Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Yeah, good luck with that, guys, in a day and age when even chicks call each other "Dude"   (huffpost.com) divider line
    More: Unlikely, Gender, Transgender, gender identity, Gender role, GLSEN's guide, Gender identity, language creeps, gender-neutral language  
•       •       •

793 clicks; posted to Discussion » on 05 Aug 2020 at 5:48 AM (12 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



86 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-08-05 2:59:19 AM  
Or we could just keep using it to apply to mixed-gender groups until the generations that considered it a "masculine word" die off.

Sorry if I come across as crotchety, I've actually been feeling rather gay all day.
 
2020-08-05 3:11:48 AM  
i.imgflip.comView Full Size

We cool?
 
2020-08-05 3:32:19 AM  
Chicks don't like being called broads!!!
 
2020-08-05 5:27:13 AM  
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.comView Full Size
 
2020-08-05 5:42:51 AM  
Whatever, dude
 
2020-08-05 5:46:18 AM  
Fun fact: once upon a time, "man" was not gendered. If you needed to specify female there was "wifman", from which we eventually get both "woman" (you can still hear the deep roots in the unusual pronunciation of "women") and "wife"; and if you needed to specify male there was "werman" or "wyrman" - the same word that's survived in modern English in "werewolf".
 
2020-08-05 5:55:14 AM  
My daughter calls me "Dude"!
 
2020-08-05 6:11:03 AM  
media-amazon.comView Full Size
 
2020-08-05 6:18:31 AM  

buckeyebrain: Chicks don't like being called broads!!!


Dames don't like being called chicks.
 
2020-08-05 6:20:06 AM  
media.giphy.comView Full Size
 
2020-08-05 6:48:53 AM  

HugeMistake: Fun fact: once upon a time, "man" was not gendered. If you needed to specify female there was "wifman", from which we eventually get both "woman" (you can still hear the deep roots in the unusual pronunciation of "women") and "wife"; and if you needed to specify male there was "werman" or "wyrman" - the same word that's survived in modern English in "werewolf".


Mostly correct.  I love to see people posting stuff like this on Fark.  I just want to commandeer this post to mention something that people get wrong all the time about gender in languages.

There are two types of gender in language:
- grammatical gender.  This basically means that the nouns in a language can be split into equivalence classes. In this sense, the nouns you list above are gendered.  mann is masculine, as are wermann and wifmannwif, on the other hand, is neuter.  We have two terms for a woman here, and yet neither is grammatically feminine.
- so-called "biological" gender.  Certain words in a language might be used primarily with one "biological" gender.  Such as the examples in the article.  Linguists aren't overly interested in this type of gender (and the presence of this type of gender in a language is not sufficient to call a language gendered) unless it causes some interesting morphological effects.
 
2020-08-05 7:00:45 AM  
But, the dude abides.
 
2020-08-05 7:29:48 AM  
Used to call my campers dudes.
Explained to those young ladies in the early 70s it was a gender neutral term.
They got it.
It allowed them to actualize themselves as persons while being mentored by a male with out the assignment of gender roles, which would have been inappropriate. I was a teen, and they were not.
Thus, I became a source of information and not a member of a set of people they had previous encounters with.
It worked.
 
2020-08-05 7:35:03 AM  
I typed out way too much information about flawed languages and stupid customs, then decided to just go with the TLDR version.  You're welcome.

TLDR version.  Try some empathy, think how you'd feel if your female boss called mixed groups ladies, and insisted that it was the proper gender neutral term.  It costs you nothing to address a mixed group in a way that's respectful to everyone.
 
2020-08-05 7:36:38 AM  
My older daughter has never stopped calling everyone "dude" in a conversational fashion since she saw the Big Lebowski, and that was some time ago.  I think she doesn't care that it makes me twitchy.
 
2020-08-05 7:37:56 AM  

Ker_Thwap: TLDR version. Try some empathy, think how you'd feel if your female boss called mixed groups ladies, and insisted that it was the proper gender neutral term. It costs you nothing to address a mixed group in a way that's respectful to everyone.


I always addressed groups of my employees as "ladies", regardless of gender.  It gets their attention.  They settle down.  They know worse could come.
 
2020-08-05 7:47:44 AM  

Ker_Thwap: I typed out way too much information about flawed languages and stupid customs, then decided to just go with the TLDR version.  You're welcome.

TLDR version.  Try some empathy, think how you'd feel if your female boss called mixed groups ladies, and insisted that it was the proper gender neutral term.  It costs you nothing to address a mixed group in a way that's respectful to everyone.


Im female, and i use "guys" to address mixed groups of folks all the time.  *shrugs*
 
2020-08-05 7:54:09 AM  

vudukungfu: Used to call my campers dudes.
Explained to those young ladies in the early 70s it was a gender neutral term.
They got it.
It allowed them to actualize themselves as persons while being mentored by a male with out the assignment of gender roles, which would have been inappropriate. I was a teen, and they were not.
Thus, I became a source of information and not a member of a set of people they had previous encounters with.
It worked.


I had a youth group leader who used "People" as their gender neutral term.

Once we were doing a toy drive and had to clean them all so we set up a big line of tables in the church multipurpose room and got to work. Everything was going well until a handgun showed up. "People! We are going outside, NOW!" really sticks into my head.
 
2020-08-05 7:57:05 AM  

Tr0mBoNe: vudukungfu: Used to call my campers dudes.
Explained to those young ladies in the early 70s it was a gender neutral term.
They got it.
It allowed them to actualize themselves as persons while being mentored by a male with out the assignment of gender roles, which would have been inappropriate. I was a teen, and they were not.
Thus, I became a source of information and not a member of a set of people they had previous encounters with.
It worked.

I had a youth group leader who used "People" as their gender neutral term.

Once we were doing a toy drive and had to clean them all so we set up a big line of tables in the church multipurpose room and got to work. Everything was going well until a handgun showed up. "People! We are going outside, NOW!" really sticks into my head.


Was the gun ok?
 
2020-08-05 7:59:17 AM  

vudukungfu: Tr0mBoNe: vudukungfu: Used to call my campers dudes.
Explained to those young ladies in the early 70s it was a gender neutral term.
They got it.
It allowed them to actualize themselves as persons while being mentored by a male with out the assignment of gender roles, which would have been inappropriate. I was a teen, and they were not.
Thus, I became a source of information and not a member of a set of people they had previous encounters with.
It worked.

