|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 163
member
|
|
member
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 163 |
>people were as smart as us 50, 500, or 5000 years ago, and they talked about the same things and they invented new words
William,
I agree with that, but intelligence has nothing to do with respect or sensibility. While I wrote my previous posting I had my mother in law -who is 83- in mind. She is as clever as anyone can be and uses to employ pejorative words when referring to some groups of people, specially when referring to incapacitated children. And the worst of all, she means them.
From this attitude I can deduce that or my mother in law is specially mean, which probably she is, or that when she was younger everybody talked the same way, which must be true too. And I cannot help but imagining a time when everybody talked this way and despised openly every other who was different.
And the words they invented were mainly meant to be descriptions of the differences between “normal” ones and different ones. For example my mother in law calls “tontito” (silly, idiot) to children who I learned to call “mongolico/subnormal” when I was a kid. Now I call them “Down children”. The first words were descriptive of the limitations or physical aspect of those children and the last one is, simply, a syndrome name. So in this case I think the evolution has been positive. What is more important, when my mother in law was my age she could employ those words in a scornful way and, probably, only the child’s parents would have been offended. Now, I can tell you, the worst arguments I have had with her have been about this kind of speaking and, of course, it not only offends me but almost everybody else.
I agree that lots of changes are still needed in our attitudes but I think that we have changed more in the last few generations than in thousand years of history.
I’m still thinking that words by themselves, in a very subtle way, can act like casts molding our thoughts and attitudes. It surely is easier for a kid being cruel with an idiot than with a Down’s syndrome.
Juan Maria.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 679
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 679 |
In reply to:
I have seen attempts to change he and she to (s)he. I have seen people take his and hers and change them to hirs.
These are grotesqueries that deserve all the abomination we can heap upon them. When I write regulations, training
manuals, articles, whatever, I routinely alternate between the masculine and feminine pronouns. But it would not bother
me a bit to use she and her and hers exclusively if that would stop the language Nazis from carping. Though milder
grotesqueries, I avoid saying "his or her" or "she and he" because they clog up sentences with unnecessary junk. I've
never succeeded in making a sentence flow properly with these constructions.
I find that using the generic term 'they' a perfectly acceptable form of address for those of both sexes. Otherwise I refer to people using the formal term 'one'.
|
|
|
#4386
08/02/2000 11:52 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
>I find that using the generic term 'they' a perfectly acceptable form of address for those of both sexes. Otherwise I refer to people using the formal term 'one'.
The problem is that doesn't fit in with a lot of the writing I do at work. I frequently have to write scenarios about military pay, such as:
An Army member, enters a combat zone on the third day of the month. To compute her entitlement to hostile fire pay, (apply this formula). As a result she will be entitled to...
"They" is a plural construction so it doesn't work very well in this context. And for me, "one" is just too formal. I'm supposed to be writing to a 6th-8th grade level, which is not easy to do. And it was a struggle to get to that point. Originally my marching orders were to write to a third grade level.
See the Army member. See his gun. He goes to war. He shoots his gun. He gets extra pay. The extra pay is $10 a day. The extra pay starts on the first day of the month.
I actually wrote a regulation somewhat similar to this to illustrate the point that writing to a second or third grade level was next to impossible without being demeaning to the mentality of the reader.
TEd
|
|
|
#4387
08/02/2000 12:30 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 200
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 200 |
juanmaria,
i love the mother in law story. i know exactly what you mean and have had many many similar experiences with older generation australians (including one whose relationship to me shall go unmentioned) who can't seem to grasp that "abos" is not an okay abbreviation. and there are millions more examples i'd be happy to go into some other time...
i think the changing of these kinds of words is a result of the (thankfully) changing attitudes. but i don't think it works the other way around. would it make any difference what words your mother in law used? i find that people who can't change their attitudes are also unwilling (unable?) to change the terms they use.
|
|
|
#4388
08/02/2000 12:31 PM
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 679
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 679 |
In reply to:
Poster: TEd Remington
Subject: Re: political correctness
>I find that using the generic term 'they' a perfectly acceptable form of address for those of both sexes. Otherwise I refer
to people using the formal term 'one'.
The problem is that doesn't fit in with a lot of the writing I do at work. I frequently have to write scenarios about military
pay, such as:
An Army member, enters a combat zone on the third day of the month. To compute her entitlement to hostile fire pay,
(apply this formula). As a result she will be entitled to...
