Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Neutered child
451 views
Skip to first unread message
Quinn C
Mar 28, 2017, 5:53:17 PM3/28/17
to
| Sir Philip is represented as both noble and tolerant, but as
| Anna imagines her child as 'blemished, unworthy, maimed
| reproduction' of its father, the mother's narrow sympathies are
| exposed.
David Glover and Cora Kaplan: Genders, p.34
I think this would have slipped by, had I not just the day before
had a conversation on when you can use "it" to refer to a person,
and why this is so insulting to some, but not all.
However, as a speaker of German (where a child is "it" by grammar)
I'm not the best judge, so I'd like to hear if others find this
problematic, or indicative of any subtext.
--
In the old days, the complaints about the passing of the
golden age were much more sophisticated.
-- James Hogg in alt.usage.english
| Anna imagines her child as 'blemished, unworthy, maimed
| reproduction' of its father, the mother's narrow sympathies are
| exposed.
David Glover and Cora Kaplan: Genders, p.34
I think this would have slipped by, had I not just the day before
had a conversation on when you can use "it" to refer to a person,
and why this is so insulting to some, but not all.
However, as a speaker of German (where a child is "it" by grammar)
I'm not the best judge, so I'd like to hear if others find this
problematic, or indicative of any subtext.
--
In the old days, the complaints about the passing of the
golden age were much more sophisticated.
-- James Hogg in alt.usage.english
Robert Bannister
Mar 28, 2017, 8:24:41 PM3/28/17
to
On 29/3/17 5:53 am, Quinn C wrote:
> | Sir Philip is represented as both noble and tolerant, but as
> | Anna imagines her child as 'blemished, unworthy, maimed
> | reproduction' of its father, the mother's narrow sympathies are
> | exposed.
>
> David Glover and Cora Kaplan: Genders, p.34
>
> I think this would have slipped by, had I not just the day before
> had a conversation on when you can use "it" to refer to a person,
> and why this is so insulting to some, but not all.
>
> However, as a speaker of German (where a child is "it" by grammar)
> I'm not the best judge, so I'd like to hear if others find this
> problematic, or indicative of any subtext.
>
I think perhaps it is a bit old-fashioned, but using "it" to describe a
> | Sir Philip is represented as both noble and tolerant, but as
> | Anna imagines her child as 'blemished, unworthy, maimed
> | reproduction' of its father, the mother's narrow sympathies are
> | exposed.
>
> David Glover and Cora Kaplan: Genders, p.34
>
> I think this would have slipped by, had I not just the day before
> had a conversation on when you can use "it" to refer to a person,
> and why this is so insulting to some, but not all.
>
> However, as a speaker of German (where a child is "it" by grammar)
> I'm not the best judge, so I'd like to hear if others find this
> problematic, or indicative of any subtext.
>
baby whose sex you don't know doesn't seem odd to me. In the 19th
century, they used it of older children too.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
Quinn C
Mar 29, 2017, 9:22:10 AM3/29/17
to
* Robert Bannister:
> On 29/3/17 5:53 am, Quinn C wrote:
>>| Sir Philip is represented as both noble and tolerant, but as
>>| Anna imagines her child as 'blemished, unworthy, maimed
>>| reproduction' of its father, the mother's narrow sympathies are
>>| exposed.
>>
>> David Glover and Cora Kaplan: Genders, p.34
>>
>> I think this would have slipped by, had I not just the day before
>> had a conversation on when you can use "it" to refer to a person,
>> and why this is so insulting to some, but not all.
>>
>> However, as a speaker of German (where a child is "it" by grammar)
>> I'm not the best judge, so I'd like to hear if others find this
>> problematic, or indicative of any subtext.
>
> I think perhaps it is a bit old-fashioned, but using "it" to describe a
> baby whose sex you don't know doesn't seem odd to me.
That's my observation - some people still do this, very naturally,
but some others get very worked up about it. I think on TV it's
sometimes used as a marker of a person uninterested in children,
although I'm not sure that it signifies that in real life.
However, I don't think the passage above refers to a baby. The
issue of the mother becomes serious when the child starts looking
like a boy outwardly.
> In the 19th
> century, they used it of older children too.
So in the quote, could it be a reflex of the 1920s novel it's
referring to?
--
*Multitasking* /v./ Screwing up several things at once
> On 29/3/17 5:53 am, Quinn C wrote:
>>| Sir Philip is represented as both noble and tolerant, but as
>>| Anna imagines her child as 'blemished, unworthy, maimed
>>| reproduction' of its father, the mother's narrow sympathies are
>>| exposed.
>>
>> David Glover and Cora Kaplan: Genders, p.34
>>
>> I think this would have slipped by, had I not just the day before
>> had a conversation on when you can use "it" to refer to a person,
>> and why this is so insulting to some, but not all.
>>
>> However, as a speaker of German (where a child is "it" by grammar)
>> I'm not the best judge, so I'd like to hear if others find this
>> problematic, or indicative of any subtext.
>
> I think perhaps it is a bit old-fashioned, but using "it" to describe a
> baby whose sex you don't know doesn't seem odd to me.
but some others get very worked up about it. I think on TV it's
sometimes used as a marker of a person uninterested in children,
although I'm not sure that it signifies that in real life.
However, I don't think the passage above refers to a baby. The
issue of the mother becomes serious when the child starts looking
like a boy outwardly.
> In the 19th
> century, they used it of older children too.
referring to?
--
*Multitasking* /v./ Screwing up several things at once
bebe...@aol.com
Mar 29, 2017, 2:19:34 PM3/29/17
to
Le mardi 28 mars 2017 23:53:17 UTC+2, Quinn C a écrit :
> | Sir Philip is represented as both noble and tolerant, but as
> | Anna imagines her child as 'blemished, unworthy, maimed
> | reproduction' of its father, the mother's narrow sympathies are
> | exposed.
>
> David Glover and Cora Kaplan: Genders, p.34
>
> I think this would have slipped by, had I not just the day before
> had a conversation on when you can use "it" to refer to a person,
> and why this is so insulting to some, but not all.
>
> However, as a speaker of German (where a child is "it" by grammar)
> I'm not the best judge, so I'd like to hear if others find this
> problematic, or indicative of any subtext.
I'm not sure the verb "neuter" can be used as in the title of this topic.
> | Sir Philip is represented as both noble and tolerant, but as
> | Anna imagines her child as 'blemished, unworthy, maimed
> | reproduction' of its father, the mother's narrow sympathies are
> | exposed.
>
> David Glover and Cora Kaplan: Genders, p.34
>
> I think this would have slipped by, had I not just the day before
> had a conversation on when you can use "it" to refer to a person,
> and why this is so insulting to some, but not all.
>
> However, as a speaker of German (where a child is "it" by grammar)
> I'm not the best judge, so I'd like to hear if others find this
> problematic, or indicative of any subtext.
The question that sprung to my mind reading "Neutered child" was: castrated
or spayed?
Harrison Hill
Mar 29, 2017, 4:20:31 PM3/29/17
to
On Wednesday, 29 March 2017 19:19:34 UTC+1, bebe...@aol.com wrote:
> Le mardi 28 mars 2017 23:53:17 UTC+2, Quinn C a écrit :
> > | Sir Philip is represented as both noble and tolerant, but as
> > | Anna imagines her child as 'blemished, unworthy, maimed
> > | reproduction' of its father, the mother's narrow sympathies are
> > | exposed.
> >
> > David Glover and Cora Kaplan: Genders, p.34
> >
> > I think this would have slipped by, had I not just the day before
> > had a conversation on when you can use "it" to refer to a person,
> > and why this is so insulting to some, but not all.
> >
> > However, as a speaker of German (where a child is "it" by grammar)
> > I'm not the best judge, so I'd like to hear if others find this
> > problematic, or indicative of any subtext.
>
> I'm not sure the verb "neuter" can be used as in the title of this topic.
> The question that sprung to my mind reading "Neutered child" was: castrated
> or spayed?
Exactly; "rendered neutral" :(
> Le mardi 28 mars 2017 23:53:17 UTC+2, Quinn C a écrit :
> > | Sir Philip is represented as both noble and tolerant, but as
> > | Anna imagines her child as 'blemished, unworthy, maimed
> > | reproduction' of its father, the mother's narrow sympathies are
> > | exposed.
> >
> > David Glover and Cora Kaplan: Genders, p.34
> >
> > I think this would have slipped by, had I not just the day before
> > had a conversation on when you can use "it" to refer to a person,
> > and why this is so insulting to some, but not all.
> >
> > However, as a speaker of German (where a child is "it" by grammar)
> > I'm not the best judge, so I'd like to hear if others find this
> > problematic, or indicative of any subtext.
>
> I'm not sure the verb "neuter" can be used as in the title of this topic.
> The question that sprung to my mind reading "Neutered child" was: castrated
> or spayed?
Sam Plusnet
Mar 30, 2017, 6:42:21 PM3/30/17
to
--
Sam Plusnet
Quinn C
Mar 31, 2017, 12:56:13 PM3/31/17
to
* Sam Plusnet:
Meaning?
--
The trouble some people have being German, I thought,
I have being human.
-- Margaret Atwood, Surfacing (novel), p.130
--
The trouble some people have being German, I thought,
I have being human.
-- Margaret Atwood, Surfacing (novel), p.130
![Peter Duncanson [BrE]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjU1GGYFBCZgBCNB-pRgkosMu-ej0qpnECw3jc8uGYOTiF8a=s40-c)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Mar 31, 2017, 3:49:10 PM3/31/17
to
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 12:56:11 -0400, Quinn C
<lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>* Sam Plusnet:
>
>> On 29/03/2017 01:24, Robert Bannister wrote:
>>> On 29/3/17 5:53 am, Quinn C wrote:
>>>> | Sir Philip is represented as both noble and tolerant, but as
>>>> | Anna imagines her child as 'blemished, unworthy, maimed
>>>> | reproduction' of its father, the mother's narrow sympathies are
>>>> | exposed.
>>>>
>>>> David Glover and Cora Kaplan: Genders, p.34
>>>>
>>>> I think this would have slipped by, had I not just the day before
>>>> had a conversation on when you can use "it" to refer to a person,
>>>> and why this is so insulting to some, but not all.
>>>>
>>>> However, as a speaker of German (where a child is "it" by grammar)
>>>> I'm not the best judge, so I'd like to hear if others find this
>>>> problematic, or indicative of any subtext.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think perhaps it is a bit old-fashioned, but using "it" to describe a
>>> baby whose sex you don't know doesn't seem odd to me. In the 19th
>>> century, they used it of older children too.
>>>
>> In my youth, some schools had pupils who were "Mixed Infants".
>
>Meaning?
Infants are the youngest schoolchildren from age 4 to 7 (or
<lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>* Sam Plusnet:
>
>> On 29/03/2017 01:24, Robert Bannister wrote:
>>> On 29/3/17 5:53 am, Quinn C wrote:
>>>> | Sir Philip is represented as both noble and tolerant, but as
>>>> | Anna imagines her child as 'blemished, unworthy, maimed
>>>> | reproduction' of its father, the mother's narrow sympathies are
>>>> | exposed.
>>>>
>>>> David Glover and Cora Kaplan: Genders, p.34
>>>>
>>>> I think this would have slipped by, had I not just the day before
>>>> had a conversation on when you can use "it" to refer to a person,
>>>> and why this is so insulting to some, but not all.
>>>>
>>>> However, as a speaker of German (where a child is "it" by grammar)
>>>> I'm not the best judge, so I'd like to hear if others find this
>>>> problematic, or indicative of any subtext.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think perhaps it is a bit old-fashioned, but using "it" to describe a
>>> baby whose sex you don't know doesn't seem odd to me. In the 19th
>>> century, they used it of older children too.
>>>
>> In my youth, some schools had pupils who were "Mixed Infants".
>
>Meaning?
thereabouts). "Mixed" just means boys and girls together. The
implication is that the school has separate Boys and Girls departments
for the children older than infants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_school
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Tony Cooper
Mar 31, 2017, 4:55:47 PM3/31/17
to
would take that to mean "mixed race" and consider it to be a racist
observation. Here, we use "infant" to mean "baby", and "child" to
mean past the baby stage. Four to 7 year-olds would be "children",
and "mixed children" would sound very racist.
It is getting increasingly difficult to describe some things without
inadvertently sounding bigoted in some area.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Quinn C
Mar 31, 2017, 5:14:07 PM3/31/17
to
* Peter Duncanson [BrE]:
Thanks. Though "mixed" in a school context usually has that
meaning, I wasn't familiar with "Infant school", and the fact that
where I live, "infants" are usually only a few months old didn't
help.
--
The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to
chance.
Robert R. Coveyou
meaning, I wasn't familiar with "Infant school", and the fact that
where I live, "infants" are usually only a few months old didn't
help.
--
The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to
chance.
