It's interesting and... bottomless. Since it's very hard to make the difference between what really has a true and real explanation, and what belongs to fantasy ot to what I'd call Lacanian perversion (the habit to make the words say more than they actually do). I'm not sure than a systematical, logical, psychological or determinately gender rule can be apply to French language. Even if I think that some people must be delighted to think that men deliberately give a feminine gender to a mouth (une bouche) because they think that women speak much too much, and a masculine gender to a brain (un cerveau) because they think that a man is more clever than a woman Of course, (beautiful long) legs are feminine (de belles jambes)... but, hey... if a pair is feminine (une paire), a breast is masculine, even when they are two somptuous ones (deux seins somptueux, une paire de seins somptueux)... but a bosom is feminine (une poitrine)... Even when it belongs to a man (un homme à la forte poitrine)... And the classical gender and sexual attributes won't help you... A vagina is masculine, when the balls are feminine... Complicate ? Yes. Just to be reassured, think that France is a Cartesian country... So... it could be worst...
I'm sure you're right about that, as long as we agree of course that 'natural' gender is also a social construct (cough cough). Coincidentally, I'm making my way slowly through the recent re-translation of de Beauvoir's magnum opus, with its page-long sentences and profusion of semicolons, so very different from Swedish. I can certainly see how being able to more easily specify antecedents would both facilitate this writing style and make it more accessible. Of course, if we start down that slope, we might as well just go back to Latin... I have been asking people (who speak various gendered languages as their mother tongue) about this issue for years now – that is, whether they feel there is any inherent 'feeling-of-gender' associated with everyday nouns. The answers I've gotten have been as varied as the people themselves, so I've more or less given up looking for a pattern. (And I imagine there's scads of actual research on this topic.) And anyway, as I said before with Swedish, when one's choice of 'gender' is either neutral or common, well, what's the difference really? I would argue that it's difficult to get any sort of 'gender'-y feeling from either of those two choices. So we're back to... ... which I'm hoping de Beauvoir will help me to figure out, if not grammatically, then perhaps in the more general sense.
Some on Tyresö were a little grumpy about the circumstances surrounding Wolfsburg's third goal. Here's the short verion: defender Klingenberg was injured and calling for the ball to be played out so that she could get a trainer on the field/get herself off the field. Meanwhile, for some reason forward Edlund was being subbed in. Midfielder Dahlkvist insists that she heard Klingenberg and intentionally played the ball out, on the understanding that Wolfsburg would do the decent and throw the ball back in to them. In the confusion of the opposing team's throw-in combined with the substitution, perhaps, no one was covering Klingenberg's area. Wolfsburg did not throw the ball back to Tyresö, and instead went on the offensive and scored immediately while Tyresö had 10 on the field. Not against the rules of course (and it's not like Tyresö let up while Goessling was busy bleeding out on the sidelines), but a bit of dirty pool. Or, if you prefer, there was a ten-second duration when Tyresö players and coaches were confused about what was going on, and this confusion cost them greatly. I can hold both opinions at the same time. There was also a little grumping about Müller maybe being offside for her second goal, but very gentle grumping, with a shrug and acknowledgement that that's just the way it is with very close offside calls sometimes.
Thanks for taking the time to pass that on. When Dahlkvist played the ball out I wonder if it was obvious it was intentional or if it could have been interpreted as an accidental clearance. Even if Wolfsburg had played it back, would Tyresö have adjusted or got a player on the field? Questionable. Just less "slime"y. Edlund was there and covering. Well, kind of there.
Well, I went back and watched and it all is rather confused/confusing. A proper muddle, one might say if one were British. The injury to Klingenberg must have happened off camera, and Tyresö was in fact playing on during the time when she must have been injured and started to call for a pause. All Tyresö players on the field knew something was up; you can suddenly hear a lot of yelling and see a lot of the players gesticulating wildly, just before Wolfsburg got a throw in deep in their own territory. Wolfsburg kicked it upfield, and Dahlkvist one-touched it out at the mid-way line at 65:32 on the game clock. Edlund comes on, Diaz goes off at the mid-line, and Klingenberg (with two trainers holding her) hobbles off (hard to tell if it was off the back line, or at the side line). To my eye, Dahlkvist's kicking the ball out was clearly done on purpose. But, since Tyresö then brings on a sub – a sub that had been clearly waiting to come in – Dahlkvist's kick out could reasonably have been interpreted as intentional, in order to make that (non-injury) substitution. The Tyresö staff really should have made clear to the ref and/or 4th official that there was an injury on the field, and Edlund simply shouldn't have gone on at all until everything was figured out. I made a clip of the critical three or so minutes, but UEFA seems to have gotten more clever about their youtube blocking, so, sorry, I don't seem to be able to post it.
Thanks again, wish I could see that. I remember Klingenberg with the two physios, I thought it was the back line. She couldn't bend her leg even to walk properly. I just checked and read it wasn't serious thankfully. I've been around a lot of football and never seen anyone kick a ball out to bring a sub on tactically at the 65 minute mark. The only time I've ever seen a ball intentionally played out is for an injury. Or kicked at the Atletico coach. Was there a pause? Did the Wolfsburg player attempt to figure out why the ball was played out? Or did they quickly get it back in play?
