News:

MysticWicks endorsement: "Spoiled brats of the pagan world, I thought. I really don't have a lot of respect for Discordians. They just strike me as spiritually lazy."

Main Menu

Knowing we are Free

Started by Verbal Mike, June 28, 2008, 01:51:28 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

The Littlest Ubermensch

Quote from: Rabid Badger of God on June 30, 2008, 09:25:26 PM
English already has a word for the generic singular human:  "he" and "him".  It's no more sexist than saying "mankind" and anyone who thinks differently is the same kind of person who thinks saying "herstory" instead of history is a brilliant idea.  Attempting to create gender neutrality in a non gender neutral language is utter idiocy.  At worst, excessively sensitive people can say "they" and "them" even though it is grammatically correct.  There is absolutely no need to run around making up new words for a non-issue.

No, English doesn't. Nobody that speaks English will assume that a "he" is anything but male.

However, until our culture makes some huge change and a third set of pronouns gets used, "they" works just fine, won't upset or confuse anybody (sane), and is already in use enough so that it takes virtually no effort on your part to just use that when you don't know the gender of who you're discussing.
[witticism/philosophical insight/nifty quote to prove my intelligence to the forum]

LISTEN TO MY SHOW THURSDAY 5-7 EST

THEN GO TO MY MYSPACE

bones

consider this thread completely derailed.. but great OP btw.

"He" means 'that male person', "She" means 'that female person', ("It" means 'did you get that thing i sent'ya')

Why should we have these specific sex-biased pronouns, and not have a word for 'that black person', 'that stupid person' or 'that christian person'.
Well, it's obviously because the language evolved among people who where all white christians so the only easy thing to define people by was their sex.

I would really like to rape our language in it's ass, let's start with creating a PHONETIC alphabet FFS!
Conservatives must surely realize that everything we've got now we have because we INVENTED the damn stuff, and there is no reason to settle for anything that's hundreds or thousands of years old.. We can do better!
filmmusic

Nast

#32
Quote from: bones on July 02, 2008, 08:50:31 AM


Why should we have these specific sex-biased pronouns, and not have a word for 'that black person', 'that stupid person' or 'that christian person'.
Well, it's obviously because the language evolved among people who where all white christians so the only easy thing to define people by was their sex.


Actually, the English language dates back far before everyone was "all white Christians" as you describe it. English is a West Germanic language, and originated from a variety of Anglo-Frisian dialects and influences from occupying Roman military and Germanic settlers. All of these cultures were non-Christian, and were not as homogeneous as one would like to think - especially with later influences to the English language by an extremely wide variety of of cultures.

Furthermore, English is one of the most (if not the most) diverse language in the world. This is not only because of its status as a global lingua franca, but also because of extensive intercultural contact, colonialism, and a capacity for constant change.
"If I owned Goodwill, no charity worker would feel safe.  I would sit in my office behind a massive pile of cocaine, racking my pistol's slide every time the cleaning lady came near.  Auditors, I'd just shoot."

bones

OK, my spurios assertions won't stand up to anyone who knows their shit.

I still think we could rebuild our alphabet to be phonetic.

Why keep things more complicated than they need to be?
filmmusic

Nast

While I think it would be wonderful to somehow make our language simpler, more practical, or more elegant, the unfortunate truth is that both language and people don't move towards the sort of artificial pragmaticism.

Even if someone was able to find a way to make English effectively more functioning, they would never find a way to implement it on a large scale. People are just naturally resistant to change - after all, the average native English-speaker is perfectly comfortable expressing him/herself on a day-to-day basis.
Any sort of mass change in the public's life, especially to something as central as language, is bound to meet resistant. Heck, the American public couldn't even switch to the metric system when it was proposed. And not only would one have to change language conventions in America, but also in the entire English-speaking world.

I guess a way to describe it is that language is like a big jellyfish, that floats in the ocean and is only occasionally moved by a passing current of changing cultural customs, new ideas, or natural language shift. This may seem painfully slow to us - who are used to rapid action and changing customs - but it's a natural process, and we already have a good deal of flexibility in our language already.
"If I owned Goodwill, no charity worker would feel safe.  I would sit in my office behind a massive pile of cocaine, racking my pistol's slide every time the cleaning lady came near.  Auditors, I'd just shoot."

Verbal Mike

Not to mention it would be patently impossible to create a phonetic alphabet for the English language without strongly preferring a very narrow dialect. There is an amazingly huge variety of dialects in English, and if I were to assemble a perfect alphabet to phonetically transcribe how I speak, I doubt there would be a single other person on these boards who could use the same alphabet without modification.

A few years ago I tried to do this, by the way. I assumed that if I could efficiently and phonetically describe each phoneme in my speech, others could read it the same as I do but merely modify the pronunciation of certain phonemes - not so. Take for instance "either" - some people pronounce it /eeDHUR/, some pronounce it /ayDHUR/ and some pronounce it /ayDA(r)/. I could personally spell both "either" and "height" with a vowel for "ay" - but many Americans pronounce the former with "ee", whereas the latter stays "ay" across most dialects.
In other words, the two phonemes are identical in my own idiolect, but distinct in others. The fact of the matter is, English orthography is a poor mangled beast, but the different dialects are tied in with it deeply, and it is precisely the ambiguity of pronunciation that allows it to remain relevant across drastically different styles of pronunciation.
Unless stated otherwise, feel free to copy or reproduce any text I post anywhere and any way you like. I will never throw a hissy-fit over it, promise.

Cain

I have no problem with a third gender pronoun per se....I just have problems with people who use ones they made up, or use them when the person in question is identifiably male or female and identifies themselves as such.  I'd like a standard term and convetion for its use, basically.

Triple Zero

Quote from: bones on July 02, 2008, 09:27:03 AM
OK, my spurios assertions won't stand up to anyone who knows their shit.

please to assume there's always someone on this board that "knows their shit" about any subject, and personally i'd always much rather hear their opinions on that subject than anyone's spurious assumptions.

QuoteI still think we could rebuild our alphabet to be phonetic.

Why keep things more complicated than they need to be?

because, as Nasturtiums said, that's not how languages work.

languages are formed and molded in an organic yet intuitively understandable way, even though it doesn't need to be optimal. just like DNA code is the most horrible example of unstructured programming you can ever imagine.
kids growing up with your "perfect" language will deform and vandalize it back into a (different) organic language, within one generation. check out the difference between pidgin and creole languages. ok, slightly different situation because those are impromptu made-on-the-spot melting pots, instead of something that is rationally constructed from the point of view of efficiency, but i think that all artificial human languages, if accepted by a population (which is another question whether it will), are subject to these "organifying" forces, which are partly caused by the way our brains are structured and partly by social forces.

Esperanto didn't really work either, btw. (i forgot why, it was mostly politics, that killed it afaik)

also, why do we need a phonetic alphabet? i have no problems spelling words in the English language, and i don't even need to think about it. you know why?
because i speak English fluently (as a second language), and the spelling and grammar of it are handled by a subconscious part of my brain specialized in handling large dictionaries and complex syntax trees, automatically. some parts of the language are not that much internalized, and for those i need to use my rational brain and consult some of the grammar/syntax rules i've learned in school (oddly enough, i need to do this more often for writing Dutch, my motherlanguage, than English), and doing this is way slower.

either way, both for Dutch or English, i don't believe that phonetic spelling would make things particularly easier.
Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.

Cainad (dec.)

Quote from: Cain on July 02, 2008, 12:52:11 PM
I have no problem with a third gender pronoun per se....I just have problems with people who use ones they made up, or use them when the person in question is identifiably male or female and identifies themselves as such.  I'd like a standard term and convetion for its use, basically.

Same here. I seem to recall being ambivalent towards the use of e as a gender-neutral pronoun, until I read something where a known male subject was repeatedly referred to as 'e'. That bugged the shit out of me.

LMNO

It seems to me that these people are just lazy.  There are plenty of ways to discribe a person without using a gender-ized pronoun.

They; That Person; My Sibling; Someone; Friend; Lover; Fuck Puppet; Spag.

I used to use s/he and hir, not as ways of describing transgendered*, but as a gender neutral way of saying "they".  I soon stopped because it was pointed out to me that doing so was kind of retarded.









