"Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
I am against modern changes on vocabulary. In this thread, I want to discuss with a constructive argument, why changing words from Latin is reckless and lacks of substantial value. To start with, I will use two main examples which triggered me the most.
1. The non-existent "Latinx"
"Latinx" is not even a word in Spanish. It doesn't exist in our grammatical rules and neither is accepted. This issue started in 2015 as an attempt to remove "sexist" gender endings, thus the words Latina and Latino, Español, Española, etc... Anyway, polling now shows that 40% of Latinos do find "Latinx" offensive, and 30% would be less likely to vote for a politician who used it [New York Post, December 8, 2021, p.25]. I would think that almost any speaker of Spanish would find the term offensive. Indeed, polling now shows that 40% of Latinos do find "Latinx" offensive, and 30% would be less likely to vote for a politician who used it [New York Post, December 8, 2021, p.25].
On the other hand, the arguments used to promote latinx word are not based on inclusion but an incorrect perception of Spanish language. We use gender endings not as a distinctive but for grammatical rules to highlight the subject in a phrase. It is so simple but it seems to triggers a lot of people.
Fortunately, Real Academia Española, the Spanish Royal Academy in Madrid, tries to govern the Spanish language. The Academia, along with the Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española, has ruled, as far back as 2018, against the use of "Latinx" and "Latine." So the activists are up against the Kingdom of Spain now... I ask Ocasio-Cortez, aka "AOC" or "Sandy Cortez," to please respect the integrity of the Spanish language.
2. English: "-'s" ending that makes a noun possessive.
Some people state that the "-'s" ending that makes a noun possessive, e.g. "Javi's tea," was an abbreviation of the pronoun "his," and that "his" was used in this way because women were all possessions of men.
Where does one begin with remarkable assertions like this? The archaic Latin expression pater familias, "father of the family," must be a contraction of "pater familia-his." So Latin became less sexist when familias changed to familiae? Even English already has a dedicated suffix for the female, for example: "emperor, empress," "waiter, waitress," etc...
But, of course, the point is not any actual historical knowledge about languages or grammar, it is the assertion that women are historically possessions of men. If some idiosyncratic account of grammatical structures illustrates such a feminist claim, no one with the proper consciousness or politically correct attitude is going to question the accuracy or the logic of such a thing. We see something similar in the not unusual assertion that women having longer hair than men is no more than a Christian or Roman cultural convention. Feminists rarely seem to be confronted with the absurdity of such things. That would be very bad form in any "gender studies" department.
I am agree with Kelley L. Ross, in his note that: The issue of "sexist language" has branched out to new levels of actual insanity, with the idea that "gender" is completely arbitrary and has nothing to do with natural sex. Thus, even children are actually encouraged to proclaim themselves members of the opposite sex, or no sex, and choose pronouns contrary to natural usage, or to make up new ones. Using the "wrong" pronouns for someone is now the political crime of "misgendering," which can lead to someone being, not just shamed, vilified, and condemned, but fired from their jobs or even, in some jurisdictions, criminally prosecuted.
Note: I developed my arguments thanks to the essay called Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women by Simon & Schuster, 1994. Review: The War Against Boys, How Misguided Feminism is Harming Our Young Men by Christina Hoff Sommers.
1. The non-existent "Latinx"
"Latinx" is not even a word in Spanish. It doesn't exist in our grammatical rules and neither is accepted. This issue started in 2015 as an attempt to remove "sexist" gender endings, thus the words Latina and Latino, Español, Española, etc... Anyway, polling now shows that 40% of Latinos do find "Latinx" offensive, and 30% would be less likely to vote for a politician who used it [New York Post, December 8, 2021, p.25]. I would think that almost any speaker of Spanish would find the term offensive. Indeed, polling now shows that 40% of Latinos do find "Latinx" offensive, and 30% would be less likely to vote for a politician who used it [New York Post, December 8, 2021, p.25].
On the other hand, the arguments used to promote latinx word are not based on inclusion but an incorrect perception of Spanish language. We use gender endings not as a distinctive but for grammatical rules to highlight the subject in a phrase. It is so simple but it seems to triggers a lot of people.
Fortunately, Real Academia Española, the Spanish Royal Academy in Madrid, tries to govern the Spanish language. The Academia, along with the Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española, has ruled, as far back as 2018, against the use of "Latinx" and "Latine." So the activists are up against the Kingdom of Spain now... I ask Ocasio-Cortez, aka "AOC" or "Sandy Cortez," to please respect the integrity of the Spanish language.
2. English: "-'s" ending that makes a noun possessive.
Some people state that the "-'s" ending that makes a noun possessive, e.g. "Javi's tea," was an abbreviation of the pronoun "his," and that "his" was used in this way because women were all possessions of men.
Where does one begin with remarkable assertions like this? The archaic Latin expression pater familias, "father of the family," must be a contraction of "pater familia-his." So Latin became less sexist when familias changed to familiae? Even English already has a dedicated suffix for the female, for example: "emperor, empress," "waiter, waitress," etc...
But, of course, the point is not any actual historical knowledge about languages or grammar, it is the assertion that women are historically possessions of men. If some idiosyncratic account of grammatical structures illustrates such a feminist claim, no one with the proper consciousness or politically correct attitude is going to question the accuracy or the logic of such a thing. We see something similar in the not unusual assertion that women having longer hair than men is no more than a Christian or Roman cultural convention. Feminists rarely seem to be confronted with the absurdity of such things. That would be very bad form in any "gender studies" department.
I am agree with Kelley L. Ross, in his note that: The issue of "sexist language" has branched out to new levels of actual insanity, with the idea that "gender" is completely arbitrary and has nothing to do with natural sex. Thus, even children are actually encouraged to proclaim themselves members of the opposite sex, or no sex, and choose pronouns contrary to natural usage, or to make up new ones. Using the "wrong" pronouns for someone is now the political crime of "misgendering," which can lead to someone being, not just shamed, vilified, and condemned, but fired from their jobs or even, in some jurisdictions, criminally prosecuted.
Note: I developed my arguments thanks to the essay called Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women by Simon & Schuster, 1994. Review: The War Against Boys, How Misguided Feminism is Harming Our Young Men by Christina Hoff Sommers.
Comments (78)
I think there is a valid argument to be made for your position. I do worry some about how our languages are being changed for what I consider trivial or unnecessary reasons. Even so, I don't think you've made your case very well. The two examples you've cited are not really convincing. I don't have strong feelings about "Latinx" but it's pretty early in the controversy. There were similar changes I think have turned out well, e.g. providing "Ms." as an alternative to "Mrs." and "Miss." I understand this example is more important to you since you are Spanish-speaking. As for the apostrophe issue, the etymology you suggest seems pretty far-fetched to me.
