If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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). |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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). |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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). |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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). |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Abandoned Kitten - Day 2: Weeble Poops!!! | Cathy Friedmann | Cat anecdotes | 17 | August 28th 03 06:16 PM |
Abandoned Kitten - Day 3: Weeble Pics | [email protected] | Cat anecdotes | 3 | August 26th 03 09:26 PM |
Abandoned Kitten - Day 2: Weeble Poops!!! | Cathy Friedmann | Cat health & behaviour | 6 | August 26th 03 12:48 AM |
Abandoned Kitten Needs A Name | Tony | Cat health & behaviour | 34 | August 23rd 03 06:50 PM |