Why The West Can't Be Converted

[Apotheoun]

God forbid we end up with more stupid translations like, "Son of God, and Son of a human being."

[Apotheoun]

Ecclesiastical Latin has unique features that distinguish it from Classical Latin. The reason for that is precisely because Ecclesiastical Latin was used for the liturgy, and therefore developed in a peculiar way which is a trademark of languages used liturgically. 

Given enough time, and proper space for organic development, I think we would eventually see some form of Ecclesiastical English as well. Not necessarily in a formal, codified sense, but in some sense that is understandable by the native English speaker. Nobody said it has to be so radically different from regular English that it is not understandable.

Yes there are, because ecclesiastical Latin has its origin in the 4th century A.D. That said, there is nothing special about Latin or Old Church Slavonic.

[Apotheoun]

You may be willing to pray to "Christ, the Son of God, and Son of a human being," but I will continue to pray to "Christ, Son of God, and Son of Man."

[Nihil Obstat]

Yes there are, because ecclesiastical Latin has its origin in the 4th century A.D. That said, there is nothing special about Latin or Old Church Slavonic.

I am not sure what you are saying.

 

You may be willing to pray to "Christ, the Son of God, and Son of a human being," but I will continue to pray to "Christ, Son of God, and Son of Man."

Where did I say I am ok with that?

[Apotheoun]

Where did I say I am ok with that?

If your argument is correct that the English language is changing naturally into this "gender neutral" nonsense then the Church should translate the texts of the liturgy (and everything else) into that form of English. If that really is the common language then that should be the language used for the prayer of the Church. Of course I think you are wrong about English usage, because I see the generic use of man still in TV shows and modern literature, but if I did agree with you I would be for using so-called "inclusive language" in the liturgy, and the Church would have to struggle with any Christological or Triadological heresies that might arise from its use.

Edited October 7, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

I am not sure what you are saying.

 

I was agreeing that there are differences between classical and ecclesiastical Latin, because the latter is from the 4th century, and its usage was impacted by the needs of the Church.

Edited October 7, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

The "inclusive language" movement is just another form of this:

 

Activists change marriage definition in library books

[Apotheoun]

Nihil, maybe it is because I am older than you and so I remember the time before the use of so-called "inclusive language," and I also remember when it started being pushed for political reasons, and so I do not see it as a natural change when evidently you do. From the beginning of the push for the use of this type of language it has been clear that it is being promoted by certain political groups who want to alter our society, and that is why it really is a form of artificial Newspeak. I have resisted its usage when I could, due to the fact that I am familiar with its origins, but I admit that I was forced by various teachers at SF State to use what they called "non-sexist" or "gender neutral" language in some of the papers I wrote while working my two Bachelor's degrees.

Edited October 7, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Nihil Obstat]

If your argument is correct that the English language is changing naturally into this "gender neutral" nonsense then the Church should translate the texts of the liturgy (and everything else) into that form of English. If that really is the common language then that should be the language used for the prayer of the Church. Of course I think you are wrong about English usage, because I see the generic use of man still in TV shows and modern literature, but if I did agree with you I would be for using so-called "inclusive language" in the liturgy, and the Church would have to struggle with any Christological or Triadological heresies that might arise from its use.

I was quite specific in saying that while language does develop in strange ways, liturgical usage follows a peculiar set of rules, the implication of which is that ecclesiastical use of a language has, among its intentions, preservation of doctrines.

I am annoyed that you are attributing opinions to me to which I in no way lent support.

[Nihil Obstat]

Nihil, maybe it is because I am older than you and so I remember the time before the use of so-called "inclusive language," and I also remember when it started being pushed for political reasons, and so I do not see it as a natural change when evidently you do. From the beginning of the push for the use of this type of language it has been clear that it is being promoted by certain political groups who want to alter our society, and that is why it really is a form of artificial Newspeak. I have resisted its usage when I could, due to the fact that I am familiar with its origins, but I admit that I was forced by various teachers at SF State to use what they called "non-sexist" or "gender neutral" language in some of the papers I wrote while working my two Bachelor's degrees.

I used a very specific example above. You are extrapolating quite a lot from the very little I gave.

[Nihil Obstat]

Further illustration of the specific example I offered above:

 

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=199

 

In their first experiment, they presented subjects with (written) three-clause sentences like the four examples below, in which he, she or they refers to an indefinite, non-referential antecedent. The antecedents were set up to be stereotypically male, stereotypically female, or stereotypically neutral; and indefinite quantifiers like anybody were used as antecedents in a fourth sentence type:

1. A truck driver should never drive when sleepy, even if he/she/they may be struggling to make a delivery on time, because many accidents are caused by drivers who fall asleep at the wheel.

2. A nurse should have an understanding of how a medication works, even ifhe/she/they will not have any say in prescribing it, because nurses must anticipate how a patient will respond to the medication.

3. A runner should eat lots of pasta the night before a race, even ifhe/she/they would rather have a steak, because carbohydrates provide fuel for endurance events, while proteins do not.