I had a youth group leader who used "People" as their gender neutral term.

Once we were doing a toy drive and had to clean them all so we set up a big line of tables in the church multipurpose room and got to work. Everything was going well until a handgun showed up. "People! We are going outside, NOW!" really sticks into my head.

Was the gun ok?


It took a bath in soapy water then one of the parents "took care of it". I expect they are still taking care of it, it was a small hick town.
 
2020-08-05 8:03:27 AM  
Hey, my dawgs!
 
2020-08-05 8:12:07 AM  
Speaking as an arrogant jock in an 80s movie, I always refer to guys as "ladies."  "Sup, ladies!  You ladies ready to lose today?"

And then I cheat, because that's what you do when you're an arrogant jock in an 80s movie.
 
2020-08-05 8:26:02 AM  

vudukungfu: Used to call my campers dudes.
Explained to those young ladies in the early 70s it was a gender neutral term.
They got it.
It allowed them to actualize themselves as persons while being mentored by a male with out the assignment of gender roles, which would have been inappropriate. I was a teen, and they were not.
Thus, I became a source of information and not a member of a set of people they had previous encounters with.
It worked.


Dude is inherently a gendered term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dude
Dude is American English slang for an individual, typically male.[1] From the 1870s to the 1960s, dude primarily meant a person who dressed in an extremely fashionable manner (a dandy) or a conspicuous citified person who was visiting a rural location, a "city slicker". In the 1960s, dude evolved to mean any male person, a meaning that slipped into mainstream American slang in the 1970s. Current slang retains at least some use of all three of these common meanings.

Maybe you should go with "Dudx".
 
2020-08-05 8:28:15 AM  

raerae1980: Ker_Thwap: I typed out way too much information about flawed languages and stupid customs, then decided to just go with the TLDR version.  You're welcome.

TLDR version.  Try some empathy, think how you'd feel if your female boss called mixed groups ladies, and insisted that it was the proper gender neutral term.  It costs you nothing to address a mixed group in a way that's respectful to everyone.

Im female, and i use "guys" to address mixed groups of folks all the time.  *shrugs*


A mixed group here is usually 'lads'. My sisters also use this to refer to groups of all female friends a lot. Nobody has ever brought it up as an issue, so it doesn't seem like a big deal.
 
2020-08-05 8:33:32 AM  

raerae1980: Ker_Thwap: I typed out way too much information about flawed languages and stupid customs, then decided to just go with the TLDR version.  You're welcome.

TLDR version.  Try some empathy, think how you'd feel if your female boss called mixed groups ladies, and insisted that it was the proper gender neutral term.  It costs you nothing to address a mixed group in a way that's respectful to everyone.

Im female, and i use "guys" to address mixed groups of folks all the time.  *shrugs*


It's a thought exercise.  Think about why you don't address them as "ladies?"

I've been addressed as, and have used the word "guys" my whole life as well, and it doesn't bother me either.  That said, I raised two daughters as a single dad, and started to pay attention to the myriad ways in which language diminishes women.  There are active attempts to do so, and passive attempts as well.

Do what you want, just be aware of why some people might find it annoying.
 
2020-08-05 8:40:13 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-08-05 8:42:24 AM  

Ker_Thwap: raerae1980: Ker_Thwap: I typed out way too much information about flawed languages and stupid customs, then decided to just go with the TLDR version.  You're welcome.

TLDR version.  Try some empathy, think how you'd feel if your female boss called mixed groups ladies, and insisted that it was the proper gender neutral term.  It costs you nothing to address a mixed group in a way that's respectful to everyone.

Im female, and i use "guys" to address mixed groups of folks all the time.  *shrugs*

It's a thought exercise.  Think about why you don't address them as "ladies?"

I've been addressed as, and have used the word "guys" my whole life as well, and it doesn't bother me either.  That said, I raised two daughters as a single dad, and started to pay attention to the myriad ways in which language diminishes women.  There are active attempts to do so, and passive attempts as well.

Do what you want, just be aware of why some people might find it annoying.


'You guys' is colloquial language, right?  We shorten this to 'yinz' where i come from.  Lol
 
2020-08-05 8:49:47 AM  
I'm female and I address both genders as dudes and guys. I'm also known to refer to my friends as girls and boys even though we are all middle-aged. I might say to Mr Spawn, are your boys coming over to play Battletech?  (Huge table, masks on, etc.)
 
2020-08-05 8:50:21 AM  

HugeMistake: Fun fact: once upon a time, "man" was not gendered. If you needed to specify female there was "wifman", from which we eventually get both "woman" (you can still hear the deep roots in the unusual pronunciation of "women") and "wife"; and if you needed to specify male there was "werman" or "wyrman" - the same word that's survived in modern English in "werewolf".


I'm not sure why someone funnied this because it is essentially correct.

The Old English word mann was grammatically masculine, but referred to any human, male or female.  To refer specifically to a male human, in Old English, you needed to say wer or wermann (both masculine nouns).  To refer specifically to a female human, you needed to say wif (a neuter noun) or wifmann (a masculine noun).

Over time, mann became associated with male humans exclusively (and its spelling changed to just man) and, along with all nouns in the English language, lost any trace of grammatical gender.
 
2020-08-05 8:54:45 AM  

raerae1980: Ker_Thwap: raerae1980: Ker_Thwap: I typed out way too much information about flawed languages and stupid customs, then decided to just go with the TLDR version.  You're welcome.

TLDR version.  Try some empathy, think how you'd feel if your female boss called mixed groups ladies, and insisted that it was the proper gender neutral term.  It costs you nothing to address a mixed group in a way that's respectful to everyone.

Im female, and i use "guys" to address mixed groups of folks all the time.  *shrugs*

It's a thought exercise.  Think about why you don't address them as "ladies?"

I've been addressed as, and have used the word "guys" my whole life as well, and it doesn't bother me either.  That said, I raised two daughters as a single dad, and started to pay attention to the myriad ways in which language diminishes women.  There are active attempts to do so, and passive attempts as well.

Do what you want, just be aware of why some people might find it annoying.

'You guys' is colloquial language, right?  We shorten this to 'yinz' where i come from.  Lol


Sure, and colloquial terms go in and out of fashion, language continues to evolve.  Had you called my grandmother a guy, she would have smacked you, because it's not ladylike.  I grew up initially with guys were men, and it was rude to call a mixed group guys.  Then for most of my life it became a common/non insulting term that I was fine with.  Now, I wonder if we should re-examine it, because it's kind of passively insulting.

/She had her own ideas about what was and wasn't ladylike, so smacking was on the table for her.
//She was also mean and racist, so I'm not quoting her as any kind of authority here.
 
2020-08-05 9:13:17 AM  

Armored Vomit Doll: HugeMistake: Fun fact: once upon a time, "man" was not gendered. If you needed to specify female there was "wifman", from which we eventually get both "woman" (you can still hear the deep roots in the unusual pronunciation of "women") and "wife"; and if you needed to specify male there was "werman" or "wyrman" - the same word that's survived in modern English in "werewolf".

Mostly correct.  I love to see people posting stuff like this on Fark.  I just want to commandeer this post to mention something that people get wrong all the time about gender in languages.

There are two types of gender in language:
- grammatical gender.  This basically means that the nouns in a language can be split into equivalence classes. In this sense, the nouns you list above are gendered.  mann is masculine, as are wermann and wifmann.  wif, on the other hand, is neuter.  We have two terms for a woman here, and yet neither is grammatically feminine.
- so-called "biological" gender.  Certain words in a language might be used primarily with one "biological" gender.  Such as the examples in the article.  Linguists aren't overly interested in this type of gender (and the presence of this type of gender in a language is not sufficient to call a language gendered) unless it causes some interesting morphological effects.


A semi-related question: is this in any way related to the gendered nouns and adjectives in Spanish (or any of the Romance languages)?
 
2020-08-05 9:25:30 AM  

Bad bit in the bit bucket: Armored Vomit Doll: HugeMistake: Fun fact: once upon a time, "man" was not gendered. If you needed to specify female there was "wifman", from which we eventually get both "woman" (you can still hear the deep roots in the unusual pronunciation of "women") and "wife"; and if you needed to specify male there was "werman" or "wyrman" - the same word that's survived in modern English in "werewolf".

Mostly correct.  I love to see people posting stuff like this on Fark.  I just want to commandeer this post to mention something that people get wrong all the time about gender in languages.

There are two types of gender in language:
- grammatical gender.  This basically means that the nouns in a language can be split into equivalence classes. In this sense, the nouns you list above are gendered.  mann is masculine, as are wermann and wifmann.  wif, on the other hand, is neuter.  We have two terms for a woman here, and yet neither is grammatically feminine.
- so-called "biological" gender.  Certain words in a language might be used primarily with one "biological" gender.  Such as the examples in the article.  Linguists aren't overly interested in this type of gender (and the presence of this type of gender in a language is not sufficient to call a language gendered) unless it causes some interesting morphological effects.

A semi-related question: is this in any way related to the gendered nouns and adjectives in Spanish (or any of the Romance languages)?


Those fall under the category of grammatical gender, yes.  They are not examples of "biological" gender, though, as some very feminine things are (grammatically) masculine, and some very masculine things are (grammatically) feminine.

To be super-technical, only nouns can have grammatical gender.  Other word classes (adjectives, verbs, pronouns, etc.) might change due to a noun's gender, but they don't have gender themselves.
 
2020-08-05 9:36:37 AM  

Bad bit in the bit bucket: Armored Vomit Doll: HugeMistake:

A semi-related question: is this in any way related to the gendered nouns and adjectives in Spanish (or any of the Romance languages)?



I always hit "Add Comment" too soon.

English, as an Indo-European language, used to have gender, the same as the Romance languages and most modern Germanic languages.  Over time gender distinctions were lost in English.

French and Spanish, over time, lost the neuter gender of Latin, ending up with just masculine and feminine.  Romanian had something odd happen, where in some (completely predictable) cases neuter nouns act like masculine nouns, and in all other (also completely predictable) cases they act like feminine nouns.  So Romanian has a "neuter" gender because its old neuter gender didn't neatly collapse into either of the other two genders.  In French, the neuter gender was absorbed by the feminine gender because sound changes in the language made it impossible to tell the genders apart anymore.

Swedish (and related languages), on the other hand, saw the masculine and feminine genders merge into a "common" gender, distinct from a neuter gender.

As a general rule, Indo-European and Semitic languages are gendered (or were in the past).  Many Indigenous languages of North America (including Cree, which I'm somewhat proficient in) also have gender, though they name their noun classes animate and inanimate, rather than masculine and feminine.  Just like above, animate gender doesn't mean animate in reality (butter is animate in Cree, for one thing) and inanimate gender doesn't mean inanimate in reality.
 
2020-08-05 9:55:21 AM  
'Sup bros?
 
2020-08-05 10:39:34 AM  
Greetings meat-bags.
 
2020-08-05 10:42:44 AM  
He knows about your party.  He is calling you "dude!"

Comfort Eagle
Youtube Q2elSNrRxus
 
2020-08-05 10:52:17 AM  
I address mixed groups, "Dudes and Dudettes."

/totally not a dork
//my mom says I'm cool.
 
2020-08-05 10:53:30 AM  
64.media.tumblr.comView Full Size
 
2020-08-05 10:57:04 AM  
"Amy Jeffers, an organizational development specialist in diversity, equity and inclusion..."

Shoot me.
 
2020-08-05 11:01:14 AM  
external-content.duckduckgo.comView Full Size
 
2020-08-05 11:13:40 AM  
My grandma called everybody "fellas". I'd be hanging out with my girlfriends and grandma would say "Hey fellas, what's going in?"
 
2020-08-05 11:46:55 AM  
I tend to be more general.  When I enter a room, I say, "Greetings, Earth Humans."
 
2020-08-05 11:48:22 AM  
Oh, ffs.
 
2020-08-05 12:17:32 PM  
I can see not using "Hey Guys" when there are some women in the group you are talking to.

However, this made me want to stab somebody:

GLSEN's guide suggested that when you have not been introduced to people and don't know their pronouns or gender identity, use descriptive language such as, "Can you give this paper to the person across the room with the white T-shirt and short brown hair?"

I'm not going to stop using "him" or "her" or "woman" or "man" for people who are pretty obviously one gender or the other.  Fark off.
 
2020-08-05 12:23:36 PM  
Use "People!" when you want to sound like a hip, '70s female teacher.
Use "Listen up!" when you want to sound like a '70s boys PE teacher.
 
2020-08-05 12:35:24 PM  
"You guys" has morphed into a gender-neutral term. At my office, even most of the women will use "you guys" when talking to any group of two or more people, whether that group is all men, all women, or a mixture of genders.
 
2020-08-05 12:41:37 PM  

Armored Vomit Doll: Swedish (and related languages), on the other hand, saw the masculine and feminine genders merge into a "common" gender, distinct from a neuter gender.


This is completely false.  Scandinavian languages have masculine (hankjøn), feminine (hunkjønn), and neuter (intetkjønn) just like German.
 
2020-08-05 12:52:12 PM  

Beta Tested: Armored Vomit Doll: Swedish (and related languages), on the other hand, saw the masculine and feminine genders merge into a "common" gender, distinct from a neuter gender.

This is completely false.  Scandinavian languages have masculine (hankjøn), feminine (hunkjønn), and neuter (intetkjønn) just like German.


Nope. Standard Swedish does not have three genders.  It has only ett-nouns (neuter) and en-nouns (common).  Some dialects and idioms might still use older masculine and feminine distinctions, but those are non-standard.

You probably just don't understand what is meant by grammatical gender (despite my describing it above).
 
2020-08-05 1:00:14 PM  

Geotpf: I can see not using "Hey Guys" when there are some women in the group you are talking to.

However, this made me want to stab somebody:

GLSEN's guide suggested that when you have not been introduced to people and don't know their pronouns or gender identity, use descriptive language such as, "Can you give this paper to the person across the room with the white T-shirt and short brown hair?"

I'm not going to stop using "him" or "her" or "woman" or "man" for people who are pretty obviously one gender or the other.  Fark off.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-08-05 1:01:22 PM  

Beta Tested: Armored Vomit Doll: Swedish (and related languages), on the other hand, saw the masculine and feminine genders merge into a "common" gender, distinct from a neuter gender.

This is completely false.  Scandinavian languages have masculine (hankjøn), feminine (hunkjønn), and neuter (intetkjønn) just like German.


For example, adjectives in Swedish can sometimes decline as "masculine" rather than "common" when referring to male humans.  But that is biological gender, not grammatical gender.  As I explained above, changing the form of something due to its biological properties is not grammatical gender, and adjectives themselves cannot carry gender, only nouns can.

Pronouns in Swedish also can change between masculine and feminine.  But, again, that is biological gender and not grammatical gender as those are pronouns (which cannot carry gender) and not nouns.
 
2020-08-05 1:10:06 PM  

raerae1980: Ker_Thwap: I typed out way too much information about flawed languages and stupid customs, then decided to just go with the TLDR version.  You're welcome.

TLDR version.  Try some empathy, think how you'd feel if your female boss called mixed groups ladies, and insisted that it was the proper gender neutral term.  It costs you nothing to address a mixed group in a way that's respectful to everyone.

Im female, and i use "guys" to address mixed groups of folks all the time.  *shrugs*


Me too, 'guys' is just a handy term for any group. I've never had any issues with anyone getting offended by my use of the word guys. I also call people of any sex or orientation 'dude'. Honestly, guys and dude have become pretty much generic and non-gendered in my neck of the woods, everybody uses them for everybody else.

I do call people by their preferred pronoun if they let me know what it is but I've never had anyone say that guys or dude is offensive to them because they use the words too.
 
2020-08-05 1:10:15 PM  

Petite Mel: [external-content.duckduckgo.com image 300x407]



That is the best laugh I've had all week, seriously.

Thank you for posting it.
 
2020-08-05 1:15:06 PM  

Petite Mel: Geotpf: I can see not using "Hey Guys" when there are some women in the group you are talking to.

However, this made me want to stab somebody:

GLSEN's guide suggested that when you have not been introduced to people and don't know their pronouns or gender identity, use descriptive language such as, "Can you give this paper to the person across the room with the white T-shirt and short brown hair?"

I'm not going to stop using "him" or "her" or "woman" or "man" for people who are pretty obviously one gender or the other.  Fark off.

[Fark user image 728x1091]


I said obviously.
 
2020-08-05 1:48:43 PM  

Armored Vomit Doll: Beta Tested: Armored Vomit Doll: Swedish (and related languages), on the other hand, saw the masculine and feminine genders merge into a "common" gender, distinct from a neuter gender.

This is completely false.  Scandinavian languages have masculine (hankjøn), feminine (hunkjønn), and neuter (intetkjønn) just like German.

Nope. Standard Swedish does not have three genders.  It has only ett-nouns (neuter) and en-nouns (common).  Some dialects and idioms might still use older masculine and feminine distinctions, but those are non-standard.

You probably just don't understand what is meant by grammatical gender (despite my describing it above).


Go back and read the original statement.

Norwegian and Icelandic have hunkjønn (feminine) and those are closely related languages, as does German.  Only Danish and Swedish don't, so the original statement was false, several related languages do in fact have three genders.
 
2020-08-05 1:58:28 PM  

Beta Tested: Armored Vomit Doll: Beta Tested: Armored Vomit Doll: Swedish (and related languages), on the other hand, saw the masculine and feminine genders merge into a "common" gender, distinct from a neuter gender.

This is completely false.  Scandinavian languages have masculine (hankjøn), feminine (hunkjønn), and neuter (intetkjønn) just like German.

Nope. Standard Swedish does not have three genders.  It has only ett-nouns (neuter) and en-nouns (common).  Some dialects and idioms might still use older masculine and feminine distinctions, but those are non-standard.

You probably just don't understand what is meant by grammatical gender (despite my describing it above).

Go back and read the original statement.

Norwegian and Icelandic have hunkjønn (feminine) and those are closely related languages, as does German.  Only Danish and Swedish don't, so the original statement was false, several related languages do in fact have three genders.


