New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 32 of 51 FirstFirst ... 7222324252627282930313233343536373839404142 ... LastLast
Results 931 to 960 of 1516
  1. - Top - End - #931
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GreatWyrmGold's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    In a castle under the sea
    Gender
    Male

    biggrin A silly theory about V's gender

    I have what I promised. V's gender is:
    Spoiler
    Show
    not applicable to human standards of gender.

    In this strip, V does not notice any difference in Roy's appearence other than the mop (and presumably, Elan's cloak). In this strip, V doesn't say, "What on earth are you ***ing doing?!?!" or anything like that. V has the same response I imagine s/he would if Nale was with a female. Thus, it seems that V is incapable of discerning gender. This may be because elves have a different "gender setup" than humans/dwarves/etc. (That would make Pompey hard to justify, though...


    Note that I do not actually think this. It's just a joke.

    Still, what do you think of this idea?

    EDIT: Oh, Lirian pretty much shoots this theory to all nine hells...and the abyss, too.
    Last edited by GreatWyrmGold; 2009-06-08 at 04:50 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blade Wolf View Post
    Ah, thank you very much GreatWyrmGold, you obviously live up to that name with your intelligence and wisdom with that post.
    Quotes, more

    Winner of Villainous Competitions 8 and 40; silver for 32
    Fanfic

    Pixel avatar by me! Other avatar by Recaiden.

  2. - Top - End - #932
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pelican City
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: A silly theory about V's gender

    Well, in the second strip you linked to, V's response of "Stop that." might have been the same had Nale/Elan been making out with a female, but he did recognize the guard as male. V said "Stop making out with him."

  3. - Top - End - #933
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Zanaril's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    England

    Default Re: A silly theory about V's gender

    Yea, since V uses pronouns correctly, he know she can tell genders apart.
    This post may contain sarcasm.
    DeviantArt

  4. - Top - End - #934
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GreatWyrmGold's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    In a castle under the sea
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: A silly theory about V's gender

    Okay, good point. So, maybe V just doesn't recognise any reason that would be...what's the right word? Just plain wrong. Perhaps this suggests on how the elfs' hypothetical "gender system" works.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conuly View Post
    ...assuming V fits into the binary at all...
    Yay! I'm not all alone!
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blade Wolf View Post
    Ah, thank you very much GreatWyrmGold, you obviously live up to that name with your intelligence and wisdom with that post.
    Quotes, more

    Winner of Villainous Competitions 8 and 40; silver for 32
    Fanfic

    Pixel avatar by me! Other avatar by Recaiden.

  5. - Top - End - #935
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default Re: V's Gender (pronouns)

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSummoner View Post
    I agree. If V cared, we'd know if he was a she or vice versa by now...
    So you don't think V would care that other people have their own preferences in regards to which pronouns they use about him/her? And do you think V would care that some people express these preferences, and suggest them to others? And if V don't care, why do you care enough to start ranting about political correctness whenever someone makes a suggestion you don't agree with?

  6. - Top - End - #936
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Axl_Rose's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location

    Default Re: V's Gender (pronouns)

    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    Stuff like "Hir" "Vim/Vis" and "Shim". These stopgap pronouns are awkward, confusing and ugly.
    I agree completely.

    I don't understand why these people don't just use "V."

    It RHYMES with He/She and is perfectly appropriate.

    "S/he casted exploding runes"

    vs.

    "V casted exploding runes"



    "Don't hurt hir!"

    vs.

    "Don't hurt V!"


    Really, I don't see why we need to make this so needlessly complicated.
    Last edited by Axl_Rose; 2009-06-08 at 04:54 PM.

  7. - Top - End - #937
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default Re: V's Gender (pronouns)

    Quote Originally Posted by JoseB View Post
    Languages can go extinct through conscious decisions of their users, as well. Witness what happened to the Ubykh language from the Caucasus, whose last speaker (Tevfik Esenç) died in 1992. The Ubykh people had to emigrate en masse in the 1860s after the Caucasus wars against the Russian Empire, and established themselves in Turkey. There, the Ubykh elders actively encouraged their people to assimilate into Turkish society and culture. Turkish and Circassian (another caucasian language) became the prevalent languages among the Ubykh. Extinction of the language ensued within ~120 years.