Some fiddling with language pisses me off, but some makes sense. An example - I remember reading a non-fiction psychology book I had heard good things about. In the preface, the author indicated he had alternated using "she," and "he;" and "him" and "her" in different sections of the text. I thought it was a stupid and distracting change to make. Then, as I read, I found it really made a difference in how I thought about what he was writing.
The technical term for this theory is "bullshit". Let's get technical about 's.
I am aware that using Latinx argument cannot be so taken into account in Anglo-Saxon countries because there are not gender endings such as "latina" and "latino". Nonetheless, my intention was to criticise the absurdity of statements provided by feminists who are called themselves as "philosphers" or some politicians who wants to make this as their propaganda. It pisses me off because they denigrate a language, which is one of the most appreciated cultural heritage of a society. I wanted to make such arguments because of I am angry reading those words such as "latinx" or "niñe" instead of "niña" or "niño", etc... But I guess my uncontrolled emotions didn't make solid arguments.
Quoting T Clark
I don't see a problem here and yes, it is a good example. At least the author explained in the preface why he opted to use that grammatical performance instead of promoting hate speech against a language.
Quoting BC
I understand that you would have felt upset, but yes the quotes I shared in my OP are real and they are defended by some "specialists" in this matter...
The paper I had read yesterday, also wonders: [i]How can "-'s" be a contraction of "his" when "-es" or "-s" are genitive endings in Old English, German, Greek, etc, without being contractions of anything, let alone a particular historical pronoun?
Or when "s" is the genitive ending in the feminine first declension of Greek but not the masculine second declension, and for both in the third declension , meaning that it historically has had no fixed gender association?[/i]
Interesting and good arguments to all of those who wants to destroy a language and its lexicon!
I guess @Alkis Piskas can help us to make deep arguments towards this debate using and understanding an old language/lexicon as Greek.
A particularly egregious practice is replacing "pregnant woman" with "pregnant person". Why would they do that? Because men can get pregnant! Oh? I wasn't aware that men had ovaries or uteruses. Well, this alleged "man" did: She decided she was a man, changed her name and wardrobe, took some testosterone, and left his? her? reproductive apparatus intact. Then "he?" decided "she?" should have a child, so he or she, wtf, stopped taking testosterone, and a little later she (a definite she now) got pregnant by an actual man and 9 months later bore a child.
This miraculous birth was celebrated by 'constructivists' who think gender and sex is a social invention. This nonsense would be bad enough if 'child-bearing men' only appeared in marginal academic discussions, but no -- "pregnant person" is a usage of National Public Radio and the New York Times (maybe not the New York Post.)
Ola! Can you give me the reference about your OP and the rest so that I can know what you two are talking about?
Quoting javi2541997
Thank you for using me as a reference :smile:
I know that you are interested and you react positively to my comments in general. And I, in turn, I am always interested in and I like yours.
A good case can be made for inclusion of feminine pronouns when the pronoun represents a group of people. English, as you know, long ago established the masculine 'man' and 'mankind', 'he' and 'his' as the collective plural. So much so, that if the text said "womankind" we guys would know we weren't included.
Using 'she' and 'her' can be a bit jarring: "She led her troop of tough marines into battle." Are marines invariably male? They were, unless things changed last week. But "She steered the company through a difficult recession." sounds OK. to me even if men are more commonly CEOs.
:up: :100:
Here is the reference: Against the Theory of "Sexist Language"
I started this OP with the aim to make constructive arguments against all of those who want to destroy language and lexicon just for "gender" or feminists issues. According to some "authors" it seems that some languages as Spanish or English were constructed against women and a vigorous image of Men. I am disagree with all of this non-sense and I tried to make arguments using both Spanish and English lexicon. Nonetheless, I am also interested in Greek. I guess your language was constructed by grammar logic and reasoning standards, and not with the aim of "disrespecting" women or offence genders.
According to Pew Research, "About One-in-Four U.S. Hispanics Have Heard of Latinx, but of that 25%, just 3% Use It". This is a link to the Pew article
Pew Research is a good source of information on social behavior.
Gracias. I'll come back to this after I read your reference ...
Yes, I already checked that research which is just another proof that "latinx" is both non-sense and non-existent.
On the other hand, it is interesting to highlight that in Spain, we don't use the words of "latina" or "latino", we call them suramericanos (south Americans). Whenever I saw latino word I always thought on music references but it seems that affects some people in this world...
Quoting BC
Exactly. Language is science and the lexicon is based on logical grammatical structures. I think seeing gender offends in these norms is nit-picking.
The following is tangentially related to Latinx. It's about the way in which groups are represented by opinion-making mass media, pictorially as well as in words.
One of the things I have noticed over the last several years -- maybe a decade -- is a change in the way media represent particular groups. Promotional material of colleges often use pictures of women in class, labs, etc. with few men visible. In the US, women do make up a majority of students on many campus. The imbalance of men and women in college seems like a significant problem that isn't being addressed adequately.
Another disproportionate representation is that of gay people. The standard gay couple, or gay group, is more often than not female. Statistically, gay men represent a much larger share of the gay population than gay women--36% male, 19% female--and always have. The largest group in the GLBTQ... salad are bisexuals (40%), of which the largest group are women--29% vs. 11%. Bisexuals don't get a lot of press, one way or the other. Apparently media do not know how to represent them. I don't either.
Transgendered people, in one form or another, are the HOT group in media. The GLBTQ... salad makes up only 5% of the whole population and trans people make up about 5% of the GLBTQ... population, or a very tiny fraction of the whole population. None the less, a lot of articles are written about trans people. One would think, sometimes, that 30,000,000 Americans were thinking of switching genders. It's more like a few hundred thousand, out of 330 million.
Another annoyance is that parts of the media seems to have concluded that most gay men were, are, or want to be drag queens. Some do, true enough -- and doing it well takes a lot of effort, time, practice. More power to them, but (merciful god!) most gay men are not drag queens.
It is thus no surprise that media don't do a good job naming suramericanos, hispanics, and latinos.
On the other hand, my country promoted a law which forbids to journalists to "highlight" the nationality, gender or sexual group, with the aim to protect the privacy of the persons when they got involved in trouble, like in a crime. Well, paradoxically, this law didn't get the objective and the different groups of people felt more offended than ever
But, if we think about it, not only in mass media but everywhere (in TV context) appears groups that were omitted once. I am not upset for such action but the motives. They just use them because it would attract people and is "cool" to live in different/modern times. Those groups are pompously represented more than ever.
