 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2008/10/sex-symbols.html
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2008/10/sex-symbols.html
In Finnish it's much easier because there are no gender-specific pronouns,
period.
(Curiously, I have never read or heard any theory about why this is the
case in Finnish, even though most other languages do have gender-specific
pronouns, and more over often lack a neutral third-person pronoun.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:491404cc@news.povray.org...
> Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2008/10/sex-symbols.html
>
> In Finnish it's much easier because there are no gender-specific
pronouns,
> period.
>
> (Curiously, I have never read or heard any theory about why this is the
> case in Finnish, even though most other languages do have gender-specific
> pronouns, and more over often lack a neutral third-person pronoun.)
AFAIK, Uralic (& Altaic) languages in general lack gender (besides having
agglutination and vowel harmony and some other common or similar
properties). Beyond that, it's impossible to say why or why not - any such
reason, of course, could not have been recorded.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tim Cook" <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
news:4913a793@news.povray.org...
> http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2008/10/sex-symbols.html
>
I remember learning the "When in doubt, use 'he'" concept in school. It
always bothered me, because no one (that I knew) actually spoke that way,
and most people to this day do not speak or write that way. Nevertheless,
it was considered grammatically correct.
As a result, most of us still refuse to do that, and to avoid saying "they"
when it's not grammatically correct, we might say something like "he/she"
or, in computer manuals, "the user". Once in awhile, you might hear someone
say "one" (as the French do), but it's not very common. I didn't know this
whole story, but I find it interesting.
A good child should wash his hands.
A good child should wash their hands.
A good child should wash his or her hands.
A good boy or girl should wash his hands.
A good boy or girl should wash their hands.
A good boy or girl should wash his or her hands.
Interesting... I have to say that I'd prefer the second choice, except to
avoid sounding grammatically incorrect. Stupid linguists.... ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jeremy \"UncleHoot\" Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecmo> wrote:
> As a result, most of us still refuse to do that, and to avoid saying "they"
> when it's not grammatically correct, we might say something like "he/she"
> or, in computer manuals, "the user".
Whenever I see expressions like "he/she", "he or she", etc. it always
looks like a politically correct hypercorrectism which breaks the fluency
of the sentence and makes it sound artificial and awkward. It can become
really annoying if the pronoun appears many times in a sentence.
"They" just is not much more helpful in most sentences because it breaks
the singular/plural congruency of the sentence.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> (Curiously, I have never read or heard any theory about why this is the
> case in Finnish, even though most other languages do have gender-specific
> pronouns, and more over often lack a neutral third-person pronoun.)
It's not that rare. Turkish doesn't (which, I believe, is also Altaic).
There was another language - can't remember which.
--
Inoculatte: To take coffee intravenously when you are running late.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp a écrit :
> "Jeremy \"UncleHoot\" Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecmo> wrote:
>> As a result, most of us still refuse to do that, and to avoid saying "they"
>> when it's not grammatically correct, we might say something like "he/she"
>> or, in computer manuals, "the user".
>
> Whenever I see expressions like "he/she", "he or she", etc. it always
> looks like a politically correct hypercorrectism which breaks the fluency
> of the sentence and makes it sound artificial and awkward. It can become
> really annoying if the pronoun appears many times in a sentence.
Not to mention that you still have to choose the order of the pronouns,
which I'm sure will be interpreted as sexism in a few years time ;-)
--
Vincent
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:
> As a result, most of us still refuse to do that, and to avoid saying "they"
> when it's not grammatically correct, we might say something like "he/she"
> or, in computer manuals, "the user". Once in awhile, you might hear someone
> say "one" (as the French do), but it's not very common. I didn't know this
> whole story, but I find it interesting.
>
> A good child should wash his hands.
> A good child should wash their hands.
> A good child should wash his or her hands.
I'm not sure using "one" in the above cases is correct. Usually you use
"one" as:
One should wash one's hands.
When I was taught all this, I was told using either is fine, as long as
you don't mix them up within the same context. So if you're writing
about a generic developer, you could just refer to the developer as a he
or as a she.
Saying he/she is also "correct", but it gets clumsy if you have to keep
doing it within a paragraph.
I do all of the above.
--
Inoculatte: To take coffee intravenously when you are running late.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Whenever I see expressions like "he/she", "he or she", etc. it always
> looks like a politically correct hypercorrectism which breaks the fluency
> of the sentence and makes it sound artificial and awkward. It can become
> really annoying if the pronoun appears many times in a sentence.
It'd all be easier if English had a gender neutral pronoun for humans.
That's the best solution.
He/she doesn't seem "unusual" to me - I think I grew up with it. But
you're right - it's a pain to repeatedly type and a pain to read as well.
I like how some people just do (s)he. That way you can read it any way
you want.
--
Inoculatte: To take coffee intravenously when you are running late.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> In Finnish it's much easier because there are no gender-specific pronouns,
> period.
My understanding (from a once-thru read of "teach yourself Swahili") is
that language doesn't have gender-specific pronouns. But it does have
different pronouns for things that are alive, things that are dead, and
things that aren't alive but aren't dead either.
Alive would be people, animals, etc.
Dead would be rocks.
Neither apparently includes rivers, knives, and trees.
Pretty unusual to this speaker of english. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:49147da7@news.povray.org...
> But it does have
> different pronouns for things that are alive, things that are dead, and
> things that aren't alive but aren't dead either.
Makes one wonder if Schrodinger ever realized the linguistic resolution of
his paradox.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> My understanding (from a once-thru read of "teach yourself Swahili") is
> that language doesn't have gender-specific pronouns. But it does have
> different pronouns for things that are alive, things that are dead, and
> things that aren't alive but aren't dead either.
> Alive would be people, animals, etc.
> Dead would be rocks.
> Neither apparently includes rivers, knives, and trees.
> Pretty unusual to this speaker of english. :-)
You wouldn't believe how many counters there are in Japanese. By counter
I mean the adjective used to specify the amount of something.
For example in English you say "two people", "two bottles", "two plates",
"two cars", "two floors", etc.
In Japanese there are different counter adjectives depending on the thing
being described. For example there are counter for round objects,
cylindrical objects, people, flat objects, days... You name it. Almost
everything has its own counters.
Japanese has many other quirks too. For example most adjectives (such
as "big", "long", "white", etc) can also be used as verbs (with tense
inflections, etc.) In other words, rather than saying "the car *is* white"
or "the car *was* white" or "the car *is not* white", there's no verb
"to be" per se, but you use the adjective as a verb, in all those roles
(it's inflected differently depending on the role).
While many nouns have a plural form, explicit plural inflections are
actually seldom used, even when talking about more than one of that thing.
In most sentences the plural is not used (or there might actually not be
a plural form of that noun at all) and you have to know from the context
if it's talking about one or more of that thing.
Kind of reminds me a bit of Finnish, which lacks a future tense.
(Well, *technically* speaking there is a kind of future tense, but it's
a bit awkward and seldom used. Usually there's no need, though. The present
tense doubles for future tense in most sentences, the actual tense being
implied by the context or the meaning of the surrounding words.. It's
surprisingly unambiguous.
For example, you don't say "I will go to the shop tomorrow" in Finnish.
You say "I go to the shop tomorrow", and it's completely unambiguous. The
future tense is completely obsolete in this kind of sentence.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> I like how some people just do (s)he. That way you can read it any way
> you want.
Yeah. Everything in parentheses can (not) be ignored. :)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:
> A good child should wash his hands.
> A good child should wash their hands.
> A good child should wash his or her hands.
>
> A good boy or girl should wash his hands.
> A good boy or girl should wash their hands.
> A good boy or girl should wash his or her hands.
Good children should wash their hands.
Problem solved.
By the way, in Spanish the 3rd parson pronouns are gender-specific too, but
there is no need for a pronoun in that sentence. The person you're talking
about is kind of part of the verb, which isn't gender specific. However,
there is no gender-specific noun meaning "child", so you have the same
problem anyway! :D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> You wouldn't believe how many counters there are in Japanese. By counter
> I mean the adjective used to specify the amount of something.
>
> For example in English you say "two people", "two bottles", "two plates",
> "two cars", "two floors", etc.
>
> In Japanese there are different counter adjectives depending on the thing
> being described. For example there are counter for round objects,
> cylindrical objects, people, flat objects, days... You name it. Almost
> everything has its own counters.
