posted
I've been thinking a lot about this in regard to a couple issues, and I've gotten nowhere, so I share in question format.
Gay. Black. Homeless. There are many more. At what point did these change from adjectives to nouns, and what does it mean? Was it intentional or un-? Was it cause or effect, or perhaps both?
I'll readily note that some words probably functioned as both from the onset. I'm not talking about those.
Two things I can identify bring me to the question. The first was in college. In conversation with a friend, I referred (rhetorically, as I recall) to "the homeless." My friend Sharon said, "People. Homeless people." The other was an E.R. episode, I think last season, when Elizabeth (while back in England) referred to a patient as a "male," and was told by her supervisor that male was an adjective, and the patient was a "man." Don't know why those stick in my mind so clearly, but I remember them plain as day.
Is it just the nature of simplification of language? Remove unnecessary words? If someone refers to "a gay," they clearly mean a gay man? Is it possible that either the reason or the effect is the dehumanization of the people? Is it a shift from identification to identity?
I try to avoid it. While I think it can have positive aspects, the negative aspects outweigh them. I prefer to think of these, as well as many other similar things, as facets of individuals, rather than their identities. I don't think it's a PC thing, because I don't know which is currently more PC anyway. And it's not something I would attempt to foist on anyone else. I just wonder if anyone else thinks about this, and if so, what conclusions might be or have been drawn.
I don't think any of this would be taken offensively, but since the examples may be close to home for some, I apologize up front for any offense felt or inferred. 'Twas not my intention. But if you were hurt either personally or on behalf of others, please let me know what offended either here or via e-mail, that I might avoid it in the future. Also, I'm not particularly interested in debate as much as discussion, but threads rarely remain as originally intended, so go where you will.
posted
In Latin, they are called substantives. Juilius Caesar's opposition in the Senate, the civil war and life in general were called boni, "the good [men]."
Even in English, we do it for terms that are not PC. "Only the good die young." "The few, the proud, the Marines." Part of the reason it looks more impersonal is because English does not have the gender and number markers for them, which renders all of the substantive adjectives-turned-nouns nuetered and numberless on its face. The PC response of "There are people there, dang it!" is our gut need to fill in the characteristics that are superfluous for languages with gender and number markers on all words used as nouns.
----
The other objection can come when a characteristic, defined as an adjective, is used to indicate the entire person. It implies they are one-dimensional, because other characteristics have no place in a one-adjective description. We notice it more when the adjective is slightly perjoritive, I think, because I've never heard anyone object to "land of the free, home of the brave."
posted
Actually, English has been using adjectives to stand in for an adjective and a noun for well over a thousand years, just like in Katie's Latin example. We came across one just the other day in my Old English class (though I don't remember now what it was). Since adjectives used to have inflections (an indication of case and number), sometimes the noun could be dropped if it was understood. So yes, I believe it's just a regular simplification of the language.
But it's worth noting that the "male is only an adjective" argument is utterly without foundation, since the word has been used as both noun and adjective since the 1300s.
Edit: Dang. Katie's too fast. Or I'm too slow. One of the two.
[ October 07, 2003, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it worked just like it did in Latin, considering that English once had gender and cases like Latin. Stupid cases. I need to study more.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Time? Ha! I'm already taking two languages at the moment, and I really would like to graduate as soon as possible (my earliest target being December 2004). But yes, if I could stay in college forever, I would love to take Latin.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the old english cases and genders were close to german cases and genders than Latin. Old English had the neuter gender, romance languange do not.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If we grant that the intent is morally neutral, the doesn't necessarily mean the effects are. Is it possible that by taking this linguistic shortcut, we make it easier to marginalize groups of people? Just because it's been done that way for a thousand years doesn't make it "right," does it? Granted, it also doesn't make it "wrong." It's probably not an issue of right and wrong anyway. I'm just wondering what some of the ramifications of such choices might be in the grand scheme of things. Don't mind me -- just thinking out loud. Er, on the computer.
posted
Old English cases were indeed closer to German cases. Old English lacked the ablative and vocative case, though it had one called the instrumental case. It also had the neuter gender and a dual number (roughly like saying "we two" or "you two").
Pop, I'm sure there are certain times when it does marginalize people. We slap a label on them and put them in their respective niche. It extends beyond simply using an adjective as a noun, though. I don't think the issue is so much about using a shorter term—I think it's more about the connotations associated with it. Unfortunately, I don't think those can really be helped.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the more interesting question is not why adjectives are used as nouns but why people object to it.
Most of the time when people object to this, it is when an adjective is used to denote a human being. I think people object because it seems dehumanizing to equate a person to one trait.
For example, I suffer from a disorder commonly called Celiac disease and it has become common to call people with disease Celiacs. I object to this on two grounds. The first is that it is technically incorrect. Unlike the terms Insomniac, hypocondriac or maniac, where the root word is a disorder, the root word of celiac, is celia meaning the abdominal cavity or intestines. Hence, celiac disease, is a disease of the intestines. A Celiac person might therefore be a person of the intestines, which is simply a technically incorrect way to describe someone with the disease.
But with all that said, my real objection to the use of the term is that I am not my disease. The disease is part of me but it is not my defining characteristic as a human being.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If we grant that the intent is morally neutral, the doesn't necessarily mean the effects are. Is it possible that by taking this linguistic shortcut, we make it easier to marginalize groups of people?
Papa Moose, this is -- or ought to be -- a big issue in medicine. Practitioners may refer to "the Down's syndrome in room 8," which, when you think about it, is pretty awful.
Whenever I forget how powerful naming can be, I remember doublespeak from 1984. My husband finds that his most powerful work is done by giving new language to old discourse -- by having alternatives to use, the mindset that underlies the initial framing of the question can be examined.
[Edit: The Rabbit said it better and quicker. I defer. But I will call on the "great minds" adage. ]
posted
Wow, that's too bad Rabbit. Ive never heard of that one.
"The homeless" used to be called "shiftless hoboes, bums and tramps", so while adjectives can depersonalize or pigeon-hole people, in this case it's an improvement.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
kudos to PapaMoose - I think this topic is a great one - really complicated, with no simple answers. I'm just frustrated I'm leaving for South Carolina with a laptop of questionable reliability and won't be able to jump in.
From ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Papa Moose, this is -- or ought to be -- a big issue in medicine. Practitioners may refer to "the Down's syndrome in room 8," which, when you think about it, is pretty awful.
CT, it gets even worse than that. Try the word "vegetable" out. I've lost count of the number of parents who have medical professionals refer to their kids that way. Usually in a context in which the physician was trying to justify withholding treatment so death would result. It's the term, in fact, that the doctor who delivered me used when he told my parents it would be better if I didn't survive. It would be one thing if that was the only story like that. I get stories like that from parents of toddlers (obviously, these are the ones who ignored medical advice.)
I've found many individual physicians willing to explore complex issues such as this. Like you, for example. But the profession as a whole is very resistant to this avenue of potential self-criticism.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know, sndrake. I hate it, too. I've heard doing rounds on the medically fragile infants referred to as "watering the vegetables."
How can we not despair? But there's a lot to be said for continuing to make the small changes, to fight the good fights extremely well, over and over again. The big picture of a problem like this is overwhelming. Sometimes the small successes are enough to prop up one's spirits through the times when the great acts fail.
I see many medical students start out as idealistic, kind people. Something happens to most of them along the way. My prophylaxis is to speak with each of them, alone, at least once about what they will likely see in their future training. I remind them that they can learn from every encounter -- either how to behave or how not to behave -- and I encourage them to keep a short list of physicians they meet who they want to be like. All it takes is one or two to show that there is a different way of being in the world.
When we are told "you can't be a good physician if [blah, blah, blah]," and yet we remember those in whose care we felt our patients to be safe, to be respected and, really to be cherished, despite the fact that we were learning from those patients as medical students -- then we can say firmly, in our own minds, "No. There is another way."
posted
I wonder if to an extent this happens in medicine because the emotional toll of dealing with people who are suffering and dying is so great. Emotionally it is easier to handle the death or suffering if you distance yourself from the person. If they are simply diseases to be treated, it is easier to keep from being emotional devastated when the treatment fails.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Claudia Therese, you're the most caring doctor I've ever talked to. Is it ever hard on you - to keep that up? I can't imagine you letting yourself become insensitive, but I wonder/worry if it doesn't tear on you to see every case as a human being, every day. How do you handle it?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, I was editing while you are posting. I think that's the standard answer, and there may be some truth to it, but I have seen other ways. I've worked with physicians who stayed human, even if in control of their emotions, while still providing the most excellent of care.
*grimace
My personal take is that the grinding down of students and residents leads to the callousness, even moreso than the facts of the situation. Nurses, for the most part, stay caring and compassionate. They remain vocal advocates for their patients, even though they are closer to the patients than physicians.
But this is a thread about the power of naming in general, not about medicine. So we could start another thread on this, maybe, sometime? I'd hate to detract from the initial conversation herre, despite my love of derailments. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"My husband finds that his most powerful work is done by giving new language to old discourse -- by having alternatives to use, the mindset that underlies the initial framing of the question can be examined."
And yet, this same impulse is what underlies the oft-mocked "P.C. movement." At what level is this successful, and at what level does it become ridiculous?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:And yet, this same impulse is what underlies the oft-mocked "P.C. movement." At what level is this successful, and at what level does it become ridiculous?
I think that the key is that the new language has to be true, truer than the old language. Take for example the term "firefighter". I've never heard anyone object to the term because it is far more true than the term fireman. Many people hear it and do not even realize that it a PC term which de-genders the older "fireman".
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT, I'm gonna start calling you "Patch," in reference to Hunter Adams, ok?
In response to Tom's comment and Rabbit's response, in addition to the "true" factor, I believe it's possible that re-evaluating a concept using different terms can (not always will) help one to identify unstated assumptions. If those assumptions are less than indisputable, then the concept may be in need of the re-evaluation. Perhaps that's a facet of the difference between successful and ridiculous? The inaccuracy of the assumptions and their need for correction, rather than their removal for removal's sake?
