Why The West Can't Be Converted

[Nihil Obstat]

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.

English is a little bit like a child. We love and nurture it into being, and once it gains gross motor skills, it starts going exactly where we don’t want it to go: it heads right for the light sockets. We put it in nice clothes and tell it to make friends, and it comes home covered in mud, with its underwear on its head and someone else’s socks on its feet. We ask it to clean up or to take out the garbage, and instead it hollers at us that we don’t run its life, man. Then it stomps off to its room to listen to The Smiths in the dark.

Everything we’ve done to and for English is for its own good, we tell it (angrily, as it slouches in its chair and writes “irregardless” all over itself in ballpoint pen). This is to help you grow into a language people will respect! Are you listening to me? Why aren’t you listening to me??

Like  well-adjusted children eventually do, English lives its own life. We can tell it to clean itself up and act more like one of the Classical languages (I betLatin doesn’t sneak German in through its bedroom window, does it?). We can threaten, cajole, wheedle, beg, yell, throw tantrums, and start learning French instead. But no matter what we do, we will never really be the boss of it. And that, frankly, is what makes it so beautiful.

(http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4276)

Edited October 7, 2013 by Nihil Obstat

[An Historian]

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
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?

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
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 and Apotheon have engaged in a discussion regarding the use of language.  My post did not express a disregarding of women in society.  However I recognise that you could easily have misunderstood in light of the portion of my post you quoted which addressed the male gender specifically and not mankind.  Now if you're one of those people that doesn't believe in labeling the human collective "mankind" then I cannot help you.

 

I have lived on two continents—North America and Europe—and I have spent time in seven countries (all western).  I didn't live in a Catholic bubble or commune.  I have lived with and interacted with normal, every-day people from all strata of society.  I have spent time with men in carpenter's workshops and I have spent far too much time in higher education institutes from colleges to universities.  I have friends from various backgrounds and sub-cultures.  My oldest friend is an excommunicate apostate Catholic.  My views have been formed by my own personal experiences, interactions and observations with western society.  I am far from ignorant about western society.  I am sad to say I know all too much about it.

 

However I will state that I was too narrow in my post.  You are right in that not every one is out there snorting cocaine and performing extreme actions.  There are large swathes—especially of the younger crowds—of western society that are doing this.  I believe my observations are entirely accurate when looking at today's youth but I did not address western society as a whole,  But the same general principals can be applied.  I am not saying every one in the west is an evil person though the majority have very wrong ideas.  But I will say that the vast majority of western society—like the vast majority of human society—is selfish.  Even if they're not like the younger generations looking for the next extreme they are still self-seeking and are still aiming for fulfillment in themselves and their own selfish desires.  The numerous evils that you listed and their support demonstrate this.  The use of contraception in the marital act is an inherently selfish action in which a husband/wife denies their partner the complete and unitive nature of the sexual act, it turns sex into nothing more than an obsession with self-gratification by eliminating the procreative purposes for which it is intended.  A condom is the biggest tool of objectifcation man has ever devised.  And that's if we look at one of the very few couples that are at least married.  Abortion is the crowning jewel of a society that is self-centred and obsorbed with itself.  A woman can go down to the clinic and simply have her "problem" removed.  Pregnancy, the bringing forth of a new, pure and innocent human life, is not considered a problem as—God forbid!—it interferes with her own private and selfish personal desires.

 

Western society and its members are generally as a whole self-centred, individualistic and debased.  Western man is now obsessed with his own self-gratification and is ignoring his duties and obligations to God, his Creator.  And the end result will be the same.  His own running to and fro at the command of his selfish whims will leave him empty and desolate as man cannot find rest and peace outwith God.

[Lilllabettt]

 

I believe my observations are entirely accurate when looking at today's youth

 

you seem to be confused about the demographics of phatmass.

 

mostly young, mostly western, mostly faithful Catholic.

 

do not be that old guy who complains about "the youngins"

Edited October 7, 2013 by Lilllabettt

[Apotheoun]

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.

I do not agree, which is probably why I have never been one to support keeping the Roman Church's lituryg in Latin.

[Apotheoun]

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?".)

The "inclusive language" movement is a political movement. Has it impacted the usage of English in the United States and Canada? Yes, because it has forced itself upon people. I have experienced that very thing. Are the changes it has pushed for natural? No.

[Apotheoun]

The generic masculine is still used, and in fact as a teacher I witnessed my students using - often unintentionally - all the time. Moreover, when a text switched between the generic masculine and the author's attempt to use - I suppose - a generic feminine, my students invariably asked which specific woman the author was talking about. They got the generic masculine, and only got confused as the author kept switching between masculine and feminine pronouns.

[Nihil Obstat]

The "inclusive language" movement is a political movement. Has it impacted the usage of English in the United States and Canada? Yes, because it has forced itself upon people. I have experienced that very thing. Are the changes it has pushed for natural? No.

You completely missed the point of everything in that article.

[An Historian]

you seem to be confused about the demographics of phatmass.

 

mostly young, mostly western, mostly faithful Catholic.

 

do not be that old guy who complains about "the youngins"

 

I will be 22 in less than a month.  I am young, I am western and I earnestly try to be a faithful Catholic.  And I recognise that the majority of the members on this forum are in the same boat as myself.

 

We are also the exception.  The majority of western youth aren't Catholic.  The majority of Catholic youth don't even pretend to practise their faith of try to.  My comments still stand.

[Apotheoun]

You completely missed the point of everything in that article.

I didn't read the whole article. Posting a document dump isn't convincing to me. I do not mind hearing what you have to say, but I am not gonna read a long boring document dump.

[Apotheoun]

Nihil were you even alive when the "gender neutral" movement began?

[Nihil Obstat]

Then that is that.

[Nihil Obstat]

Nihil were you even alive when the "gender neutral" movement began?

Once again, not relevant to what I have been saying.

[Apotheoun]

Then that is that.

Yeah, it is. I have experienced people pushing this nonsense, and evidently you have not. But my memories go back to the late 1960s and yours don't.

 

That you think of it as a natural change in the English language is great, but I do not agree, and I do not agree precisely because I have lived through the times that have pushed this political movement.

Edited October 7, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Nihil Obstat]

Yeah, it is. I have experienced people pushing this nonsense, and evidently you haven't. But my memories go back to the late 1960s and yours don't.

I expect better of you than cheap shots about age.

[Apotheoun]

I expect better of you than cheap shots about age.

The truth is not a cheap shot. I experienced the effects of this movement before you were born. That is just a statement of fact. It is a political movement. You want to see it as a natural change in the language, but I lived through the times in which it was being pushed, and that is also probably why I appreciated the Vatican's efforts to stop it.

Edited October 7, 2013 by Apotheoun