Genderless nouns (was Re: English ladies)
Lee Billings
I'm becroggled by the scorn heaped upon the perfectly useful word
"salesperson"... but that's neither here nor there.
What I'm looking for at the moment is (1) words which have come into
common usage to replace gender-specific nouns (e.g. "flight attendant"
for "stewardess"); (2) words which used to be gender-specific but have
lost that connotation (e.g. "author" or "poet"); (3) words which seem to
be heading in the direction of (2), such as "actor", which I am beginning
to hear used for either gender.
Any takers?
Roberta Morris
"Server", rather than "waiter" or "waitress."
This usage seems to have become standard in New England, at least in "university" towns.
I have no idea what they're calling waiters and waitresses, in ã let's say ã Pensacola.
A few years ago, I occasionally encountered the word "waitron," which was obviously
intended to be gender neutral. M y guess it that it sounded too much like a robot and was
quickly abandoned as a useful substitute.
A side note: In restaurants that wish to call attention to their service, the staff has been
instructed to say something like this:
"Hi! My name is Justin, and I'll be your server tonight."
To this I have a standard response:
"Hi! My name is Roberta, and I'll be your customer tonight."
It never fails to fluster the poor server ; occasionally it amuses my dining companions as
well.
Henry Churchyard
In article <51t4ol$d...@news.chattanooga.net>,
Lee Billings <bill...@chattanooga.net> wrote:
> What I'm looking for at the moment is (2) words which used to be
> gender-specific but have lost that connotation (e.g. "author" or
> "poet")
These were never really exclusively masculine-specific (though H.W.
Fowler seemed to think they were); see Chapter 7 of Dennis Baron's
_Grammar and Gender_ (1986).
--
"She was of course only too good for him; but nobody minds || Henry Churchyard
having what is too good for them." -Austen || http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~churchh
Uncle Bob
In this area (Phila.) my son who is in the restaurant business says that
when you advertise in the paper for help you are required by law to use a
genderless noun such as server,bus person, cook, etc.
Uncle Bob
Roberta Morris <rmo...@tiac.net> wrote in article
<324357...@tiac.net>...
Moss Collum
Roberta Morris wrote:
> A few years ago, I occasionally encountered the word "waitron," which was
>obviously
> intended to be gender neutral. M y guess it that it sounded too much like a
>robot and was
> quickly abandoned as a useful substitute.
I believe waitron (still used occasionally in California) was intended to sound
a bit like a robot... something of a comment on the idea of a gender-neutral
wait-being. For that matter, server sounds suspiciously like a computer set up
to supply menu-data to clients.
'waiter' should be the gender neutral term, but I doubt that there's much hope
for it by now.
--Moss
Joseph C Fineman
Moss Collum <til...@slip.net> writes:
>I believe waitron (still used occasionally in California) was
>intended to sound a bit like a robot... something of a comment on the
>idea of a gender-neutral wait-being. For that matter, server sounds
>suspiciously like a computer set up to supply menu-data to clients.
I began seeing "waitron" on signs a few years ago, and naturally
supposed it rhymed with "patron". The few times I have heard it
pronounced, however, it had secondary stress on the second syllable
like "neutron". What a bizarre coinage! The only other such words I
know of in English are names of subatomic particles or of devices for
accelerating them (e.g. "cyclotron").
>'waiter' should be the gender neutral term, but I doubt that there's
>much hope for it by now.
It was so used in the boarding school I went to in the early 1950s,
where students waited on table. I have never understood why there is
such resistance to using it for women. We allow workers, singers,
murderers, and teachers to be female. Why not waiters?
--
Joe Fineman j...@world.std.com
495 Pleasant St., #1 (617) 324-6899
Malden, MA 02148
jeanette
On Sat, 21 Sep 1996 21:49:39 GMT, j...@world.std.com (Joseph C Fineman)
wrote:
What's wrong with the word "server"? However, "waiter" sounds fine to
me.
Jeanette
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
In article <51vsf3$n...@piglet.cc.utexas.edu>, chur...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
(Henry Churchyard) writes:
> In article <51t4ol$d...@news.chattanooga.net>,
> Lee Billings <bill...@chattanooga.net> wrote:
>
>> What I'm looking for at the moment is (2) words which used to be
>> gender-specific but have lost that connotation (e.g. "author" or
>> "poet")
>
> These were never really exclusively masculine-specific....
