The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

record Options
Tara2
Posted: Thursday, January 3, 2019 3:11:56 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/8/2017
Posts: 541
Neurons: 2,520
Hi
Can I omit "record"?
"The 20th century is heir to the most memorable events in world history--skyrocketing population, fantastic advances in medicine, science, and technology, two world wars and, shamefully, the greatest stain on the record of mankind, the Holocaust."
RuthP
Posted: Thursday, January 3, 2019 3:36:56 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/2/2009
Posts: 5,387
Neurons: 80,038
Location: Drain, Oregon, United States
Tara2 wrote:
Hi
Can I omit "record"?
"The 20th century is heir to the most memorable events in world history--skyrocketing population, fantastic advances in medicine, science, and technology, two world wars and, shamefully, the greatest stain on the record of mankind, the Holocaust."

You would need to remove "the record of" in order to have a sentence that made sense. The meanings would be related, but not the same.

A "stain on the record of mankind" indicates a shameful event. It is a blot on the record, or one might say a blot on (or in) the history of humankind. (Humankind being preferable today, as opposed to mankind, which is now considered male-preferential.) It was a shameful event, which we must take care to ensure never happens again. (Hah. Much luck we have had with that so far.)

A "stain on (hu)mankind" indicates a permanent blot on all of us as a species. A kind of original sin of which we who were born after the fact are still primally guilty.
Tara2
Posted: Thursday, January 3, 2019 3:51:35 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/8/2017
Posts: 541
Neurons: 2,520
RuthP wrote:
Tara2 wrote:
Hi
Can I omit "record"?
"The 20th century is heir to the most memorable events in world history--skyrocketing population, fantastic advances in medicine, science, and technology, two world wars and, shamefully, the greatest stain on the record of mankind, the Holocaust."

You would need to remove "the record of" in order to have a sentence that made sense. The meanings would be related, but not the same.

A "stain on the record of mankind" indicates a shameful event. It is a blot on the record, or one might say a blot on (or in) the history of humankind. (Humankind being preferable today, as opposed to mankind, which is now considered male-preferential.) It was a shameful event, which we must take care to ensure never happens again. (Hah. Much luck we have had with that so far.)

A "stain on (hu)mankind" indicates a permanent blot on all of us as a species. A kind of original sin of which we who were born after the fact are still primally guilty.

Thank you Ruthp for the good explanation :)
Aha, "record" means "history" here, right?
NKM
Posted: Thursday, January 3, 2019 4:04:45 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/14/2015
Posts: 5,083
Neurons: 290,973
Location: Corinth, New York, United States
I don't like hearing complaints about "mankind" being sexist.

It's a slippery slope. If we change "man" to "human", then I suppose we should change "human" to "hu-person". But wait! "Hu-person?" Let's make that "hu-per-offspring" instead. That way nobody should accuse us of being politically incorrect, since they won't be able to figure out what we're saying.

FounDit
Posted: Thursday, January 3, 2019 4:23:32 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,501
Neurons: 54,140
NKM wrote:
I don't like hearing complaints about "mankind" being sexist.

It's a slippery slope. If we change "man" to "human", then I suppose we should change "human" to "hu-person". But wait! "Hu-person?" Let's make that "hu-per-offspring" instead. That way nobody should accuse us of being politically incorrect, since they won't be able to figure out what we're saying.



A "man" after my own heart...rotflmao...Applause Applause Applause

We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Romany
Posted: Friday, January 4, 2019 6:15:42 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 15,371
Neurons: 48,249
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

Nk - "I don't like hearing complainsts about "mankind" being sexist."

Well I don't like the fact that "literally" has been turned into an intensifier.

However, the English language changes whether we like the changes or not. There is often a resistance by older people to accept change but one doesn't have to be a linguist to know that this doesn't affect the way our language evolves. Older people reach their allotted span and pop their clogs taking their resistance with them. And the children who have been taught from their earliest schooldays using the terms, vocabulary and idioms that were so upsetting to portions of another generation grow up unaware that things were ever any different.

Unlike FD, I'm not in the habit of throwing myself to the floor and excercising my arse in fits of hilarity when I come across people who hold different views to mine. However, if I were, I'd be squirming around in paroxysms at the thought that a small group of elderly blokes in their twilight years imagine that their likes and dislikes have any bearing on the evolution of the English language.
RuthP
Posted: Friday, January 4, 2019 2:14:59 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/2/2009
Posts: 5,387
Neurons: 80,038
Location: Drain, Oregon, United States
NKM wrote:
I don't like hearing complaints about "mankind" being sexist.

It's a slippery slope. If we change "man" to "human", then I suppose we should change "human" to "hu-person". But wait! "Hu-person?" Let's make that "hu-per-offspring" instead. That way nobody should accuse us of being politically incorrect, since they won't be able to figure out what we're saying.

Well, I understand your concern about awkward words, however as a woman (a female man, because a man, of course, is a person or a human, but, as a female, one is not really a member of humanity unless the males agree to accede that status to you.) I am not a man. If I am a fire fighter, I am not a fireman; that term does not include me; I am not a man.

"Human" remains a problem. It has as its root male person and that does not include me. I understand this is difficult for one who is male to grasp at a gut level. It is quite one thing to understand and agree with feminism at an intellectual or academic level. It is quite another thing to know at a gut level (and from experience) that unless one continues to relatively overtly remind others that one is a fully functioning, competent person, one will be accorded second class status. Period.

