|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3948 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: in case anyone was curious. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3948 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
they are referred to as masculine and feminine but do not reflect any kind of current gender role opinions. you're being stupid and simply stating the existence of different types of nouns. i am trying to find the reason they are like that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3948 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
hello. this is the question of why romance languages have gendered nouns. why? because latin is their root and latin had them. any outside information is irrelevant. he didn't say there weren't other languages that had similar thingummies, he just said french comes from latin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Arachnophilia writes: wikipedia vs oxford professor. Actually the way that I see this instance, itsbored and unappreciated communist vs authority figure. But then again, I could be bored and unappreciated myself!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3948 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
i need a paper copy of lexis nexis to smack you with.
or maybe just a monitor. This message has been edited by brennakimi, 04-21-2005 11:54 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 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 1364 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Contracycle,
IF you needed a liver transplant operation, would you like all the nurses, doctors, anesthesiologists, pharmacists, and all the other people involved in the surgery and your recovery (including the long line of scientists and doctors that came before who developed the techniques, the instruments, and the understanding) to have gotten their education from a Wikipedia-style university, where anyone, no matter the level of expertise, can contribute and teach a class, or from a university where every professor is highly educated and an expert in the specific subject they teach?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Anybody who wants to can edit any entry in Wikipedia. Anyone at all, regardless of expertise or education or know-how. From the Wikipedia home page: Bold and italicized comments added by me
It [Wikipedia] began as a complement to the expert-written Nupedia on 15 January 2001... So, Nupedia is expert-written, in contrast to Wikipedia.
Its articles are edited by volunteers in wiki fashion, meaning articles are subject to change by nearly anyone. See, not only experts or professionals on the subjects do the editing. Just about any person can edit.
...By its open nature, vandalism and inaccuracy are problems in Wikipedia. I hope you read that closely, Contra.
quote: Wikipedia is hardly equivalent to a public library. When you search for information in a library, you can determine the credentials of the author. This is not possible for Wikepedia, because anyone can be an author. And I would hardly call the opinion of an Oxford Professor mere "word of mouth". More like "expert opinion". So, please answer the question, now that you know that non-experts contribute to Wikipedia all the time, so much so that inaccuracy is a problem: If you needed a liver transplant operation, would you like all the nurses, doctors, anesthesiologists, pharmacists, and all the other people involved in the surgery and your recovery (including the long line of scientists and doctors that came before who developed the techniques, the instruments, and the understanding) to have gotten their education from a Wikipedia-style university, where anyone, no matter the level of expertise, can contribute and teach a class or from a university where every professor is highly educated and an expert in the specific subject they teach? This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-25-2005 08:15 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024