Robert R. Coveyou
Peter T. Daniels
Mar 31, 2017, 11:18:35 PM3/31/17
to
On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 3:49:10 PM UTC-4, PeterWD wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 12:56:11 -0400, Quinn C
> <lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>
> >* Sam Plusnet:
> >
> >> On 29/03/2017 01:24, Robert Bannister wrote:
> >>> On 29/3/17 5:53 am, Quinn C wrote:
> >>>> | Sir Philip is represented as both noble and tolerant, but as
> >>>> | Anna imagines her child as 'blemished, unworthy, maimed
> >>>> | reproduction' of its father, the mother's narrow sympathies are
> >>>> | exposed.
> >>>>
> >>>> David Glover and Cora Kaplan: Genders, p.34
> >>>>
> >>>> I think this would have slipped by, had I not just the day before
> >>>> had a conversation on when you can use "it" to refer to a person,
> >>>> and why this is so insulting to some, but not all.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, as a speaker of German (where a child is "it" by grammar)
> >>>> I'm not the best judge, so I'd like to hear if others find this
> >>>> problematic, or indicative of any subtext.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I think perhaps it is a bit old-fashioned, but using "it" to describe a
> >>> baby whose sex you don't know doesn't seem odd to me. In the 19th
> >>> century, they used it of older children too.
> >>>
> >> In my youth, some schools had pupils who were "Mixed Infants".
> >
> >Meaning?
>
> Infants are the youngest schoolchildren from age 4 to 7 (or
< Lat. infans, 'non-speaking'. That's what it means in AmE.
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 12:56:11 -0400, Quinn C
> <lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>
> >* Sam Plusnet:
> >
> >> On 29/03/2017 01:24, Robert Bannister wrote:
> >>> On 29/3/17 5:53 am, Quinn C wrote:
> >>>> | Sir Philip is represented as both noble and tolerant, but as
> >>>> | Anna imagines her child as 'blemished, unworthy, maimed
> >>>> | reproduction' of its father, the mother's narrow sympathies are
> >>>> | exposed.
> >>>>
> >>>> David Glover and Cora Kaplan: Genders, p.34
> >>>>
> >>>> I think this would have slipped by, had I not just the day before
> >>>> had a conversation on when you can use "it" to refer to a person,
> >>>> and why this is so insulting to some, but not all.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, as a speaker of German (where a child is "it" by grammar)
> >>>> I'm not the best judge, so I'd like to hear if others find this
> >>>> problematic, or indicative of any subtext.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I think perhaps it is a bit old-fashioned, but using "it" to describe a
> >>> baby whose sex you don't know doesn't seem odd to me. In the 19th
> >>> century, they used it of older children too.
> >>>
> >> In my youth, some schools had pupils who were "Mixed Infants".
> >
> >Meaning?
>
> Infants are the youngest schoolchildren from age 4 to 7 (or
Peter T. Daniels
Apr 1, 2017, 9:21:54 AM4/1/17
to
On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 4:55:47 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> A term I'd avoid here. If you say a school has "mixed children", many
> would take that to mean "mixed race" and consider it to be a racist
> observation. Here, we use "infant" to mean "baby", and "child" to
> mean past the baby stage. Four to 7 year-olds would be "children",
> and "mixed children" would sound very racist.
How is it "racist" to observe that some people are mixed-race?
> A term I'd avoid here. If you say a school has "mixed children", many
> would take that to mean "mixed race" and consider it to be a racist
> observation. Here, we use "infant" to mean "baby", and "child" to
> mean past the baby stage. Four to 7 year-olds would be "children",
> and "mixed children" would sound very racist.
Janet
Apr 1, 2017, 10:02:09 AM4/1/17
to
In article <coftdclhdnrt8qaa6...@4ax.com>, tonycooper214
@gmail.com says...
<shrug> (shoulders). Not here.
All our infants were mixed.
Janet
@gmail.com says...
All our infants were mixed.
Janet
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Apr 1, 2017, 10:39:51 AM4/1/17
to
from the non-school sense:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/infant
1 A very young child or baby.
‘healthy infants’
as modifier ‘infant mortality’
1.1 British A schoolchild between the ages of about four and eight.
as modifier ‘their first year at infant school’
>
>> thereabouts). "Mixed" just means boys and girls together. The
>> implication is that the school has separate Boys and Girls departments
>> for the children older than infants.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_school
>> thereabouts). "Mixed" just means boys and girls together. The
>> implication is that the school has separate Boys and Girls departments
>> for the children older than infants.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_school
bebe...@aol.com
Apr 1, 2017, 11:53:40 AM4/1/17
to
Tak To
Apr 1, 2017, 12:01:48 PM4/1/17
to
In contemporary US usage, "infant" has a restricted
definition that ranges from a newborn to one just before
walking -- after which the term would be "toddler".
Thus, to many Americans, an "infant school" would be a fancy
term for "day care".
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Peter T. Daniels
Apr 1, 2017, 5:26:34 PM4/1/17
to
That indicates that the word has not been in use at least since 1600 (or maybe
they even go back a bit further to include Spenser).
bebe...@aol.com
Apr 1, 2017, 6:26:07 PM4/1/17
to
Sam Plusnet
Apr 1, 2017, 7:13:36 PM4/1/17
to
around 4.5 years old) for two years, followed by Junior School for 4
years & Secondary School after that.
I'm sure names and structure varied within the UK back then, and the
whole structure has been changed more than once since then.
--
Sam Plusnet
Richard Tobin
Apr 1, 2017, 7:15:02 PM4/1/17
to
In article <c2d4c79f-1910-4dd9...@googlegroups.com>,
Nor in the OED.
Are you trying some kind of April fool?
-- Richard
Nor in the OED.
Are you trying some kind of April fool?
-- Richard
bebe...@aol.com
Apr 1, 2017, 7:49:01 PM4/1/17
to
"infans
noun in·fans \ˈinˌfanz\
Popularity: Bottom 30% of words
Definition of infans
plural infantes \ə̇nˈfan‧ˌtēz\
civil law
: a child under seven years of age : a child not having the ability to speak"
Am I missing something?
>
> -- Richard
Robert Bannister
Apr 1, 2017, 9:48:27 PM4/1/17
to
racist? Sex is a different matter.
Robert Bannister
Apr 1, 2017, 9:52:07 PM4/1/17
to
says "infants school" or perhaps they say "infants' school" or maybe
"infantschool". It's hard to hear those spellings at times.
>>
>>> thereabouts). "Mixed" just means boys and girls together. The
>>> implication is that the school has separate Boys and Girls departments
>>> for the children older than infants.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_school
>
--
>>> thereabouts). "Mixed" just means boys and girls together. The
>>> implication is that the school has separate Boys and Girls departments
>>> for the children older than infants.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_school
>
--
Peter T. Daniels
Apr 2, 2017, 12:01:25 AM4/2/17
to
doesn't make it English.
Peter T. Daniels
Apr 2, 2017, 12:02:38 AM4/2/17
to
On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 9:48:27 PM UTC-4, Robert Bannister wrote:
> On 1/4/17 9:21 pm, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 4:55:47 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >
> >> A term I'd avoid here. If you say a school has "mixed children", many
> >> would take that to mean "mixed race" and consider it to be a racist
> >> observation. Here, we use "infant" to mean "baby", and "child" to
> >> mean past the baby stage. Four to 7 year-olds would be "children",
> >> and "mixed children" would sound very racist.
> >
> > How is it "racist" to observe that some people are mixed-race?
> >
>
> Why is "race" of any importance or even interest unless you are a
> racist? Sex is a different matter.
Oh Jeez. Do we have to have the Heathfield fiasco all over again? Four
> On 1/4/17 9:21 pm, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 4:55:47 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >
> >> A term I'd avoid here. If you say a school has "mixed children", many
> >> would take that to mean "mixed race" and consider it to be a racist
> >> observation. Here, we use "infant" to mean "baby", and "child" to
> >> mean past the baby stage. Four to 7 year-olds would be "children",
> >> and "mixed children" would sound very racist.
> >
> > How is it "racist" to observe that some people are mixed-race?
> >
>
> Why is "race" of any importance or even interest unless you are a
> racist? Sex is a different matter.
hundred years of American history.
RH Draney
Apr 2, 2017, 3:55:39 AM4/2/17
to
On 4/1/2017 6:48 PM, Robert Bannister wrote:
>
> Why is "race" of any importance or even interest unless you are a
> racist? Sex is a different matter.
It might entitle one to special benefits....r
>
> Why is "race" of any importance or even interest unless you are a
> racist? Sex is a different matter.
Cheryl
Apr 2, 2017, 6:51:32 AM4/2/17
to
On 2017-04-01 11:18 PM, Robert Bannister wrote:
> On 1/4/17 9:21 pm, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 4:55:47 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>
>>> A term I'd avoid here. If you say a school has "mixed children", many
>>> would take that to mean "mixed race" and consider it to be a racist
>>> observation. Here, we use "infant" to mean "baby", and "child" to
>>> mean past the baby stage. Four to 7 year-olds would be "children",
>>> and "mixed children" would sound very racist.
>>
>> How is it "racist" to observe that some people are mixed-race?
>>
>
> Why is "race" of any importance or even interest unless you are a
> racist? Sex is a different matter.
>
We recently had a public call for universities to find out more about
> On 1/4/17 9:21 pm, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 4:55:47 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>
>>> A term I'd avoid here. If you say a school has "mixed children", many
>>> would take that to mean "mixed race" and consider it to be a racist
>>> observation. Here, we use "infant" to mean "baby", and "child" to
>>> mean past the baby stage. Four to 7 year-olds would be "children",
>>> and "mixed children" would sound very racist.
>>
>> How is it "racist" to observe that some people are mixed-race?
>>
>
> Why is "race" of any importance or even interest unless you are a
> racist? Sex is a different matter.
>
the race of their students. I am sure that the people behind this
request, who were deeply interested in the race of university students,
would be horrified to be called racists. They justify their demand by
saying that you can't prove if racism exists and is a problem unless you
know what race everyone is. Presumably they are following the American
approach to race issues.
I don't see any particular need for anyone to know my race, but I
suppose I won't be covered anyway, since the course I was taking out of
interest is finishing up and by next week or so, I won't even be a
part-time students.
--
Cheryl
Cheryl
Apr 2, 2017, 6:54:13 AM4/2/17
to
American, not everyone lives with the result of four hundred years of
American history, and not everyone thinks that the current American
approach to race is applicable to their own situations.
I'll leave it tot the Americans to discuss their own state of race
relations.
--
Cheryl
Janet
Apr 2, 2017, 7:56:27 AM4/2/17
to
In article <72bfe193-feef-49ab...@googlegroups.com>,
gram...@verizon.net says...
400 years of American history have absolutely zero connection to the
British education system's use of the term "mixed infants".
Janet
gram...@verizon.net says...
British education system's use of the term "mixed infants".
Janet
Richard Tobin
Apr 2, 2017, 8:25:02 AM4/2/17
to
In article <ekb3q4...@mid.individual.net>,
school" it would be natural to take it as "infant school".
-- Richard
Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>> It is similar in BrE. The sense in the context of schools is different
>> from the non-school sense:
>> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/infant
>>
>> 1 A very young child or baby.
>> ‘healthy infants’
>> as modifier ‘infant mortality’
>>
>> 1.1 British A schoolchild between the ages of about four and eight.
>> as modifier ‘their first year at infant school’
>Reading the official version is interesting because just about everyone
>says "infants school" or perhaps they say "infants' school" or maybe
>"infantschool". It's hard to hear those spellings at times.
Since the contrast (in England) is with "junior school" and "secondary
>> It is similar in BrE. The sense in the context of schools is different
>> from the non-school sense:
>> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/infant
>>
>> 1 A very young child or baby.
>> ‘healthy infants’
>> as modifier ‘infant mortality’
>>
>> 1.1 British A schoolchild between the ages of about four and eight.
>> as modifier ‘their first year at infant school’
>Reading the official version is interesting because just about everyone
>says "infants school" or perhaps they say "infants' school" or maybe
>"infantschool". It's hard to hear those spellings at times.
school" it would be natural to take it as "infant school".
-- Richard
Richard Tobin
Apr 2, 2017, 8:30:02 AM4/2/17
to
In article <eeeb63f9-4b75-4bd6...@googlegroups.com>,
When I follow that link, it doesn't show a word definition at all,
just something urging me to "join MWU". "infant" on the other hand
shows a definition.
A screen shot is at
http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~richard/infans.png
>Am I missing something?
Apparently it shows different things to different people.
-- Richard
<bebe...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >MW says otherwise: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infans
>> Are you trying some kind of April fool?
>Not really, the definition the above link points to reads:
>
>"infans
>noun in·fans \ˈinˌfanz\
>Popularity: Bottom 30% of words
[...]
