Purity of Divinity and Proclaim the

When a director speaks to the students in a performance and says: “Children. exams start tomorrow . ” will the girls consider that the message is not for them? Obviously not. generic or unmark use is strongly root in our grammatical system of Spanish or Castilian. as it is also in other Romance languages. The RAE explains in New grammar of the Spanish language (Madrid. Espasa. 2009) . that the splitting (masculine and feminine) can make sense in certain contexts. such as “He has neither brothers nor sisters”. but in others it is nothing. discriminatory and that there are other resources that can undo the possible ambiguity or lack of precision when we refer to groups of people.

Calling It Not Without a

I agree with the RAE. and I insist that it is the same language and its use. and its history. that shapes our lexical and syntactic makeup of the language we use. For example. in one school. a substitute teacher told her students: “Now. children. let’s sing” and the girls remain silent. Because? Because her previous teacher always address them as “boys and girls.” In this sense. language is pure sense. it is habit or custom. it is the creation business lead of the speaker and. therefore. what we understand about what we speak is more important than how we speak it. The RAE registers some cases as “soldier” and “soldier”; the latter defin as the soldier’s wife (totally sexist) or “regent” and “register”.

Hint of Irony Comfortingthe

Where the feminine is defin as a woman who manages a brothel; equally discriminatory and exclusive expression. It is pertinent to suggest that the RAE review these contents. which it considers “outdat idioms.” The Spanish and their dilemmas regarding sexism It is propos “doctors and doctors”. “poet and poetess” (but not the poet). So. as Julia Buy Lead Alegre says in The absurdity of inclusive language . if we are going to talk like this. let’s not be cynical. let’s talk about “journalists and journalists”. or “persona” and “persono”. It is totally absurd. says the author. Up to this point. everything is debatable. but there is a current that.


No comments yet. Why don’t you start the discussion?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *