English, gender and God

Sorry - this post slipped by me - too many long ones I think, and I scrolled past it.

quote:

---

Pamboli: Do you speak a strongly inflected language natively?
Rhhain: A couple, actually.

---

Cool. May I ask which ones? Just out of interest, no point being made. My native languages are English and Gaelic. It was the differences in grammar, and how the grammars feel in my mind that led me to linguistics.I have been particularly interested in how irregular verb forms feel like different and the same word at the same time. For exampleChi mi thu. I see you.
Chunnaic I saw you.Chi and chunnaic have obvious differences, are highly irregular, and really have no more in common as written or spoken forms than chair and chopsticks. But to the speaker they feel similar in a way that is difficult to convey. It's wonderful - Chomsky's term deep grammar hardly does it justice.

quote:

---

... all of the third-person pronouns, including the masculine, come from the same root.

---

And of course I agree with you. But what makes you think that root is neuter? I have given several reasons why I think it is masculine.

quote:

---

then why the complaint that "he" in the masculine and "he" in the neuter is somehow sexist when, for Old English, they weren't?

---

Because we're talking about modern usage. You claimed that one of the reasons he was not sexist was because its root was neuter. I disagree as to the neuter grammatical gender of its root.

Mister Pamboli responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Do you speak a strongly inflected language natively?

---

​

A couple, actually.

---

​

Cool. May I ask which ones?

---

Spanish and French, though I admit my French has become extremely poor of late. I can read it better than speak it. I have a rudimentary comprehension of Latin (though I wouldn't dare to claim I speak it...I can follow the structure, but I have no grasp of the vocabulary or the gut feeling for why the structure works the way it does.) I also have a smattering of an essentially non-inflected language: ASL.

quote:

---

quote:

---

all of the third-person pronouns, including the masculine, come from the same root.

---

​

And of course I agree with you. But what makes you think that root is neuter? I have given several reasons why I think it is masculine.

---

And I have given my reasons why I don't think so. I guess we're just going to have to disagree.

quote:

---

quote:

---

then why the complaint that "he" in the masculine and "he" in the neuter is somehow sexist when, for Old English, they weren't?

---

​

Because we're talking about modern usage.

---

And in modern usage, "he" is also neuter.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Mister Pamboli responds to me:

quote:

---

You appear, if I read you correctly - and I've read this a dozen times to make sure - to be saying that the language of this poem is just the words, and the punctuation is just usage. Is that right? Say it ain't so.

---

Punctuation is a graphical representation of the inflection imparted upon the language by the speaker. Language existed long before writing. Yes, there are aspects of linguistics that are unique to writing, but in a language such as English, the punctuation serves to indicate vocal characteristics.Those poems still exist if I take them off the page and simply speak them. The difference between them is the inflection and cadence, not the words...and yet one gets a completely different set of meanings out of them.

quote:

---

There is a reasonably well known rule in modern English for the order of adjectives: OPINION, APPEARANCE [measure, shape, condition], AGE, COLOR, ORIGIN, MATERIAL.

---

Not a rule so much as a convention. By your logic, one would say "ugly, big bear." And yet, what we actually say "big, ugly bear." It could be, perhaps, because of Schoolhouse Rock! and the song, "Unpack your adjectives":"Boy! That was one big, ugly bear!"Plus, there are times when one needs to emphasize one of those traits. For example, if you are trying to point out a specific big balloon and you had apparently established that you're referring to the big balloons, you could quite reasonably be expected to say, "No, not the blue, big balloon...the red, big balloon." That isn't a guarantee...reversing those orders doesn't alter the emphasis, but the order can be shifted depending upon the situation and what it is that is trying to be said:"The big, red balloon...no, the big one...the big one...the big one...no, the red one...the red one...the red, big balloon! Here, I'll get it!"

quote:

---

Are rules only rules if they affect meaning? That seems very unlikely, and is not a concept I am familiar with.

---

Sorta, kinda, almost. After all, it is a "rule" that you're not supposed to use double negatives, but people do all the time. It's a "rule" that you're supposed to conjugate your verbs, but people often don't or do so "incorrectly."That is, if you were to go around saying, "We alls be hungrified!" you'll get a lot of people telling you that such isn't "good English"...possibly even the person who said it.But if you were to go around saying, "the red, big balloon," you'll find very few people who can tell you what is wrong with that phrase.

quote:

---

There is doubt in our minds, ever listening for subtleties of word order, that a good big dog is perhaps not quite the same as a big good dog - that perhaps in one case its goodness is only a secondary quality when in another it is of the essence.