    But that is another story.
    Interesting. But if languages can go extinct by through conscious decisions of their users, shouldn't they be able to be maintained, and even evolve, through conscious decisions of their users as well?

  8. - Top - End - #938
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pelican City
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: A silly theory about V's gender

    Perhaps V doesn't think guys making out with guys is wrong. I still like the idea that he and Inkyrius are both guys, and that's why their progeny are adopted. but I still think Kyrie's female, I just like the idea.

  9. - Top - End - #939
    Orc in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: A silly theory about V's gender

    V's gender is simply indeterminate. It's a bit like arguing what I've had for dinner 100 days from now - I haven't decided yet!

    V was originally written as one sex, generally assumed to be male as the "us" ending is traditionally male for latin words and he's referred to as "man" in a couple of the early strips. Once the debate about V's sex started up and the comments on the androgenous look began, Rich decided he liked the idea and V was retconned as of indeterminate gender. Not as male, or female, but it's hard to tell - actually indeterminate.
    Until Rich Berlew himself decides what he's going to make V's gender, there's no point in debating it. I don't think he's sending secret messages and coded hints as to what it really is - what it really is is "I'll decide when - and if - it ever becomes necessary".

  10. - Top - End - #940
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    waterpenguin43's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Vancouver BC
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Gender Change Belts, Varsuuvius and You

    http://www.giantitp.com/forums/image...allannoyed.gif
    Vaarsivus would probably look masculine but grow boobs.
    Beautiful avatar by Mr_Saturn
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximum Zersk View Post
    ...I think that counts as your own Crowning Moment of Awesome, WP.
    Thank you's:
    Spoiler
    Show
    Lovely avatar of an NPC in Camp Half-Blood of mine by Crimson Angel:
    Thanks to Green Bean for my Spheal avatar.

    Also thanks to VT for awarding me with a VT monster competition award.


    Four internets and a cookie!

  11. - Top - End - #941
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2008

    Default Re: A silly theory about V's gender

    V was originally written as one sex, generally assumed to be male as the "us" ending is traditionally male for latin words and he's referred to as "man" in a couple of the early strips
    I wish people wouldn't say that, because it's not that simple. And I know, I took basic Latin. TWICE. Don't make me drag out my Wheelock's here!

    -ius is a nominative ending for the second declension. The second declension *does* primarily consist of masculine words, yes - but not all words in the second declension are masculine.

    To make it worse, -us is also used as a nominative ending in the third declension, many of which are feminine or neuter. Heck, even virtus (manliness) is feminine! (This is because it's an abstract noun. Vir, man, is masculine, as you'd expect.) And of course, -us is the nominative ending in the fourth declension, which *also* includes feminine nouns (such as anus, meaning hag - NOT the word you're thinking of, that's in the second declension!), but there are so few fourth declension words that it hardly matters.

    And of course, not all words in the first declension (ending in -a in the nominative) are feminine. Two that spring instantly to mind are nauta and agricola, sailor and farmer.
    Last edited by Conuly; 2009-06-08 at 06:49 PM.

  12. - Top - End - #942
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Somewhere in NL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: V's Gender (pronouns)

    Quote Originally Posted by ThunderCat View Post
    Interesting. But if languages can go extinct by through conscious decisions of their users, shouldn't they be able to be maintained, and even evolve, through conscious decisions of their users as well?
    Here is the problem, see... Ubykh (my example) was spoken by a single tribe of not more than some 2000-3000 people, living (at the time of the events I mentioned) in a close-knit community of 4 or 5 villages close to each other, and willing to follow without question the decisions of their elders.

    English (the language we are talking about regarding the "special pronouns" here) is a world-spanning tongue spoken by roughly 400 million people as a first language, and close to 1.4 billion as a second language.

