language


German and gender 2

I know enough German to participate in a conversation and read a book or a news article. Like any language, it has odd features. Its pronunciation is more regular than English, though it’s not as consistent as, say, Italian. A feature which catches everyone’s attention is the gender system. I’d like to discuss it a bit, because its oddness helps to make it clear what gender is and isn’t, and because it creates distinctive problems for the language.

The word “gender” is related to “genre.” Originally it meant simply a kind of word, one that has distinctive grammatical features. It’s common for languages to have male and female genders, with or without a neuter gender, but some have genders that have nothing to do with sex. For instance, some languages have animate and inanimate genders. Languages in the Bantu family tend to have a lot of genders. At some point, people started using “gender” as a euphemism for “sex,” engendering confusion. Today we have the weird situation where some people think they can make themselves male, female, or even plural by declaring what pronouns apply to them.

But that’s English, and I was going to discuss German. I haven’t heard of anyone doing that in German. If nothing else, it would run into the problem that both “she” and “they” translate as “sie.” German has a different gender problem.

The German language has masculine, feminine, and neuter genders. Masculine and feminine as grammatical terms correspond roughly with male and female, but there are many exceptions. The same person can be “der Mensch” (masculine), “die Person” (feminine), and “das Kind” (neuter). If you heard all three of those words, you wouldn’t know whether the person in question was a boy or a girl. In strict grammar, you’re supposed to use pronouns that agree with the noun you just used, which means that a man can be “she” or a woman “he.” Things can be masculine, feminine, or neuter, and you have to memorize each word’s gender without expecting consistency.

But the biggest problem is more than a grammatical curiosity. Words for professions, nationalities, and so on have male and female forms. The female one adds the suffix “-in,” which works like the English “-ess.” So you have “der Professor” and “die Professorin,” “der Amerikaner” and “die Amerikanerin,” etc. Adding to the confusion, the “-in” suffix can have other meanings. Richard Strauss’s opera Der Rosenkavalier has a character called “die Feldmarschallin.” When I first encountered the opera, I thought she was a female field marshal, which would be unusual even today. It turned out to mean the field marshal’s wife.

The distinction needlessly splits categories in two and makes it hard to talk about all their members. The traditional practice is to revert to the male form when referring to a group as a whole or a mixed subset. Understandably, some people don’t like that. A fix which has become common is to combine the two forms into one word. (German is good at combining words.) For example, professors in general are called “Professor*innen.” The asterisk sometimes becomes a glottal stop, but the usage I’ve heard isn’t consistent.

This doesn’t feel like a long-term fix. It’s easy to hear “Professor*innen” as “Professorinnen,” and then it sounds like only female professors. If I had a vote, I’d get rid of the female forms and have the base form apply to everyone in the group. Germans are already used to genders that don’t match biology. English has been going in this direction for the few nouns that have different gender forms. The word “actress” still exists, but women who act are often called actors. “Seamstress” has become “sewer,” though not everyone thinks that’s an improvement.

The lesson is that grammar often doesn’t make sense, and we have to live with it.


The shifting meaning of “enslave”

If you’ve done much reading on the Internet about slavery and abolitionism, you must have noticed that a lot of writers and websites avoid the word “slave.” They prefer expressions like “enslaved person.” The idea seems to be to remind people that slavery is an externally imposed condition and, at least in principle, is always subject to change. That’s understandable, even if it seems clumsy. Are there other nouns of status that people are replacing with phrases for similar reasons? We still speak of “prisoners,” “servants,” and “refugees” without circumlocution. Maybe there’s less of a tendency to treat those conditions as permanent.

The phrasing has had an unfortunate side effect, though. The word “enslave,” according to Merriam-Webster, means “to force into or as if into slavery.” It’s now widely used to mean “to hold in slavery.” Dictionary.com gives the additional meaning of “to hold (someone) in slavery or bondage.” Bringing a person into slavery is a more active evil than holding someone in slavery, and the distinction is worth keeping. When a change in usage becomes widespread, there’s no stopping it, but sometimes the language is poorer for it. This is shaping up to be one of those cases. I expect that Merriam-Webster will soon add the new definition, and the watering down of the word will be official.

Nitpick on top of the nitpick: You can argue that when slaves had children and their masters registered the children as property, that was “enslaving” in the proper sense. It hasn’t been automatic through US history that children of slaves were slaves. If we accept that people are born with the right to be free, then treating a newborn as a new slave is an act of enslavement.

Tangentially related: I don’t say that people “own” slaves. The basis of all property is that people own themselves. People can force others to do things, but they can’t have ownership rights to them, and any law that claims otherwise is based on a falsehood.


“Fascism” as a coded term

In my early college years, I was basically conservative in my political views. As a result, I got called a “fascist” or “fascist pig” on a lot of occasions. In one memorable moment, people who were blocking the entrance to MIT yelled “Fascist!” at me as I tried to get past them.

The term is still used as a general-purpose smear, with little regard for the actual meaning of Fascism. The history of this practice goes back a long way and has its roots in Marxism, especially the Soviet variety. Stalin said in 1924: “Fascism is the bourgeoisie’s fighting organisation that relies on the active support of Social-Democracy. Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism.” During World War II, the USSR often characterized its fight as one against “fascism,” even though its battles were with Germany’s Nazi government and not Italy’s Fascist government. ……
(more…)


Sympathy and empathy

This is a post about word usage, not about the murder of Charlie Kirk, but it started from seeing a lot of online rage about a statement of his. According to Snopes, he once said:

I can’t stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that — it does a lot of damage. But, it is very effective when it comes to politics. Sympathy, I prefer more than empathy. That’s a separate topic for a different time.

It’s strange that of all the things he said, this should draw so much anger. If I were cynical, I’d say it’s because people saw an opportunity to pull the first sentence out of context and create a deceptive impression. In this case, cynicism is fully justified.

How much difference is there between sympathy and empathy, anyway?
(more…)


Tech buzzword panic

EFF has run a valuable campaign on the risks of leaking metadata to third parties. If you upload a photo to a public website, for instance, the file might contain information on exactly when and where you took the picture. A stalker can make use of the information, especially if you upload photographs wherever you go. If you make a phone call or text message, the associated metadata may get less privacy protection than the what you said or typed. The US government has claimed that warrantless searches of communication metadata, which might identify the sender, receiver, and time of a message, are OK. Unfortunately, this has led some people to think that metadata themselves (I’m standing by “data” as a plural) are evil.
(more…)