I can undestand that the construction of "'s" alludes to sexism, after I read the following etymology in Wiktionary:
"From Middle English -s, -es, from Old English -es (-'s, masculine and neuter genitive singular ending), from Proto-Germanic *-as, *-is (masculine and neuter genitive singular ending)."
Indeed, the feminine gender is missing from the equation. But, of course, you don't stick on that and you see the issue from a general viewpoint, an overall view and talk about.
Indeed, we must not forget that almost all sectors of human science(s) have been reserved to and dominated by the the male gender, at least until the late 19th - early 20th centuries. Litterature is not included in them, but it was a field certainly dominated also by men. I saw an excellent film lately --The Professor and the Madman-- referring to an extremely talented lexicographer and philologist --James Murray-- who worked on creating the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, a project thats started in the 1879. The place where this endeavour started and from which the man got the approvel to start working for this project was the Oxford University Press, in which started to admit women only in October 1920! I cannot talk of course how much the English language has been influenced gender-wise by that men-dominated society, but I can guess a lot. And I believe the same holds for every country in the Western world. including Spain, which has the focus in this post.
As for "Latinx", I can't say much, except that, as a linguist and a professional translator, I find it not worthy of serious consideration, if not ridiculous. Dictionary.com (former Oxford LEXICO) defilnes "Latino" as (1) "A native or inhabitant of Latin America" and (2) "A person of Latin American origin living in the U.S." What's the problem with it? Gender is not involved at all.
(Of course, we find similar definistions in other dictionaries too.)
So, this is maybe another reason why to consider "Latinx" --besides stupid-- a sexist name.
But if you are quite sure that you can use this distorting language without succumbing to the sexism or racism or gender stereotyping that is implied in the grammar, then there is no problem, is there? "How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world, That has such people in't."
Indeed! And the way to understand that is by understanding language, not by trying to artificially constrain it. It's like the people who want to destroy the statues of the false heroes of the past. Those statues are the monuments to human stupidity, greed, and gullibility. We need to keep those statues around to remind us what to watch out for today, and tomorrow....
Do you think the removal of the Stalin statues all across the USSR in the 1960s was wrong?
Statues are made to celebrate people, their actions and their ideology, and they dont function as neutral historical documents even many years later. When theyre not worth celebrating any more, pull them down.
The problem with Spanish words - according to some authors - is the fact that we have "gender" endings. Thus, "- a" or "- o" if we are referring to a woman or a man. This is the only reason of why some people tend to substitute those gender endings with the letter "- e" or just "- x". I also think it is stupid and lacks of logical value, even disrespects the integrity of Spanish language...
I disagree.
I don't see language as a metaphysical concept as you seem to see. Lexical and grammatical structures are based on logic and they were established with the aim of "writing well" and put some norms in the vocabulary. This is not about being static or boring - because people like me refuse to accept and adapt such words - but to keep with a basic sense in our languages.
Furthermore, most of the "activists" who are against the gender endings or "oppressive" languages do not use good arguments to change the situation. They just use this debate for political (?) and emotional purposes without taking in consideration the importance of a logical structure such as language.
I disagree. They are structures of human speech, not imposed rules of writing. The former precedes the latter.
On the other hand, I know that you have been in Spain a lot of times and you would notice that we use gender endings (- "a" for woman, - "o" for men, and a neutral " - e" for some words). It is just the structure of our language and that's how it used and spoken by the 99 % percent of the citizens.
This happens thanks to academics and professionals who help people to speak and write correctly.
Another rare fact: A minister of our government proposed a few years ago to switch "Él" and "Ella" to "Elle" to refer both men and women. It was a failure because nobody knows where "elle" comes from and it looks like a french word.
So, it seems that we will still use gender endings in our speech.
All Latin languages --Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, French-- have endings. English and Greek languages have too. In Greek, even the second names are different for male-female persons.
Quoting javi2541997
Of course. As far as I am concerned, it's the first time I heard about it. Is it used for any other language than Spanish?
***
BTW, I thought later that there is a parallel for "Latino" in English: "Man". When written with a capital, it refers to the human race/species and with a small letter it refers to the male gender, although this is considered "sexist" --alluding to male domination-- by some people.
However, the English language has a much worse and well known problem in this area: the use of "he/she" and "his/her". It is so bad that in order to avoid saying/writing "he or she" and "his or hers", which is quite tiresome if not annoying when used repeatedly, they resorted to a severe syntactical violation: switching grammar number for the same subject by using "they" and "their". "Each one has their opinion". It's very ugly, disturbing and confusing! Well, until one gets used to it! :smile:
Once I used just "he" in expressing some thought in a comment in TPF and I got a bad reaction from a female member! I explaned that I just used it in a generic form. Yet, I'm aware of that problem since a long time ago and I used to write e.g. "he (for brevity) ..." just once and then used only he or his. I still use it, but I have also started to use "their" as a solution --something which I really hated to see-- because I found out that it is a regularly used and accepted form in the English language.
***
The Greek language does not have any of these problems. It has 3 genders. The neuter gender takes a different ending than the one for male and female names and adjectives. This allows to use that gender to cpver both male and female cases. (The German language also has 3 genders.)
***
Moral of the story: There's always a linguistic solution if one does not want to sound sexist! :smile:
Well, I wasnt saying anything about the attempts to de-gender language. I probably agree with you on that. But I dont think you can just appeal to conventional rules to defend conventional rules. What if changes were proposed that were based on a thorough understanding of the languagewould you then think the changes were acceptable?
Absolutely.
How grossly offensive then, when one very minor group of such 'oppressed' people (who just happen to be mostly rich and white), ask for their particular set of oppressive words to be removed and the entire progressive media, most governments of the world and the left-wing pundits jump to it right away.
I'd struggle to think of a more blatant and disgraceful display of contempt for the poor than for our governments and media to say "Oh, we can make all these changes, we can do so very easily - we just didn't in your case".
Or maybe I'm mistaken. I haven't checked the newspapers for a while. Are we perhaps finished with the poor now, are the starving no longer with us, and we can safely move on the merely uncomfortable?
I think not, the attempt of using a X or E instead of gender using is (at the moment) a Hispanic issue. I wish it doesn't spread to other languages or lexicons...
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Oh Jesus! That was so painful indeed. Well, sadly, the inconvenience of using he or she in terms of grammar is something that has surpassed institutions that were always been "cultural" and "professionals", for example American Philosophy Association says in its rules about submitting papers: "Guidelines for Non-Sexist Use of Language," which it says is, "A pamphlet outlining ways to modify language in order to eliminate gender-specific references"... this is out of control.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
We have to protect Greek language at all costs!
Quoting Alkis Piskas
It could be... but I still see Spanish as non sexist language because whenever we use gender endings exclusively for women, then it means that is far away of being sexist.
