More language fun.
- herbivore12
- Posts: 1098
- Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: California
More language fun.
The bombshell-that-turned-into-a-language-thread found here:
http://chiffboard.mati.ca/viewtopic.php?t=28637
Led me to thinking of other ways in which language has gone all . . . different. How things have changed over the years.
I'm interested a little bit in the terms that used to have a gender connotation but no longer do. "Aviator," for example, was the masculine counterpart to "aviatrix." That latter term seems to have disappeared with Amelia Earhart, as cskinner probably knows. In fact, we don't use that "-rix" ending to feminize anything anymore, really. Presumably you could have a "bloviatrix" or an "editrix." (I guess here in the San Francisco area we still have a fairly active population of those who call themselves "dominatrix"...)
Gotta also respect the Japanese, very gender-specific in almost every other way (as I understand it), for having an ungendered honorific -- "san" -- instead of our "Mr." and "Mrs.", and "Ms." -- or "senor," "senora," and "senorita" -- these examples being even more sexist, of course, in that they distinguish not only between men and women but also between married and unmarried women. But not married and unmarried men.
And again here in San Francisco there are probably lots of people who would tell us that there are more than two sexes. They are the same people who get angry at me for trying to distinguish between "sex" and "gender," who get really mad if I try to give a basic lesson in chromosomes. They really hate that.
But you know, if I were the kind of person who put out fires for a living, I would totally rather be known as a "fire fighter" than a "fireman." "Fire fighter" = much cooler.
http://chiffboard.mati.ca/viewtopic.php?t=28637
Led me to thinking of other ways in which language has gone all . . . different. How things have changed over the years.
I'm interested a little bit in the terms that used to have a gender connotation but no longer do. "Aviator," for example, was the masculine counterpart to "aviatrix." That latter term seems to have disappeared with Amelia Earhart, as cskinner probably knows. In fact, we don't use that "-rix" ending to feminize anything anymore, really. Presumably you could have a "bloviatrix" or an "editrix." (I guess here in the San Francisco area we still have a fairly active population of those who call themselves "dominatrix"...)
Gotta also respect the Japanese, very gender-specific in almost every other way (as I understand it), for having an ungendered honorific -- "san" -- instead of our "Mr." and "Mrs.", and "Ms." -- or "senor," "senora," and "senorita" -- these examples being even more sexist, of course, in that they distinguish not only between men and women but also between married and unmarried women. But not married and unmarried men.
And again here in San Francisco there are probably lots of people who would tell us that there are more than two sexes. They are the same people who get angry at me for trying to distinguish between "sex" and "gender," who get really mad if I try to give a basic lesson in chromosomes. They really hate that.
But you know, if I were the kind of person who put out fires for a living, I would totally rather be known as a "fire fighter" than a "fireman." "Fire fighter" = much cooler.
- Redwolf
- Posts: 6051
- Joined: Tue May 28, 2002 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 10
- Location: Somewhere in the Western Hemisphere
English has terms for both unmarried men and unmarried women, though only the latter is widely used anymore. Unmarried men are "master" and unmarried women are "miss." Formal invitations in the South are still addressed to "Master so-and-so."
I detest "Ms". Such an ugly, contrived little word. It sounds like some old cowboy from a bad western trying to say "Mrs". I'm Mrs Nickel, and my daughter is Miss Nickel.
The "feminine" endings to certain words denoting occupation were themselves rather contrived, and I'm just as glad to see them disappearing. There's nothing about the words "actor," "aviator" or "waiter" that indicate the sex of the person doing the job, and thus no reason to add a feminine ending.
Redwolf
I detest "Ms". Such an ugly, contrived little word. It sounds like some old cowboy from a bad western trying to say "Mrs". I'm Mrs Nickel, and my daughter is Miss Nickel.
The "feminine" endings to certain words denoting occupation were themselves rather contrived, and I'm just as glad to see them disappearing. There's nothing about the words "actor," "aviator" or "waiter" that indicate the sex of the person doing the job, and thus no reason to add a feminine ending.
Redwolf
Last edited by Redwolf on Mon May 09, 2005 8:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
...agus déanfaidh mé do mholadh ar an gcruit a Dhia, a Dhia liom!
- Darwin
- Posts: 2719
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 2:38 am
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Flower Mound, TX
- Contact:
Re: More language fun.