    Good luck getting those numbers of speakers to agree on something like that. No one is able to move against linguistic inertia when confronted with such numbers. English will change by itself (that is all but guaranteed), but it will do so during an extended lapse of time, measured in centuries, and it will do so in its own way, and in spite of whatever efforts "regulators" or "inventors" might apply to try and "direct" the way it moves.
    JoseB

    o/` Ooooh, sweet mystery of liiiiiIIIIIiiife... o/`

  13. - Top - End - #943
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default Re: V's Gender (pronouns)

    Quote Originally Posted by JoseB View Post
    Here is the problem, see... Ubykh (my example) was spoken by a single tribe of not more than some 2000-3000 people, living (at the time of the events I mentioned) in a close-knit community of 4 or 5 villages close to each other, and willing to follow without question the decisions of their elders.

    English (the language we are talking about regarding the "special pronouns" here) is a world-spanning tongue spoken by roughly 400 million people as a first language, and close to 1.4 billion as a second language.

    Good luck getting those numbers of speakers to agree on something like that. No one is able to move against linguistic inertia when confronted with such numbers. English will change by itself (that is all but guaranteed), but it will do so during an extended lapse of time, measured in centuries, and it will do so in its own way, and in spite of whatever efforts "regulators" or "inventors" might apply to try and "direct" the way it moves.
    But I wasn't talking about English specifically, I was talking about the principle. And besides, why is it impossible for a language to change based on some changes some people have suggested? The change has to come from somewhere, and the fact that there are still plenty of English speakers vehemently arguing that using male pronouns to refer to all genders is completely natural, and not the least bit sexist, shows that a change 'from above' so to speak, can easily become a commonly accepted norm.

  14. - Top - End - #944
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default Re: V's Gender (pronouns)

    In French, if you ever happen to be describing a group consisting of the entire female population of the world and a single pen, then the pronoun for the group is male.
    Unless you're actually talking to the people and not to, you know, the pen, in which case the feminine pronoun applies. And the "default to masculine" rule is even a bit more specific than that, shall I say.

    You see, in French, everything is gendered. "Turtle", for example is feminine. If you're referring to a group of turtles of indeterminate gender, you'll use feminine plural to refer to them, even though there might be male turtles in the crowd that are now totally offended.

    Now, for people and quite a lot of animals, you have a masculine and a feminine version of the word. Homme/femme for man/woman, chien/chienne for dog/a-word-I'm-not-sure-I-can-write, chat/chatte for male cat/female cat, etc. When that is the case, the "default to masculine" rule applies, because you can't very well say both words at the same time, and a plural, "gender-neutral" form doesn't exist.

    Just felt like adding that.

    Nonstandard pronouns in English do sound quite ugly to me.

  15. - Top - End - #945
    Banned
     
    Optimystik's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: V's Gender (pronouns)

    Quote Originally Posted by Axl_Rose View Post
    I agree completely.

    I don't understand why these people don't just use "V."

    It RHYMES with He/She and is perfectly appropriate.

    "S/he casted exploding runes"

    vs.

    "V casted exploding runes"



    "Don't hurt hir!"

    vs.

    "Don't hurt V!"


    Really, I don't see why we need to make this so needlessly complicated.
    The problem (though it's not much of a problem for me) comes with reflexive pronouns. Under your naming convention it would be "V cast Overland Flight on Vself."

    So I just use the gender-neutral "he" and 'him." That, plus I think he and Kyrie are both guys

  16. - Top - End - #946
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Wales, UK
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: V's Gender (pronouns)

    My only problem with PC is that it sometimes goes too far for its own good, creating a problem that wasn't even there. I know some people who find using some PC words unnecessary, since for them, the artificial introduction of new terms in place of offensive ones is counterproductive: the new words are often being used in a mocking manner, thus making them more insulting than the old ones.

    I support the principles behind PC, but I've just seen too many cases where its forceful application did more harm than good (which goes to show that even a good thing can be made bad when it's poorly executed).

    On a different note, I used to have long hair for some time, and it happened to me a few times to be called in a way that implied I was of the female sex; it was hardly a reason to take offence, I mean, if I look like something and get called by that name, it's only natural. I don't know how it works in case of people whose sex is undefined or difficult to identify, but I know that if I was in such a situation, I'd get more offended by being called with an artificial, made up word that only underlined the issue (if it was an issue for me in the first place) than with a wrong, but perfectly ordinary one.

