Zompist Bboard Again

Emily wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 3:43 am literally complaining about "womyn", a spelling that a tiny group of people used in their own writing to make a rhetorical point—never suggesting that it be universally adopted or that it was in any way the solution to any problem—and that nobody has used in earnest in forty fucking years and you expect anyone to listen to you crying about it? sorry but i have already had a lifetime's worth of right-wingers complaining about the "p. c. police" and "sjw's" and "woke brigades" and whatever other terms you people up with to try to make yourselves look like victims when someone tells you not to tell racist jokes or call a woman a bitch. presenting it with the fig leaf of Genuine Linguistic Concern isn't fooling anyone. fucking grow up

I'm not anyone here is complaining about womyn; the only previous mention of it in the thread seems pretty neutrally phrased to me.

I haven't thought about this in my conlangs before, but doubtless some speakers would be in to this sort of thing. The Viksen gendered endings are masculine -u and feminine -i, which they could either combine (-ui, but that might still be seen to "put males first" so the most progressive might go for -iu instead) - this would still work phonologically - or to replace with a "neutral" vowel (no real principled way to choose one, but I suspect they might go preferentially for -e). An alternative would be to leave the vowel off altogether, but that would cause problems in certain contexts (e.g. you could use kasjin for "beloved" instead of kasjinu or kasjini, but kasjin already means "to love" or "loving"). The symbol for the letter 0 might work in writing - a sort of "fill in the blank" - but would be clunky in pronunciation (kasjintjib, which could also mean "no love").

Old Albic (my main conlang) marks gender on animate nouns by -o (male), -e (female), -a (either or no sex). I am not sure about the etymologies yet, though, and the system may have been introduced in this form by a language reformer.

Given that it's (I think) Indo-European, I would expect the -e to descend from earlier *-ih₂ > *ia > *-ē~*-je > -e, possibly supplanting the -eh₂ feminine before attested writing, while the -a ending (presumably from an earlier *-ā) would continue the neuter plural; the -o is presumably a contination of Proto-Indo-European *-os, *-om, with, I'm assuming, the masculine and neuter having merged?

hwhatting wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 11:56 am Currently, the trend is to go for Politiker*innen, with the Genderstern spoken as a pause.

From a purely linguistic viewpoint, an interesting detail about this is that it introduces minimal pairs for the glottal stop as a true phoneme: Politiker*innen /po.ˈli.tɪ.kɐ.ʔɪ.nən/ vs. Politikerinnen /po.ˈli.tɪ.kɐ.ʁɪ.nən/ ¹

(In other environments, the status of [ʔ] is debatable, and typically described as allophonic. The only other near-minimal pair that I can think of is Verein [fɐ.ˈʔaɪ̯n] vs. bereit [bə.ˈʁaɪ̯t], but there you have a clear difference in syllabification as the <r> belongs to the first syllable in the former (underlyingly /fəʁ.ˈa͡ɪn/) and to the second syllable in the latter (/bə.ˈʁa͡ɪt/). And this pronunciation only exists in some regional varieties but not others, whereas the "Genderstern pause" is used by people with a feminist/progressive mindset in all regions.)

¹) I write a short /i/ in the stressed second syllable because it varies between /iː/ and /ɪ/ depending on the speaker. In my own speech it's /ɪ/.

alice wrote: ↑Sun Feb 20, 2022 4:09 am There are several well-known attempts to remove the supposed inbuilt sexist biases of English, such as the spelling "womyn" and the creation of gender-neutral pronouns. Is this sort of thing found in other languages too? Is there a movement in German to replace "man", for example, or to use something else in French for "Ils" when speaking of mixed genders?

For bonus points: do you have such things in your conlangs?

As mentioned before, this happens a lot in French, under the umbrella term of écriture inclusive. I think the most salient part of it is the feminization of profession names. ('autrice', feminine of 'auteur' is gaining traction, for instance.) We also see a fair bit of points médians: 'je vois mes ami•es'.

I think gender-neutral pronouns like celleux, iels are less common.
I've also seen adelphe, adelphité being used as a gender-neutral alternative to frère, soeur, fraternité. (French doesn't a have a good equivalent of sibling.)

I have seen activists place every word in the feminine (even words that don't have gender, really), but that's eccentric as best.

It's really a very heated debate. I've seen grown men get all worked up over a single point médian, but on the opposite side failure to use it will get excommunicated in certain circles (trade unions, for instance.)

(I'm sympathetic to more inclusive writing myself, though I stick to extant French usage and avoid innovation. I'm mostly curious as to which of the proposed changes will end up sticking around.)

Bengali is fairly gender neutral. To be honest, I'm not entirely comfortable using gendered grammar in other languages, including English and Hindi. It feels like I'm gendering every conversation for no reason.

IIRC Wikipedia claims that Bengali has an animacy distinction. But AFAIK only nouns that common sense regards as people get grammatical "animacy".

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 7:45 am Bengali is fairly gender neutral. To be honest, I'm not entirely comfortable using gendered grammar in other languages, including English and Hindi. It feels like I'm gendering every conversation for no reason.

This is what is experienced as the Sapir Whorf effect, the mental change that takes place when one changes languages...
this is the main pleasure of learning languages and even more of building them...
from there to make it a mental manipulation, it has never been proven nor is it ethically admissible...

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 7:45 am Bengali is fairly gender neutral. To be honest, I'm not entirely comfortable using gendered grammar in other languages, including English and Hindi. It feels like I'm gendering every conversation for no reason.

In English to me the only terms where gender really ends up being a problem are -man terms like mailman, where degendering then requires either using -person, which sounds awkward (I have never heard anyone actually say mailperson), or using an entirely different term such as letter carrier. However, English is a language where masculine terms other than -man terms have over time been degendered while their feminine counterparts have largely been discarded, leaving behind pretty much just waitress and actress. (Of course I do not get the objections to gender-neutral guys since it is consistent with this process, which English-speaking feminists have no problem with for any other terms.)

I had long assumed that the problem of "seamstress" would solve itself by ceasing to exist, like "school marm." But recently I met some volunteer costume makers at my wife's school, and this was a current issue. For non-native speakers, "seamstress" is perceived as inherently feminine, and the masculine equivalent "seamster" has never been utterred by a living person. These seamstrices wanted a term to describe the occasional male human who helped out with costumes, but could only manage "seamstress... well, you know what I mean" instead. This same problem occurs with the term "midwife," but this doesn't seem to be as big an issue, since most people accept that the wife in midwife isn't a feminizing suffix, but an inherent part of the word (as in fact it is, coming from OE midwif or "with-woman").

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 4:41 am I had long assumed that the problem of "seamstress" would solve itself by ceasing to exist, like "school marm." But recently I met some volunteer costume makers at my wife's school, and this was a current issue. For non-native speakers, "seamstress" is perceived as inherently feminine, and the masculine equivalent "seamster" has never been utterred by a living person. These seamstrices wanted a term to describe the occasional male human who helped out with costumes, but could only manage "seamstress... well, you know what I mean" instead. This same problem occurs with the term "midwife," but this doesn't seem to be as big an issue, since most people accept that the wife in midwife isn't a feminizing suffix, but an inherent part of the word (as in fact it is, coming from OE midwif or "with-woman").

The word "seamster" doesn't feel all that odd to me personally (I think I've heard it before, so saying it has "never been uttered by a living person" is certainly overblown. As far as the "wife" in "midwife" goes, "-wife" is not a productive feminising suffix, and other than "midwife" (which is a fossilised unit), all current uses of "wife" (that I've ever encountered, at least) refer specifically to a married woman.

Curlyjimsam wrote: ↑Wed Feb 23, 2022 11:13 amThe Viksen gendered endings are masculine -u and feminine -i, which they could either combine (-ui, but that might still be seen to "put males first" so the most progressive might go for -iu instead) - this would still work phonologically - or to replace with a "neutral" vowel...

A vowel half way between -u and -i? How about ɨ?

I'm more of a fan of [y].

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 7:04 am

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 4:41 am I had long assumed that the problem of "seamstress" would solve itself by ceasing to exist, like "school marm." But recently I met some volunteer costume makers at my wife's school, and this was a current issue. For non-native speakers, "seamstress" is perceived as inherently feminine, and the masculine equivalent "seamster" has never been utterred by a living person. These seamstrices wanted a term to describe the occasional male human who helped out with costumes, but could only manage "seamstress... well, you know what I mean" instead. This same problem occurs with the term "midwife," but this doesn't seem to be as big an issue, since most people accept that the wife in midwife isn't a feminizing suffix, but an inherent part of the word (as in fact it is, coming from OE midwif or "with-woman").

The word "seamster" doesn't feel all that odd to me personally (I think I've heard it before, so saying it has "never been uttered by a living person" is certainly overblown. As far as the "wife" in "midwife" goes, "-wife" is not a productive feminising suffix, and other than "midwife" (which is a fossilised unit), all current uses of "wife" (that I've ever encountered, at least) refer specifically to a married woman.

To me midwife is prototypically feminine, as is seamstress. One could use these terms to refer to men, but that is far more awkward-sounding than using waiter or actor to refer to women. To me the best solution to these terms is to obsolete them entirely.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 12:39 pm

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 7:04 am

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 4:41 am I had long assumed that the problem of "seamstress" would solve itself by ceasing to exist, like "school marm." But recently I met some volunteer costume makers at my wife's school, and this was a current issue. For non-native speakers, "seamstress" is perceived as inherently feminine, and the masculine equivalent "seamster" has never been utterred by a living person. These seamstrices wanted a term to describe the occasional male human who helped out with costumes, but could only manage "seamstress... well, you know what I mean" instead. This same problem occurs with the term "midwife," but this doesn't seem to be as big an issue, since most people accept that the wife in midwife isn't a feminizing suffix, but an inherent part of the word (as in fact it is, coming from OE midwif or "with-woman").

The word "seamster" doesn't feel all that odd to me personally (I think I've heard it before, so saying it has "never been uttered by a living person" is certainly overblown. As far as the "wife" in "midwife" goes, "-wife" is not a productive feminising suffix, and other than "midwife" (which is a fossilised unit), all current uses of "wife" (that I've ever encountered, at least) refer specifically to a married woman.

To me midwife is prototypically feminine, as is seamstress. One could use these terms to refer to men, but that is far more awkward-sounding than using waiter or actor to refer to women. To me the best solution to these terms is to obsolete them entirely.

I am puzzled and curious.
ummm...what do you suggest we replace midwife with? ("birthing nurse" would - i'd assume - strike many as prototypically feminine, even with how nowadays we have more male nurses than male midwives)

on the other matter, my grandfather was a tailor, repairing clothes; are my family supposed to start calling him a seamster so we don't split the profession into seamstresses and tailors anymore - but have seamstresses and seamsters?

EDIT: wait, so does that mean that the Screen Actors Guild Awards and BAFTAs can't give awards to Dame Judy Dench (et al) because its awkward to have both actress and actor to summarize their profession?

keenir wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 3:37 pmEDIT: wait, so does that mean that the Screen Actors Guild Awards and BAFTAs can't give awards to Dame Judy Dench (et al) because its awkward to have both actress and actor to summarize their profession?

The SAG Awards go to a "Male Actor in a Leading Role/Supporting Role/Miniseries/etc." and a "Female Actor in a Leading Role/Supporting Role/Miniseries/etc." I'm not sure what would prevent the British Academy from adopting the same terminology.

keenir wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 3:37 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 12:39 pm

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 7:04 am
The word "seamster" doesn't feel all that odd to me personally (I think I've heard it before, so saying it has "never been uttered by a living person" is certainly overblown. As far as the "wife" in "midwife" goes, "-wife" is not a productive feminising suffix, and other than "midwife" (which is a fossilised unit), all current uses of "wife" (that I've ever encountered, at least) refer specifically to a married woman.

To me midwife is prototypically feminine, as is seamstress. One could use these terms to refer to men, but that is far more awkward-sounding than using waiter or actor to refer to women. To me the best solution to these terms is to obsolete them entirely.

I am puzzled and curious.
ummm...what do you suggest we replace midwife with? ("birthing nurse" would - i'd assume - strike many as prototypically feminine, even with how nowadays we have more male nurses than male midwives)

To me nurse does have a "prototypically feminine" sound to it to an extent, but speaking of male nurses does not strike me as odd at all. So yeah, why not go with "birthing nurse"?

keenir wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 3:37 pm on the other matter, my grandfather was a tailor, repairing clothes; are my family supposed to start calling him a seamster so we don't split the profession into seamstresses and tailors anymore - but have seamstresses and seamsters?