Well, in this case the changes would be acceptable. Spanish suffers a lot of changes each year in order to accommodate it in all the specialities among all the Hispanic countries of the world. It is ok and a good effort to keep the language alive. But I still think that a language should be protected from activists who don't have a clue on philology. Grammar and lexicon are complex issues and are not so easy to change.
For me, both the deliberate forcing of new ways of speaking and writing, and also the attempts to protect the languagewhich means to prevent changeare equally suspect.
OK
Quoting javi2541997
"Guidelines for Non-Sexist Use of Language"! :grin: I know about the issues of sexism in languages, but I couldn't imagine it could go that high in the echelon!
So, it sounds a serious problem then. Much bigger than one can realize in everyday life! Well, institutions always exaggerate, don't they?
Quoting javi2541997
Thank you! :grin:
If you refer mostly to the ancient Greek, I'm afraid it's too late! Modern Greek, a demotic language, influenced by scholarly-leterary people, writers etc. most of whom in Greece are communists --yes, they have to do with the evolution of the Greek language!-- is actually a bastard or hybrid language, which is OK for everyday, common talk, but it has demolished most of the great features of --even the logic behind-- the ancient and purist versions.
Quoting javi2541997
I see what you mean.
As I said, I think the fact that societies can and do put up statues that are an active misrepresentation demonstrates the degree to which we are capable of being misled. In a general social revolution I can understand removing all the hallmarks of the former dictator. On the other hand, statues that were embraced by the society at large do serve as reminders that we need to be ever vigilant. I think statues of Columbus ought to have plaques added outlining the historical truths.
Or just tear them all down and build some equally misguided new ones. I don't know.
It is one of the main issues I hate the most about politics and politicians. Why do they destroy everything? what happened to the creation of "modern Greek" is anything but the negative influence of marixist and Leninist "thinkers" that want to re-establish whatever. But this problem is not only on vocabulary/lexicon/grammar/ aspects but other things such as history or economics...
Quoting Alkis Piskas
It is time to claim the purity of Greek language!
Make Greece great again! :grin:
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Yes, you are so right!
I believe they wanted to bring the official language closest to the language simple, lay people speak, esp. in rural areas and villages. Communism was and always is so closely related to demotic Greek, that in the junta (colonels) period (1967-1974), demoticists were accused of communism and working to undermine the state!
I like reading demotic Greek in literature, although I'm not at all a literature person. Kazantzakis --one of the most known and loved Greek writers around the world-- was my best writer. He wrote in a very special, "personal" language, a kind of extended, reinforced or deeper --can't find the right word-- demotic Greek. He was of course a communist.
Back to sexism and language, one thing that is good in demotic/modern Greek is that it is much less connected to and it is offerered much less for sexism than ancient and purist Greek language. I believe this is the case also with old English, old French, etc. The more we go back, the more societies were male-dominated --with some exceptions of course-- and therefore we expect to see more sexism in language.
Nikos Kazantakis! I only know about him that he was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature nine times. Now you mentioned him, I am interested in his works and I will check him and his works. It is been a long time since I have read a Greek author.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Interesting. Nonetheless, do you think that demotic/modern Greek is not "spiritual" or "philosophical" as Ancient Greek?
Let me explain myself better: Do the Greeks think that modern Greek is just a static language and it is not used to make poetry, for example? does Ancient Greek still maintain a good status among the citizens?
I don't know how is reading him in a foreign language, as good as the translation may be. For me, a big part of the value of his works lies in his language, about which I already told you. Of course, it feels always great to read ideas from him such as, "I hope nothing. I fear nothing. I am free." How buddhistic.
Quoting javi2541997
It is commonplace language. It can easily be quite ambiguous because of the oversimplification and levelling out or degradation of the words, because the same word --esp. secondary parts of the speech can n\mean different things. Which may become unncessarily repetitive. The ancient language was very exact. Both grammatically/syntactically and semantically.
Quoting javi2541997
I don't know what Greeks think about that. Yoiu know, Greeks are not much of a reading public!
Neither can I judge whether Greek is a static language or not. I guess not.
But as for poetry, as I said, demotic/modern Greek finds its way and fits well in literature. So, for poetry it is just great. On the condition of course that you master it. I am a translator of tecnnical materials and I have written volumes of words in my 20+ years career in the field. So I'm fluent and I master the Greek language in this area. Yet, it happened once that I read a couple of chapters from a book about everyday life in Byzantium --a translation from some English writer-- and I really felt awe! I could never write like that! One must have read a big volume of literature works to be able to do that. And I haven't.
:up:
For I have not been studious to make a display of fine writing or of an Atticizing style, swollen with the sublime and lofty, but rather have been eager by means of every-day and conversational narrative to teach you those things of which I think you should not be ignorant, and which may without difficulty provide that intelligence and prudence which are the fruit of long experience. Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (913-959 AD), De Administrando Imperio, Greek text edited by Gy. Moravcsik.
I found an interesting information related to Ancient Greek, I think is beautiful and worthy to share it here:
Dialects of Greek: The Greeks believed that the Ionians had long lived where they did but that the Dorians had arrived rather late. Indeed, another Greek dialect, not shown on the map, is "Epic" Greek, the language of the Iliad and the Odyssey. Epic Greek is more like Ionic and Aeolic than the other dialects. Classical Greek culture, including philosophy, began in Ionia, whose name became the word for "Greek" in all the languages to the East.
It is true that can be off topic of this thread but it is not an inconvenience because I am learning a lot about Greek language and I am grateful for your effort to help me understand. :up: :grin:
Millions of English speaking Christians grew up "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost". Starting back in the 1970s, feminists felt aggrieved and started agitating in the name of "the Creator, the Redeemer, and either the Holy Spirit or 'Sustainer'". OK, so 'ghost' is a bit anachronistic. Is God gendered? Maybe not for some people, but Jesus definitely was male, like it or not. So, after endless bitching and carping, liturgy and hymns have been neutered in many Christian denominations. The changes in wording have resulted in more bitching and carping.
This isn't all bad -- God, after all, has never submitted to a physical examination. The less particularity and fewer specifics we assign to God the better. (Why? Because God is just not like us. "My ways are not your ways" he said.
There is a distinct difference between vernacular English and formal, literary, and academic English. The proper use of language requires speaking and writing in the right register, depending on one's purpose and audience.
An aside: The grammar and vernacular core vocabulary of English is Anglo-Saxon (A-S). Fiction, at least, can be written using the core A-S vocabulary. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is about 85-90% A-S. (The remaining 15% are word derived from French after the Norman Conquest (1066). That makes it very easy reading.
