Naar de inhoud
Reageren

Of na and je...

door eojeff, 25 maart 2015

Berichten: 41

Taal: English

sproshua (Profiel tonen) 28 maart 2015 02:04:38

Elhana2:Let us be honest: most people know about Esperanto only what they've read in their teach yourself book. Those alternative forms have no chance to be included there, as there is a policy to consider them incorrect, so they are going to further remain substandard.
that sort of thinking wherein circumstances have been a certain way in the past, therefore they will remain the same in the future, that is flawed logic.

vejktoro (Profiel tonen) 28 maart 2015 02:05:23

Elhana2:Do you consider Asian, Siberian and Turkic languages deficient because their speakers don't know about he/she/it distinction too?
Whoa!! their tables are he-shes!?

Those Turks are crazy. We should get them some new words.

sproshua (Profiel tonen) 28 maart 2015 02:13:59

take the Swedish hen for instance. it's been around since the 60's, but only recently has gained enough users that it must be reckoned with. now that's a language with about 9 million speakers according to Wikipedia. E-o, with its few speakers comparatively, will not evolve as quickly.

vejktoro (Profiel tonen) 28 maart 2015 03:24:51

Elhana2:Meanwhile in the neighboring Finland, the pronoun 'hän' is the only way to refer men and women in the literature language. In spoken language, 'se' is used, which takes a step further and does not distinguish between men, women and things.
I think we should pick on the Kiswahili crowd. They got way too many classes of nouns, far beyond the three we lot are fussing over.

vejktoro (Profiel tonen) 28 maart 2015 06:14:38

Elhana2:
Tempodivalse:So I am a sexist in virtue of my first language being Russian?
So you claim the Russian is not a sexist language and the words 'врачиха' and 'училка' are just the synonyms of 'врач' and 'учитель'?
True. Oh those Russians and their terrible language. They should adapt riismo.

I'll have a vodkari please.

sproshua (Profiel tonen) 28 maart 2015 12:16:05

here is an exchange which i'm often reminded of when it comes to arguments over the importance of words. it's about 2 minutes long.

Tempodivalse (Profiel tonen) 28 maart 2015 14:29:13

Elhana2:So you claim the Russian is not a sexist language and the words 'врачиха' and 'училка' are just the synonyms of 'врач' and 'учитель'?
Врач is used to refer to both sexes. The feminine form of учитель is учительница.

Врачиха and училка are non-standard, derogatory terms. They are not congruent with the standard, attitude-neutral terms kuracistino and instruistino. Words with derogatory connotations exist in every language. The way you use a language, the way you intend words to mean, is what can be sexist.

But it is a category mistake to accuse the underlying language structure itself of sexism. Grammar and normal word-building rules, etc., are content-free and therefore neutral - they are merely the container into which you place content, even if the evolution of particular rules (like masculine adjectives for mixed company in Spanish) was influenced by patriarchy.

One ridiculous conclusion that arises from denying this premise is that, if you write a text in Russian that strongly opposes sexism, you must still be sexist because of some property intrinsic to Russian.

Elhana2 appears to prefer taking peripheral pot-shots to addressing my chief points, which unfortunately suggests a lack of intellectual sincerity. I think I'm done with this conversation.

bartlett22183 (Profiel tonen) 28 maart 2015 17:55:35

Tempodivalse:Elhana2 appears to prefer taking peripheral pot-shots to addressing my chief points, which unfortunately suggests a lack of intellectual sincerity. I think I'm done with this conversation.
Elhana2 is a troll. Please don't feed the troll. ridulo.gif

Tempodivalse (Profiel tonen) 28 maart 2015 22:21:23

bartlett22183:Elhana2 is a troll. Please don't feed the troll. ridulo.gif
Agreed! My apologies for being so slow to realise this.

Feeding time has ended.

sproshua (Profiel tonen) 28 maart 2015 23:24:04

the language structure is a tool which, for the purposes of this conversation, can be used in a sexist way or not. but, if the tool isn't capable of handling a certain task, then that tool must be altered to perform the task. most from-birth languages evolved through an already existing patriarchy. one doesn't get to choose their (i hate using "their" here, but it's the limits of English) own language. like it or not, Esperanto, being an artificial language, gets held to a higher standard. i almost decided to quit E-o when i learned how blatantly male-oriented the language began. also, it's discouraging to see how resistant to gender-neutrality-ideas most Lernu.com Esperantists which i've encountered tend to be.

Terug naar boven