3 ms·
I’m getting downvoted but I’m not making this up: > Of concern with the term “folks,” for example, is that its translation in some languages is gendered, such
by vincentmarle 6y ago
I’m getting downvoted but I’m not making this up:
> Of concern with the term “folks,” for example, is that its translation in some languages is gendered, such as “la gente” in Spanish, which is gendered feminine (see also, phallogocentrism, Derrdiean, and deconstruction).
From: https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-folx/ https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-folx/
- sudosteph 6y agoI'm guessing it's because that explanation still makes no sense at all. Of course "la gente" has a gender - it's a noun in a language where every noun has a grammatical gender. Any noun that you would translate into in Spanish would have a gender after being translated. This is something someone would learn about in the first day of class for any language with grammatical gender... Also, it's ridiculous to imply that the English language, which already lacks grammatical gender, needs to modified so that a translator working with gendered language knows that a noun lacks gender. It's English - they already know that! Besides, the translators choose which word to use when translating anyhow. There's not like there's a strict 1-1 mapping of "folks" to "la gente". In some contexts, you would translate it differently. It's just such an absurd claim, and it doesn't pass the sniff test at all.
- eru 6y agoThanks for giving the source!