|
all ancient roman farmers were nonbinary b/c the a-stem "agricola" takes adjectives in u-stem when alternation between u- and a-stem is used to distinguish gender
Bel_Canto fucked around with this message at 05:06 on Jul 19, 2017 |
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 19:03 |
|
|
Deus is masculine and Trinitas is feminine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:all ancient roman farmers were nonbinary b/c the a-stem "agricola" takes adjectives in u-stem when alternation between u- and a-stem is used to distinguish gender Acres agricolae in quidquid aulace semina hauriunt.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 05:40
|
|
|
Today we're going to Petropolis. Today we're hauling agri cola.Worthleast posted:Deus is masculine and Trinitas is feminine. What a coincidence. JC Denton is male and Trinity from the Matrix is female. my dad posted:No, that would be Golgotha. It's pretty metal to die in a place called the Skull.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
Numerical Anxiety posted:Just out of curiosity, are all German women transgender? The grammatical shift from Mädchen to Frau would imply so, but I might be reaching here. English speakers are fascinated by this, but Mädchen is actually just a diminuitive of the feminine Magd (or Maid). All diminuitives have the neutral gender in German, so that's not weird at all. You could call a boy Knäblein or Bübchen which also have the neutral gender, or you could call an adult woman Fräulein or an adult man Herrchen (diminuitive of "master", and normally means master of a dog). All neutral. Now the real mystery is, the general word for "woman" used to be Weib, which legit has the neutral gender for no obvious reason. And in some dialects, girls used to be called "das Mensch" (neutral), where "der Mensch" (masculine) means "a human".
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
pidan posted:English speakers are fascinated by this, but Mädchen is actually just a diminuitive of the feminine Magd (or Maid). All diminuitives have the neutral gender in German, so that's not weird at all. HEY GAL probably has some insights into this, iirc from talking to her the early modern conception was there was only one gender: male. Women were simply imperfect men and indeed women could sometimes become men because  edit: oh, I'm probably stealing her thunder but one of the anecdotes she told me was how early modern Germans perceived pubescent boys. Girls bleed when they have their first menstruation, so when young boys have nosebleeds, well, uh, that's gotta be the same thing right?? Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 06:06 on Jul 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:HEY GAL probably has some insights into this, iirc from talking to her the early modern conception was there was only one gender: male. Women were simply imperfect men and indeed women could sometimes become men because I think it's just because there isn't a very strong connection between grammatical gender and a person's sex. Weib is thought to be neutral because it was derived either from some other word that means "the household" (the modern word household itself is masculine btw) or from a verb construction that means "that which waves", which could refer to a woman's physical movement, or her spiritual abilities, or something else. In latin words for humans tend to have their natural gender in terms of adjectives and verb form, but in German we just push the grammatical gender all the way. So you would say "the girl and its dog" or "the hostage was happy when she was freed" regardless of the hostage's sex and gender. E: to be clear the gender of what you call a person will correspond to the person's sex most of the time, and most words like teacher, student etc. have a specific feminine form for women. Some don't though. Re: transgender, I don't really care one way or the other, a person wants me to think of them as man or woman I'll just go along with it. pidan fucked around with this message at 07:41 on Jul 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 06:35
|
|
|
pidan posted:I think it's just because there isn't a very strong connection between grammatical gender and a person's sex. Weib is thought to be neutral because it was derived either from some other word that means "the household" (the modern word household itself is masculine btw) or from a verb construction that means "that which waves", which could refer to a woman's physical movement, or her spiritual abilities, or something else. I strongly suspect that much of the fixation on pronouns when it comes to gender issues in the anglophone world is based on the accident that English really doesn't commonly mark gender anywhere but there. The focus seems a little misplaced, particularly when we get to gender-neutral pronouns, given that the Persian languages don't have grammatical gender at all. Iran is after all such an exemplar when it comes to respecting non-normative sexual behaviors. (That being said, I have no problem using whatever pronouns a given person might prefer, if only because pedantry isn't really an excuse to be an rear end in a top hat.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 07:22
|
|
|
Also, I am writing a science fiction novel set in a world where the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is literally true. NATO collapses when NASA, in the mid-1970s, declares that the moon does not literally have a vagina. This leads the Romance countries to declare war on the US, citing existential threat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 07:34
|
|
|
As a Finn, all the language gender stuff is really fascinating. I've said it before but we don't have any genders in our language besides the actual terms for men, women, males and females. Even the pronouns have only one option which is neutral. (Which incidentally makes some language-based murder mysteries or comedy plots really tough to translate from English.) We have some names of occupations that used to be mostly men's jobs (a fireman, an office-man...) but language is so neutral in the collective mind of the Finns that referring to women with those terms is rarely an oddity. Some of them are phasing out in favour of more neutral terms but many of them very slowly. Why use a clumsier, unfamiliar term when the original is just a name of the occupation?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 08:31
