As an anonymous user, you can only add new data. If you would like to also modify existing data, please create an account and indicate your languages on your user page.

Expression talk:Mensch

From OmegaWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

DM "A member of the human race. (Source: MGH)" is imho problematic. It relies too much on an english euphemisitc wording convention (which is reflected in some other European languages, too). In fact, there is nothing like one, or the human race, there are many. So we could possibly reword to: "member of a human race" or "… any human race" etc., which still possibly does not translate to languages having no concept of Wiktionaryz:race --Purodha Blissenbach

Are you trying to say that there are mulitple races ..  ?? GerardM 17:00, 14 September 2006 (CEST)
Actually, the word "race" is ambiguous when it's about humans, there can be many or one, according to the considered meaning (now, I'm going to check if what I say is true ;-) ). Kipcool 17:10, 14 September 2006 (CEST)
yes, I'm right. "species" seems better. Kipcool 17:13, 14 September 2006 (CEST)
Yes, biologically, there are several races of homo sapiens. Yes, species should be better. --Purodha Blissenbach 22:46, 14 September 2006 (CEST)
I completely agree: There is one human species, which consists of different races. And we shouldn't rely on english wording conventions (after all, in english "white" is a race ...). Now, I understand that especially in Germany it is not politically correct anymore to acknowlege the existance of races, but this doesn't change the fact that there are, however vague or changing the concept may be. Just as there are several dog races, but only one dog species. Every child can see that. So, are we going to change the article now or what? I mean, you've already agreed on species being the proper term three years ago, but... Dh 23:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I have put "species" in there (fr: and en:). Thus some translations are outdated (or to be checked): --Kipcool 08:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I have changed spa raza humana to especie humana, but it seems unnecessary to me. The first or second defined meaning in almost all the spanish dictionaries for raza is "bloodline, lineage", and raza humana is equivalent to "mankind, humanity" (see DRAE or María Moliner's).--Galeote 15:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
What's about older dictionaries, like before 1945?
Here is for example what Darwin said in chapter 21 of "The Descent Of Man":
"Through the means just specified, aided perhaps by others as yet undiscovered, man has been raised to his present state. But since he attained to the rank of manhood, he has diverged into distinct races, or as they may be more fitly called, sub-species. Some of these, such as the Negro and European, are so distinct that, if specimens had been brought to a naturalist without any further information, they would undoubtedly have been considered by him as good and true species. Nevertheless all the races agree in so many unimportant details of structure and in so many mental peculiarities that these can be accounted for only by inheritance from a common progenitor; and a progenitor thus characterised would probably deserve to rank as man."
And IMO does it make much more sense to use race as a sub-category of species and synonym with sub-species. I simply can't see what justifies the ambiguous usage of these words. Or is there another term to express what Darwin meant with race?
  • The definition in language "bul" (Bulgarian) is out of sync.
  • The definition in language "fin" (Finnish) is out of sync.
  • The definition in language "nld" (Dutch) is out of sync.
  • The definition in language "ita" (Italian) is out of sync.
  • The definition in language "pol" (Polish) is out of sync.
  • The definition in language "slv" (Slovenian) is out of sync.
For Spanish: if raza humana is ok, you could have left it (and thank you for the justification). In French however, for me the term "espèce" is clearly less ambiguous and objectable than "race". Thanks. --Kipcool 18:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)