Some people state that the "-'s" ending that makes a noun possessive, e.g. "Javi's tea," was an abbreviation of the pronoun "his," and that "his" was used in this way because women were all possessions of men. — javi2541997
's
suffix forming the genitive or possessive singular case of most Modern English nouns; its use gradually was extended in Middle English from Old English -es, the most common genitive inflection of masculine and neuter nouns (such as dæg "day," genitive dæges "day's"). The "-es" pronunciation is retained after a sibilant.
Old English also had genitives in -e, -re, -an, as well as "mutation-genitives" (boc "book," plural bec), and the -es form never was used in plural (where -a, -ra, -na prevailed), thus avoiding the verbal ambiguity of words like kings'.
In Middle English, both the possessive singular and the common plural forms were regularly spelled es, and when the e was dropped in pronunciation and from the written word, the habit grew up of writing an apostrophe in place of the lost e in the possessive singular to distinguish it from the plural. Later the apostrophe, which had come to be looked upon as the sign of the possessive, was carried over into the plural, but was written after the s to differentiate that form from the possessive singular. By a process of popular interpretation, the 's was supposed to be a contraction for his, and in some cases the his was actually "restored." [Samuel C. Earle, et al, "Sentences and their Elements," New York: Macmillan, 1911] — Online Etymology Dictionary
In the preface, the author indicated he had alternated using "she," and "he;" and "him" and "her" in different sections of the text — T Clark
The technical term for this theory is "bullshit". Let's get technical about 's. — BC
Ola! Can you give me the reference about your OP and the rest so that I can know what you two are talking about?I understand that you would have felt upset, but yes the quotes I shared in my OP are real and they are defended by some "specialists" in this matter... The paper I had read yesterday, ... Interesting and good arguments to all of those who wants to destroy a language and its lexicon — javi2541997
Thank you for using me as a reference :smile:I guess Alkis Piskas can help us to make deep arguments towards this debate using and understanding an old language/lexicon as Greek. — javi2541997
An example - I remember reading a non-fiction psychology book I had heard good things about. In the preface, the author indicated he had alternated using "she," and "he;" and "him" and "her" in different sections of the text — T Clark
This miraculous birth was celebrated by 'constructivists' who think gender and sex is a social invention. This nonsense would be bad enough if 'child-bearing men' only appeared in marginal academic discussions, but no -- "pregnant person" is a usage of National Public Radio and the New York Times (maybe not the New York Post.) — BC
Ola! Can you give me the reference about your OP and the rest so that I can know what you two are talking about? — Alkis Piskas
More on Latinx: — BC
BTW, Old English was as gendered as modern German. Most of the gendered forms were discarded starting around 1100 years ago, as Old English evolved into Middle English and as Middle English evolved into Modern English, about 600 years ago--give or take 15 minutes. — BC
I can undestand that the construction of "'s" alludes to sexism, after I read the following etymology in Wiktionary:I started this OP with the aim to make constructive arguments against all of those who want to destroy language and lexicon just for "gender" or feminists issues. — javi2541997
It seems to happen, as might well be expected, that social inequalities and prejudices are enshrined in the languages we inherit. — unenlightened
It's like the people who want to destroy the statues of the false heroes of the past. Those statues are the monuments to human stupidity, greed, and gullibility. We need to keep those statues around to remind us what to watch out for today, and tomorrow — Pantagruel
defilnes "Latino" as (1) "A native or inhabitant of Latin America" and (2) "A person of Latin American origin living in the U.S." What's the problem with it? Gender is not involved at all. — Alkis Piskas
Language is an organic product of our collective minds. — Pantagruel
Lexical and grammatical structures are based on logic and they were established with the aim of "writing well" and put some norms in the vocabulary — javi2541997
All Latin languages --Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, French-- have endings. English and Greek languages have too. In Greek, even the second names are different for male-female persons.The problem with Spanish words - according to some authors - is the fact that we have "gender" endings. — javi2541997
Of course. As far as I am concerned, it's the first time I heard about it. Is it used for any other language than Spanish?[Re "x" ending] I also think it is stupid and lacks of logical value, even disrespects the integrity of Spanish language... — javi2541997
social inequalities and prejudices are enshrined in the languages we inherit. We all, here, inherit the language of the British Empire, and its legacies of racist, sexist, classist, and otherwise offensive attitudes. Overcoming these is difficult and has not happened just because the inequalities in the written law may have largely been removed. Old habits die hard. — unenlightened
Of course. As far as I am concerned, it's the first time I heard about it. Is it used for any other language than Spanish? — Alkis Piskas
Once I used just "he" in expressing some thought in a comment in TPF and I got a bad reaction from a female member! — Alkis Piskas
The Greek language does not have any of these problems. It has 3 genders. The neuter gender takes a different ending than the one for male and female names and adjectives. This allows to use that gender to cpver both male and female cases. — Alkis Piskas
Moral of the story: There's always a linguistic solution if one does not want to sound sexist! :smile: — Alkis Piskas
What if changes were proposed that were based on a thorough understanding of the language—would you then think the changes were acceptable? — Jamal
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.