    As a non-native speaker, I can say that invented words just make the language even more confusing, especially that many of the non-native speakers are not even aware of the problem(s) that caused the new words to be invented in the first place; people learn basic meanings of the words first, and subtle nuances are understood only much later on. Sometimes when there are a few expressions for the same person/thing/concept in English and one is labelled as more PC, it turns out that its exact counterpart in other language is actually more offensive there, while the equivalent of the English non-PC word is a perfectly acceptable and ordinary. There's really enough confusion without introducing of the new words

  17. - Top - End - #947
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    France
    Gender
    Intersex

    Default Re: V's Gender

    Quote Originally Posted by Sutremaine View Post
    I've always thought that to be slightly rude, since women will be addressed or referred to directly only as long as there isn't anybody more important present.
    Some people see it that way. I've always seen it the other way, flattering for women. Kind of "we use masculine for neutral (when both are present) so males or nothing is the same, but females are truly special and deserve a word on their own". See what I mean?
    Both interpretations work, of course, and most likely neither are true. I doubt that much thought was given into it to begin with, it's a language, they evolve, they're not created from scratch with logic.

  18. - Top - End - #948
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Somewhere in NL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: V's Gender (pronouns)

    Quote Originally Posted by ThunderCat View Post
    But I wasn't talking about English specifically, I was talking about the principle. And besides, why is it impossible for a language to change based on some changes some people have suggested? The change has to come from somewhere, and the fact that there are still plenty of English speakers vehemently arguing that using male pronouns to refer to all genders is completely natural, and not the least bit sexist, shows that a change 'from above' so to speak, can easily become a commonly accepted norm.
    The thread began dealing with new pronouns in the English language, so that is why I took it as an example.

    It is true that the "inclusive he" was codified as such in an 1850 act of parliament in the UK. However, that hasn't eliminated (at all) the use of, for instance, "singular they", which is accepted in plenty of manuals of style (the Chicago Manual of Style, for instance).

    Also, that act of parliament codified only *how language should be used in parlamentary publications*. It had no pretension to introduce changes in the English language per se. It can be said that the 1850 act reflected certain usage at the time.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_Act_1850

    It can also be argued that "singular they" and "inclusive he" were used at the same time. Examples of use include:

    "Singular they":

    <<"A person can't help their birth," Rosalind replied.>> (Thackeray, 'Vanity Fair', 1848)

    <<"There's not a man I meet but doth salute me / As if I were their well-acquainted friend">> (Shakespeare, 'The Comedy of Errors', 1594)

    <<"That's always your way, Maim—always sailing in to help somebody before they're hurt.">> (Mark Twain, 'Adventures of Huckleberry Finn', 1884)

    "Inclusive he":

    <<"Every person who turns this page has his own little diary.">> (Thackeray, 19th century < 1863)

    <<"Suppose the life and fortune of every one of us would depend on his winning or losing a game of chess">> (Thomas Huxley, 'A Liberal Education', 1868)

    Observe Thackeray using both forms in the 19th century.

    Final comment: If you are mentioning languages in general, there are oodles of languages there (especially the Romance languages) that have, not just generic "he", but also generic adjectives and participles (you have to choose a gender for the adjective to agree with the rest of things). Changing that means changing the language to such an extent that you would end up creating, basically, a new language.

    Also, what Lissou said up here. Languages evolve and change by themselves.
    JoseB

    o/` Ooooh, sweet mystery of liiiiiIIIIIiiife... o/`

  19. - Top - End - #949
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default Re: V's Gender (pronouns)

