mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
Plague is transmitted to man by fleas from rats. Options
onsen
Posted: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 3:41:04 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/14/2017
Posts: 851
Neurons: 8,819
Hello,

Quote:

Though plague must have existed much earlier, it did not become epidemic until modern times. Plague is transmitted to man by fleas from rats.
NATURAL HISTORY, JANUARY, 1957


About the three phrases 'to man, by fleas, from rats'.
I changed the arrangement of the phrases and obtained the following sentences.

A. Plague is transmitted to man from rats by fleas.
B. Plague is transmitted by fleas from rats to man.
C. Plague is transmitted by fleas to man from rats .
D. Plague is transmitted from rats to man by fleas.
E. Plague is transmitted from rats by fleas to man.

Of the A ~ E sentences, which one(s) is (or are) correct?


Thank you.
thar
Posted: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 3:48:22 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 22,997
Neurons: 93,425
They are all ok. They focus on different things.

Also, some only say for are the vector of transmission.

As a minor point of interest - he original sentence does not exclude the inference the fleas live on the rats. It does not say it explicitly, but it lays out the sentence so as to give it in that order.

They are rat fleas. They may bite humans but they need rats to live. More rats means more fleas. It is only when the rats start to die from the plague that theyhave to resort to biting humans so much.

It is transmitted by fleas. From rats to humans. But they are 'fleas from rats' as well.
taurine
Posted: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 5:08:37 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/20/2016
Posts: 2,659
Neurons: 160,392
Location: South Dublin, Ireland
In relation to the interesting mention of the minor point of interest, I humbly think, that none of the sentences actually excludes the inference leading to the conclusion, that the fleas live on the rats.

I like the coinage 'the vector of transmission'. Really cool, as it has been used here not to explain a mathematical problem.
Sarrriesfan
Posted: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 8:19:53 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/30/2016
Posts: 2,138
Neurons: 13,721
Location: Luton, England, United Kingdom
taurine wrote:
In relation to the interesting mention of the minor point of interest, I humbly think, that none of the sentences actually excludes the inference leading to the conclusion, that the fleas live on the rats.

I like the coinage 'the vector of transmission'. Really cool, as it has been used here not to explain a mathematical problem.


There are some diseases and parasites that have complex life cycles like Toxoplasmosis GondiI that need multiple host organisms in order to survive.
In those cases there is a direct path of the pathogen moving directly from one host to another as part of that cycle.

In other cases such as the Plague the bacteria exists in the flea and it infects either a human or a rat depending on which it bites, but the disease is not passed from the rat to the human via the flea in the same way as Toxoplasmosis.
Ashwin Joshi
Posted: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 9:41:12 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/3/2016
Posts: 1,613
Neurons: 87,244
Location: Jandiāla Guru, Punjab, India
Is it not better to write

Plague is transmitted from rats to man through fleas.

And what about active voice? Since fleas are the carriers of the dread germs Yersinia pestis which cause plague, can we write in the following manner?

Fleas transfer Yersinia pestis germs from rat to man which causes plague disease.


Views solicited.
Romany
Posted: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 9:52:19 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 17,910
Neurons: 58,164
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

As you will see, the article was written in 1957.There's been many changes in language since then - some only minor, others of more importance.

The word "man" is being used here to refer to all humans. It's no longer used this way.

The majority of people today reading a title like that would wonder if it was ONLY men who suffered from "the Black Death" and that women & kids were immune!

You'll notice that, automatically, Thar wrote: "It is transmitted by fleas. From rats to humans" i.e. to every human, including women and children.

You will often come across this use of "man" from older writing. In order not to confuse whether it means only male people or all people, the convention, when quoting a piece written like this, is to enclose the word "man" in square brackets. "Plague is transmitted to [man] by fleas from rats." This is because when you are quoting someone else it has to be reproduced exactly as it was said/written.

If you aren't quoting you use the correct word as Thar did and say: "This is an article about the transmission of plague from rats to humans."
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 11:11:13 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 14,617
Neurons: 69,653
Romany wrote:

As you will see, the article was written in 1957.There's been many changes in language since then - some only minor, others of more importance.
Who is it that is always chiding people for bringing politics into a language discussion? Oh, yeah, it's you, Romany. And here you are doing the very thing you criticize others for doing. But it's okay when you do it, right?

The word "man" is being used here to refer to all humans. It's no longer used this way.
Not true.

The majority of people today reading a title like that would wonder if it was ONLY men who suffered from "the Black Death" and that women & kids were immune!
The majority? What evidence do you have for that statement?

You'll notice that, automatically, Thar wrote: "It is transmitted by fleas. From rats to humans" i.e. to every human, including women and children.

You will often come across this use of "man" from older writing. In order not to confuse whether it means only male people or all people, the convention, when quoting a piece written like this, is to enclose the word "man" in square brackets. "Plague is transmitted to [man] by fleas from rats." This is because when you are quoting someone else it has to be reproduced exactly as it was said/written.

If you aren't quoting you use the correct word as Thar did and say: "This is an article about the transmission of plague from rats to humans."

No intelligent person would possibly believe that women and children were excluded with the use of "Man" when used this way.
tautophile
Posted: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 1:35:18 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/14/2018
Posts: 1,077
Neurons: 21,899
All five sentences, Onsen, are grammatically correct. In my opinion, though, the original sentence from NATURAL HISTORY, slightly edited, is the best: "Plague is transmitted to humans by fleas from rats."

By the way, "vector" meaning "a means of transmission of a disease" has been around for a long time. It's derived from Latin vector "one who carries or conveys, carrier". The mathematical sense dates from the mid 19th century.
Romany
Posted: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 2:28:45 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 17,910
Neurons: 58,164
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

Nope - no more FD!

I am NOT in the slightest political- something you seem to find impossible to believe. Nevertheless it's the truth and if you knew anything whatsoever about me - and my work - you would join in with all those who find the idea of me - of all the people on this forum - being "political" utterly ridiculous. You can keep repeating it till you're blue in the face...but it's still probably the most hilarious & insane thing that's ever been said about me!

What I am is an educator. One whose reputation in that field led to being invited to darkest (Commuynist!! Argghh!)China to lecture in Universities there.And who was personally given an award, among others, - by the Chinese Government for the "...enlightenment and service to the Youth of China." That's not a boast - it's a couple of lines from my CV - because even you would have to admit (even if it were just to yourself and not out loud) that with all the resources for surveillance available to the Chinese Government, I wouldn't have been able to get within an inch of any students if I had a political bone in my body.So: no more of that bullshit, if you please.

I am also, as you know a writer, - who wouldn't have been able to pay off the mortgage or support my kids had I not been able to appeal to a general audience. So I joined an English forum, along with a lot of other people whose work, interest and spare time involved the English language because, hey, English is my bread and butter and without always continuing to learn more about it and discuss it, and be stimulated, and have a giggle over it, it would not remain so for very long.

I have no idea what field you work in, but it's obvious it has nothing to do with the English language, or of educating or writing or earning a living in it. And it's YOUR inability to see reality in any terms other than the political or the personal which disrupts, misleads, and misinforms now that you have left the forums which you say were the reason for your having joined, and started bullying and introducing your shocking manners, and anti-social behaviours to all those who don't share your thoughts and ideas; taking full advantage of the fact that most of the learners here do not have the language skills to understand your nastiness.

To my comment "The majority of people today reading a title like that would wonder if it was ONLY men who suffered from "the Black Death" and that women & kids were immune!" your response, parroting our consistent appeals to YOU to come up with evidence for the things you say:
"The majority? What evidence do you have for that statement?"

The evidence is in books, in articles, in English courses, University requirements, in the Education Departments of all other English speaking countries. It's in the vocabularies and understanding of all the students and younger people with whom I work, collaborate, chat, socialise and confer, all of whose livelihoods are wrapped up in their skills and knowledge of the English language.

NOTHING I've ever said has the backing of a bunch of good ole boys in some semi-rural state in one county in a one particular country in the world. Do you even understand how vast is the world? How on earth could you possibly assume that you and they set the standards for the rest of the world? What value does your opinion have for the people you respond to:real live people studying for exams, hoping to improve their lives, needing to earn a living for their families? And what smug satisfaction does it give you to know that people could lose marks, fail exams, fail in business interviews because they take your opinion as fact?

What value does MY opinion have on those same people? Exactly the same as yours - bugger all!

Which is the reason that I and all the others (apart from your two equally impolite & abusive mates) do not deal in opinions but in reality and facts. If educators, and people who genuinely want to help students, were to present only the things we personally agree with, then schools, colleges, universities wouldn't survive and the world would go backwards. It's counter-bloody-intuitive so we DON'T DO IT, no matter how often you come interrupting and abusing and embarrassing people with your damned, political opinions.

The word "Man" does NOT stand for humankind. Knowing how to cope with older texts which DO use it, is important for students to know. The fact that you and a bunch of other people don't like this changes nothing. It's invalid. It doesn't matter. That's your opinion...and boy do we all know it. Just as we know your views on women, people with black or brown skin, people from countries other than America, empathy, goodness, the truth and honour. The learners with whom you suddenly started interacting don't know your values, your belief that human beings are all selfish, self-absorbed, are incapable of empathy or morality, are all out for what they can get; and your ingrained belief that "I'm all right, Jack, to hell with you..." is the default position of every single person on the planet. How much respect for your opinions do you think most of them would have if they, like us, had been attacked, abused, hurt, maligned and upset by your "opinions"? wHYU DON'T YUOUY TRYU THAT GARBAGBE OUYT ON THEM AND SEE
tautophile
Posted: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 7:19:00 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/14/2018
Posts: 1,077
Neurons: 21,899
For what it's worth--

"Man" did not originally mean "male human being"--though that is now its main meaning--in Anglo-Saxon or English. It meant "human being regardless of sex". The A-S word for "male human being" was "wer", akin to the Latin "vir"; but "wer" in the sense of male dropped out of English except in the word "werewolf". (However, the word "world", originally "wer-eld", or age of humans, contains the root.)

The A-S word for a "female human being" was "wif" (a neuter noun, cf. German das Weib), which became the English word "wife" and originally had nothing to do with the marital status of the person so called, as in "midwife". "Wif" became affixed to "man" to give "wifman" or "woman", i.e., "female human-human". Another word for "female human being" comes down to us as "queen"; it is derived from the Indo-European root "gwen" that also gave rise to the Greek word gyne, woman, as in "gynecology"

"Human" comes to us through Latin from an Indo-European root *dhghem-, earth, and so can be thought of as "earthling" (as opposed to deity), regardless of sex. The A-S word from that root is guma, which survives, modified, as the "groom" in "bridegroom". ("Bride", a newly-married woman, is a word of uncertain origin. "Groom" in the sense of servant or horse-attendant is not related to "guma".)
TMe
Posted: Thursday, March 26, 2020 12:04:50 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/12/2017
Posts: 886
Neurons: 5,674
onsen wrote;
Quote:

Though plague must have existed much earlier, it did not become epidemic until modern times. Plague is transmitted to man by fleas from rats.
NATURAL HISTORY, JANUARY, 1957


About the three phrases 'to man, by fleas, from rats'.
I changed the arrangement of the phrases and obtained the following sentences.

A. Plague is transmitted to man from rats by fleas.
B. Plague is transmitted by fleas from rats to man.
C. Plague is transmitted by fleas to man from rats .
D. Plague is transmitted from rats to man by fleas.
E. Plague is transmitted from rats by fleas to man.

Of the A ~ E sentences, which one(s) is (or are) correct?

Why controversy about 'man' or 'humans'?

Moreover

[b]As per TFD a man is a human and a human is a man also.

man
,
man
(măn)
n. pl. men (mĕn)
1. .
2. A human regardless of sex or age; a person.


The word ‘Man’ includes humans.

Why shouldn't we stick to the grammar question of the poser or start a new thread concerning the words 'man and human'?
Romany
Posted: Thursday, March 26, 2020 9:46:16 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 17,910
Neurons: 58,164
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

APOLOGY.

Whenever something really gets up my nose I sit down and write a response...and then leave it while I get on with other things. By the time I get back to it I've cooled down and usually delete it: just having expressed it is enough.

That's what happened above...as you can see at the end, it was not meant to be published. It was late at night and I must have flipped the "send" key by mistake.

It's not that I didn't mean what I said, I most certainly did. However, I would not have published it. Though Foundit's personal politics have now seeped into every forum, but most of us try not to reply in kind, but to save it for, as TMe suggested, another thread on politics or philosophy or somewhere.

However, on this subject, I don't think it's worth it. Whatever TFD says, every educated American I have ever worked or collaborated with, accepts that this is now Standard English and has been for many years. No matter whether they agree or disagree, they understand that that's the way the language has gone across the developed world. Foundit's ideas refuse to let him accept this: - that's fine. But that doesn't give him the right to talk absolute rubbish, making personal and wildly inappropriate stories up about those who even mention the subject. Enough!
FounDit
Posted: Thursday, March 26, 2020 12:21:48 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 14,617
Neurons: 69,653
The original post was answered by several posters. Then Romany felt compelled, as she usually does whenever the word "Man" is mentioned, to inject woke politics into the post.

I usually let it go, but as time goes on, it begins to become tedious to see it again and again. She says the "majority" of people think this way. That is simply not true. As she says herself, it is the younger people of the last generation or so who have been convinced to think this way.

It began with the fourth wave of Feminism, circa 1980's, when they sought to change the English language, eliminating such words as manhole, chairman, Mrs., etc. Eliminating the word "Man" to mean all mankind was another goal of the movement. To say the "majority" of people think this way is obviously wrong, since not all women agree with the goals of Feminism on many of their topics. This means only a minority of people agree with these ideas.

That in itself is fine, and while I think it is silly, that is just my opinion. But when a poster consistently tells us how British people in particular don't like to be told what to do, or to be given orders by the use of language, that how one words things is important, I feel compelled to call them out when they do that very thing themselves.

To adopt the attitude that one should be considerate of others in how one says things, and then at the same time, adopt the attitude that one is authorized to tell others what words they may use, seems to me to be the ultimate in hypocrisy, and hubris.

Such people abuse the common decency and generosity of their fellows. We have reached a point where one person can complain about something, and the whole group, of whatever size, is to accommodate the one complainant.

This becomes a tyranny of the weak. As I have said before, a terrible trend has developed whereby the weak are not encouraged to become strong, the strong are encouraged to become weak. Just as a chain is no stronger than its weakest link, a society that practices this kind of behavior becomes a society no stronger than its weakest members. And that, in my opinion, is a pathetic society. It's time to call a halt to this foolishness. And I intend to
do so at every opportunity.
onsen
Posted: Friday, March 27, 2020 5:06:10 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/14/2017
Posts: 851
Neurons: 8,819
Romany wrote:

The majority of people today reading a title like that would wonder if it was ONLY men who suffered from "the Black Death" and that women & kids were immune!


Thank you very much, Romany, for your reply.

The noun 'man' is used here as an uncountable noun. Therefore it means 'people in general'. There is no room for confusion. If it hadn’t meant 'people in general', it would have taken an article.
TMe
Posted: Friday, March 27, 2020 11:49:23 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/12/2017
Posts: 886
Neurons: 5,674
onsen wrote:

Romany wrote:

The majority of people today reading a title like that would wonder if it was ONLY men who suffered from "the Black Death" and that women & kids were immune!


Thank you very much, Romany, for your reply.

The noun 'man' is used here as an uncountable noun. Therefore it means 'people in general'. There is no room for confusion. If it hadn’t meant 'people in general', it would have taken an article.

