4 ms·
words aren't uni-semantic, they are poly-semantic. "Guys" as said in one context resolves to the meaning "people". In another, "men". It is pretty much always
by mjburgess 6y ago
words aren't uni-semantic, they are poly-semantic.
"Guys" as said in one context resolves to the meaning "people". In another, "men".
It is pretty much always clear when a speaker means one or the other.
As with, eg., "bank". No banker is complaining about the "collapsing banks" of a river.
It is pretty clearly an opportunistic misreading of "guys" to accuse a speaker of some how implying "men", or even "men" as a plausible implication.
It is only in the eye of the "feminist of language" do words fail to have contextual meanings; and it is this eye we should be suspicious of, rather than any possible double meaning.
- automatoney 6y agoYou are completely correct that words have contextual meaning. Is part of that context perhaps historical or sociological? Why is it that male words also serve as our generics? Is there a history there worth examining? Downthread someone has linked a few articles about the topic, but I would encourage you to read Douglas Hofstadter's satirical essay, A Person Paper on Purity in Language, in order to get a better understanding of the feminist perspective. http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html
- elliekelly 6y ago> It is only in the eye of the "feminist of language" do words fail to have contextual meanings; I don't disagree with your conclusion (though I'm not sure I agree with it either) but this is a dubious claim. This phenomenon is not unique to feminism. See, e.g. the singular "they" which many people in recent years claim to be entirely unable to understand.
- mjburgess 6y agoI agree. "Ideologue" in general. My claim is not exclusive.