Print

Print


First, you have reverted to ad feminem remarks instead of any debate.  I
think that destroys any possible useful discussion.

Second, by any defintion, it is not cant at all.  "Cant" is "whining
speech as used by beggars; discouse recited monotonously or
mechanically; hypocritically pious speech; the special vocabulary
peculiar to the members of  a group on the fringe of society, as
thieves, argot; the special terminology  understood among the members of
a profession, discipline, or class, but obscure to the general
population.

My post is simply well-known facts about Anglo-Saxon, German, and
linguistics.  So unless you think I stole them from  some copyrighted
material or they are particularly pious, or only a fringe group (maybe
linguistics are?) or not part of general knowledge to the kind of people
who read Eliot (wouldn't that be dismissive?), I have no idea what you
mean by the term.  And aside from general and shameful sarcasm, I can't
imagine what you intend.

You can look up any of this is an Anglo-Saxon grammar, the OED, any
cultural discussions of "gender" and "sex" as distinctive terms in any
field.  If you have doubts about the use of "man" legally in history,
read the Declaration of Independence and the constitution and any laws
about women and men until very recently.  

None of this is anything but facts, not my opinions, even if I were
given to what you call "cant."

I thought this list tried to stop being snide and actually have
discussions.  

>>> Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]> 07/12/07 5:46 PM >>>
Standard cant, as expected.
P.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nancy Gish" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: a Jeremiah ...?


> It is a cognate because English was originally a Germanic language and
> it is the same term in both.  It did not appear in English by accident
> and it was not borrowed; it is just the Anglo-Saxon term.  In
> Anglo-Saxon "man" did mean "adult human."  Now its primary meaning is
> "adult male."  Check the OED.
>
> And it is not "das Mann"; it is "der Mann" or it is "man" if you mean
> the impersonal pronoun.  Gender is often arbitrary in German but
> sometimes it is connected.  In English the word "man" has been
> historically used however it was most convenient.   No one says "my
> sister is a lovely man."  And "all men are created equal" did not mean
> women could vote or own property.
>
> It doesn't matter if you buy it or not; it is in the language, not in
> you.  Gender does not refer just to words in languages that have
> gendered nouns.  Grammatical gender is not the same as the term in
> culture, where it refers to socially defined roles, and it is now
> specifically distinguished from "sex."  It has long been recognized
that
> what are called "masculine" and "feminine" characteristics do not
> necessarily match genetic sex difference.  That is a very long-term
> meaning and is no more up to you to choose or not than it is up to you
> to decide whether "cow" refers to a four-legged domestic farm animal
> from which we get milk and beef or a red cloud in the sky.  Words have
> arbitrary meanings but they are not individual choices.
>
> All this is just easily accessible information in dictionaries and
> linguistics, not me.
> Nancy
>
> >>> Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]> 07/11/07 12:17 AM >>>
> Just because the englsh MAN is a cognate of the german MANN
> does not mean that the German word carries any of the same meanings
> or connotations. In German Das Mann, as I take it, means HUMAN.
> The word with sexual dimension is MENSCH.
>
> Using the word GENDER here is very confusing. Strcitly
> speaking, gender is an attribute of words -- words can be male,
> female, neuter. People are indeified by sex, male or female.
>
> I know that the politically correct police have tried to coopt
> gender for various power and control porpoises, but I for
> one am not buying it.
>
> Cheers,
> Peter
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Charles McElwain" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 5:17 PM
> Subject: Re: a Jeremiah ...?
>
>
> > I'm not sure why you refer to the German impersonal "you" as
> > "annoyingly gendered".
> >
> > At least in German, what is commonly - and annoyingly - used in
> > English as "man" becomes "*Das* Mann" - *neuter* gender.
> >
> > My own prejudices were surprised when I expected "Der Mann", and
> > learned "Das Mann".
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > Charles
> >
> > At 12:36 PM -0400 7/10/07, Nancy Gish wrote:
> > >But that is Diana's point:  in German the impersonal "you" would be
> > >written as "Mann":  annoyingly gendered but accurate.  I am not
sure
> it
> > >matters that he chose the "you" but "one" is a bit stuffy in a
> > >conversation.  In any case, according to Valerie Eliot, "his
> description
> > >of the sledding, for example, was taken verbatim from a
conversation
> he
> > >had with this niece and confidant of the Austrian Empress
Elizabeth."
> > >
> > >Eliot was staying in Germany and spoke German, but she may well
have
> > >spoken English.  So it is not clear whether or not Marie simply
said
> > >"you."
> > >
> > >Nancy
> > >
> >
> >
> > -- 
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/894 - Release Date:
> 7/10/2007
> 5:44 PM
> >
> >
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/898 - Release Date:
7/12/2007
4:08 PM
>
>