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  
•       •       •

785 clicks; posted to Discussion » on 05 Aug 2020 at 5:48 AM (11 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



86 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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 36 of 86 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


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.