It is wearing to have to insist on one's personhood and competence all the time. And I, particularly considering my age and the society in which I grew up, was relatively sheltered from this growing up. Certainly, the assumption within my family was I would do anything I wished as an adult. This cannot, however, shield one from the societal milieu. One is exposed to the assumption of second class status in everything from children's cartoons, to advertising, to fiction, to history. And that is only considering assumptions. It does not speak to the overt discrimination one will experience.

It is very easy for those who are already accorded full personhood, those who are the societal standard for what "person" is to say "Oh, but there is no discrimination. Of course this includes you." It is meant well, but No, it does NOT "include" me.

I am a person in my own right. I do not need to be admitted to a male humanity in order to be a person. I do not need to be a "female man". I am already a person and no one has the right to try to tell me it's OK, that I am a person because they, male, are granting me honorary inclusion in the male-approved personhood. Because that is what it means. It is meant well. It does not speak to the fact that I am a standard for what "person" is. It is unnecessary to meet or be included in the male person-standard.

So, yes, I understand your complaints about complexity. Still, no, the concerns about language are not trivial. Word-complexity does not quite reach the same level as a problem as does lack of recognition of personhood.

Interestingly, the objection regarding "person" is incorrect: the root has nothing to do with sons or males. The root on that one has to do with persona, related to character by the sound (son) coming through the mask in a play, the mask representing the character, persona, being played. There is some (not fully agreed upon) thought that Persephone may be the root, so to speak, of the root. If true (or even if perceived as true) that would obviate any male bias.

This is also true of "female", which has as its root person who suckles in proto Indo-European.

The complexity solution is easy, though I have, as yet, been unsuccessful in promulgating the change: change -man for -mun. I can hear it now: "But that's not going to make any difference. Everyone will know it's just a change from 'man'", and that is true. But in two or three or four generations, it will not be true. It will no longer be at the forefront of anyone's mind, it will simply mean "person" without any sex or gender assumption. It will be noted and debated only on sites like this, where the nerds all want to know where things came from and how they changed.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Saturday, January 5, 2019 2:23:12 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 31,634
Neurons: 190,137
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
I'm not a nerd, I'm a free geek!

Sorry, couldn't resist!

I try, and I read most of my posts and change 'he' to 'one' where appropriate, and so on.
It's not easy changing a whole education - and the 'singular they' still grates, probably due to sore knuckles and the injunction "NO! 'They' is plural! I am, you are, he/she or it is, THEY ARE!" from junior school teachers.


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Romany
Posted: Sunday, January 6, 2019 6:27:04 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 15,371
Neurons: 48,249
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
But the thing is, Drago, that neither you, nor Thar, nor JJ, were brought up to consider women as inferior. It really is just adapting to a different vocabulary usage for you: it's not trying to adjust to (or staunchly resist) a whole "new" societal imperitive.

The discussion which centred around the "Presidents" famous "Pussy" conversation here on TFD sorted out the men from the boys for me and for Hope - the two of us being the only two women who have stuck it through thick and thin continuously here on the Forum. It became startlingly clear that those men who were smirkingly dismissing the whole 8th grade conversation as "locker-room talk" (a concept other developed nations left behind couple of generations ago)were the ones who hollered loudest against non-gendered language...and the whole concept of woman's "person-hood".

We were startled to find the same conversations, objections, ideas coming from male posters here that we thought had all been sorted back in the day.It was like time travel!

It's only been in the last two years that I myself realised that there is a whole cadre of older men whom the rest of the world thought had long disapeared: the Gender Warriors of America! Still fighting, 40 and 50 years on, for the world of their youth where women were slotted into "their place". And choosing one of their ilk as "President" gives them all the support they need to voice their outmoded, divisive, "Them and Us" rhetoric against women. Even when the most foul-mouthed "Leader" of all time called another politician "disgusting" for using the same language as he does, they sagely agree - because she was a woman.

While everybody else in the world was either falling about laughing at the ridiculousness of this statement, or gasping at the stunning, overwhelming, public hypocracy of it!

This is such a ridiculous subject for discussion - 60 years on! The world - apart from this little handfull of nostalgic nasties - has moved on. It's 2019 and the recent elections have illustrated that, despite people who think its ridiculous to use "they" as singular; or to call a "Policeman" a Police Officer; or for a woman to use whatever language she likes; their country is on the way to being carried, albeit kicking and squirming, into the contemporary world.

Now that the nasty underbelly of this group of men has been exposed to the whole world on a silver platter by their chosen representative, I'll be damned if I'm going to go on accepting their way of thinking as a valid point of view. It's regressive, it's pointless, it's bloody insulting, and it's enough already!

Language has changed. People's world-views have changed. Get over it - Canute didn't succeed and neither will these dinosaurs. America itself has shown now that they want to move up to the same standards as other developed nations: you guys might still live to see America one day even having a woman as Leader!

Those who hanker for the good ole days of date-rape and quiescence and "No" means "Yes" might remember some words from a song of their youth "Get out of the new world if you can't lend a hand...."


Jyrkkä Jätkä
Posted: Friday, January 11, 2019 5:19:15 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 42,652
Neurons: 465,824
Location: Helsinki, Southern Finland Province, Finland
I think you're all good guys:Rom, Hope, and Ruth.
;-}


In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.