GMT
This question centers around one of my bigger "common usage" pet peeves. It irks me when people refer to a single person as "them." Yes, I know "him or her" is cumbersome, and a mere "him" isn't PC, but at least those options are grammatically correct. "Themself" isn't even a word, is it? Grrr.

So, to answer the question, "do you use 'themselves' or 'themself'?" my answer would be "No, I don't."
Kyle from Kayaderosseras   Thu Mar 18, 2010 6:04 pm GMT
The singular "they" "them" "their" "themself" has a long tradition in English, and I think its use should be encouraged. So your sentence would become:

"Would you bother attempting to stop some person killing themself?"

IMHO
enUs Student   Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:55 pm GMT
From Oxford's New American Dictionary, 2nd edition (Mac OS X)

"themself

pronoun [ third person singular ]

used instead of “himself” or “herself” to refer to a person of unspecified sex : the casual observer might easily think themself back in 1945.


USAGE The standard reflexive form corresponding to they and them is themselves, as in : they can do it themselves . The singular form themself, first recorded in the 14th century, has reemerged in recent years corresponding to the singular gender-neutral use of they, as in : this is the first step in helping someone to help themself . The form is not widely accepted in standard English, however. For more details, see usage at they ."

"they

USAGE 1 The word they (with its counterparts them, their, and themselves) as a singular pronoun to refer to a person of unspecified sex 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 sex came under scrutiny on the grounds of sexism, this use of they has become more common. It is now generally accepted in contexts where it follows an indefinite pronoun such as anyone, no one, someone, or a person:: anyone can join if they are a resident;: each to their own. In other contexts, coming after singular nouns, the use of they is now common, although less widely accepted, esp. 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. See also usage at he and she ."


I guess themselves would be more correct.
Uriel   Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:07 am GMT
Them is commonly used as a neutral singular and doesn't bother most of us a bit. I can see why it annoys some people because it isn't strictly grammatical, but hey, there are plenty of other ordinary phrases that don't parse correctly and we still use them (try "it's a boy!" on for size sometime). In light of that, I think it's a toss-up whether you want to say themselves or themself, but the former is more common, even if you are using it in the singular; we all know what you mean.
???   Sun Mar 21, 2010 12:49 pm GMT
What's wrong with 'It's a boy'?
cnalbumin   Sun Mar 21, 2010 2:31 pm GMT
<<What's wrong with 'It's a boy'? >>

In the spirit of the "singular they", it should really be:

"They are a boy" or "they're a boy".
Uriel   Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:13 am GMT
No, the point is that a boy is automatically a "he". Usually you only refer to a baby or an animal as an "it" when the sex is unknown, and here it is obviously known.

This kind of construction has been humorously referred to as a "sturdy indefensible" -- sturdy because everyone uses it, and indefensible because if you deconstruct it on a literal level, it runs into some logic problems -- but still, no one ever announces "He's a boy!" to the waiting room. So, this is a good example of why you shouldn't worry about being an utter stickler for logic all the time -- sometimes there are common exceptions. Like "they" for an an unknown, but singular, person.
Rectifier   Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:51 am GMT
<<No, the point is that a boy is automatically a "he".>>



No, because only at that moment are you applying the qualifier "boy" to "it".

First it is an "it", it doesn't become a "he" until you apply the word "boy", which is after "it" has already been used.

And in addition, there could be some ambiguity killing going on here, since "he's a boy" means something different. It means he's a boy as opposed to an adult.
Adaboy   Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:25 pm GMT
How would you construct it using "oneself"?
Reaney   Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:03 pm GMT
<no one ever announces "He's a boy!" to the waiting room. So, this is a good example of why you shouldn't worry about being an utter stickler for logic all the time >

"Boy" redefines "it": "it" belongs to the state of uncertainty which the completion of the announcement alone dispels.

The phrase "it's a boy!" is therefore perfectly logical. Moreover, "he's a boy" would be a tautology, in that context: once you have said "he's a...", you no longer need to add "boy".
morpheus   Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:29 pm GMT
Which is correct?

"See that DVD player over there? Well, it's really a man disguised as a DVD player."

or

"See that DVD player over there? Well, he's really a man disguised as a DVD player."
enUS Student   Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:43 pm GMT
"See that DVD player over there? Well, it's really a man disguised as a DVD player."

Because you're practically saying that "that thing is really a man disguised as a DVD player" not "that man is really a man... etc."