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:hey all, looks like rod dreher's on so many levels of orthodoxy that he went around the other side and came out right-wing evangelical: edit: wait, Ware? Is he talking about Bishop Kallistos? wtf HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 12:17 on Jul 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 12:10
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:HEY GAL probably has some insights into this, iirc from talking to her the early modern conception was there was only one gender: male. Women were simply imperfect men and indeed women could sometimes become men because i also read a thing about an early modern soldier and surgeon who was born a woman, then turned into a man when he gave birth to a child. so he joined the spanish army. he was eventually turned in to the inquisition for "having two sexes" and was convicted--but not for that, because the prosecutors thought he had changed his own body with witchcraft. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleno_de_C%C3%A9spedes what actually happened to him? we can never find out... edit: the early modern is full of trans dudes. Fewer trans women. Although this person was once one of the best fencers in france: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevalier_d%27%C3%89on HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 12:23 on Jul 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 12:15
|
|
|
Last week I read an article about how the ancient Greeks and Romans believed men and women produced semen, semen was produced by every part of the body, and IIRC, hair was where semen was stored. Babies were made by mixing male semen and female semen together. It was largely offering a possible rationale for why Paul tells women to wear veils in the church.Pellisworth posted:edit: oh, I'm probably stealing her thunder but one of the anecdotes she told me was how early modern Germans perceived pubescent boys. Girls bleed when they have their first menstruation, so when young boys have nosebleeds, well, uh, that's gotta be the same thing right?? HEY GAIL posted:ssh, nobody tell him about the sobor Keromaru5 fucked around with this message at 13:32 on Jul 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 13:29
|
|
|
Keromaru5 posted:Last week I read an article about how the ancient Greeks and Romans believed men and women produced semen, semen was produced by every part of the body, and IIRC, hair was where semen was stored. Babies were made by mixing male semen and female semen together. It was largely offering a possible rationale for why Paul tells women to wear veils in the church.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 13:56
|
|
|
Keromaru5 posted:Last week I read an article about how the ancient Greeks and Romans believed men and women produced semen, semen was produced by every part of the body, and IIRC, hair was where semen was stored. Babies were made by mixing male semen and female semen together. It was largely offering a possible rationale for why Paul tells women to wear veils in the church. Hair covering for women was the norm across most of the ancient Mediterranean. I don't think the Pauline stricture needs much explaining, other than he was coming up with a post-hoc justification for what would have been standard practice anyway (men with uncovered heads, women with covered).
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:hey all, looks like rod dreher's on so many levels of orthodoxy that he went around the other side and came out right-wing evangelical: wait I'm not parsing this, what's the context?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:wait I'm not parsing this, what's the context? Dreher thinks it's time for Christians to withdraw from mainstream society into intentional communities. Some other church apparently proposed a similar thing but with a larger emphasis on community and communal childcare rather than the nuclear family with provider / mother parents. This confused Dreher mightily. How could a conservative want anything other than the 1950s? That's what I get from the screenshot anyway, haven't read the full essay.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:Hair covering for women was the norm across most of the ancient Mediterranean. I don't think the Pauline stricture needs much explaining, other than he was coming up with a post-hoc justification for what would have been standard practice anyway (men with uncovered heads, women with covered). StashAugustine posted:wait I'm not parsing this, what's the context? It's a pretty bad article.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
this nuclear family veneration is a 19th century bourgeois thing in the 17th c they barely even say the word, what they talk about is one's "house" edit: keromaru5, what happens if you tweet that at him edit 2: he also said he wasn't a nazi but he had sympathy for people who become white supremacists after hearing others "blame white men for everything," so pot and kettle with the putting your race above your religion thing. Heretic. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Jul 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
"i'm not a nazi but i totally sympathize with nazis" is a thing a nazi who wants to hide says
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
