|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,422 Year: 3,679/9,624 Month: 550/974 Week: 163/276 Day: 3/34 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3949 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: in case anyone was curious. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Sounds implausible to me, I'm afraid. I seemed to recall this was a feature of Indo-European languages. not to make an argument of authority, but you do realize you're debating the answer given by a oxford professor of french, right? and citing wikipedia to refute it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
it's only a pain because of the older topics, which both got closed, and got two members suspended... i'm sure it's bound to fire up again any second now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
wikipedia, vs oxford professor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
tell me, how many of these deal specifically with french?
quote: is that... ? wow! none of them! now, do you think these sources are more or less credible regarding french than some who's made their career teaching and studying french specifically, at possibly THE most prestigous university in the world? let's look at HOW stuff gets in wikipedia. this is a good thing to remember.
quote: wanna watch me make the site say something different? how credible as a journal is something if anyone can make changes to it? how do i know you didn't do that just to prove your point above? i don't, and i can't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
the question was not about French - it was about the existance of gendered nouns. actually, the question that spawned this thread was regarding french in specific, and above it was generalized to romance languages. the question was where gendered nouns came from in french, and the answer was that it was a holdover from latin, and not applied in a way that makes a statement about the social gender-role of the object. the wikipedia article does not refute that.
If you find it that much more convincing, I will call over to my freindly neighbourhood linguist*, Joe, with whom I shared a house for 4 years, and have him confirm to me again that Indo-European languages had gendered words that vastly preceeded the existance of Latin, let alone French. * Also Oxford trained, for your information. hi, welcome to the thread. that was point, and the gist of the above quote. can we drop this now?
Nobody has challenged the substance of the Wikipedia article, I note. Are you all speaking from ignorance or what? Sanskrit has gendered words - that is simply a fact. You could look it up yourself, you know. yes, and we were asking about romance languages in particular, as an example. if you want, we'll talk about sanskrit. i know A LOT of languages have gendered nouns. some even have gendered verbs. heck, thai even has gendered DIALECTS. women and men speak slightly differently. the question was "why?" not "does it happen?"
The professor was mistaken. *cough* evidence, please.
Deal with it, and quit the unqalified worship of Academia, as it appears that your opposition is purely based upon the fact that I relied on my own knowledge and was not intimidated by the letters behind the name of Brenna's friend. oh, the irony.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I just reread the OP. It appears that the question is why there are genders in the French language specifically. In that case, the reply that they serve no real purpose, but are holdovers in the ancestral Latin language is correct and appropriate. In fact, the professor of French does point out that gender arose before Latin. EXACTLY. i don't know what the big deal is here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
The statement that French has gendered words "because" Latin has them and for no other reason is true but only in the most trivial sense. yes, but it is STILL the most correct reason for why french specifically as gendered nouns. as a romance language, it got those genders from latin. where latin got it from is another point, sure. and a valid one too. but we're examining one specific case, and then using that form a logical trend of the source for genders in all languages. in math, we'd call that "induction."
Brennas question at he top of the thread diod not mention French; and my response was that the response "the Romans dunnit" was implausible because the phenomenon massivley predates the Romans. Nobody has remotely contested this point yet. no. and no one is going to. it's right, and further elaborates the point of this thread. what are you arguing for? no one's disagreeing with you here.
We have not in fact discussed the Why question of the origin or gendered words at all. The professors response was a very poor answer to the question, merely pointing to a prior incident of the phenomenon - and not the earliest by a long way. The answer "the indo-Europeans dunnit" remains more correct. Neither actually addresses Why. no. of course not. we haven't gotten to that point yet. we've merely shown that gender in languages tends to come from it's parent language, and not the influences of that specific society. that was the point of this thread. we can examine where gender comes from in the first place next, if you wish. feel free to, you know, present some evidence as to where it comes from. because, frankly, i don't know. also, the wikipedia article didn't do a very good job of answering it either.
Yes, the irony that real publicly available research was dismissed in favour of the contents of Brenna's address book. wikipedia = internet encyclopedia.lexis/nexis, jstor = real publically available research tool. oxford professor = the kind of person who writes real publically available research. you don't seem to get the difference between an encyclopedia article, and research. this guy is someone who has spent the better part of his life studying in the specific field of the question we wanted an answer. yes, the answer was sort of short-sighted and specific to the field. but that's the only answer we were looking for at this time. and his oxford educated opinion holds a lot more weight than an internet encyclopedia article that anyone can contribute to. wikipedia is NOT a research tool for anyone above a highschool education. This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-21-2005 06:57 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Actually the way that I see this instance, its bored and unappreciated communist vs authority figure. kinda silly, huh? This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-21-2005 06:56 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Just becuase a source is COMMON does not mean it is invalid or mistaken unless you are a snob. no. listen. this is not a hard concept. academic journal. online encyclopedia. NOT the same thing. here. i'll demonstrate. let's see how long this lasts. Contracycle - Wikipedia This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-22-2005 05:06 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I didn't say an academic journal and a public resource were the SAME THING, did I? quote: quite the contrary. you did. "real publically available research" would be academic journals. not wikipedia. wikipedia is not even research. and more importanly, you ranked the public resource ABOVE a professor of the subject at possibly the most prestigious university in the world.