Ah, I didn't intend for my answer to be a panacea! In the case of 'her' and 'she' above you can simply use the more generic 'the individual' etc. etc. ad nauseum.
In reply to:
"They" is a plural construction so it doesn't work very well in this context. And for me, "one" is just too formal. I'm
supposed to be writing to a 6th-8th grade level, which is not easy to do. And it was a struggle to get to that point.
Originally my marching orders were to write to a third grade level.
Yup. I guessed this. I knew that the plurality would be a problem but I thought that you would have picked up on some of its useful interpretations. Again, not to be used universally.
In reply to:
See the Army member. See his gun. He goes to war. He shoots his gun. He gets extra pay. The extra pay is $10 a
day. The extra pay starts on the first day of the month.
I actually wrote a regulation somewhat similar to this to illustrate the point that writing to a second or third grade level
was next to impossible without being demeaning to the mentality of the reader.
I can understand your frustration. Methinks that the language above would be better adopted by the crewcutted grunts.
Alternative suggestion for phrasing that sentence. This seems like the kind of military speak I'm used to hearing:
1. See the [enter rank of serviceman/woman here]. 2. See [the serviceman/woman]'s [state design and specification of firearm/weapon of mass destruction here]. 3. The [serviceman/woman] goes to [enter state of emergency/hostility/war/police action/insurgency/liberation from (evil) Islamic/Communist/non-US conforming/Saddam Hussein led/Colonel Ghaddafi led/tyrannical empire here]. 4. The [serviceman/woman]'s [see 2 above] is fired (legally according to the 2nd Amendment) by the [serviceman/woman]. The [serviceman/woman] gets extra pay. The extra pay is $10 a day. The extra pay starts on the first day of the month.
|
|
|
#4389
08/02/2000 12:36 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 200
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 200 |
ps i also wonder if these changes are long lasting.
we have lots of time to think about such things and of course in our context they are well worth thinking about.
in some future time - as in some past time - our worries may be forgotten in the search for water that doesn't give us all some syndrome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
I am reminded of the old saying
Join the army. Travel the world. See people from all over the world and shoot them.
|
|
|
#4391
08/03/2000 12:36 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 18
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 18 |
One ridiculous example of fall-out from political correctness was reported in "The New York Times" on February 27, 1994. A tenured professor at the University of New Hampshire was suspended for comments he made during a writing class. He said that focus in writing could be compared to sex; later that year, he paraphrased the belly dancer Little Egypt who, he said, had remarked, "Belly dancing is like Jell-o on a plate with a vibrator under the plate." Three students complained. A university tribunal found the professor guilty of sexually harassing students verbally. He was suspended without pay and ordered to receive counseling.
Also in 1994, the California Board of Education banned Alice Walker's very moving and sensitive (my opinion, of course) story, "Am I Blue?", saying it was "anti-meat-eating." The story portrays a woman's reflections on the loneliness of a horse that had been kept in solitude in a paddock. The woman concludes that human beings have little compassion for the animals they use, and she spits out the steak she had been eating.
|
|
|
#4392
08/04/2000 12:34 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 167
member
|
|
member
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 167 |
<See the Army member. See his gun. He goes to war. He shoots his gun. He gets extra pay. The extra pay is $10 a day. The extra pay starts on the first day of the month.>
I still think the rewrite of this should be-
"See the Army member. See their gun. They go to war. They shoot their gun. They get extra pay. The extra pay is $10 a day. The extra pay starts on the first day of the month."
Really when you get used to it, it doesn't seem cumbersome, and quickly assumes the "transparency" which good plain writing should have.
Johnjohn
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 167
member
|
|
member
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 167 |
Also, picking up the past postings on PC terms and the supplanting in the USA of "black" by "African American", how are white folk described now? "American-American" ( - silly)? "European-American"? (- misleading). And having been away from the UK for 12 years now, i don't know whether the usage has spread to there, in which case is it "African-British" (or possibly "West Indian - British")?
My tongue is slightly in my cheek, but it does perhaps illustrate the reductio ad absurdum. But I certainly agree with the post-modernist notion that our appelation for something very much influences the way we think about it - a rose by any other name would definitely not smell as sweet!
Steve Biko the murdered South African lawyer/apartheid victim wrote a very good essay on the use in English of phrases with negative or pejorative connotations which include the word "black" (blackball, black sheep, even denigrate itself). It is referred to in Donald Woods's "Cry Freedom".
