Is it good English to say "They have just left", when talking about a single person (perhaps someone you don't know the gender of)?

(I am a native English speaker, I'm looking for the view held by lexicographers).

  • 7
    I will quote one of our moderators: " Singular they enjoys a long history of usage in English [...]. However, 'singular they' also enjoys a long history of criticism. If you are anxious about being criticized (for what is in fact a perfectly grammatical construction) you are advised to reword to avoid having to use a gender neutral singular third-person pronoun."
    – RegDwigнt
    Commented Dec 15, 2010 at 17:18
  • @Kosmonaut: Some people consider it nonstandard in English :) Commented Dec 15, 2010 at 20:51
  • 1
    @Mr. Shiny and New: When I say "nonstandard", I mean not in anyone's notion of Standard English; a newspaper, magazine, journal article, or legal document would specifically avoid this usage. I don't think you could argue it is actually standard in that sense in any part of the world at this time. But certainly, if you mean "standard" in the sense of this being preferred by some people in casual speech, then that is certainly true (myself included). I think it ultimately will become standard.
    – Kosmonaut
    Commented Dec 15, 2010 at 21:27
  • @Kosmonaut: I'd disagree that it's non-standard. A legal document might avoid it because legal documents should avoid anything which might introduce (unwanted) ambiguity, however those other publications you mention would certainly use it unless some style guide, or the author, feels strongly that it is "wrong". Commented Dec 16, 2010 at 13:49
  • 1
    @ivanhoescott Come to the chat room to discuss this further. Commented Apr 2, 2014 at 18:54

5 Answers 5


Singular they has been used in English for a long, long time. Seriously, Shakespeare even used it.

Unfortunately, a significant number of English speakers think it's wrong. Why? No clue. I'd label it a hypercorrection.

I think the most important thing to think about is whether your audience will understand you. On this count, singular they really shines, as everybody — even those who pooh-pooh it — understand exactly what you're saying.

Another consideration is what alternatives you have. One sounds stuffy; he or she is too long; just he is inaccurate (and possibly offensive).

Singular they is really the best way to go.

  • 8
    I dunno. All the purported examples I've seen of Shakespeare's use of singular they are better interpreted as examples of generic they.
    – Marthaª
    Commented Dec 15, 2010 at 19:39
  • @Martha: what's a generic they as opposed to a singular they? Commented Dec 15, 2010 at 20:54
  • @Mr. Shiny and New: I'm not sure I can explain it very well... Generic they refers to the whole group represented by the singular subject, not to that specific individual. 'Tis meet that some more audience than a mother, since nature makes them partial, should o'erhear the speech. -The pronoun refers to all mothers, and is hence plural, even though "a mother" looks singular.
    – Marthaª
    Commented Dec 15, 2010 at 21:09
  • @Martha: Also, we know the gender in the case of mother, so she should be preferred anyway if it is not plural.
    – Kosmonaut
    Commented Dec 15, 2010 at 23:28
  • 1
    Referring to a non-specific indefinite person as they is grammatical, but referring to a specific definite person as they is ungrammatical. Please read my answer to this question(there are two answers of mine. I mean the new one): english.stackexchange.com/questions/48/… Commented Jan 19, 2015 at 0:29

When using the plural third-person pronoun to refer to a single person, grammatically you are introducing a disagreement in number. So this is technically an incorrect usage and, again technically (and historically), one is "supposed" to use the third-person singular masculine pronoun he where gender is non-specific.

All that is changing. Since the advent of the women's movement and feminism, people have felt uncomfortable substituting a masculine pronoun in such cases, as if women were some lesser beings wholly submerged by men. This led to some difficulties. It makes for painstaking sentences to always refer to "he or she" when you don't know the gender, as in

If someone were to look in the cupboard, he or she would find the plates.

That's fine for a simple sentence, but if you get into a paragraph where you constantly have to use "he or she" to refer to the subject of the paragraph, it makes for some tortured writing.

Informally people use "they" all the time to avoid this kind of thing. There was an effort some years ago to introduce a neuter set of pronouns ('tey', 'ter', 'tem'), but like all such manufactured language solutions it was destined to fail. Just because something may be a good idea doesn't mean anyone will actually use it.

I even find myself writing "someone ... they" and having to go back and edit. If someone uses it as you did, saying "They just left" to mean someone just left, I wouldn't worry about it at all.