It's very difficult to write anything very complicated in A-S because so much of the old vocabulary was discarded over time, and the Angles and Saxons were agrarian people, not urban sophisticates which is not to say they were dull and stupid.
Nice passage.
Quoting javi2541997
Looks interesting. I'll check it.
Quoting javi2541997
Ionians were one of the four maain tribes Greeks derived from. You can check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionians. (I don't know if it is a translation from the Greek page or the other way around.)
Quoting javi2541997
Thank you. It is my pleasure, Javi. But perhaps we shouldn't abuse this space ... Private messages (INBOX) may be a solution to this. :smile:
No, no -- this is interesting. Don't hide your light under an inbox.
In short, a real mess! :grin:
Quoting BC
True. I liked that. :up:
Quoting BC
As in every other language, I guess. (I don't know though about the Eskimo language! :grin:)
Quoting BC
Right. In fact, I have mentioned about such differences in a comment to @javi2541997, regarding the formation of the modern Greek language.
Quoting BC
OK. I'm not at all savant in this subject.
Ha, ha, ha! OK, then, since there's public in the room! :grin:
(Only, as far as I am concerned, I will be back tomorrow ... It's late here.)
It is true that cultural background has always been sexist and has rooted for males instead of women. Religion is a good example of gender controversies. God should not be related to gender or sexuality but it has always been representated as a old, wise man with a white beard. Jesus Christ, the great prophet, is a man (whatever if some likes it or others don't as you said).
Nonetheless, the opposition of those doctrines are even worse and most of them are extremist too. It is bad both spreading a cultural culture where woman lacks of protagonism and hating a language without reasoning and analysis. I don't know what it is worse, shouting in a church "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost" or call "latinx" a Mexican.
So interesting! It appears Euskara (the language of Basque country) as suggested language to read the article of Wikipedia on Ionians.
Unlike "Aeolians" and "Dorians", "Ionians" appears in the languages of different civilizations around the eastern Mediterranean and as far east as Han China. They are not the earliest Greeks to appear in the records; that distinction belongs to the Danaans and the Achaeans. The trail of the Ionians begins in the Mycenaean Greek records of Crete.
History of Greece is so great and imperious! :flower:
Quoting Alkis Piskas
See you tomorrow! Take care of yourself.
Ola!
I had a look at "Dialects of Greek". Well, this is too much for me. I mean, I never performed well in history although I was a B+ student at school. Maybe because I can't remember names and numbers. I prefer instead know the historical events as facts and esp. the reasons behind them.
Anyway, what I want to say here is that very often TPF discussions go astray of the subject/topic and remain astrtay --e.g. we can talk for eons about the ancient Greek history in general-- and I prefer to restrict discussions around the central topic. Only in that way one can squeeze the essence, facts, reasons etc. out of a subject and know the most one can know about it. Don't you agree?
Well, in that spirit, and to also keep ancient Greece in the foreground :smile:, I did some research about sexism and misogyny in ancient Greece. Here ars some interesting "findings":
Misogyny is hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women. It is a form of sexism that is used to keep women at a lower social status than men, thus maintaining the social roles of patriarchy. Misogyny has been widely practiced for thousands of years. It is reflected in art, literature, human societal structure, historical events, mythology, philosophy, and religion worldwide.
Misogyny likely arose at the same time as patriarchy: three to five thousand years ago at the start of the Bronze Age. Monotheismthe belief in one, usually male godbegan to replace pantheism and matriarchal religions.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny)
The emphasis on patriarchy is mine. It shows the main reason why misogyny existed in ancient Greece.
"Unfortunately, ancient Greek society was also, in many ways, deeply flawed. Notably, misogynistic attitudes towards women were extremely common, especially among elite educated men."
https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2019/06/07/ancient-greek-views-on-women/
Does "elite educated men" ring a bell? :smile:
So, since the language of a country and at different periods of its history reftects its civilization, society, customs, morality, etc. we see in it a (roughly) proportional amount of sexism in it.
Anyway, from that aspect at least, we are better off today! So we mustn;t complain! :smile:
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Yeah! Agree with you we are better in this aspect.
On the other hand, I did a research in some information related to Spanish society (which is heavily influenced by Christianity) it says: The foundations of Christian misogynyhis guilt over sex, his insistence on female subjugation, his fear of female seductionare all in the epistles of Saint Paul. While Galatians 3:28 says that one's sex does not affect salvation"there continues to be a pattern in which the wife is to emulate the Church's submission to Christ and the husband is to emulate Christ's love for the Church."
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Oh yes, the ones who have always been there pulling the strings of the state...
I dislike this guy a lot. He is the one responsible for the myth of the resurrection and the wrong road that Christianity followed, based on fake stories, authoritarianism, hostility and hate that we all witness still today. The passage you brought up reflects part of all that. And it refers only to woman's submission --which is part of the present topic-- but submission to God of every Christian, is one of the main messages that the Christian Church (esp. the Orthodox one) has always tried to conveyed, with great success in the past but less and less success today. The Church --not so powerful as during the Byzantine period but still very powerful today-- is the main responsible for the inequality between men and women. Still today, the Orthodox Christian Church --although it is called the "house of God" for all Chrstians-- together with the whole clergy, is run excelusively by men. There are only special places, like monasteries, that can be run by women. I guess that the Church has allowed that only to keep women's faith alive. I don't know if that faith would exist otherwsise. Society has undergone dramatic changes in the issue of equality of the sexes in the last 50 or so years, but the Church remined unchanged on that area. In fact, in every area. Like an immovable rock.
(This was not intended ... I just remembered the passage of the New Testament where Jesus said "on this rock I will build my church", addressing to Peter, but my "rock". BTW, the name Peter comes from the Greek word "petra" (= rock)!)
So yes, a real rock has been built, indeed.
But this lack of change does not happen only in the Christian Church, of course. Well, we know well how low women are regarded and how much suppressed are in islamic countries. But even in Buddhism, which is not a dogmatic religion, things have not channged either:
"When there is a talk about women and Buddhism, I have noticed that people often regard the topic as something new and different. They believe that women in Buddhism has become an important topic because we live in modern times and so many women are practicing the Dharma now. However, this is not the case. The female sangha has been here for centuries. We are not bringing something new into a 2,500-year-old tradition. The roots are there, and we are simply re-energizing them."
(Khandro Rinpoche, a female lama in Tibetan Buddhism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Buddhism)
All this make wonder ... Was Religion --as a status quo, an establishment, not as a form of spirituality and quest for knowledge-- the main reason for the existence of sexism and inequality and an obstacle in the progress towards solving these issues?
