| |
| Would you support a neutral language movement?
Posted: 2/1/2010 8:40:23 AM | Oops! My usage wasn't a good one, because we don't so much need gender neutrality for statements of specific events, as for when we're speaking in general:
"When it's cold, any person should wear hir coat, because if s/he does, then the temperature won't cause hir to catch cold."
There are innumerable situations where we usually choose between using the gender-neutral plural, "they", "them", "their", or using the traditional masculine, or alternating between masculine and feminine pronouns. Better to just use gender-neutral singular pronouns when needed, as in the above sentence. | |
|
| Would you support a neutral language movement?
Posted: 2/1/2010 10:08:57 AM | I think slybandit has hit the nail pretty well on the head in that you would be getting one group attempting to enforce a particular moral/ethical standard, with language being the main tool of this "change." Very 1984-ish.
Also, the question is raised...where's the real benefit? If anything, you risk a lot because some of the meanings could be lost and the result could be even greater misunderstandings, not greater clarifications.
Finally, language is evolving all the time. Not always for the better, granted, but it does change. So such changes may already be in progress naturally. | |
|
| Would you support a neutral language movement?
Posted: 2/1/2010 12:06:55 PM | What the OP is proposing is another layer to politically correct speach, nothing less.
Considering how much damage politically correct speach has done already, need more be said? And you would enforce this how???
Paul K | |
|
| Would you support a neutral language movement?
Posted: 2/1/2010 12:15:56 PM |
"She's a great actress, but her career has gone downhill since she became a widow."
"She's a great actor, but her career has gone downhill since she lost her spouse."
"An accomplished thesbian who's career slid donwhill upon the death of their romantic partner"
Shows proficiency in one's chosen field - lacks reference to gender - divorces one from ownership of one's congugal mate. | |
|
| Would you support a neutral language movement?
Posted: 2/1/2010 12:30:17 PM | Reminds me of a story I once heard about the labor lawyer inspecting the predominantly female workplace due to many complaints of discrimination.
As she is walking through the plant with the foreman she is asking questions and listening intently, all the while taking note of the foreman's apparent insensitivity to all things feminist. "what is your job title?", she asks. "I am afternoon foreman for floor 3", is his reply. "Foreperson!", is her indignant repsonse. "Foreperson", mimics the foreman. She asks, "what's this for?" The foreperson replies, "it's a manlift, it's what we use to extract the bales of fabric from the second deck". "Personlift", barks the lawyer over the screaching machinery. "Personlift", echoes the foreperson. As they walk a little further into the plant the foreperson shouts just barely above the din of production, "watch out for the personhole!!". The lawyer takes her eyes off where she is walking and turns slightly to the foreperson and asks. "the what?"
Swoosh, splash!!!!! | |
|
| Would you support a neutral language movement?
Posted: 2/1/2010 2:55:59 PM | I re-read the original post, and am even more convinced that doesn't know that specific words have specific meaning.........
For instance.... If I were to say..
Hey OP, you are sofa king stupid............
Does that mean that I am saying he is royallty, that is not too smart, and belongs on the longish soft piece of furniture, usually located near the flat screen, or am I insulting him?
Paul K | |
|
| |
| Would you support a neutral language movement?
Posted: 2/2/2010 5:04:41 PM | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Be careful of what you ask, as the feminist movement is doing the best they can..........
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE womans movement, especially when they are walking away................... :) :) :)
Paul K | |
|
| Would you support a neutral language movement?
Posted: 2/2/2010 5:28:58 PM | Paul K--
You're getting way too defensive. You're fighting a gender war, but this has nothing to do with gender war.
It's just a matter of someone maybe wanting to be accurate, complete and factually correct.
No one has said that gender-neurtality should be enforced by law.
It's just a question of how one might want to say things, for accuracy and completeness.
"Everyone should eat his breakfast"
But that isn't correct, because not everyone is a "he". Forget the gender warfare, it's just a a simple fact. We're looking for a true way to say something, that's all.