Johnjohn
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
"See the Army member. See their gun. They go to war. They shoot their gun. They get extra pay. The extra pay is $10 a day. The extra pay starts on the first day of the month."
>Really when you get used to it, it doesn't seem cumbersome, and quickly assumes the "transparency" which good plain writing should have.<
in my opinion the only thing transparent about this rewrite is its overweening political correctness -- to put it in simpler terms, I don't think I'll quickly get used to it. (for me, make member and gun plural and it reads better.)
by the way, regarding combat pay, doesn't the U.S. military still have a policy of not sending women into combat?
|
|
|
#4395
08/04/2000 11:30 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 163
member
|
|
member
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 163 |
>I disagree; the use of -os to describe a group is not in and of itself sexist. That's an evil fiction that has been visited upon us by people who are just too darned sensitive for their own good
>It's time, my friends, to reclaim our language from the clutches of those who would gut it to the point of absurdity
Well, it seems that you consider sexist what is offensive or discriminative. In this case can I agree with you. Nobody is willingly discriminating anyone ONLY by using language in a way that, after all, is the correct way to use it.
The reality is that I have always thought like you, that we have a language that is our heritage and, even if in its origins some uses have been developed out of a disregard to women as equals, now we use them out of custom and because it is the way it is. I also dislike radical feminist and PCist.
But I cannot help but wondering that, being part of the unoffended group, it is too easy for me forgiving everything, making tabula rasa and saying “Now that we’re modern and equal, let’s start playing nice”.
I also wonder that, if it is fair for a group to have “the clouds”, will they ever get them if they don’t ask for “the moon”. How many rights that we have now have been won after by radical movements asking for utopian ones?.
I doubt, therefore I am.
Juan Maria.
|
|
|
#4396
08/04/2000 11:36 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 163
member
|
|
member
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 163 |
>we have lots of time to think about such things and of course in our context they are well worth thinking about. in some future time - as in some past time - our worries may be forgotten in the search for water that doesn't give us all some syndrome.
I sadly agree with you about this. In a “Mad Max” world this discussion would be like wondering about angels’ gender.
Juan Maria.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 167
member
|
|
member
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 167 |
<in my opinion the only thing transparent about this rewrite is its overweening political correctness -- to put it in simpler terms, I don't think I'll quickly get used to it. (for me, make member and gun plural and it reads better.)>
I think we're all agreed that as the language currently stands there is no ideal answer.
He/she, he/she and (s)he are all inelegant; the simple "he" and cognate forms ignore and render invisible 52% of the population. Alternate he and she forms are incredibly distracting. None of these can survive in the long term. Nor do ordinary users of the language recast sentences as a purist would have them do.
Logicallly only the "they" 3rd person singular alternative form can endure. Shouldn't we all just embrace it now??
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 200
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 200 |
the army member goes to war, shoots the gun and gets extra pay.
this is how i would write it (in the interim before "they" and "their" come to sound smooth).
but the things i write may be much more flexible.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
I'm going to ask this one more time, as it keeps getting glossed over. Why not stick to his and her, skip the artificiality of alternating them, and just use the author's or speaker's gender as the referent. This is natural, simple and could easily be engendered (no pun) in school so that everyone would simply utilize his natural personal pronoun without all of this agonizing.
|
|
|
#4400
08/04/2000 10:58 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 200
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 200 |
>why not stick to his and her
the simple answer is that so many people obviously want a change. they feel that "his" and "her" are gender specific and so exclusive. why be exclusive if you can be inclusive?
>use the speaker's gender as the referent
i don't follow why using "his" if you're male and "her" if you're female is natural, if you're not writing about yourself.
this seems to confuse things more. what if you don't want to indicate your gender? what if you're somewhere in between genders? what if there's more than one writer?
i think the sound of "their" needs time for our ears to get used to it. but they surely will. stravinsky was once considered agonising.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
>i don't follow why using "his" if you're male and "her" if you're female is natural, if you're not writing about yourself. this seems to confuse things more.
why are you taking this usage literally when you want to ignore the natural "pluralness" of they? I'm just suggesting a different convention.
>stravinsky was once considered agonising.
some still so consider him. how do you feel about John Cage?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
How about we propose a compromise. People should be welcome to write in a way that sounds right to them.
You can use the convention of writing using the gender of the author and it will irritate some of us.
Some of us, who seem to find it less of a problem, can use the convention "they" and it will irritate you.
After 50 years we can come back and review it and see which one was more widely accepted.
In the meantime some one can get busy re-writing Jane Austin's books, Frankenstein and a few others using "she" instead of "he" where the gender was not specified. Not to mention a few others like PD James, AS Byatt and JK Rowling who have preferred write their first books whilst choosing not to let readers be influenced by knowing whether they were male or female.
It's not like 2+2 (to the base 10), there is never going to be a simple answer. If we stick to the Darwinian theory of words - survival of the fittest - only time will tell.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 200
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 200 |
tsuwm,
the pluralness of "they" and "their" really sticks doesn't it!
i may (!) understand:
when it follows a non specified person (as in "everyone can choose their own hairstyle"), it reads fine to me. but when it is specific (as in "the soldier fires their gun") it sounds strange.
i know "they" and "their" are not perfect answers.
"they" doesn't always sound naturally plural to me. i'm hoping it can stretch to cover singular as well.
tsuwm, is it really such a horrendous stretch?
in both cases i mentioned above?
i really think your suggested convention won't catch on. i don't like the idea of referring to everyone as "he" or "she". i won't do it. it feels worse than a "misused" plural.
i'm sure there are unfans of my friend stravinsky.
my point is that a dissonance can become an emotion in a few years.
that the more you wonder about silence, the more you wonder at the composer's genius in setting it aside.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
>"they" doesn't always sound naturally plural to me. i'm hoping it can stretch to cover singular as well. tsuwm, is it really such a horrendous stretch? in both cases i mentioned above? for me both cases are quivalent, I suppose because it was drummed into my head that "the soldier" and "everyone" are equally singular. but no. it is not a horrendous stretch. my point (and it was the whole reason for starting this thread) was that some of these issues MIGHT be best resolved by just leaving things the way they are. and of course, time will tell -- but if teachers are FORCED to change the "rules", that will certainly influence the outcome. and now, magically, a new topic suggests itself.... p.s. - hey jazzo, don't look now but this thread is gaining on the "graduation" thread -- but I'm sure it won't have the legs that that one has. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
>I'm sure there are unfans of my friend stravinsky
I must say, I do adore Stravinsky. Perhaps accepting "their" and loving Stravinsky go together.
Not sure about "unfans" though???
|
|
|
#4406
08/05/2000 11:14 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
>Perhaps accepting "their" and loving Stravinsky go together. nope. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065 |
In reply to:
In the meantime some one can get busy re-writing Jane Austin's books, Frankenstein and a few others using "she" instead of "he" where the gender was not specified.
Actually Jane Austen was quite happy to use their etc. to refer to an indefinite antecedent. See http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/austheir.html .
Bingley
Bingley
|
|
|
#4408
08/06/2000 10:41 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
>Actually Jane Austen was quite happy to use their
Well, there you are now.
|
|
|
#4409
08/06/2000 11:15 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
>by the way, regarding combat pay, doesn't the U.S. military still have a policy of not sending women into combat?
Well, that depends on what you mean by "combat". There are a bunch of areas int he world where things are "hot" enough that the area has been declared a combat zone. Inside the combat zone an enlisted member gets total Fedceral tax exemption. An officer gets a limited exemption. The President decides this. Then there are areas which are hot enough (basically you have a chance of getting shot at) that are called hostile fire zones. These are the areas where the members get the extra pay.
Interestingly enough, the two areas aren't exactly the same in most declarations. During Desert Storm, a member could get combat zone tax exclusion without actually being in a hostile fire zone. One of the best magazine articles I wrote was about this, published in April 1995. I wrote it very tongue in cheek and because it was published during tax month I called it "The Ides of Taxes are Upon You". I didn't tell the editor that there was no Ides in April, though there was one in March. She changed it to "Beware the Ides of Taxes" if I remember correctly. I preferred mine, but what writer doesn't???
TEd
|
|
|
#4410
08/06/2000 11:25 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
>Nobody is willingly discriminating anyone ONLY by using language in a way that, after all, is the correct way to use it.
This is a bit long, but I think everyone will appreciate the absurdity.
Red Riding Hood oppresses Wolf:
There once was a young person named Little Red Riding Hood who lived on the edge of a large forest full of endangered owls and rare plants that would probably provide a cure for cancer if only someone took the time to study them.
