Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   in case anyone was curious.
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 16 of 41 (200790)
04-20-2005 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by contracycle
04-13-2005 10:55 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by contracycle, posted 04-13-2005 10:55 AM contracycle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by AdminJar, posted 04-25-2005 10:24 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 17 of 41 (200791)
04-20-2005 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by contracycle
04-18-2005 9:13 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by contracycle, posted 04-18-2005 9:13 AM contracycle has not replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 41 (200888)
04-21-2005 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by arachnophilia
04-20-2005 6:55 PM


quote:
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.
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:
oh, the irony.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by arachnophilia, posted 04-20-2005 6:55 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-21-2005 12:53 PM contracycle has not replied
 Message 21 by arachnophilia, posted 04-21-2005 7:55 PM contracycle has replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 19 of 41 (200889)
04-21-2005 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by arachnophilia
04-18-2005 6:29 PM


wikipedia vs oxford professor.
Arachnophilia writes:
wikipedia vs oxford professor.
Actually the way that I see this instance, its
bored and unappreciated communist vs authority figure.
But then again, I could be bored and unappreciated myself!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by arachnophilia, posted 04-18-2005 6:29 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by arachnophilia, posted 04-21-2005 7:56 PM Phat has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 20 of 41 (200934)
04-21-2005 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by contracycle
04-21-2005 5:51 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by contracycle, posted 04-21-2005 5:51 AM contracycle has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 21 of 41 (201002)
04-21-2005 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by contracycle
04-21-2005 5:51 AM


do you just do this to be annoying?
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

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by contracycle, posted 04-21-2005 5:51 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by contracycle, posted 04-22-2005 9:27 AM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 22 of 41 (201003)
04-21-2005 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Phat
04-21-2005 6:22 AM


Re: wikipedia vs oxford professor.
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

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Phat, posted 04-21-2005 6:22 AM Phat has not replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 41 (201129)
04-22-2005 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by arachnophilia
04-21-2005 7:55 PM


Re: do you just do this to be annoying?
quote:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by arachnophilia, posted 04-21-2005 7:55 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by arachnophilia, posted 04-22-2005 6:05 PM contracycle has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 24 of 41 (201253)
04-22-2005 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by contracycle
04-22-2005 9:27 AM


Re: do you just do this to be annoying?
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

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by contracycle, posted 04-22-2005 9:27 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by contracycle, posted 04-25-2005 5:12 AM arachnophilia has replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 41 (202078)
04-25-2005 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by arachnophilia
04-22-2005 6:05 PM


Re: do you just do this to be annoying?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by arachnophilia, posted 04-22-2005 6:05 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by arachnophilia, posted 04-25-2005 7:36 AM contracycle has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 26 of 41 (202103)
04-25-2005 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by contracycle
04-25-2005 5:12 AM


Re: do you just do this to be annoying?
I didn't say an academic journal and a public resource were the SAME THING, did I?
quote:
Yes, the irony that real publicly available research was dismissed in favour of the contents of Brenna's address book.
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:
me: so anyways dad, we were having this discussion about french, and i figure you might know something of the subject. we were trying to determing where the genders came from, specifically. [brenna] emailed this prof at oxford --
mom: well that was quite presumptious of her. that's like that guy who emailed your father about how to find the area of his roof.
me: yeah, i know. but still, probably a credible source. but wait, it gets even worse. so he says that gender was basically just adopted from latin in no specific way. it doesn't pertain to any gender roles or anything.
dad: but latin got it from someplace else, as it's common in other indo-european languages.
me: well, yeah, i know. that was next. we're looking at just french right now, and how it uses gender. so this guy [YOU] challenges this oxford professor on that point. and as his source, he cites wik---
dad: wikipedia? yeah we had a couple of students do reports in college algebra that cited wikipedia on totally inaccurate information. it's not what we'd call a reliable source.
me: yeah, that was where i was going.
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:
  1. your point is completely valid and correct, but not what we were discussing. although i'm sure it could be, if you'd have approached the subject in an honest fashion, instead of approaching it with the attitude of "the professor is wrong" from the get-go.
  2. as such, your post fails to demonstrate that the professor is indeed wrong: the wikipedia article doesn't even refute the prof, it just provides an EARLIER origin for gender.
  3. you're being purposefully annoying about it, just to "win" when nobody actually cares.
  4. you're being intellectually dishonest about what you did or did not post
  5. you're a bit confused about what constitutes "research" and what carries more weight in an academic discussion.
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

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by contracycle, posted 04-25-2005 5:12 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by contracycle, posted 04-25-2005 8:28 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 32 by AdminJar, posted 04-25-2005 10:29 AM arachnophilia has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 27 of 41 (202108)
04-25-2005 7:52 AM


Let me try something
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?

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by contracycle, posted 04-25-2005 8:21 AM nator has replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 41 (202122)
04-25-2005 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by nator
04-25-2005 7:52 AM


Re: Let me try something
Schrafinator, this:
quote:
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
and this:
quote:
or from a university where every professor is highly educated and an expert in the specific subject they teach?
... 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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by nator, posted 04-25-2005 7:52 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by nator, posted 04-25-2005 9:09 AM contracycle has not replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 41 (202126)
04-25-2005 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by arachnophilia
04-25-2005 7:36 AM


Re: do you just do this to be annoying?
quote:
quite the contrary. you did. "real publically available research" would be academic journals. not wikipedia. wikipedia is not even research.
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:
and more importanly, you ranked the public resource ABOVE a professor of the subject at possibly the most prestigious university in the world.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by arachnophilia, posted 04-25-2005 7:36 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by nator, posted 04-25-2005 11:45 AM contracycle has not replied
 Message 34 by arachnophilia, posted 04-25-2005 12:15 PM contracycle has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 30 of 41 (202144)
04-25-2005 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by contracycle
04-25-2005 8:21 AM


Re: Let me try something
quote:
WHO DO YOU THINK PUTS THE DATA IN WIKIPEDIA?
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:
According to your principle, getting information from a public resource like a library is implausible, and only word-of-mouth is reliable, yes?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by contracycle, posted 04-25-2005 8:21 AM contracycle has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024