>> >MW says otherwise: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infans
>> Are you trying some kind of April fool?
>Not really, the definition the above link points to reads:
>
>"infans
>noun in·fans \ˈinˌfanz\
>Popularity: Bottom 30% of words
When I follow that link, it doesn't show a word definition at all,
just something urging me to "join MWU". "infant" on the other hand
shows a definition.
A screen shot is at
http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~richard/infans.png
>Am I missing something?
Apparently it shows different things to different people.
-- Richard
Peter T. Daniels
Apr 2, 2017, 9:47:12 AM4/2/17
to
Britain called "mixed children." Tony Cooper equated that with "mixed race"
and announced that acknowledging the existence of such a thing is, IN HIS
COUNTRY (that was the purport of "Here"), racist. That's nonsense. As RH
noted -- not jocularly -- identification with a particular race is grounds for
membership in a "protected class," a class which by law is exempt from discrimination
-- BECAUSE OF THOSE 400 YEARS OF HISTORY.
It's entirely possible that there are no historically oppressed populations
anywhere in Canada. But that seems unlikely. Or that all traces of historical
oppression have been obliterated. But that too seems unlikely. Let's not
even consider British categories of discrimination.
> I'll leave it tot the Americans to discuss their own state of race
> relations.
exactly lily-white in this context -- intervened.
Peter T. Daniels
Apr 2, 2017, 9:49:02 AM4/2/17
to
Or maybe you ignore everyone else's comments -- or at least Tony Cooper's --
merely to spit bile on mine.
Peter T. Daniels
Apr 2, 2017, 9:51:15 AM4/2/17
to
Katy Jennison
Apr 2, 2017, 10:37:59 AM4/2/17
to
On 02/04/2017 14:47, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 6:54:13 AM UTC-4, Cheryl P wrote:
>> On 2017-04-02 1:32 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 9:48:27 PM UTC-4, Robert Bannister wrote:
>>>> On 1/4/17 9:21 pm, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 4:55:47 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>>>>>> A term I'd avoid here. If you say a school has "mixed children", many
>>>>>> would take that to mean "mixed race" and consider it to be a racist
>>>>>> observation. Here, we use "infant" to mean "baby", and "child" to
>>>>>> mean past the baby stage. Four to 7 year-olds would be "children",
>>>>>> and "mixed children" would sound very racist.
>>>>> How is it "racist" to observe that some people are mixed-race?
>>>> Why is "race" of any importance or even interest unless you are a
>>>> racist? Sex is a different matter.
>>> Oh Jeez. Do we have to have the Heathfield fiasco all over again? Four
>>> hundred years of American history.
>>
>> Let's short-cut to the point at which someone says that not everyone is
>> American, not everyone lives with the result of four hundred years of
>> American history, and not everyone thinks that the current American
>> approach to race is applicable to their own situations.
>
> Let's look at what was being talked about. Apparently there is a category in
> Britain called "mixed children."
No. There was a category of British *school* called "Mixed infants"
> On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 6:54:13 AM UTC-4, Cheryl P wrote:
>> On 2017-04-02 1:32 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 9:48:27 PM UTC-4, Robert Bannister wrote:
>>>> On 1/4/17 9:21 pm, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 4:55:47 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>>>>>> A term I'd avoid here. If you say a school has "mixed children", many
>>>>>> would take that to mean "mixed race" and consider it to be a racist
>>>>>> observation. Here, we use "infant" to mean "baby", and "child" to
>>>>>> mean past the baby stage. Four to 7 year-olds would be "children",
>>>>>> and "mixed children" would sound very racist.
>>>>> How is it "racist" to observe that some people are mixed-race?
>>>> Why is "race" of any importance or even interest unless you are a
>>>> racist? Sex is a different matter.
>>> Oh Jeez. Do we have to have the Heathfield fiasco all over again? Four
>>> hundred years of American history.
>>
>> Let's short-cut to the point at which someone says that not everyone is
>> American, not everyone lives with the result of four hundred years of
>> American history, and not everyone thinks that the current American
>> approach to race is applicable to their own situations.
>
> Let's look at what was being talked about. Apparently there is a category in
> Britain called "mixed children."
(not "children"). This is a standard BrE phrase which denoted mixed-sex
state schools for children aged approximately 4-7. The term is almost
entirely historic today. When it was current, it was not uncommon for
classes for children over the age of 7 to be separated by sex. Schools
which were built around the turn of the century (ie 100+ years ago) may
still have evidence of three separate entrances, labelled Infants, Boys,
and Girls. By the time I was at school the doors were used for
different groups, although the carved stone signs over the doors were
still there.
--
Katy Jennison
Richard Tobin
Apr 2, 2017, 11:00:03 AM4/2/17
to
In article <b6797231-bbcd-44d8...@googlegroups.com>,
junior school are juniors. I would guess that these are by far
the most common uses of both words in England.
-- Richard
>> Since the contrast (in England) is with "junior school" and "secondary
>> school" it would be natural to take it as "infant school".
>Not really, since "infant" is mostly a noun and "junior/secondary" aren't.
The children in the infant school are infants, and the children in the
>> school" it would be natural to take it as "infant school".
>Not really, since "infant" is mostly a noun and "junior/secondary" aren't.
junior school are juniors. I would guess that these are by far
the most common uses of both words in England.
-- Richard
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
Apr 2, 2017, 11:06:08 AM4/2/17
to
Libeling loony PeteY "Genital Herpes" Daniels to Janet:
because she isn't.
See the Loony Linguist:
http://aman.members.sonic.net/PeteY-Doody.jpg
--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~
>
> You really are as stupid as the sociopath says.
>
You *lying* cocksucker! I have *never* called Janet "stupid,"
> You really are as stupid as the sociopath says.
>
because she isn't.
See the Loony Linguist:
http://aman.members.sonic.net/PeteY-Doody.jpg
--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~
bebe...@aol.com
Apr 2, 2017, 11:06:50 AM4/2/17
to
Here's a link to a screenshot of that page:
https://snag.gy/6zTk4Q.jpg
As can be seen, no mention is made to the word not being English.
>
> -- Richard
Quinn C
Apr 2, 2017, 12:25:56 PM4/2/17
to
* Peter T. Daniels:
> On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 4:55:47 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> A term I'd avoid here. If you say a school has "mixed children", many
>> would take that to mean "mixed race" and consider it to be a racist
>> observation. Here, we use "infant" to mean "baby", and "child" to
>> mean past the baby stage. Four to 7 year-olds would be "children",
>> and "mixed children" would sound very racist.
>
> How is it "racist" to observe that some people are mixed-race?
I also noticed on first reading that "mixed" could refer to race,
but in the context, I interpreted the word the same way as in the
case of sex: that the class is a mix of children of different
racial background. This sounds racist because it implies that
racial segregation is even an option.
--
There are two ways of constructing a software design. One way is
to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies.
And the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no
obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult.
-- C. A. R. Hoare
> On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 4:55:47 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> A term I'd avoid here. If you say a school has "mixed children", many
>> would take that to mean "mixed race" and consider it to be a racist
>> observation. Here, we use "infant" to mean "baby", and "child" to
>> mean past the baby stage. Four to 7 year-olds would be "children",
>> and "mixed children" would sound very racist.
>
> How is it "racist" to observe that some people are mixed-race?
but in the context, I interpreted the word the same way as in the
case of sex: that the class is a mix of children of different
racial background. This sounds racist because it implies that
racial segregation is even an option.
--
There are two ways of constructing a software design. One way is
to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies.
And the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no
obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult.
-- C. A. R. Hoare
Quinn C
Apr 2, 2017, 12:50:44 PM4/2/17
to
* Robert Bannister:
> On 1/4/17 9:21 pm, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 4:55:47 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>
>>> A term I'd avoid here. If you say a school has "mixed children", many
>>> would take that to mean "mixed race" and consider it to be a racist
>>> observation. Here, we use "infant" to mean "baby", and "child" to
>>> mean past the baby stage. Four to 7 year-olds would be "children",
>>> and "mixed children" would sound very racist.
>>
>> How is it "racist" to observe that some people are mixed-race?
>>
>
> Why is "race" of any importance or even interest unless you are a
> racist?
When there's widespread or even institutionalized racism in
society, you are liable to reproduce racist structures even
without being racist yourself, if you're not careful.
A bunch of people here don't seem to recognize that, though.
> Sex is a different matter.
Not nearly as much as most people think.
--
Failover worked - the system failed, then it was over.
(freely translated from a remark by Dietz Proepper
in de.alt.sysadmin.recovery)
> On 1/4/17 9:21 pm, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 4:55:47 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>
>>> A term I'd avoid here. If you say a school has "mixed children", many
>>> would take that to mean "mixed race" and consider it to be a racist
>>> observation. Here, we use "infant" to mean "baby", and "child" to
>>> mean past the baby stage. Four to 7 year-olds would be "children",
>>> and "mixed children" would sound very racist.
>>
>> How is it "racist" to observe that some people are mixed-race?
>>
>
> Why is "race" of any importance or even interest unless you are a
> racist?
society, you are liable to reproduce racist structures even
without being racist yourself, if you're not careful.
A bunch of people here don't seem to recognize that, though.
> Sex is a different matter.
--
Failover worked - the system failed, then it was over.
(freely translated from a remark by Dietz Proepper
in de.alt.sysadmin.recovery)
Richard Tobin
Apr 2, 2017, 1:15:02 PM4/2/17
to
In article <b68c0d8e-c738-48dc...@googlegroups.com>,
But I have a Firefox add-on that gets rid of the redirection through
Google of search results[*]. If I disable that, I get your behaviour.
It appears that MW only shows me the definition when it appears to
them to be the result of a Google search.
[*] http://matagus.github.io/remove-google-redirects-addon/
-- Richard
<bebe...@aol.com> wrote:
>> When I follow that link, it doesn't show a word definition at all,
>> just something urging me to "join MWU". "infant" on the other hand
>> shows a definition.
>> When I follow that link, it doesn't show a word definition at all,
>> just something urging me to "join MWU". "infant" on the other hand
>> shows a definition.
>Puzzling indeed. From within any MW page, typing "infans" in the input
>field sends me to the same page as shown in your screenshot. However,
>when I google "infans merriam", the first result shown is a working link
>to the above MW definition of "infans".
It doesn't do that for me.
>field sends me to the same page as shown in your screenshot. However,
>when I google "infans merriam", the first result shown is a working link
>to the above MW definition of "infans".
But I have a Firefox add-on that gets rid of the redirection through
Google of search results[*]. If I disable that, I get your behaviour.
It appears that MW only shows me the definition when it appears to
them to be the result of a Google search.
[*] http://matagus.github.io/remove-google-redirects-addon/
-- Richard
Tony Cooper
Apr 2, 2017, 1:16:18 PM4/2/17
to
classify children who are of school-age as "infants".
If I was looking at a row of bassinets of new-borns in a hospital, I
would not say that it's a row of "mixed infants" meaning it was a row
of male and female infants. It's too likely that someone would take
that to mean that I was observing that some of the infants are of
mixed race. I'm not supposed to notice or comment on that. As typed
above "Why is 'race' of any importance or even interest unless you are
a racist?".
It's the unintended, and unfelt, association with racism that stops me
from using a term that can be taken to be racist.
I think I'm still allowed to say it's row of male and female infants,
but there are those who would want me wait until those infants decide
which gender they identify as before throwing out terms like "male"
and "female".
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Katy Jennison
Apr 2, 2017, 1:26:33 PM4/2/17
to
"mixed infants", however unremarkable in the UK, wouldn't be acceptable
in an American context. It seemed to me that a little extra
clarification of the BrE usage was needed by, ahem, another reader, who
appeared to have misunderstood it.
--
Katy Jennison
David Kleinecke
Apr 2, 2017, 2:24:55 PM4/2/17
to
can only mean "infants of several different races" and is
something I would not say (or expect to hear) for obvious
reasons. I would cut some slack for a wandering Brit who
used the phrase innocently - but not everybody here, again
for obvious reasons, is guaranteed to grant much slack.
But AUE is not in the US.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Apr 2, 2017, 2:25:24 PM4/2/17
to
On 2017-03-31 20:55:45 +0000, Tony Cooper said:
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 20:49:08 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 12:56:11 -0400, Quinn C
>> <lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>
>>> * Sam Plusnet:
>>>
>>>> On 29/03/2017 01:24, Robert Bannister wrote:
>>>>> On 29/3/17 5:53 am, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>> | Sir Philip is represented as both noble and tolerant, but as
>>>>>> | Anna imagines her child as 'blemished, unworthy, maimed
>>>>>> | reproduction' of its father, the mother's narrow sympathies are
>>>>>> | exposed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David Glover and Cora Kaplan: Genders, p.34
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think this would have slipped by, had I not just the day before
>>>>>> had a conversation on when you can use "it" to refer to a person,
>>>>>> and why this is so insulting to some, but not all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, as a speaker of German (where a child is "it" by grammar)
>>>>>> I'm not the best judge, so I'd like to hear if others find this
>>>>>> problematic, or indicative of any subtext.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think perhaps it is a bit old-fashioned, but using "it" to describe a
>>>>> baby whose sex you don't know doesn't seem odd to me. In the 19th
>>>>> century, they used it of older children too.
>>>>>
>>>> In my youth, some schools had pupils who were "Mixed Infants".
>>>
>>> Meaning?
>>
>> Infants are the youngest schoolchildren from age 4 to 7 (or
girl at a co-educational school. It still irritates me, but it seems to
be less common than it was, and I'm more familiar with it.
> If you say a school has "mixed children", many
> would take that to mean "mixed race" and consider it to be a racist
> observation. Here, we use "infant" to mean "baby", and "child" to
> mean past the baby stage. Four to 7 year-olds would be "children",
> and "mixed children" would sound very racist.
>
> It is getting increasingly difficult to describe some things without
> inadvertently sounding bigoted in some area.
--
athel
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 20:49:08 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 12:56:11 -0400, Quinn C
>> <lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>
>>> * Sam Plusnet:
>>>
>>>> On 29/03/2017 01:24, Robert Bannister wrote:
>>>>> On 29/3/17 5:53 am, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>> | Sir Philip is represented as both noble and tolerant, but as
>>>>>> | Anna imagines her child as 'blemished, unworthy, maimed
>>>>>> | reproduction' of its father, the mother's narrow sympathies are
>>>>>> | exposed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David Glover and Cora Kaplan: Genders, p.34
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think this would have slipped by, had I not just the day before
>>>>>> had a conversation on when you can use "it" to refer to a person,
>>>>>> and why this is so insulting to some, but not all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, as a speaker of German (where a child is "it" by grammar)
>>>>>> I'm not the best judge, so I'd like to hear if others find this
>>>>>> problematic, or indicative of any subtext.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think perhaps it is a bit old-fashioned, but using "it" to describe a
>>>>> baby whose sex you don't know doesn't seem odd to me. In the 19th
>>>>> century, they used it of older children too.
>>>>>
>>>> In my youth, some schools had pupils who were "Mixed Infants".
>>>
>>> Meaning?
>>
>> Infants are the youngest schoolchildren from age 4 to 7 (or
>> thereabouts). "Mixed" just means boys and girls together. The
>> implication is that the school has separate Boys and Girls departments
>> for the children older than infants.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_school
>
>> implication is that the school has separate Boys and Girls departments
>> for the children older than infants.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_school
>
> A term I'd avoid here.
A term that irritated me no end when I first heard it was "co-ed" for a
girl at a co-educational school. It still irritates me, but it seems to
be less common than it was, and I'm more familiar with it.
> If you say a school has "mixed children", many
> would take that to mean "mixed race" and consider it to be a racist
> observation. Here, we use "infant" to mean "baby", and "child" to
> mean past the baby stage. Four to 7 year-olds would be "children",
> and "mixed children" would sound very racist.
>
> inadvertently sounding bigoted in some area.
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
Apr 2, 2017, 2:26:57 PM4/2/17
to
On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 10:37:59 AM UTC-4, Katy Jennison wrote:
> On 02/04/2017 14:47, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 6:54:13 AM UTC-4, Cheryl P wrote:
> >> On 2017-04-02 1:32 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 9:48:27 PM UTC-4, Robert Bannister wrote:
> >>>> On 1/4/17 9:21 pm, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 4:55:47 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >>>>>> A term I'd avoid here. If you say a school has "mixed children", many
> >>>>>> would take that to mean "mixed race" and consider it to be a racist
> >>>>>> observation. Here, we use "infant" to mean "baby", and "child" to
> >>>>>> mean past the baby stage. Four to 7 year-olds would be "children",
> >>>>>> and "mixed children" would sound very racist.
> >>>>> How is it "racist" to observe that some people are mixed-race?
> >>>> Why is "race" of any importance or even interest unless you are a
> >>>> racist? Sex is a different matter.
> >>> Oh Jeez. Do we have to have the Heathfield fiasco all over again? Four
> >>> hundred years of American history.
> >> Let's short-cut to the point at which someone says that not everyone is
> >> American, not everyone lives with the result of four hundred years of
> >> American history, and not everyone thinks that the current American
> >> approach to race is applicable to their own situations.
> > Let's look at what was being talked about. Apparently there is a category in
> > Britain called "mixed children."
In fact the sentence that Tony paraphrased was "In my youth, some schools had
> On 02/04/2017 14:47, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 6:54:13 AM UTC-4, Cheryl P wrote:
> >> On 2017-04-02 1:32 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 9:48:27 PM UTC-4, Robert Bannister wrote:
> >>>> On 1/4/17 9:21 pm, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 4:55:47 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >>>>>> A term I'd avoid here. If you say a school has "mixed children", many
> >>>>>> would take that to mean "mixed race" and consider it to be a racist
> >>>>>> observation. Here, we use "infant" to mean "baby", and "child" to
> >>>>>> mean past the baby stage. Four to 7 year-olds would be "children",
> >>>>>> and "mixed children" would sound very racist.
> >>>>> How is it "racist" to observe that some people are mixed-race?
> >>>> Why is "race" of any importance or even interest unless you are a
> >>>> racist? Sex is a different matter.
> >>> Oh Jeez. Do we have to have the Heathfield fiasco all over again? Four
> >>> hundred years of American history.
> >> Let's short-cut to the point at which someone says that not everyone is
> >> American, not everyone lives with the result of four hundred years of
> >> American history, and not everyone thinks that the current American
> >> approach to race is applicable to their own situations.
> > Let's look at what was being talked about. Apparently there is a category in
> > Britain called "mixed children."
pupils who were "Mixed Infants." Since infants in American English do not
attend school, he naturally translated that to "Mixed children."
> No. There was a category of British *school* called "Mixed infants"
> (not "children"). This is a standard BrE phrase which denoted mixed-sex
> state schools for children aged approximately 4-7. The term is almost
> entirely historic today. When it was current, it was not uncommon for
> classes for children over the age of 7 to be separated by sex. Schools
> which were built around the turn of the century (ie 100+ years ago) may
> still have evidence of three separate entrances, labelled Infants, Boys,
> and Girls. By the time I was at school the doors were used for
> different groups, although the carved stone signs over the doors were
> still there.
by the 1930s, were single-sex; my mother went to Walton, which is at the other
end of the Reservoir from DeWitt Clinton, the associated boys' high school.
Her younger brother, after they'd moved to Manhattan, went to George Washington,
where he overlapped for about one year with Henry Kissinger (didn't know him).
My father graduated from Washington Irving, in the Gramercy Park neighborhood.
It's not clear to me how he qualified, since his parents lived in Mamaroneck
and he attended Mamaroneck High School for two or three years. The elite high
schools, such as Stuyvesant and Bronx Science, were probably co-ed from the
beginning. The vocational high schools (such as Aviation Trades, across the
highway from LaGuardia Airport) probably weren't. The several Performing Arts
high schools are necessarily co-ed.
Peter T. Daniels
Apr 2, 2017, 2:29:35 PM4/2/17
to
On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 11:00:03 AM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <b6797231-bbcd-44d8...@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
[no, he did not]
> In article <b6797231-bbcd-44d8...@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> Since the contrast (in England) is with "junior school" and "secondary
> >> school" it would be natural to take it as "infant school".
> >Not really, since "infant" is mostly a noun and "junior/secondary" aren't.
>
> The children in the infant school are infants, and the children in the
> junior school are juniors. I would guess that these are by far
> the most common uses of both words in England.
Clearly "junior" (n.) is derived from "junior" (adj.). The next bunch aren't
> >> school" it would be natural to take it as "infant school".
> >Not really, since "infant" is mostly a noun and "junior/secondary" aren't.
>
> The children in the infant school are infants, and the children in the
> junior school are juniors. I would guess that these are by far
> the most common uses of both words in England.
called "secondaries"?
One hesitates between "infant" (adj.) and "infant" (attrib.) in the first case.
Peter T. Daniels
Apr 2, 2017, 2:40:15 PM4/2/17
to
school" would be called "daycare."
"Infant" simply _cannot_ be used for 'child old enough to go to school' or even
'child old enough to be learning to walk'.
Katy Jennison
Apr 2, 2017, 2:56:29 PM4/2/17
to
20th century Britain, and set everyone straight, then.
--
Katy Jennison
LFS
Apr 2, 2017, 2:57:16 PM4/2/17
to
On 02/04/2017 19:40, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
Brits seem to be able to distinguish between this usage and the sense of
the word that implies a babe in arms, without any difficulty at all.
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Katy Jennison
Apr 2, 2017, 2:59:18 PM4/2/17
to
before) a) the term is now outdated (historic) and b) it was applied to
the type of school, not to the children.
--
Katy Jennison
Peter T. Daniels
Apr 2, 2017, 3:12:50 PM4/2/17
to
English?
Why are you pretending that you don't know that his "we" refers to 'Americans'?
If your sense of "infant" goes back only to 1890ish, then clearly it's yet
another innovation in the supposedly time-hallowed British English.
Tony Cooper
Apr 2, 2017, 3:32:30 PM4/2/17
to
On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 20:25:20 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>A term that irritated me no end when I first heard it was "co-ed" for a
>girl at a co-educational school. It still irritates me, but it seems to
>be less common than it was, and I'm more familiar with it.
The term "co-ed" for a female college student is very familiar to me,
<acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>A term that irritated me no end when I first heard it was "co-ed" for a
>girl at a co-educational school. It still irritates me, but it seems to
>be less common than it was, and I'm more familiar with it.
and a term I've probably used on many occasions. I suppose it is
out-of-date now, but I haven't paid attention to the usage.
Back-in-the-day, many of our universities were either all-male or
all-female, so a co-educational university was almost remarkable. The
women who attended them were designated "co-eds" because they attended
one of the co-educational school. Later, the term was applied to all
females at a university.
STS strikes when I see the word. The song "Betty Co-ed" plays in my
mind. The tune remains, but the lyrics have faded. Looking them up:
Betty Co-ed has lips of red for Harvard,
Betty Co-ed has eyes of Yale's deep blue,
Betty Co-ed's a golden haired for Princeton,
Her dress I guess is black for old Purdue!
Betty Co-ed's a smile for Pennsylvania,
Her heart is Dartmouth's treasure, so 'tis said,
Betty Co-ed is loved by every college boy,
But I'm the one who's loved by Betty Co-ed!
How Purdue, that plebeian, Midwest, school gets in with those Eastern
elites is beyond me.
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
Apr 2, 2017, 5:02:09 PM4/2/17
to
Loony off-topic poster PeteY "Genital Herpes" Daniels drooled:
>
Since this "newsgroup [is] dedicated to the Usage of English"
[PeteY, 25 Mar 2017], what the fuck is all that personal off-topic shit
below doing here?
And:
"... you [Tony] have no business in a newsgroup dedicated to the
Usage of English."
And here comes loony off-topic poster PeteY's drool dedicated to the
*Usage of English*:
>
Since this "newsgroup [is] dedicated to the Usage of English"
[PeteY, 25 Mar 2017], what the fuck is all that personal off-topic shit
below doing here?
And:
"... you [Tony] have no business in a newsgroup dedicated to the
Usage of English."
And here comes loony off-topic poster PeteY's drool dedicated to the
*Usage of English*:
>
> Our older public schools have separate Boys and Girls entrances. High
> schools, by the 1930s, were single-sex; my mother went to Walton,
> which is at the other end of the Reservoir from DeWitt Clinton, the
> associated boys' high school. Her younger brother, after they'd moved
> to Manhattan, went to George Washington, where he overlapped for
> about one year with Henry Kissinger (didn't know him).
> My father graduated from Washington Irving, in the Gramercy Park
> neighborhood. It's not clear to me how he qualified, since his
> parents lived in Mamaroneck and he attended Mamaroneck High School
> for two or three years. The elite high schools, such as Stuyvesant
> and Bronx Science, were probably co-ed from the beginning. The
> vocational high schools (such as Aviation Trades, across the highway
> from LaGuardia Airport) probably weren't. The several Performing Arts
> high schools are necessarily co-ed.
>
See the Loony Drooler:
> Our older public schools have separate Boys and Girls entrances. High
> schools, by the 1930s, were single-sex; my mother went to Walton,
> which is at the other end of the Reservoir from DeWitt Clinton, the
> associated boys' high school. Her younger brother, after they'd moved
> to Manhattan, went to George Washington, where he overlapped for
> about one year with Henry Kissinger (didn't know him).