Red Riding Hood lived with a nurture-giver whom she sometimes referred to as "Mother," although she didn't mean to imply by this term that she would have thought less of the person if a close biological link did not, in fact, exist. Nor did she intend to denigrate the equal value of nontraditional households, although she was sorry if this was the impression conveyed.
One day her mother asked her to take a basket of organically grown fruit and mineral water to her grandmother's house.
"But Mother, won't this be stealing work from the unionized people who have struggled for years to earn the right to carry all packages between various people in the woods?" Red Riding Hood's mother assured her that she had called the union boss and gotten a special compassionate mission exemption form.
"But, Mother, aren't you oppressing me by ordering me to do this?" Red Riding Hood's mother pointed out that it was impossible for women to oppress each other, since all women were equally oppressed until all women were free.
"But, Mother, then shouldn't you have my brother carry the basket, since he's an oppressor, and should learn what it's like to be oppressed?" And Red Riding Hood's mother explained that her brother was attending a special rally for animal rights, and besides, this wasn't stereotypical women's work, but an empowering deed that would help engender a feeling of community.
"But won't I be oppressing Grandma, by implying that she's sick and hence unable to independently further her own selfhood?" But Red Riding Hood's mother explained that her grandmother wasn't actually sick or incapacitated or mentally handicapped in any way, although that was not to imply that any of these conditions were inferior to what some people called "health."
Thus Red Riding Hood felt that she could get behind the idea of delivering the basket to her grandmother, and so she set off.
Many people believed that the forest was a foreboding and dangerous place, but Red Riding Hood knew that this was an irrational fear based on cultural paradigms instilled by a patriarchal society that regarded the natural world as an exploitable resource, and hence believed that natural predators were, in fact, intolerable competitors.
Other people avoided the woods for fear of thieves and deviants, but Red Riding Hood felt that, in a truly classless society, all marginalized peoples would be able to "come out" of the woods and be accepted as valid lifestyle role models.
On her way to Grandma's house, Red Riding Hood passed a woodchopper, and wandered off the path in order to examine some flowers. She was startled to find herself standing before a wolf, who asked her what was in her basket.
Red Riding Hood's teacher had warned her never to talk to strangers, but she was confident in taking control of her own budding sexuality, and chose to dialog with the wolf.She replied, "I am taking my grandmother some healthful snacks in a gesture of solidarity."
The wolf said, "You know, my dear, it isn't safe for a little girl to walk through these woods alone."
Red Riding Hood said, "I find your sexist remark offensive in the extreme, but I will ignore it because of your traditional status as an outcast from society, the stress of which has caused you to develop an alternative and yet entirely valid worldview. Now, if you'll excuse me, I would prefer to be on my way." Red Riding Hood returned to the main path, and proceeded toward her grandmother's house.
But because his status outside society had freed him from slavish adherence to linear, Western-style thought, the Wolf knew of a quicker route to Grandma's house. He burst into the house and ate Grandma, a course of action affirmative of his nature as a predator. Then, unhampered by rigid, traditionalist gender-role notions, he put on Grandma's nightclothes, crawled under the bedclothes, and awaited developments.
Red Riding Hood entered the cottage and said, "Grandma, I have brought you some cruelty-free snacks to salute you in your role of wise and nurturing matriarch."
The wolf said softly, "Come closer, child, so that I might see you."
Red Riding Hood said, "Goodness! Grandma, what big eyes you have!"
"You forget that I am optically challenged."
"And Grandma, what an enormous - er - what a fine nose you have."
"Naturally, I could have had it fixed to help my acting career, but I didn't give in to such societal pressures, my child."
"And Grandma, what very big, sharp teeth you have!"
The wolf could not take any more of these specialist slurs, and, in a reaction appropriate for his accustomed milieu, he leaped out of bed, grabbed Little Red Riding Hood, and opened his jaws so wide that she could see her poor grandmother cowering in his belly.
"Aren't you forgetting something?" Red Riding Hood bravely shouted. "You must request my permission before proceeding to a new level of itimacy!"
The wolf was so startled by this statement that he loosened his grasp on her.
At the same time, the woodchopper burst into the cottage, brandishing an ax.
"Hands off!" cried the woodchopper.
"And what do you think you're doing?" cried Little Red Riding Hood. "If I let you help me now, I would be expressing a lack of confidence in my own abilities, which would lead to poor self-esteem and lower achievement scores on college entrance exams."
"Last chance, sister! Get your hands off that endangered species! This is an FBI sting!" screamed the woodchopper, and when Little Red Riding Hood nonetheless made a sudden motion, he sliced off her head.
