←back to thread

189 points docmechanic | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
HarHarVeryFunny ◴[] No.43657084[source]
> For example, the phrase “blonde dancer” has two independent units: a blonde person who is also a dancer.

This seems a rather odd "random" language example, especially coming from New Scientist. Being politically correct by then referring to the "blonde" as a "person" doesn't help much. May as well just use "brunette stripper" as an example - a brown haired person who takes their clothes off for money.

replies(1): >>43657155 #
someoneontenet ◴[] No.43657155[source]
I think that you might be taking that example in bad faith.
replies(1): >>43657329 #
HarHarVeryFunny ◴[] No.43657329[source]
Really? How often are blonde-haired men referred to as "blondes" vs women, and if you really feel the need to use "blonde" as your adjective, but insist it's a sexless "person", then how about "blonde engineer" instead of "blonde dancer"?!

I've got nothing against blonde dancers, and am far from politically correct myself, but in a scientific article about language and Bonobos, couldn't they have chosen a more appropriate example such as "yellow banana"?

replies(2): >>43657865 #>>43657971 #
marcellus23 ◴[] No.43657865[source]
> How often are blonde-haired men referred to as "blondes" vs women

Never, because men's hair is "blond".

But seriously, the original quote does not call the person "a blonde," (which indeed might offend some) but instead uses "blonde" as an adjective to describe the dancer, which is perfectly acceptable. You can have a "blond man" or a "brown-haired man" just as easily as you can have a "blonde woman".

replies(1): >>43658025 #
1. HarHarVeryFunny ◴[] No.43658025[source]
Well, as an example of language/syntax, any language example (including "blonde dancer") would be "acceptable", but in this context something like "fruit tree" might be more appropriate than "dumb Polack" (no offense - just a syntax example).