> My father graduated from Washington Irving, in the Gramercy Park
> neighborhood. It's not clear to me how he qualified, since his
> parents lived in Mamaroneck and he attended Mamaroneck High School
> for two or three years. The elite high schools, such as Stuyvesant
> and Bronx Science, were probably co-ed from the beginning. The
> vocational high schools (such as Aviation Trades, across the highway
> from LaGuardia Airport) probably weren't. The several Performing Arts
> high schools are necessarily co-ed.
>
Katy Jennison
Apr 2, 2017, 5:36:10 PM4/2/17
to
so, in what you quoted above, thus: "the term "mixed infants", however
unremarkable in the UK, wouldn't be acceptable in an American context."
It seems to be you who are asserting that a particular word cannot
possibly mean what, in BrE, it does mean. Once again, therefore, I
exhort you to preface your "cannot" with "in AmE".
--
Katy Jennison
Peter T. Daniels
Apr 2, 2017, 6:03:12 PM4/2/17
to
It was a hit for Rudy Vallee.
Peter T. Daniels
Apr 2, 2017, 6:05:11 PM4/2/17
to
American Engoish? And that when I add support to someone else writing explicitly
about American English, a repetition is not necessary?
Tony Cooper
Apr 2, 2017, 6:14:27 PM4/2/17
to
On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 22:36:07 +0100, Katy Jennison
While it is better to say "In AmE" or "In BrE" or "In the US" or "In
the UK", the use of "Here" or something that identifies as it being in
the writer's home place is sufficient for regulars.
What is to be avoided is the flat statement: "Ambassadors are
appointed by the current administration" or "Ambassadors are career
diplomats". Even though we may know what the writer's perspective is,
the flat statement is the perpetual burr under the aue saddle.
I do recognize that the reason a burr under the saddle is an annoyance
is that it is not flat.
the UK", the use of "Here" or something that identifies as it being in
the writer's home place is sufficient for regulars.
What is to be avoided is the flat statement: "Ambassadors are
appointed by the current administration" or "Ambassadors are career
diplomats". Even though we may know what the writer's perspective is,
the flat statement is the perpetual burr under the aue saddle.
I do recognize that the reason a burr under the saddle is an annoyance
is that it is not flat.
Tony Cooper
Apr 2, 2017, 6:16:16 PM4/2/17
to
On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 15:05:08 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Are you now saying that somehow you're no longer aware that my languaeg is
>American Engoish?
I think you've identified the problem.
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Are you now saying that somehow you're no longer aware that my languaeg is
>American Engoish?
Tony Cooper
Apr 2, 2017, 6:20:54 PM4/2/17
to
Betty Co-ed has lips of red for Cornell,
Betty Co-ed has eyes of Navy blue,
Betty Co-ed, the golden haired for Amherst,
Her dress I guess is white for Georgia, too!
Betty seems to have changed her dress between verses.
>It was a hit for Rudy Vallee.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Apr 2, 2017, 7:07:50 PM4/2/17
to
http://www.visitbetwsycoed.co.uk/
>Betty seems to have changed her dress between verses.
>
>
>>It was a hit for Rudy Vallee.
--
(in alt.usage.english)
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
Apr 2, 2017, 7:11:02 PM4/2/17
to
T*ny C**per wrote:
>
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> Are you now saying that somehow you're no longer aware
>> that my languaeg is American Engoish?
^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
>
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> Are you now saying that somehow you're no longer aware
>> that my languaeg is American Engoish?
> I think you've identified the problem.
>
"Not proofreading is 'poor typewriting skills'."
>
"Editor" PeteY, 12 Dec 2014
See the Sloppy "Editor":
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Apr 2, 2017, 7:14:03 PM4/2/17
to
remembering my mother's friend Betty Coad (rhymes with road).
Janet
Apr 2, 2017, 7:37:15 PM4/2/17
to
In article <ae7670bc-6d7d-472a...@googlegroups.com>,
dklei...@gmail.com says...
It would be perfectly innocent for a wandering Brit in USA, to mention
"Mixed infants" when describing that part of the British education
system.
They would not mention it in relation to the US educational system
because that has a different structure from ours.
Janet
dklei...@gmail.com says...
"Mixed infants" when describing that part of the British education
system.
They would not mention it in relation to the US educational system
because that has a different structure from ours.
Janet
Janet
Apr 2, 2017, 8:10:34 PM4/2/17
to
In article <ekcvs9...@mid.individual.net>,
lauraDRA...@gmail.com says...
http://brackensdalei.derby.sch.uk/
Janet.
lauraDRA...@gmail.com says...
Janet.
Jack Campin
Apr 2, 2017, 8:58:24 PM4/2/17
to
> No. There was a category of British *school* called "Mixed infants"
> (not "children"). This is a standard BrE phrase which denoted mixed-sex
> (not "children"). This is a standard BrE phrase which denoted mixed-sex
> state schools for children aged approximately 4-7. The term is almost
> entirely historic today. When it was current, it was not uncommon for
> classes for children over the age of 7 to be separated by sex. Schools
> which were built around the turn of the century (ie 100+ years ago) may
> still have evidence of three separate entrances, labelled Infants, Boys,
> and Girls. By the time I was at school the doors were used for
> different groups, although the carved stone signs over the doors were
> still there.
Some primary schools, at least in Scotland, carried the segregation
> entirely historic today. When it was current, it was not uncommon for
> classes for children over the age of 7 to be separated by sex. Schools
> which were built around the turn of the century (ie 100+ years ago) may
> still have evidence of three separate entrances, labelled Infants, Boys,
> and Girls. By the time I was at school the doors were used for
> different groups, although the carved stone signs over the doors were
> still there.
further than the door. Boys and girls were taught on different
floors, and the floors for each sex connected only to the approved
door. (I presume the infants all stayed on the ground floor).
I've never seen a school like that actually operating - it must
have led to some odd social interactions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07895 860 060 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin
Jack Campin
Apr 2, 2017, 9:07:32 PM4/2/17
to
>> A term that irritated me no end when I first heard it was "co-ed"
>> for a girl at a co-educational school.
>> for a girl at a co-educational school.
> The term "co-ed" for a female college student is very familiar to
> me, and a term I've probably used on many occasions. I suppose
> it is out-of-date now, but I haven't paid attention to the usage.
It's not so much out of date as glaringly sexist in a way that
> me, and a term I've probably used on many occasions. I suppose
> it is out-of-date now, but I haven't paid attention to the usage.
should have been stark staring obvious to anyone with a brain
in 1950. If the female students at a co-educational institution
can be described as "co-eds", the same word should apply to the
male students at the same place.
Pavel Svinchnik
Apr 2, 2017, 9:28:04 PM4/2/17
to
On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 8:24:41 PM UTC-4, Robert Bannister wrote:
> On 29/3/17 5:53 am, Quinn C wrote:
> > | Sir Philip is represented as both noble and tolerant, but as
> > | Anna imagines her child as 'blemished, unworthy, maimed
> > | reproduction' of its father, the mother's narrow sympathies are
> > | exposed.
> >
> > David Glover and Cora Kaplan: Genders, p.34
> >
> > I think this would have slipped by, had I not just the day before
> > had a conversation on when you can use "it" to refer to a person,
> > and why this is so insulting to some, but not all.
> >
> > However, as a speaker of German (where a child is "it" by grammar)
> > I'm not the best judge, so I'd like to hear if others find this
> > problematic, or indicative of any subtext.
> >
>
> I think perhaps it is a bit old-fashioned, but using "it" to describe a
> baby whose sex you don't know doesn't seem odd to me. In the 19th
> century, they used it of older children too.
>
> --
> On 29/3/17 5:53 am, Quinn C wrote:
> > | Sir Philip is represented as both noble and tolerant, but as
> > | Anna imagines her child as 'blemished, unworthy, maimed
> > | reproduction' of its father, the mother's narrow sympathies are
> > | exposed.
> >
> > David Glover and Cora Kaplan: Genders, p.34
> >
> > I think this would have slipped by, had I not just the day before
> > had a conversation on when you can use "it" to refer to a person,
> > and why this is so insulting to some, but not all.
> >
> > However, as a speaker of German (where a child is "it" by grammar)
> > I'm not the best judge, so I'd like to hear if others find this
> > problematic, or indicative of any subtext.
> >
>
> I think perhaps it is a bit old-fashioned, but using "it" to describe a
> baby whose sex you don't know doesn't seem odd to me. In the 19th
> century, they used it of older children too.
>
> Robert B. born England a long time ago;
> Western Australia since 1972
Pavel Svinchnik
Apr 2, 2017, 9:29:45 PM4/2/17
to
Paul
musika
Apr 2, 2017, 9:41:02 PM4/2/17
to
On 03/04/2017 02:29, Pavel Svinchnik wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 8:24:41 PM UTC-4, Robert Bannister
> wrote:
>> I think perhaps it is a bit old-fashioned, but using "it" to
>> describe a baby whose sex you don't know doesn't seem odd to me. In
>> the 19th century, they used it of older children too.
>
> On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 8:24:41 PM UTC-4, Robert Bannister
> wrote:
>> I think perhaps it is a bit old-fashioned, but using "it" to
>> describe a baby whose sex you don't know doesn't seem odd to me. In
>> the 19th century, they used it of older children too.
>
> As I recall from German class many years ago, "the child" was put in
> the neuter as "das Kind".
>
Der Tod und das Mädchen.
> the neuter as "das Kind".
>
--
Ray
UK
Tony Cooper
Apr 2, 2017, 9:47:17 PM4/2/17
to
On Mon, 03 Apr 2017 02:07:26 +0100, Jack Campin
<bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> A term that irritated me no end when I first heard it was "co-ed"
>>> for a girl at a co-educational school.
>> The term "co-ed" for a female college student is very familiar to
>> me, and a term I've probably used on many occasions. I suppose
>> it is out-of-date now, but I haven't paid attention to the usage.
>
>It's not so much out of date as glaringly sexist in a way that
>should have been stark staring obvious to anyone with a brain
>in 1950. If the female students at a co-educational institution
>can be described as "co-eds", the same word should apply to the
>male students at the same place.
Big yawn from this quarter, Jack. In 1950, I was just getting over
<bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> A term that irritated me no end when I first heard it was "co-ed"
>>> for a girl at a co-educational school.
>> The term "co-ed" for a female college student is very familiar to
>> me, and a term I've probably used on many occasions. I suppose
>> it is out-of-date now, but I haven't paid attention to the usage.
>
>It's not so much out of date as glaringly sexist in a way that
>should have been stark staring obvious to anyone with a brain
>in 1950. If the female students at a co-educational institution
>can be described as "co-eds", the same word should apply to the
>male students at the same place.
the idea that girls were yucky, but by 1953 or 1954 I was beginning to
look forward to going to college and dating co-eds. In 1957 I was
doing that.
I know the term was in use, but it wasn't something we went around
saying all of the time. I can't even think about what kind of
sentence I would have used in those days using "co-eds". I think it
primarily appeared in newspaper and magazine stories describing things
like Spring Break in Ft Lauderdale. An article might have mentioned
co-eds on the beach, but writing "female students" on the beach just
wasn't the style used then. It lacked punch.
And, of course it was "sexist" if the point is that the term refers
specifically to members of one sex. That's why it was used. It
wasn't of any interest, and didn't need to be stated, that there were
male students on the beach at Ft Lauderdale.
The co-eds of the 50's went on to be "housewives". How's that for a
sexist term?
David Kleinecke
Apr 2, 2017, 9:53:03 PM4/2/17
to
On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 6:07:32 PM UTC-7, Jack Campin wrote:
> >> A term that irritated me no end when I first heard it was "co-ed"
> >> for a girl at a co-educational school.
> > The term "co-ed" for a female college student is very familiar to
> > me, and a term I've probably used on many occasions. I suppose
> > it is out-of-date now, but I haven't paid attention to the usage.
>
> It's not so much out of date as glaringly sexist in a way that
> should have been stark staring obvious to anyone with a brain
> in 1950. If the female students at a co-educational institution
> can be described as "co-eds", the same word should apply to the
> male students at the same place.
Consider Stanford (now generally consider a world class school):
> >> A term that irritated me no end when I first heard it was "co-ed"
> >> for a girl at a co-educational school.
> > The term "co-ed" for a female college student is very familiar to
> > me, and a term I've probably used on many occasions. I suppose
> > it is out-of-date now, but I haven't paid attention to the usage.
>
> It's not so much out of date as glaringly sexist in a way that
> should have been stark staring obvious to anyone with a brain
> in 1950. If the female students at a co-educational institution
> can be described as "co-eds", the same word should apply to the
> male students at the same place.
Back in 1950 (I am speaking from Berkeley) it was generally
understood that the only reason girls went to Stanford and
the only reason they were admitted there was to catch a husband.
Serious woman scholars went to Berkeley. But none of the girls
at any institution of higher learning in the Bay Area were called
"co-eds".