pidan posted:Dreher thinks it's time for Christians to withdraw from mainstream society into intentional communities. Some other church apparently proposed a similar thing but with a larger emphasis on community and communal childcare rather than the nuclear family with provider / mother parents. This confused Dreher mightily. How could a conservative want anything other than the 1950s?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:"i'm not a nazi but i totally sympathize with nazis" is a thing a nazi who wants to hide says A nazi who wants to hide, but who is terrible at doing so, moreover.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:maybe the...1650s Imo if we're going to do this we might as well go back to the apostles' time when women could lead congregations and people who owned more than one shirt without sharing got smote by lightning
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
pidan posted:Imo if we're going to do this we might as well go back to the apostles' time when women could lead congregations and people who owned more than one shirt without sharing got smote by lightning And people were divinely commanded to not pray in public.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:edit: keromaru5, what happens if you tweet that at him https://twitter.com/RedMotovilov/status/887385131979333632 https://twitter.com/RedMotovilov/status/887583900897247232
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
Keromaru5 posted:Probably something like this:
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Numerical Anxiety posted:A nazi who wants to hide, but who is terrible at doing so, moreover. i said a nazi who wants to hide
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:edit: keromaru5, what happens if you tweet that at him Someone pointed that out to him in the comments section on his article and he responded, reiterating that the BLM quote was anti-Christian. A strange position for a supposed traditionalist to take, since the early church used to rescue infants from exposure and raise them within the church community. That's why Celsus accused them of eating babies. Something really makes Dreher freak out at BLM no matter what they say. Hmm.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Someone pointed that out to him in the comments section on his article and he responded, reiterating that the BLM quote was anti-Christian. A strange position for a supposed traditionalist to take, since the early church used to rescue infants from exposure and raise them within the church community. That's why Celsus accused them of eating babies. edit: wtf does he think monasteries did with their novices, daycare? edit 2: literally the only time i remember christians jerking themselves off about the sainted Traditional Family (with the exception of chrysostom, who was a giant homophobe--unusually for the time and culture i might add) is the 19th century and into the 20th. the early modern period has a lot of stuff about teaching your children religion, but they don't valorize the family as such HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Jul 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
mostly i posted it b/c he's sacralizing the bourgeois nuclear family when his own religious tradition makes it very clear that monasticism is far preferable to family life
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:mostly i posted it b/c he's sacralizing the bourgeois nuclear family when his own religious tradition makes it very clear that monasticism is far preferable to family life that's a whole lot of words to say that rod dreher is an idiot
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:that's a whole lot of words to say that rod dreher is an idiot while trying to find that article 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
Rob Dreher is an idiot, news at 6.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 06:25
|
|
|
Reminded me of that image
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 10:45
|
|
|
Hey, I have wanted to ask this question ever since I was a teenager, but every time I asked it I either asked it to the wrong people (teenager Christians) or at the wrong time (funeral) or to other wrong people (atheists whose only response is "because Christians are evil and crazy") so, uh, here goes again! I want to also say that, I really don't know how to make this question not sound condescending, which probably didn't help when I was younger and trying to ask it without tact or experience in asking potentially touchy questions. Why don't Christians feel more anguish over those who they believe are burning in hell for eternity? Okay, that's the blunt way of asking the question, I guess. I'll try to expand on that thought: As an atheist, when someone dies, I believe they are just dead and that's that. I do feel bad, but it's really just because I'll miss them, or they didn't get to do all they want, or whatever, but a week or two later I'm probably cool with it, aside from the occasional reminder that that person is no longer around. But let's say that person was not a Christian; per Christian belief, isn't that person thus doomed for eternity to burn? So I try and translate that into relative circumstances that would apply to me: What if this person I cared about was not actually killed, but was taken away, put into an oven, and spent the rest of his life (not even considering eternity) under constant horrible fiery torment and there was nothing I could do about it? I would go mad, thinking about this. Even if I couldn't do anything about it, even if there was no person to appeal to, just knowing (or believing, as it were) that this person I cared about is, right now, burning, on fire, in pain...how does a Christian deal with all this poo poo? Edit for one additional insight: I did actually ask my friend's mother this question, to which she responded that they deserve to burn. I even asked if it were her own kids (my friend being one of them) and she said the same. While this did kind of just further alienate me from Christianity, I can't help but have some respect for her, because it was pretty honest and made sense. credburn fucked around with this message at 12:01 on Jul 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 11:58
|
|
|
credburn posted:Why don't Christians feel more anguish over those who they believe are burning in hell for eternity? Like with most things in Christian doctrine, most Christians don't really think about this much. As for the rest of us, there are a number of options: - Some believe that people who go to hell are bad and fully deserve what's coming to them. This may seem callous, but it might make more sense in the larger context of their personal theology. If you can stomach it, Church Militant has a number of podcasts / videos discussing this perspective (which they do believe). - Some people believe either that nobody goes to hell, or that going to hell is a conscious choice that people make in the full knowledge of the consequences. So there's not really anything to feel anguish about. This category actually overlaps with the first one in two distinct ways: One, some people believe that not following their interpretation of Christianity and all its rules after having heard of it already constitutes a free choice to go to hell. And two, many others believe that while unrepentantly bad people do go to hell regardless of choice, we can't know that any given person or indeed any person at all has actually gone to hell, because they might have had a secret deathbed conversion. - There are also Christians who believe that hell is not eternal. Either the souls in the "lake of fire" are just destroyed instead of suffering forever, or people in hell still have access to Christ's salvation in some capacity, so they can get out. - Some Christians do feel anguish about souls in hell, but there's not much they can do about it. If you're an atheist, you may feel bad about somebody dying, but feeling bad about it forever won't bring them back to life, and will only harm you. Same for a Christian who suspects somebody went to hell -- not much he can do about that but try to live on as best he can. I think some monks and nuns do pray for souls in hell, I think. There's probably also some other opinions I haven't covered here. And many people believe more than one of these simultaneously.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 12:16
|
|
|
credburn posted:Hey, I have wanted to ask this question ever since I was a teenager, but every time I asked it I either asked it to the wrong people (teenager Christians) or at the wrong time (funeral) or to other wrong people (atheists whose only response is "because Christians are evil and crazy") so, uh, here goes again! I want to also say that, I really don't know how to make this question not sound condescending, which probably didn't help when I was younger and trying to ask it without tact or experience in asking potentially touchy questions. One view is that the fire of Hell which burns the unrepentant is the same fire which warms the heart of the repentant. It's the same essential thing, but there's this twistedness of the psyche or soul which causes it to be perceived differently than how it actually is. On the one hand, we have the story of Lazarus and the rich man: But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’ And yet on the other hand, we have the story of the harrowing of hell, where Jesus seems to bridge this great chasm in a way which seems to contradict those words of Abraham. The importance placed on the harrowing of hell in the Eastern Orthodox tradition is definitely one factor in me being attracted to it. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 12:59
|
|
|
credburn posted:Hey, I have wanted to ask this question ever since I was a teenager, but every time I asked it I either asked it to the wrong people (teenager Christians) or at the wrong time (funeral) or to other wrong people (atheists whose only response is "because Christians are evil and crazy") so, uh, here goes again! I want to also say that, I really don't know how to make this question not sound condescending, which probably didn't help when I was younger and trying to ask it without tact or experience in asking potentially touchy questions. ...funeral? pidan posted:- There are also Christians who believe that hell is not eternal  quote:....I think some monks and nuns do pray for souls in hell, I think. And thank you for posting the Harrowing of Hell, CountFosco, it's magnificent! The story, credburn, is that while Christ was dead, he went down to hell and tore it up--the metaphors they use are of destroying a city in a war, and taking all its things. In the liturgy, they sing that he also preached to the people in hell.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 13:49
|
|
|
You see a lot of anguish about eternal punishment in nonconformist religion in Victorian Britain, particularly amongst unitarians, who observe that any form of eternal punishment in the material world is typically held, except in extreme cases, to be beneath ordinary morality. It's part of a broader mid century crisis of faith - a lot of the same people are similar disturbed by the perceived wasteful destruction of evolution by natural selection, for example, and their faith in the providenciality of it all is shaken. Then you have evangelicals who are more concerned that people should have enough power over their lives to at least exercise legitimate choices w/r/t their own salvation (which is a primary reason a lot of them are opposed to slavery). I think this stuff was a lot easier for medieval Latins who just thought you could outsource a lot of these problems to the church, but for whom hell as well as purgatoty was quite evidently a real source of anxiety.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 13:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 19:03 |
|
|
a dude from my mum's village knew a dude in purgatory. It was a burning man who lit his way home from the pub until the villager told him "may God repay you for this" which is how people said thank you back in those days. Then the burning dude stopped burning and went to heaven. I do wonder if this sort of thing still happens.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 14:05
|
|