I agree. AND it's independent of gender, age, caste or creed.Dancing Dancing Dancing
Romany
Posted: Saturday, March 28, 2020 8:14:14 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 17,910
Neurons: 58,164
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

TMe and Onsen,

It's ridiculous to keep on making this a bone of contention simply because ONE native speaker is vociferous in his political leanings and his opinion lines up with your own. Especially as the person concerned has a)no academic qualifications which support an informed use of English, b)is not engaged in international relations, c)has little or no experience of writing as a profession in order to earn their living. True - that applies to millions of people who all have a right to their own opinions. But THEY don't have the temerity to INSIST on their own personal opinions superceding accepted usage.

Here are the UNESCO Guidelines - applicable to ALL members of that organisation irrespective of nationality.
https://en.unesco.org/system/files/guidelines_for_pp_-_annex_3.pdf

This is what is demanded of members of the European Union: Gender-neutral Language in the European Parliament:https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/151780/GNL_Guidelines_EN.pdf

While here's a Hansard extract from the British Parliament: hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-12-12/debates/13121276000394/LegislationGender-NeutralLanguage

This is a sample of basic University Guidelines from the UK:
https://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/ld/all-resources/writing/writing-resources/inclusive - University of Leicester

This one is from an American University: https://www.mtu.edu/policy/development/how-to/19-gender-sensitive-language.pdf: "literary or old-fashioned" - a person of either sex:All men are equal in the sight of the law.
'man and wife' (old-fashioned)

Semantic Plurality:.71...p English collective nouns and other ways of denoting
Gender Across Languages: The linguistic representation of women ...,p.116/7


Here's what a site which is dedicated to writing English says:
"Because most English language readers no longer understand the word "man"to be synonymous with "people," writers today must think more carefully about the ways they express gender in order to convey their ideas clearly and accurately to their readers. (It also supplies one of the "proofs" FD demanded in reference to my statement that most people today don't understand "man" as a collective noun for "people" and was written 27 years ago!)https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01068252#page-1 1993

Here's what an American Learner's Dictionary says: (also supporting my statement that "man" is not recognised by most people as inclusive for "everyone":
"English has changed since the Declaration of Independence was written. Most readers no longer understand the word “man” to be synonymous with “person,” so clear communication requires writers to be more precise. And using gender-neutral language has become standard practice in both journalistic and academic writing, as you’ll see if you consult the style manuals for different academic disciplines (APA, MLA, and Chicago, for example).https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/gender-inclusive-language/

There are - quite literally, thousands of academic articles on this subject but this one is easily digestible and explains the whole development of shifting of language over the past 50 years: :http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/essays/text/carolynray/man.html

Here's a discussion on another language site WITHOUT any political bias: https://www.quora.com/The-English-word-man-also-means-human-being-Is-that-correct

"literary or old-fashioned"
a person of either sex:
All men are equal in the sight of the law.

man and wife (old-fashioned)

And here's one of thousands of essays directed at teachers:
Nicole Amare
Research in the Teaching of English
Vol. 42, No. 2 (Nov., 2007), pp. 163-187

"The traditional use of the word “man”, as in “man’s impact on the environment”, to represent both men and women is seen as out-dated.To argue that “man” truly represents both men and women is undermined by the absurdity of a phrase such as “Some men are female”. "

While, if you would like to get right down to the nitty-gritty there are untold numbers of academic papers/essays/guides like: Semantic Plurality: p71: English collective nouns and other ways of denoting Gender Across Languages: The linguistic representation of women ...,p.116/7

I've done a few short courses on Mechanics. If I were to join a forum dedicated to mechanical engineering do you think it would be valid for me to shout down all the professional and amateur mechanics on that forum and abuse and be impolite to them because they did not accept my "opinions" as fact? Think about it. There's also an idiom you might be familiar with which concerns teaching one's Grandmother to suck eggs!


















FounDit
Posted: Saturday, March 28, 2020 6:38:01 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 14,617
Neurons: 69,653
The lady doth protest too much, methinks


TMe
Posted: Sunday, March 29, 2020 1:15:03 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/12/2017
Posts: 886
Neurons: 5,674
I quit.

God bless you all.
onsen
Posted: Sunday, March 29, 2020 5:43:01 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/14/2017
Posts: 851
Neurons: 8,819
Quote:

"Because most English language readers no longer understand the word "man" to be synonymous with "people," writers today must think more carefully about the ways they express gender in order to convey their ideas clearly and accurately to their readers.


Romany -

I understand that you mean by the above paragraph that the noun 'man' no longer means 'people in general'.
The paragraph surprised me because of the reality I can’t believe with ease.

Thank you very much for this link and the others you introduced.
Wilmar (USA) 1M
Posted: Sunday, March 29, 2020 8:29:24 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/4/2015
Posts: 5,445
Neurons: 1,245,655
Location: Vinton, Iowa, United States
The "woke" rubbish has gotten very, very old.