"Thank goodness you got here in time," said the wolf. "The brat and her grandmother lured me in here. I thought I was a goner."
"No, I think I'm the real victim, here," said the woodchopper. "I've been dealing with my anger ever since I saw her picking those protected flowers earlier. And now I'm going to have such a trauma. Do you have any aspirin?"
"Sure," said the wolf.
"Thanks."
TEd
|
|
|
#4411
08/06/2000 11:47 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
Old news Ted.
Here's a selection:
(i) From The Thurber Carnival (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1945) 246-7.
The Little Girl and the Wolf
ONE aftemoon a big wolf waited in a dark forest for a little girl to come along carrying a basket of food to her grandmother. Finally a little girl did come along and she was carrying a basket of food.
"Are you carrying that basket to your grandmother?" asked the wolf. The little girl said yes, she was. So the wolf asked her where her grandmother lived and the little girl told him and he disappeared
into the wood.
When the little girl opened the door of her grandmother's house she saw that there was somebody in bed with a nightcap and nightgown on.
She had approached no nearer than twenty-five feet from the bed when she saw that it was not her grandmother but the wolf, for even in a nightcap a wolf does not look any more like your grandmother than the Metro-Goldwyn lion looks like Calvin Coolidge. So the little girl took an automatic out of her basket and shot the wolf dead.
Moral: It is not so easy to fool little girls nowadays as it used to be.
This has been much copied. Little Red Riding Hood usually gets out a .44 Magnum in more recent versions
Here's an extract from Politically Correct Bedtime Stories by James Finn Garner. Copyright 1994 by James Finn Garner. Published by Macmillan Publishing USA.
There once was a young person named Red Riding Hood who lived with her mother on the edge of a large wood. One day her mother asked her to take a basket of fresh fruit and mineral water to her grandmother's house--not because this was womyn's work, mind you, but because the deed was generous and helped engender a feeling of community. Furthermore, her grandmother was not sick, but rather was in full physical and mental health and was fully capable of taking care of herself as a mature adult.
So Red Riding Hood set off with her basket through the woods. Many people believed that the forest was a foreboding and dangerous place and never set foot in it. Red Riding Hood, however, was confident enough in her own budding sexuality that such obvious Freudian imagery did not intimidate her.
On the way to Grandma's house, Red Riding Hood was accosted by a wolf. who asked her what was in her basket. She replied, "Some healthful snacks for my grandmother, who is certainly capable of taking care of herself as a mature adult."
The wolf said, "You know, my dear, it isn't safe for a little girl to walk through these woods alone."
Red Riding Hood said, "I find your sexist remark offensive in the extreme, but I will ignore it because of your traditional status as an outcast from society, the stress of which has caused you to develop your own, entirely valid, worldview. Now, if you'll excuse me, I must be on my way."
Red Riding Hood walked on along the main path. But, because his status outside society had freed him from slavish adherence to linear, Western-style thought, the wolf knew a quicker route to Grandma's house. He burst into the house and ate Grandma, an entirely valid course of action for a carnivore such as himself. Then, unhampered by rigid, traditionalist notions of what was masculine or feminine, he put on Grandma's nightclothes and crawled into bed.
Red Riding Hood entered the cottage and said, "Grandma, I have brought you some fatfree, sodium-free snacks to salute you in your role of a wise and nurturing matriarch."
From the bed, the wolf said softly, "Come closer, child, so that I might see you."
Red Riding Hood said, "Oh, I forgot you are as optically challenged as a bat. Grandma, what big eyes you have!"
"They have seen much, and forgiven much, my dear."
"Grandma, what a big nose you have, only relatively, of course, and certainly attractive in its own way."
"It has smelled much, and forgiven much, my dear."
"Grandma, what big teeth you have!"
The wolf said, "I am happy with who I am and what I am," and leaped out of bed. He grabbed Red Riding Hood in his claws, intent on devouring her. Red Riding Hood screamed, not out of alarm at the wolf's apparent tendency toward crossdressing, but because of his willful invasion of her personal space.
Her screams were heard by a passing woodchopperperson (or log-fuel technician, as he preferred to be called). When he burst into the cottage, he saw the melee and tried to intervene. But as he raised his ax, Red Riding Hood and the wolf both stopped.
"And just what do you think you're doing?" asked Red Riding Hood.
The woodchopper-person blinked and tried to answer, but no words came to him.
