| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5] > | "mankind" determined a gender-specific word Thread poster: finnword1
|
|---|
Natasha Ziada (X) 
Australia
Local time: 08:59
English to Dutch
+ ...
| Apples and oranges | Mar 28, 2018 |
Susan Welsh wrote: Hamlet: ...What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form, in moving, how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? man delights not me; no, nor woman neither, though, by your smiling, you seem to say so. Rosencrantz: My lord, there was no such stuff in my thoughts. Hamlet: Why did you laugh then, when I said, ‘man delights not me?’ Rosencrantz To think, my lord, if you delight not in man, what lenten entertainment the players shall receive from you: we coted them on the way; and hither are they coming, to offer you service. --- How does this sound in a so-called modern version? This one ( http://nfs.sparknotes.com/hamlet/page_110.html) not only strips away the beauty of this passage, but renders its humor incomprehensible: HAMLET ...What a perfect invention a human is, how noble in his capacity to reason, how unlimited in thinking, how admirable in his shape and movement, how angelic in action, how godlike in understanding! There’s nothing more beautiful. We surpass all other animals. And yet to me, what are we but dust? Men don’t interest me. No—women neither, but you’re smiling, so you must think they do. ROSENCRANTZ My lord, I wasn’t thinking anything like that. HAMLET So why did you laugh when I said that men don’t interest me? ROSENCRANTZ I was just thinking that if people don’t interest you, you’ll be pretty bored by the actors on their way here. We crossed paths with a drama company just a while ago, and they’re coming to entertain you. -- Never mind. I think I'm going to be sick, better get off the computer.
They are two completely different versions though, and I fail to see how the difference between them has anything to do with the topic at hand.
| | | |
First, let me say I fully concur with Natasha Ziata's contribution. I couldn't say it any better myself.
---
On the subject of job titles, different solutions can be relevant in different language and social contexts. In human affairs, contradictory approaches do not necessarily mean one of them is "wrong".
Especially regarding French, I'll translate a post by the makers of a well known French/English corrector software (translating from French into English... See more First, let me say I fully concur with Natasha Ziata's contribution. I couldn't say it any better myself.
---
On the subject of job titles, different solutions can be relevant in different language and social contexts. In human affairs, contradictory approaches do not necessarily mean one of them is "wrong".
Especially regarding French, I'll translate a post by the makers of a well known French/English corrector software (translating from French into English, apologies for any errors).
Antidote - http://antidote.info/ - endorses the recommendations of the Quebec Board of the French Language (OQLF), which advocates the feminization of titles, professional names and other job titles for women. You will therefore find in the dictionary the female forms recommended by the OQLF (such as une ingénieure, une boulangère, une écrivaine, une médecin, une docteure, une avocate, une programmeuse, une sous-traitante, etc.) This feminization, common in Quebec, is also officially encouraged in Switzerland and Belgium. We consider it to be inherent to the logic of the French language, which quite naturally feminizes the more traditionally "feminine" professions. In France, the Academy remains reluctant, but (common linguistic) usage and grammarians should very soon relegate this archaism to oblivion, as is the case in the rest of the French-speaking world.
Source: https://www.druide.com/fr/enquetes/féminise-ou-pas
Again, this can only be seen in the larger context. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Let language change | Mar 28, 2018 |
Natasha Ziada wrote:
I'm quite surprised by the level of vehemence and ridicule displayed in this thread regarding what is essentially an effort to make language more inclusive. No, changing the words we use will not suddenly create full equality and world peace, and to expect it to do is disingenuous and naive. I would think that language professionals would be the first ones, however, to acknowledge the power and importance of the words we use. Switching from 'mankind' to 'humanity' may not directly lead to tangible results in terms of equality, but by challenging our preconceptions it might just create the tiniest ripple in our collective view on gender and gender inequality (still a very real issue worldwide).
Plus the push for new terminology isn't a goal in itself, but part of a (fascinating) process. Changes to our vocabulary both contribute to and reflect changes in our society, and we may reel at some of the proposed changes at first, but a few years down the track we will either have gotten used to them, or there will be new push the other way.
Vehemence
I disagree with any sort of vehemence, but I also consider it vehemence to mark down a student's work because of a word like mankind, which is still an accepted way to refer to all humans (even if some don’t like it), and that sort of 'thought control' makes me and many others strongly oppose such attitudes, not because of the gender inclusiveness, but because of the aggressiveness used. Ridicule sometimes helps dealing with aggressiveness. And I don't see how "humankind" solves the problem, as it still only has "man" in it. If we say "mankind", it's deemed non-inclusive, but if we put "hu" in front, it's suddenly inclusive. Sorry, but it fails all tests for logic.
Man
Couldn’t we just find another word for “man”, define the existing “man” as gender neutral (i.e. human = man), and then leave all the “man” words alone? Then we could focus on things that matter instead of debating hundreds of individual “man” words, which is a very unproductive exercise. I really don’t care what we call “man”. Problem solved.
Power
"acknowledge the power and importance of the words we use"? I think you overestimate that "power". And it’s not my job as a translator to exercise any power, only to pass on the same message in another language. That said, I always try to eliminate any hint of non-inclusive vocabulary, because it seems the right thing to do. This can sometimes be a challenge when the source is French. What I resist is if someone like that teacher orders me to do it. I think it’s a very human reaction to resist forced action by others. The disagreement is about methods, most of all.
The N Word
Someone mentioned the N word, but it’s quite a different situation, as the original, neutral N word simply means “black” in Spanish, and there was nothing derogatory about it. However, the abuse of a variant of that word made it necessary to stop using any of them. Music from the middle of the last century known as “N.... Spirituals” isn’t racist, for example. Unfortunately I don’t think that such a change of vocabulary changes any attitudes; it merely masks them.
Roman Languages
The Roman languages are ‘trapped’ by their Latin roots with masculine and feminine genders, whereas English has no gender (with a few exceptions), and the Scandinavian languages have some variants of common gender and no gender. “Man” and “woman” is the same grammatical gender in Danish, for example. It gives no logical meaning in French that a table is feminine and a wall is masculine. They could have solved much of the problems in the Roman languages by redefining the grammatical genders to terms not related to human genders. That way there could be for example a common gender and no gender, or whatever, and all the occupations would by definition be neutral and inclusive without having a grammatical gender that can be related to a human gender, and it would no longer be seen as a problem that the common gender takes precedence when both genders appear in a sentence. It causes many more linguistic problems when we suddenly have to include two different forms of all occupations when we really don’t care about human gender, and it makes the language clunkier. But it’s not for me to decide what the French do with their language. I just hope they don’t ruin it. If the Académie française had been more proactive in trying to solve such problems before they wreck the entire language structure instead of being like a museum of waxworks, perhaps such common-sense solutions could have been found. They seem to see their mission as protecting French against any sort of change, with the result that change happens in a chaotic and uncoordinated way – much like it does in English, but English isn’t tied into heavy grammatical structures, as French is.
Preconceptions
"challenging our preconceptions it might just create the tiniest ripple in our collective view on gender and gender inequality (still a very real issue worldwide)". I have no preconceptions, so there is nothing to challenge. Don't presume that everybody has views that must be challenged. Not everybody is sexist. There is no such thing as a "collective view". Everybody has an individual view. There is no common mind. It is not right to generalise like that. It is not my fault that some people are sexists, and I resent being directly or indirectly criticised for it. I’m not referring to you here, but anybody who follows the press can read how men as a whole are regularly blamed for various sexist behaviours, the preconception of some people being that all men are by definition sexists.
Whom to Blame?