A couple of times recently I have heard a female thespian referred to on NPR
as an actor.
Hallelujah! Maybe, before long, we can abandon artificialities like
"waitstaff" and "server", and just call all the people who wait tables
"waiters".
And why in the world would "server" be any less gender-specific than "waiter"?
The endings look an awfully lot alike to me.
Gary Williams
WILL...@AHECAS.AHEC.EDU
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
In article <Dy3rA...@world.std.com>, j...@world.std.com (Joseph C Fineman)
writes:
> Moss Collum <til...@slip.net> writes:
>
>>I believe waitron (still used occasionally in California) was
>>intended to sound a bit like a robot...
I think I remember reading somewhere that it was a contraction of `waiter-on'.
> We allow workers, singers, murderers, and teachers to be female. Why not
> waiters?
A partial explanation is, I suppose, that there are no words `workeress',
`singeress', or `teacheress', and `murderess' must not have gained enough
currency. But I agree with you; why not just abandon the superfluous feminine
form?
Gary Williams
WILL...@AHECAS.AHEC.EDU
wilh...@sprynet.com
bill...@chattanooga.net (Lee Billings) wrote:
>What I'm looking for at the moment is ... (1) words which have come into
>common usage to replace gender-specific nouns (e.g. "flight attendant"
>for "stewardess"); (2) words which used to be gender-specific but have
>lost that connotation (e.g. "author" or "poet"); (3) words which seem to
>be heading in the direction of (2), such as "actor", which I am beginning
>to hear used for either gender.
>Any takers?
"Comedian" for male and female performers; dropping "comedienne".
Ron Wilhoite
Mike Barnes
The dancing digits of "Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting"
<will...@ahecas.ahec.edu> created this pronouncement in
alt.usage.english...
>And why in the world would "server" be any less gender-specific than "waiter"?
>The endings look an awfully lot alike to me.
Because there is a word "waitress" but not AFAIK "serveress".
BTW, in company that is (over-)sensitive to such distinctions, my
favourite term is "serveperson".
Regards, Mike.
--
Mike Barnes, Stockport, England.
This week's hot tips for the lottery: 12, 14, 23, 32, 38, 34.
Marjorie Neumann
In article <1996Sep22.123307.1@ahecas>, will...@ahecas.ahec.edu says...
not
>> waiters?
>
>A partial explanation is, I suppose, that there are no words
`workeress',
>`singeress', or `teacheress', and `murderess' must not have gained
enough
>currency. But I agree with you; why not just abandon the superfluous
feminine
>form?
>
>Gary Williams
>WILL...@AHECAS.AHEC.EDU
Sounds like a good solution--works for actor and poet. But "waiter" is
acceptable only if everyone knows it is gender neutral. There was a time
when waiters worked in posh restaurants where the tips were good and
waitresses worked in lesser restaurants where they weren't. Is that
time gone for good? If advertising for "waiters" brings only male
applicants because women don't see themselves in the term, then forget
it.
Marjorie
The world is not flat and man is not the species.
Keith C. Ivey
will...@ahecas.ahec.edu (Gary Williams, Business Services
Accounting) wrote:
>And why in the world would "server" be any less gender-specific
>than "waiter"? The endings look an awfully lot alike to me.
Because there's no word "serveress". Why in the world would
"server" be any more objectionable than "waiter"?
[posted and mailed]
Keith C. Ivey <kci...@cpcug.org> Washington, DC
Contributing Editor/Webmaster
The Editorial Eye <http://www.eei-alex.com/eye/>
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
In article <526msn$6...@paladin.american.edu>, MNE...@american.edu (Marjorie
> In article <1996Sep22.123307.1@ahecas>, will...@ahecas.ahec.edu says...
>>
>>In article <Dy3rA...@world.std.com>, j...@world.std.com (Joseph C
> Fineman)
>>writes:
>>
>>> We allow workers, singers, murderers, and teachers to be female. Why
>>> not waiters?