    Quote Originally Posted by MickJay View Post
    My only problem with PC is that it sometimes goes too far for its own good, creating a problem that wasn't even there.
    Everybody does that, the only difference is that anti-PC is more accepted, and therefore tend to do this even more, since there are fewer repercussions. I think complaining about some people inventing new words that suit their purpose better, is creating a problem where there is none. Some people like a more precise language than English allows for right now, so they use new words to express their meaning, it doesn't have to be a problem (or an oppressive show of political correctness) unless you make it one.
    I know some people who find using some PC words unnecessary, since for them, the artificial introduction of new terms in place of offensive ones is counterproductive: the new words are often being used in a mocking manner, thus making them more insulting than the old ones.
    And some people find the new words practical. That's usually how new words get introduced to begin with – someone find the current options lacking, so they invent new words. So you don't find the current options lacking, good for you, but what's the big deal about some people choosing to describe a person of unknown gender as something other than 'he'?
    I support the principles behind PC, but I've just seen too many cases where its forceful application did more harm than good (which goes to show that even a good thing can be made bad when it's poorly executed).
    And I've seen too many cases where accusations of PCness is just a cheap excuse to politicise something while pretending you're not the one doing it. I can't think of any principle that hasn't been misused, but I think it's extremely telling which principles are given the hardest time because of it.
    On a different note, I used to have long hair for some time, and it happened to me a few times to be called in a way that implied I was of the female sex; it was hardly a reason to take offence, I mean, if I look like something and get called by that name, it's only natural. I don't know how it works in case of people whose sex is undefined or difficult to identify, but I know that if I was in such a situation, I'd get more offended by being called with an artificial, made up word that only underlined the issue (if it was an issue for me in the first place) than with a wrong, but perfectly ordinary one.
    Please reread this thread, and take special notice of when someone mentions 'offence'. You'll see that it's pretty much exclusively used as an accusation by the people against nonstandard language. The only time I recall seeing someone else bring it up, was the comment about referring to a group of people of both genders with the male pronoun, which is a different issue. Believe it or not, there are other reasons for preferring nonstandard language than a wish not to offend, and there are other implications than simply mistaking people's gender.
    As a non-native speaker, I can say that invented words just make the language even more confusing, especially that many of the non-native speakers are not even aware of the problem(s) that caused the new words to be invented in the first place; people learn basic meanings of the words first, and subtle nuances are understood only much later on. Sometimes when there are a few expressions for the same person/thing/concept in English and one is labelled as more PC, it turns out that its exact counterpart in other language is actually more offensive there, while the equivalent of the English non-PC word is a perfectly acceptable and ordinary. There's really enough confusion without introducing of the new words
    Yeah, it'd be so much easier if we just switched to newspeak instead, then we wouldn't have to put up with all those words Seriously though, new words happen, that's just how languages work. I'm far more confused and annoyed by American ghetto-slang than a few pronouns.

  20. - Top - End - #950
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default Re: V's Gender (pronouns)

    Quote Originally Posted by Lissou View Post
    Some people see it that way. I've always seen it the other way, flattering for women. Kind of "we use masculine for neutral (when both are present) so males or nothing is the same, but females are truly special and deserve a word on their own". See what I mean?
    Both interpretations work, of course, and most likely neither are true. I doubt that much thought was given into it to begin with, it's a language, they evolve, they're not created from scratch with logic.
    But I can't really find any precedent for mentioning only the least important group of people. It's pretty much unanimously the other way around. For instance, in 'A Knight's Tale' Geoffrey Chaucer introduces Will with the words “My lords, my ladies..... and everybody else here not sitting on a cushion!”. This is shocking because traditionally, the lords and ladies (the important people) are the only ones addressed. In a crowd of peasants, it's fine to address the peasants, but as soon as a noble is present, s/he can't be ignored, and has to be addressed. On the other hand, it's perfectly acceptable to ignore the peasants in a mixed crowd, because in a crowd made up of both nobles and commoners, the nobles are all that matter.

    Likewise, the tradition of introducing women by the name, and sometimes title, of their husband (e.g. Mrs. carpenter John Smith), stems from the perception that women are just an extension of their husband, who owns all their property and speaks for both of them. One of the arguments against granting women the right to vote, was that then married men would have two votes. The idea that women were independent beings, with thoughts and opinions other than what their husbands dictated, simply wasn't considered a possibility, and the language reflected that. The same can be seen among Muslim extremists. In the Bin Laden family, women are addressed by the name of their oldest son, and I've read that several places in Afghanistan, soldiers run into the problem of women who have no name of their own, or at least wont be addressed by it. You can try to tell me it's because the Taleban honours women, but quite frankly, I'm not buying it.
    Quote Originally Posted by JoseB View Post
    The thread began dealing with new pronouns in the English language, so that is why I took it as an example.