Total aside -- the "PC" gender-specific-term-removal movement bugs me sometimes, though, because sometimes it's just wrong. A chairman is the person who "mans" the chair, not the "man" in the chair. Thus, while I'll grant that there's some gender-assumption in the original term chairman, chairperson isn't an appropriate replacement. Just use "chair." The same is not true of all terms, but that particular one always rubs me wrong.
quote: the "PC" gender-specific-term-removal movement bugs me sometimes, though, because sometimes it's just wrong.
The PC gender-specific-term-removal bugs me because it is fundamentally incorrect. When the original Star Trek said "to go where no man has gone before", it was not being explicitly male. The statement did not imply that perhaps women had already been there but men hadn't. It meant humans and we understood that. When the next generation changed it to "where no one has gone before." It bugged grated on me because it implied that the original had been specifically male. Rather than making me feel included, the change implied that I had previously been excluded -- something that had never occurred to me. What's more, the "no one" phrase was far less accurate because everywhere the Enterprise went they found sensient species who had arrived first. Were they no-one simply because they were not human?
Which leads me back to my original contention. The PC movement is silly unless the new language it creates is truer the the language it replaces. In order for new-language to change the way we view people, it must be true.
[ October 07, 2003, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Syntactically this discussion is senseless. Nouns, pronouns, verbs and adjectives regularly switch places. In "football game" and "diamond ring," we find nouns working as adjectives. "Confusing problem" has a verb doing the same. In "swimming is healthy" a verb becomes a noun. "That bat" shows a pronoun being adjectival. "Bring me your sick and your poor" uses adjectives as nouns.
Whoop-dee-freaking-doo, guys. It's natural in every language. Here are some Spanish examples:
1) Eructar es grosero (infinitive verb as noun) 2) Los jodidos somos nosotros (adjective as noun)
In fact, the adjective-->noun formation in Spanish is INCREDIBLY common. Adding "people" to every example of adjectives describing humans being used as nouns would be as silly as adding "you" to every command.
posted
This is interesting. To me, one interesting aspect in terms of the "nouns" vs. "adjectives" is the origin of the terminology. Did it emerge from the group itself? (example - scan AA literature and the term used is "alcoholics" - not "person with alcoholism" or "alcoholic person.") Or was it originate with a group that was essentially defining "the other?" As CT noted, medicine is a rich source for examples of the latter.
Just thoughts. It's relatively late for me and I've got packing to do.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
DB, I understand your point, and don't disagree with it per se. But the discussion, or at least the question, is not entirely about syntax. I think there's something else at work, and I'm not entirely sure how to describe it.
Your example -- "Bring me your sick and your poor." In that sentence, are sick and poor singular or plural nouns? (I'd assume singular, but I've been wrong at least six times now, so I can't be sure.) The reason I ask is that in some inexplicable manner, I hear a vast difference between (in a similar sentence) using "the gay" versus using "the gays." "The gay" identifies an entire group, made up of people, who all have a particular attribute. "The gays" identifies each individual as being "a gay," rather than identifying the group as a whole. It is more the latter that my original question was intended to discuss.
I fear I'm still not making myself entirely clear, and for this I apologize. Maybe someone else who thinks he knows what I've said can try to say it in a way that others might understand? Please let there be at least one....
posted
On a semi-related topic... what about verbing nouns? (Is there an official word for that?) I was thinking about it the other day, for no real reason at all...
I don't have that big of a problem with it. As long as it makes sense to whoever you're talking to, does it really matter? It's not like the English language could get any weirder.
posted
Tom, of course any approach is prey to be turned to absurdity. Can you think of any that can't?
[Edit: I'd use the same criteria here as I'd use for any analytic approach. Basically, does it help me answer questions more thoroughly, and does it lead to more internal consistency?
This approach, of course, is itself subject to parody. YMMV. ]
posted
Pops, if I talk about "women" or "men" or "Christians," do you feel the same way? Why is saying "gays" somehow more egregious than saying "Muslims"? Muslim is both noun and adjective. The sick the poor the rich, the police, the committee... collective nouns. I really don't see the evil or dehumanizing lurking in these usages.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see how using "women" or "men" is analogous, but I'll grant you Christians and Muslims, and no, I don't see them the same way. But maybe that's because I was never around when they were used as adjectives and not nouns (if such a time existed). If I were to assume (dangerous though it may be), I would have thought those terms were actually nouns first. But I can think of plenty of other examples that do fir the criteria, and yet don't give me any problems.
Maybe it's just me. Perhaps there's a pejorative connotation that goes along with it the times I have heard the term used most often. It's quite possible that there is no intrinsic negative to the use of such nouns, and what negatives are either there or merely perceived are based on something else entirely. I honestly don't know. If I did, I wouldn't be asking questions; I'd be writing essays.
Thank you, all who have contributed. I'm gonna keep thinking about it, probably, and I now have more to ponder.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
But I will call on the "great minds" adage. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
]![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I hate it, too. I've heard doing rounds on the medically fragile infants referred to as "watering the vegetables." ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
]
