In English, the kind of words do not always agree with the sex of the things they design. For example, member is a masculine word, but may appoint a woman. A film star can be male, regardless the word is feminine. And, of course, person belongs to the female gender but to appoint a man, woman or any intermediate category (that is, oh, yeah! Sure there).
However, buenaondez that invades from the north wants us to be correct when speaking and avoid insulting people calling as required by the grammar. Thus emerged the cumbersome periphrasis of the type [(masculine noun) + (feminine noun)], so fashionable during the Fox administration, which proliferated kids and little girls.
But there is a hint of modesty. For example, when a man described may say: "I am a kind, loyal and very friendly", without realizing that the agreement requires sympathetic corresponds to the gender (not sex) of the qualifying word, ie person . In fact, it should say it's nice . Of course, for our male moustached unthinkable apply an adjective in the feminine. Do not go to waste eggs by walking appearing as if it were part of viejerÃo!
This difference between grammatical gender and biological sex seems to go unnoticed by the militants of the equality of the sexes, who insist on speaking of "gender" when want to refer to relations between the sexes or, more specifically, submission to the situation where the woman is with men.
course, is part of the dominant buenaondez dictionary neglect these problems. After all, what matters is the substance, not form, and that to walk looking at the words used seem displays of pettiness, narrow-mindedness and purity of date.
But personally, I think the problem is reversed. If language is a product of society that uses it, insist on changing it without changing the designated reality is, indeed, a mere exercise in rhetoric. What good is raising in his address to the "citizens" when in reality they are so marginalized as ever?
0 comments:
Post a Comment