    It is true that the "inclusive he" was codified as such in an 1850 act of parliament in the UK. However, that hasn't eliminated (at all) the use of, for instance, "singular they", which is accepted in plenty of manuals of style (the Chicago Manual of Style, for instance).

    Also, that act of parliament codified only *how language should be used in parlamentary publications*. It had no pretension to introduce changes in the English language per se. It can be said that the 1850 act reflected certain usage at the time.
    And where's the difference between that, and what people who prefer gender neutral pronouns do? As far as I know, no one has suggested sending out the language police to dictate anyone's language, the only issue, is that some people have made new words (like people have done so many times before) because they find the current range of expression lacking. My guess is that singular 'they' was a lot more accepted before the resolutions in favour of gender neutral male pronouns (talk about a contradiction), than a century after.
    Final comment: If you are mentioning languages in general, there are oodles of languages there (especially the Romance languages) that have, not just generic "he", but also generic adjectives and participles (you have to choose a gender for the adjective to agree with the rest of things). Changing that means changing the language to such an extent that you would end up creating, basically, a new language.
    I thought you were just talking about languages that went extinct on the initiative of the native speakers? That doesn't really have anything to do with pronouns. What I'm talking about here (since you brought it up), is the much more general issue of when and how languages are 'allowed' to change in your opinion. Because if they can't adopt new words because some people suggest new words, and other people start using them, how so? And what of the languages that actually do change because of this? Aren't they 'real' languages?

  21. - Top - End - #951
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Somewhere in NL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: V's Gender (pronouns)

    Argh, I am sitting at my office right now and I have not much time to write... So this will be short(ish) and I won't be able to come back for at least 24 hours.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThunderCat View Post
    <...>My guess is that singular 'they' was a lot more accepted before the resolutions in favour of gender neutral male pronouns (talk about a contradiction), than a century after.
    No. Singular "they" still is as "popular" as it has been, and there was no particular decline in use after 1850, very particularly in spoken language (which is the one that tends to mark the path of language evolution).

    Quote Originally Posted by ThunderCat View Post
    I thought you were just talking about languages that went extinct on the initiative of the native speakers? That doesn't really have anything to do with pronouns. What I'm talking about here (since you brought it up), is the much more general issue of when and how languages are 'allowed' to change in your opinion. Because if they can't adopt new words because some people suggest new words, and other people start using them, how so? And what of the languages that actually do change because of this? Aren't they 'real' languages?
    No, I thought we were talking about languages in general. The "extinction" thing was in response to your comment about "how would it feel if you saw your language going extinct" a few posts ago.

    Languages are neither "allowed" nor "disallowed" to change, in my opinion. Languages change by themselves at their own pace. And changes depend on what might be called "linguistic inertia".

    It is one thing to change (or extinguish) a language spoken by 2000 people (or spoken by 100 people, like the English spoken in the egalitarian commune of Twin Oaks in Virginia -- the people living there use gender-neutral "co", but then it is a community that chooses who comes in to live there in the basis of acceptance of the rules). It is a very different one to change a language spoken by 400 million people (or close to 2 billion globally, if we count 2nd-language speakers as well). In the latter case, change will happen, but will happen at the pace *set by the language itself*.

    Of course, there are historical examples of languages that changed by "some people suggesting new stuff". But these were, practically always, cases of:

    -orthographical reform (which doesn't affect the spoken language).
    -reforms and changes taking place in authoritarian societies, where the people doing the changes were "higher ups".

    Example of the former: Many along history. The Spanish ortographic reform of the late 19th century; the Russian post-revolution ortographic reform that eliminated a bunch of letters and simplified spelling; the post-WWII kanji simplification in Japan; the simplification of Chinese writing in mainland China (ongoing since 1964 --the latest document regarding simplified Chinese writing will be published this year, 2009); German spelling reform of 1996...