>>
>
> restaurants where the tips were good and waitresses worked in lesser
> it.
Pretty good practical answer. But if I'd been the EEOC, instead of banishing
the word "waiter" lest it be thought to refer to a different profession than
"waitress", I'd have banned the word "waitress". I think it would not have
taken long before a person of either sex who wanted to wait tables, seeing
_all_ the advertisements being for waiters, even at the lesser restaurants with
bad tips, would have come to realize that "waiter" was now gender-neutral.
And, in response to Keith Ivey, I don't suppose there is really anything
_wrong_ with the word "server". But why abandon a perfectly good word that
has many years of history behind it?
Gary Williams
WILL...@AHECAS.AHEC.EDU
Curtis Smith
Keith C. Ivey wrote:
>
> will...@ahecas.ahec.edu (Gary Williams, Business Services
> Accounting) wrote:
>
> >And why in the world would "server" be any less gender-specific
> >than "waiter"? The endings look an awfully lot alike to me.
>
> Because there's no word "serveress". Why in the world would
> "server" be any more objectionable than "waiter"?
But how did there come to be a word "server"? I had never heard
of the word fifteen years ago. My first encounter was that server
was used as a euphemism for a demon computer program by those
who wanted to avoid evil connotations. I have always called
humans who serve "servants".
If the word "server" truly exist, then I don't see why the
feminine form "serveress" should not automatically exist just as
a plural form "servers" should automatically exist.
Personally, I think that we ought to make up a suffix which
designates a masculine form to distinguish them words of the
common gender. Perhaps -ebb would suffice.
Your linguistic commentatrebb,
Curtis Smith
J.C. Dill
On Fri, 20 Sep 1996 22:48:30 -0400, Roberta Morris <rmo...@tiac.net> wrote:
>"Server", rather than "waiter" or "waitress."
>
>A side note: In restaurants that wish to call attention to their service, the staff has been
>instructed to say something like this:
>
>"Hi! My name is Justin, and I'll be your server tonight."
>
>To this I have a standard response:
>
>"Hi! My name is Roberta, and I'll be your customer tonight."
>
>It never fails to fluster the poor server ; occasionally it amuses my dining companions as
>well.
Actually, a dining companion did this several months ago. We all (server
included) laughed so hard the server had to come back a few minutes later to
take our order!
Maybe it is one of those "California" things...
jc
Lee Lester
>> In this area (Phila.) my son who is in the restaurant business says
>> that when you advertise in the paper for help you are required by
>> law to use a genderless noun such as server,bus person, cook, etc.
What happened to the American constitutional provision guaranteeing
free speech?
Markus Laker
Curtis Smith <c.m....@ieee.org>:
> Keith C. Ivey wrote:
> >
> > will...@ahecas.ahec.edu (Gary Williams, Business Services
> > Accounting) wrote:
> >
> > >And why in the world would "server" be any less gender-specific
> > >than "waiter"? The endings look an awfully lot alike to me.
> >
> > Because there's no word "serveress". Why in the world would
> > "server" be any more objectionable than "waiter"?
>
> But how did there come to be a word "server"? I had never heard
> of the word fifteen years ago. My first encounter was that server
> was used as a euphemism for a demon computer program by those
> who wanted to avoid evil connotations. I have always called
> humans who serve "servants".
Among one group of people at least, the word 'server' is reasonably
commonplace and widely understood. A server is a boy (never a girl, in
my experience) who plays a minor, well-defined role in helping a
Catholic priest to celebrate Mass. 'Altar-boy' is a synonym unless
there are nuances I don't know about.
My father was a server in his youth; that'd be during the late thirties
and early forties. 'Server' is the word he uses in describing the
experience.
> If the word "server" truly exist, . . .
Oh, it do, it do. One of the meanings for it given in OED2 is, roughly,
'waiter', and there are citations with dates from 1460 to 1868.
Surprisingly, this meaning is not marked as archaic or obsolete, while
the 'altar-boy' meaning is.
> . . . then I don't see why the
> feminine form "serveress" should not automatically exist just as
> a plural form "servers" should automatically exist.
