Comments on: Linkblogging for 24/05/09 http://andrewhickey.info/2009/05/24/linkblogging-for-240509/ Thoughts on music, science, politics and comics. Mostly comics. Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:46:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Investigations of a Dog » The Syntax of Cuckoldry http://andrewhickey.info/2009/05/24/linkblogging-for-240509/comment-page-1/#comment-2132 Investigations of a Dog » The Syntax of Cuckoldry Mon, 25 May 2009 18:22:59 +0000 http://andrewhickey.info/?p=596#comment-2132 [...] Andrew Hickey linked to a post at the Universe of Discourse about syntax, arguing against a syntactical rule which says that the hypothetical verb “to flimp” can’t exist. Go and read that post for more explanation. While reading it occurred to me that the search for a universal syntax often ignores culturally specific meanings, and that sometimes arguments against it do too. David Dowty suggests the counter-example that “to cuckold” is “to have sexual intercourse with the woman who is married to”. For example, in the sentence “Peter cuckolded John”, John is the direct object. But if you expand it to Dowty’s version (“ Peter had sex with the woman who is married to John”) the woman is now the direct object, and John has been relegated to an adjectival clause which describes the woman. That’s one way of defining cuckold, but it seems to be very specific to modern Western liberal individualism. Having sex (probably consensual) with a woman who happens to have a husband. But things were different in cultures and societies which used the word cuckold more frequently than we do, such as early-modern England. In early-modern gender ideology wives were supposed to be subordinate to husbands. To cuckold a man was to take his property, and undermine his authority and masculinity. To put it another way, it was to injure him by using his wife, just like to stab someone is to injure them by using a sharp object. The indirect object implied by the verb is what is used to carry out the action. In Latin we would use the ablative of means to describe this relationship. A wife is necessary for cuckolding to take place, but she is absent from that sentence. Not even an object. Of course this is horribly misogynistic, but cuckold is a horribly misogynistic word from a horribly misogynistic culture. [...] [...] Andrew Hickey linked to a post at the Universe of Discourse about syntax, arguing against a syntactical rule which says that the hypothetical verb “to flimp” can’t exist. Go and read that post for more explanation. While reading it occurred to me that the search for a universal syntax often ignores culturally specific meanings, and that sometimes arguments against it do too. David Dowty suggests the counter-example that “to cuckold” is “to have sexual intercourse with the woman who is married to”. For example, in the sentence “Peter cuckolded John”, John is the direct object. But if you expand it to Dowty’s version (“ Peter had sex with the woman who is married to John”) the woman is now the direct object, and John has been relegated to an adjectival clause which describes the woman. That’s one way of defining cuckold, but it seems to be very specific to modern Western liberal individualism. Having sex (probably consensual) with a woman who happens to have a husband. But things were different in cultures and societies which used the word cuckold more frequently than we do, such as early-modern England. In early-modern gender ideology wives were supposed to be subordinate to husbands. To cuckold a man was to take his property, and undermine his authority and masculinity. To put it another way, it was to injure him by using his wife, just like to stab someone is to injure them by using a sharp object. The indirect object implied by the verb is what is used to carry out the action. In Latin we would use the ablative of means to describe this relationship. A wife is necessary for cuckolding to take place, but she is absent from that sentence. Not even an object. Of course this is horribly misogynistic, but cuckold is a horribly misogynistic word from a horribly misogynistic culture. [...]

]]> By: Kalieris http://andrewhickey.info/2009/05/24/linkblogging-for-240509/comment-page-1/#comment-2118 Kalieris Mon, 25 May 2009 01:26:52 +0000 http://andrewhickey.info/?p=596#comment-2118 The "blokeosphere" is an interesting concept. It's funny how if just one group writes about something, it's easy to push it off as a fringe thing. But if it gets picked up by a "mainstream" source, people respond. Ooooh - Parallel lines! There are a few songs on there I haven't heard before... The “blokeosphere” is an interesting concept. It’s funny how if just one group writes about something, it’s easy to push it off as a fringe thing. But if it gets picked up by a “mainstream” source, people respond.

Ooooh – Parallel lines! There are a few songs on there I haven’t heard before…

]]>