If its paraphrasing then that's fine but there are quotation marks around the text suggesting to most scholars its a direct quote.
-
-
Replying to @Homoloquax1 @okeefekat
The [ ] around 'hu' shows that it's a prefix added to original
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @Abebab @okeefekat
So it does, my apologies, I hadn't noticed that. I still think it's a bad idea to add prefix in quote when it's unnecessary to explain meaning. Perhaps other scholars are as un observant as myself
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
But it can be necessary to explain the meaning. It is not always clear in classic texts whether or not ‘men’ and ‘mankind’ was used to include other people besides men, either in principle or in spirit.
3 replies 1 retweet 11 likes -
So is confusion over meaning the reason for the amendment? Really? I didn't think I was quite that old - even Darwin used it in an inclusive sense.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Homoloquax1 @IrisVanRooij and
I think it's inherently exclusive TBH to say men instead of people, for example — but I know what you mean, the different intentions behind it do exist. However, the different intentions may differ from reader to reader as well as speaker to speaker.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @Homoloquax1 and
It's complex as even "people" or "citizens" can be used exclusively/to erase. For example, one might say citizens could vote in Ancient Athens (which BTW is what I was taught at school) but the truth is that only men (who had been through military training as ephebes) could vote.
3 replies 1 retweet 9 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @Homoloquax1 and
My default reaction is to take people at face value in many cases. So if somebody says any of the above ambiguous/exclusionary/etc words, I just reply them as if they intended the prima facie meaning.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @Homoloquax1 and
I'm not so sure we can really claim to know whether the term was used with an inclusive meaning or not. Even if we were to have good enough knowledge of the averaged use of the term, we cannot know a past writer's intention, unless they have explicitly stated it.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I think it is more complex. As I said for Darwin. An author may in one place seem to state/imply that the words are meant to be ‘inclusive’, yet other uses of words and claims may be inconsistent with that. Holds not only for classic text, but even for everyday discourse IMO.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
Yeah, exactly. I was speaking about a case in which I know nothing more/less about a person than a statement without context. Something very rare.
-
-
Replying to @o_guest @IrisVanRooij and
Precisely because it is unclear we cannot hold on to a meaning per se assuming it standard. Thus changing a word to ameliorate meaning is not such a crime IMO.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.