OK, I’ll bite; do we need a concept for a “dual they” or a “ternary they”.
If so, then fine “singular they” deserves to be called out too. If not, then treating “singular they” as a special case just gives bigots space to claim that it’s some sort of deviation from the norm which then gives them cover for falsely claiming that usage is incorrect.
we don’t need a new pronoun, the existing singular “they” is fine. bigots don’t understand it, and think that it’s grammatically incorrect. they are wrong. we don’t need to cater to their ignorance.
when the group size is 1, it’s singular
OK, I’ll bite; do we need a concept for a “dual they” or a “ternary they”.
If so, then fine “singular they” deserves to be called out too. If not, then treating “singular they” as a special case just gives bigots space to claim that it’s some sort of deviation from the norm which then gives them cover for falsely claiming that usage is incorrect.
we don’t need a new pronoun, the existing singular “they” is fine. bigots don’t understand it, and think that it’s grammatically incorrect. they are wrong. we don’t need to cater to their ignorance.
I think sanskrit has singular, dual, and ‘three and above’ nouns and pronouns