Why couldn't you call seamstresses tailors?

keenir wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 3:37 pm EDIT: wait, so does that mean that the Screen Actors Guild Awards and BAFTAs can't give awards to Dame Judy Dench (et al) because its awkward to have both actress and actor to summarize their profession?

What Linguoboy said.

keenir wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 3:37 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 12:39 pm

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 7:04 am
The word "seamster" doesn't feel all that odd to me personally (I think I've heard it before, so saying it has "never been uttered by a living person" is certainly overblown. As far as the "wife" in "midwife" goes, "-wife" is not a productive feminising suffix, and other than "midwife" (which is a fossilised unit), all current uses of "wife" (that I've ever encountered, at least) refer specifically to a married woman.

To me midwife is prototypically feminine, as is seamstress. One could use these terms to refer to men, but that is far more awkward-sounding than using waiter or actor to refer to women. To me the best solution to these terms is to obsolete them entirely.

I am puzzled and curious.
ummm...what do you suggest we replace midwife with? ("birthing nurse" would - i'd assume - strike many as prototypically feminine, even with how nowadays we have more male nurses than male midwives)

on the other matter, my grandfather was a tailor, repairing clothes; are my family supposed to start calling him a seamster so we don't split the profession into seamstresses and tailors anymore - but have seamstresses and seamsters?

EDIT: wait, so does that mean that the Screen Actors Guild Awards and BAFTAs can't give awards to Dame Judy Dench (et al) because its awkward to have both actress and actor to summarize their profession?

Seamstresses and tailors are different things, not gendered terms to refer to the same job. Historically, seamstresses/dressmakers (and yes, seamster was the gender-neutral/masculine term) worked on women's clothing while tailors worked on men's clothing; the techniques and styles they used were quite separate. While certainly most dressmakers were female and most tailors were male, the real distinction was in what clothing/techniques they worked with.

At any rate this is all irrelevant because seamstress largely has fallen out of use. (as has the distinction in technique between male and female clothing) "Tailor" is commonly used for both men and women and has shifted to mean "person who alters clothing" rather than "person who makes clothing" (which is hardly a common career anymore). I did a quick search in my local area for clothing alterations and can't find a single place calling themselves "seamstresses"; they're all "tailors" regardless of gender.

(fwiw in the online sewing community, the term "sewist" is common; for presumably obvious reasons, "sewer" isn't preferred in text. "Seamstress" sounds extremely outdated)

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 5:16 pm To me nurse does have a "prototypically feminine" sound to it to an extent, but speaking of male nurses does not strike me as odd at all. So yeah, why not go with "birthing nurse"?

Because it's illegal. Nurse is a legally protected term, like doctor.

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 9:12 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 5:16 pm To me nurse does have a "prototypically feminine" sound to it to an extent, but speaking of male nurses does not strike me as odd at all. So yeah, why not go with "birthing nurse"?

Because it's illegal. Nurse is a legally protected term, like doctor.

oh.

does this also mean I'm in hot water for always addressing my RN as a doctor? (both to others in discussions of my medical state & in discussions with my RN herself)

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 5:16 pm

keenir wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 3:37 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 12:39 pm
To me midwife is prototypically feminine, as is seamstress. One could use these terms to refer to men, but that is far more awkward-sounding than using waiter or actor to refer to women. To me the best solution to these terms is to obsolete them entirely.

I am puzzled and curious.
ummm...what do you suggest we replace midwife with? ("birthing nurse" would - i'd assume - strike many as prototypically feminine, even with how nowadays we have more male nurses than male midwives)

To me nurse does have a "prototypically feminine" sound to it to an extent, but speaking of male nurses does not strike me as odd at all. So yeah, why not go with "birthing nurse"?

okay.

"Coming up next on BBC America, Call The Birthing Nurse."

keenir wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 3:37 pm on the other matter, my grandfather was a tailor, repairing clothes; are my family supposed to start calling him a seamster so we don't split the profession into seamstresses and tailors anymore - but have seamstresses and seamsters?

Why couldn't you call seamstresses tailors?

that occured to me, but then I noticed the line about seamsters, so I assumed the word seamstress was intended (at least by people using "seamster") to be kept around.

We have the same problem in French with sage-femme (midwife). I know the gender-neutral word maïeuticien has been suggested, but the male midwives I met just use sage-femme anyway.
It works suprisingly well -- it's awkward for a second or two, but frankly when you need a midwife, you generally have much more pressing things on your mind.