---

Indeed.But if you ask people why that is, most won't be able to tell you. It isn't something that's taught. It just sorta happens. And thus, we end up with social structures that could adjust it, but without adjusting the actual meaning of the utterance. That is, "the man shot the boy" means something different than "the boy shot the man" to all speakers of English. But, "the big, red balloon" means the same thing as "the red, big balloon," even though one "feels weird."------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

The exact same words, but the exact opposite meaning. The only difference between the two is the emphasis and cadence.

---

​

Well, and punctuation and sentence structure.

---

Which are merely graphical representations of the emphasis and cadence. There is no punctuation in speech and those poems still exist when spoken. Things like vocal bits are usage.

quote:

---

Which are a part of language, I think?

---

Usage, yes, and completely arbitrary. There is nothing about English that says that you should start sentences with capitals, that you double-space at the end of a sentence, that lists are separated with commas, etc. Heck, look at the differences in systems of punctuation. I was always taught that you put a comma before the final "and" in a list. Newspaper punctuation says no, you don't put that comma there...you can't afford to waste the space...and that rule is takin over in other areas.

quote:

---

Well, if we all use it that way, in every situation, why isn't it a rule?

---

Because we don't use it that way in every situation and the vast majority of people, even though they do use it that way, don't know why. It just is. It's a convention. There's nothing wrong with saying "the red, big balloon." It just doesn't "feel" right.

quote:

---

Now, prove to me that this isn't a fundamental rule of the english language, since that seems to be your claim.

---

Because of the following:"Joe...get the big, red balloon...not the big one...the big one...the big one...no, the red one...the red one...the red one...Joe, the red, big balloon! Here, let me do it!"As MP pointed out, there is an understood order of how adjectives come along, but it is more convention than a hard and fast rule.I say, "big, ugly bear," not "ugly, big bear" even though opinions come before descriptions. It may be because I've been trained by Schoolhouse Rock! to say it that way, but I do and it "feels wrong" to say it the other way...even though I would say, "That's an ugly, little house." It seems that "big" comes before "ugly" but "ugly" comes before "little."

quote:

---

How is it you are able to tell the difference between so-called "rules" of language and rules of usage?

---

By noting if meaning changes when things get shifted. By asking people, "Is there something wrong with this and if so, why is it wrong?"Most people will be able to say why "We alls is hungrified!" isn't "good English," but most won't be able to say what, if anything, is wrong with "The red, big balloon floated away." The former is a rule. The latter is a convention.

quote:

---

god didn't write the new testament.

---

But it was written by people "inspired by god" and records the words of the "son of god." You may debate those claims, but I think it is safe to say that Paul doesn't. Therefore, given that Paul accepts that god is male, what pronoun would you have him use?

quote:

---

Let me ask you this - if I started referring to rocks as having gender, would you correct me? Or would you simply say "Well, Crashfrog seems to think that rocks have gender. I won't question that."

---

I might correct you, but I won't accuse you of being sexist if you call them all "she."And I certainly won't drag the language into it.

quote:

---

Wouldn't you, in fact, question the assumption that rocks could be gendered entities?

---

That's a different question from whether or not you or the language is sexist for doing so.If you think that rocks have gender, it is a non sequitur for me to accuse you of sexism for referring to them all as female when my point is that they aren't sexed at all.

quote:

---

I question the idea that god, if he or she or it exists, could be a gendered entity in the sense that we think of it.

---

That may be.But if you're dealing with a person who thinks that god is male, is he being sexist by then referring to god as "he"?What pronoun would you suggest be used?

quote:

---

God may have traits that we associate with certain genders more than others, but it's outrageous to assume that male and female have any meaning beyond biological entities.

---

Says who? You?Who are you to speak for god?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

That's simply too arbitrary to be reliable. Did you notice, your own criteria relies on usage as reported by speakers of the language? How can you use usage to determine between usage and something deeper?Anyway, you assume quite a bit about speakers of English. Anyone who can tell me that "hungrified" isn't a word can tell me that "red, big balloon" sounds wrong because "red" should come after "big", so I don't see what your point is. Your distinction between "rules" and usage is arbitrary on one hand and on another relies on hypothetical speakers. That's a pretty weak justification.Consider the utterances "dirty big axe" and "big dirty axe". By your argument, adjective position isn't a rule, but a usage because the meaning doesn't change.But certain speakers of english percieve different meanings for those utterances. In the first, "dirty" is a magnifying modifyer for "big", synonymous with "very". In the second, it simply means the axe isn't clean.The meaning changes, therefore adjective position in English is a basic rule, by your own definition. Do you see how "rules" vs. usage are too close to call? I'm not speaking for god, but simply drawing conclusions based on the definition of god. Gender is a quality restricted to biological life. As god is not biological, god cannot have gender. I mean, who would god have sex with? Mrs. god?

