Haha Don't think they are talking about themselves. I wanted to ask this question: Do both (Bryan and Cathy) agree that what they are talking about is not the same?
Ok, to make it clear: they both think that the things they are talking about are NOT the same. They agree.
Thank you for your friendly answers. It helped me a lot. I am somehow a little bit unsure, if this all fits for the whole conversation: Bryan: Is that an old photo of your friend? Cathy: No, I don't think so. Bryan: Okay, I always need to think about that person on the picture, who I thought was your friend. But they are not the same then. Cathy: No they aren't. If you see the whole conversation, is Cathys last answer "No they aren't." = "No, I agree, they are not the same."?
Cathy is agreeing that they are not the same. It is true that her way of phrasing it does not logically parse against Bryan's last remark--she is agreeing with him, and her statement of agreement starts with "no", which is non-intuitive. I see "No, they aren't" as an idiomatic phrase that can't be taken apart. The "no" doesn't function as a normal "no"--it's part of the phrase, and the phrase can't be disassembled and parsed against the sentence that it responds to. I'm not sure if that makes sense?
Hello again. I think no one is answering because your question has been answered over and over. By saying 'No, [comma!!!] they aren't.', Cathy agrees that the people are not the same. Just a note: 'In the picture' not 'on the picture'. And to be honest, I had to reread the dialogue, 'I always need to think about that person on the picture' kind of got me confused, but maybe it makes more sense in the bigger picture
The whole conversation is a little unnatural...the way that you've worded it raises the following questions in my head. 1/ Presumably Bryan is looking at a photo that Cathy is holding. (And my use of he/him is to make the grammar easier; it could just as easily be she) 2/ Why is Cathy unsure whether or not it's a photo of her friend? Can't she remember him? Not much of a friend. Unless you mean it's a photo of an old friend (whom she may no longer remember clearly), rather than an old photo of a (current) friend. 3/ Why does Bryan need to think about "that person"? a)It would be more natural for him to speak about "that guy", or to say something like "I thought that was Dave; you know, the one you're always talking about?/you know, the one you hung out with back at university? But they're not the same, then?" b) What is Bryan's need to think about the person? If I see a photo of somebody I don't know, I don't need to think about them, other than "Oh, I don't know him. Who is he?" c) Why would Bryan think that he was your friend? Is he now finding out that there was no friendship, and that Cathy actually hates and distrusts this person? There is that implication in the way that you've worded it...see my suggestion in a) above. Yes, Cathy's final answer is confirming that the photo and the friend are not the same.
Thank you for your answers and response. You mean she confirms that the person on the photo and the friend are not the same person?
Bryan: Is that an old photo of your friend? Bryan sees a photo of a person whom he assumes to be a friend of Cathy's. The photo is not a recent one, it's old. Cathy: No, I don't think so. Cathy indicates that she does not believe that the person in the old photo is her friend to whom Bryan is referring. Bryan: Okay, I always need to think about that person on the picture, who I thought was your friend. But they are not the same then. Bryan has a strange way of speaking. "I always need to think about that person in the picture" feels like very forced, unidiomatic syntax, but this is neither here nor there. Bryan does make use of the singular they, which while scorned by many native speakers of English, is actually a very idiomatic way of speaking for many of us. There is no actual plural. The they refers to just one person, the person in the photo, whom Bryan is now acknowledging as not being Cathy's friend. There is no possibility that the relationship between Cathy and the person in the photo is what is in question. That train of thought is eliminated by the second sentence in this pass, which narrows the scope of logical subject to only "is this the person I think it is, or not". Cathy: No they aren't. Cathy also makes use of the singular they, and confirms that the person in the photo is not the person whom Bryan first assumed it was. The person in the photo is someone else.
Ok thank you. But is "they" realy singular? "But they are not the same then." Singular: "But he are/is not the same then." Plural: "But a and b are not the same then."
In this case, the they is referring to a singular, yes. English has no gender-neutral singular 2nd person pronoun that is appropriate to use for people, and the syntactic rules of English do not allow for the pronoun to be omitted. The singular they is a makeshift pronoun use that serves the purpose of a gender-neutral singular 2nd person pronoun. It's not really standard, which is why many speakers of English disdain the use, but its idiomatic use points out the missing bit of English grammar that most other languages have a way of expressing. For example, in Spanish you can simply omit the pronoun altogether because the verb conjugation already contains the information of 2nd person singular. One could substitute the word it instead of they, and in many cases this is fine, but when referring to a human person this feels wrong, as though you are reducing a human to an inanimate object; thus, many people prefer not to go that rout.
But is a singular neutral pronoun really needed? "He" would go aswell as I know it is clearly a male (from other context). And would a Singular they sentence not be made with "is" instead of "are"? "But they is not the same then." Though like I said Bryan could have easily said "he" as he knows he is talking about a male Person.
Ok, you are entering into the realm of idiomatic language. The nature of idiomatic language is that it does not necessarily follow the rules of the standard language. ALL languages have their idiomatic counterparts. I assume from your IP that you speak German. I know for a fact that there is "correct German" and then there is what is spoken on the streets of Berlin, which isn't very standard at all. In the case of the singular they in English, verb conjugation follows the pronoun, not the logical singularity of the subject at hand. That's just how it is. There's no explaining it. And yes, he could easily have said he or she depending on the actual gender of the person in the photo, but it's very common for native speakers to slide to the gender neutral they. Again, that's just how it is. There's no explaining it.
To complicate matters further, there actually is a logical argument that can be made that the they is an actual plural, that the two parties comprising the plurality are "the person who I thought it was" and "the person it actually is". Unfortunately, the matter is muddled by the fact that Bryan has a funny way of speaking. There are small parts of this conversation that feel non-native. It's almost right, but only almost. This puts certain aspects into question. This exchange feels like it was written by a non-native speaker, or perhaps the conversation is contrived in order to highlight a particular aspect of grammar; thus, it's a bit tortured in overall presentation. ETA: But one thing that is absolutely not in question is that at the end Cathy is confirming that the person in the photo is not who Bryan first assumed it might be. That is clear.
Thank you. Let us follow this thought and change the conversation to this: (...Bryan: Is that an old photo of your friend? Cathy: No, I don't think so. Bryan: Okay, I always need to think about that person on the picture, who I thought was your friend....)But the person in the picture and your friend are not the same then. Cathy: No they aren't. Question 1: Would Cathys last sentence "No they aren't" still mean "No, I agree, they are not the same person"? Question 2: And all in all can I interpret the conversation to whatever I want, and in the end Cathy always confirms the person in the picture and her friend are not the same person?
Correct. This is one of the bits that feels unnatural in Bryan's speech pattern. I'm not saying that Bryan's way of saying it is impossible or never heard, but for me the most natural way to have asked that question, if I were Bryan, is to say, "But they aren't the same person?" or maybe... "So, they aren't the same person?" The nature of English makes us want to be a little more precise as to the logical subject of the question, in this case being who the person is. Yes, this part is never in doubt. We can argue the finer points of idiomatic English 'till the cows come home but this part is clear. Cathy is telling Bryan that the person in the photo is not whomever he had originally assumed it might be.
Ok, thank you, and last question to this topic: However I interpret "they" and so on, Cathys last sentence "No they aren't." always means "No, I agree, they are not the same person"?
I am just rereading it all again and after a while this all makes sense. I just wonder what "parse against" means, I cant find this phrase in any dictionary and the words alone don't make much sense?
Cathy's use of "No" in this case is an acknowledgement that they are not the same. Essentially she is agreeing that they are not the same.
