|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] | ||||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Ouch!
But you're right. As a mentalist, words ARE the tools of my trade, just as in my previous profession as an attorney over twenty years ago. Good thoughts, Bob |
|||||||||
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-03-10 15:47, mastermindreader wrote: While people may infer a difference, I disagree that there's an implication of difference. |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
So if a doctor is also an actor we can infer they are male - or at least tend to present themselves as that gender in public.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-03-10 22:28, S2000magician wrote: From Common Errors of English Usage: Quote:
These two words [imply/infer], which originally had quite distinct meanings, have become so blended together that most people no longer distinguish between them. If you want to avoid irritating the rest of us, use “imply” when something is being suggested without being explicitly stated and “infer” when someone is trying to arrive at a conclusion based on evidence. “Imply” is more assertive, active: I imply that you need to revise your paper; and, based on my hints, you infer that I didn’t think highly of your first draft. http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/imply.html Since "imply" is used when something is being suggested without being explicitly stated, as in "the word actress carries the implication that what an actress does is somehow different from what actors do," I suggest that my use of the term is acceptable. The word implies, the reader infers. |
|||||||||
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-03-10 20:49, LobowolfXXX wrote: A few years ago I attended a series of workshops for CFA and CPA instructors. In one workshop they asked if someone would be willing to give a 10-minute extemporaneous talk (on any topic), and then get critiqued by the rest of the instructors. I volunteered, and, although I originally intended to teach them the quadratic formula, settled on a talk about risk management. In the course of the talk I gave them two scenarios and asked which was riskier: most got it wrong. I mentioned that when I had been interviewed to teach risk management at UCI, one of the women who had interviewed me (who is well-known and well-respected in risk management circles) had also gotten the answer wrong. In my critique, one of the instructors was adamant that I shouldn't have referred to the errant interviewer as "she" because her sex wasn't important. He was quite serious. (Another was upset that I told them that they'd gotten the answer wrong; apparently instead of asking them which scenario was riskier, I was supposed to nurse them along with clues until they all got it right. Silly me, I thought that I was dealing with adults, not kindergarteners with self-esteem problems.) |
|||||||||
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-03-10 22:38, mastermindreader wrote: I'm quite well aware of the difference between "imply" and "infer"; you know that from the way I used them. You assert that word implies a difference between what a female actor (actress) does and what a male actor; I assert that it implies no such thing. I believe that it implies a difference of sex, nothing more. |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
To continue the pedantry-
So we both agree that the word actress does in fact carry an implication, and that any inference as to exactly what it implies comes from the mind of the reader. We just make different inferences when we read the word. In other words, my original use of the word "implication," with which you took issue, was entirely correct. |
|||||||||
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-03-10 22:52, mastermindreader wrote: I never took issue with your use of the word "implication"; I took issue with your suggestion that that the difference implied pertains to the nature of what the people do. |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Of course, we are just making different inferences. Neither is more valid than the other. But the fact remains that many women prefer to be referred to as "actors" because that gender neutral term describes what they do rather than what sex they are, which they see as secondary. The term "actress," on the other hand, equates what they do with their sex, which is, essentially, irrelevant.
Again, as I said earlier, it is simply a matter of preference, and it seems to me that the word "actress" will eventually go the way of "stewardess" etc. |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
I have to go with S2000 here. "Actress," imo, doesn't equate (or conflate) the job with the person's sexual identity; it just gives more information, an actress is someone who:
1) acts; and 2) is female. And 1) doesn't suggest anything different about the acting than it would if the person were male.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
critter Inner circle Spokane, WA 2653 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-03-10 21:02, Jonathan Townsend wrote: And then there's Kabuki with it's onnagata. Of course, then there's Takarazuka to restore some balance.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Kabuki is not part of our culture - even though some manip folks get close in a "vogue" sense.
In our culture, show business folks is also linked to ... well "workers" if you will.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-03-10 23:26, LobowolfXXX wrote: All I am saying is that there are actors, both male and female, who view this differently, who infer something else from the word. If a woman prefers to be called an actor, rather than an actress, I have absolutely no problem with that and understand her reasoning. Likewise, if she prefers to be called an "actress" I have no problem with that either. I think it's interesting, though, that the word "comedienne," referred to in an early post, is slowly disappearing in favor of the gender neutral "comedian." Times change whether we agree with the changes or not. Good thoughts, Bob |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
I wish they'd up their game to "comic"
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
I always used "comic," and it was the most common among other people I knew who did standup, but it's probably a regional thing.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
critter Inner circle Spokane, WA 2653 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-03-10 23:45, Jonathan Townsend wrote: Yeah I was trying to say the all-male theater traditions aren't unique to our cultural history is all.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Interesting change there from females - to yarō-kabuki then back to mixed as it is today according to the Wikipedia and my eastern studies class long ago.
Quote: . Much of its appeal in this era was due to the ribald, suggestive themes featured by many troupes...
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
critter Inner circle Spokane, WA 2653 Posts |
A bit more than just suggestive if one goes as far as the Yujo Kabuki
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers |
|||||||||
stoneunhinged Inner circle 3067 Posts |
What I dislike about this debate (and similar ones) is the presumption that gender distinctions in English demonstrate some kind of sexist bias. As Lobo pointed out, other languages have gender distinctions much more thoroughly built in to them; does that make their cultures more sexist?
Twenty years ago I used to teach a course for 700 to 800 students with some basic writing instruction as part of the curriculum. Well folks, a class that large means the textbook sales representatives are a-gonna come a-knocking on your door--and come they did. Back then I was (ahem!) just a wee bit more conservative than I am today, and it disturbed me that all the normal writing handbooks (like Harbrace and so on) had gone the route of advocating gender-neutral language. So I tried to find a handbook that didn't have it, and I complained to each of the sales reps that this was important to me, and that they wouldn't get the sale until the books stopped being politically correct. They looked at me as if I were mentally deficient. Which I very well might be, but not for that reason. The punchline: when the fourth edition of Strunk and White came out, the main change from the third edition was... ...yep, you guessed it. They jumped on the gender-neutral bandwagon. *sigh* It's a good think that I don't care as much as I used to. |
|||||||||
critter Inner circle Spokane, WA 2653 Posts |
There's a strong emphasis on gender neutrality in the APA. I've been used to having to remain concious of it in papers and presentations from the start so I'm used to it.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Degrading the language so that we can no longer think (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.06 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |