Zguy28 Posted August 28, 2015 Author Share Posted August 28, 2015 Who Boy. Umm, please be considerate and change your signature to replace "guys" with "zes". Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 OK, I lol'd at "grammatical horrors". Sorry. Do you believe that gender specific pronouns that occur in original literature should be modified to be gender-neutral in translation? This is an ongoing debate in bible translation with new translations sometimes ditching male pronouns that are in the original in favor of neutral. In general, I don't think we should be updating original literature, primarily for reasons of historical accuracy, but also because it is not really our place to modify the work of another author. I can imagine exceptions to this general rule though. In a text like the Bible that has been through many translations, translators have to make decisions about the intent of the author and readability. I can see how reasonable people could disagree about whether an author meant "men" in the sense of "adult humans with penises," or if he meant "men" in the sense of "humans." If he meant the latter, then you might think that translating it as "humans" is more in keeping with contemporary usage and better communicates the meaning of a passage. So I guess I'd say to take these questions on a case by case basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 In general, I don't think we should be updating original literature, primarily for reasons of historical accuracy, but also because it is not really our place to modify the work of another author. I can imagine exceptions to this general rule though. In a text like the Bible that has been through many translations, translators have to make decisions about the intent of the author and readability. I can see how reasonable people could disagree about whether an author meant "men" in the sense of "adult humans with penises," or if he meant "men" in the sense of "humans." If he meant the latter, then you might think that translating it is "humans" is more in keeping with contemporary usage. Only if you've bought the untrue claim that "men" means "adult humans with penises". "Man eating sharks" do, in fact, eat women and children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 I don't mind saying "humankind" instead of "mankind." Do you think that's a bad thing? I think saying "All humans are created equal" is more accurate anyway. Do you disagree? not bad, just different. all depends on what youre used to. when i hear mankind, i think of people, not men. but its not that i like or dont like other words, its about someone getting offended over the word. i suspect this is its origin.- http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/08/the-word-man-was-originally-gender-neutral/ Largely due to the stigma that using the word “man” meaning “humans” is supposedly sexist, despite its original meaning, the use of the word “man” in that fashion has all but disappeared in the last 50-100 years, with it now only showing up in words like “human” and “mankind” as referring to both male and female. Even those instances still garners quite a bit of controversy in terms of being thought of as sexist, despite these words predating the point when “man” meant “male” only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 But that's a different issue. You're speaking to the incorrect use of a word. The rest of your comment was about preferring her/she over him/he because of sensitivities by some people. Your complaint is that the language has given preference to one gender over another, so your solution is to just give preference to one gender over another.... My solution is to stop being so sensitive... but no one wants to consider that. but the question is : who is being so sensitive? Soc says he throws in the feminine word form in ambiguous cases occasionally to mix things up... and people get their panties all wadded up he does not say that he criticizes people for using the default masculine form that has generally been used. the whole "PC" thing is always funny to me that way. OFTEN the ones accused of having a "PC agenda" are just quietly trying to be polite. and the ones that are railing about the oppressive PC nazis storm around a little extra-rude just to be sure that nobody could confuse THEM for being PC... (and you never hear anyone even add in the obligatory "not that there is anything wrong with that...") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 I can imagine exceptions to this general rule though. In a text like the Bible that has been through many translations, translators have to make decisions about the intent of the author and readability. I can see how reasonable people could disagree about whether an author meant "men" in the sense of "adult humans with penises," or if he meant "men" in the sense of "humans." If he meant the latter, then you might think that translating it as "humans" is more in keeping with contemporary usage and better communicates the meaning of a passage. you know when a new translation of the bible is done, they do it from the earliest hebrew, greek and aramaic manuscripts. its not done from a king james bible, for example. i cant recall in my limited knowledge of these languages, but i dont think theres that type of crossover with 'man' and human in those languages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Only if you've bought the untrue claim that "men" means "adult humans with penises". "Man eating sharks" do, in fact, eat women and children. I think you misunderstand me. The claim that "men" sometimes means adult humans with penises is not untrue. Yes "men" sometimes means humans, but it sometimes means adult humans with penises. It is ambiguous. If I say "women and men have crossed the ocean" or "men, women, and children," then I mean it in the gender specific sense. If I say "man eating sharks" or "all men are created equal," then I mean it in the gender neutral sense. Like it or not, using "human" as a substitute for "man" in the gender neutral sense is becoming the standard of contemporary usage. That really doesn't bother me, I think it reflects a more progressive time. Languages evolve. And although usage does follow grammar, grammar also follows usage. The question is more nuanced than you seem to think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 you know when a new translation of the bible is done, they do it from the earliest hebrew, greek and aramaic manuscripts. its not done from a king james bible, for example. i cant recall in my limited knowledge of these languages, but i dont think theres that type of crossover with 'man' and human in those languages. i am sure that is true in 2015.. but was that true always? even as waaaaaaaaaaay far back as say 1985? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 i am sure that is true in 2015.. but was that true always? even as waaaaaaaaaaay far back as say 1985? more like 2004, before native americans were aware there was a professional team with such an obvious slur for a nickname. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Like it or not using "human" as a substitute for "man" in the gender neutral sense is the standard in contemporary usage. Like it or not, replacing the gender neutral "man" with "human" is an uncommon usage, which some people are attempting to mandate society into adopting. This thread isn't about some individual making a personal decision to use what he considers to be a clearer language. It's about a powerful learning institution, attempting to wield the vast power they possess, to artificially create something which does not exist. (They claim, to address a problem which also does not exist). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted August 28, 2015 Author Share Posted August 28, 2015 Why does it have to be "human"? Why not "huwoman"? Huh? I kid, I kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 English has evolved an enormous amount over the centuries. That's one of its strengths. I guess I'm finding it hard to care that much about this. It might catch on, it might not. If it does, we will survive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Like it or not, replacing the gender neutral "man" with "human" is an uncommon usage, which some people are attempting to mandate society into adopting. I edited the post you're replying to a bit for accuracy and clarity. I should have said that using "human" instead of "man" in gender neutral cases is "becoming" the standard usage. At the least, that usage is increasingly common. It certainly isn't uncommon. I do agree that there is an ongoing debate about this, but the trend over the past century is to use "human" or "person" over "man" in the gender neutral sense. See for example this article: http://io9.com/5962243/think-twice-before-using-mankind-to-mean-all-humanity-say-scholars Think twice before using "mankind" to mean "all humanity," say scholars Annalee Newitz Filed to: LINGUISTICS 11/20/12 3:58pm What's wrong with "mankind"? It's at the heart of one of the greatest semantic debates of our time. Some say the word is gender-neutral and means "all humanity." To others, "mankind" sounds gender specific and means "a bunch of men without women." They prefer "humanity" or "humankind." So who is correct? To find out, I spoke with several scholars who study the history of the English language and linguistics — and even consulted an etymologist with the Oxford English Dictionary. . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 It's the time of the wankers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 English has evolved an enormous amount over the centuries. That's one of its strengths. I agree. I'd even go so far as to say that the idea of fixed rules of usage and grammar is nonsense. I guess I'm finding it hard to care that much about this. It might catch on, it might not. If it does, we will survive. I will say (again) that I highly doubt the proposal in the OP will catch on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 This thread isn't about some individual making a personal decision to use what he considers to be a clearer language. It's about a powerful learning institution, attempting to wield the vast power they possess, to artificially create something which does not exist. (They claim, to address a problem which also does not exist). Using "human" over "man" for the sake of clarity is something that an increasing percentage of English speakers have been doing for a long time, and such usage is neither confined to the ivory towers nor mandated by them. As far as what this thread is about, I think the idea discussed in the OP is silly, and I doubt it gets much traction. That's one of the first things I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Languages do evolve, but I'd prefer they do so for reasons other than a bunch of pretend pansexuals whining that gender is a social construct, a reality of birth, and a choice to change on a whim depending on which group they wish to validate at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiLfan Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Good point. "Sir" and "ma'am" is another problem . . . Simple. Just say "thing" and problem solved. "Thing, yes thing!" or "Thing, no thing!" As for everyone else, just say "It" or "That". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 not bad, just different. all depends on what youre used to. when i hear mankind, i think of people, not men.Same here. Did you know the Germans have a word for a general person that is gender neutral? That word is "Man". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 It's the time of the wankers shouldn't that be wankers and muffers? to be gender neutral an all.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 but the question is : who is being so sensitive? Soc says he throws in the feminine word form in ambiguous cases occasionally to mix things up... and people get their panties all wadded up he does not say that he criticizes people for using the default masculine form that has generally been used. the whole "PC" thing is always funny to me that way. OFTEN the ones accused of having a "PC agenda" are just quietly trying to be polite. and the ones that are railing about the oppressive PC nazis storm around a little extra-rude just to be sure that nobody could confuse THEM for being PC... (and you never hear anyone even add in the obligatory "not that there is anything wrong with that...") Well, I specifically said it doesn't bother me. I don't see anyone else who got their panties wadded up... Also, I didn't say socrates was whining about it, and he definitely clearly stated (more than once) that his motive is solely with fixing a grammar problem he sees rooted in a generation's desire to not use gender specific terms. I'm not going to pretend there aren't people who fit your description, but I'm not one of them. It's certainly tiring watching people throw around the 'you mad' style of argument simply because you pointed something out. It is possible for a person to recognize, point out, and try to discuss an issue without being overly invested in the actual issue itself. I just like to point out when people's actions don't match their stated motives. If your issue is with society misogyny, the answer is not to do the exact same thing but in reverse. If that is your answer, then your motive isn't what you claim it is. We see the same thing take place in discussions involving race and religion. My favorite, right now, is womens rights because the rhetoric cracks me up. For instance, there's a whole group of people that make it a point to tell you how screwed up the unequal pay system is, yet I haven't heard them complain once about how young women are making more in certain fields than men for doing the same work. Is equal pay really the concern here? It doesn't appear to be... And of course the go-to reaction to someone saying what I just said is to make some sarcastic bs comment about how men are so oppressed. Oblivious that this only shows how little they get about what they're responding to. You're either for fair treatment or you have a different agenda. Fair treatment is not reversing the course of things in the equal yet opposite direction. It's just not. It baffles me how otherwise smart people don't seem to get it. So I'll continue to chuckle at the idea that we should switch all the masculine terms to feminine terms as some attempt at 'fixing' a sexist issue, but no I'm not actually worked or or angry about it. It doesn't bother me which way it's done, I'm just laughing at certain people with certain agendas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiscoBob Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 This seems so silly to me. The complaint is that one gender is being used over the other, so the answer is to use another gender specific term because it doesn't have a history of being used in such a way? This goes in the 'it's only racist if a white person does it' class of ridiculousness for me... As for the main topic, I don't get it. This whole thing is nuts to me. Now you're not the gender your born as, and if someone else refers to you as your biological gender it's offensive. Not only that, but we have to reconstruct our language for 1% of the population that has an issue with the gender they were born as. ...well the rest of us just need to be offended when someone refers to us using a neutral reference..."can't you see that I'm a man you idiot!" Counteract silly offenses with equal and opposite silly offenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 ...well the rest of us just need to be offended when someone refers to us using a neutral reference..."can't you see that I'm a man you idiot!" Counteract silly offenses with equal and opposite silly offenses. hah, that's not going to go over well. we'll just be called names Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 If I follow your point, you worry that exclusive use of "her" instead of "him" in the gender ambiguous case is a sort of reverse bias. My proposal is that "her" should be as proper as "him" in the gender ambiguous case. Either one works. As you say my real motivation here is a matter of grammatical taste. I would rather read "a person is an ends in herself" than "a person is an ends in themselves." I really have no problem with the construction "a person is an ends in himself." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 If I follow your point, you worry that exclusive use of "her" instead of "him" in the gender ambiguous case is a sort of reverse bias. My proposal is that "her" should be as proper as "him" in the gender ambiguous case. Either one works. As you say my real motivation here is a matter of grammatical taste. I would rather read "a person is an ends in herself" than "a person is an ends in themselves." I really have no problem with the construction "a person is an ends in himself." not worry, i just point out that they're doing the same thing they claim to be against just in the opposite direction. i don't think it's going to lead to the oppression of men or something. though i do often think women will eventually run the world. not because they'll oppress us, just because they tend to be better at running things (research shows that... at least in some aspects)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.