Just saw this scene and Wolfsburg did nothing wrong imo. Klingenberg was clearly injured but Tyresö did not even think about playing the ball out of bounds. They even played around her, when she could barely walk. Then the camera shows Tony G. pointing to Kling to lay down on the ground. Not telling his players to kick the ball out so she could get treatment. As soon as Wolfsburg gets the ball everyone starts yelling they should kick the ball out. Why should Wolfsburg care about Klingenberg's injury when Tyresö doesn't? Just some time wasting gone wrong.
Thanks just watched it. Tyresö cared enough to kick the ball out of bounds because of it. When the ball was out Klingenberg was helped off the field by two physios and if they were attempting to waste time it was worst performance in the history of the game.
This is no new news, just me catching up on all the reading about the final that I'd set links to, then hadn't had time to read. These two newspaper articles (in Swedish) may be coming from the same interview as they have identical language in some places, so choose your poison: this one from Aftonbladet is more Lisa Dahlkvist-heavy, while this one from fotbollskanalen is more Tony Gustavsson-heavy. The upshot is that Gustavsson maintains that he was yelling at them to knock the ball out, Dahlkvist maintains that she heard him and was dutifully following orders. They both seem to feel that it was unsporting of Wolfsburg not to give them the ball back. Gustavsson says that Ralf Kellermann said that is was not at all clear that the ball was played out deliberately. Neither Gustavsson nor Dahlkvist say that they don't believe Kellermann; on the other hand, they both feel that if Kellermann knew it was deliberately played out, then he did the wrong thing by directing his players to throw the ball in to Wolfsburg. A slightly different angle, maybe one we didn't see on TV footage, is provided by the radio journalist who was there. Here*, she's talking about the depressing atmosphere after the game, and when the other reporter asks whether the third goal was unsporting (starting now at about the 2:30 mark on the 5-minute clip), her answer is that she was sitting right in front of the play, it was clear that Dahlkvist played it out on purpose, the whole Tyresö bench was up screaming and pointing for her to play it out. But she also says that Dahlkvist should have done something more obvious like trap the ball then roll it out on the ground, and that her body language was unclear. Apparently the Tyresö bench was really mad about the (resulting) third goal for Wolfsburg. Gustavsson confronted Kellermann about it immediately, and then again after the game, the reporter says; Kellermann maintained that he did not think the kick out-of-bounds was done deliberately and that Wolfsburg was therefore within its right to go on offense. (*the clip's title is amusing, given all the problems Tyresö now faces and the fact that its stars, who've been playing together for a long time, will be scattered to the four winds: the post-game atmosphere is "somewhere between getting fired and graduating from school.") Soooo... well, that adds not too much, really, except perhaps some color (Tyresö was more upset by this sequence of events than I thought), and it casts just a teeny bit of doubt on Kellermann (surely he must have noticed Tyresö's bench standing and yelling!). But, Dahlkvist's exact actions do give him plausible deniability. Det bara är så. (to be ungrammatical, unless that counts as an idiomatic subordinate clause.) To give this post a more entertaining ending, our own Nilla 'Wafer' Fischer provides Expressen's headline quote that Wolfsburg "ran their asses off", and in the last section of the Aftonbladet article linked to (here and) above, there's a short interview with her; she says it feels great to win her first international title. Reporter: "Do you know how to celebrate in German?" Fischer: "Uhh..." Reporter: "Maybe you won't have a party, of course now you have to play for the Bundesliga title." Fischer: "I have no idea. I don't understand anything they say..."
One nice thing about Wolfsburg winning the Bundesliga as well as WCL is that it is goes some way to nullifying the whole 'it's easier to win the WCL than to win Germany's league' argument. On the other hand, if 'Tyresö' keep their automatic WCL bid, their round of 16 results will probably be one of those "[8-20 agg.] – 0" slaughters that nobody likes to see.
It's now official: Linköpings FC will replace Tyresö for the next Champions League. Finally som good news for Linköping, they've had a pretty lame injury-filled season so far. But a v good team when they're at their best and only team (except Tyresö) to beat Rosengård so far this year.
to PSG. PSG is going to swoop up the whole tyresö roster with a purse seine net and a pokeball. gotta catch 'em all and let god sort 'em out.
Only one Tyresö player at PSG so far (Seger). Marta - if she goes - would be the second only and the last, very likely.
Gawd, I hope Marta ends up at PSG(anywhere but the NWSL ). Marta's performs best for the national squad when she's with a European based club.
[QUOTEromario'sgurl, post: 30359242, member: 10523"]Gawd, I hope Marta ends up at PSG(anywhere but the NWSL ). Marta's performs best for the national squad when she's with a European based club. [/QUOTE] She won't go to NWSL
When I think of some who snubbed those teams during weeks and months before ("Wolfsburg, the most boring team in the world", "Tyreso, a mock", "Marta is finished and was never a decisive player") Unforgettable Final !