The word "Man"

[jonatas]

It is funny that you should say that. It was used in my election spiel to help speed it up and to make it more formal. Do you feel that we should just give up on words because they are outdated? Do you think we should let an aspect of our culture die?

Again, in my opinion, usage of mankind is decidedly archaic. You may think it sounds formal, I think it sounds outdated. As for giving up on words, it's not a choice we make. We use language within society. We don't invent it out of nothing. I studied Latin for years at school, so I know all about preserving aspects of language. But mankind is definitely archaic in Modern English. Put it this way, it's a matter of good taste in my opinion, not a choice of consciously determining culture through vocabulary.

 

[jonatas]

If we're to enter comparative linguistics, I might add that the abovementioned Swedish word for "human" is människa or mänska, which historically is the word "man" with a feminine ending. Go figure.

For me, the relative history and grammar of the word for man in various languages is an entirely separate issue from whether the usage of "mankind" in Modern English is appropriate. I would say "mankind" is no longer appropriate in most social contexts, in Modern English.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Looking at Google, "mankind" has about 23 Mhits and "humanity" about 59 Mhits. Seems to me the former is still in common enough use. I'll agree it's probably on it's way out, tho.

 

[The Last Conformist]

For me, the relative history and grammar of the word for man in various languages is an entirely separate issue from whether the usage of "mankind" in Modern English is appropriate.

I agree, but I thought the Swedish datum amusing. How can one not be amused by the idea that a human is a female man?

 

[jonatas]

Looking at Google, "mankind" has about 23 Mhits and "humanity" about 59 Mhits. Seems to me the former is still in common enough use. I'll agree it's probably on it's way out, tho.

The problem is you have a very hard time using "mankind" in political or academic settings. It is not an expression that you can use without bringing up connotations of dead white males from 150 years ago. If you decide to use it, you will just sound dated.

Languages are funny things.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Most speech and writing isn't in political or academic settings.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Political correctness is very recent. Most of what has been written by humanity was written before the advent of PC. That would explain the hits. Im sure very few people writing today use 'mankind'.

 

[jonatas]

Most speech and writing isn't in political or academic settings.

But political speech writers are very attuned to use and manipulation of language, wouldn't you agree?

 

[koondrad]

Equally though, the word human is not necessarily equal. I’m told ‘human’ comes from ‘humanus’, where ‘humanus’ is the adjective form of ‘homo’. ‘Homo’ can mean ‘Man’ in a generic way or more specifically males.

 

[jonatas]

Equally though, the word human is not necessarily equal. I’m told ‘human’ comes from ‘humanus’, where ‘humanus’ is the adjective form of ‘homo’. ‘Homo’ can mean ‘Man’ in a generic way or more specifically males.

Well, I'm not so concerned with the relative etymology of the word. It's how it's used in our society that counts in this case.

 

[The Last Conformist]

But political speech writers are very attuned to use and manipulation of language, wouldn't you agree?

Political speech often develops to something of a language of its own, divorced from everyday language. There's plenty of words a politician wouldn't be caught dead using, that nonetheless are common among the general population.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Equally though, the word human is not necessarily equal. I’m told ‘human’ comes from ‘humanus’, where ‘humanus’ is the adjective form of ‘homo’. ‘Homo’ can mean ‘Man’ in a generic way or more specifically males.

I'm pretty sure it's never used as "man" in opposition to "woman" in Latin - that is vir.

 

[EdwardTking]

The problem is you have a very hard time using "mankind" in political or academic settings. It is not an expression that you can use without bringing up connotations of dead white males from 150 years ago. If you decide to use it, you will just sound dated.

Languages are funny things.

"Mankind" is totally ambiguous to me.

If there is any doubt about its meaning then that
would be with respect to our ancestors several hundred
thousand years ago i.e. when mankind did branch
off from the ancestral centre shared with the other
primates such as chimpanzees, orang-utans & gorillas.


"...connotations of dead white males from 150 years ago....

Not with me. Is this a reference to a book or a film?

 

[koondrad]

People are just waiting for political speakers to slip up so that they can attack them. Their choice of words has to be increasingly sanitized.

 

[jonatas]

Political speech often develops to something of a language of its own, divorced from everyday language. There's plenty of words a politician wouldn't be caught dead using, that nonetheless are common among the general population.

The point is language is in a constant flux. "Mankind" is difficult to use in political or academic settings, where, incidentally, it would probably be used quite frequently if it were accepted. IMO it is decidedly archaic and a questionable term to use. I'm not automatically saying "humanity" is the new word either, it's just that "mankind" is a dated word in modern usage.

 

[jonatas]

"Mankind" is totally ambiguous to me.

If there is any doubt about its meaning then that
would be with respect to our ancestors several hundred
thousand years ago i.e. when mankind did branch
off from the ancestral centre shared with the other
primates such as chimpanzees, orang-utans & gorillas.


"...connotations of dead white males from 150 years ago....

Not with me. Is this a reference to a book or a film?

@ Edward

Well we can agree to disagree It's a term I view as dated. I wasn't referencing anything in particular.

 

[Blkbird]

"Man" and "Mankind" can be used to mean "humanity". "Woman" and "Womankind" cannot. Isn't that sexism?

No, it's not. It's just inequality. Sexism implies discrimination. Inequality doesn't automatically mean discrimination. Otherwise it would be sexist not to install urinals in women's bathrooms.

 

[koondrad]

IMO it is decidedly archaic and a questionable term to use. I'm not automatically saying "humanity" is the new word either, it's just that "mankind" is a dated word in modern usage.

I agree. On an artisitic level, the word 'mankind' just sounds bad. In regards to 'humanity', it's just not neutral enough. If you're going to do something, you may as well do it properly.

 

[The Last Conformist]

The point is language is in a constant flux.

So what?

"Mankind" is difficult to use in political or academic settings, where, incidentally, it would probably be used quite frequently if it were accepted.

The word <snip> is essentially unusable in political speeches - do you therefore think it too archaic?
Moderator Action: And its unusable here, too. Warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[koondrad]

No, it's not. Sexism implies discrimination. Inequality doesn't automatically mean discrimination. Otherwise it would be sexist not to install urinals in women's bathrooms.

There are many unisex bathrooms in public places.