Can we be 100% sure there is/isn't a God?

schrafinator writes:

quote:

---

Wow, it is so interesting that the sexism in our language is so ingrained that to refer to any unknown entity as a "she" instead of a "he" not only is terribly noticable, but elicits an eyeroll.

​

There is no standard gender-neutral pronoun, so for many years the male pronoun has been used to refer to both genders.

---

Um, not quite true.The etymology of the word "he" is that it originally was a neuter construction...(pulling out the Oxford)...in Old English, "he" was the root for every third-person pronoun: masculine, feminine, neuter, singular, and plural. In fact, if you look at the old constructions, they varied all over the place: Dative and genitive constructions used the same words for the masculine and the neuter while the nominative and the accusative used the same words for the feminine and the plural.There is a standard gender-neutral pronoun in English: He. The problem is that people don't use it in a gender-neutral fashion.Along related lines, "female" is not an inflection of the word "male." Instead, through a wonderful happenstance of linguistic coincidence, the two words come to English from an origin in Latin: "Male" from Latin "mas" and "female" from Latin "femella." They just happen to look like "female" is derived from "male" in English.Too, "woman" is not an inflection of "man." While it is true that the constuction of "woman" is "wif-" + "man," the word "man" in German was a neuter term for humans. The congruent construction for males was "wer-" + "man" (where do you think the term "werewolf" for "wolf-man" came from?) But, as languages evolved, the "wer-" prefix was dropped and the neuter acquired a gendered meaning.Now, should the concept of god being female elicit an eye-roll? Depends upon why it is being suggested that god is being female.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Mister Pamboli responds to me:

quote:

---

That the word "he" was used as a gender-non-specific pronoun is quite different from saying it had a neuter grammatical construction.

---

It would help if you had read my full post. Here is the important sentence you seem to have missed:The etymology of the word "he" is that it originally was a neuter construction.I don't know how much more direct I can be. The root of all the pronouns in English is the single word "he" which was inflected for all other forms, including the masculine.

quote:

---

That the underlying etymology of gramatically masculine, neuter and feminine pronuns comes from the gramatically masculine has nothing to do with gender neutrality in the sense schraf describes.

---

Incorrect. The underlying etymology of the grammatically masculine, neuter, and feminine pronouns comes from the grammatically neuter.

quote:

---

Hardly all over the place

---

Let's see, current English has 12 third-person pronouns:he, him, his, she, her, hers, it, its, they, them, their, and theirs.Some of these words are used in multiple instances, but other than "he," none of them cross genders. Instead, they cross cases. That is, "his" is used in cases where both "her" and "hers" would be used.But in Old English, the crossing of words is all over the place, crossing case as well as gender. That is, "hi," "hie," and "heo" were used for nominative feminine singular as well as plural (which in English has no gender).

quote:

---

You're wrong on nominative form for feminine and plural - feminine nominative is "heo" and the plural in all forms is "hie" or sometimes "hi." Check out Beowulf lines 1076-1087, the episode of Finn and Hengest and the mourning of the daughter of Hoc

---

You're saying the Oxford English Dictionary is wrong? I recall mentioning where it was I was getting my information...or does "pulling out the Oxford" mean nothing? You're right that "heo" is nominative feminine form and that "hie" and "hi" are plural...but they are also feminine singular.

quote:

---

No there isn't - usage is everything in language.

---

Didn't I just say that? Yes, I'm sure I did:"The problem is that people don't use it in a gender-neutral fashion."That would seem to me to be a direct statement that the problem rests in usage. The word is there, but we don't use it in that manner. Thus, if nobody is using it, it will cause communication errors when somebody who does use it encounters somebody who doesn't.Take, for example, the word "moot." Most people seem to think it means "unworthy of discussion" and, indeed, it does carry that meaning. But ask a lawyer whether or not "moot court" is something that is "unworthy of discussion."Take a look at the number of times we have to explain what a "theory" is to those who don't know the scientific meaning? The word is there and it carries the meaning, but people who don't understand science simply don't use the word that way and when it is used in front of them, they do not attach the same meaning to the word that those who do understand science do.The point I am making is that the original claim of "the sexism in our language is so ingrained" is simply not true. The language isn't sexist.The usage, on the other hand....

quote:

---

To say there is a gender-neutral pronoun in modern English is like saying we should be using datives like thissum.

---

This sentence no verb.I don't understand why you are trying to combine modern English with older versions. Modern English does have a gender-neutal, singular pronoun. In fact, it has two, depending on if the object is anthropomorphized or not. One is "it" while the other is "he." We are currently in a transition where "their" and it's derivatives are being used as singular in certain instances where the object is somewhat abstracted. At the moment, that is still considered "non-standard," but it is happening and eventually will be considered definitive.Since modern English doesn't use datives, why would the existence of a gender-neutral, third person, animate pronoun require the use of the dative?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

Mr. P's point is that since we don't use the word, it isn't there. "Usage is everything" in the sense that usage defines language - not the other way around.

---

Indeed, but since there are people who do use the word that way, the claim that "we don't use the word" is proven false.Take, for example, the word "orientate." It's being used. And much as I detest the word (the word you're looking for is "orient"...it's already a verb...there's no need to make it a verb yet again by tacking on the "-ate" suffix), the fact remains that it is being used and thus exists and has a meaning.There are people, myself included, who use "he" as the singular animate third-person pronoun. "Everyone takes his lunch." "A scientist shouldn't have to feel as if he needs to give a justification for his personal beliefs."This is not some new usage of the word. It has existed for a long time and the vast majority of speakers of English understand what is meant by the word.Now, some people don't like that definition. They are leading a linguistic push to have that definition go away. But for the moment, they are not in the majority and while they don't have that definition for that word, other people do and do use it in such a manner.

quote:

---

In particular, a large number of modern speakers and writers of English feel that the "he/his" pronouns are not gender-neutral, no matter what their etymology.

---

Indeed. But the point in contention was not current usage but that the "sexism in our language is so ingrained." The simple fact of the matter is that it is not. Questions of whether or not the language contains a "sexist" bias are questions of etymology, not usage.That is, the language does not force one to necessarily conclude that "he" is always male and that there is some political/social conditioning that male=good/female=bad. That is a matter for usage.

quote:

---

You can certainly argue that it has no sexist connotation, but if a sizeable fraction of English speakers feel differently - indeed, if the majority of English speakers feel it to be so - then that's the way it is.

---

Incorrect. Not all answers are correct. The etymology of a language is not up for debate. Words have a history and that history cannot change simply because modern people don't like it.Take, for example, a common claim amongst some that the word "history" is actually a contraction of the words "his" and "story." They claim that this is somehow part of the reason that the field of history, especially as taught in many schools, is so filled with the deed of men and not of women.But there's a problem: It isn't true. While the word "history" certainly looks like it could be a contraction of "his" and "story," it isn't. It comes from the Greek "histor" meaning "knowledge." One simply cannot force one's opinions onto the etymology of the word and make it be something that it is not.The language has no sexist connotation. The usage, on the other hand, can easily have one. The language uses a single word for both masculine and neuter objects. That doesn't mean the language in and of itself has any confusion over the two. That can come only from usage. If a speaker of the language has confusion over the concepts, then it will be refelected in the usage of the language. The language doesn't force you to think in a certain way. However, you will force the language to conform to the way you think.

quote:

---

The speakers of a language define its meanings and connotations as the speak. That's the way natural language works. If people feel that "he/his" is sexist, then it is.

---

So why is it only the people who feel that it is sexist who get to have their opinions count? Why don't the people who feel that it isn't sexist get to have an equal claim to the language?The original claim is that the language, itself, is sexist. Well, if we look at the etymology of the words, we find that it isn't true. That doesn't mean there is no sexism involved. It simply means that if there is sexism, it isn't found in the individual words but rather in the way they are used.And to determine that, you have to look at the people on either side of the message: The sender and the receiver. It is quite possible that the receiver heard something that the sender didn't mean. And that is not the fault of the language.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

scharfinator responds to me:

quote:

---

However, if nobody uses it as neutral, then it isn't neutral.

---

Um...and you just happen to have personal knowledge of how everybody uses it such that you are absolutely certain that nobody uses it as neutral.Wow...some power you have there. I don't recall receiving a survey about it. Did you do this by eavesdropping on the conversations of all speakers of English or perhaps by stealing their written material? Or do you have psychic powers that allow you to see inside the minds of everybody who has even a remote passing for English such that you are capable of determining if they use "he" as neuter? If so, how do you control that? If there are a bunch of people in the room, do you hear them all at once or can you focus in on a single person so that you don't have to be distracted by the cacophony of all the voices?I see you haven't quite made it to my later posts:Since I use "he" in the neuter, you claim that nobody does is proven false.And since the vast majority of speakers of English understand how "he" is used in the neuter, your claim that the language is "inherently biased" is proven false.

quote:

---

Language is formed much more by how people use words, not how the words are defined at a single point in time.

---

Indeed. As I said, you hadn't made it to my later posts, so you hadn't seen the place where I said precisely that.But here's the question: Why is it that your usage of the words gets precedence over everybody else? Yes, we all know that you don't particularly like the use of "he" in the neuter, but the vast majority of speakers of English don't seem to find any confusion in the terms. After all, most of them use that very construction so if they're using it, they must be of the opinion that the understand it.So if language is formed by how people use words and current usage is that "he" is the neuter pronoun, then I am wondering how you can say that it isn't.If language is formed by how people use words, then physician, heal thyself. The word "he" is used at this point in time to mean third person singular in cases where "it" would seem inappropriate.It's slowly changing. In many constructions, the "they" set is taking over: "Everybody takes their lunch" rather than "Everybody takes his lunch." But, we haven't reached the point where "he" has lost the meaning of neuter.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

scharfinator responds to me:

quote:

---

I have seen and used "their, they , and theirs" used as a gender neutral pronoun.

---

Didn't I say that? I'm sure I did...ah, yes...here we are:We are currently in a transition where "their" and it's derivatives are being used as singular in certain instances where the object is somewhat abstracted. At the moment, that is still considered "non-standard," but it is happening and eventually will be considered definitive.So I guess I'm wondering what your point is....Let me try to make mine again, real slow:1) Language is defined by usage. Dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive.
2) Current usage has "he" as the third-person, singular, neuter pronoun for cases where "it" is considered inappropriate.
3) "He" has always had this meaning and there is no "inherent sexist bias" in the language about this.
4) Current users of the langauge are declaring that they don't like "he" having the dual meaning and are driving a linguistic push to purge that meaning from the word "he."
5) It hasn't happened yet and while "they" and its derivatives are becoming more commonly used for instances where "he" had been used before, it is still considered non-standard though that does show signs of changing.Is this really so hard to follow?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

schrafinator responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

The point I am making is that the original claim of "the sexism in our language is so ingrained" is simply not true. The language isn't sexist.

---

​

Of course it is.

---

Says who? You? Why should we believe you? Since the vast majority of speakers of English understand the use of "he" in the neuter and since we both agree that languages are defined by how people actually use the word, why is it that suddenly your opinion about the language gets to trump the majority of people who actually use it?

quote:

---

It doesn't matter what the original gender of the word "he" is if nearly everyone who speaks English understands it to be masculine and uses it that way.

---

And it doesn't matter what your personal social/political agenda is if nearly everyone who speaks English understands it also to be neuter and uses it that way.You are not the final arbiter of English. It is one of the most commonly spoken languages on the planet. The overwhelming majority of those people use "he" in the neuter and they get to override your personal opinion about what the word ought to mean.We all get it...you don't like "he" to be both masculine and neuter.Tough noogies. Until you get to control the thoughts of everybody, they'll continue to use "he" in the netuer as well as the masculine or until such time as they decide of their own free will to stop using it for both.

quote:

---

It's not strange or uncommon to address a all-female group and say, "Hi guys." Of course, one can do the same to a mixed group or a group of all-males. But if one were to describe someone as a "guy", it is immediately understood that the person't gender is male.

---

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? 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!"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.

quote:

---

Also, what about the fact that the use of "Mister" makes no reference to the marital status of the male,

---

Yes, it does. Unmarried males are correctly referred to as "Master," not "Mister."

quote:

---

yet "Mrs." and "Miss" indicate the marital status of the female. "Ms.", which does not indicate marital status, was only invented a few decades ago during the last wave of feminism.

---

Indeed. But notice how quickly it caught on. And even then, all speakers of English still understand what all the words mean.You're confusing usage with etymology again. The language isn't inherently sexist.The usage, on the other hand, can easily be.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!