So, to avoid that factual error, some would say
"Everyone should eat their breakfast".
That's ok actually. It comandeers the plural pronoun as an all-gender singular pronoun. Nothing wrong with that. But some might consider it inelegant to use plural for singular, though it needn't be regarded as grammatically wrong, if that usage and meaning is understood.
But, for the person who wants to avoid incompleteness or factual incorrectness, and who wants to avoid using plural for singlular, then that's why I suggested s/he and hir.
I often use s/he, and it's something that we encounter fairly often in writing. Hir is more rarely seen. It, being a simple combination of him and her, or his and her, sounds more grammatically aesthetic than "they", "them", and "their" used for the singular. | |
|
| Would you support a neutral language movement?
Posted: 2/2/2010 5:36:40 PM | I would say that 90% of all high school graduates would read this thread and shake their heads, and understand probably less than half. I am certain that you read a lot of the posts and shake your head, as do I. I make lots of mistakes gramatically on these posts. I am wondering what the purpose of the OP is in the first place..............
Paul K | |
|
| Would you support a neutral language movement?
Posted: 2/2/2010 7:58:52 PM | Egads...no I wouldn't support it. It is getting hard enough trying to remember what NOT to say to offend someone...please let's not make it any harder than it is....
Although on second thought if it helps us to move towards equality/gender neutrality, ok....it is really MY problem that I find it hard sometimes to avoid sticking my foot in my mouth...why should others suffer for me? | |
|
| Would you support a neutral language movement?
Posted: 2/2/2010 8:31:23 PM | the more vocabularies you have the better. at different times or situations or writing a novel or antique moivies or future problems, you use it differently. if you dont need it then dont use it but someone elses will if they are good with words and speeches. french and other nations have words that we dont have. we should copy them and make english better. there are always time to improve for better but not take away. i said add not take away vocabulary or grammar.
what is wrong with your analizing? i dont get it!!! | |
|
| Would you support a neutral language movement?
Posted: 2/2/2010 9:06:50 PM | ^quote^I would say that 90% of all high school graduates would read this thread and shake their heads, and understand probably less than half. I am certain^équoteç
Paul, 53.278% of all online statistics are a complete fabrication.
OT: I have a new computer and keyboard. and OMFG !!!! it will not do the square bracket - will not do a question mark, nor an apostrophe. i think i chose something wrong in the setup. | |
|
| Would you support a neutral language movement?
Posted: 2/2/2010 9:15:29 PM |
Would you support a "neutral" language movement?
No!
There is nothing wrong with the language. There is something wrong with the people. By "neutralizing" the language you are only fixing a "symptom" and not the root cause.
You can remove all the words and phrases you want. People will just create new ones, or better yet, express what they mean via body language and attitude.
Not to mention that a person can take any ordinary word, and via context, morph it into anything they want. | |
|
| |
| Would you support a neutral language movement?
Posted: 2/2/2010 10:23:23 PM | A little too 'newspeak' to me, I'm afraid. 1984 really wasn't intended as a guidebook, you know!?
Well, yeah... Perhaps not by the author... It was a warning to which we paid no heed...
But governments have systematically adopted this bit of literature and transformed it into a bible... Standard Operating Procedure...
My head won't shut the fvck up... I couldn't get to sleep last night wondering over:
"If the plural of mouse is mice, then why aren't a row of houses hice?..
Ice is therefore plural; a single cube would then become an ouse...
You generally roll a pair of dice, but having lost one, shouldn't the remainder be a douse?...
And if you are part of a community which condones someone having more than one spouse; wouldn't you then have spice?"... | |
|
| Would you support a neutral language movement?
Posted: 2/3/2010 12:03:49 AM | A neutral language already exists
"Hest meenob blatak scho mi two cky zka"
This phrase is universally understood across the galaxy already.
Unfortunately the users of this neutral language failed to understand the need for dictionaries and language schools after a few million years.
Therefore there is no known translation into English and your guess is as good as mine as to what it means. | |
|
| |
| Would you support a neutral language movement?