Logically, of course, you're right. But since when did logic apply to
the English language? English gives feminine endings to some job
descriptions but not others, and the choices seems arbitrary. Why
'poetess' but not 'writeress'? Why 'waitress' but not 'singeress'? --
the sex of a singer is far more relevant than that of someone who waits
on tables.
> Personally, I think that we ought to make up a suffix which
> designates a masculine form to distinguish them words of the
> common gender. Perhaps -ebb would suffice.
Since we're neologising, let me be the first to propose a spelng rform.
Surely we don't need the second 'b' unless a further suffix is added?
('What did you do over the summer?' 'Oh, I waiterebbed. Hey, don't
shoot!')
> Your linguistic commentatrebb,
> Curtis Smith
Markus Laker.
--
In order to foil email spammers, my return address is deliberately wrong.
If you wish to reply by mail, delete the final X from the address.
Unsolicited mail that I judge to be of a commercial nature will be read
for a fee of one pound per line. By sending such mail you indicate
that you agree to these terms.
Victor Engel
Oh, I do this sort of thing all the time. For example, "What is your
smoking preference?" The answer can be one of the following:
1) Marlboro.
2) Isn't there a no smoking section?
etc.
Usually, though, the comment is lost on the host(ess).
jcd...@ix.netcom.com (J.C. Dill) wrote:
>jc
-----------------------------------------------------------
Victor Engel Vector Angle
St...@The-Light.com lig...@onr.com
http://the-light.com http://www.onr.com/user/lights
Daan Sandee
In article <324c33a8...@news.tcp.co.uk> la...@tcp.co.ukx (Markus Laker) writes:
>
>Among one group of people at least, the word 'server' is reasonably
>commonplace and widely understood. A server is a boy (never a girl, in
>my experience) who plays a minor, well-defined role in helping a
>Catholic priest to celebrate Mass. 'Altar-boy' is a synonym unless
>there are nuances I don't know about.
>
>My father was a server in his youth; that'd be during the late thirties
>and early forties. 'Server' is the word he uses in describing the
>experience.
>
>> If the word "server" truly exist, . . .
It does. My company has, in its infinite wisdom, decided to call the
computer systems it produces "servers", with no thought, I am sure, of
persons serving in a restaurant, far less at an altar. The word is also
commonly used in computer science in client/server programming. And I
first heard it in operations research jargon about twenty-five years ago.
So a conversation might run :
User : <application> is not running.
Support : Oh, its server must have died.
User : Okay, can you restart it then ?
Support : Sure. Which server were you using ?
User : Huh ?
Support : Which server do you want me to start your server on ?
Oh yes, the word exists. And is used all the time.
Daan Sandee
Burlington, MA san...@think.com
Colin Fine
In article <526msn$6...@paladin.american.edu>, Marjorie Neumann
<MNE...@american.edu> writes
>
>Sounds like a good solution--works for actor and poet. But "waiter" is
>when waiters worked in posh restaurants where the tips were good and
>it.
>
restaurant in Glasgow (called Rogano's, I think) and was surprised (and
annoyed that I was surprised) to see that they had a female waiter. She
wasn't a waitress - they had those too, and they came round and served
you vegetables and cleared your plate away; but she, as a waiter, took
our order and advised us about wine.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Colin Fine 66 High Ash, Shipley, W Yorks. BD18 1NE, UK |
| Tel: 01274 592696/0976 436109 e-mail: co...@kindness.demon.co.uk |
| "We're all in a box and the instructions for getting out |
| are on the outside" -K.B.Brown |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
J.C. Dill
There are also laws against discrimintation. As such, you can't advertise (for
instance) that you only want to rent your house to a christian married couple,
or only to blacks or that you don't want a family with kids (at least, that is
the law here in California, and the San Jose Mercury News ran a column on this
very topic a few weeks ago... http://www.sjmercury.com )
Free speech is relative. You aren't free (for kicks) to yell "fire" in a
crowded movie theater, unless there really IS a fire, either.
posted and emailed...
jc
Mark Israel
In article <51vsf3$n...@piglet.cc.utexas.edu>, chur...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Henry Churchyard) writes:
>> What I'm looking for at the moment is (2) words which used to be
>> gender-specific but have lost that connotation (e.g. "author" or
>> "poet")
>
> These were never really exclusively masculine-specific (though H.W.
> Fowler seemed to think they were); see Chapter 7 of Dennis Baron's
> _Grammar and Gender_ (1986).
Here is what Fowler actually wrote (as opposed to what the anti-
prescriptively biased Henry Churchyard says the anti-prescriptively
biased Dennis Baron says Fowler "seemed to think"):
# Nor, after all, does an authoress, a doctoress, a lioness, a
# votaress, a prophetess, or a Jewess, cease to be an author, a
# doctor, a lion, a votary, a prophet, or a Jew, because she ends in
# _-ess_; she should call herself, and still more allow us without
# protest to call her, by the common or feminine title according to
# the requirements of the occasion;
--
mis...@scripps.edu Mark Israel
Henry Churchyard
In article <530sk5$g...@riscsm.scripps.edu>,
Mark Israel <mis...@scripps.edu> wrote:
>In article <51vsf3$n...@piglet.cc.utexas.edu>, chur...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Henry Churchyard) writes:
>> In article <51t4ol$d...@news.chattanooga.net>, bill...@chattanooga.net (Lee Billings) writes:
>>> What I'm looking for at the moment is (2) words which used to be
>>> gender-specific but have lost that connotation (e.g. "author" or
>>> "poet")
>> These were never really exclusively masculine-specific (though H.W.
>> Fowler seemed to think they were); see Chapter 7 of Dennis Baron's
>> _Grammar and Gender_ (1986).
> Here is what Fowler actually wrote:
># Nor, after all, does an authoress, a doctoress, a lioness, a votaress,
># a prophetess, or a Jewess, cease to be an author, a doctor, a lion, a
># votary, a prophet, or a Jew, because she ends in _-ess_; she should
># call herself, and still more allow us without protest to call her, by
># the common or feminine title according to the requirements of the
># occasion;
Yes, but you have carefully quoted the one sentence which actually
makes some degree of sense (at least in its last clause), while
snipping away at all the surrounding blatherskite:
From _A Dictionary of Modern English Usage_ by H. W. Fowler (Oxford, 1927):
FEMININE DESIGNATIONS. This article is intended as a counterprotest.
The authoress, poetess, & paintress, & sometimes the patroness & the
inspectress, take exception to the indication of sex in these
designations. They regard the distinction as derogatory to them & as
implying inequality between the sexes; an author is an author, that is
all that concerns any reader, & it is impertinent curiosity to want to
know whether the author is male or female.
These ladies neither are nor pretend to be making their objection in
the interests of the language or of people in general; they object in
their own interests only; this they are entitled to do, but still it
is lower ground, & general convenience & the needs of the King's
English, if these are against them, must be reckoned of more
importance than their sectional claims. Are these against them?
Undoubtedly. First, any word that does the work of two or more by
packing several notions into one is a gain (the more civilized a
language the more such words it possesses), if certain conditions are
observed: it must not be cumbersome; it should for choice be correctly
formed; & it must express a compound notion that is familiar enough to
need a name.
Secondly, with the coming extension of women's vocations, feminines
for vocation-words are a special need of the future; everyone knows
the inconvenience of being uncertain whether a doctor is a man or a
woman; hesitation in establishing the word _doctress_ is amazing in a
people regarded as nothing if not practical. Far from needing to
reduce the number of our sex-words, we should do well to indulge in
real neologisms such as _teacheress_, _singeress_, & _danceress_, the
want of which drives us to _cantatrice, danseuse_, & the like;
_authoress_ & _poetess_ & _paintress_ are not neologisms.
But are not the objectors, besides putting their own interests above
those of the public, actually misjudging their own? Their view is that
the female author is to raise herself to the level of the male author
by asserting her right to HIS NAME [emphasis added]; but if there is
one profession in which more than in others the woman is the man's
equal it is acting; & the actress is not known to resent the
indication of her sex; the proof of real equality will be not the
banishment of _authoress_ as a degrading title, but its establishment
on a level with _author_. Nor after all, does an authoress, a
doctress, a lioness, a votaress, a prophetess, or a Jewess, cease to
be an author a doctor, a lion, a votary a prophet, or a Jew, because
she ends in _-ess_; she should call herself & still more allow us
without protest to call her, by the common or the feminine title
according to the requirements of the occasion; but _George Eliot the
authoress_ would then be as much more frequent than _G. E. the author_
as _the prophetess Deborah_ than _the prophet D_.
