3 ms·

> He even says as much in the postscript. Yep, I read the post-script. From the post-script: > to develop an extended analogy with something known as shockin

> He even says as much in the postscript. Yep, I read the post-script. From the post-script: > to develop an extended analogy with something known as shocking and reprehensible I guess maybe to say a different way - given that's not how English works, then this isn't a shocking analogy, it's a bad one.

jefftk 4y ago
In the universe of the satire your comment would have been: I don't really know what to make of this satire... I find this confusing: > In most contexts, it is self-evident when "man" is being used in an inclusive sense, in which case it subsumes members of the fairer sex just as much as the stronger. That's definitely not how that works. "Man" and "woman" are opposite in the dictionary. Looking up the term "white" in the dictionary [1][2], they all contain as one of the definitions of "a human being of any race; a person" or something like it. It is at worst an unclear-but-possible construal to use the word "white" to imply "person," whereas construing "man" to mean "man or woman" is not how any version of English works. [1]: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/white https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/white [2]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white [3]: https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+white https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+white
- jkingsbery 4y ago
  I guess. But we're not in that universe, we're in this one, and the dictionaries don't say that. Bad analogies can't lead to good logic by making them longer.
  - jefftk 4y ago
    I think you might still be a bit confused about what Hofstadter is trying to do in the post? He's trying to show how strange the use of gender in English was (pronouns, "man" to mean everyone, etc) by writing as if he were in a hypothetical alternate universe where race received that treatment instead of gender.
    - jkingsbery 4y ago
      No, I get that. He even explains that in the post-script at the bottom. Maybe he's making a good point in an alternate universe.

jefftk 4y ago

In the universe of the satire your comment would have been: I don't really know what to make of this satire... I find this confusing: > In most contexts, it is self-evident when "man" is being used in an inclusive sense, in which case it subsumes members of the fairer sex just as much as the stronger. That's definitely not how that works. "Man" and "woman" are opposite in the dictionary. Looking up the term "white" in the dictionary [1][2], they all contain as one of the definitions of "a human being of any race; a person" or something like it. It is at worst an unclear-but-possible construal to use the word "white" to imply "person," whereas construing "man" to mean "man or woman" is not how any version of English works. [1]: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/white https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/white [2]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white [3]: https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+white https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+white

jkingsbery 4y ago
I guess. But we're not in that universe, we're in this one, and the dictionaries don't say that. Bad analogies can't lead to good logic by making them longer.
- jefftk 4y ago
  I think you might still be a bit confused about what Hofstadter is trying to do in the post? He's trying to show how strange the use of gender in English was (pronouns, "man" to mean everyone, etc) by writing as if he were in a hypothetical alternate universe where race received that treatment instead of gender.
  - jkingsbery 4y ago
    No, I get that. He even explains that in the post-script at the bottom. Maybe he's making a good point in an alternate universe.