It is not anyone's fault today that words like "mankind" are as they are. We have taken over an existing vocabulary, on good and bad. We need to find common-sense solutions, but without blaming anyone for why the existing language is what it is. Going around penalising people today because they are not fast enough suddenly to change their vocabulary, according to the opinions of some, is going to cause anger and opposition. When "they" instead of "he or she" became accepted, I just started using it, but if some aggressive teacher is ordering me to use "humankind" instead of "mankind", I'm much less likely to do it.
Real Problems
None of this, of course, will have the slightest impact on FGM, child marriages, 'honour killings', forced labour, forced marriages, domestic violence (which concerns both sexes) or many other horrible things. These are things that horrify me, not questions about inherited semantics.
| | | | | Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member for the following reason: Requested editions not made. |
|
|
| Life is a minefield | Mar 28, 2018 |
Thomas T. Frost wrote:
But it is unpleasant that we have reached a stage where we have to be so extremely careful what we say to any woman lest we say something intended as completely innocent that is interpreted as offensive or suggestive by someone who is analysing every written and unwritten letter to see if they can uncover something to be offended about. I guess even a smiley could be interpreted as suggestive, so I am never the first to use one when communicating with a female PM; only if they start using it as a sign of friendliness will I use it, while being careful not to overuse it. Communication with women has become a minefield, and although most women are perfectly reasonable, it's impossible to know in advance which ones are ready to explode by accident. But better safe than sorry.
My original post was removed because apparently it lacked mutual respect.
Ironically, the gist of what I was saying was that this paragraph could be considered fairly offensive and disrespectful itself. You don't have to be a hysterical women searching for problems where they don't exist to feel that way.
Having to think twice about what you are saying is nothing in comparison to what other people have to put up with every day. 90% of the time, when I give a man my business card or try to build rapport in order to secure a contract he thinks I'm hitting on him or offering sex. But, again, that's nothing compared with other things people have to deal with in this world.
Personally, I don't find mankind in the least bit offensive, I've always used it instead of man, precisely to avoid this sort of issue. However, if other people find it troublesome, I really don't mind adding those two little letters. It's not a problem and nothing like France's cumbersome solution to gender-inclusive spelling.
Do I think students should be marked down for using it? No. Do I think students should be marked down for not following the examiner's explicit instructions? Yes, of course.
[Edited at 2018-03-28 15:41 GMT]
| | | | | On a side note | Mar 28, 2018 |
Jean Dimitriadis wrote: Antidote - http://antidote.info/ - endorses the recommendations of the Quebec Board of the French Language (OQLF), which advocates the feminization of titles, professional names and other job titles for women. You will therefore find in the dictionary the female forms recommended by the OQLF (such as une ingénieure, une boulangère, une écrivaine, une médecin, une docteure, une avocate, une programmeuse, une sous-traitante, etc.) This feminization, common in Quebec, is also officially encouraged in Switzerland and Belgium. We consider it to be inherent to the logic of the French language, which quite naturally feminizes the more traditionally "feminine" professions. In France, the Academy remains reluctant, but (common linguistic) usage and grammarians should very soon relegate this archaism to oblivion, as is the case in the rest of the French-speaking world.
If you translated this yourself and if I'm right in understanding that you are not a native English speaker, I am extremely impressed.
| | | | Sheila Wilson
Spain
Local time: 23:59
Member (2007)
English
+ ...
| That's what's so sad | Mar 28, 2018 |
Thomas T. Frost wrote:
But it is unpleasant that we have reached a stage where we have to be so extremely careful what we say to any woman lest we say something intended as completely innocent that is interpreted as offensive or suggestive by someone who is analysing every written and unwritten letter to see if they can uncover something to be offended about. I guess even a smiley could be interpreted as suggestive, so I am never the first to use one when communicating with a female PM; only if they start using it as a sign of friendliness will I use it, while being careful not to overuse it. Communication with women has become a minefield, and although most women are perfectly reasonable, it's impossible to know in advance which ones are ready to explode by accident. But better safe than sorry.