It may perhaps aid consideration of the subject if short selections
are given, A, of established feminine titles, B, of recent or impugned
ones, &, C, of words unfortunately not provided with feminines.
A
Abbess, actress, administratrix, adultress ,adventuress, ambassadress,
deaconess, duchess, enchantress, executrix;, giantess, goddess,
governess, horsewoman, hostess, huntress, Jewess, lioness, mother,
murderess priestess, princess, procuress, prophetess, quakeress,
queen, shepherdess songstress, sorceress, stewardess, votaress,
waitress, wardress.
B
Authoress, chairwoman, conductress, directress, doctress,
draughtswoman, editress, inspectress, jurywoman, manageress,
paintress, patroness, poetess, policewoman, protectress, tailoress.
C
Artist, aurist, clerk, cook, councillor, cyclist, lecturer, legatee,
martyr, motorist, oculist, palmist, president, pupil, singer, teacher,
typist.
_Artist_, in list C, illustrates well the need of feminines, since
ignorant writers are often guilty of _artists & artistes_, meaning
male & female performers.
What do the words "his name" above mean except that Mr. Fowler
believed, in plain contradiction to all historical fact, customary
usage, and plain common sense, that words like "teacher", "dancer"
etc. were exclusively male?
This passage is classic and timeless in its sheer stupidity.
> the anti-prescriptively biased Henry Churchyard
Guilty as charged -- however, I do think there's more or less of a
"standard English"; I merely refuse to recognize the authority of
little pedants to elevate their personal and arbitrary whims into
general criteria of "bad" and "good" language.
--
"Let other pens dwell on guilt and misery. I quit such odious subj-|| Henry
ects as soon as I can, impatient to restore everybody, not greatly ||Churchyard
in fault THEMSELVES, to tolerable comfort." http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~churchh
Mark Israel
In article <533t1m$s...@piglet.cc.utexas.edu>, chur...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Henry Churchyard) writes:
> From _A Dictionary of Modern English Usage_ by H. W. Fowler (Oxford, 1927):
>
># But are not the objectors, besides putting their own interests above
># those of the public, actually misjudging their own? Their view is that
># the female author is to raise herself to the level of the male author
># by asserting her right to HIS NAME [emphasis added]; [...]
># Nor, after all, does an authoress, a doctoress, a lioness, a votaress,
># a prophetess, or a Jewess, cease to be an author, a doctor, a lion, a
># votary, a prophet, or a Jew, because she ends in _-ess_; she should
># call herself, and still more allow us without protest to call her, by
># the common or feminine title according to the requirements of the
># occasion; [...]
>
> What do the words "his name" above mean except that Mr. Fowler
> believed, in plain contradiction to all historical fact, customary
> usage, and plain common sense, that words like "teacher", "dancer"
> etc. were exclusively male?
"His name" means being referred to in the same way, and *only* in
the same way, as a male member of the same profession. It does *not*
mean that Fowler thought what he called "the common [...] title" was
exclusively male. The other sentence shows that!
> This passage is classic and timeless in its sheer stupidity.
I agree that someone's being stupid here, but it's not Fowler
and it's not I.
--
mis...@scripps.edu Mark Israel
Henry Churchyard
In article <5348um$j...@riscsm.scripps.edu>,
Mark Israel <mis...@scripps.edu> wrote:
>In article <533t1m$s...@piglet.cc.utexas.edu>, chur...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Henry Churchyard) writes:
>> From _A Dictionary of Modern English Usage_ by H. W. Fowler (Oxford, 1927):
>># But are not the objectors [i.e. women who don't want to be known
>># as "authoresses"] , besides putting their own interests above
>># those of the public, actually misjudging their own? Their view is
>># that the female author is to raise herself to the level of the
>># male author by asserting her right to HIS NAME [emphasis added];
>> What do the words "his name" above mean except that Mr. Fowler
>> believed, in plain contradiction to all historical fact, customary
>> usage, and plain common sense, that words like "teacher", "dancer"
>> etc. were exclusively male?
> "His name" means being referred to in the same way, and *only* in
> the same way, as a male member of the same profession. It does
> *not* mean that Fowler thought what he called "the common [...]
> title" was exclusively male. The other sentence shows that!
But why does the name of "author" _belong_ to the male author, and not
_belong_ just as much as to the female author(ess), unless the word is
basically and fundamentally masculine-referring? (Though by a special
dispensation he does grudgingly allow some common reference as a
concession to "the requirements of the occasion" -- however, this is a
tacked-on escape clause, and not at all the main part of his position,
as you seem to be implying by prominently quoting it).
>> This passage is classic and timeless in its sheer stupidity.
> I agree that someone's being stupid here, but it's not Fowler and
> it's not I.
Oh come on -- this passage is both muddled and patronizing. The very
sentence that you're so fond of quoting undermines his argument that
the "-ess" suffix bears no stigma. If he were to propose that all
occupational, etc. nouns should _always_ be marked for gender
distinction, then his position would be very neologistic (opposed to
actual English usage), but it would at least be consistent. Such a
system would be like the German one, where the suffix _-in_ is very
consistently used, and so is not in itself deprecatory. But once you
admit the possibility of a woman being called both an "author" _and_
"authoress" (as Fowler does), then it's almost inevitable that the
word "authoress" will take on deprecatory connotations (as is evident
from the sad semantic history of this and other similar words).
Furthermore, his attitude in the whole article is "those uppity little
females don't know what's good for them, and so Big Pappa Fowler is
gonna lay down the linguistic law, and they better just lie back and
enjoy it". That kind of attitude just won't wash nowadays, and it was
already a little old-fashioned even in 1927.
If you admire the whole passage so much, then I presume you're about
to embark on a full-fledged campaign to introduce the words
"teacheress, danceress, Jewess, editress", and "doctress" into the
English language. I and my fellow readers and readeresses of
alt.usage.english are looking forward in anticipation to your
forthcoming efforts in this direction -- just imagine, if you succeed,
political candidates may begin their speeches "My fellow Americans and
Americanesses..." ;-)
--
"She was of course only too good for him; but nobody minds || Henry Churchyard
having what is too good for them." - M. P. || http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~churchh
Mark Israel
In article <5352p9$q...@piglet.cc.utexas.edu>, chur...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Henry Churchyard) writes:
> But why does the name of "author" _belong_ to the male author, and not
> _belong_ just as much as to the female author(ess), unless the word is
> basically and fundamentally masculine-referring?
Ah, now you're saying "basically and fundamentally" where in your
last post you were saying "exclusively". Nice to see reality starting
to seep in through the chinks of your closed mind.
There's no need for us to get into an exponentially growing
discussion of this. Now that you've kindly posted the complete text
of Fowler's article, readers can ascertain for themselves which of us
is talking rot.
> Furthermore, his attitude in the whole article is "those uppity
> little females don't know what's good for them,
H. W. Fowler was born in 1858. Do your realise how many men AND
WOMEN of Fowler's generation opposed women's entry into the male-
dominated professions, which Fowler supports in this essay? Fowler
is to be commended for his egalitarianism.
> and so Big Pappa Fowler is gonna lay down the linguistic law
Under PEDANTRY, Fowler wrote: "no book that attempts, as this
one does, to give hundreds of decisions on the matter will find many
readers who will accept them all." You're completely misunderstanding
the intent of the book.
> If you admire the whole passage so much, then I presume you're about
> to embark on a full-fledged campaign to introduce the words
> "teacheress, danceress, Jewess, editress", and "doctress" into the
> English language.
When Oxford University Press proposed to publish an American version
of MEU, Fowler wrote: "lots of things are laboriously argued out that
are for Americans not living issues but _choses juge'es_". Likewise,
many things that are _choses juge'es_ today were living issues in 1926.
Or are you too !@##$%-minded to grasp that?