Peter T. Daniels
Apr 2, 2017, 11:57:20 PM4/2/17
to
getting into any bowl games or suchlike, even though we did have Heisman-
winner Ed Marinaro during my time, who after a few years in pro football
became an actor). Besides the seven other Ivies, the opponents were Colgate
(a couple of Finger Lakes over, in Alfred, NY) always the first of the season, either Army or Navy, and one other chosen in some way that would be unknown to
the uninterested.
Peter T. Daniels
Apr 3, 2017, 12:04:45 AM4/3/17
to
On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 9:07:32 PM UTC-4, Jack Campin wrote:
> >> A term that irritated me no end when I first heard it was "co-ed"
> >> for a girl at a co-educational school.
> > The term "co-ed" for a female college student is very familiar to
> > me, and a term I've probably used on many occasions. I suppose
> > it is out-of-date now, but I haven't paid attention to the usage.
>
> It's not so much out of date as glaringly sexist in a way that
> should have been stark staring obvious to anyone with a brain
> in 1950. If the female students at a co-educational institution
> can be described as "co-eds", the same word should apply to the
> male students at the same place.
In such institutions, the girls were recent additions. Cornell was coeducational
> >> A term that irritated me no end when I first heard it was "co-ed"
> >> for a girl at a co-educational school.
> > The term "co-ed" for a female college student is very familiar to
> > me, and a term I've probably used on many occasions. I suppose
> > it is out-of-date now, but I haven't paid attention to the usage.
>
> It's not so much out of date as glaringly sexist in a way that
> should have been stark staring obvious to anyone with a brain
> in 1950. If the female students at a co-educational institution
> can be described as "co-eds", the same word should apply to the
> male students at the same place.
from the beginning (in 1865) and "co-ed" was never used.
A more interesting case would be whether the boys who began to be admitted to
girls' colleges like Vassar and Bryn Mawr in the early 1970s were called co-eds.
AFAIK, however, neither Barnard nor Radcliffe, the women's colleges associated
with Columbia and Harvard Universities respectively, admits men, even though
Columbia and Harvard Colleges now admit women. Presumably men can register for
courses taught at Barnard or Radcliffe by faculty members who don't have joint
appointments in the eponymous Colleges.
Peter T. Daniels
Apr 3, 2017, 12:07:23 AM4/3/17
to
Jerry Friedman
Apr 3, 2017, 9:44:27 AM4/3/17
to
On 4/2/17 11:13 AM, Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <b68c0d8e-c738-48dc...@googlegroups.com>,
> <bebe...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>> When I follow that link, it doesn't show a word definition at all,
>>> just something urging me to "join MWU". "infant" on the other hand
>>> shows a definition.
>
>> Puzzling indeed. From within any MW page, typing "infans" in the input
>> field sends me to the same page as shown in your screenshot. However,
>> when I google "infans merriam", the first result shown is a working link
>> to the above MW definition of "infans".
>
> It doesn't do that for me.
>
> But I have a Firefox add-on that gets rid of the redirection through
> Google of search results[*]. If I disable that, I get your behaviour.
> It appears that MW only shows me the definition when it appears to
> them to be the result of a Google search.
>
> [*] http://matagus.github.io/remove-google-redirects-addon/
Bebercito found a back door! That's an entry in the Merriam-Webster
Unabridged, which is supposed to be available only to subscribers.
--
Jerry Friedman
> In article <b68c0d8e-c738-48dc...@googlegroups.com>,
> <bebe...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>> When I follow that link, it doesn't show a word definition at all,
>>> just something urging me to "join MWU". "infant" on the other hand
>>> shows a definition.
>
>> Puzzling indeed. From within any MW page, typing "infans" in the input
>> field sends me to the same page as shown in your screenshot. However,
>> when I google "infans merriam", the first result shown is a working link
>> to the above MW definition of "infans".
>
> It doesn't do that for me.
>
> But I have a Firefox add-on that gets rid of the redirection through
> Google of search results[*]. If I disable that, I get your behaviour.
> It appears that MW only shows me the definition when it appears to
> them to be the result of a Google search.
>
> [*] http://matagus.github.io/remove-google-redirects-addon/
Bebercito found a back door! That's an entry in the Merriam-Webster
Unabridged, which is supposed to be available only to subscribers.
--
Jerry Friedman
Quinn C
Apr 3, 2017, 1:19:53 PM4/3/17
to
* Peter T. Daniels:
> On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 3:49:10 PM UTC-4, PeterWD wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 12:56:11 -0400, Quinn C
>> <lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>
>>>* Sam Plusnet:
>>>
>>>Meaning?
>>
>> Infants are the youngest schoolchildren from age 4 to 7 (or
>
> < Lat. infans, 'non-speaking'. That's what it means in AmE.
Great - so English is far truer to the Latin original than the
successors of Latin, e.g. French "enfant" = child.
Compare also "infante/infanta", which made it into English.
--
... their average size remains so much smaller; so that the sum
total of food converted into thought by women can never equal
[that of] men. It follows therefore, that men will always think
more than women. -- M.A. Hardaker in Popular Science (1881)
> On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 3:49:10 PM UTC-4, PeterWD wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 12:56:11 -0400, Quinn C
>> <lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>
>>>* Sam Plusnet:
>>>
>>>> On 29/03/2017 01:24, Robert Bannister wrote:
>>>>> On 29/3/17 5:53 am, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>> | Sir Philip is represented as both noble and tolerant, but as
>>>>>> | Anna imagines her child as 'blemished, unworthy, maimed
>>>>>> | reproduction' of its father, the mother's narrow sympathies are
>>>>>> | exposed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David Glover and Cora Kaplan: Genders, p.34
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think this would have slipped by, had I not just the day before
>>>>>> had a conversation on when you can use "it" to refer to a person,
>>>>>> and why this is so insulting to some, but not all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, as a speaker of German (where a child is "it" by grammar)
>>>>>> I'm not the best judge, so I'd like to hear if others find this
>>>>>> problematic, or indicative of any subtext.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> On 29/03/2017 01:24, Robert Bannister wrote:
>>>>> On 29/3/17 5:53 am, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>> | Sir Philip is represented as both noble and tolerant, but as
>>>>>> | Anna imagines her child as 'blemished, unworthy, maimed
>>>>>> | reproduction' of its father, the mother's narrow sympathies are
>>>>>> | exposed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David Glover and Cora Kaplan: Genders, p.34
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think this would have slipped by, had I not just the day before
>>>>>> had a conversation on when you can use "it" to refer to a person,
>>>>>> and why this is so insulting to some, but not all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, as a speaker of German (where a child is "it" by grammar)
>>>>>> I'm not the best judge, so I'd like to hear if others find this
>>>>>> problematic, or indicative of any subtext.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think perhaps it is a bit old-fashioned, but using "it" to describe a
>>>>> baby whose sex you don't know doesn't seem odd to me. In the 19th
>>>>> century, they used it of older children too.
>>>>>
>>>> In my youth, some schools had pupils who were "Mixed Infants".
>>>>> baby whose sex you don't know doesn't seem odd to me. In the 19th
>>>>> century, they used it of older children too.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>Meaning?
>>
>> Infants are the youngest schoolchildren from age 4 to 7 (or
>
> < Lat. infans, 'non-speaking'. That's what it means in AmE.
Great - so English is far truer to the Latin original than the
successors of Latin, e.g. French "enfant" = child.
Compare also "infante/infanta", which made it into English.
--
... their average size remains so much smaller; so that the sum
total of food converted into thought by women can never equal
[that of] men. It follows therefore, that men will always think
more than women. -- M.A. Hardaker in Popular Science (1881)
Quinn C
Apr 3, 2017, 1:32:29 PM4/3/17
to
* Jack Campin:
>> No. There was a category of British *school* called "Mixed infants"
>> (not "children"). This is a standard BrE phrase which denoted mixed-sex
>> state schools for children aged approximately 4-7. The term is almost
>> entirely historic today. When it was current, it was not uncommon for
>> classes for children over the age of 7 to be separated by sex. Schools
>> which were built around the turn of the century (ie 100+ years ago) may
>> still have evidence of three separate entrances, labelled Infants, Boys,
>> and Girls. By the time I was at school the doors were used for
>> different groups, although the carved stone signs over the doors were
>> still there.
>
> Some primary schools, at least in Scotland, carried the segregation
> further than the door. Boys and girls were taught on different
> floors, and the floors for each sex connected only to the approved
> door. (I presume the infants all stayed on the ground floor).
> I've never seen a school like that actually operating - it must
> have led to some odd social interactions.
That seems odd - maybe an afterthought? It seems more natural to
me to split the building vertically. In the school buildings here
where I see the old "Boys"/"Girls" markers over the entrances, the
entrances are typically at the far ends of the building, so I
guess it was at least partially the way I suggested.
My first year in Japan, I lived in the International Students
Dorm, which had two floors for men and two floors for women. All
the university-run dorms for Japanese students I saw were
completely segregated. We were only segregated from the locals.
--
The Eskimoes had fifty-two names for snow because it was
important to them, there ought to be as many for love.
-- Margaret Atwood, Surfacing (novel), p.106
>> No. There was a category of British *school* called "Mixed infants"
>> (not "children"). This is a standard BrE phrase which denoted mixed-sex
>> state schools for children aged approximately 4-7. The term is almost
>> entirely historic today. When it was current, it was not uncommon for
>> classes for children over the age of 7 to be separated by sex. Schools
>> which were built around the turn of the century (ie 100+ years ago) may
>> still have evidence of three separate entrances, labelled Infants, Boys,
>> and Girls. By the time I was at school the doors were used for
>> different groups, although the carved stone signs over the doors were
>> still there.
>
> Some primary schools, at least in Scotland, carried the segregation
> further than the door. Boys and girls were taught on different
> floors, and the floors for each sex connected only to the approved
> door. (I presume the infants all stayed on the ground floor).
> I've never seen a school like that actually operating - it must
> have led to some odd social interactions.
me to split the building vertically. In the school buildings here
where I see the old "Boys"/"Girls" markers over the entrances, the
entrances are typically at the far ends of the building, so I
guess it was at least partially the way I suggested.
My first year in Japan, I lived in the International Students
Dorm, which had two floors for men and two floors for women. All
the university-run dorms for Japanese students I saw were
completely segregated. We were only segregated from the locals.
--
The Eskimoes had fifty-two names for snow because it was
important to them, there ought to be as many for love.
-- Margaret Atwood, Surfacing (novel), p.106
Janet
Apr 3, 2017, 4:16:11 PM4/3/17
to
In article <1p153ety...@mid.crommatograph.info>,
lispa...@crommatograph.info says...
my sons attended two others. Two still in use and one closed.
They still had boys and girls entrances, and one of them still had
segregated boys and girls playgrounds, but inside the sexes were/are no
longer separated. Inside there was a very large central hall, two
stories high, with classrooms opening off it; and on the first floor a
gallery overlooking the hall, with more classrooms off it. Then a third
floor above that. It was a noisy building style but I believe the light
and airiness was intended as a health benefit, in days when TB was rife.
This is my sons' old school. When they were there the interior was
still an elegant building... the pupil roll had fallen below 100 (in a
school designed for 550), so it closed later and is very sadly derelict
now. The galleried main hall gives you some idea of the classic "triple
decker" layout. Originally, the infants would be on the ground floor,
juniors moving up to higher floors.
https://www.proj3ctm4yh3m.com/urbex/2015/10/02/urbex-sir-john-maxwell-
school-aka-the-skylight-school-scotland-february-2015/
https://tinyurl.com/kwf3zl2
Janet.
lispa...@crommatograph.info says...
>
> * Jack Campin:
>
> >> No. There was a category of British *school* called "Mixed infants"
> >> (not "children"). This is a standard BrE phrase which denoted mixed-sex
> >> state schools for children aged approximately 4-7. The term is almost
> >> entirely historic today. When it was current, it was not uncommon for
> >> classes for children over the age of 7 to be separated by sex. Schools
> >> which were built around the turn of the century (ie 100+ years ago) may
> >> still have evidence of three separate entrances, labelled Infants, Boys,
> >> and Girls. By the time I was at school the doors were used for
> >> different groups, although the carved stone signs over the doors were
> >> still there.
> >
> > Some primary schools, at least in Scotland, carried the segregation
> > further than the door. Boys and girls were taught on different
> > floors, and the floors for each sex connected only to the approved
> > door. (I presume the infants all stayed on the ground floor).
> > I've never seen a school like that actually operating - it must
> > have led to some odd social interactions.
I taught in one of those old sandstone triple-decker schools, and
> * Jack Campin:
>
> >> No. There was a category of British *school* called "Mixed infants"
> >> (not "children"). This is a standard BrE phrase which denoted mixed-sex
> >> state schools for children aged approximately 4-7. The term is almost
> >> entirely historic today. When it was current, it was not uncommon for
> >> classes for children over the age of 7 to be separated by sex. Schools
> >> which were built around the turn of the century (ie 100+ years ago) may
> >> still have evidence of three separate entrances, labelled Infants, Boys,
> >> and Girls. By the time I was at school the doors were used for
> >> different groups, although the carved stone signs over the doors were
> >> still there.