Mister Pamboli responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

And it is unfair to insist that the person who is offended actually has a beef against the other when the other wasn't doing anything wrong.

---

​

I agree. And Schraf's suggestion was not that Paul had a beef but that the language he used was inherently sexist. She was suggesting that he reacted to an ingrained sexism in the language that led him to respond in a way that he might not have done had given more thought.

---

It's quite rude to accuse your interlocutor of being insincere without any evidence of such.

quote:

---

Such may have been hasty, but there is no doubt whatsoever (as schraf has confirmed) that she was not accusing Paul of deliberate sexism.

---

Then she shouldn't have said what she did. Because if the language forces one to be sexist, then one is being sexist when one uses the language, yes? She didn't say it was a "socially imposed" sexist ingraining that god was male. She said the language was ingrained as sexist.

quote:

---

quote:

---

If something is "ingrained," how can it fail to be deliberate? Isn't that the point behind an ingrained trait? It happens whether you want it to or not?

---

​

Precisely - so it's not deliberate.

---

Paul chose to use the language, didn't he? Was it not a deliberate act to call god "he"? Not "he or she." "He." Are you saying Paul wasn't thinking when he used "he" knowing that it was "ingrained" with sexism?

quote:

---

quote:

---

If there is sexism built into the language, then one cannot help but engage in sexism by using it, yes? That's what being "ingrained" means, does it not?

---

​

If one cannot help doing it, it's not deliberate is it. That's what deliberate means, does it not?

---

Yes, but are you saying that Paul wasn't thinking when he called god "he"?It's not very nice to accuse your interlocutor of being insincere without justification.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Therefore, what pronoun would you suggest he use to refer to god? Not you, not your opinion of god. We're talking about Paul. What does he think of god and therefore what pronoun would you suggest he use given his understanding of god.

---

​

He (I assume) should use he. But he should not roll his eyes at another saying she.

---

Even if he thinks you're playing politics?Again, it is not nice to accuse your interlocutor of being insincere without justification, but if he thinks you're playing politics, isn't rolling ones eyes a natural response?I'm not saying that he's right either about god or that he should have rolled his eyes. I'm simply saying that rather than escalating the accusations of "You're not really thinking about the issue," "No! You're the one playing games!", "Jerk!", "Cretin!", etc. it would be better to stay out of such things.

quote:

---

quote:

---

No, not your opinion of god. Paul's. Remember, schraf's comment was that the language was sexist because Paul used "he" to refer to god.

---

​

No it wasn't. In fact, exactly the other way round. She suggested that Paul's objection was the result of the language's sexism.

---

So she's accusing Paul of being insincere.That's not a better result.

quote:

---

quote:

---

If a person truly thinks that god is male, how is it a fault of the language when said person refers to god as "he"? How is it a fault of the language when he takes issue with someone referring to god as "she"?

---

​

At last - the point of the discussion. Took a while, didn't it?
Schraf - was implying that Paul may have been so conditioned by the traditional usage of he for God that he was surprised to see she written.

---

In other words, Paul is insincere. Paul hasn't thought about it. Paul is intellectually lazy. Paul is just a mindless drone parroting somebody else's words without actually believing it or understanding it for himself.That's not a very nice thing to accuse somebody of without evidence.

quote:

---

She was generously suggesting that it might not be Paul who was being sexist, but simply that he was so used to the sexually-biased term that he was astonished to see a different term used.

---

Oh, instead of being a sexist jerk, he can be a sloppy thinker.Yeah...that's "generous."

quote:

---

I thought it was quite nice of her - I had a much harsher line of attack planned.

---

I guess I'm even nicer: I took Paul to be sincere in his beliefs.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

The point isn't that Paul thinks that god is male; but rather, that he rolled his eyes when presented with the use of "she" to refer to god. The question is, why would he do that? Schraf proposed that he did so because the language he's used to using is inherently sexist; that would appear to be a nicer assumption than assuming that Paul is generally rude enough to simply roll his eyes at valid statements he may not agree with.

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

The point isn't that Paul thinks that god is male; but rather, that he rolled his eyes when presented with the use of "she" to refer to god.

---

And if you thought someone was playing politics, wouldn't you roll your eyes?

quote:

---

The question is, why would he do that?

---

You'd have to ask him that, but do you really think that the appropriate response is to accuse him of being sexist or insincere?

quote:

---

Schraf proposed that he did so because the language he's used to using is inherently sexist;

---

So the response to Paul's response to what he might have thought was MP's political game is to accuse someone of being sexist or insincere?Escalating insults is a valid way of discussing things?Again, I'm not saying that Paul should have publically expressed rolling his eyes, but if he thought that MP was playing a game, one can understand his response.And you really think the best way to respond to that is to escalate the insults?

quote:

---

that would appear to be a nicer assumption than assuming that Paul is generally rude enough to simply roll his eyes at valid statements he may not agree with.

---

Again, it appears to me tht I'm even nicer:I assumed Paul was sincere.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Clearly Schraf didn't think so; she accused the language of being sexist, not Paul. I probably would have made a more direct challenge. I find the summary dismissal and ridicule of a position as "a political game" rather rude.Your argument was that statements were leveled at Paul; the text doesn't support this. Language was the target, not Paul. Whether or not that is a reasonable target is part of what you and Mr. P have been arguing about, and I'm nowhere near qualified enough to really get into that. I think you two have covered all that ground.

quote:

---

What I asked you was whether it was the language that did it or the people using the language that did it.

​

Are you saying the language forces you to think about males when using "he"?

---

Language exists because people use it. Please explain how one can separate the usage from the language.I remember being told as a child that "he" included both genders, but I also remember thinking, "That's stupid. "He" means "male". It's not as if I can EVER walk up to a woman and start referring to her as a "he" and have her understand that I am using a gender-neutral pronoun. She will look at me strangely and perhaps protest because I am referring to her inappropriately. That's because "he" isn't a gender-neurtral pronoun in common usage.I don't buy that "most people" understand it to be neutral, as you say they do.

quote:

---

So how do you manage to keep the distinctions of "theory" meaning "educated guess" and "theory" meaning "analysis of a set of facts"?

---

It depends upon the context. I really don't see how this is terribly relevant.

quote:

---

For the umpteenth time. You said that the language was sexist. Not the person using the language but the actual language, itself, as if somehow the language forced a definitive meaning.

---

Language is as language is used.Please explain how they are separate.

quote:

---

So even though it may be true that many if not most people skew male when seeing "he" as a generic term, does that mean everybody does? That it is sufficient to say that the language is sexist and forces everyone to do so?

---

Well, if the majority skew male when seeing "he" as a generic term, then the language is skewed towards male bias.

quote:

---

Yes...and? Your point? You do realize that you're talking about two different words, right? You do understand that "guys" is not the same word as "guy" and that nobody uses "guys" when they really mean "guy," yes?

---

Nobody? Nobody at all? I seem to recall being talked to by you about making broad pronouncements such as this about word usege just a few posts ago.Anyway, you're wrong. "Guys" is used when meaning all males AND mixed gender (but only when being addresses by someone), but never all female, and one would never use a word like "girls" or "gals" to refer to a group of males.

quote:

---

The word "guys" has a definition of a group of people of either a single, male sex or a group of people of indeterminate sex. The word "guy," on the other hand, is much more strongly attached to the masculine, though even then it can be used for women since there is the rhyming comment, "Hi, guy!"

---

Exactly. That is my point about the language being skewed towards the male."One guy." = a single male."A group of guys." = a group of males"Hi guys!" = can be any gender in the group when addressing. However, one cannot then point to that same group and say, "look at that group of guys." and not expect confusion if there are women in the group as well."Guy" and "guys" are clearly singular and plural forms of a noun meaning, "male", except in the special case of addressing a group, in which there can be women also.

quote:

---

Therefore, since everybody who speaks the language understands the word can mean both solely-masculine and non-solely-masculine, the term isn't sexist. It isn't like a woman who, upon greeting her girlfriends, shouts out, "Hey, you guys!" suddenly thinks she's addressing a group of men or that the group is shocked to hear themselves being addressed as if they were men. Everybody understands that "guys" means "group of people" without necessarily saying anything about the sex of the people in the group.

---

Like I said, what do you think whan I say, "Look at that group of guys over there."?

quote:

---

In other words, Paul is insincere. Paul hasn't thought about it. Paul is intellectually lazy. Paul is just a mindless drone parroting somebody else's words without actually believing it or understanding it for himself.

​

That's not a very nice thing to accuse somebody of without evidence.

---

Look, I think that paul was quite sincere, and I do not appreciate you making up intentions that you imagine I had and then stating them as if you know my mind.In my experience as a woman on this earth, I have experienced all sorts of suble and not so subtle sexism. It could be true that I misread Paul as sexist, and that is why I asked him "why can't God be female".Since we have not heard from Paul, I think the jury is still out.Anyway, as a woman and a feminist, one learns to watch out for misogyny.

Are Spanish and French strongly inflected? I was hoping for a celtic language, or Finnish, Icelandic or Lithuanian or some such. Oh well not to worry.Both wonderful languages. My Spanish friends (pamboli is a Mallorqui word) laugh at me when I talk to them now, because my pronounciation is so affected by the Latin American Spanish I hear around me.

quote:

---

And in modern usage, "he" is also neuter.

---

We'll agree to disagree?

Again I'll try to keep a reply to an interesting post brief.I think you're agreeing that the language of the poems by Youngquist is not just in the words but in the vocal characteristics?Our current issue is largely about what constitutes a rule in language and what the import of a rule is. I wouldn't make too fine a distinction between rule and convention, but I ought to clarify what I mean by rule. Admittedly I am following the usage drummed in to me during my unversity days, but I still think it is useful.Firstly, I think the most important issue is that rules do not appear to be independent of a community of users. Rules in language appear to develop in much the same way as other regulatory mechanisms in communities - no surprise there. One influential member may effectively change the rules, if the community, as a community, follows their authority. Identifying the community of users is essential to identifying the rules, as they are very subtle. In most communities, careful study reveals finely graded social interactions expressed through language. I think the use of guys is such a case, certainly in Scotland.Secondly, are the rules of language descriptive or prescriptive? The answer appears to be both, but in neither case absolutely: the import of the rule in both roles may vary. A rule such as the order of adjectives may be strongly descriptive, in that describes the commonest usage, but only mildly prescriptive, in that the community of users would be unlikely to consider a deviation from the rule to be wrong. Similarly a rule may be mildly descriptive, in that it doesn't reflect the everyday usage, but strongly prescriptive, in that the community of users, regard their common usage as wrong. This latter is a frequent source of issues in communities in social change, or where class and political tensions are common. A current case in point, lexical rather than grammatical, is the usage of Aye for Yes in Scotland, where people have been found in contempt of Court for using it, and where many people who never commonly use Yes would agree that Aye is wrong. Grammatical examples can also be found, of course, including, in some communities, the good old double negative.Some rules such as the relative order of subject, verb and object, are strong in both roles. It's no surprise that most rules are moderately descriptive and moderately prescriptive.

quote:

---

Pamboli: He (I assume) should use he. But he should not roll his eyes at another saying she.

​

Rh: Even if he thinks you're playing politics?

---

You're saying Paul could fairly assume I was being insincere! Playing politics, rather than expressing a deeply-held belief?It's becoming pretty clear that you have one rule of behaviour for Paul and another for me. Paul is apparently allowed to read my mind and roll his eyes when assuming I am playing politics - and the implication of your phrasing is that he might assume I do so conciously and deliberately. Schraf, however, is being rude and wrong to make the much milder accusation that Paul may have been reacting to an issue of usage rather than an overtly socio-political one.I don't think I would survive a day living in a community of such Byzantine niceties as you appear to live in!

quote:

---

Again, it is not nice to accuse your interlocutor of being insincere without justification, but if he thinks you're playing politics, isn't rolling ones eyes a natural response?

---

Was Paul's implication any more justified than Schrafs?

quote:

---

So she's accusing Paul of being insincere.

---

No - she is suggesting that Paul may be reacting to an issue without giving it sufficient thought. Whether that was fair or not is a different issue, but you seem determined to heighten it to an accusation of deliberate rudeness, when Schraf actually took some pains to ensure that was avoided.

quote:

---

In other words, Paul is insincere. Paul hasn't thought about it. Paul is intellectually lazy. Paul is just a mindless drone parroting somebody else's words without actually believing it or understanding it for himself.

---

No such thing. If schraf had meant to say that, believe you me, she would have said it. When it comes to invective, she's one of the guys!

quote:

---

I guess I'm even nicer: I took Paul to be sincere in his beliefs.

---

Sincere in his belief that I was not sincere in mine, but playing politics? Charming.