"Bursting in here like a Neanderthal, trusting your weapon to do your thinking for you!" she exclaimed. "Sexist! Speciesist! How dare you assume that womyn and wolves can't solve their own problems without a man's help!"
When she heard Red Riding Hood's impassioned speech, Grandma jumped out of the wolf's mouth, seized the woodchopperperson's ax, and cut his head off. After this ordeal, Red Riding Hood, Grandma, and the wolf felt a certain commonality of purpose. They decided to set up an alternative household based on mutual respect and cooperation, and they lived together in the woods happily ever after.
Little Red Riding Hood
from Politically Correct Bedtime Stories by James Finn Garner. Copyright 1994 by James Finn Garner. Published by Macmillan Publishing USA.
There once was a young person named Red Riding Hood who lived with her mother on the edge of a large wood. One day her mother asked her to take a basket of fresh fruit and mineral water to her grandmother's house--not because this was womyn's work, mind you, but because the deed was generous and helped engender a feeling of community. Furthermore, her grandmother was not sick, but rather was in full physical and mental health and was fully capable of taking care of herself as a mature adult.
So Red Riding Hood set off with her basket through the woods. Many people believed that the forest was a foreboding and dangerous place and never set foot in it. Red Riding Hood, however, was confident enough in her own budding sexuality that such obvious Freudian imagery did not intimidate her.
On the way to Grandma's house, Red Riding Hood was accosted by a wolf. who asked her what was in her basket. She replied, "Some healthful snacks for my grandmother, who is certainly capable of taking care of herself as a mature adult."
The wolf said, "You know, my dear, it isn't safe for a little girl to walk through these woods alone."
Red Riding Hood said, "I find your sexist remark offensive in the extreme, but I will ignore it because of your traditional status as an outcast from society, the stress of which has caused you to develop your own, entirely valid, worldview. Now, if you'll excuse me, I must be on my way."
Red Riding Hood walked on along the main path. But, because his status outside society had freed him from slavish adherence to linear, Western-style thought, the wolf knew a quicker route to Grandma's house. He burst into the house and ate Grandma, an entirely valid course of action for a carnivore such as himself. Then, unhampered by rigid, traditionalist notions of what was masculine or feminine, he put on Grandma's nightclothes and crawled into bed.
Red Riding Hood entered the cottage and said, "Grandma, I have brought you some fatfree, sodium-free snacks to salute you in your role of a wise and nurturing matriarch."
From the bed, the wolf said softly, "Come closer, child, so that I might see you."
Red Riding Hood said, "Oh, I forgot you are as optically challenged as a bat. Grandma, what big eyes you have!"
"They have seen much, and forgiven much, my dear."
"Grandma, what a big nose you have, only relatively, of course, and certainly attractive in its own way."
"It has smelled much, and forgiven much, my dear."
"Grandma, what big teeth you have!"
The wolf said, "I am happy with who I am and what I am," and leaped out of bed. He grabbed Red Riding Hood in his claws, intent on devouring her. Red Riding Hood screamed, not out of alarm at the wolf's apparent tendency toward crossdressing, but because of his willful invasion of her personal space.
Her screams were heard by a passing woodchopperperson (or log-fuel technician, as he preferred to be called). When he burst into the cottage, he saw the melee and tried to intervene. But as he raised his ax, Red Riding Hood and the wolf both stopped.
"And just what do you think you're doing?" asked Red Riding Hood.
The woodchopper-person blinked and tried to answer, but no words came to him.
"Bursting in here like a Neanderthal, trusting your weapon to do your thinking for you!" she exclaimed. "Sexist! Speciesist! How dare you assume that womyn and wolves can't solve their own problems without a man's help!"
When she heard Red Riding Hood's impassioned speech, Grandma jumped out of the wolf's mouth, seized the woodchopperperson's ax, and cut his head off. After this ordeal, Red Riding Hood, Grandma, and the wolf felt a certain commonality of purpose. They decided to set up an alternative household based on mutual respect and cooperation, and they lived together in the woods happily ever after.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
"The Ides of Taxes are upon you!" cried the wolf to Little Red Riding Hood. "Don't be ridiculous," said Red, "April doesn't have any Ides!" Just then the tin woodsman smashed in the door with his vorpal blade and exclaimed, "Of course April has an Ides, it just happens to fall on the 13th of the month, which rather ruins the point of this whole story." THE END
p.s. - the Ides of each month of the Roman calendar were calculated by counting backwards from the calends!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
>>the more you wonder about silence, the more you wonder at the composer's genius in setting it aside.
william, that is beautifully put! Made me aware for the first time that there really is a difference between creating sound, and setting silence aside.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
tsuwm:
Thanks for setting me straight. Somewhere I had gotten the idea that there were ides only in March, May, July and October, which were the months in which the ides occurred on the 15th rather than the 13th.