What makes you think that the languages I had in mind were Norwegian and Icelandic?  I didn't say all related languages after all.

But your statement is equally false if we want to nitpick. "Scandinavian languages have masculine (hankjøn), feminine (hunkjønn), and neuter (intetkjønn) just like German"Obviously this is untrue, since Swedish and Danish are Scandinavian languages, and, as you admit, they have only two genders.

Do you have anything intelligent to contribute to this discussion at all?
 
2020-08-05 2:18:45 PM  
"Hos and Hoe-Dads"?
 
2020-08-05 2:30:14 PM  

Armored Vomit Doll: What makes you think that the languages I had in mind were Norwegian and Icelandic?  I didn't say all related languages after all.


Because that is what you said.  It is ok to admit fault, lightning bolts don't fly out of the sky and strike you down. "Swedish (and related languages)" means related languages which includes Norwegian (the language I speak that is so closely related to Swedish as to be mutually intelligible).  Only 1 related language to Swedish, Danish, doesn't have hunkjønn while the other nearest languages do (Norwegian, Icelandic, and German).  So what you said wasn't true.

But your statement is equally false if we want to nitpick. "Scandinavian languages have masculine (hankjøn), feminine (hunkjønn), and neuter (intetkjønn) just like German"Obviously this is untrue, since Swedish and Danish are Scandinavian languages, and, as you admit, they have only two genders.

Do you have anything intelligent to contribute to this discussion at all?


Your nitpicking is about as good as your knowledge of languages related to Swedish.  I'm not wrong, that is how sets work.  Scandinavian languages have hunkjønn, even if Swedish does not, because "Scandinavian languages" is a grouping which contains a feminine language gender.  The logical converse, what you said, is still false.  It is untrue is that North Germanic languages,Swedish (and related languages), don't have 3 language genders.

No worries about me continuing to add to the discussion, I will issue further corrections in the future if needed.
 
2020-08-05 2:41:43 PM  

Beta Tested: Armored Vomit Doll: What makes you think that the languages I had in mind were Norwegian and Icelandic?  I didn't say all related languages after all.

Because that is what you said.  It is ok to admit fault, lightning bolts don't fly out of the sky and strike you down. "Swedish (and related languages)" means related languages which includes Norwegian (the language I speak that is so closely related to Swedish as to be mutually intelligible).  Only 1 related language to Swedish, Danish, doesn't have hunkjønn while the other nearest languages do (Norwegian, Icelandic, and German).  So what you said wasn't true.


Lol.  Why does "related languages" have to include Norwegian?  I didn't say closely related, I didn't say all related languages.

I mean, Hindi is related to Swedish too.  You read something into what I wrote that wasn't there. Tons of languages "related" to Swedish don't have feminine and masculine genders, including English.

You chose to read something into what I wrote, that I didn't write.  That's a failure of your English comprehension skills and nothing else.

But your statement is equally false if we want to nitpick. "Scandinavian languages have masculine (hankjøn), feminine (hunkjønn), and neuter (intetkjønn) just like German"Obviously this is untrue, since Swedish and Danish are Scandinavian languages, and, as you admit, they have only two genders.

Do you have anything intelligent to contribute to this discussion at all?

Your nitpicking is about as good as your knowledge of languages related to Swedish.  I'm not wrong, that is how sets work.  Scandinavian languages have hunkjønn, even if Swedish does not, because "Scandinavian languages" is a grouping which contains a feminine language gender.  The logical converse, what you said, is still false.  It is untrue is that North Germanic languages,Swedish (and related languages), don't have 3 language genders.

No worries about me continuing to add to the discussion, I will issue further corrections in the future if needed.


That's not how sets work at all.  If I have the set of languages which have three genders, then Swedish is not a member of that set.  Some Scandinavian languages might have three genders, but that doesn't mean that we can claim that the family of Scandinavian languages has three genders.  That is obviously untrue.  We can say that the proto-language which modern Scandinavian languages descend from had three genders and that's it.

Seriously, keep it up, this is hilarious as fark.
 
2020-08-05 2:42:59 PM  

Beta Tested: No worries about me continuing to add to the discussion, I will issue further corrections in the future if needed.


You haven't made a single accurate statement yet that rebuts anything I've said.  So you have a lot of corrections to make.
 
2020-08-05 2:46:00 PM  

Beta Tested: It is untrue is that North Germanic languages,Swedish (and related languages), don't have 3 language genders.


It is explicitly true that Swedish (and related languages) don't have three genders.  Don't affirm the consequent.  It makes you look uneducated.
 
2020-08-05 2:56:16 PM  

Armored Vomit Doll: It is explicitly true that Swedish (and related languages) don't have three genders.  Don't affirm the consequent.  It makes you look uneducated.


Listen to me very closely, I understand Swedish because I speak the language most closely related to it.  I use hunkjønn when I speak that language.  Languages related to Swedish have 3 genders, I speak one of them.  I am not certain how many different ways I can say that or how much more clear I can make it.

You are arguing about a language to a person that speaks said language when you do not.  This is the peak of you were wrong on the internet and rather than saying, "my bad" like a normal human being you are digging in to Trumpian levels.
 
2020-08-05 2:58:42 PM  

Beta Tested: Armored Vomit Doll: It is explicitly true that Swedish (and related languages) don't have three genders.  Don't affirm the consequent.  It makes you look uneducated.

Listen to me very closely, I understand Swedish because I speak the language most closely related to it.  I use hunkjønn when I speak that language.  Languages related to Swedish have 3 genders, I speak one of them.  I am not certain how many different ways I can say that or how much more clear I can make it.

You are arguing about a language to a person that speaks said language when you do not.  This is the peak of you were wrong on the internet and rather than saying, "my bad" like a normal human being you are digging in to Trumpian levels.


Blah, blah, blah.  You've said nothing convincing here.  Why not try rebutting my points rather than appealing to your (nonexistent) authority.

Because you can't, of course, and you aren't mature enough to admit it.
 
2020-08-05 3:00:31 PM  

Beta Tested: Languages related to Swedish have 3 genders


This doesn't rebut a single thing I said.

Languages related to Swedish have two genders.  And languages related to Swedish have no gender whatsoever.  What's your point?
 