But they may have the same contributors. emphasis my own.
That is precisely the virtue of an open, common resource. yes, at the cost of any hack being able to post [almost] anything. i will admit, the credit of your argument, that the patently idiotic article on "contracycle" did not last longer several hours. but that was to be expected from such a short article serving no real academic purpose. however, having grown up on a college campus, and in the house of a college professor (and chair of his department for several years), i will tell you that occasionally some knowledge of the academic world is imparted. in this case, the conversation went something like this:
quote: as a further point of reference, i'm suprised that mom didn't pipe up more, considering that she holds a masters degree in latin and greek, and speaks french fluently. i'm sure it would have been a phd too, if it weren't for me. so in summary:
As I have demonstrated in this thread a further case of dishonesty. you have NOT demonstrated the virtues of an open common resource. i'm sure a case could be made, so, and i quote YOU, evidence, please. This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-25-2005 06:37 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Lol, thats right. And the book is not the reserach institute. Tell me something else I don't know. The map is not the terrain - that does not imply the map is innacurate as a map. no, you're missing the point. go tilt at wind mills some more if you like. but wikipedia ≠ research. wikipedia is an encyclopedia. that a little different than a map. a map, in this analogy might be a textbook, and wikipedia would be the children's color book. and you're challenging, of all people, the cartographer of the map with it. "but, look," you say, "this bit's clearly blue and scribbled on. i don't see that on your map!" what's even funnier, is that you're challenging the cartographer on something that's not even part of his map. out of the boundaries.
Yes, becuase the answer was inadequate. now, i know the wording of the op was a little confusing. but this is was an offshoot of another thread between crashfrog and i and brenna, where he insisted that words have gender, even though they have no sex, and so applying gender based on social roles to other things without sex was ok. the response of the prof destroyed that point. the gender of nouns is not commenting on their role in society in the slightest. and that was all we needed to know. so no, actually, the answer of the prof was totally sufficent. the "origin of gender in languages" appears to be that they borrow it from their earlier source languages, and not that they make them up to suit their specific society. that's all we were looking for. so the fact that latin got its genders from indo-european languages is only supplimentary to this, and only further proves the point.
And you are confirming my charge: you privilege the status of the institution rather than the accuracy of the information. except that the information was not inaccurate. hey, sure, maybe it's missing the fact that latin got its genders from its indo-european roots. actually, wait on second though -- no it's not. let's read it again shall we?
quote: hmm. did we miss that part the first few times? so now tell me again, where is his reply inaccurate? can you point out something he forgot? or got wrong? there's even a bit about which genders where associated with what, and then HOW that transfered to modern romance languages. does wikipedia have that observation? it mentions them, but does it outline their history and integration in modern languages? tell me, where is the reply inaccurate?
Ha ha. Yes, and so what happens if you enter something that is contrary to the state of the art? Why someone who IS familiar with the state of art will correct it. presumably. want to run a test? also, as schraf pointed out, from wikipedia's entry on ITSELF,
quote: quote: I'm afraid I did'nt see any such article, I presume you created one - the link was empty when I hit it. But yes, that does demonstrate that the low standard you ASSUMED because you did not have a prestigious institution or reseracher associated with it was hasty. yes, well, as it turns out, they have an automatic filter that looks for things like name-calling, profanity, and pointlessly short entries. shall we try editting some real-sounding misinformation into a legitimate article, and actually TEST the standards according to the debate we're having?
By all means. After all, the information was correct, was it not? yes, but you have failed to substantiate these "virtue[s] of a common open resource." evidence please.
Funny how you seem less than hasty to dispute that point. Also telling that once again you refer back to a prior discussion about French that did not appear here. i dunno, that stuff in the opening post about latin, french, and romance languages should have been a hint. although, i agree. it was poorly introduced. the point is that you arrogantly decided to take on the expert opinion of an oxford professor of french, about the source of gender in the language he studies, claiming he'd fogotten a point he hadn't, and citing a hardly reputable source that didn't disagree with him. what was your point, exactly? and DO you do this just to be annoying? also, answer schraf's post while you're at it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
no jar.
i mean, he's arguing an issue that doesn't exist, and citing a wikipedia article over an oxford prof's professional opinion, which of course don't even disagree. on top of it, he's using this non-existant evidence to try to promote the merits of open-source encyclopedias while decrying the educated opinions of the people actually working in the field. basically, he's making an argument out of thin air and evidence that contradicts his point. he's either being stupid or dishonest. you can take your pick and suspend me for either. but it's not useful debate, and it's clogging up this thread with idiocy about what makes a reliable source. it is not what i would call debating in good faith. i would call it "being argumentative."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
[edit]
dammit woman, stop posting on my name. people are gonna think we're going out or something. This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-25-2005 04:05 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
shuttup you did it first, asshole. hey, i could get you banned for that, bitch. [a note to admins: we're just kidding]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024