> >
> > Some primary schools, at least in Scotland, carried the segregation
> > further than the door. Boys and girls were taught on different
> > floors, and the floors for each sex connected only to the approved
> > door. (I presume the infants all stayed on the ground floor).
> > I've never seen a school like that actually operating - it must
> > have led to some odd social interactions.
my sons attended two others. Two still in use and one closed.
They still had boys and girls entrances, and one of them still had
segregated boys and girls playgrounds, but inside the sexes were/are no
longer separated. Inside there was a very large central hall, two
stories high, with classrooms opening off it; and on the first floor a
gallery overlooking the hall, with more classrooms off it. Then a third
floor above that. It was a noisy building style but I believe the light
and airiness was intended as a health benefit, in days when TB was rife.
This is my sons' old school. When they were there the interior was
still an elegant building... the pupil roll had fallen below 100 (in a
school designed for 550), so it closed later and is very sadly derelict
now. The galleried main hall gives you some idea of the classic "triple
decker" layout. Originally, the infants would be on the ground floor,
juniors moving up to higher floors.
https://www.proj3ctm4yh3m.com/urbex/2015/10/02/urbex-sir-john-maxwell-
school-aka-the-skylight-school-scotland-february-2015/
https://tinyurl.com/kwf3zl2
Janet.
Sam Plusnet
Apr 3, 2017, 5:31:36 PM4/3/17
to
On 03/04/2017 01:58, Jack Campin wrote:
>> No. There was a category of British *school* called "Mixed infants"
>> (not "children"). This is a standard BrE phrase which denoted mixed-sex
>> state schools for children aged approximately 4-7. The term is almost
>> entirely historic today. When it was current, it was not uncommon for
>> classes for children over the age of 7 to be separated by sex. Schools
>> which were built around the turn of the century (ie 100+ years ago) may
>> still have evidence of three separate entrances, labelled Infants, Boys,
>> and Girls. By the time I was at school the doors were used for
>> different groups, although the carved stone signs over the doors were
>> still there.
>
> Some primary schools, at least in Scotland, carried the segregation
> further than the door. Boys and girls were taught on different
> floors, and the floors for each sex connected only to the approved
> door. (I presume the infants all stayed on the ground floor).
> I've never seen a school like that actually operating - it must
> have led to some odd social interactions.
>
I knew of one school which combined "Infants" and "Juniors" in one
>> No. There was a category of British *school* called "Mixed infants"
>> (not "children"). This is a standard BrE phrase which denoted mixed-sex
>> state schools for children aged approximately 4-7. The term is almost
>> entirely historic today. When it was current, it was not uncommon for
>> classes for children over the age of 7 to be separated by sex. Schools
>> which were built around the turn of the century (ie 100+ years ago) may
>> still have evidence of three separate entrances, labelled Infants, Boys,
>> and Girls. By the time I was at school the doors were used for
>> different groups, although the carved stone signs over the doors were
>> still there.
>
> Some primary schools, at least in Scotland, carried the segregation
> further than the door. Boys and girls were taught on different
> floors, and the floors for each sex connected only to the approved
> door. (I presume the infants all stayed on the ground floor).
> I've never seen a school like that actually operating - it must
> have led to some odd social interactions.
>
building.
There had originally been three separate playgrounds.
One for the Mixed Infants, one for the Junior Boys and the third for
Junior Girls.
The arrangements had changed quite some time before I came across it, so
I don't know how things had been divided up within the building.
--
Sam Plusnet
Sam Plusnet
Apr 3, 2017, 5:40:33 PM4/3/17
to
On 03/04/2017 05:04, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 9:07:32 PM UTC-4, Jack Campin wrote:
>
>>>> A term that irritated me no end when I first heard it was "co-ed"
>>>> for a girl at a co-educational school.
>>> The term "co-ed" for a female college student is very familiar to
>>> me, and a term I've probably used on many occasions. I suppose
>>> it is out-of-date now, but I haven't paid attention to the usage.
>>
>> It's not so much out of date as glaringly sexist in a way that
>> should have been stark staring obvious to anyone with a brain
>> in 1950. If the female students at a co-educational institution
>> can be described as "co-eds", the same word should apply to the
>> male students at the same place.
>
> In such institutions, the girls were recent additions. Cornell was coeducational
> from the beginning (in 1865) and "co-ed" was never used.
>
> A more interesting case would be whether the boys who began to be admitted to
> girls' colleges like Vassar and Bryn Mawr in the early 1970s were called co-eds.
>
I've heard it said that etymology is a poor guide to meaning, so it
> On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 9:07:32 PM UTC-4, Jack Campin wrote:
>
>>>> A term that irritated me no end when I first heard it was "co-ed"
>>>> for a girl at a co-educational school.
>>> The term "co-ed" for a female college student is very familiar to
>>> me, and a term I've probably used on many occasions. I suppose
>>> it is out-of-date now, but I haven't paid attention to the usage.
>>
>> It's not so much out of date as glaringly sexist in a way that
>> should have been stark staring obvious to anyone with a brain
>> in 1950. If the female students at a co-educational institution
>> can be described as "co-eds", the same word should apply to the
>> male students at the same place.
>
> In such institutions, the girls were recent additions. Cornell was coeducational
> from the beginning (in 1865) and "co-ed" was never used.
>
> A more interesting case would be whether the boys who began to be admitted to
> girls' colleges like Vassar and Bryn Mawr in the early 1970s were called co-eds.
>
probably wouldn't seem appropriate.
--
Sam Plusnet
Quinn C
Apr 3, 2017, 6:07:26 PM4/3/17
to
* Sam Plusnet:
And that in turn would indicate that the word is (was) indeed
sexist, in that it expresses that women getting a university
education are something remarkable, and at the same time not equal
to the men, and all that decades after it was actually a new
thing.
--
It gets hot in Raleigh, but Texas! I don't know why anybody
lives here, honestly.
-- Robert C. Wilson, Vortex (novel), p.220
sexist, in that it expresses that women getting a university
education are something remarkable, and at the same time not equal
to the men, and all that decades after it was actually a new
thing.
--
It gets hot in Raleigh, but Texas! I don't know why anybody
lives here, honestly.
-- Robert C. Wilson, Vortex (novel), p.220
Jack Campin
Apr 3, 2017, 6:21:27 PM4/3/17
to
>>> Schools which were built around the turn of the century (ie 100+
>>> years ago) may still have evidence of three separate entrances,
>>> labelled Infants, Boys, and Girls. By the time I was at school
>>> the doors were used for different groups, although the carved
>>> stone signs over the doors were still there.
>> Some primary schools, at least in Scotland, carried the segregation
>> further than the door. Boys and girls were taught on different
>> floors, and the floors for each sex connected only to the approved
>> door. (I presume the infants all stayed on the ground floor).
>> I've never seen a school like that actually operating - it must
>> have led to some odd social interactions.
> That seems odd - maybe an afterthought?
No, they had ingeniously interlaced staircases which were specified
>>> years ago) may still have evidence of three separate entrances,
>>> labelled Infants, Boys, and Girls. By the time I was at school
>>> the doors were used for different groups, although the carved
>>> stone signs over the doors were still there.
>> Some primary schools, at least in Scotland, carried the segregation
>> further than the door. Boys and girls were taught on different
>> floors, and the floors for each sex connected only to the approved
>> door. (I presume the infants all stayed on the ground floor).
>> I've never seen a school like that actually operating - it must
>> have led to some odd social interactions.
> That seems odd - maybe an afterthought?
by the Scottish education authority of the time. C.R. Mackintosh's
Scotland Street School is now a museum - the only one I know that you
can still see in its original connectivity, though I know of a couple
in Edinburgh (sold off or adapted).
> My first year in Japan, I lived in the International Students
> Dorm, which had two floors for men and two floors for women.
> All the university-run dorms for Japanese students I saw were
> completely segregated. We were only segregated from the locals.
student hostel in Wellington was designed with men and women on
alternating floors. I have since seen the building but not been
inside it; I suspect the rumour was true.
Tony Cooper
Apr 3, 2017, 6:25:51 PM4/3/17
to
co-educational university. There were exclusively woman's
universities before there were co-educational universities.
Vassar was founded in 1861 as a university exclusively for women. Bryn
Mawr was founded in 1865 as a university exclusively for women. Mount
Holyoke was founded in 1836 exclusively for women. The first
all-female tertiary school was Bethlehem Female Seminary (later
Moravian College) in 1742.
Cheryl
Apr 3, 2017, 6:57:49 PM4/3/17
to
knew it, and to me it was only a US term for women at university.
In the explanations above, it doesn't seem to even imply that being a
female university student was unusual - it didn't even refer to those
attending women's universities or ones that were traditionally mixed.
--
Cheryl
Robert Bannister
Apr 3, 2017, 7:20:46 PM4/3/17
to
On 3/4/17 8:58 am, Jack Campin wrote:
>> No. There was a category of British *school* called "Mixed infants"
>> (not "children"). This is a standard BrE phrase which denoted mixed-sex
>> state schools for children aged approximately 4-7. The term is almost
>> entirely historic today. When it was current, it was not uncommon for
>> classes for children over the age of 7 to be separated by sex. Schools
>> which were built around the turn of the century (ie 100+ years ago) may
>> still have evidence of three separate entrances, labelled Infants, Boys,
>> and Girls. By the time I was at school the doors were used for
>> different groups, although the carved stone signs over the doors were
>> still there.
>
> Some primary schools, at least in Scotland, carried the segregation
> further than the door. Boys and girls were taught on different
> floors, and the floors for each sex connected only to the approved
> door. (I presume the infants all stayed on the ground floor).
> I've never seen a school like that actually operating - it must
> have led to some odd social interactions.
We had three totally separate buildings further separated by walls:
>> No. There was a category of British *school* called "Mixed infants"
>> (not "children"). This is a standard BrE phrase which denoted mixed-sex
>> state schools for children aged approximately 4-7. The term is almost
>> entirely historic today. When it was current, it was not uncommon for
>> classes for children over the age of 7 to be separated by sex. Schools
>> which were built around the turn of the century (ie 100+ years ago) may
>> still have evidence of three separate entrances, labelled Infants, Boys,
>> and Girls. By the time I was at school the doors were used for
>> different groups, although the carved stone signs over the doors were
>> still there.
>
> Some primary schools, at least in Scotland, carried the segregation
> further than the door. Boys and girls were taught on different
> floors, and the floors for each sex connected only to the approved
> door. (I presume the infants all stayed on the ground floor).
> I've never seen a school like that actually operating - it must
> have led to some odd social interactions.
INFANTS (it didn't say "mixed", although they were), BOYS and GIRLS. In
my last or second last year, they mixed the boys and girls together and
split us into "junior primary" (in the old boys' school) and senior
primary (in the old girls' building). It was very exciting not only
using the same playground but also actually sitting next to a girl in class.
Robert Bannister
Apr 3, 2017, 7:25:42 PM4/3/17
to
false. I think we might have been mixed in class, but with separate
playgrounds. I'm really not sure now. Our school buildings were only two
stories, though, so it was perhaps a bit smaller than yours. We were
lucky in that we had a Bryant & May factory very close that had acres of
playing fields and they allowed the school to use them for sport. Most
British primary schools just had the asphalt playgrounds.
>
> This is my sons' old school. When they were there the interior was
> still an elegant building... the pupil roll had fallen below 100 (in a
> school designed for 550), so it closed later and is very sadly derelict
> now. The galleried main hall gives you some idea of the classic "triple
> decker" layout. Originally, the infants would be on the ground floor,
> juniors moving up to higher floors.
>
> https://www.proj3ctm4yh3m.com/urbex/2015/10/02/urbex-sir-john-maxwell-
> school-aka-the-skylight-school-scotland-february-2015/
>
> https://tinyurl.com/kwf3zl2
>
> Janet.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This is my sons' old school. When they were there the interior was
> still an elegant building... the pupil roll had fallen below 100 (in a
> school designed for 550), so it closed later and is very sadly derelict
> now. The galleried main hall gives you some idea of the classic "triple
> decker" layout. Originally, the infants would be on the ground floor,
> juniors moving up to higher floors.
>
> https://www.proj3ctm4yh3m.com/urbex/2015/10/02/urbex-sir-john-maxwell-
> school-aka-the-skylight-school-scotland-february-2015/
>
> https://tinyurl.com/kwf3zl2
>
> Janet.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Robert Bannister
Apr 3, 2017, 7:33:02 PM4/3/17
to
education college for the education of women in the United Kingdom. In
1900, the college became a constituent school of the University of
London. It played a leading role in the advancement of women in higher
education, and in public life in general. The college became fully
coeducational in the 1960s."
I was not even aware that Bedford had become coeducational, but in 1960
or 61, my (mixed) class from University College used to go there
occasionally for some obscure lecture - it might not have been obscure,
but I can't remember anything about it except that we had to go to
Bedford College.
Robert Bannister
Apr 3, 2017, 7:41:14 PM4/3/17
to
"Messer" (knife) is neuter, "Löffel" (spoon) masculine and "Gabel"
(fork) feminine. The reasons words belong to which group is lost in time.
However, if want consistency, in Macedonian, just about all young
(people or animals) are neuter: son, daughter, child, calf... presumably
because all diminutives are neuter, which is similar to the way all
German diminutives that end in -chen or -lein are neuter: Magd - maid
(feminine); Mä(g)dchen - girl (neuter).
Peter T. Daniels
Apr 3, 2017, 9:55:01 PM4/3/17
to
never considered "co-educational." The question simply never arose. The term
exists _only_ when a few members of one sex begin to enter a college that had
been exclusively for the other sex. If it was in fact _not_ used in the
circumstances I named, then Quinn is absolutely correct and its use was (and
perhaps still is, if found anywhere) sexist.
> Vassar was founded in 1861 as a university exclusively for women. Bryn
> Mawr was founded in 1865 as a university exclusively for women.
> Mount
> Holyoke was founded in 1836 exclusively for women. The first
> all-female tertiary school was Bethlehem Female Seminary (later
> Moravian College) in 1742.
topic or the question to which he responded.
Cheryl
Apr 4, 2017, 5:31:46 AM4/4/17
to
to segregate them by sex in my day, and even there some schools were for
boys, some for girls, and some mixed. I knew about the boys and girls
schools in some places, but was a bit surprised when, in another
province, I came across a school building which, when originally built,
had separate girls and boys entrances. If any schools here had such an
arrangement, even in our Big City, it was well before time.
I did know a graduate of one of those boys' school systems who blamed
all his difficulties with girls on having never gone to school with one,
although most such men seemed to manage. I could have suggested one or
two other reasons for his difficulties, but it would have been unkind
and, as it turned out, unnecessary since before we lost touch he had
found a girlfriend.
--
Cheryl
Quinn C
Apr 4, 2017, 2:15:29 PM4/4/17
to
* Cheryl:
My judgment was based on the understanding that "co-ed" was in
practice mainly used for female students who were attending
formerly all-male institutions, or possibly in a wider sense, but
mainly at such institutions.
If that's not the case, I may revise my ideas. But the fact alone
that it's used for women only, despite its semantics, makes it an
easy vessel for sexist ideas, for those who have them already.
My original issue with the term is based partially on the co-
prefix, which often indicates a secondary position (as in
co-pilot), but mostly on actual usage: from the handful of texts
where I first encountered the term, none of them made me expect
that the next one would say "Wow, those co-eds, they're gonna make
fantastic doctors and lawyers." Instead, the term was used rather
like "College girls" these days, with "... gone wild" right under
the surface.
--
Strategy: A long-range plan whose merit cannot be evaluated
until sometime after those creating it have left the organization.
practice mainly used for female students who were attending
formerly all-male institutions, or possibly in a wider sense, but
mainly at such institutions.
If that's not the case, I may revise my ideas. But the fact alone
that it's used for women only, despite its semantics, makes it an
easy vessel for sexist ideas, for those who have them already.
My original issue with the term is based partially on the co-
prefix, which often indicates a secondary position (as in
co-pilot), but mostly on actual usage: from the handful of texts
where I first encountered the term, none of them made me expect
that the next one would say "Wow, those co-eds, they're gonna make
fantastic doctors and lawyers." Instead, the term was used rather
like "College girls" these days, with "... gone wild" right under
the surface.
--
Strategy: A long-range plan whose merit cannot be evaluated
until sometime after those creating it have left the organization.
Quinn C
Apr 4, 2017, 2:22:55 PM4/4/17
to
* Robert Bannister:
> We had three totally separate buildings further separated by walls:
> INFANTS (it didn't say "mixed", although they were), BOYS and GIRLS. In
> my last or second last year, they mixed the boys and girls together and
> split us into "junior primary" (in the old boys' school) and senior
> primary (in the old girls' building). It was very exciting not only
> using the same playground but also actually sitting next to a girl in class.
There are many co-educational classrooms, to this day, where this
almost never happens.
--
If you kill one person, you go to jail; if you kill 20, you go
to an institution for the insane; if you kill 20,000, you get
political asylum. -- Reed Brody, special counsel
for prosecutions at Human Rights Watch
> We had three totally separate buildings further separated by walls:
> INFANTS (it didn't say "mixed", although they were), BOYS and GIRLS. In
> my last or second last year, they mixed the boys and girls together and
> split us into "junior primary" (in the old boys' school) and senior
> primary (in the old girls' building). It was very exciting not only
> using the same playground but also actually sitting next to a girl in class.
almost never happens.
--
If you kill one person, you go to jail; if you kill 20, you go
to an institution for the insane; if you kill 20,000, you get
political asylum. -- Reed Brody, special counsel
for prosecutions at Human Rights Watch
Tony Cooper
Apr 4, 2017, 3:12:34 PM4/4/17
to
university. The term was popularized in the 1930s and has drifted
into obscurity over the years since. Rudy Vallee wrote the lyrics to
the song "Betty Co-ed" in 1931 and the song became a hit.
>
>If that's not the case, I may revise my ideas. But the fact alone
>that it's used for women only, despite its semantics, makes it an
>easy vessel for sexist ideas, for those who have them already.
>
>My original issue with the term is based partially on the co-
>prefix, which often indicates a secondary position (as in
>co-pilot),
Why would you make that association when the "co-" is explained as a
>If that's not the case, I may revise my ideas. But the fact alone
>that it's used for women only, despite its semantics, makes it an
>easy vessel for sexist ideas, for those who have them already.
>
>My original issue with the term is based partially on the co-
>prefix, which often indicates a secondary position (as in
>co-pilot),
shortening of "co-educational" meaning a university or college that
admits both male and female students?
Do you feel that a grocery co-op or an apartment co-op are inferior
because of the prefix? Is a co-educational school secondary to one
that is not?
>but mostly on actual usage: from the handful of texts
>where I first encountered the term, none of them made me expect
>that the next one would say "Wow, those co-eds, they're gonna make
>fantastic doctors and lawyers." Instead, the term was used rather
>like "College girls" these days, with "... gone wild" right under
>the surface.
phrases of promise of future achievements. You will find many written
references to college "fraternity boys" and "jocks" without a
following reference to what fantastic doctors and lawyers they will
be.
Peter T. Daniels
Apr 4, 2017, 3:26:33 PM4/4/17
to
> The term was popularized in the 1930s and has drifted
> into obscurity over the years since. Rudy Vallee wrote the lyrics to
> the song "Betty Co-ed" in 1931 and the song became a hit.
>
> >If that's not the case, I may revise my ideas. But the fact alone
> >that it's used for women only, despite its semantics, makes it an
> >easy vessel for sexist ideas, for those who have them already.
> >
> >My original issue with the term is based partially on the co-
> >prefix, which often indicates a secondary position (as in
> >co-pilot),
>
> Why would you make that association when the "co-" is explained as a
> shortening of "co-educational" meaning a university or college that
> admits both male and female students?
Quinn C
Apr 4, 2017, 3:26:55 PM4/4/17
to
* Tony Cooper:
But those are subsets of male students I'd avoid like the plague,
whereas you said "co-eds" were all female students.
I'm referring to stereotypical "frat boys" here, not all members
of all fraternities.
--
XML combines all the inefficiency of text-based formats with most
of the unreadability of binary formats.
Oren Tirosh, comp.lang.python
whereas you said "co-eds" were all female students.
I'm referring to stereotypical "frat boys" here, not all members
of all fraternities.
--
XML combines all the inefficiency of text-based formats with most
of the unreadability of binary formats.
Oren Tirosh, comp.lang.python
Jack Campin
Apr 4, 2017, 4:22:19 PM4/4/17
to
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> No, a "co-ed" was a term for any female student at any college or
>> university.
> Why do you keep repeating that falsehood? [...] It was not used
>> university.
> of colleges or universities that had never been single-sex.
You're making this up. Anybody who's read or watched American
cultural products from the relevant period will have seen the
term in use. The institutional nature and history of the
college/university/school didn't come into it - if its
business was education and it had women students, they were
"co-eds". (In print, anyway. I don't think I've heard anyone
use the term in conversation, and it never occurred to me that
anyone talked like Archie and Veronica in real life).
Tony Cooper
Apr 4, 2017, 4:37:22 PM4/4/17
to
On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 15:26:53 -0400, Quinn C
by other people about those people. And,this has been about what has
been written by other people using the words "co-ed", "fraternity
boys", and "jocks".
>I'm referring to stereotypical "frat boys" here, not all members
>of all fraternities.
I'm not sure if I was a stereotypical "frat boy" or not. I have no
idea what you're conception is of that stereotype. I was never a
"jock", though.
<lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>* Tony Cooper:
>
>> On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:15:26 -0400, Quinn C
>> <lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>
>>>but mostly on actual usage: from the handful of texts
>>>where I first encountered the term, none of them made me expect
>>>that the next one would say "Wow, those co-eds, they're gonna make
>>>fantastic doctors and lawyers." Instead, the term was used rather
>>>like "College girls" these days, with "... gone wild" right under
>>>the surface.
>>
>> Terms used in place of "male" or "female" are seldom followed by
>> phrases of promise of future achievements. You will find many written
>> references to college "fraternity boys" and "jocks" without a
>> following reference to what fantastic doctors and lawyers they will
>> be.
>
>But those are subsets of male students I'd avoid like the plague,
>whereas you said "co-eds" were all female students.
Who you might personally avoid has nothing to do with what is written
>* Tony Cooper:
>
>> On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:15:26 -0400, Quinn C
>> <lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>
>>>but mostly on actual usage: from the handful of texts
>>>where I first encountered the term, none of them made me expect
>>>that the next one would say "Wow, those co-eds, they're gonna make
>>>fantastic doctors and lawyers." Instead, the term was used rather
>>>like "College girls" these days, with "... gone wild" right under
>>>the surface.
>>
>> Terms used in place of "male" or "female" are seldom followed by
>> phrases of promise of future achievements. You will find many written
>> references to college "fraternity boys" and "jocks" without a
>> following reference to what fantastic doctors and lawyers they will
>> be.
>
>But those are subsets of male students I'd avoid like the plague,
>whereas you said "co-eds" were all female students.
by other people about those people. And,this has been about what has
been written by other people using the words "co-ed", "fraternity
boys", and "jocks".
>I'm referring to stereotypical "frat boys" here, not all members
>of all fraternities.
idea what you're conception is of that stereotype. I was never a
"jock", though.
Tony Cooper
Apr 4, 2017, 9:28:09 PM4/4/17
to
(which I was) may be that they don't know the difference between
"you're" and "your".
Peter T. Daniels
Apr 4, 2017, 11:34:11 PM4/4/17
to
On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 4:22:19 PM UTC-4, Jack Campin wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> No, a "co-ed" was a term for any female student at any college or
> >> university.
> > Why do you keep repeating that falsehood? [...] It was not used
> > of colleges or universities that had never been single-sex.
>
> You're making this up. Anybody who's read or watched American
> cultural products from the relevant period will have seen the
> term in use. The institutional nature and history of the
> college/university/school didn't come into it - if its
> business was education and it had women students, they were
> "co-eds". (In print, anyway. I don't think I've heard anyone
> use the term in conversation, and it never occurred to me that
> anyone talked like Archie and Veronica in real life).
Please stop flaunting your ignorance. Colleges were almost exclusively male
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> No, a "co-ed" was a term for any female student at any college or
> >> university.
> > Why do you keep repeating that falsehood? [...] It was not used
> > of colleges or universities that had never been single-sex.
>
> You're making this up. Anybody who's read or watched American
> cultural products from the relevant period will have seen the
> term in use. The institutional nature and history of the
> college/university/school didn't come into it - if its
> business was education and it had women students, they were
> "co-eds". (In print, anyway. I don't think I've heard anyone
> use the term in conversation, and it never occurred to me that
> anyone talked like Archie and Veronica in real life).
for most of their history. Colleges for women, often in a sibling relationship with
existing institutions (as in "Radcliffe is the sister college of Harvard"), came
along fairly late in the history of US higher education. A fully integrated college
-- IIRC Oberlin was the first; Cornell was a bit later -- was quite a rarity.
Co-eds were quite exceptional for most of the history of higher education, for a
long time after females began to be accepted.
When, BTW, did English colleges become sexually integrated?
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages