English, gender and God

quote:

---

Yes, I am sure I meant to say that.

---

Fair enough: but no games. Sorry if I got you wrong. I thought you were perhaps discussing traditional logic, in which the truth or falsity of premises is of little interest, but the method of reasoning is paramount.

quote:

---

Logical error: Equivocation.

---

Indeeed it would be, which is why I riased the point.

quote:

---

We seem to have switched from "nurse" meaning "one who gives care, especially one who does so under the supervision of a physician" to "nurse" meaning "one who breastfeeds."

---

Exactly, the word has evolved two meanings, one of which is strongly gender-specific and the other isn't. The newer meaning of a medical care-giver has evolved by usage. Yet, in an earlier post, you claimed: ... reality trumps usage. The word doesn't mean that no matter how many people think it does.But if this true, then there is no equivocation, for you frequently hint that a word really means what it's etymology implies. If there is equivocation, then it is because usage enables us to move between meanings which are radically different from the implications of the etymology.

quote:

---

Again, I am wondering if you are simply playing games.

---

No games - I am just trying to get a handle on what you are trying to say about language having some sort of platonic form distinct from its usage.

quote:

---

Rh:There are many times when a dictionary is proscriptive.
Pamboli: Not in English.
Rh: You mean people don't go to dictionaries to look up the meaning of words as if they were proscriptive?

---

Of course one may arbitrarily decide to use a dictionary proscriptively - Scrabble players do it all the time. But the proscription comes from the readers decision to be proscribed to. Dictionaries, unlike languages, have an intentional intelligence behind them, so we can say that the dictionary itself is not proscriptive, even though it may be used in that way.(Do you know the delightful book Cod Streuth by Bamber Gascoine. If not, I recommend it - if I read you right, you would love it. A monk is captured in 1560 by Brazilian cannibals, who think his 10 pages of Rabelais (Book 3: 26-28) are the Bible they have been promised. The monk is made patriarch and rather than admit the error, he attempts to use them to convert the natives using Rabelais. The Passion Play which turns into an orgy is particularly fun.)

quote:

---

It is never appropriate to say, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means"?

---

It can, of course, be justified, within a community of users. If I use the word doubt to mean expect - a fine Scots usage - an Englishman may well raise Inigo's point. After all, I doubt he'll not pay you would have exactly the opposite meaning in one community of users and another. Any such question therefore can only be justified in so far as an assumption can be justified that all in the conversation belong to the same community of users with reference to the word under discussion.Why the latter qualification, with reference to the word under discussion? Because otherwise homogeneous communities of users may have sub-communities with different usages for specific terms.

quote:

---

Like it or not, linguists are not the only ones who look up words in a dictionary. People who actally use the dictionary will often consider it a proscriptive text. The reason why we so often say that dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive, is precisely because people actually use dictionaries as proscriptive texts.

---

Agreed, as mentioned above.

quote:

---

Hmmm...seems like you got the "derivative in there somewhere." It's an implication...negation of pleasure from s**t, ergo the equivalence of pleasure between anchovies and s**t results in the negation of pleasure from s**t.

---

Nice wriggling, but I'm not buying it. There is no derivative of not in here. Think back to what you were saying about Youngquist's poems and how the difference between them was not something the language can tell you.

quote:

---

How many times have we heard the old saw, "'Ain't' ain't a word and I ain't gonna use it"?

---

Once!

quote:

---

It sums it all up: There is a recognition that there is some sort of abstract, official, "The Way Things Are Supposed to Be" (C) attitude and a realization that it doesn't mean diddly since the language is a tool of the users.

---

I disagree. I think there are those who would like there to be such a thing, frequently in pursuit of a social agenda intended to entrench a caste who are entitled to proscribe the activities of others. Your example might well serve to illustrate this.

quote:

---

But here's the thing: You were right. It doesn't matter how much a person may complain that he thinks the word is derived from "apologize." He's wrong. It doesn't mean that.

---

In you second post you say The word is not derived that way but in the first, It doesn't mean that. I get the very clear impression that derivation and meaning are very closely equivalent to you - to the extent that you seem to think that the derivation is somehow the real meaning of a word. Back to nursing again ... ?And there is a reality to usage, too, including definition.

quote:

---

If dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive, then the definitions we find in there must mean that there are people out there, and a not insignificant number at that, who use the word in that way. Therefore, to complain that a word is being used in that way when we can see from the descriptive source that plenty of people do use it that way is to be a bit disingenuous.

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

And on the flip side, just because a single person uses a word in a certain way doesn't mean the word really means that.

---

Well, it may mean that for a community of one user! And that raises the interesting point as to whether language actually does require a community: that is, greater than one user. Would a person raised entirely without communication with any other being have anything that could be called language?

quote:

---

I'm thinking of words like "absotively" and "posilutely"...people know those "aren't real words," but they use them anyway because they like them.

---

Except that such words may make it into a dictionary - in which case, do they become real? Has the dictionary made them real, or were they real beforehand?

quote:

---

Pamboli: Because they can use forms such as y'all or youse? Or because they can use simple circumlocutions - such as all of you.
Rh: No, that's make a distinction between singular and plural as well as throwing in accent. I mean a distinction between the general case and the specific case. Those times when you have to clarify, "When I say 'you,' I don't mean you, specifically."

---

Not accent, surely? Dialect, perhaps. But the circumlocutions are neither dialect or accent, are they?

By way of turnaround, let me ask you:What pronoun would you use to refer to Mr. George Elliot?

John responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

I am calm. You're the one that's overreacting.

---

​

Spoken like a true paranoid.

---

(*chuckle*)Well, if you don't like the armchair psychoanalysis being reflected back, perhaps you shouldnt engage in it in the first place. Though don't get me wrong...I always learn the most interesting things when people try.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I don't understand your statement.

---

​

You argue that a word isn't biased but can be used in a biased way. Why can't it work the other way around?

---

Because if it is biased, it can't be used in an unbiased way except by those who don't know what the word means.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Nor did I say they were.

---

​

Quite a few things about your posts make me think you are taking this quite personally. It must just be something in your writing style.

---

Or perhaps it is naught but an invention of your own desire to have me take it personally. Let me disabuse you of this notion as strongly as possible. I've been online in discussion groups back when BITNET was still around and the internet was something only places like universities and research labs had access to.I don't take anything personally. Not even the person who called me the Anti-Christ. Do I argue passionately? Yes. I wouldn't be here if I didn't actually take an interest in the subject. But "personally"? Please. That would require me having an emotional investment in you. I don't even know you.

quote:

---

quote:

---

How? If the definition is clear and the majority of speakers recognize the defintion and the context made it clear which definition was intended, where is the bias?

---

​

Words have connotations and associations which you seem to not recognize.

---

No, I'd say I'm the one that is recognizing them. You are the one that is refusing to accept certain definitions

quote:

---

People don't work like machines lock-stepping through definitions to the 'right' one.

---

I didn't say they did. However, they are intelligent and understand what the language means.

quote:

---

When a person hears or reads the word 'he' there are a great many more associations than 'an organism which produces sperm.'

---

I think that's my point! Thank you!One of those associations is "generic person."

quote:

---

quote:

---

In appropriate contexts. That's where usage comes in.

---

​

Doublespeak.

---

How? You're going to need to provide more context.

quote:

---

quote:

---

That should make it even more apparent that there isn't any bias.

---

​

Yes. Statements taken out of context CAN be used to support your arguments.

---

Strange. You're the one that is removing all context. You respond to single words without providing any context for what prompted the word. Hack, hack, hack. How can we keep up the thread if you keep removing the context?

quote:

---

quote:

---

But is it? There is a difference between perception and reality.

---

​

This is all very glib, and I respect that; but what is the point? Can you elucidate?

---

Just like I said in the very beginning:Just because you think something doesn't mean it really is. I'm reminded of an exchange in the remake of D.O.A."What I say? That's 'imply.' The way you take it? That's 'infer.'"I'm also reminded of the flap not so long ago when David Howard referred to the budget as "niggardly" in a speech and everybody thought he had just defecated on the Pope. I don't deny they took offense, but I do deny that they had any reason to do so. The word "niggardly" has no connection at all to the word they all thought he was using and yet, because of everybody else's ignorance, he was forced to resign.All because he used a common word with no racist sentiments correctly in a sentence.Just because a bunch of people think something doesn't mean it's true.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So if I understand that definition and I am clear in my usage that that is the meaning I intend by that usage, by what justification is there for someone else to come along and say that I am being biased?

---

​

Lol... and back to my original answer. No one is saying you-- rhetorical you-- is being biased. Suppose your-- rhetorical your-- sweet little grandmother says to rhetorical you upon meeting rhetorical you's new friend, "Why, I didn't know you were friends with a negro?" hmmm... Grannie may have meant no harm. She may not be prejudiced one whit. But that phrase is going to hit like a brick, no matter how much defining she does. The point being, YOU don't have to be biased to say things that sound biased.

---

But if everybody around understands, then is it really biased? If I get it and you get and she gets it and it technically is correct, why do we all suddenly go ape because some other person doesn't get it?And by the way: I understand when the first and second person are being used rhetorically and when they are being used personally. Like I said, I don't take this personally. Please stop behaving as if I am.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Because if the language makes a distinction, I understand that distintion, and you understand that distinction, how can there be any bias if we all agree that what was said was what was actually meant?

---

​

You can't treat language as if it were a formal, and stable, system. You can't treat it like frelling Boolean algebra! Language is fuzzy. Logicians figured this out long ago, hence the abundance of symbolic systems today. In other words, what you envision is impossible.

---

I wasn't. I asked you a direct question.If everybody gets it, where is the justification that it wasn't really what happened? If what I imply is the same thing as what you infer, how is there any claim that there is actually something different going on?

quote:

---

quote:

---

But what is bias if not a moral judgement?

---

​

You are fond of definitions. Try this.

​

1) a line diagonal to the grain of the fabric
2) a peculiarity in the shape of a bowl that causes it to swerve
3) an inclination of temperament or outlook
4) deviation of the value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates
5) a systemic error introduced into sampling to encourage one outcome over the other

​

( From Merriam-Webster )

​

Also:
6) a partiality that prevents objective consideration
7) a surname
8) to influence in an unfair way

​

There is nothing there that is necessarily a moral judgement. That you connected morality to it serves to support my point. There is more going on with language than you want to admit.

---

Um, what is "a partiality that prevents objective consideration" if not a moral judgement?And surely you're not about to engage in equivocation as if what we were all talking about in this conversation about "bias" was "a line diagonal to the grain of the fabric," are you?

quote:

---

quote:

---

That is, just because many people find it difficult to talk of nursing without using feminine pronouns doesn't mean the language is forcing you to use feminine pronouns.

---

​

But you said it yourself. The language is biased toward feminine pronouns for that profession.

---

No, I didn't. In fact, I said the exact opposite. Try it again:Just because many people find it difficult...that doesn't mean the language is forcing you....Get it? There is a difference between the people and the language. Just because the people are having a hard time in their heads with a concept doesn't mean the language is making them think that way. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is weak, not strong.

quote:

---

Why are you now using the term 'forced'?

---

Because that's what people are saying. Schraf even posted studies showing that when masculine terms are used in the neuter, people think of males. She was using them to justify a claim of sexism.I.e., "forced."

quote:

---

No one has claimed that the language forces you to do anything, but only that it leans to one usage over others-- ie, it has a bias.

---

So if I'm not using that usage, who are you to tell me that I am?The problem is not that a word has definitions A and B but A is more common. It's that people are saying that a word has definition A and only sexists would attempt to give it definition B...in fact, the language, itself, is sexist for having a definition B."Niggardly" has nothing to do with race...no matter how many people want it to. It does not mean what they think it means and for them to be offended is for them to show their ignorance. This is easily solvable by them learning what the word means. A charge of racism can't be undone.

quote:

---

It seems you are stumbling into a straw man.

---

Strange...I was going to say the same thing about you.

quote:

---

Remember the discussion we had about linguistic determinism? We both agreed that the strong version is untenable? Well, you are invoking the strong version here, and that is inappropriate.

---

Strange...I was going to say the same thing about you. You're arguing the strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Because the language is not tied to any one person.

---

​

Thus language, an abstract concept, can 'understand'? This makes no sense.

---

Why? Are you saying that there is no internal logic to language? We've got computer programs that are pretty efficient at parsing language.

quote:

---

quote:

---

In a sense, the language exists outside of its speakers.

---

​

Do you honestly believe that a language exists if there is no one to speak it, read it, or write it?

---

You're being too literal. A language is bigger than any individual speaker. I can't be "two." Neither can you. But together, we become "two" and will remain so as long as we're together. That two-ness disappears as soon as we separate and so is dependent upon us, but it is not us, individually.

quote:

---

quote:

---

There are many times when a dictionary is proscriptive.

---

​

I think dictionaries have historically tried to be proscriptive, with some exceptions I'm sure, and my grade school teachers certainly tried to make them proscriptive.

---

Not just the dictionary...the people who use the dictionary do it. If I say to you, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means," you will probably agree with me if I pull out the dictionary and show you that what you think it means does not appear in any of the definitions.You, yourself, tried to do just that with "bias" not a moment ago.

quote:

---

quote:

---

In my own writing habits, for example, I often lose my nots.

---

​

Your example is irrelevant, as far as I can tell.

---

How would you know? You removed the context.Are you seriously saying that a person who knows what he wants to say but accidentally misspeaks himself is not relevant in a discussion about meaning?

quote:

---

quote:

---

We all agree that those are the rules and that if you break them, you aren't saying what you mean to say.

---

​

No, I don't think we all agree to this. There are some patterns that cannot be broken without consequence, but but not all patterns are like that. Good writers break the rules all the time.

---

So you're saying that a good writer could make "black" really mean "white"? What were you saying about doublespeak?

quote:

---

The idea that the language is biased is the idea that proper usage implies-- more or less subtly-- meanings the user may not intend or even be aware of at all.

---

But what I am saying is that proper usage does not imply that at all. It is the improper use that does.It is what everybody did to David Howard and he lost his job over it. He used a common word properly and because a bunch of people didn't know the word, he was made out to be the bad guy. Rather than the proper response of the spotlight of shame being put on them for jumping to conclusions, for insisting that there is some sort of insidiousness involved, that he "should have known better" (and thus even more proof of the insidiousness inherent in Howard) that he was speaking to a bunch of poorly educated people and thus dumbed down his language to a fifth grade level, everybody jumps on him.

quote:

---

A word carries more meanings than its strict contextually correct definition.

---

But if I don't use those other meanings and context makes it clear that none of those other meanings are intended, why are you trying to shoehorn them in? Orneriness?

quote:

---

Propaganda works on this principle. So does advertising-- ok, same thing. Poetry, metaphor, innuendo, and a great many jokes work on this principle. How can you be missing it? How can you be denying it?

---

I'm not denying it. In fact, that is my entire point: Context makes it clear. The reason why all those things work is because of the context. And if the context makes it clear that none of those other meanings are intended, where is the justification for trying to insert them?Take your "bias" example. It really does mean to cut diagonally across the grain of the fabric.Do you think anybody here meant that when using the word "bias" in this discussion up until this point?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Are you saying the language is forcing you to think in a certain way? Or is it you are forcing the language to behave in a certain way?

---

​

'Force' is much too strong. ( Remember Sapir-Whorf-- weak version? )

---

Then why are you arguing the strong version?

quote:

---

But in a weak sense, the effect does work both ways. Propaganda is an example of the first, and the second shouldn't need much argument. Languages change.

---

I know. But at any single moment, it isn't changing. So if I know what I mean when I say something and you know what I meant when you hear what I said, why the accusation that there was something else going on?

quote:

---

quote:

---

But here's the thing: You were right. It doesn't matter how much a person may complain that he thinks the word is derived from "apologize." He's wrong. It doesn't mean that. No matter how much he can complain about the usage, he's wrong.

---

​

Doesn't matter. The word has a bad taste, whatever the correct meaning.

---

Only to those who are ignorant of the language.Again, someone lost his job because a bunch of poorly educated people were shocked at an innocuous word used correctly in a sentence. Does that make sense to you? Are you seriously saying that out of politeness, we should defer to the listener for meaning? A speaker is now required to psychically determine the vocabulary of all possible listeners and adjust his language accordingly? A listener has no responsibility? If a listener thinks something, then the speaker really meant that? It is never justified for a speaker to say, "You misunderstood" and have it really be because the listener made a mistake?

quote:

---

That is how language works. Thats how language changes. Try looking up what is considered a synonym of 'apologetic.' Synonyms are pretty good indicators of a words connotations-- a word's feel. For 'apologetic' you get, among others, defensive, excusatory, and justificatory. In other words, the poster's reaction has some basis in usage.

---

I don't deny that. But you used the word correctly. Why are you taking responsibility for his lack of education?

quote:

---

quote:

---

No, there isn't. That's a pretty big claim you've made there, that everybody is incapable of understanding the difference between a general concept and a specific concept.

---

​

This is not my claim. It is not now my claim, nor has it ever been my claim. I imagine that everyone who uses 'he' as a general term, understands it to be general, but the word still carries associations with penises. It is the idea behind the 'don't think of a blue monkey' thought experiment. You can't help but have a fleeting thought of a blue monkey.

---

Actually, I can.

quote:

---

When someone says 'he' you think of gender and then, if appropriate, correct it to 'general reference.'

---

No, I don't. The context has usually made it clear long before we got to that word.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why is it we don't hear people complaining nearly as much about the need for a "you, general" pronoun to contrast with the "you, specific" pronoun?

---

​

Because 'you' in either usage is gender neutral. This should be obvious.

---

That doesn't answer the question. It does seem to be a problem. You yourself made quite a show of talking about "rhetorical you" above since you seemed to think I was having a problem distinguishing between "you" in the generic and "you" in the specific.

quote:

---

quote:

---

There's that assumption, again.

---

​

Do you deny that words pick up meanings as they pass mouth to ear over time?

---

No.I do deny that every single meaning comes along for the ride just because a word gets used.

quote:

---

Do you deny that these meanings and connotations get passed along?

---

No.I do deny that every single meaning comes along for the ride just because a word gets used.

quote:

---

Unless you deny these things, drop this idiocy. It amounts to saying that a language's history has no effect upon the meaning of words.

---

But that's my argument: A word's history does have an effect on its meaning.And the history of "he" is that it is used in the neuter.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Mister Pamboli responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

But the fact that Paul refers to god as "he" and "corrects" those who call god "she" is not sufficient to justify a claim of sexism.

---

​

Correct in the case of Paul, but ...

---

Since it's Paul's usage we're discussing, how is there a "but"?

quote:

---

quote:

---

But by the same token, schraf shouldn't have cried sexism. It was indicative of her jumping to a conclusion.

---

​

Not really. Remember that schraf is contextualising this in a continuing history of bias.

---

But if Paul wasn't being sexist, how could there be any logical "contextualizing"? How could there be any "continuing history of bias" if the particular incident which brought it up wasn't an example of bias?Unless, of course, as I seem to have determined from schraf, her statement was a complete non sequitur.I think I might be pardoned for thinking that schraf was actually talking about Paul when she responded to him and used him as an example.

quote:

---

You may want to treat Paul's post as an atomic utterance, devoid of any context, but schraf is entitled to do otherwise.

---

No, it's the other way around. It appears that it is schraf's post that must be considered devoid of any context if she is to be excused for crying sexism.If Paul's comments weren't sexist, then what was the point of schraf using Paul's comments as a "contextualisation," an example of a "continuing history of bias"?Ah...I get it...schraf was simply making a non sequitur.

quote:

---

She would have been jumping to a conclusion had she claimed Paul was personally sexist - as the only evidence she had was his post - but she did not do that: she claimed the language had sexism ingrained.

---

Again, how does this not reflect upon Paul since he was the one who used the langauge?

quote:

---

quote:

---

though we would prefer he not be rude about it

---

​

And there's the rub: he was rude

---

So? The response to someone who is rude is to be rude in return? I fully agree that outrageous behaviour requires an outrageous response, but that doesn't mean you do something just as rude.And like it or not, rudeness is not the same as sexism. Paul's rolling his eyes, at the very least showing dismissal of your point of view without respecting that you have it, is not indicative of sexism. It might be, but we haven't managed to get that far.

quote:

---

it wasn't the challenge, but the dismissive attitude that led to schraf's comment.

---

But how does a dismissive attitude lead to a charge of sexism?What pronoun would you suggest one use to describe Mr. Einstein? If I scoff at you for suggesting "she," is that indicative of me being sexist or is it indicative of me being certain that Mr. Einstein is male?Or is it sexist to conclude that a person is male by observation?

quote:

---

You yourself have recognized it. All this sidetracking about what Paul sincerely believes and the irrelevant guff about pronouns and Einstein really does distract from the core issue: schraf's assertion that Paul's rude responsewas the result of ingrained sexism in the language.

---

Which I have been saying is wrong.The langauge isn't sexist. Paul wasn't being demonstrably sexist with that one statement. Ergo, schraf's cry of sexism is unjustified.If she were referring to Paul, she owes him an apology.And if she were making a non sequitur, then she should have spawned a new thread.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

To expand the topic, Rrhain - is it your assertion that English has no sexual bias? Or that no language whatsoever could be sexually biased?I'd like to bring up Japanese. Now, I'm no speaker of japanese, native or not, but it's been my understanding (perhaps erroneous) that women who speak japanese are expected to speak it differently than men. In particular, I understand it to be the case that the language women are supposed to use is more similar to the language men use when speaking to people percived to be of higher social station, as opposed to the language men use when speaking to equals.I find this to be a sexist construction; the idea that women must address (particularly) men as though they are of higher social station than they.Also it's my understanding that sexism persists to a great degree in Japanese society, so it seems reasonable to infer that the sexism in their society and the sexism in their language are related.Thoughts? Corrections? I'm no linguist but I do have an interest in language.Also, Rrhain, what pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. George Elliot?

As do you, probably, for the countless times you've referred to Paul as an "idiot", "careless", etc.Or perhaps he/she without sin should throw the first of these stones?

Mister Pamboli responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Yes, I am sure I meant to say that.

---

​

Fair enough: but no games. Sorry if I got you wrong. I thought you were perhaps discussing traditional logic, in which the truth or falsity of premises is of little interest, but the method of reasoning is paramount.

---

Strange, in my training in logic, the truth of the premises are just as important. After all, the very point behind indirect proof is to show the premise to be false.

quote:

---

quote:

---

We seem to have switched from "nurse" meaning "one who gives care, especially one who does so under the supervision of a physician" to "nurse" meaning "one who breastfeeds."

---

​

Exactly, the word has evolved two meanings, one of which is strongly gender-specific and the other isn't. The newer meaning of a medical care-giver has evolved by usage. Yet, in an earlier post, you claimed: ... reality trumps usage. The word doesn't mean that no matter how many people think it does.
But if this true, then there is no equivocation, for you frequently hint that a word really means what it's etymology implies. If there is equivocation, then it is because usage enables us to move between meanings which are radically different from the implications of the etymology.

---

No, no, no! Reality trumps usage, yes. Is there something about "one who gives care, especially one who does so under the supervision of a physician" that would lead one to believe that the person is female? Is there something biological about being female that allows one to do this?Compare this to breastfeeding. There really is something about being female that allows one to do this. Without extreme medical intervention, males simply can't do this.The logical error of equivocation is to switch meanings of a word that has multiple meanings. Whether the word has those multiple meanings through extension or separate etymologies^* is not relevant. The fact is that they have those multiple meanings and to switch definitions in the middle of a statement is illogical.Not what it "etymologically implies" but what it actually means. A word means what it actually means.* There's a word for that which escapes me at the moment...that is, "bank" meaning "place to put your money" and "bank" meaning "edge of a riverbed" are actually separate words with different etymologies that in English managed to get spelled and pronounced exactly the same.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

There are many times when a dictionary is proscriptive.

---

Not in English.

---

You mean people don't go to dictionaries to look up the meaning of words as if they were proscriptive?

---

​

Of course one may arbitrarily decide to use a dictionary proscriptively - Scrabble players do it all the time.

---

That's for spelling. I'm talking about meaning.Are you really telling me that people don't routinely turn to people and say, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means," and then back it up by going to the dictionary and showing that the apparent meaning is not listed? And that people don't accept this line of reasoning?

quote:

---

But the proscription comes from the readers decision to be proscribed to.

---

Isn't that sufficient? Meaning comes from usage, but where does usage come from? Indeed, a signficant part of it comes from the day-to-day speaking and writing of the language, but another part of it comes from people looking to "authoritative sources" like dictionaries and things like Elements of Style.

quote:

---

(Do you know the delightful book Cod Streuth by Bamber Gascoine. If not, I recommend it - if I read you right, you would love it. A monk is captured in 1560 by Brazilian cannibals, who think his 10 pages of Rabelais (Book 3: 26-28) are the Bible they have been promised. The monk is made patriarch and rather than admit the error, he attempts to use them to convert the natives using Rabelais. The Passion Play which turns into an orgy is particularly fun.)

---

Can't say that I have. It'll have to wait, though...I have Small Gods to finish and then The Truth and Carpe Jugulum.

quote:

---

quote:

---

It is never appropriate to say, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means"?

---

​

It can, of course, be justified, within a community of users. If I use the word doubt to mean expect - a fine Scots usage - an Englishman may well raise Inigo's point.

---

But once the Englishman learns that the Scot isn't misspeaking himself, does he still get to harbor resentment toward the Scot for persisting in that usage?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Hmmm...seems like you got the "derivative in there somewhere." It's an implication...negation of pleasure from s**t, ergo the equivalence of pleasure between anchovies and s**t results in the negation of pleasure from s**t.

---

​

Nice wriggling, but I'm not buying it.

---

Too bad.

quote:

---

There is no derivative of not in here.

---

You mean you do like s**t?

quote:

---

Think back to what you were saying about Youngquist's poems and how the difference between them was not something the language can tell you.

---

I am.

quote:

---

In you second post you say The word is not derived that way but in the first, It doesn't mean that. I get the very clear impression that derivation and meaning are very closely equivalent to you

---

You shouldn't for I don't.

quote:

---

Well, it may mean that for a community of one user! And that raises the interesting point as to whether language actually does require a community: that is, greater than one user. Would a person raised entirely without communication with any other being have anything that could be called language?

---

There have been studies on this (alas, the subjects tend to be children who have suffered horrible abuse.) The answer seemingly is no, they don't. The way the brain works, language needs to be taught early. If a person gets beyond that point in brain development without acquiring language, he will never achieve any sort of mastery of language.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'm thinking of words like "absotively" and "posilutely"...people know those "aren't real words," but they use them anyway because they like them.

---

​

Except that such words may make it into a dictionary - in which case, do they become real?

---

There's a process. They'll go through a period where they are recognized but considered informal or slang. Over time, they may acquire more mainstream usages.

quote:

---

Has the dictionary made them real, or were they real beforehand?

---

Beforehand. The loop has to start somewhere.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog:

quote:

---

Well, what pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein?

---

quote:

---

By way of turnaround, let me ask you:

​

What pronoun would you use to refer to Mr. George Elliot?

---

Dunno. Do you mean the alias or the actual person behind the alias or something else? After all, since Ms. Evans created the persona, she will be the one to determine if "George Elliot" refers to a male, a female, or something else entirely.Ergo, poor analogy. Albert Einstein was not an alias.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

But that's not the point. The point is, you need specific information about George Elliot/Mary Evans gender beyond the use of titles to determine which one to use. No matter how much you believe George Elliot is male or female, it's up to Mary Evans to determine what to use. No matter how many people referred at the time to the author of George Elliot's articles as "Mr.", no matter how sure they were that George Elliot was a man, they were wrong. And they were misled because of an era of sexism that wouldn't have tolerated or accepted the views of a female reporter.Remember, the question isn't "what gender is Einstein", the question is "is it appropriate to infer God's gender without access to God's genitalia?" As per your own arguments, apparently not. No matter how many times the Bible refers to god as "He", it's sexist to assume that reference means god is male.

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

To expand the topic, Rrhain - is it your assertion that English has no sexual bias? Or that no language whatsoever could be sexually biased?

---

I am saying that in this particular instance, there is no bias. In order to make a comment about the whole language, I'd have to know everything about it, which I don't.

quote:

---

I'd like to bring up Japanese. Now, I'm no speaker of japanese, native or not, but it's been my understanding (perhaps erroneous) that women who speak japanese are expected to speak it differently than men.

---

Yes. Other languages have similar restrictions. When concepts get reflected back upon the speaker and the language is gendered, for example, it can lead to women saying one thing while men saying something else, even though they mean the same thing.Romance languages have a concept of "you, familiar" and "you, formal." Thus, a teacher will refer to students using the familiar while the students will refer to the teacher in the formal.

quote:

---

In particular, I understand it to be the case that the language women are supposed to use is more similar to the language men use when speaking to people percived to be of higher social station, as opposed to the language men use when speaking to equals.

​

I find this to be a sexist construction; the idea that women must address (particularly) men as though they are of higher social station than they.

---

At the very least, it is a sexist usage. The question is, is it deemed "linguistically correct" for a woman to use the familiar forms when talking to men? Cultural sexism is not the same as linguistic sexism.

quote:

---

Also it's my understanding that sexism persists to a great degree in Japanese society, so it seems reasonable to infer that the sexism in their society and the sexism in their language are related.

---

But correlation is not causation. I do not deny that there is a great deal of sexism in what is considered "typical" Japanese culture (at least from the Western perspective...not having been to Japan, myself...is that enough caveats?) and as such, I would very much expect that to be reflected in the way the language is used.But is it considered linguistically wrong for a woman to use the familiar with men? Or just rude?

quote:

---

Also, Rrhain, what pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. George Elliot?

---

Like I said, dunno. Are you referring to the alias, the woman behind the alias, or something else? And since Ms. Evans created George Elliot, we'll have to make sure how she constructed the persona.But then again, since Albert Einstein isn't an alias, it is a false analogy.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

But that's not the point. The point is, you need specific information about George Elliot/Mary Evans gender beyond the use of titles to determine which one to use.

---

Only because George Elliot isn't a real person!Einstein was a real person.

quote:

---

No matter how much you believe George Elliot is male or female, it's up to Mary Evans to determine what to use.

---

And by saying "Mr." that's a reasonable indication to use "he."But since "George Elliot" has dual targets, the alias and the author, the problem of which pronoun to use requires one to decide which target is required.Since "Albert Einstein" has only a single target, there's no confusion.

quote:

---

No matter how many people referred at the time to the author of George Elliot's articles as "Mr.", no matter how sure they were that George Elliot was a man, they were wrong.

---

But what is meant by "George Elliot"? The alias or the author?Einstein was a real person. "Albert Einstein" was not an alias. And please, let's not get disingenuous and start hashing out the difference between an object and its name.

quote:

---

And they were misled because of an era of sexism that wouldn't have tolerated or accepted the views of a female reporter.

---

So the answer is "he."

quote:

---

Remember, the question isn't "what gender is Einstein", the question is "is it appropriate to infer God's gender without access to God's genitalia?"

---

What makes you think we don't have access?I'd think Jesus would be a pretty good person to look to and he kept on calling god his "father" and Mary his "mother."

quote:

---

As per your own arguments, apparently not. No matter how many times the Bible refers to god as "He", it's sexist to assume that reference means god is male.

---

Oh, stop playing games.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

To the contrary, George Elliot was the author of a great many articles of an expository nature, including a series on the horrors of mental institutions of the time.Of course, George Elliot was simply the pen name of Mary Anne Evans. I hardly think a pen name counts as a "persona", however. A persona connotes a well-developed fictitious person used to confuse or conceal identity. A pen name is by no means sufficiently well-developed. Sometimes a pen name is turned into a persona, but they're not the same thing.When I change my name I don't adopt a new persona. My friend Scott who chooses to use his middle name rather than his first name (Micheal) hasn't adopted a persona. Both "George Elliot" and "Mary Anne Evans" refer to the same individual in different circumstances. I'm not. An object has names that refer to it. "George Elliot" and "Mary Anne Evans" refer to the same woman.This is a very strange argument, coming from a Platonist. Or don't you think there's a specific individual that "George Elliot" and "Mary Anne Evans" refer to? The answer is "she", now that we know the true gender status of Mary Anne Evans. Now, it's one thing to take the newspaper's word that one of its writers is a man. We can hardly go around looking up the skirts of every person we meet. It's another assume maleness simply because one is a writer, or a scientist, or a god. I'm sorry, do you have access to Jesus's writings? I guess I don't. I'd like to see your copy of the "Autobiography of Jesus" or whatever you have that makes you so sure what statements were and weren't said by Jesus. Why? Didn't you just argue that "he" doesn't always mean the referent is male? You're a slippery fellow to pin down. I just can't figure out what you think.

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

If she were referring to Paul, she owes him an apology.

---

​

As do you, probably, for the countless times you've referred to Paul as an "idiot", "careless", etc.

---

I didn't.Show me a single time where I referred to Paul as any of the above where it wasn't being used as a rhetorical device.Show me a single time where I said something to the effect of, "I, Rrhain, think that Paul is an idiot."

quote:

---

Or perhaps he/she without sin should throw the first of these stones?

---

Got my rocks right here.Show me where I sinned. I'll wait.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Only because George Elliot isn't a real person!

---

​

To the contrary, George Elliot was the author of a great many articles of an expository nature, including a series on the horrors of mental institutions of the time.

---

No, that was Mary Ann Evans writing under the pen name of George Elliot.Similarly, the person who wrote Thinner was Stephen King...it was merely published under the name of Richard Bachman.

quote:

---

Of course, George Elliot was simply the pen name of Mary Anne Evans. I hardly think a pen name counts as a "persona", however.

---

How old is "George Elliott"?

quote:

---

A persona connotes a well-developed fictitious person used to confuse or conceal identity.

---

Why does a persona have to be well-developed?

quote:

---

When I change my name I don't adopt a new persona. My friend Scott who chooses to use his middle name rather than his first name (Micheal) hasn't adopted a persona. Both "George Elliot" and "Mary Anne Evans" refer to the same individual in different circumstances.

---

Do they?

quote:

---

quote:

---

And please, let's not get disingenuous and start hashing out the difference between an object and its name.

---

​

I'm not. An object has names that refer to it. "George Elliot" and "Mary Anne Evans" refer to the same woman.

---

Do they?

quote:

---

This is a very strange argument, coming from a Platonist. Or don't you think there's a specific individual that "George Elliot" and "Mary Anne Evans" refer to?

---

Both? No. Not really. There is Mary Ann Evans and there is the alias, George Elliot.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So the answer is "he."

---

​

The answer is "she", now that we know the true gender status of Mary Anne Evans.

---

But you just said George Elliot is a man. Ergo, "he."Mary Ann Evans, on the other hand, being a woman, is "she."

quote:

---

Now, it's one thing to take the newspaper's word that one of its writers is a man. We can hardly go around looking up the skirts of every person we meet. It's another assume maleness simply because one is a writer, or a scientist, or a god.

---

Indeed. But culturally, "George" is considered a man's name. If the owner of the name does not bother to fix the assumption...in fact, if the owner of the name is actively attempting to cultivate that perception, then we can hardly be blamed for referring to "George" as "he."But, we're not going off of someone attempting make you think something when it comes to Paul's perception of god.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'd think Jesus would be a pretty good person to look to and he kept on calling god his "father" and Mary his "mother."

---

​

I'm sorry, do you have access to Jesus's writings?

---

You mean the Bible isn't the word of god? (*blink!*)You're determined to refuse to look at this from Paul's point of view, aren't you?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Oh, stop playing games.

---

​

Why? Didn't you just argue that "he" doesn't always mean the referent is male?

---

Yes, I did.But I also said that equivocation is a logical error and to switch definitions in the middle of a sentence is equivocation. You can't use any old definition you want. Many words have multiple meanings and context will make it clear which one it is...note, which one it is.And please, let's not get disingenuous and bring up double entendres. The game playing is not appreciated.

quote:

---

You're a slippery fellow to pin down. I just can't figure out what you think.

---

That's because it would appear that you're more interested in playing games than discussing things.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

George Elliot is dead. What a funny question. I dunno, why does a word have to mean anything? In every instance of the use of the word "persona" I'm familiar with - including it's use by people with personas - the it refers to fictitious people with fictitious backgrounds, personal narratives, etc - in every way, alternate, well-developed people. Pen names don't have that. Hrm, why would I write something if I didn't think it was true? Now who's playing games? I don't recall saying that. George Elliot is a woman. Why would I assume something that isn't true? Yes, I'm unwilling to look at the point of view of somebody who's wrong. Paul's view of the inerrant bible may be just another symptom of ingrained sexism.I mean, the statement "Men are better than women" can hardly be considered sexist by your logic if we assume that women really are inferior to men. But why assume such a thing? Especially in the face of evidence to the contrary?You can be sexist without knowing it. It may not make you a sexist, personally, but your comments are still sexist, no matter how much you believe them to be accurate. Honestly, that might be true. My willingness to really discuss evaporated about 100 posts ago. My interest in playing games has only risen as you continue to play games yourself.