And to say one more time, NO ONE doesn't understand the use of the word "man" in that context. The argument is ONLY being used to manipulate and bully people. And if someone truly doesn't understand the sentence (fat chance), they had better learn to use a dictionary.
onsen
Posted: Thursday, April 2, 2020 8:13:00 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/14/2017
Posts: 851
Neurons: 8,819
Quote:

man
n. pl. men

Usage Note: Traditionally, many writers have used man and words derived from it to designate any or all of the human race regardless of sex. In fact, this is the oldest use of the word. In Old English the principal sense of man was "a human," and the words wer and wyf (or wæpman and wifman) were used to refer to "a male human" and "a female human" respectively. But in Middle English man displaced wer as the term for "a male human," while wyfman (which evolved into present-day woman) was retained for "a female human." Man also continued to carry its original sense of "a human," resulting in an asymmetric arrangement that many criticize as sexist. Despite the objections to the generic use of man, a solid majority of the Usage Panel still approves of it. For example, the sentence If early man suffered from a lack of information, modern man is tyrannized by an excess of it was acceptable to 79 percent of the Panel in our 2004 survey, and the sentence The site shows that man learned to use tools much earlier than scientists believed possible was acceptable to 75 percent.omitted
man, TFD


About the underlined parts:

Quote:
Despite the objections to the generic use of man, a solid majority of the Usage Panel still approves of it.

The Usage Panel made a sound judgement on the matter.

Quote:
For example, the sentence If early man suffered from a lack of information, modern man is tyrannized by an excess of it was acceptable to 79 percent of the Panel in our 2004 survey, and the sentence The site shows that man learned to use tools much earlier than scientists believed possible was acceptable to 75 percent.

I think these numbers in blue (i.e. 79 percent and 75 percent respectively) should be taken seriously.

Romany
Posted: Saturday, April 4, 2020 10:22:56 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 17,910
Neurons: 58,164
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

Onsen,

Both Foundit and Wilmar belong to the same political party as one other of our regular (or semi-regular in one case) posters. Their comments on this and other questions about language, reflect their political views.

Education however, is a-political. Education deals with facts, not views or opinions. Its job is to present facts and truths. What students DO with these facts and truths is entirely up to them. They can have any opinion they like: in any democracy every person is entitled to their own view. But what can't be done is to ALTER facts.

If this were not so, every educator, everywhere, would be free to teach only their views/opinions and discard/change all the facts which help a person make up their own minds. Stop for just a moment, and try to imagine what such a world would look like! Imagine an instructor who only taught the vocabulary and grammar that THEY liked, or the scientific absolutes which fitted THEIR worldview, or the facts which fitted Their political considerations!

For this reason, all of us who live in Democracies, condemn Governments who allow politics to affect education, and term them "Dictatorships".

Being "educated" is also about learning how to tell truths from opinions. The way this is done is by finding creditable, non-biased proofs for the positions one holds.

Above, I provided proof that the usage of "man" as inclusive of ALL humanity is NOT acceptable - from Global organisations, to Governments, to Universities, to teachers. I also provided factual representations of my statement that many people today don't even know this usage ever existed. It's been two generations since this change, which means that both students today AND their parents have been educated in the days SINCE this change occured. Someone else's opinion simply contradicting this has absolutely no validity. Unless they can offer checkable, verifiable PROOF. Simply following every post of mine, or anyone else's, with a contradiction or a political slogan; or calling me/us names has no educational value to students.

Many learners do not have the English skills to detect HOW its being used - to understand what's acceptable, what isn't, to know when a person seems to be saying something nice, or when they're being insulting, when they are joking and when they are serious. They translate each word literally without understanding how irony, sarcasm, nuance - or politics - work.

Neither have a lot of students been made to understand how the Culture of a language group works because their teachers themselves had little or no idea of how different cultures impact on the way words are used and understood. This cultural understanding is an intrinsic part of learning/understanding ANY language whatsoever.

For this reason Educators have an ethical DUTY not to take advantage of a students lack of understanding in order to present mere personal opinions as truth.

People are free to hold whatever opinion they like. They are NOT free to disregard proof. In order to disagree they MUST provide reputable, non-biased truth. "It IS this" or "It ISN'T this." is ALWAYS an opinion. "It's this because...." and a valid, checkable proof is the truth.

You'll notice how I laid out my post above: each statement was backed up by details, and the details provide access to a REPUTABLE source: education departments, world governments etc. You provided a conversation some people, somewhere, at some time, had together. We have no idea who this Usage Panel were - a political group, a gang of mums, a religious group, non-English speakers, patients in a mental institution. So their opinions/views have no value. They PROVE nothing.We have absolutely no way of knowing whether they are creditable experts in English or not.

My proofs were from some of the most important global organisations, actual Educational Departments in the English-speaking world, etc. So, in order to argue my point, it is up to you - and Foundit and Wilmar - to find proofs from the same sources which would make mine invalid.

If what has been written here doesn't convince you, think about this: have you ever seen posts from any of our other REGULAR native-speaking posters - Thar, Drago, NKM, Ephi, etc. claiming that "Man" is a perfectly acceptable word to mean men, women & children? Or that "Man" (a word meaning a male adult) somehow or other "includes" women? Ponder on the reason for that a while.
TMe
Posted: Saturday, April 4, 2020 10:54:31 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/12/2017
Posts: 886
Neurons: 5,674


Here is the conclusion to the discussion.



Fleas transfer Yersinia pestis germs from rat to Homo Sapiens which causes plague disease.



