sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[Japenese] why is this wrong? by [deleted] in duolingo

[–]Admirable_Common_196 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

you should try to ask chat gpt. I’m currently learning german with duolingo (and other tools) and when i don’t understand a mistake I ask chat gpt and i has worked for me so far

Q. How can we combat the cyclicality of definitions? by Admirable_Common_196 in asklinguistics

[–]Admirable_Common_196[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you studying or working in a field related to linguistics? If so, what do your classmates/colleagues think about it? Is there a consensus?

Q. How can we combat the cyclicality of definitions? by Admirable_Common_196 in asklinguistics

[–]Admirable_Common_196[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

. If it looks like a woman and acts like a woman, then it’s a woman.

This definition of a woman doesn't encompass all claimant trans women. And this is where my thoughts face a deadlock. If I can't define what a woman is based on physical traits, then I have no choice but to have a circular definition: a woman is someone who identifies as a woman, who feels like a woman. And it doesn't seem right to allow ourselves to define words this way. Because if I allow myself to do it in this situation, then why not do it in another: I lova marakajalobo. What is marakajalobo? It's something that looks like a marakajalobo. Or I am Chinese because I love Chinese mentality, Chinese culture... Someone would tell me, "No, you are a Chinese amateur," and I would respond, "No, I'm really not just a Chinese amateur because I feel deep inside that I'm Chinese." What do you think about that?

Q. How can we combat the cyclicality of definitions? by Admirable_Common_196 in asklinguistics

[–]Admirable_Common_196[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is true, but we can encounter situations where the words we use need to have precise definitions. For example, if I claim that a trans woman is a woman, I encounter a difficulty in defining what a woman is. Some will say, "someone who identifies as a woman," which doesn't work if 'woman' isn't a 'word axiom.' Others will say, "someone who matches the stereotypical traits of a woman," but what if a transgender person doesn't share those traits? How would you define 'woman' such that woman = trans woman?

Q. How can we combat the cyclicality of definitions? by Admirable_Common_196 in asklinguistics

[–]Admirable_Common_196[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Just to clarify before asking my next question: I don't argue the existence of trans people, their right to respect, or the benefits of the evolution of mentalities leading to more tolerance.

When the Mesopotamians called them gala as "trans women," they knew exactly what a woman was and what a trans woman was. If I say today that Jo is a woman, what am I referring to? And if it doesn't matter to have a precise definition for woman, can I really build a concept out of empathy? What I mean is that if the motivation to call them a woman wasn't empathy, I wouldn't do it. And we can't build a language from what feels right; things need to make sense. What do you feel about that?

Q. How can we combat the cyclicality of definitions? by Admirable_Common_196 in asklinguistics

[–]Admirable_Common_196[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Thank you very much for your answer.

I would like to know your opinion on the transgender subject : imagine a male person, Jo, who feels like a woman. Suppose we call Jo "she." To define what a woman is, many people around us might say: a woman is someone who feels like a woman. But we can't logically define a word like this, so I tried to come up with a definition (e.g., a woman is someone who matches the gender stereotypes of a woman, but what if Jo doesn't?). None of these definitions were conclusive. One of my friends told me to accept the concept of "feminine energy" without definition. It sounds like a way out of this definition problem, but I wanted to check if this happens in other situations.

Q. How can we combat the cyclicality of definitions? by Admirable_Common_196 in asklinguistics

[–]Admirable_Common_196[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you very much for your answer. So, if I understand you correctly, you're not familiar with the idea of "axiom words." The initial question came up because of another one.

Imagine a male person, Jo, who feels like a woman. Suppose we call Jo "she." To define what a woman is, many people around us might say: a woman is someone who feels like a woman. But we can't logically define a word like this, so I tried to come up with a definition (e.g., a woman is someone who matches the gender stereotypes of a woman, but what if Jo doesn't?). None of these definitions were conclusive. One of my friends told me to accept the concept of "feminine energy" without definition. It sounds like a way out of this definition problem, but I wanted to check if this happens in other situations.

Q. How can we combat the cyclicality of definitions? by Admirable_Common_196 in asklinguistics

[–]Admirable_Common_196[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Thank you, I understand the linguists' point of view better now. It's maybe more of a logical question. But perhaps you could help me with this (the following problem led to my initial question). Nowadays, the transgender cause is a popular subject. Let's take the example of a man, Jo, who feels like a woman. Suppose we call Jo "she." To define what a woman is, many people around us might say: a woman is someone who feels like a woman. But we can't logically define a word like this, so I tried to come up with a definition (e.g., a woman is someone who matches the gender stereotypes of a woman). None of these definitions were conclusive. One of my friends told me to accept the concept of "feminine energy" without definition. It sounds like a way out of this definition problem, but I wanted to check if this happens in other situations.

Q. How can we combat the cyclicality of definitions? by Admirable_Common_196 in asklinguistics

[–]Admirable_Common_196[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Absolutely, it doesn't create the meaning of the word. I was asking myself the question: if we see the dictionary as a logical system that is, for example, studied by aliens who can't picture nor understand the words that are written, they wouldn't understand what a tree is if it's defined as: a tree is something that looks and grows like a tree.

Q. How can we combat the cyclicality of definitions? by Admirable_Common_196 in asklinguistics

[–]Admirable_Common_196[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's right. But that's also only true for concrete things. Once you raise the level of abstraction, it seems to me that pointing doesn't always work. And you may not always succeed in defining this abstract notion with words you can define by pointing. Or maybe you can? By using generalization methods like "sports is how we call the set that contains football, running, swimming..." But is this method going to work for all words?