  • Of course, you can often work around the issue, by writing "If one were to you look in the cupboard, one would find the plates" or "If you were to look in the cupboard, you would find the plates", etc. :-) Commented Dec 15, 2010 at 17:26
  • 2
    @ShreevatsaR: Yeah, but that's a different kind of trap. "If one were to look in the cupboard, one would find plates, and then one could take one of the plates and make oneself a sandwich. One might find that such a sandwich would satisfy one's hunger quite admirably." It all gets to sounding very boring and stilted in some way.
    – Robusto
    Commented Dec 15, 2010 at 18:09
  • @Robusto: If I were writing about cupboards, plates, and sandwiches, I'd probably use "you", thereby avoiding both stilted-ness and the abomination of singular they.
    – Marthaª
    Commented Dec 15, 2010 at 18:43
  • @Martha: Good point.
    – Robusto
    Commented Dec 15, 2010 at 19:22
  • 3
    Singular they is much older than the recent changes to eradicate gender-neutral he. It is not technically wrong. It only appears wrong if you constrain they to mean multiple people; if you look at its usage over the last few centuries you'll see that's not the case. Commented Dec 15, 2010 at 20:53

It's considered wrong by some people and generally avoided by most, but I think it's going to become standard in the future as there aren't any other attractive alternatives and as non-traditional gender identification becomes more accepted and common, we will find ourselves needing such a pronoun more often.

  • 3
    In the future? It's been around for centuries. See here: crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html Commented Sep 11, 2012 at 17:36
  • People are saying it is non-standard, and I have heard some call it wrong, so I'm just saying I think this opinion will be diminished in the future as the news media finds itself addressing gender issues in a formal context.
    – scleaver
    Commented Sep 11, 2012 at 17:59
  • 1
    @BarrieEngland [It's been around for centuries.] It seems to me they have been using only generic they. See here. Commented Apr 3, 2014 at 8:10
  • @ivanhoescott. I know. I've written about it here: caxton1485.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/… Commented Apr 3, 2014 at 9:37

In formal usage I'd avoid the singular 'they', but it's very common in my experience (native British English speaker) in everyday language.

It's primarily used when referring to somebody whose gender is unknown (either because an unknown person has done something, or because you're talking about a hypothetical situation rather than referring to any specific person).

It's also common when the speaker wishes to hide the gender of the person they're speaking about, or feels the gender is unimportant to what they're saying. For example, "I wanted to meet a friend today, but they're too busy" is a sentence that feels perfectly natural to me.

It's unlikely to be used if the gender is specified. For example, I'd be surprised to hear a sentence like "I wanted to see my niece, but they're too busy" - I'd expect "she" in that case because a niece is by definition female.


The following quotes are from the wikipedia article. It seems to me that they all use "they" for a generic person. For example, in the Chesterfield's example: "If a person is born of a . . . gloomy temper . . . they cannot help it.", "a person" appears to be singular but it represents any person. It is essentially plural.

The following are similar examples.

'Tis meet that some more audience than a mother, since nature makes them partial, should o'erhear the speech."— Shakespeare, Hamlet (1599);

"If a person is born of a . . . gloomy temper . . . they cannot help it."— Chesterfield, Letter to his son (1759);

"Now nobody does anything well that they cannot help doing"— Ruskin, The Crown of Wild Olive (1866); "Nobody in their senses would give sixpence on the strength of a promissory note of the kind."— Bagehot, The Liberal Magazine (1910);

"I would have every body marry if they can do it properly."— Austen, Mansfield Park (1814);

Caesar: "No, Cleopatra. No man goes to battle to be killed." Cleopatra: "But they do get killed" —Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra (1901);

"A person can't help their birth."— W. M. Thackeray, Vanity Fair (1848);

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another . . ." —United States Declaration of Independence;

On the other hand, I think the use of singular they in the following example is grammatically incorrect because it refers to a specific person hence it is essentially singular.

Someone was approaching my room. I could see that they were alone judging from their footsteps. They knocked on my door. I didn't answer. They knocked again. I still didn't answer so they left.

  • 2
    I think you are splitting hairs in that last example. a generic person is just as singular as a specific person. Either the use of they for both is grammatically incorrect, or it isn't.
    – tunny
    Commented Nov 11, 2014 at 21:29
  • @tunny Why on earth do you think the difference between a generic person and a specific person is petty? The word "generic" has the opposite meaning of the word "specific" Commented Nov 11, 2014 at 21:38
  • 2
    And what is so different between your "they knocked" example and Shakespeare? "FRIAR LAURENCE Arise; one knocks; good Romeo, hide thyself. ROMEO Not I; unless the breath of heartsick groans, Mist-like, infold me from the search of eyes. FRIAR LAURENCE Hark, how they knock! Who's there?" Commented Nov 11, 2014 at 21:44
  • 1
    Shakespeare is using "they" to refer to the unknown person who is knocking at the door. This seems to me to be exactly the same situation as your last "grammatically incorrect". Commented Nov 11, 2014 at 22:00
  • 1
    (Please ignore my last comment) I take the point that generic and specific may have opposite meanings but, unlike group nouns such as team and company, singular nouns which in British English we may think of as groups of people, and use with a plural verb, generic words are generally considered completely singular. A/the tiger is carnivorous; it eats .... Logically therefore, we should not be able to use they with your generic person any more than with a specific person. I don't think the argument that they is possible for a generic person but not for a specific person holds up.
    – tunny
    Commented Nov 11, 2014 at 22:16

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.