*Incidentally, I believe that transgenderism exists; I know more than a few humans who strongly identify with the opposite gender than they were born into.  Drag queens are a different story, but I usually call them "she" because it's fun, and they get bitchy if you don't.

bones

sorry, i simply MUST argue this further. directed at group.

if you're clever enuf to understand all the rediculous combinations of letters and sounds in english you should be able to deal with people with different accents spelling out their own interpretations of words phonetically.

i say tomahto, you say tomayto. we can still understand each other even if we write this way. the only problem i can see is what to write in your precious dictionary, which is all online now so you can have as many spellings and interpretations as you can fit in cyberspace.. or your brains.

i think most languages evolved over a long period, and only after people who once spoke the same are seperated for many generations would their languages be significantly different. esperanto didn't work because it was invented, it didn't evolve.

so i realise that dictionaries and audio recording help keep our languages and accents from changing the way they might've before these things, but because of mass communication and cross-cultural mixing our languages and accents are changing now faster than ever in a way. these are the the strange times, ideas that pop from thin air can potentially be common themes in a matter of months.

and all the change-resistant people don't have to change, this can happen over a generation or two. we will teach children new ways, but they will still understand old way. srsly tho, why of all people would the DISCORDIANS be change-resistant?

the kids who are spraying graffiti and the cyberspace kids and the gansta kids are all constantly fucking with the language anyway. i see it as their language to fuck with as much as Collins' or whoever makes your dictionary. every generation makes up new shit that sticks. there are dictionaries of slang from many areas, as well as L33t, pig-latin, etc. language memes popping up and spreading everywhichwhere.

dere iz no roolz, u r free, if audients undrstand then LANGWITCH IS SUXESSFOOL.

surely this is the eristic side of the argument?
filmmusic

Nast

Quote from: bones on July 23, 2008, 06:22:57 AM
sorry, i simply MUST argue this further. directed at group.

if you're clever enuf to understand all the rediculous combinations of letters and sounds in english you should be able to deal with people with different accents spelling out their own interpretations of words phonetically.

It actually doesn't have to do anything with being clever. Language acquisition is a process of memorization and association, which take a lot of time. It takes most kids all of primary school to learn the ins and outs of the English language. Adults take even longer to learn. And with a completely ad hoc and disorganized system, it would take an impractically long time to learn how to interpret all of the various spellings and accents.

Quote from: bones on July 23, 2008, 06:22:57 AM
i say tomahto, you say tomayto. we can still understand each other even if we write this way. the only problem i can see is what to write in your precious dictionary, which is all online now so you can have as many spellings and interpretations as you can fit in cyberspace.. or your brains.

TIs. Iz. @ "sEn.t@ns. "rI4.n: In. Eks.sE@m.p@ In. maj "daj.@.lEkt

^That's a sentence written X-Sampa. X-Sampa is a method of writing out sounds phonetically; a true phonetic alphabet. It was invented so that people can record the sounds that exist in various language. Humans can articulate far more sounds than those that exist just in the English language. The above sentence is also really hard to read, even if you know X-Sampa. This is because humans read based on the look of a word, not the sound of it. A pure phonetic alphabet causes the look of words to be completely fluid, and thus hard to interperet.

Quote from: bones on July 23, 2008, 06:22:57 AM
i think most languages evolved over a long period, and only after people who once spoke the same are seperated for many generations would their languages be significantly different. esperanto didn't work because it was invented, it didn't evolve.

Esperanto didn't work because no one wants to learn a language that has practically no speakers. :p

Quote from: bones on July 23, 2008, 06:22:57 AM
so i realise that dictionaries and audio recording help keep our languages and accents from changing the way they might've before these things, but because of mass communication and cross-cultural mixing our languages and accents are changing now faster than ever in a way. these are the the strange times, ideas that pop from thin air can potentially be common themes in a matter of months.

Languages change regardless of dictionaries or not. A major part of language shift is sound change. English experienced a massive sound change called the Great Vowel Shift, and it's a contributing factor as to why English spelling is so weird.

Quote from: bones on July 23, 2008, 06:22:57 AM
and all the change-resistant people don't have to change, this can happen over a generation or two. we will teach children new ways, but they will still understand old way. srsly tho, why of all people would the DISCORDIANS be change-resistant?

Because just because we're Discordian, doesn't mean we have to support every idea that comes by.
People have a choice, you know.

Quote from: bones on July 23, 2008, 06:22:57 AM
the kids who are spraying graffiti and the cyberspace kids and the gansta kids are all constantly fucking with the language anyway. i see it as their language to fuck with as much as Collins' or whoever makes your dictionary. every generation makes up new shit that sticks. there are dictionaries of slang from many areas, as well as L33t, pig-latin, etc. language memes popping up and spreading everywhichwhere.