My statement should have been that I didn't inform the editor that the date tax returns are due is no on the Ides of April, or as I was making the pun, "the ides of taxes."
Thanks again!!
Ted
TEd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
today's "Maven's Word of the Day" discusses 'freshmen'; I submit this without further comment: http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
> today's "Maven's Word of the Day" discusses 'freshmen'; I submit this without further comment
So freshman is now politically incorrect. I propose that we create a new word based on the concept we find in sophomore, which literally means wise and foolish from the Greek. How about calling people who haven't become wise-foolish foolish-foolish. Voila! moromore. Which would make a sad freshamn from the southern Philippines a morose Moro moromore. Heck, even Shakespeare talked about a six-pack of 'em -- two Moros and two Moros and two Moros.
Hmmm. I think I just fell in that damned French river again.
TEd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
>I propose that we create a new word based on the concept we find in sophomore, which literally means wise and foolish from the Greek. this must be the natural followup -- today's "Maven" debunks this notion, claiming the 'soph' in sophomore is more akin to the Sophists, who were "clever", the other meaning of sophos. http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
Bill Buckley, in his (admittedly pedantic) defense of the old style of using gender-loaded language, points out that there is actually a linguistic trope which "legitimizes" this language; i.e., the synecdoche. per Merriam-Webster a synecdoche is a figure of speech by which a part is put for the whole (as fifty sail for fifty ships), the whole for a part (as society for high society), the species for the genus (as cutthroat for assassin), the genus for the species(as a creature for a man), or the name of the material for the thing made (as boards for stage). Buckley's point seems to be that such constructions will always be be warranted in literature and the arts, for the mere sound if nothing else.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
>I propose that we create a new word ...
Interesting debate and completely alien to me.
We have a rather quaint way of naming people at university.
People in their first year are called - First Years
People in their second year are called - Second Years
People in their third year are called - Third Years
No problem with gender differences there.
During the week at my university (and I assume, others) there was a "Freshers Fair" where those new to the university, Freshers, could go along and select clubs or activities to join. I started in 1978 and I cannot recall ever having heard the word "Freshman", so it either died out years ago or was never used. I don't think we were called Freshers for more than the first few weeks, after that were just called first years. I have only come across Sophomore in films and was never really sure which period of time it related to.
So the short answer is you don't need to study Greek to replace "Freshman" you could call people "Freshers", "First Years" or perhaps even ......."Newbies"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
>this must be the natural followup -- today's "Maven" debunks this notion, claiming the 'soph' in sophomore is more akin to the Sophists, who were "clever", the other meaning of sophos.
Alas, I am at work and my OED is at home. All three dictionaries I have access to here say sophomore arises from sophos plus mor rather than from sophemer or however it was she spelled it. I'm certainly going to check on it when I get home this evening. The article in Mavens' Word a Day sounds convincing, though possibly just a tad on the glib side. Meanwhile,
Ted wanders off singing:
My OED's outside, covered with snow,
The New Net's a lonely town,
when you're the only surfer boy around.
TEd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 18
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 18 |
Here's a humorous addition to this thread. It's from the (online) University of Victoria's Writer's Guide. The Genuine Canadian Buzz-Phrase Generator provides a model for creating meaningless phrases for use in a business or scientific report. Combine one word from each column.
Col 1 Col 2 Col 3
integrated management options
overall organizational flexibility
systematized reciprocal mobility
parallel digital programming
functional logistical concept
The list continues, but you get the picture!
(Just previewed this post and it looks like the columns and words ran together; sorry I don't know how to fix this.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
jackiemw--
Yep, sounds like Dilbert-speak to me!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 218
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 218 |
>>Yep, sounds like Dilbert-speak to me!
Jackie,
"Dilbert" was what first flashed in my mind when I read this thread. Unfortunately, (and this is why Dilbert is so popular) corporate America is laden with these kind of phrases. I'm guessing most MBA programs have a required class in Corporate-Drivel
|
|
|
|
|