For one thing, I can see that the drop in the authority, power and influence of Greek Church these days and as a continuing trend, is matched with less sexism and inequality in our society [s][/s]in general.
What do you think?
I am agree with your argument on why religion has always been a sticky dogma which made a lot of efforts against progresses. Not only against women's rights but LGTBIQ, free education system, secularism, philosophy itself etc...
We have to highlight that language (at least Latin) was in hands of religious scrivener who interpreted and promoted the language according to the Bible and we already seen that this sacred book is sexist itself.
I wanted to make a brief research on the different branches of Christianity (for example: Protestant vs Catholics) and see if there are some differences about the treatment on women's rights. I found out the following opinions:
Many of the Christian ideals concerning gender stem from interpretations of the Bible. Christian feminists have often argued that the Bible is problematic, not because of the text itself, but because of the Christian scholars who have interpreted the scripture throughout time. An example of these inconsistencies can be found in the creation story of Adam and Eve; some Evangelicals believe that Adam and Eve were created at the same time, while others believe that Eve was made from the rib of Adam. There is also wide debate within many Christian denominations over the fault of Eve concerning the consumption of the forbidden fruit, and the entrance of sin into the world.Historically, a great deal of blame has been placed on Eve, but many Christian Feminists have worked to reframe the story, and shift the blame equally between both parties, as both partook of the fruit.
[i]Some Christian Feminists made the decision to abandon direct scriptural use in their fight for equality, while others relied on verses that opposed patriarchal ideals, pointing out the inconsistencies within the Bible. The following passages act as examples of these inconsistencies:Galatians 3:28. "There is neither male nor female for all are one in Christ Jesus." Yet, the power ends up on a man, so yes it is sexist.
Deborah of the Old Testament was a prophetess and "judge of Israel"[/i]I didn't know there was a prophetess!
Kim, Grace Ji-Sun (2001) in her work "Revisioning Christ". Feminist Theology says: Some Christian feminists believe that gender equality within the church cannot be achieved without rethinking the portrayal and understanding of God as a masculine being. I don't understand the opinion of this woman! :sweat:
Right. Good point. :up:
Quoting javi2541997
Good idea! :up:
Quoting javi2541997
Here they are again! :smile:
Quoting javi2541997
I like that. More logical.
Quoting javi2541997
Nice! I always believe that the story of Eve, the apple and the snake was totally unjust. for women. However, at the end both Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden. So God --I mean the story-- made them both and, as a consequence, the whole humanity sinners!. What a hideous story!
Well, the Bible is full of hideous and immoral stories ...
Quoting javi2541997
Interesting.
Quoting javi2541997
What I underdstand --which of course might not be exactly what thow woman had in mind-- is that the Church has to reconsider the ide that God was/is of a male gender. I have talked about the unreasonable attributes given to the Supreme Being that Christians call "God", which besides the gender, include aging, emotions, vegeance/punishment, etc., which make no sense at all for an eternal and superior being.
Well, we should know today that all the sciptures were based on human weaknesses, biases, immorality, irrationality and other negative human traits. And we should only view it from that aspect. Like the Greek mythology, which is plenty of stories similar to the Bible.
I understood it know, thanks for explaining it to me! :up:
Both you and that author are right in the fact of how non-sense of having a humanize image of God. Different theists always tried to reinforce the image making him or her or it a very tremendous and colossal figure. If we try to interpret the lexicon of the word God, it seems to me that is not a male word. It sounds neutral, but I guess the problem here is how is understood or interpreted. Thats why the woman complained. Most of the priests considered God as a man because is powerful, maybe a woman would be otherwise according to their thoughts. Well, I always debated on Gods existence but I never thought its etymology would make me a lot of questions
Quoting Alkis Piskas
It can be lascivious sometimes, indeed!
In my Geek Lexikon there's no main definition of "????" (pr. theós) (= god) or even a single definition. . Instead it has been interpreted in various ways. Indeed, I have found out that there was none in ancient Greece, and that the word was written and pronounced differently in different parts of Greece. The Greeks did not believe in a single God or that the world was created by some entity. Instead they had the gods and goddesses we all know, representing different types of characters. The idea of a single god --called God or Supreme Being-- the Creator of the Universe was yet to be "invented" by the Judeo-Christian scriptures and this is how we got a male God. Only in a few religions God is of a male gender. Traditional Jewish philosophy does not attach a gender to God. In Hinduism, Brahman represents a principle rather than an entity, so it has no gender.
And so on. We can be here all day. And then some. :smile:
Interesting.
I still interested in this topic that we are debating about and I found an interesting paper: What God would be?, with a brief summary it says arguments to consider about.
[i]At the dawn of history, and in the religion of more recently attested, pre-literate peoples, there are gods. We get used to the idea of such gods portrayed in anthropomorphic or theriomorphic (i.e. animal) forms and embedded in mythological systems, but as we find them, this is not always the case. Gods can be associated with natural or fetish objects and exist with little in the way of mythological accounts. It is tempting to think that this is how they began, but we are likely to always be without relevant evidence, just as it will be difficult to know about the origin of language or of religion in general.
Indeed, the gods, spirits, and their insitutions can now conceivably be dismissed only because things have changed. Human consciousness changed, and the gods changed. At first, the gods and their realm only grew. As civilizations began and human society became larger, more sophisticated, and more organized, the representation of the gods, and of the dead, became themselves larger, more sophisticated, and more organized.
Well, the most important issue is what the gods were always for, and that was meaning. And the fundamental part of meaning is, in Greek terms, the Good and the Beautiful. I have argued elsewhere that a theory of value requires a theory of the transcendent. Both Plato and Kant would agree with that. Value is not supported by merely empirical knowledge or a naturalistic epistemology or ontology. Where Kant wisely gives us few details about God (since he thinks that a positive metaphysic is impossible), Plato doesn't give us a God at all. He gives us the Form of the Good. That the Form of the Good was later folded into God by Aristotle and the Neoplatonists,[/i]
All this is quite inteesting.
Quoting javi2541997
Right. As I said, there was no God in ancient Greek religion, phiosophy or beliefs. Only gods.
Socrates was accused --among other things-- of not believing in the gods in whom the city of Athens believed. Yet, he had religious beliefs and he was a highly moral and rational person. He was teaching that Virtue was the supreme good. I have read somewhere that he believed god was perfectly good and perfectly wise. However, we actually do not know what "god" meant to him. Maybe, it was the daemon that was talking to him ... Well, whatever it was, it had no gender or even human form, contrary to the anthropomorphised by the society gods at his time!
Religious authorities, with the support of state authotities, were always and still are persecuting non-believers! One must add this to the other immoralities that are or can be attributed to them, including sexism/misogyny.
The White Goddess
He also has a retelling of the Gospel stories, King Jesus, which is also worth a look. A sadly neglected controversial scholar.
While googling about misogyny in ancient Greece, I fell on a Quora question "Why were the ancient Greeks so sexist against women?", to which I answered, for lack of other valid answers so far, based on what came to know from my research for your topic. I got this interesting comment from a Quora member (non Greek):
"Just a guess but I think maybe the eruption of Santorini, which tidal wave wiped out the dominant Minoan power, may have affected the rise of misogyny in the surrounding area. Prior to the eruption a voluptuous female goddess was their protector. After the eruption the survivors blamed the goddess and desecrated her images and temples."
Could be indeed an influencing factor. Who knows?
:up:
Thanks for sharing. Interesting information, :up:
Quoting Alkis Piskas
I am agree and yes, it could have been an influencing factor inside the progress of sociology and history.
Interesting comment of that user, but I checked out on the problem of sexism and misogyny too. I found out the following information:
...Between Isis, Athena, and Aphrodite, theres no doubt women possessed great power in ancient society. The real question is, what happened between ancient times and the present? When did men take over? When were women pushed back? The Origins of Misogyny: How History Held Women Back
When it comes to pinpointing, there isnt one, specific event that boosted the power of men and degraded the power of women. Instead, misogynys emergence in multiple cultures worked together to create the uneven roles of today.
Misogyny is evident not only in Christianity, but also in Islam. Chapter 4, Line 34 of the Quran instructs a husband to beat his rebellious wife until she obeys his commands. Explicit directions of brutality implies the desire to keep women contained, like objects, and thus encourages hatred towards the gender. We didn't make quotations in Quran but my guess goes that is sexist as much as is Bible. Another intriguing fact inside this controversy is the way those religious text dictate how women should look like. This is the main cause hijab or Awrah (which means "intimate parts"). Quran says: be covered by clothing. Exposing the intimate parts of the body is unlawful in Islam as the Quran instructs the covering of male and female genitals, and for adult females the breasts. Exposing them is normally considered sinful. Exposing intimate parts when needed, such as going to the toilet or bathing, falls under a specific set of rules. Precisely which body parts must be covered varies among different schools of Islamic thought.
Well, it is interesting but I don't want to go so deep inside Quran or Islamic dress code and sorry to leave the main topic on lexicon and languages again! :eyes:
I'm not sure that was true, particularly of the many gods religions. It is true of the religions of the Book. All that 'begetting' is very much the record of patriarchal lineages, though I'm told there are vestiges of a matrilineal system somewhere in the Hebrew traditions. But between the Greek and Roman gods there was something between a translation and absorption :
Zeus= Jupiter
Poseidon= Neptune
Hades= Pluto
Hera= Juno ( No children)
Demeter= Ceres
Hestia= Vesta (No children)
Ares= Mars
Aphrodite= Venus
Athena= Minerva
Hephaestus= Vulcan
Hermes= Mercury
Dionysus= Bacchus
ETC.
This seems quite natural - "Oh you call the love goddess Venus, we know her as Aphrodite." As opposed to "My god is the only god, and all your gods are false, and your worship thereof sacrilege."
More equivalences here
Interesting. But doesn't all this have to do with Gallic/Celtic myths, the druids, etc. rather than Greek mythology?
And I believe it is impossble that Greeks culture was influcenced by the Gallc one. Rather the other way around. I can't also think that even the Romans, who were much nearer to the Gallic areas, were e\influence but them. In fact, Romans adopted a lot of the Greek gods, although in most cases there was a change of name.
Besides, Gallics reached the Balkans and went into war with Greeks only in the 3d cent. BC. And that didn't last long. They were settled somehwre further east ...
As for the "Triple Goddess" she has nothing to do with the main Greek goddesses, Hera, Athena and Aphrodite.
I can't say much, but it is quite possible. However, we cannot compare goddesses with mortal women. We cannot even compare the status of the empresses or emperors' wives with simple women.
There were always powerful women in history. In ancient Greece too, of course. But I don't think that they represented women's power, in general. E.g. women could not vote and could not participate in the Olympic and other national or local athletic games. They had their own sports, of course, but separately from men.
Quoting javi2541997
Got me unprepared! :grin:
Quoting javi2541997
Oh, certainly. Much worse. Look at their hijabs! They can be sentenced to death for committing adultery and even blasphemy! And all that you mentioned. And more.
I can't think of any other culture or religion that suppresses women as musch as in Islam.
Quoting javi2541997
That was very funny! I had to naturally stop there for an instant. (You can imagine the image that I got in my head!) :grin:
Please go on ...
You have a point there.
:up:
I found a crucial quote from the Quran which surprised me regarding this topic, it says: the term hijab sometimes refers to a curtain separating visitors to Muhammad's main house from his wives' residential lodgings. This has led some to claim that the mandate of the Qur'an applied only to the wives of Muhammad, and not to the entirety of women. Another interpretation can also refer to the seclusion of women from men in the public sphere, whereas a metaphysical dimension may refer to "the veil which separates man, or the world, from God". For some, the term for headscarf in the Qur'an is khim?r [/i]
The hijab is worn by Muslim girls and women to maintain modesty and privacy from unrelated males. According to the Encyclopedia of Islam and Muslim World, modesty concerns both men's and women's "gaze, gait, garments, and genitalia"
Some religious groups consider the issue of veiling in Islam only as a recommendation made according to the conditions of the past, and they believe that giving it as a necessity is an imposition of an Islamist ideology. The Muslim Reform Movement emphasized that the jilb?b and khimar mentioned in the Qur'an are pre-Islamic clothing, they were not brought by the Qur'an, the hijab of the Qur'an never means a headscarf, and the Qur'an only advises on how to wear them.
This information is so interesting, I am learning a lot in this thread! :smile:
That's right. Or at least to an extent it is. but then the Triple Goddess has aspects of virgin, mother, and crone with the associated colours , white, red, and black. And I think Aphrodite for love, Hera for marriage and Athena for the wisdom of age fits quite neatly. It's a complicated topic, and I am not wanting to press it here.
As to the influences, we are talking about a widespread and very ancient religion that was likely varied and widespread and will have lasted longer in more isolated places. But Graves was very much the Classics scholar, and he detects the influence of the Goddess repressed, as it were in the Greek and Roman pantheons, and relegated to minor and largely negative roles. It gives a context to the later take-over by the ambitious mouse god of the Hebrews, that we now know as Jehovah, or Allah, or simply God,
Neither is ouisqui or junque. South Americans and Spaniards are so haughty about Tex Mex, but as Dr Frankenfurter explained, "We didn't make it for you!"