    Semi-example of the latter: The bevy of new words introduced in the Russian language after the Revolution, made-up words that were created from abbreviations and contractions of full-length expressions and phrases, and which ended up entering common, day-to-day speech to a certain extent (agitprop, komsomol, comintern). One of them still is used as part of the name for a newspaper (Komsomolskaya Pravda).

    [This is a semi-example because there are words coming from the scientific field created in a somewhat similar way that end up becoming standard vocabulary (television, telephone, phonograph) --although in this case, you also tend to have people with some kind of "prestige" (in the scientific-technologic sphere) introducing the words themselves.]

    Nonetheless, both these situations do not alter significantly the underlying grammar and structure of a language. For that, you have to let the language evolve by itself. Pronoun gender (or its lack of it) is part of that aspect of language.
    JoseB

    o/` Ooooh, sweet mystery of liiiiiIIIIIiiife... o/`

  22. - Top - End - #952
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default Re: V's Gender (pronouns)

    Quote Originally Posted by JoseB View Post
    No. Singular "they" still is as "popular" as it has been, and there was no particular decline in use after 1850, very particularly in spoken language (which is the one that tends to mark the path of language evolution).
    That's strange, I've heard several people complain about singular they as confusing, annoying, unnatural, and incorrect, compared to neutral male pronouns. In the wikipedia entry on singular they, it says that:
    A majority of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language usage panel "of some 200 distinguished educators, writers, and public speakers"[32] "reject the use of they with singular antecedents" inasmuch as 82% of the panelists found the sentence "The typical student in the program takes about six years to complete their course work" to be unacceptable.
    The article also mentions that “Current debate relates to not only grammar but also to wider questions of political correctness and equal rights, and in particular, the extent to which language influences thought.”, which matches my experiences. Besides, I'm pretty sure all the manuals advising against (or even forbidding) singular they is bound to have had an effect. I'd be happy to see some documentation if it's not true, and if the use of singular they 50 years ago was as great as 150-200 years ago, and if many people believed singular they was unacceptable before the manuals advising against it.
    No, I thought we were talking about languages in general. The "extinction" thing was in response to your comment about "how would it feel if you saw your language going extinct" a few posts ago.
    So we are talking about languages in general, and how and when they change, and for which reasons?
    Languages are neither "allowed" nor "disallowed" to change, in my opinion. Languages change by themselves at their own pace. And changes depend on what might be called "linguistic inertia".

    It is one thing to change (or extinguish) a language spoken by 2000 people (or spoken by 100 people, like the English spoken in the egalitarian commune of Twin Oaks in Virginia -- the people living there use gender-neutral "co", but then it is a community that chooses who comes in to live there in the basis of acceptance of the rules). It is a very different one to change a language spoken by 400 million people (or close to 2 billion globally, if we count 2nd-language speakers as well). In the latter case, change will happen, but will happen at the pace *set by the language itself*.
    As I mentioned earlier, Iceland has made it a policy to invent new words, and though it doesn't completely prevent the presence of loanwords from other languages, a lot of new, Icelandic words have been implemented this way. Iceland does have a rather small population, but it's still more than a hundred times larger than the tribe you spoke of. I know Denmark and Norway also have language counsels to advise in matters of language, and I'd be very surprised if the other Nordic countries didn't have something similar.

    Also, you've not yet explained how new words get implemented, if they can't get implemented by people suggesting a new word, which gets picked up by others. You use the words 'by itself', or variations thereof, a lot, but what does 'by itself' mean?
    Nonetheless, both these situations do not alter significantly the underlying grammar and structure of a language. For that, you have to let the language evolve by itself. Pronoun gender (or its lack of it) is part of that aspect of language.
    The implementation of gender neutral pronouns wouldn't change the structure of English. English words don't usually change when the 'he' in front of them gets replaced by a 'she' or an 'it', and therefore logically wouldn't change when replaced by a 'zie', or whatever word you prefer, either. It's just an extra word, used by some people when they feel that existing words don't suffice, it's not a fundamental change to the language.

  23. - Top - End - #953
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2008

    Default Re: V's Gender (pronouns)

    RE:PC

    I don't see political correctness as an issue; my argument for using Spivak pronouns is based entirely on aesthetics. Someone else earlier in the thread suggested using 'he'/'she', which is also aesthetically acceptable; however, if one wants to use a pronoun that demonstrates they don't know the gender of the subject, Spivak pronouns are way better than 'Shi', 'Vir' etc.

  24. - Top - End - #954
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: A silly theory about V's gender

    I too have a silly theory, based on the following observations:

    1) Kyrie has a typical "male" body shape (rectangular, not rounded).
    2) Vaarsuvius, when talking to Quarr about the need to rescue his children, uses the phrase "adopted progeny" - so they are not his own children.

    Which makes me think that K and V can't have children on their own, and why would that be?

    Because V is male, too!

    Of course, it's not conclusive evidence, but I think it's likely. Did anybody have the same theory before? (Probably)
    Still waiting for O-Chul to begin a sentence with "Clearly, the Gods want me to..."

    If you read this for the first time, add it to your signature and think of a number. I will try to guess it. Psionic experiment.

  25. - Top - End - #955
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    FeAnPi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sardinia (Italy)
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: A silly theory about V's gender

    Well, as regards the -us termination matter, let me say a thing or two.

    I study Latin, Greek and Sanskrit at the university, so I know something about the subject.

    The nouns in -us are the latin heirs of the Proto-Indo-European thematic stems in -o.
    If we compare Greek, Latin and Sanskrit we found that there are indeed some feminine nouns in -o/u, as a residue of the PIE original subdivision between animated and unanimated nouns.

    However, I did not find yet, in 7 years of study, a feminine name in -o/u, while there are some masculine names in -a.
    The reason is that the -o/u thematic vowel was recognized as characteristic of masculine nouns. If I am not wrong, there are in sanskrit some feminine -a names (heirs of the PIE -o stems), but they are ancient names, not the names of common people: as a matter of fact, the -o/u thematic vowel was no more productive for feminine names.

    It could be an athematic stem? I do not think so... the athematic declension was not very productive, and not for feminine names anyway.

    So, the very name of Vaarsavius is a sufficent proof of the originally meant sex of the character.
    Last edited by FeAnPi; 2009-06-13 at 05:55 AM.

  26. - Top - End - #956
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: A silly theory about V's gender

    A few minutes ago I just wanted to add poeta to agricola and nauta, but is this actually the right way to approach this subject?

    Vaarsuvius is not a Roman, he (still clinging to my theory here) is an elf with a name that does sound roman (although the aa is a bit unusual?)

    Any elf linguists or grammarians in the house?
    Still waiting for O-Chul to begin a sentence with "Clearly, the Gods want me to..."

    If you read this for the first time, add it to your signature and think of a number. I will try to guess it. Psionic experiment.

  27. - Top - End - #957
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2009

    Default Re: A silly theory about V's gender

    Actually, by Races of the Wild, Vaarsuvius may be female.

    The male suffix "lis" (breeze) turns into female "elis", "fel" (lake) turns into "afel", "tas" (wall/ward) turns into "itas", "dar" turns into "odar" or "adar", "sel" to "asel", etc. The gender-neutral suffix "us" means cousin or kin; but if it were modified the way other feminine translations are, it would become -ius or something similar.

  28. - Top - End - #958
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    daggaz's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2006

    Default Re: A silly theory about V's gender

    Not to mention, does Rich know so much about latin, who's to say he is following the rules? Mind you, I am firmly in the camp of "V was obviously originally intended to be male."

  29. - Top - End - #959
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    FeAnPi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sardinia (Italy)
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: A silly theory about V's gender

    Of course, the name could not be Latin at all...

    But, according to Latin, it is a male name: there are some male -a stems, yes, but there are not feminine names of people in -u.

    Actually, there is only a way to discorver the real actual sex of Vaarsavius: read the comic in which it will be revealed.

  30. - Top - End - #960
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location

    Default Re: A silly theory about V's gender

    I think the evidence is pretty clear: Vaarsuvius is
    Spoiler
    Show
    True Neutral
    If a tree falls in the forest and the PCs aren't around to hear it... what do I roll to see how loud it is?

    Is 3.5 a fried-egg, chili-chutney sandwich?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •