Posted on 06/10/2017 8:44:26 AM PDT by rktman
Abuse of language is essential to perpetuating the phony debate.
There are THREE genders, and they are qualities of language; modifiers of nouns, Not living things!
But there are only two sexes in mammal biology, plus an endless number of chromosomal and DNA random errors producing what used to be called "freaks."
What did Einstein say are the two most abundant things in the universe?
You just take the g outta joy
Oh, goodness, how it annoys me when people make this claim. The word "gender" is not a grammatical term that has no other usage; if it were, then the word would hardly be known in English, since we do not use that particular grammatical construct. The concept that gender applies to grammar exists because thousands of years ago, people inventing language believed that natural objects had to be classified into various groups. One of the classification groups they came up with was to classify objects as being male or being female. When someone speaking a language that uses grammatical gender refers to an object as female, they really think of it as female, just like an animal or human is female.
Learning a language that applies gender to inanimate objects is difficult for native English speakers, because we are not taught from birth to assign qualities of maleness or femaleness to objects. In English, gender refers, with few exceptions, to living things that actually do have a biological gender. (My car and motorcycle are both females.)
I was referring to how English was taught to me as a child. There are plenty of references that agree with me that it was considered a grammatical term and it was considered incorrect to speak of an actual person as being of male or female gender. There have been many changes in the use of language since then with one of the most annoying and astounding to me being the use of such absurd terms as “500 percent less”.
I have often been amazed when some people take seriously the claim that the average temperature of this entire planet over a twelve month span can be measured to an accuracy of at least two places to the right of the decimal. It is as bizarre as claiming to count the number of grains of sand on all the beaches of the world.
I’m a little curious about why the concept of grammatical gender would have been taught to you within the context of English grammar, since we do not classify inanimate objects as male or female? I remember being taught about nouns, verbs, adverbs, etc.—components of English grammar, not the grammar of foreign languages.
What did Einstein say are the two most abundant things in the universe?Smart asses and assholes.
“Scientists” have proven beyond any doubt that if you throw enough cash in the middle of the circle they will croon voodoo chants to get it.
It had nothing to do with inanimate objects, we were taught that gender was a word applied to pronouns. For instance his, he, him were of the masculine gender, men and boys were of the male sex and gender did not apply. She, her, hers were of the feminine gender, women and girls were of the female sex. Theirs, they or them were of the NEUTER gender since they could mean people of either or both SEXES.
You are free to agree or disagree on whether the above is correct, all I said is that this is what was taught to me as a child and I was born five days before D-Day. I have found numerous references online to the same teachings.
To the best of my memory I began to hear far more references to gender rather than sex after the release of the following hit song...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmKJ66X0QvM
Close, but no cigar...
Did Clinton's ex-wife say also that recently too?
LOL!
As a lifelong techie and lifetime professional engineer, I have to take an aspirin every time I see such imbecilities in print.
Is STEM about to morph to STEAM?
Over my dead body!
Sneaking so called "art" into fact-based education would cancel out the entire positive value of the original acronym.
My future intented tag line may have to be used prematurely...
'Are you an "artist?" Get the &%@# away from me and my children! and stay away! I won't even say "please." At sundown find a place outside of town to sleep!'
Don’t be too hard on the artists, I really appreciate REAL art as long as they don’t try to mix it with technology.
Would you believe that I once complained on FR about a post using that “500 percent less” language and got a response from someone explaining to me just how the math was done to arrive at that? I did not respond very politely. I am still trying to come to grips with the idea that someone who believes himself to be educated can take such terms seriously. Apparently he believed that 500 percent less and 80 percent less meant the same thing. What kind of numbskulls are we producing now? I was already aware that most recent college graduates cannot pass my eighth grade final but this business of believing that you can reduce something by 100 percent at which point it disappears but you can reduce it by 500 percent and still have something left is so far out that I would not have expected to see such things written by someone who is not confined for his own protection. Can someone so ignorant actually hold a job?
Please help me understand what you mean here? Are you saying that if we removed all art from human history, we would be better off?
By *art*, I mean, visual arts, music, dance, literature, and maybe architecture. Not sure what you would include.
Without these forms of art, it would be a very dull life.
Art has its place. Science, math has their place. :)
I wouldn’t be able to make dinner without math and science; I’ll serve it with the addition of art. All will live happily ever after. :)
‘Ars longa, vita brevis’
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.