The idea that there is a "correct" way of speaking English is only to say that there is a standardized snapshot in time regarding how we speak, and, even then, distinctions exist within groups. You needn't get all up in the transexuals business and tell them how to talk, and they needn't get all up in yours. "Up" here means nothing vertical, but something too intimate, as in reserved for themselves. A non-standard word, but one available in certain contexts.
Many of the words you use today were criticized by traditionalists at one point. You don't say builded, and I doubt you say the T in doubt.
That we permit people to choose their proper names is just an arbitrary feature of our language, but there is nothing illogical in extending that to pronouns or other descriptors.
What happens is that language changes, and that change is usually organic, meaning you don't typically have people demanding new words be used, but more commonly in having people demand they be used as they once were., but the opposite occurs as well.
When I was young, you made sure to refer to your teachers as Miss if unmarried and Mrs. If married, but now we just use Ms, which is a modern creation, and you rarely, if ever see a woman use her husband's name (as in Mrs. Jebiidiah T. Hanover)..
That's why those with liquified gender, fluid gender, or viscous gender--whatever--have somehow gotten everyone to say "gender assigned at birth". "Assignment" suggests that the identification of gender is arbitrary. 99.9% of the population will identify or recognize gender in a new born by checking out the anatomy of the baby. 99.9% of the time, babies exhibit unambiguous sexual features. Granted, in a quite small share o births, genitals are ambiguous, and further examination is needed.
Did you mean the B in doubt? Or has Georgia developed an indubitably devious pronunciation of "doub"? Or maybe you just leave the ending consonant off, as in "I dow i".
The Latinate "b" in doubt was deleted by the French. "Doute" came into English sans 'b'. It was inserted into "doute" by early scribes (secretarial monks) based on the Latin spelling of dubitare. This reinsertion of a lost letter in Latin ---> French ---> English is quite unusual.
Hanover,
Thank you for your words and analysis in this thread. I cannot be disagree with you in those facts, but I guess you misunderstood my main point in my OP because I am not against all of those who makes changes in the vocabulary but the ones who destroy it without any reason.
Believe or not. Even language is a political topic which divides people. The ones who calle themselves as "progressive" want to re-establish lexicon (as they want to do so in other topics, for example History and Arts). You mentioned some examples as"When I was young, you made sure to refer to your teachers as Miss if unmarried and Mrs. If married, but now we just use Ms, which is a modern creation"
I wish the changes they wanted were similar as your example... the new "activists" want to make us understand that the language has always been a "male's thing" and the gender endings such as "- a" or " - o" (for example perra or perro, "dog". We in Spanish rarely have neutral words) are sexist.
I am against with the nonsense of some persons who feel intimidated because we distinguish with gender endings and they want to make our language uglier not modern.
"Latinx" doesn't exist in our lexicon because that doesn't make non sense.
"Elle" instead of "El/Ella". The first word looks like a frech one and neither exists in our language. Why we should implement those?
The only problem here is the way the language and lexicon is misunderstood. All of those who feels that they have a "neutral" or "nonbinary" gender attack grammar because they feel intimidated by some words of language. They think that language and lexicon are oppressive or exclusive to them when it is some rules to help us how to write, talk and express ourselves correctly, simple.
Granted, the variation between strictly heterosexual and homosexual (6 stages, according to Kinsey) the various object choices (what, exactly, turns one on), levels of libido, and various aspects of personality account for lots of individual differences in sexual (or any other kind of) experience. Cooking up a list of dozens of imaginary genders and sexualities is false. No one is under any obligation to recognize anything on the list.
It's another consequence of the postmodern idea of pervasive social construction, as opposed to the operations of biology (or nature). Only by supposing that reality is a social construct can one believe that there are 77 different genders.
My advice to the individuals who find they have highly specialized and esoteric sexuality is "get over it".
What about trans persons? I have known quite a few trans persons. A grand nephew is trans. I'm OK with it, in as much as it isn't my problem to deal with often. Trans personhood involves too much difficulty to be anything other than real (one wouldn't pretend).
Baloney means camelo in Spanish. It is a slang word, right? and it means foolish or deceptive talk with nonsense if I am not wrong with the interpretation!
Quoting BC
:up: :100:
Quoting BC
I am OK with trans persons too. It is not a big deal and I respect the way they want to live themselves. But, sometimes, they make nonsense arguments trying to throw out logical structures. They just confuse sexuality with lexicon and grammar, that I dont even understand why this happens at all...
Well, as you well said, I guess this is due to "Post modernism" ideas and so...
Interesting indeed. Hijabs, long women dresses and customs are totally the opposite of the provocative momen styles in our "Christian" world!
I know what "sexy" means and is for us. I don't know what it means and is for the Muslims. Maybe a woman without a hijab? :grin:
(I am bad. Shouldn't make fun of that ... And it's sexism!)
Crone, like the bagpie? I don't find it ugly at all. It's a great bird: proud, strong, energetic, intelligent and beautiful.
Quoting unenlightened
Right. Better not. :smile:
Quoting unenlightened
Well, I'm afraid that you do press it here. :grin:
Anyway, all this is too "deep" for me as far as my knowledge, memory and interest about mythology are concerned. And I don't know if I should take a plunge in the deep waters of mythology.
Sorry, I cannot resist just pointing, in case anyone missed it, to the relationship between mythology -"we're not much concerned with all that these days", and prejudice and inequality unfortunately persisting in the world, even - dare I say it? in philosophy departments. (Misogyny is the necessary tool of patrilineal descent, and thus of the vaunted nuclear family, etc etc etc.)
I believe you are right, @unenlightened. Besides, I think I was the first to bring in mythology and patriarchy in this thread as part of the "sexism" theme ...
Quoting BC
In the"doubt" example, we had an educated class making a determination that Latin was a particularly proper and pure language, and so the B (not T, my mistake) was reinserted. Languages often change through corruption, often from non-native adult speakers, but, as noted, also through intentional decisions.
The French, for example, have created the Académie Française, which protects against invasive English terms into their language.
Since my point is pretty strong here, and I typically am not more liberal than BC, we're probably not disputing language change in the abstract here as much as we are in the particular. That is, if we change from Miss to Ms., you raise no objection because you agree that preserving a marker within the language for a woman's marital status is a holdover from a sexist past that concerned itself with who spoke for the young lady, as if she were a possession.
We don't mind leaving our young maidens misidentified, but we do when it comes to identifying biological birth sex.
This seems therefore more about whether you believe trans folks are deserving of certain pronouns more than linguistic theory. What is deserved is a matter of judgment, but I'd suggest we needn't worry about the preservation of the sanctity of the language when making that judgment.