Exactly, and those are all examples of language change! But it doesn't happen because someone sits down and plots out how they're going to change the course of language. It happens because of gradual shifts and pulls and tugs.

Quote from: bones on July 23, 2008, 06:22:57 AM
dere iz no roolz, u r free, if audients undrstand then LANGWITCH IS SUXESSFOOL.

Take it back to MySpace, plz.
"If I owned Goodwill, no charity worker would feel safe.  I would sit in my office behind a massive pile of cocaine, racking my pistol's slide every time the cleaning lady came near.  Auditors, I'd just shoot."

Rumckle

Okay, firstly as you said dictionaries will be stuffed up, that would be a major problem. Even with online dictionaries, there would be a problem, because you would have, at least, 10 different ways of spelling the one word. So the entire thing would get extremely messy and take up way more space than needed, which in turn would cost people money.

Secondly, even with people using the same pronunciation when speaking, there are still several ways of writing the one word. If we take into account the different pronunciations, some words will have so many spellings it would be ridiculous.
And then on top of the differences of Tomayto and Tomahto, you have differences of where to place the emphasis on certain words.

Also, I'm sure people remember that internet thing, where it pretended that it didn't matter what order the letters of a word was in, as long as the last and first letters were in the right place. Now, I know that it is bullshit, but it has some truth, we don't always look at every letter in a word when reading, so such a system of phonetically spelling would just make reading more difficult, and harder.

Furthermore, misspellings would become a nightmare.

for instance, retyping your sentence:

dere is no roolx u r fere, if audients undrsatnd then langwoth is suxefssool

Plus add to that homonyms and the like, then you have no idea WTF you are reading.

Oh and let's not forget overly long scientific words.

Oh, and also, sometimes I may come across a word that I don't know the exact meaning of, but I can pretty understand because I consider the roots of that word, which would be fucking difficult under that system.

[/crazy rant]
It's not trolling, it's just satire.

Cainad (dec.)

This is why we must invent direct mind-to-mind telepathy.

Cramulus

I'm conflicted on the gender pronoun issue.

My college professors instilled in my a cringe reaction whenever improper pronouns are used. They insisted that we write it out the full way every time:

"When the participant finished the test, he or she would put down his or her pencil and wait for the instructor."

It was cumbersome, and to get it to sound right, we had to engineer a lot of crazy sentences to avoid all the "his or her" hoopla. The professors strongly believed that using They or Their in those situations was innacurate (and would take points off). This isn't meant as an appeal to authority, but these people are very well educated on gender issues, so they're not shooting from ignorance.

This made it all the more complex to write on topics such as the intersexed or transgendered.


But aside from them, I've never heard much objection to using the plural to avoid improper usage. Its ubiquity is a sign that we are in the middle of linguistic evolution.

Quote from: http://wordminer.us/essays/the_generic_man.phpSomething else that is important to know is that a switch to “gender-neutral” language must take place despite, not in accordance with, most people’s preference. Giving both a male and a generic meaning to a single word is the way people like to talk. Take, for instance, the relatively modern slang word “guy.” Although its use became ubiquitous after women had been “liberated,” a “guy” is a male person, but the phrase “you guys” includes females. And while “he” has been replaced by “they” in some cases (e.g. “One of the neighbors drove their car last night.”), it still persists in others (e.g. “A fool and his money are soon parted.”), and repeated attempts to create a common-gender replacement pronoun have been futile.

these things aren't necessarily logical. The above cited blogger (that entry is a good read, BTW) also posits:

Quote...a transformation of English usage for solely ideological, not grammatical reasons is Orwellian. Let me explain. In his book 1984 George Orwell described a fictional totalitarian government that created a language called Newspeak in order to control the minds of its subjects. Newspeak was a modified form of English. It did not contain words like “liberty” or “independence,” and the ideas that pertained to freedom were obscured by equivocation and lack of proper vocabulary. What does this have to do with “gender-neutral” language? The modern movement against “sexist” language is the first widespread effort (that I am aware of) to change English usage habits for ideological purposes. Thought patterns, rather than speech patterns, are the target; and the momentum comes largely from a few large publishers, not from the general public (see how people like to use “sexist” language, above). Accomplishing the transformation will have one of two effects. If language can heavily influence thought, then a gender switch will bring the populace closer to feminism simply by reading their grammar books. But if (as many linguists hold) thought is independent of language, the whole shift is a charade and a colossal waste of time and effort. Either way, the general public loses.