What's new

"Re said..." (1 Viewer)

Jared_B

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 7, 2001
Messages
580
Really, .01% of the population can't handle a way of speaking, so the other 99.99% of us should change?
Well, several years ago a relatively small percentage of the population "couldn't handle" the word nigger. Now, that word is almost completely taboo in our society (except in rap music). I think this small group of people had every right to attempt to remove this word from use because it offended them.
 

DennisHP

Second Unit
Joined
Aug 6, 2000
Messages
352
The "N" word example, although it illustrates the point, is pretty extreme and not very comparable. Him, his, her, whatever, is not offending any particular group except the few who are now following Neuter, er, I mean, Newdow. I say "the few who are now following him" because I never heard of anyone being offended until this issue recently came up.
 

Ryan Wright

Screenwriter
Joined
Jul 30, 2000
Messages
1,875
I think this small group of people had every right to attempt to remove this word from use because it offended them.
The word is racist. It's a fight provoking, highly offensive word and the percentage of people who wanted it removed from use was huge. If a tiny percentage of blacks didn't like it, but the vast majority of both blacks and whites had no problem with it, it would still be in use today.

It's the same with "He". The vast majority of both men and women have no problem with the proper use of the word "he" as a gender neutral pronoun. Now, if the vast majority of the female population had a major problem with this (as the vast majority of blacks rightfully did with the N word), I guarantee you it would be changed. But they don't, so it won't.
 

Ron-P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2000
Messages
6,300
Real Name
Ron
What about the word "guys"? (Or did we cover that already in this thread?) Refer's to the male sex, yet we all use it when addressing a group of people both male and female.
Peace Out~:D
 

Jared_B

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 7, 2001
Messages
580
Dennis and Ryan,
You guys are exaclty right - the example is extreme. The he/re stuff probably matters to only a dozen people in this country (based on what I've heard about it). I agree that this re thing will never work, but both of you some people stated that are making it sound like this guy shouldn't even be allowed to try. On that, I disagree. Let him try as much as he wants. If he gets no support, it will never happen. This is a free country, afterall.

Another thing - Ryan, I agree with you 100% that people are too easily offended anymore. However, I also believe that people have the right to free speech. If that speech gains them support for a cause I don't believe in, so be it
 

Rex Bachmann

Screenwriter
Joined
Nov 10, 2001
Messages
1,972
Real Name
Rex Bachmann
Ryan Wright wrote:
[I said:
elegant[/I]]Quote:
"The issue is NOT how. . . anyone . . . feels about it. . ."
Apparently, it is.
The question is, "established by whom?" What makes them right, and other native speakers "wrong"? That's exactly what I asked you before and it still hasn't been answered.
 

Rex Bachmann

Screenwriter
Joined
Nov 10, 2001
Messages
1,972
Real Name
Rex Bachmann
Jared_B wrote:
I've got news for you, Ryan Wright, it still is in use today. For an "appeal to authority", see Randall Kennedy's recent book Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word (Pantheon Books, 2002).
The young "rappers" sure get it from somewhere. They didn't make it up.
The comparison of this cultural marker and its history to the present attempt to manufacture and impose nonwords on the English-speaking populace of this country is invidious and intellectually spurious.
 

Chris Beveridge

Second Unit
Joined
Jul 3, 1998
Messages
349
Dennis,

For all those who think it's a good idea to use re, ris or whatever, go ahead. No one will know what the hell you're talking about though.
Just think, ten years ago, only a tiny tiny percentage of the worlds population knew what the word "internet" really meant. New words come up every day, new terms, new phrases. All it takes is someone to start using it, and continually use it, and it'll catch on if people agree. If not, it'll go away. It's that simple.
 

Henry Carmona

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 7, 2000
Messages
1,299
Location
San Antonio
Real Name
Henry Carmona
I dont think thats a good axample Chris.

The word Internet did not come about as a way to "replace" any existing words or as a way to "not offend" anyone.
 

DennisHP

Second Unit
Joined
Aug 6, 2000
Messages
352
I agree with Henry but see what I think you're trying to say. I doubt re and ra and ris will catch on with anyone outside his fambly unit.
 

Caleb Penner

Agent
Joined
Aug 25, 1999
Messages
39
Among the candidates proposed to replace the generic third-person singular pronoun in English are co, et, han, hesh, jhe, na, person, s/he, thon, ti (an inversion of the letters in it), and ws, but none has caught on.
Some of those are even funnier than "re."

Caleb Penner
 

Ryan Wright

Screenwriter
Joined
Jul 30, 2000
Messages
1,875
Who says that B isn't proper English? Your High School English teacher?
I wouldn't know; I haven't been in high school for nearly a decade, but if I had to guess, I'd say "Yes." Any English teacher would say that B isn't proper English.

I'll say it again: The push to change the langauge over this issue is for the wrong reasons. If there were a legitimate problem I'd be all for coming up with a new gender neutral pronoun. The vocal minority of "I have a thin skin, a loud mouth and everything offends me" isn't a legitimate problem.
 

Patrick McCart

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 16, 2001
Messages
8,196
Location
Georgia (the state)
Real Name
Patrick McCart
Unfortunately, the law is what it is. Whether or not someone was actually getting hurt is beside the point. Speeding works much the same way. You don't hurt anyone by speeding, but you get fined because a law is being broken. The daughter was used as a hypothetical case to prove that a law was being broken. Now, whether you agree with that law, or think it's being interpreted correctly is another issue that shouldn't be discussed here (probably been discussed too much already).
But that's like taking a throat cancer case to trial because Vitamin-O-Rama vitamins cause throat cancer. They have a model of the happening who doesn't have throat cancer.

It's practically like having the 500 lb man be in the AFTER part of a weight loss ad.
 

Aaron Copeland

Second Unit
Joined
Nov 3, 2000
Messages
445
Real Name
Aaron
In this case, many authorities say it's so. A college textbook and every expert on English says this is the proper way to speak. I tend to side with those who know what they're talking about.
Of course it's important to note that language came before the rules. Not the other way around. Languages morph over time and it's the rules that are forced to adapt, the rules do NOT morph the language.

Aaron
 

Mark Zimmer

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
4,318
Wow, people sure get worked up about not much. Did any of you read the transcript posted above? It sounds to me like he's just suggesting a gender-neutral pronoun, to be used in cases where either the gender is unclear or unimportant. Getting outraged about this is like getting outraged about Esperanto. Please note, also, that in the transcript he specifically denies suing to get this instituted.
And for the record, he's spot on about the pledge. The First Amendment is quite clear about No Establishment of Religion, and if forcing children to affirm the existence of God isn't an Establishment of Religion, then we may as well set up the Church of America and force everyone to go to it at gunpoint. But the Supreme Court will find some way, bless their pointy little heads, to save the pledge, so you needn't get too worked up about that either. :rolleyes
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top