Fleas transfer Yersinia pestis germs from rat to Homo Sapiens which causes plague disease.


https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Homo+sapiens]https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Homo+sapiens

FounDit
Posted: Saturday, April 4, 2020 11:57:34 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 14,617
Neurons: 69,653
Romany wrote:

Onsen,
Just when I think you are capable of rational thought, you post something like this. I should be surprised, but sadly, I am not. The arrogance and hubris of this kind of thinking is simply amazing.

Both Foundit and Wilmar belong to the same political party as one other of our regular (or semi-regular in one case) posters. Their comments on this and other questions about language, reflect their political views.
Our political affiliations have nothing to do with this; at least mine doesn't, and I think that is true for Wilmar.

For at least a thousand years the words "Man" and "Mankind" have referred to ALL humans, men women and children. It is only in the last several decades that this foolish idea of women and children being omitted has surfaced, promoted by Feminism.

Education however, is a-political. Wrong! Education has always had a political component to it. Ever hear of Communist propaganda, Nazi propaganda, etc.Education deals with facts, not views or opinions. Its job is to present facts and truths. What students DO with these facts and truths is entirely up to them. They can have any opinion they like: in any democracy every person is entitled to their own view. But what can't be done is to ALTER facts.
Yet this is EXACTLY what is done by saying the word "Man" excludes women and children. It never has except in the minds of fools.

If this were not so, every educator, everywhere, would be free to teach only their views/opinions and discard/change all the facts which help a person make up their own minds. Stop for just a moment, and try to imagine what such a world would look like! Imagine an instructor who only taught the vocabulary and grammar that THEY liked, or the scientific absolutes which fitted THEIR worldview, or the facts which fitted Their political considerations!
Which is exactly what you are doing with this foolishness. Centuries of commonly held definition is turned on its head by one small group of people who decided to be offended by it and demanded their opinion become the fact.

For this reason, all of us who live in Democracies, condemn Governments who allow politics to affect education, and term them "Dictatorships".
That's what we'll have if we allow this kind of thinking to take hold, where any complainant can alter the whole society simply by deciding they don't like something.

Being "educated" is also about learning how to tell truths from opinions. The way this is done is by finding creditable, non-biased proofs for the positions one holds.


Above, I provided proof that the usage of "man" as inclusive of ALL humanity is NOT acceptable - from Global organisations, to Governments, to Universities, to teachers. Bullshit! You provided current "woke" politics as "proof". It is no such thing.I also provided factual representations of my statement that many people today don't even know this usage ever existed. So are you saying that ignorance is proof? Sheesh. It's been two generations since this change, which means that both students today AND their parents have been educated in the days SINCE this change occured. The "change" didn't "occur". It was demanded by weak, whiny women who felt themselves "victims" of men. Someone else's opinion simply contradicting this has absolutely no validity. Unless they can offer checkable, verifiable PROOF. Centuries of evidence should suffice to prove that the word "Man" included all humans. Simply following every post of mine, or anyone else's, with a contradiction or a political slogan; or calling me/us names has no educational value to students.
Name-calling, no. Providing historical evidence, yes.

Many learners do not have the English skills to detect HOW its being used - to understand what's acceptable, what isn't, to know when a person seems to be saying something nice, or when they're being insulting, when they are joking and when they are serious. They translate each word literally without understanding how irony, sarcasm, nuance - or politics - work.

Neither have a lot of students been made to understand how the Culture of a language group works because their teachers themselves had little or no idea of how different cultures impact on the way words are used and understood. This cultural understanding is an intrinsic part of learning/understanding ANY language whatsoever.

For this reason Educators have an ethical DUTY not to take advantage of a students lack of understanding in order to present mere personal opinions as truth.
Oh, if only you practiced what your preach!

People are free to hold whatever opinion they like. They are NOT free to disregard proof. You do.In order to disagree they MUST provide reputable, non-biased truth. "It IS this" or "It ISN'T this." is ALWAYS an opinion. "It's this because...." and a valid, checkable proof is the truth.
I invite all students to check it out. See if what I've said is true.

You'll notice how I laid out my post above: each statement was backed up by details, and the details provide access to a REPUTABLE source: education departments, world governments etc. Current political bias.You provided a conversation some people, somewhere, at some time, had together. We have no idea who this Usage Panel were - a political group, a gang of mums, a religious group, non-English speakers, patients in a mental institution. So their opinions/views have no value. They PROVE nothing.We have absolutely no way of knowing whether they are creditable experts in English or not.
And you are the judge who decides who is credible and who isn't, right? Sure.

My proofs were from some of the most important global organisations, actual Educational Departments in the English-speaking world, etc. So, in order to argue my point, it is up to you - and Foundit and Wilmar - to find proofs from the same sources which would make mine invalid.
So I'm to use your politically biased sources to prove my point? You make me laugh out loud.

If what has been written here doesn't convince you, think about this: have you ever seen posts from any of our other REGULAR native-speaking posters - Thar, Drago, NKM, Ephi, etc. claiming that "Man" is a perfectly acceptable word to mean men, women & children? Or that "Man" (a word meaning a male adult) somehow or other "includes" women? Ponder on the reason for that a while.
"Regular" native-speaking posters - here on TFD? So does that make me an "irregular" poster? Hmmm...

So now the authority on the use of the word is posters on TFD. Well, when you're desperate, you grasp at any straw.

TMe
Posted: Saturday, April 4, 2020 12:28:55 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/12/2017
Posts: 886
Neurons: 5,674
I quit. God Bless you.
Romany
Posted: Saturday, April 4, 2020 1:40:32 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 17,910
Neurons: 58,164
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Yeah. Me too, TMe! My forehead is becoming quite abraided!
onsen
Posted: Sunday, April 5, 2020 3:13:07 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/14/2017
Posts: 851
Neurons: 8,819
Romany -

I’d like to ask you a question, purely out of curiosity and not politically.

The noun 'woman' is formed by the combination of wif and man, where wif means 'female' and man means 'a human' as TFD says.

Is this relationship kept even in modern or current English?
If it is kept, the 'man' in the noun 'woman' means 'a human'.

On one hand you say 'man' means 'male' and doesn't mean 'female', on the other you use a word (= woman) with a component meaning that 'man' means 'a human'.


My question about the immadiately above sentence:

Is the relationship between the two underlined phrases logical or illogical?


Romany
Posted: Sunday, April 5, 2020 6:51:18 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 17,910
Neurons: 58,164
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

Onsen - that's a very good question!

In Old English the word "wif" meant exactly what it looks like it could - "wife". So the compound "wif" + "man" originally meant "a man's wife." While the word for an unmarried female was "maid".

Not all females are married; so there have been suggestions that using the word "woman" is also unacceptable. BUT - to me, personally - those argument hold no validity, because the reason given is that "it has the word "man" in it." I find that ridiculous! The three letters "m-a-n" appear in many words - mandate, many - so (once again, my own opinion) those arguments are from ignorance...it's the word "wife" ('wif') that shouldn't be there, if anything at all!

However, whatever the OE (old English) meaning of the word, in the actual compound ("wif" + man) the word 'wif' turned into "wo" (which has no meaning) so that "Woman" became a new WORD, not a COMPOUND, with the meaning of female.

It fits in with several other patterns in English where a word with a prefix added changes the meaning to the opposite (e.g.: "hospitable" with the prefix "in" becomes the opposite of the base word 'hospitable')so that "man" = male , and "wo-man" = female suggested the opposite of "man" was a "woman" to English users. Thus they became the two gender labels. (If the three letters, m-a-n were to be removed we'd be left with a "Wo". As that would be pronounced "woe" I don't think too many people would be happy to be called "woes"!!Dancing )

I've actually never come across any SERIOUS discussion about changing the word: from time to time, when news is slow, some media will come up with some headline "Feminists say the word "Woman" is sexist!" and follows with some fatuous story of a couple of maybe schoolgirls in a coffee-shop, or ladies on a bus.

No actual feminist, male or female, makes this extreme claim to change the word.
Audiendus
Posted: Sunday, April 5, 2020 9:11:19 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 6,848
Neurons: 1,300,630
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
Here is the article on wife from the Online Etymology Dictionary:


http://etymonline.com/word/wife
onsen
Posted: Sunday, April 5, 2020 11:06:38 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/14/2017
Posts: 851
Neurons: 8,819
thar, taurine, Sarrriesfan, Ashwin Joshi, Romany, FounDit, tautophile, TMe, Wilmar (USA) 1M and Audiendus.

Thank you very much for the discussion of much substance.



onsen
FounDit
Posted: Sunday, April 5, 2020 11:19:45 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 14,617
Neurons: 69,653

Let’s be clear about something:

In the history of the use of the word “Man” or “Mankind” to refer to humans, at no time, in any place, by anyone, did those words mean the exclusion of females or children, and no one can find evidence of such a meaning.

Yet a group of females has CHOSEN to believe this falsehood, this lie, and then CHOSEN to be offended by that belief. Having chosen to be offended, they now demand that everyone in society accept their beliefs, be as offended as they are, and change the language and thinking of everyone on the planet in order to pacify their sense of offense; that no one should use the word “Man” or “Mankind” to refer to all humans.

This is like choosing to believe in the Easter Bunny, then choosing to be offended by that belief, then demanding that everyone else do the same. Furthermore, using the name “Easter Bunny” is now declared to be offensive by the weak-minded among us, and “decent” folk will refuse to use it. This is ridiculously stupid, or stupidly ridiculous – I’m not sure which – maybe both.

If anyone wants to continue choosing to believe this lie, this falsehood, then fine, they may do so. But to insist and demand that everyone else do the same is not something anyone is authorized to do. No one has the right to demand that people do this.

Wait a minute. I think someone said something like that just recently. Oh, yeah. It was Romany.

Romany wrote:


3/1/2020

https://forum.thefreedictionary.com/postsm1138996_Can--and-should---sacred--be-an-atheistic-concept---The-Sacred-Relevancy-.aspx#1138996


Who on earth has the prerogative to tell millions of other people across the world what they "should" and "should not" do?


Don’t be a hypocrite. Practice what you preach.
onsen
Posted: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 4:58:42 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/14/2017
Posts: 851
Neurons: 8,819
Romany -

As you questioned the validity of what TFD says, I’ll tell you about what I think about this matter you caused.

onsen wrote:
Quote:

man
n. pl. men

Usage Note: Traditionally, many writers have used man and words derived from it to designate any or all of the human race regardless of sex. In fact, this is the oldest use of the word. In Old English the principal sense of man was "a human," and the words wer and wyf (or wæpman and wifman) were used to refer to "a male human" and "a female human" respectively. But in Middle English man displaced wer as the term for "a male human," while wyfman (which evolved into present-day woman) was retained for "a female human." Man also continued to carry its original sense of "a human," resulting in an asymmetric arrangement that many criticize as sexist. Despite the objections to the generic use of man, a solid majority of the Usage Panel still approves of it. For example, the sentence If early man suffered from a lack of information, modern man is tyrannized by an excess of it was acceptable to 79 percent of the Panel in our 2004 survey, and the sentence The site shows that man learned to use tools much earlier than scientists believed possible was acceptable to 75 percent.omitted
man, TFD


About the underlined parts:

Quote:
Despite the objections to the generic use of man, a solid majority of the Usage Panel still approves of it.

The Usage Panel made a sound judgement on the matter.

Quote:
For example, the sentence If early man suffered from a lack of information, modern man is tyrannized by an excess of it was acceptable to 79 percent of the Panel in our 2004 survey, and the sentence The site shows that man learned to use tools much earlier than scientists believed possible was acceptable to 75 percent.

I think these numbers in blue (i.e. 79 percent and 75 percent respectively) should be taken seriously.



Romany wrote:

We have no idea who this Usage Panel were - a political group, a gang of mums, a religious group, non-English speakers, patients in a mental institution. So their opinions/views have no value. They PROVE nothing.We have absolutely no way of knowing whether they are creditable experts in English or not.




I think the validity of the fact that a solid majority of the Usage Panel still approves of the generic use of man cannot be affected by any of the following things.
1. Whether or not you think you have no idea who this Usage Panel were - a political group, a gang of mums, a religious group, non-English speakers, patients in a mental institution.
2. Whether or not you think their opinions/views have no value.
3. Whether or not you think they prove nothing.
4. Whether or not you think you have absolutely no way of knowing whether they are creditable experts in English.

If you want to change the validity of the fact that a solid majority of the Usage Panel still approves of the generic use of man, you must bring a lawsuit.




for your information
https://ahdictionary.com/word/usagepanel.html


Romany
Posted: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 9:21:55 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 17,910
Neurons: 58,164
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Onsen -

First off - I have not "caused" anything. I gave a set of facts about an accepted usage in the rest of the world. Someone disputed it with no proof of anything other than a personal opinion. That is not the way polite discourse is conducted.

In the matter of the usage panel you have totally misunderstood what I meant.

I was making the point of what constitutes Proof/fact and what constitutes Opinion/view.

I was saying that I had produced proofs from various sources: to back up the fact that the usage I gave was not just an opinion of mine, and that this is now accepted globally, I cited an organisation which represents countries from all over the world. To show it was not ME or any source other than a global one, I provided the URL to prove it wasn't I who had simply "made up" my statement about modern usage.

I did the same to back up each thing I had said. What makes them proof is supplying the means for others to check for themselves. One of the things needed to be able to check whether what someone has said is true or not, is to see for themselves.

This means details must be given of where this information comes from: if the proof lies on the Internet the URL must be supplied. If it's in a book details of the book and who wrote it, and what page the information was on, must be given.

It doesn't matter what anybody says - if no details of who they were and when or where the conversations took place it could as well be anybody (like the ladies on the bus I mentioned) - absolutely anyone. Without a URL or book reference there's no proof that a meeting ever even took place!

THATS what I was talking about.

As to the fact that this was the TFD panel I'm afraid that doesn't suprise me at all. Neither, however, do I consider that, in the matter of what is acceptable outside of America, the TFD panel - whoever they are - are particularly clued up. They most certainly do not, from an academic standpoint, carry as much weight as non-partisan bodies representative of the rest of the English-speaking world.
onsen
Posted: Thursday, April 9, 2020 8:25:11 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/14/2017
Posts: 851
Neurons: 8,819
Romany wrote:

First off - I have not "caused" anything. I gave a set of facts about an accepted usage in the rest of the world. Someone disputed it with no proof of anything other than a personal opinion. That is not the way polite discourse is conducted.


Would you please explain the quote, focusing on the underlined part, using an example?
FounDit
Posted: Thursday, April 9, 2020 11:30:23 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 14,617
Neurons: 69,653
Romany,

First, I did not dispute your position with an opinion. I stated a fact that can easily be checked, and invite anyone to do so. Furthermore, if you can find any evidence to counter my statement, then do so. What I said is empirically, and in literature, true, and no evidence to the contrary can be found.

Quote:
"In the history of the use of the word “Man” or “Mankind” to refer to humans, at no time, in any place, by anyone, did those words mean the exclusion of females or children, and no one can find evidence of such a meaning." End quote.

And this is exactly the way "polite discourse" is conducted. When someone puts forth an idea that is a lie, then the "polite" thing to do is to show that idea to be a lie, and to encourage people not to believe it. It does no one a favor to have them believing a lie. That is what is being put forth here, and rebuking it should be done each time this falsified thinking is promoted, whether by an individual, or representatives of some global organization. It is still a lie.

BTW, the Usage Panel is not from TFD. It was stated that the panel is from the American Heritage Dictionary, comprised of nearly 200 experts with a mastery in English language.

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.