So, so sad to hear that, but I can quite understand why.
This is all being done, supposedly, in the name of women's equality, the ending of sexual discrimination, etc. And as a woman that's exactly what I want to see. But all we need are fair and just things: equal opportunities in education and the workplace, equal pay for equal work, support systems for carers of kids and ailing parents (male carers as well!), and some clear - and enforced - laws about harassment (which also apply in reverse). Arm women with education, strength and self-respect and they'll get equality from 99% of people, simply on their own rights. My own daughter is Director of Engineering at a major aerospace company, so I know I'm not just spouting rubbish  .
This hysteria we've got today is going to end up blowing up in our faces. Women will end up being ostracised by men because those issues that surround them are just too difficult to deal with. Would equality end up meaning one board of male directors and one of female directors  ? And from there it's only a short step - backwards - to segregation. What sort of equality will that be, for anyone? In fact, isn't it exactly what IS are fighting for?
Anyway, I'm ranting, but it's because I'm really troubled by the course of events around the world at the moment. Everything is suddenly about divisiveness. I'm all right, Jack. Them and us. If you aren't in my club you're an enemy. Sovereignty and nationalism. It's a recent development, and it's very sad to look back over 60 years of steady if slow improvement, only to see it all collapsing.
| | | |
Georgie Scott wrote:
90% of the time, when I give a man my business card or try to build rapport in order to secure a contract he thinks I'm hitting on him or offering sex. But, again, that's nothing compared with other things people have to deal with in this world.
Men most probably don't encounter such situations nearly as often as women (but it does happen). I would not like that to happen to my own daughter. We quite agree.
Not being the type of man who matches your description, it is sometimes frustrating to keep reading generalisation after generalisation against men in general (in the press, not on Proz) because of shameful behaviour by some men, indirectly being accused for something somebody else does. That's really the point I want to make. And the other point is that sometimes some people are a bit quick to get offended by something not intended as being offensive or suggestive. Sometimes a little bit more presumption of innocence – if in doubt – would make things go easier.
But I completely understand the frustration of dealing with unwanted attention all the time. It just isn't my fault.
| | |
|
|
|
TonyTK
German to English
+ ...
| Third attempt | Mar 28, 2018 |
Thomas T. Frost wrote:
But I completely understand the frustration of dealing with unwanted attention all the time. It just isn't my fault.
Society's to blame ("Yes, we'll be arresting them too, sir")
My last two posts were apparently deemed disrespectful to women and/or Russians! God help us (if she's not already too busy helping Sheila). Let's see if Monty Python gets through.
| | | | | I know it's not | Mar 28, 2018 |
Thomas T. Frost wrote:
It just isn't my fault.
Of course it's not. I really do understand that.
| | | | | Let's keep this discussion on topic | Mar 28, 2018 |
Hello,
I just wanted to remind everyone to keep this discussion on topic and within the scope of ProZ.com: https://www.proz.com/siterules/forum/1#1
Thank you for your cooperation.
Best regards,
Alejandro
| | | | | The prize question ... | Mar 29, 2018 |
finnword1 wrote:
If you encounter the word mankind, be extra careful. Dr. Anne Scott from Northern Arizona University has determined that the word is gender-specific and only includes men.
(Since everyone has suddenly become so civil, I'll try to at least talk about translation.)
In 1789 a bunch of revolutionaries in France published the "Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen". And the prize question is: What is the correct translation of this title?
As finnword1, Thomas and others have argued, it would be incorrect to translate that title as "Declaration of the rights of man [or mankind] and the citizen", because this translation would be entirely misleading. The average reader would assume that man/mankind is being used in an inclusive sense, severely distorting the intention of the original authors, who were clearly using "homme"/"man" in an exclusive sense.
If some illiterate PC fanatic decided the title ought to be translated "Declaration of the rights of humanity and the citizen" that would obviously be equally nonsensical, because the declaration is not about the rights of people and citizens, it is about the rights of men and male citizens.
So, assuming that the use of "man"/"mankind" to refer to all people is entirely unambiguous and unproblematic, then the only adequate translation would seem to be "Declaration of the rights of men and male citizens". But that doesn't really have the same ring to it: The linguistic sleight of hand really does seem essential here.
Ergo:
(1) I don't really care if someone prefers using "mankind" to "humanity" when referring to all people. Using "man" to refer to "humanity" sounds very quaint to me outside of very specific contexts, but I find it strange, not offensive.
(2) What I find deeply disturbing is the prostarical assertion that it is absolutely absurd someone might have a problem with the use of "mankind" to refer to "humanity".
Legitimate reactions to this attitude might include: "Hm, I never thought of that, but it's incredibly uninteresting," "Hm, I never thought of that, but I'm going to go back to raising money to fight forced marriage," "Hm, I guess that's right, it actually seems just as obvious as saying 'police officer'," or "Hm, I understand your point, but 'humanity' doesn't have the same ring to it, so I'll stick with 'mankind'."
In this particular case, "But she started it!" might also be a factually accurate response, nonetheless, it doesn't seem very productive.
P.S.: Please do not respond by treating the "droits de l'homme" as an isolated example. Open a book, spend four minutes on Wikipedia ... it is not an isolated example (and we've also already been provided with the Hamlet example, where this ambiguity between exclusivity and inclusivity is used for a humorous effect).
| | |
|
|
|
| Who was considered a citizen back then? | Mar 29, 2018 |
Georgie Scott wrote:
If you translated this yourself and if I’m right in understanding that you are not a native English speaker, I am extremely impressed.
Thank you, Georgie. I’m translating from English into French, not the other way around, so I wanted to apologize in advance in case any errors were found. The text was well written in French, which certainly made it easier to tackle. I’m happy it came across well in English!
Michael Wetzel wrote:
In 1789 a bunch of revolutionaries in France published the “Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen.” And the prize question is: What is the correct translation of this title?
I’ve spent 4 minutes on the Wikipedia article, and at one point it states: Declaration recognized many rights as belonging to citizens (who could only be male).
So, there’s that…
It goes on to relate that: The French Revolution did not lead to a recognition of women’s rights and this prompted Olympe de Gouges to publish the Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen in September 1791.
For historical reasons, it would only be fitting to call it “Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen” in English.
Already translated titles generally represent a servitude in translation, not an option. In other words, it would be ill-advised to deviate from the widely known translation anyway.
I have the impression that, at least in some languages nowadays, any translator worth their salt is expected to be aware of gender-neutral/inclusive language and how to apply it, should the situation (translation brief, style guide, target public expectations, etc.) require it.
[Edited at 2018-03-29 18:21 GMT]
| | | | | What about "man up"? | Mar 29, 2018 |
"Be brave or tough enough to deal with an unpleasant situation."
This idiom really does imply that only a man can be brave – which is obviously not true.
What is lacking is a generic solution to all such words and expressions.
Should we say "man or woman up", "human up", "person up", "people up" or something else? None of these really works in my opinion. Or should an idiom like this be deemed unacceptable and unrepairable?
This will be a nev... See more "Be brave or tough enough to deal with an unpleasant situation."
This idiom really does imply that only a man can be brave – which is obviously not true.
What is lacking is a generic solution to all such words and expressions.
Should we say "man or woman up", "human up", "person up", "people up" or something else? None of these really works in my opinion. Or should an idiom like this be deemed unacceptable and unrepairable?
This will be a never-ending problem if we have to debate each and every word and expression. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Susan Welsh
United States
Local time: 18:59
Russian to English
+ ...
| Schiller/Beethoven | Mar 29, 2018 |
Alle Menschen und Frauen werden Brüder und Schwestern?
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » "mankind" determined a gender-specific word | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
| | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
