[ExI] difficult (?) puzzle

[Dan TheBookMan]

On Jul 7, 2020, at 12:31 PM, Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> 
>>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 11:20 AM spike jones via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>> > On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat
>> 
>> Subject: [ExI] difficult (?) puzzle
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 'They say that a wise man can catch the wind in a net.'
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> For what is that a metaphor?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> bill w
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> It is an over-specification BillW.  Any person, male or female, wise or other-wise (heh) for that matter any lifeform capable of wielding the device can catch the wind in a net.  Take one outside on a windy day, see it billow like a sail as it catches the wind.  The wind gets thru easily enough of course, but the word “catch” is over-constrained in this case.
>> 
> 
> "Man" is often gender-neutral in old sayings.

‘Man’ has a more complex history. In AngloSaxon, the word did cover both males and females, but there were words to refer to adult males (wer) and adult females (wif). Without an article ‘man’ meant something like human would mean for us.

And, yes, later on, in the 18th century, ‘man’ once again started being used to refer gender neutrally, but notice this is hundreds of years later. So the ‘old sayings’ view is rather new if you believe such old sayings (if they’re older than the 18th century) use man.’

There are also issues with translation. For instance, if an adage is translated from Latin or Ancient Greek, there were gender neutral terms for humans in both those languages, so one has to be careful that the translation either misses a gender neutral usage or treats something gendered as if it were neutral. To be sure, there’s poetic license in some translations and it might depend on when the translation is done.

> These days, with more sensitivity to gender meanings (not to mention a greater understanding that female people can have just as much agency as male people), we might say "person", but in those olden times when they said "man", women were included in what they meant.

The issue was often that women were treated as a sort of lesser version of human and basically covered.

> The wise part comes from two understandings:
> 1) Even if most of the wind slips through a net, part of it is still caught.  The unwise might think all of the wind slips through.
> 2) A "net" with thicker strands - a bag, or close enough - can catch the wind with little to none of it slipping through.  The unwise are less likely to think of this.

I thought it was a joke and a play on some biblical.

Regards,

Dan
   Sample my Kindle books at:
http://author.to/DanUst
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200707/58286ae0/attachment.htm>