4. Anybody who litters should be fined $50, even if he/she/they cannot see a trashcan nearby, because littering is an irresponsible form of vandalism and should be punished.

(Of course, only one of he/she/they was presented on each trial.)

The subjects were 87 undergraduates at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

The sentences were presented on a screen, one clause at a time. After reading each clause, the subjects pressed a "Continue" button to see the next one. After completing all three clauses of each sentence, subjects were shown a prompt reading "True or False?", and pressed a button to respond.

The dependent measure was per-character reading time for the crucial second clause, and here is a graphical summary of the results:

As you can see, the stereotype-mismatched pronouns (e.g. "truck driver … she" or "nurse … he") caused a delay of about 8 to 12 percent in reading, while in each case they was processed just as fast as the stereotype-friendly pronoun was. For the gender-neutral or indefinite-quantifier antecedents, they was as fast as or faster than its gendered competitors.

In their second experiment, they used similar phrases with referential antecedents that were putatively known to the writer:

5. That truck driver shouldn't drive when sleepy. even if he/she/they may be trying to make a delivery on time. because many accidents are caused by drivers who fall asleep at the wheel.

6. My nurse was able to explain how my medication would affect me, even though he/she/they had no say in prescribing it, because nurses must anticipate how patients will respond to medication.

7. A runner I knew always ate lots of pasta the night before a race, even when he/she/they would've rather had a steak, because carbohydrates provide fuel for endurance events, while proteins do not.

(In this experiment, the "True or false" question was replaced with some other yes-no question like "Do you agree?".)

 

[stevil]

Though I am genuinely curious as to your statement that my post had a sexist tone. Please explain what you mean.

With regards to sexist tone. Your post reeks of it. I'm certainly not used to people talking in such a way.
You talk about man as if woman either don't exist or are insignificant.
You say

He has money, drugs, music and women.

So women only get mentioned as a possession. But your generalisation of the Westerner is specifically focused on a male perspective. Have you not realised that half of the Westerners are women?

It is not rubbish and I firmly believe it. God created man and outside of God man cannot come to his end, which is God. All the pursuits of this life that do not aim towards God as their end will ultimately leave man unsatisfied and a walking husk. Man cannot know peace outside of God's loving embrace.

Your generalisation of the westerner is terrible by the way. As is your generalisation of the unbeliever. Do you ever take the time to get to know people rather than make such preposterous claims about them.
I pity your ignorant perspective of the western people

I believe that you have done western man an injustice. Hedonism reigns in him, immorality is the latest fashion trend. He has money, drugs, music and women. It is not that he does not believe in God it is that he is entirely indifferent to God or religion. Everyday he searches for a new high, something else, something more.

In terms of USA citizens (a subset of Western civilisation), most of them claim to be religious, the majority claim to be Christians. Most are not drug addicts, most are law abiding citizens. Most adults, I would guess, everyday (5 out of 7 days a week) go to work, do some hard yards, earn some money to pay for food, clothes, shelter, entertainment, medical treatement, education, the necessities of life.
With regards to the non believer, they are the same, they are law abiding, everyday (5 out of 7 days a week) go to work, do some hard yards, earn some money for food, clothes, shelter, entertainement ...
So what does religion have to offer? a Moral code for which to oppress others by?
Most people in the West don't want to oppress gays, they want them to live a happily married life, they want them to have jobs (even as school teachers), they want them to be allowed to choose to adopt orphaned children. Most people in the West want unhappily married people to find happiness even if it means divorce. Most people in the West want sex education and access to contraceptives and family planning rather than unwanted pregnancy. Most people want tolerance and choice rather than a governing body controlling the actions and activities of responsible adults.
It is certainly not drugs or a new high that most people are seeking and religion is certainly not the answer.
If organisations such as the Catholic church show that they are compassionate, loving and respectful of a diverse society, show that they provide benefit then people will choose to interact with the church, maybe even support it. But if they play poorly, with an iron fist and with persecution then people will choose to avoid it, even oppose it.

[Nihil Obstat]

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000172.html

 

December 01, 2003

POSTCARD FROM VEGAS, 2: SYNTACTIC DATA COLLECTION ON THE STRIP

For the grammarian (and that is what I am, though I am also fun enough to go to Vegas for a wild weekend), data is all around us.

Oh, all right, prescriptive pedants: data are all around us.

And in Las Vegas, right on the strip, on the way to a show, I gathered a beautiful example which definitively settled a question I had regarded as either open or possibly closed in the other direction: whether a proper name can be a fully natural antecedent of a singular they. Let me explain.

It is a familiar myth from bad usage books that sentences like Everyone does what they are told are grammatically incorrect. The claim, let me stress immediately, is absolute nonsense. The pronoun they (in its various inflectional forms: they, them, their, theirs, themselves) has been used with a singular antecedent for hundreds of years. It occurs in Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Austen, Wilde... it is natural, idiomatic, fully grammatical English for every native speaker who has not had their brain completely warped by bad usage books like Strunk & White's disgusting little atavistic compendium of falsehoods The Elements of Style.

What the bad usage books say about an example like Everyone does what they are told is that they is a plural pronoun but everyone is a singular noun phrase (notice the singular agreement on does), and you can't be both plural and singular, so it's wrong. The claim is a stupid mistake -- it depends on confusing the partially semantics system of choice for person, number, and gender on anaphoric pronouns with the mostly syntactic system of subject agreement in person and number marked on verbs. Nowhere did God say they have to line up in some simple way, and indeed they don't. The usage grouches are just flat wrong about the history and structure of English. I could go on for some time about this, but I won't, because I already did once, on Australian radio, in a talk called "Anyone who had a heart (would know their own language", and you can read the script at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/arts/ling/stories/s546929.htm, or listen to the program itself by visitinghttp://www.abc.net.au/rn/arts/ling/lfranca_040502.ram.

But the example I found in Vegas corrects something I said in the radio talk. I drew a distinction between referring pronouns (as in John and Mary called to ask if they can meet with you, where they just refers to John and Mary) and bound pronouns (as in No one called to ask if they can meet with you, where they is a variable bound by the quantifier no one: the sentence means "No one is an x such that xcalled to ask if x can meet with you"), and I ventured the claim that singular they "really is ungrammatical" with a singular name as antecedent. I pointed out that if you know someone called Chris was here and left a pen behind, then even if you don't know whether Chris is a man called Christopher or a woman call Christine, you can't say *Chris left their pen.

I still think that sentence sounds terrible. But the question arises of whether there could possibly be a singular name that in some way manages to have the sort of denotation that would allow a singular theyto refer back to it. And in Las Vegas, right on the strip, I finally heard a real live native speaker say such an example, and to my ear was perfectly grammatical and natural. I got on a bus at around 6 p.m. to ride south a mile or so from up by the Stardust down to Bellagio (to see Cirque du Soleil) The traffic was a disaster. The bus moved at slower than walking pace -- this was the worst $2 I ever spent on transportation. And as the bus inched its way south toward the Mirage, a blaze of light showed up on the right, and the driver said:

If you look to the right, Treasure Island's having their show right now.

The Treasure Island hotel was running its free pirate show (men with eye patches and head scarves and swords climbing up rigging and being shot and falling off into the water nightly at 6, 8, and 10 p.m., for you to watch for free from the street). Notice the singular agreement: Treasure Island's is the colloquial reduction of Treasure Island is. But what gender is a hotel, in the sense not of a building but of an entity that can perform a show? Not clear. So the bus driver used singular they. And quite right too.

In the light of this evidence, I would now say that although *Chris left their pen still sounds dreadful for some reason (perhaps because whoever Chris is, he or she really does have a gender), nonetheless it is possible to have a singular they with a singular proper name antecedent. This is actually not excluded by what it says in The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (chapter 5, section 17.2.4, pp. 491-495, esp. p. 494), which only says cases of referential antecedents are rare. The Cambridge Grammar has it right, and the claim in my radio talk is slightly too strong. You heard it here first, and I heard the crucial evidence in real life -- or what passes for real life in Vegas.

[Note added later: Chris Culy has pointed out to me that at least one other example can be found using Google:

Profit-sharing, career training, creative child-care solutions, lactation centers and developmental opportunities add to the many ways Principal helps their employees create a healthy work/life balance." (From http://www.latinastyle.com/2002list.html; underlining added.)

"Principal" is the Principal Financial Group, picked by Latina Style as one of their list of the best companies to work for if you're a Latina. (Ooh! There's another example! Their list!)

Some might unkindly suggest that this observation of Culy's means my trip to Vegas should not be a deductible expense; but I have commented on that mean-minded suggestion elsewhere.]

Posted by Geoffrey K. Pullum at December 1, 2003 03:21 PM 

 

 

[Not The Philosopher]

lol a prescriptivist/descriptivist argument.

 

Both attempts to halt a language at a certain point of time and attempts to artificially engineer it in a particular direction are foolhardy. There was a time, back in the centuries following the development of print media, where it must have seemed like it was possible to arrive at some ultimate, standardized form of language, but that has kinda turned into a red herring.

 

However, there is such a thing as the artful use of language, and certain situations - like liturgy - often call for a standardization that won't reflect wider usage. Just because hi-fiving someone is a common expression of friendship doesn't mean that we should high-five each other at Mass. But, even though genuflecting is no longer a common element of western culture, the gesture is still very fitting and is kept in use in churches.

[Lilllabettt]

the question is silly.  Christianity is conversion. Actually all of true religion is conversion. ( I am using the word "true" here not to mean accurate/inaccurate but "authentic.")  It is an ongoing process among believers and unbelievers the same. We are all called to conversion of heart, to conform ourselves to the God of Love.

 

If you would rather concentrate on co-existence, you can look forward to around 80 years of co-existence on earth followed by an eternity of co-existence in hell.