All those counter types mostly stem from two main sets, one for discrete
items (like 2 cups, 3 beers) and one for measuring continuous things (4.2
volts, 2 metres etc). I think in Japanese they just join together the
number word and some kind of "helper" word, like in English you would say
"two cups of coffee", in Japanese they just join "two cups" together and
make it one word. Of course you then end up with 52513 different ways to
say 1-10 :-)
If you are a foreigner, just remembering the two base sets is fine to get
you by, it's perfectly acceptable and understandable to ask for "two coffee"
instead of "twocup coffee", but you can't use the "two" that you use to
measure things, you'll get a blank look for that.
> Japanese has many other quirks too.
I like the fact that you don't need to conjugate the verbs depending on the
subject of the sentence, also that there is no word for "the" or "a", and
the best bit is no noun genders and mostly no plurals as you say.
> (Well, *technically* speaking there is a kind of future tense, but it's
> a bit awkward and seldom used. Usually there's no need, though. The
> present
> tense doubles for future tense in most sentences, the actual tense being
> implied by the context or the meaning of the surrounding words.. It's
> surprisingly unambiguous.
Similar in German, it seems to me that the present tense is used for
actually doing something at that moment, that you do something in general,
or that you are going to do something in the future. As you say, it just
depends on the context.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>
> If you are a foreigner, just remembering the two base sets is fine to
> get you by, it's perfectly acceptable and understandable to ask for "two
> coffee" instead of "twocup coffee", but you can't use the "two" that you
> use to measure things, you'll get a blank look for that.
>
Well, if they associate it ie. with liter, it would be pretty hilarious.
Think about a couple going to a coffee shop and ordering two liters of
coffee :).
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > (Well, *technically* speaking there is a kind of future tense, but it's
> > a bit awkward and seldom used. Usually there's no need, though. The
> > present
> > tense doubles for future tense in most sentences, the actual tense being
> > implied by the context or the meaning of the surrounding words.. It's
> > surprisingly unambiguous.
> Similar in German, it seems to me that the present tense is used for
> actually doing something at that moment, that you do something in general,
> or that you are going to do something in the future. As you say, it just
> depends on the context.
Of course it makes the job of computer translation programs a real
nightmare, because how eg. a Finnish verb should be translated to English
depends on the context and the meaning of the sentence.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> If you are a foreigner, just remembering the two base sets is fine to
>> get you by, it's perfectly acceptable and understandable to ask for "two
>> coffee" instead of "twocup coffee", but you can't use the "two" that you
>> use to measure things, you'll get a blank look for that.
>>
>
> Well, if they associate it ie. with liter, it would be pretty hilarious.
> Think about a couple going to a coffee shop and ordering two liters of
> coffee :).
Hehe yeh I think that's exactly the reason why you get a blank look if you
use the wrong set.
Another thing I just remembered about Japanese numbers is that they are
grouped in 10000's rather than 1000's, so they have a word for 1e4, 1e8 etc
rather than 1e3, 1e6 like we do. It makes reading out numbers quite
difficult for people used to the 1e3 system, especially given that because
of their currency prices typically are quite big numbers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Similar in German, it seems to me that the present tense is used for
>> actually doing something at that moment, that you do something in
>> general,
>> or that you are going to do something in the future. As you say, it just
>> depends on the context.
>
> Of course it makes the job of computer translation programs a real
> nightmare, because how eg. a Finnish verb should be translated to English
> depends on the context and the meaning of the sentence.
Yep, even Google can't do simple sentences from German to English, they
always come out like "Tomorrow I go to England", missing the "will".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> Another thing I just remembered about Japanese numbers is that they are
> grouped in 10000's rather than 1000's, so they have a word for 1e4, 1e8 etc
> rather than 1e3, 1e6 like we do. It makes reading out numbers quite
> difficult for people used to the 1e3 system, especially given that because
> of their currency prices typically are quite big numbers.
And let's not talk about the traditional Japanese years (used eg. in
currency)...
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> It makes reading out numbers quite
> difficult for people used to the 1e3 system,
And vice versa. My chinese wife always pauses when trying to pronounce a
big number, trying to figure out how to say "three hundred thousand" or
something.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