2020-08-05 3:02:03 PM  

Beta Tested: Scandinavian languages have masculine (hankjøn), feminine (hunkjønn), and neuter (intetkjønn) just like German.


This statement is still false, btw.

Some Scandinavian languages have three genders.  Some have two.
 
2020-08-05 3:15:43 PM  

Beta Tested: Languages related to Swedish have 3 genders


I mean, is the entire issue here that your English skills are so poor that you don't know what the word related means?

Because, again, some languages related to Swedish have three genders, and some others have two genders, and some others have no gender classes at all.  And some of the languages related to Swedish that have two genders went through the same process that Swedish did, with the feminine and masculine genders collapsing into a single neuter gender.

That's all I ever said.  Whatever nonsense you are braying about in no way rebuts that point.  Maybe do a better job reading what someone wrote before criticizing them in the future, eh?
 
2020-08-05 3:19:21 PM  

Armored Vomit Doll: Beta Tested: Languages related to Swedish have 3 genders

I mean, is the entire issue here that your English skills are so poor that you don't know what the word related means?

Because, again, some languages related to Swedish have three genders, and some others have two genders, and some others have no gender classes at all.  And some of the languages related to Swedish that have two genders went through the same process that Swedish did, with the feminine and masculine genders collapsing into a single common gender.

That's all I ever said.  Whatever nonsense you are braying about in no way rebuts that point.  Maybe do a better job reading what someone wrote before criticizing them in the future, eh?


FTFM
 
2020-08-05 3:38:18 PM  

Armored Vomit Doll: I mean, is the entire issue here that your English skills are so poor that you don't know what the word related means?

Because, again, some languages related to Swedish have three genders, and some others have two genders, and some others have no gender classes at all.  And some of the languages related to Swedish that have two genders went through the same process that Swedish did, with the feminine and masculine genders collapsing into a single neuter gender.

That's all I ever said.  Whatever nonsense you are braying about in no way rebuts that point.  Maybe do a better job reading what someone wrote before criticizing them in the future, eh?


You are so thick you might actually be Swedish.  Despite that I am genuinely going to try to explain this to you just one more time.

The language family Swedish belongs to is North Germanic, also called the "Nordic Languages" or "Scandinavian languages".  This family (the related languages) contains 3 genders which in Norwegian are called hankjønn, hunkjønn, and intetkjønn.  Of the 5 living languages in the family, 3 use all of them and the other 2 don't use hunkjønn.  Thus, it is untrue that "Swedish (and related languages)" do not use 3 genders, and it is extremely wrong that "some others have no gender classes at all" since all of them have gender classes.
 
2020-08-05 3:46:34 PM  

Beta Tested: Armored Vomit Doll: I mean, is the entire issue here that your English skills are so poor that you don't know what the word related means?

Because, again, some languages related to Swedish have three genders, and some others have two genders, and some others have no gender classes at all.  And some of the languages related to Swedish that have two genders went through the same process that Swedish did, with the feminine and masculine genders collapsing into a single neuter gender.

That's all I ever said.  Whatever nonsense you are braying about in no way rebuts that point.  Maybe do a better job reading what someone wrote before criticizing them in the future, eh?

You are so thick you might actually be Swedish.  Despite that I am genuinely going to try to explain this to you just one more time.

The language family Swedish belongs to is North Germanic, also called the "Nordic Languages" or "Scandinavian languages".  This family (the related languages) contains 3 genders which in Norwegian are called hankjønn, hunkjønn, and intetkjønn.  Of the 5 living languages in the family, 3 use all of them and the other 2 don't use hunkjønn.  Thus, it is untrue that "Swedish (and related languages)" do not use 3 genders, and it is extremely wrong that "some others have no gender classes at all" since all of them have gender classes.


Lol.  This is so funny.

Swedish is related to all Indo-European languages (that is the language family in question, of which North Germanic is just a tiny little sub-family).  It is related to English, it is related to Albanian, it is related to Farsi, it is related to Hindi.  And it is related to over 400 more languages.  Your ignorance of the fact that the Swedish language is related to languages outside of North Germanic is not my issue.  It is yours.

English, a language closely related to Swedish, has no gender whatsoever.  So it is extremely correct "that 'some others have no gender classes at all'"

You are wrong.  It is as simple as that.  Swedish is related to far more languages than just the five you mention.  Again, do you seriously not understand what it means for something to be related to something else?  Am I only related to my immediate family, not to my grandparents and aunts and uncles and cousins, etc. etc.
 
2020-08-05 3:49:59 PM  

Beta Tested: some others have no gender classes at all"


Are you claiming that English is not related to Swedish?  Do you know how ignorant that makes you look?
 
2020-08-05 3:54:14 PM  

Beta Tested: This sub-family (the related languages) contains 3 genders


Nope.  Some languages in it have three genders, some have two.  No matter how many times you say this, it is still wrong.  And, again, it is not a language family.  The family is Indo-European.
 
2020-08-05 4:16:02 PM  

Beta Tested: Despite that I am genuinely going to try to explain this to you just one more time.


By the way, don't stop.  These are some of the best laughs I've had in a while.  Nothing like watching the Dunning-Kruger effect play out in real time.  It's kinda like watching interpretive dance being performed by a blind dance troupe on a stage with a bunch of open manholes.

What other nonsense can you fill this thread with, I wonder.
 
2020-08-05 4:44:34 PM  

Beta Tested: Thus, it is untrue that "Swedish (and related languages)" do not use 3 genders


One last comment, unless you want to return and try again.  (Please do, it's hilarious).

Since Swedish only has two genders, then your statement above is obviously false.  Once you put Swedish into the set of languages in question, that statement fails, regardless of the other contents of the set.

This is trivial set theory.  I have a set which includes Swedish, a language which only has two genders.  Thus, the claim that (at least some) members of that set don't use 3 genders is true.  I don't even need to know the rest of the contents of the set at that point to make that claim - it is obvious from the inclusion of Swedish in the set.

Thus the claim that the prior claim is false must itself be false.
 
2020-08-05 6:36:39 PM  

Armored Vomit Doll: There are two types of gender in language:


You are technically correct, which of course is the best type of correct. And all the other corrects, too. And as you surmise, I did indeed mean "gendered" in the sense of "referring to one biological gender". We should probably find a different word for grammatical gender.

