Abandoned Kitten - Day 2: Weeble Poops!!!

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...


Rona Yuthasastrakosol wrote:

"Magic Mood Jeep©" wrote in message
news:ubs2b.258074$uu5.59071@sccrnsc04...
Uhm, duh!

I only used the words "it" and "thing" to define that *he* wasn't a
human
and does NOT understand the human language & it's meaning, only the
sounds
that *he* will learn to know as what we use when we vocalize to *him*.

snip

In many languages, such as English, animals *are* 'it' and 'things'
since
they are not human. Prescriptively, you were perfectly correct to use
'it'
to describe Weeble. Cat Protector seems to have little but cats in his
social circle, hence the desire to anthropomorphize them.

How is it "anthropomorphizing" to assign an animal its proper gender?
Dogs and cats are not humans, true, but they are fellow mammals, thus
members of a bi-sexual species. Name just ONE language where individual
living creatures are not referred to by gender! (Certain NOT English,
as you claim, nor French, German, Italian, Spanish.....)

I don't know about German, but hey, in French (& I think Spanish & probably
Italian) even inanimate objects are assigned a gender! ;-P

Cathy

--
"Staccato signals of constant information..."
("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon

piggy-backing since I never got the original

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...

How is it "anthropomorphizing" to assign an animal its proper gender?
Dogs and cats are not humans, true, but they are fellow mammals, thus
members of a bi-sexual species. Name just ONE language where individual
living creatures are not referred to by gender! (Certain NOT English,
as you claim, nor French, German, Italian, Spanish.....)


Two languages, other than English (prescriptively), that I have first-hand
knowledge of are Thai and Japanese. Neither uses he/she pronouns to refer
to animals.

As I said in my previous post, *prescriptively*, English is one of the
languages that uses 'it' for non-humans. *Descriptively*, few people use
'it' except when refering to those animals of which the sex is unknown (for
example, a dog on the street--"There's a dog! Where did it come from?").
Prescriptive and descriptive English can be two very different things.
Linguistically speaking, neither usage is incorrect. The descriptive usage
of he/she in English can probably be traced back to whenever pets became
widely owned, or perhaps even to wide-spread animal domestication. Humans
did not always have domesticated animals and very likely thought of animals
in very different terms from how we do now.

On that note, the use of he/she to describe animals is often used when the
writer/speaker considers the animals to have some personality of its own.
'It' is more likely used when the writer/speaker has no emotional attachment
to the animal. (That's where the anthropomorphism comes in--the attachment
of personality to an animal--though yes, I do think my cat has a very
distinct personality even though 'personality' is a word that is
*prescriptively* to be used for humans, only--note the root of the word
'person'.)

That being said, I think one of the problems with language is that we
(humans) tend to be very ethnocentric. If you were to look at cultures that
did not value animals as pets, you would probably find more languages that
do not use he/she to refer to animals (or perhaps use he/she for some but
not for others). Just because one culture values cats and dogs, doesn't
mean all cultures do (hence the use of dogs and cats as food in some Asian
cultures). Not all languages even have pronouns, or define pronouns the
same way English does. Of course languages will differentiate between male
and female (sex) but it does not follow that they will be the same with
he/she/it usage.

rona

piggy-backing since I never got the original

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...

How is it "anthropomorphizing" to assign an animal its proper gender?
Dogs and cats are not humans, true, but they are fellow mammals, thus
members of a bi-sexual species. Name just ONE language where individual
living creatures are not referred to by gender! (Certain NOT English,
as you claim, nor French, German, Italian, Spanish.....)


Two languages, other than English (prescriptively), that I have first-hand
knowledge of are Thai and Japanese. Neither uses he/she pronouns to refer
to animals.

As I said in my previous post, *prescriptively*, English is one of the
languages that uses 'it' for non-humans. *Descriptively*, few people use
'it' except when refering to those animals of which the sex is unknown (for
example, a dog on the street--"There's a dog! Where did it come from?").
Prescriptive and descriptive English can be two very different things.
Linguistically speaking, neither usage is incorrect. The descriptive usage
of he/she in English can probably be traced back to whenever pets became
widely owned, or perhaps even to wide-spread animal domestication. Humans
did not always have domesticated animals and very likely thought of animals
in very different terms from how we do now.

On that note, the use of he/she to describe animals is often used when the
writer/speaker considers the animals to have some personality of its own.
'It' is more likely used when the writer/speaker has no emotional attachment
to the animal. (That's where the anthropomorphism comes in--the attachment
of personality to an animal--though yes, I do think my cat has a very
distinct personality even though 'personality' is a word that is
*prescriptively* to be used for humans, only--note the root of the word
'person'.)

That being said, I think one of the problems with language is that we
(humans) tend to be very ethnocentric. If you were to look at cultures that
did not value animals as pets, you would probably find more languages that
do not use he/she to refer to animals (or perhaps use he/she for some but
not for others). Just because one culture values cats and dogs, doesn't
mean all cultures do (hence the use of dogs and cats as food in some Asian
cultures). Not all languages even have pronouns, or define pronouns the
same way English does. Of course languages will differentiate between male
and female (sex) but it does not follow that they will be the same with
he/she/it usage.

rona

In ,
Cathy Friedmann composed with style:

That was pretty thorough. ;-) (And interesting.)

Wasn't it? I don't mean to stereotype, but I often find Asians are
more well-versed in the English language than some of us who only have
the one language. (forgive me, Rona, if Asian isn't your
ethnicity).

In ,
Cathy Friedmann composed with style:

That was pretty thorough. ;-) (And interesting.)

Wasn't it? I don't mean to stereotype, but I often find Asians are
more well-versed in the English language than some of us who only have
the one language. (forgive me, Rona, if Asian isn't your
ethnicity).

Cathy Friedmann wrote:

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...


Rona Yuthasastrakosol wrote:

"Magic Mood Jeep©" wrote in message
news:ubs2b.258074$uu5.59071@sccrnsc04...
Uhm, duh!

I only used the words "it" and "thing" to define that *he* wasn't a
human
and does NOT understand the human language & it's meaning, only the
sounds
that *he* will learn to know as what we use when we vocalize to *him*.

snip

In many languages, such as English, animals *are* 'it' and 'things'
since
they are not human. Prescriptively, you were perfectly correct to use
'it'
to describe Weeble. Cat Protector seems to have little but cats in his
social circle, hence the desire to anthropomorphize them.

How is it "anthropomorphizing" to assign an animal its proper gender?
Dogs and cats are not humans, true, but they are fellow mammals, thus
members of a bi-sexual species. Name just ONE language where individual
living creatures are not referred to by gender! (Certain NOT English,
as you claim, nor French, German, Italian, Spanish.....)

I don't know about German, but hey, in French (& I think Spanish & probably
Italian) even inanimate objects are assigned a gender! ;-P

In Spanish and Italian, definitely - German is a bit more complicated,
because you have masculine, feminine AND neuter nouns (but not ALL
inanimate things are automatically classed as neuter, as they are in
English).

Cathy Friedmann wrote:

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...


Rona Yuthasastrakosol wrote:

"Magic Mood Jeep©" wrote in message
news:ubs2b.258074$uu5.59071@sccrnsc04...
Uhm, duh!

I only used the words "it" and "thing" to define that *he* wasn't a
human
and does NOT understand the human language & it's meaning, only the
sounds
that *he* will learn to know as what we use when we vocalize to *him*.

snip

In many languages, such as English, animals *are* 'it' and 'things'
since
they are not human. Prescriptively, you were perfectly correct to use
'it'
to describe Weeble. Cat Protector seems to have little but cats in his
social circle, hence the desire to anthropomorphize them.

How is it "anthropomorphizing" to assign an animal its proper gender?
Dogs and cats are not humans, true, but they are fellow mammals, thus
members of a bi-sexual species. Name just ONE language where individual
living creatures are not referred to by gender! (Certain NOT English,
as you claim, nor French, German, Italian, Spanish.....)

I don't know about German, but hey, in French (& I think Spanish & probably
Italian) even inanimate objects are assigned a gender! ;-P

In Spanish and Italian, definitely - German is a bit more complicated,
because you have masculine, feminine AND neuter nouns (but not ALL
inanimate things are automatically classed as neuter, as they are in
English).

Rona Yuthasastrakosol wrote:

piggy-backing since I never got the original

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...

How is it "anthropomorphizing" to assign an animal its proper gender?
Dogs and cats are not humans, true, but they are fellow mammals, thus
members of a bi-sexual species. Name just ONE language where individual
living creatures are not referred to by gender! (Certain NOT English,
as you claim, nor French, German, Italian, Spanish.....)


Two languages, other than English (prescriptively), that I have first-hand
knowledge of are Thai and Japanese. Neither uses he/she pronouns to refer
to animals.

As I said in my previous post, *prescriptively*, English is one of the
languages that uses 'it' for non-humans.

Actually, that's not true, unless the animal's gender is unknown. (And
a "human" is an "it", too, when gender is unspecified.)

*Descriptively*, few people use
'it' except when refering to those animals of which the sex is unknown (for
example, a dog on the street--"There's a dog! Where did it come from?").
Prescriptive and descriptive English can be two very different things.
Linguistically speaking, neither usage is incorrect. The descriptive usage
of he/she in English can probably be traced back to whenever pets became
widely owned, or perhaps even to wide-spread animal domestication. Humans
did not always have domesticated animals and very likely thought of animals
in very different terms from how we do now.

On that note, the use of he/she to describe animals is often used when the
writer/speaker considers the animals to have some personality of its own.
'It' is more likely used when the writer/speaker has no emotional attachment
to the animal. (That's where the anthropomorphism comes in--the attachment
of personality to an animal--though yes, I do think my cat has a very
distinct personality even though 'personality' is a word that is
*prescriptively* to be used for humans, only--note the root of the word
'person'.)

That being said, I think one of the problems with language is that we
(humans) tend to be very ethnocentric. If you were to look at cultures that
did not value animals as pets, you would probably find more languages that
do not use he/she to refer to animals (or perhaps use he/she for some but
not for others). Just because one culture values cats and dogs, doesn't
mean all cultures do (hence the use of dogs and cats as food in some Asian
cultures). Not all languages even have pronouns, or define pronouns the
same way English does. Of course languages will differentiate between male
and female (sex) but it does not follow that they will be the same with
he/she/it usage.

rona

Rona Yuthasastrakosol wrote:

piggy-backing since I never got the original

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...

How is it "anthropomorphizing" to assign an animal its proper gender?
Dogs and cats are not humans, true, but they are fellow mammals, thus
members of a bi-sexual species. Name just ONE language where individual
living creatures are not referred to by gender! (Certain NOT English,
as you claim, nor French, German, Italian, Spanish.....)


Two languages, other than English (prescriptively), that I have first-hand
knowledge of are Thai and Japanese. Neither uses he/she pronouns to refer
to animals.

As I said in my previous post, *prescriptively*, English is one of the
languages that uses 'it' for non-humans.

Actually, that's not true, unless the animal's gender is unknown. (And
a "human" is an "it", too, when gender is unspecified.)

*Descriptively*, few people use
'it' except when refering to those animals of which the sex is unknown (for
example, a dog on the street--"There's a dog! Where did it come from?").
Prescriptive and descriptive English can be two very different things.
Linguistically speaking, neither usage is incorrect. The descriptive usage
of he/she in English can probably be traced back to whenever pets became
widely owned, or perhaps even to wide-spread animal domestication. Humans
did not always have domesticated animals and very likely thought of animals
in very different terms from how we do now.

On that note, the use of he/she to describe animals is often used when the
writer/speaker considers the animals to have some personality of its own.
'It' is more likely used when the writer/speaker has no emotional attachment
to the animal. (That's where the anthropomorphism comes in--the attachment
of personality to an animal--though yes, I do think my cat has a very
distinct personality even though 'personality' is a word that is
*prescriptively* to be used for humans, only--note the root of the word
'person'.)

That being said, I think one of the problems with language is that we
(humans) tend to be very ethnocentric. If you were to look at cultures that
did not value animals as pets, you would probably find more languages that
do not use he/she to refer to animals (or perhaps use he/she for some but
not for others). Just because one culture values cats and dogs, doesn't
mean all cultures do (hence the use of dogs and cats as food in some Asian
cultures). Not all languages even have pronouns, or define pronouns the
same way English does. Of course languages will differentiate between male
and female (sex) but it does not follow that they will be the same with
he/she/it usage.

rona

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...


Rona Yuthasastrakosol wrote:

piggy-backing since I never got the original

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in
message
...

How is it "anthropomorphizing" to assign an animal its proper
gender?
Dogs and cats are not humans, true, but they are fellow mammals,
thus
members of a bi-sexual species. Name just ONE language where
individual
living creatures are not referred to by gender! (Certain NOT
English,
as you claim, nor French, German, Italian, Spanish.....)


Two languages, other than English (prescriptively), that I have
first-hand
knowledge of are Thai and Japanese. Neither uses he/she pronouns to
refer
to animals.

As I said in my previous post, *prescriptively*, English is one of the
languages that uses 'it' for non-humans.

Actually, that's not true, unless the animal's gender is unknown.

AFAIK, it is true that in English an animal is referred to as "it", even if
the gender is known. Of course one can *choose* to use a gender-specific
pronoun.

Cathy

--
"Staccato signals of constant information..."
("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon

(And
a "human" is an "it", too, when gender is unspecified.)



*Descriptively*, few people use
'it' except when refering to those animals of which the sex is unknown
(for
example, a dog on the street--"There's a dog! Where did it come
from?").
Prescriptive and descriptive English can be two very different things.
Linguistically speaking, neither usage is incorrect. The descriptive
usage
of he/she in English can probably be traced back to whenever pets became
widely owned, or perhaps even to wide-spread animal domestication.
Humans
did not always have domesticated animals and very likely thought of
animals
in very different terms from how we do now.

On that note, the use of he/she to describe animals is often used when
the
writer/speaker considers the animals to have some personality of its
own.
'It' is more likely used when the writer/speaker has no emotional
attachment
to the animal. (That's where the anthropomorphism comes in--the
attachment
of personality to an animal--though yes, I do think my cat has a very
distinct personality even though 'personality' is a word that is
*prescriptively* to be used for humans, only--note the root of the word
'person'.)

That being said, I think one of the problems with language is that we
(humans) tend to be very ethnocentric. If you were to look at cultures
that
did not value animals as pets, you would probably find more languages
that
do not use he/she to refer to animals (or perhaps use he/she for some
but
not for others). Just because one culture values cats and dogs, doesn't
mean all cultures do (hence the use of dogs and cats as food in some
Asian
cultures). Not all languages even have pronouns, or define pronouns the
same way English does. Of course languages will differentiate between
male
and female (sex) but it does not follow that they will be the same with
he/she/it usage.

rona