The Chinese have a history of being pretty sexist, but the Chinese languages have gender-free pronouns.herbivore12 wrote:Gotta also respect the Japanese, very gender-specific in almost every other way (as I understand it), for having an ungendered honorific -- "san" -- instead of our "Mr." and "Mrs.", and "Ms." -- or "senor," "senora," and "senorita" -- these examples being even more sexist, of course, in that they distinguish not only between men and women but also between married and unmarried women. But not married and unmarried men.
All this goes to show that language isn't quite as important to attitudes as many assume. I seriously doubt that you can change a person's attitudes simply by changing its language. However, you can at least bring unconscious attitudes to a person's attention by focusing on its language. Then it may at least consider whether it needs to change, itself.
(Isn't "it" much nicer than "he or she" , or the aesthetically offensive "s/he"?)
Mike Wright
"When an idea is wanting, a word can always be found to take its place."
--Goethe
"When an idea is wanting, a word can always be found to take its place."
--Goethe
- Redwolf
- Posts: 6051
- Joined: Tue May 28, 2002 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 10
- Location: Somewhere in the Western Hemisphere
Re: More language fun.
I prefer the generic "he," which serves equally well when the gender is unknown. In most languages, the masculine form is also the default. "It" is unacceptable unless one is speaking of inanimate objects...I find it much more aesthetically offensive than "s/he" (which I only find faintly ridiculous).Darwin wrote:
(Isn't "it" much nicer than "he or she" , or the aesthetically offensive "s/he"?)
Redwolf
...agus déanfaidh mé do mholadh ar an gcruit a Dhia, a Dhia liom!
- Walden
- Chiffmaster General
- Posts: 11030
- Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Location: Coal mining country in the Eastern Oklahoma hills.
- Contact:
Notice the difference of effect between Tyndale's version of the first four verses of St. John's Gospel and that of the Authorized Version.
Tyndale.
In the beginning was the word, and that word was with God: and God was that word.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by it, and without it, was made no thing, that made was.
In it was life; And the life was the light of men;
Authorized.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Tyndale.
In the beginning was the word, and that word was with God: and God was that word.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by it, and without it, was made no thing, that made was.
In it was life; And the life was the light of men;
Authorized.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Reasonable person
Walden
Walden
- Matt_Paris
- Posts: 417
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 5:31 am
Re: More language fun.
Well, yes and no... He or she are pronounced the same way ("ta"), but the ideograms are different.Darwin wrote:The Chinese have a history of being pretty sexist, but the Chinese languages have gender-free pronouns.
- jbarter
- Posts: 2014
- Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Louth, England
Just a couple of points. Correctly used the terms master and mister in English should refer to age, not marital status.Redwolf wrote:English has terms for both unmarried men and unmarried women, though only the latter is widely used anymore. Unmarried men are "master" and unmarried women are "miss." Formal invitations in the South are still addressed to "Master so-and-so."
I detest "Ms". Such an ugly, contrived little word. It sounds like some old cowboy from a bad western trying to say "Mrs". I'm Mrs Nickel, and my daughter is Miss Nickel.
Redwolf
On the female side of things the terms Miss, Mrs, and Ms are not in fact words. They are abbreviations of the word mistress and, more importantly, are completely interchangeable regardless of marital status. However, be warned, if you intend to point this out to someone who's insisting on using a particular one of these you'd better be ready to duck and cover.
May the joy of music be ever thine.
(BTW, my name is John)
(BTW, my name is John)
- emmline
- Posts: 11859
- Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2003 10:33 am
- antispam: No
- Location: Annapolis, MD
- Contact:
Wow. So who authorized the authorized version?Walden wrote:Notice the difference of effect between Tyndale's version of the first four verses of St. John's Gospel and that of the Authorized Version.
Tyndale.
In the beginning was the word, and that word was with God: and God was that word.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by it, and without it, was made no thing, that made was.
In it was life; And the life was the light of men;
Authorized.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
- jbarter
- Posts: 2014
- Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Louth, England
King Jamesemmline wrote:Wow. So who authorized the authorized version?Walden wrote:Notice the difference of effect between Tyndale's version of the first four verses of St. John's Gospel and that of the Authorized Version.
Tyndale.
In the beginning was the word, and that word was with God: and God was that word.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by it, and without it, was made no thing, that made was.
In it was life; And the life was the light of men;
Authorized.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
May the joy of music be ever thine.
(BTW, my name is John)
(BTW, my name is John)