I remember being surprised that my German teacher could not explain why "Mädchen" ("little girl") was grammatically neuter; he speculated that perhaps Germans did not think of little girls as being female until they were sexually mature. He had issues. Later I learned that it was because, of course, diminutives in German are always neuter.

And of course, despite common confusion, grammatical gender belongs to words, not objects. I remember when living in France seeing a bumper sticker that said "Ma autre voiture est un diesel". How could the same car be both feminine and masculine? The answer is that grammatical gender is not biological gender, and "diesel" is short for "moteur Diesel", and moteur is masculine.

We should probably find a different word for grammatical gender.
 
2020-08-05 6:41:23 PM  

HugeMistake: We should probably find a different word for grammatical gender.


Linguists tend to use the term noun class.

But the concept of gender is so much a part of the grammar of many languages, that noun class will likely never make it into general use.

And, I wasn't trying to correct you or anything - I was just using your post as a springboard for my own comments.
 
2020-08-05 7:06:18 PM  
Good Burger--We're All Dudes
Youtube FqMODweN8lQ
 
2020-08-06 3:19:42 AM  
Y'all

The simple way to address a mixed group of people is y'all.
 
2020-08-06 9:36:26 AM  

Armored Vomit Doll: Beta Tested: Thus, it is untrue that "Swedish (and related languages)" do not use 3 genders

One last comment, unless you want to return and try again.  (Please do, it's hilarious).

Since Swedish only has two genders, then your statement above is obviously false.  Once you put Swedish into the set of languages in question, that statement fails, regardless of the other contents of the set.

This is trivial set theory.  I have a set which includes Swedish, a language which only has two genders.  Thus, the claim that (at least some) members of that set don't use 3 genders is true.  I don't even need to know the rest of the contents of the set at that point to make that claim - it is obvious from the inclusion of Swedish in the set.

Thus the claim that the prior claim is false must itself be false.


No.  You know what you said, I know what you said, and anyone reading this knows what you said.  Your transparent attempts to gaslight me only serve to make you look unhinged.

If I say "Dogs (and related species) use their keen sense of smell to hunt for food" it is brutally clear (even to you) that I am speaking specifically about Canids and not also about Starfish which are a related species that also use their sense of smell to hunt.

That Swedish is related to English is irrelevant since you weren't commenting on English and Swedish is also related to Japanese as all languages originated in the East African Rift and are related to one another.  The fact remains that the most closely related language to Swedish is a language with 3 genders.

You could have just admitted your minor error and issued a slight correction, but instead you went off the deep end like a screaming toddler.  I genuinely hope you get the therapy you need.
 
2020-08-06 9:39:18 AM  

BearDrivingCar: Y'all

The simple way to address a mixed group of people is y'all.


It is funny, now that I've been speaking a language with second person plural for over a decade now, I really feel its absence in English.  You also really notice all the kludges and colloquialisms English uses to make up for that short-coming.  English is basically reinventing a grammatical structure it lost because it turns out to be pretty important.
 
2020-08-06 9:57:12 AM  

Beta Tested: Armored Vomit Doll: Beta Tested: Thus, it is untrue that "Swedish (and related languages)" do not use 3 genders

One last comment, unless you want to return and try again.  (Please do, it's hilarious).

Since Swedish only has two genders, then your statement above is obviously false.  Once you put Swedish into the set of languages in question, that statement fails, regardless of the other contents of the set.

This is trivial set theory.  I have a set which includes Swedish, a language which only has two genders.  Thus, the claim that (at least some) members of that set don't use 3 genders is true.  I don't even need to know the rest of the contents of the set at that point to make that claim - it is obvious from the inclusion of Swedish in the set.

Thus the claim that the prior claim is false must itself be false.

No.  You know what you said, I know what you said, and anyone reading this knows what you said.  Your transparent attempts to gaslight me only serve to make you look unhinged.

If I say "Dogs (and related species) use their keen sense of smell to hunt for food" it is brutally clear (even to you) that I am speaking specifically about Canids and not also about Starfish which are a related species that also use their sense of smell to hunt.

That Swedish is related to English is irrelevant since you weren't commenting on English and Swedish is also related to Japanese as all languages originated in the East African Rift and are related to one another.  The fact remains that the most closely related language to Swedish is a language with 3 genders.

You could have just admitted your minor error and issued a slight correction, but instead you went off the deep end like a screaming toddler.  I genuinely hope you get the therapy you need.


I made no error.  I said Swedish and related languages went through the same process of the feminine and masculine genders collapsing into a single common gender.

That is true.

I did not say all closely related languages.  That Icelandic and Norwegian did not go through this process doesn't negate my point.   I mean, I get it, Your English language skills are sub-par and you don't know that when someone says "related" they don't necessarily mean all closely-related things.  That's nothing to be ashamed of.  Keep working on it, and you'll improve.

Further, when talking about species related to dogs, it depends on what characteristic I'm drawing the relation on.  There is no reason to assume that you are only talking about Canids. You could be talking about general Caniforms, or the set of both Caniforms and Feliforms.  That's the problem.  You made an assumption, and you aren't man enough to admit your assumption was incorrect.

And the languages I'm thinking of aren't far removed from Swedish, anyways.  They are all Germanic languages (though not necessarily North Germanic Languages).

Your comment that Swedish is related to Japanese is so incorrect that I don't even know where to start with that nonsense.  There is absolutely no evidence that the Indo-European languages are related to the Japonic languages, or any other languages of the Afro-Euro-Asian landmass.  Indo-European languages did not originate in the East African rift.  We know that because we know what terms are common to all Indo-European languages.  Those terms include flora and fauna from the areas around the Caucasus, and not flora and fauna from Africa.

That English is related to Swedish is very relevant, because you tried to falsely claim that no language related to Swedish has no gender.  English not only is related to Swedish, but it s very closely related to Swedish - and it has no gender.  You realize we can all scroll up in the thread and read your comments, right?

You don't have a clue what you are talking about.  Seriously, this is just getting sad.
 
2020-08-06 10:01:02 AM  

Beta Tested: BearDrivingCar: Y'all

The simple way to address a mixed group of people is y'all.

It is funny, now that I've been speaking a language with second person plural for over a decade now, I really feel its absence in English.  You also really notice all the kludges and colloquialisms English uses to make up for that short-coming.  English is basically reinventing a grammatical structure it lost because it turns out to be pretty important.


Nah, it isn't important at all.  Some languages don't differentiate between singular and plural at all, and they have no issues whatsoever.

It's just your limited worldview, and ignorance of how languages actually work, that makes you think that it is a limitation of a language to not differentiate singular and plural.  I mean English used to have a dual number that was used for exactly two things.  It is long gone now, and English isn't limited at all by its loss.
 
2020-08-06 10:01:49 AM  

BearDrivingCar: Y'all

The simple way to address a mixed group of people is y'all.


Yinz.

😋
 
2020-08-06 10:03:44 AM  
Beta Tested: Swedish is also related to Japanese as all languages originated in the East African Rift and are related to one another

This comment right here makes it absolutely clear that you have no idea what you are talking about.  Seriously.  There isn't a linguistic typologist alive that would make this claim.  Just cranks and Dunning-Kruger-addled know-nothings.
 
2020-08-06 10:11:37 AM  

Beta Tested: If I say "Dogs (and related species) use their keen sense of smell to hunt for food" it is brutally clear (even to you) that I am speaking specifically about Canids and not also about Starfish which are a related species that also use their sense of smell to hunt.


Why does it mean you are talking about Canids?

Why not Caniforms?

Why not Caniforms and Feliforms?

And does it mean that every single Canid does this?  If even one Canid doesn't have a sharp sense of smell, and/or doesn't use smell to find food, does that invalidate the entire premise.  I mean, you didn't say "Dogs (and all related species)", after all.

Maybe rather than making assumptions, you should have asked for clarification, eh?
 
2020-08-06 10:24:19 AM  

Beta Tested: It is funny, now that I've been speaking a language with second person plural for over a decade now, I really feel its absence in English. You also really notice all the kludges and colloquialisms English uses to make up for that short-coming. English is basically reinventing a grammatical structure it lost because it turns out to be pretty important.


I speak two languages that have no plurals whosoever, and one language that has singular, dual and plural forms.  I'm also vaguely proficient in a language that has singular, paucal and plural forms.

Having no plurals is not a limitation to language whatsoever.  And missing a plural form here and there is also not a limitation.  Just like English having no dual or paucal forms doesn't limit the ability of English-speakers to communicate clearly.  You are just stuck in a Euro-centric view of language and can't envision doing things the way you aren't used to.
 
2020-08-06 11:43:21 AM  

Beta Tested: Armored Vomit Doll: Beta Tested: Thus, it is untrue that "Swedish (and related languages)" do not use 3 genders

One last comment, unless you want to return and try again.  (Please do, it's hilarious).

Since Swedish only has two genders, then your statement above is obviously false.  Once you put Swedish into the set of languages in question, that statement fails, regardless of the other contents of the set.

This is trivial set theory.  I have a set which includes Swedish, a language which only has two genders.  Thus, the claim that (at least some) members of that set don't use 3 genders is true.  I don't even need to know the rest of the contents of the set at that point to make that claim - it is obvious from the inclusion of Swedish in the set.

Thus the claim that the prior claim is false must itself be false.

No.  You know what you said, I know what you said, and anyone reading this knows what you said.  Your transparent attempts to gaslight me only serve to make you look unhinged.

If I say "Dogs (and related species) use their keen sense of smell to hunt for food" it is brutally clear (even to you) that I am speaking specifically about Canids and not also about Starfish which are a related species that also use their sense of smell to hunt.

That Swedish is related to English is irrelevant since you weren't commenting on English and Swedish is also related to Japanese as all languages originated in the East African Rift and are related to one another.  The fact remains that the most closely related language to Swedish is a language with 3 genders.

You could have just admitted your minor error and issued a slight correction, but instead you went off the deep end like a screaming toddler.  I genuinely hope you get the therapy you need.


I mean, if wrote, explicitly:  Swedish and some languages related to it .....
instead of: Swedish (and related languages)
would that have soothed your massive butthurt?

They are identical in meaning.  And it is only your mistaken assumption that I meant all closely-related languages that is causing the issue.

Again, maybe ask for clarification before flying off the handle because of your own mistaken assumptions about what was said.

Anyways, come back and argue more if you want.  I've got time to spare today to keep going.
 
2020-08-06 1:05:50 PM  
Alright, I think this thread is dead, so I'll throw a little here on the origins of human language.

There is nothing that can be said for certain about how and where human speech originated.  That is lost to time.  We do know that Homo sapiens has all of the anatomical structures needed for speech, and developed those before they migrated out of the horn of Africa.

But having those structures is not analogous to being able to speak a language.  It might have allowed early humans to make simple sounds, devoid of any greater grammatical purpose.  At best, maybe early humans were able to form simple words with no greater syntactic context - like the 2 or 3-word "speech" of infants.  What is clear is that much of what is actually human language came about much later.  There are clear distinctions between language families (at least, some of them - some are still up in the air a bit) which suggest strikingly different origins.

Peter Ladefoged wrote an awesome book (I'm drawing a blank on the title at the moment) showing that the distribution of phonemes around the world makes it obvious that there was no one source for the origins of human-language sound systems.  The distribution simply cannot support a single source of human language.  Similar work has shown that the differences in morphology and syntax are so vast between language families that showing any kind of relation is intractable - and likely impossible.

In the past, there was the idea that language was innate to Homo sapiens.  This is sometimes referred to as Universal Grammar (though it is only a part of that).  At one point Noam Chomsky was pushing the idea that a genetic mutation must have occurred early on in the history of Homo sapiens, that caused humans to be able to develop language skills.  That is clearly not the case, as we have hundreds of thousands of human and non-human genomes to look at these days, and no such mutation can be seen.

That doesn't invalidate the idea that language is innate to humans.  But, as there has been scant evidence to back up that claim over the years, support for it is fading.  The majority of linguists no longer believe that there was one event, in one location, that led to the development of human language.  Even if language is somehow innate to humans, that "innateness" likely only gave humans a nudge, and, as humans spread through the world, they developed basic speech skills into full-fledged languages.
 
Displayed 86 of 86 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.