Language and thought

[Todderbob]

@JR_Brown

But a woman is a kind of man. Technically.

Woman comes from wif-man, a compound invented to distinguish the original meaning of wif (“woman”) from its later alternate meaning, “wife”. At the time the compound was invented, “man” was gender-neutral, “wer” being the word for a specifically male person. So woman literally means “woman-person”, and “man” just means “person”. You can see how the later usage developments reflects a certain non-PC view of the world…

I read this as “wtf-man,” which made the entire post far better.

[RealityChuck]

@Notassmartasithought

Here’s as good and simple an example as I can come up with. When I grew up in the 50s in small town Minnesota, there was a store on the main street called, “The Christian Book Nook.” Should I have expected to find both Oral Roberts and Teilhard de Chardin in stock? Hardly. They claimed Christianity, but only reflected a part of Christianity.

No, they claimed that the books they stocked had Christian themes and beliefs. It’s a handy description. What particular authors they decide to stock is less important than letting people know that the books they did have were based upon these. And, as a business, they would have stocked books that the expected to sell, not those that gives all ranges of Christian thought.

But if folks don’t buy this particular example, am I completely wrong in asserting that there are usages that help prevent misguided thought?

No. People will think misguided thoughts no matter what usage you choose. “Christian bookstore” is a label, not a description. Labels do not need to be literal (e.g., are you really not as smart as you think?)

[Chronos]

Woman comes from wif-man, a compound invented to distinguish the original meaning of wif (“woman”) from its later alternate meaning, “wife”. At the time the compound was invented, “man” was gender-neutral, “wer” being the word for a specifically male person. So woman literally means “woman-person”, and “man” just means “person”. You can see how the later usage developments reflects a certain non-PC view of the world…

And of course, a female lycanthrope is a wyfwolf.

You know you’re hanging out with Dopers, by the way, when you can use the word “wyfwolf” in casual conversation without having to stop to explain what you mean.

[Zoe]

…or a bumper sticker that espouses the ideals held by Christians?

As in: 1. Vote Pro-Life and 2. Vote Pro-Choice

[jackdavinci]

@Notassmartasithought

Specifically, I said that one shouldn’t use the word “Christian” as an adjective.

I’ve always been a huge proponent of the opposite notion, that referring to people as nouns was incredibly sloppy thinking, and that people should only be referred to as doing/thinking/feeling/having things, rather than being defined as being things themselves. Such as “he practices medicine” instead “he is a doctor” (as though his profession were the entire defining aspect of his existence!), and “she has a criminal record” or “she committed a crime” rather than “she is a criminal”.

[Peremensoe]

@t-bonham@scc.net

Buckminister Fuller objected to using the words sunrise and sunset, saying they reinforced the (mistaken, pre-Galileo) idea that it is the sun that is moving. And that having/speaking such ideas distorted your thinking.

That’s idiotic. That’s like saying that the words “daytime” and “nighttime” are inappropriate, because it’s really always “day” and “night” (somewhere).

The sun does rise above the horizon and sink below. The fact that this image is created by the motion of the earth (and thus, the viewer) doesn’t mean that the image isn’t happening. For that matter, the horizon itself isn’t “real” either. “Sunrise” and “sunset” describe the image, not some event out in space.

[Peremensoe]

@sundog66

Ah, I get it:

Don’t use the word “drive,” because it reinforces the pre-automobile idea that a wheeled vehicle is drawn by animals who are impelled forward with a whip.

[guizot]

@Notassmartasithought

In this thread Very simple grammar question - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board , I assert that some usage rules are conducive to better thought…and it still works.

Does anyone have any similar recommendations?

My recommendation is that you reconsider the usage of petitio principii.