Posted: 2/3/2010 8:04:43 AM | I like English.
Not like German, no DER DIE and DAS Nouns [Male Female and 'IT' Nouns].
Never could get my head around German's reasoning for Gender nouns.
Hebrew is much worse, the langyage is gender specific, you can tell the gender of the person speaking by the gender of the words used. | |
|
| Would you support a neutral language movement?
Posted: 2/3/2010 9:25:21 AM | I wouldn’t have supported the idea of one language.
After watching this video … I tend to change my mind …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSmkcn1hJWI&feature=player_embedded
I watched this interview with Klaus Dona a spiritual archaeologist. He mentions that he has seen and examined artifacts from different continents, indicting the possibility of a worldwide language that existed before Babylon and the Great Flood.
Now I suspect the creation of a one worldwide language is the correct direction to move in … I prefer the development of telepathic communication … but … one doesn’t out rule the other. We don't have to eliminate the current languages being used today.
Just a few thoughts on it ...
EnJoy your day … Love and Peace | |
|
granz
| | Joined: 1/22/2010
Msg: 47 | |
| Would you support a neutral language movement?
Posted: 2/6/2010 10:20:27 PM |
What the OP is proposing is another layer to politically correct speach, nothing less.
I'm not proposing anything. This is a philosophical question -- would you think such an evolution of language is necessary, and beneficial? Could you practically make changes to your own speech, in spite of other people speaking differently? These do not represent my personal views or ideas.
I agree that imposing politically-correct speech is harmful. We should start by not relabeling same-sex marriage as "civil unionship" to avoid offending the sensitivies of Conservatives. Don't you agree? PC speech at its worst, when it comes to branding people as second-rate citizens. | |
|
| Would you support a neutral language movement?
Posted: 2/7/2010 9:43:32 AM | Before improving the political structure, or even the grammatical structure of English language, there is a greater need to change its spelling structure. So much brain power is used up in memorizing spelling and pronunciation. We need to change the alphabet. We need to add a lot more distinct vowel sounds - one sound per vowel. We need to eliminate redundencises in various consonants eg. G and J; eliminate C and use K or S instead; eliminate double consonents like puLL; eliminate PH and use F instead; add single consonents for CH, SH, TH, GH "the soft TH and soft D" sounds; eliminate the semivowel forms of W, Y and H; and simplify punctuation with , . ; " : ' / and with numbers, addresses, dates, titles, letters etc. The children in elementary school will have a much easier time, and be able to focus on tasks requiring greater comprehension than just the spelling and punctuation issue.
I am sure this is not a comprehensive list, and other users here have more/better ideas. | |
|
| Would you support a neutral language movement?
Posted: 2/8/2010 4:25:59 PM | When I was about 10, my father forced me to sit down and memorize the cyrillic alphabet, the Serbian version. Wanting for the torture to be overwith, I memorized it in about 4 or 5 nights after school. He then handed me a book written in Serbian, cyrillic, and said to me to read it. I remember looking at him like he was crazy, but as he was part drill instructor, I took the book and to my amazement, just about could read. In about and hour, I went around the house, and found a few other books and could understand them as well.
The instructions for learning that particular alphabet are simple............. "write as you speak and read as it is written"............. Each symbol is pronounced the same no matter where or how it is used, and it is the easiest language to learn to read. If you memorize the cyrillic alphabet, you can in a very short period of time read. What is funny is that it is easier to learn to read, and you can read from a cyrillic book, and sound good enough to be easily understood and never yourself understand what you are reading. You would have to understand the language for that.
If this is what is meant by a neutral language, I am all for it. To remove all forms of gender is just plain silly political correctness.
Paul K | |
|
| Would you support a neutral language movement?
Posted: 2/8/2010 5:08:49 PM | I still haven't even caught on to this 'text' speak stuff yet...
Give us old folks a chance to catch up please before rearranging the entire english language too.
Muchly appreciated.
 | |
|
Home
login 
