|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: in case anyone was curious. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
Sounds implausible to me, I'm afraid. I seemed to recall this was a feature of Indo-European languages.
Wikipedia provides:
quote: Maybe there's a role for us proles in the juries yet, eh? This message has been edited by contracycle, 04-13-2005 09:57 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Sure. But in this case, the professor is wrong. It happens. Thats why appeals to authority are unreliable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Embarrasing, isn't it? Moral of the story: get out of the ivory tower. Facts count, sinecure does not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: the question was not about French - it was about the existance of gendered nouns. Look, I don not understand what your issue is, nor why Shrafinataor frex is making snide remarks about Wikipedia. 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. 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. The professor was mistaken. 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. * Also Oxford trained, for your information. This message has been edited by contracycle, 04-20-2005 04:05 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Right. And why did Latin have them? Why, becuase it is descended from Indo-European languages. 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. 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. 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.
quote: Yes, the irony that real publicly available research was dismissed in favour of the contents of Brenna's address book. This message has been edited by contracycle, 04-21-2005 04:52 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Yes, and they are still just one person, subject to all our human frailties. Wheras a public access source is implicitly and explicitly the aggregate view of a very large number of people, educated ont only at Oxford but also say, Cambridge, Yale, UCT, Wits etcetera bloody cetera. Just becuase a source is COMMON does not mean it is invalid or mistaken unless you are a snob.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
No
Listen I didn't say an academic journal and a public resource were the SAME THING, did I? But they may have the same contributors. That is precisely the virtue of an open, common resource. As I have demonstrated in this thread. This message has been edited by contracycle, 04-25-2005 04:12 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
Schrafinator, this:
quote: and this:
quote: ... are not mutually contradictory, are they? WHO DO YOU THINK PUTS THE DATA IN WIKIPEDIA? After all, the Wikipedia was CORRECT, wasn't it? It does correctly display the academic position on the topic, does it not? According to your principle, getting information from a public resource like a library is implausible, and only word-of-mouth is reliable, yes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: 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.
quote: Yes, becuase the answer was inadequate. And you are confirming my charge: you privilege the status of the institution rather than the accuracy of the information.
quote: 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. 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.
quote: By all means. After all, the information was correct, was it not? 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024