--
mis...@scripps.edu Mark Israel
Henry Churchyard
In article <536mio$g...@riscsm.scripps.edu>,
Mark Israel <mis...@scripps.edu> wrote:
>In article <5352p9$q...@piglet.cc.utexas.edu>, chur...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Henry Churchyard) writes:
> now you're saying "basically and fundamentally" where in your last
> post you were saying "exclusively". Nice to see reality starting to
> seep in through the chinks of your closed mind.
In a way, it doesn't matter whether Fowler thought that non-"ess"-suffixed
forms were exclusively masculine-referring, or whether he thought they
were only fundamentally and properly so (allowing some narrow grudging
circumstances in which their reference could be extended to females by a
special dispensation) -- I don't see as much difference between these
positions as you do, but in either case he was simply _wrong_ about some
basic facts of the English language (in other words, Fowler had such
biased personal views that he refused to let the simple reality of the
English language seep in through the chinks of his closed mind).
I will freely admit, however, that I was mistaken in attributing to Fowler
the view that words (such as "teacher", "dancer") without a corresponding
explicit feminine form are _CURRENTLY_ exclusively/fundamentally
masculine-referring -- it's only in Fowler's advocated New Word Order in
which this would be the case.
> Likewise, many things that are _choses juge'es_ today were living issues
> in 1926.
But that's really not the case with this particular topic. Some words,
such as "aviatrix" or "ambassadress", have dropped out since the 1920's,
and a few new ones, like "comedienne" have come in, but the general
linguistic status of "-ess" words in English isn't really all that
different than it was in 1927 (only a distinct minority of all occupation/
agent etc. nouns have feminine-suffixed counterparts; in the majority of
cases where there are such feminine-suffixed forms, a women can be referred
to by either the unsuffixed word or the feminine-suffixed word; and
feminine-suffixed forms often have pejorative connotations, and tend to be
less frequently used than formerly); all these statements were equally true
in 1927 and 1996 -- and I bet that a lot of readers in 1927 thought even
then that Fowler's clarion call for large-scale feminine Neologization of
the English language was pretty stupid.
It's hard to deny that in this article ("Feminine Designations"), Fowler
goes off on a neologistic crusade that's just as bizarre, and just as
contradictory to the _Sprachgefühl_ of the English language, as anything
that radical feminists have been accused of with their "wymyn" and
"herstory" etc., and that Fowler uses the occasion as an excuse to go off
on a peculiar tangential misogynistic tirade which is regressive even for
1927 -- and you yourself have admitted that you feel no impulse to join
Fowler's crusade.
I'm sorry if Fowler is a personal hero of yours, and it may very well be
true that he has insightful and historically-valid things to say elsewhere
(I'll freely admit that I don't know that much about his work in any
detail, apart from occasionally referring to a 1965 Fowler-Gowers that I
picked up cheap from a remainder pile) -- BUT, in my opinion it's no use
trying to salvage this particular article on "Feminine Designations",
because it just isn't salvageable.
I've pretty much said what I have to say on this topic, and I agree that
people who have any interest in this should read the original Fowler article
and form their own opinions:
<URL:news:533t1m%24...@piglet.cc.utexas.edu>
--
"There's not a man I meet but || Henry Churchyard chur...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
doth salute me, as if I were || Austin, TX http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~churchh
their well-acquainted friend" - Shakespeare, _Comedy of Errors_, Act 4 Scene 3
Mark Israel
In article <536v9s$k...@piglet.cc.utexas.edu>, chur...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Henry Churchyard) writes:
> [...] but in either case he was simply _wrong_ about some basic
> facts of the English language [...]
Name one.
> I will freely admit, however, that I was mistaken in attributing to Fowler
> the view that words (such as "teacher", "dancer") without a corresponding
> explicit feminine form are _CURRENTLY_ exclusively/fundamentally
> masculine-referring [...]
Thank you.
> I'm sorry if Fowler is a personal hero of yours,
If? You were in sci.lang when Roger Lustig's bitter and ill-informed
attack on Fowler first motivated me to post there in 1987 (a.u.e. did not
yet exist), and you don't know that? You've looked at my FAQ, and you
don't know that?
--
mis...@scripps.edu Mark Israel
Lee Lester
> If you admire the whole passage so much, then I presume you're about
> to embark on a full-fledged campaign to introduce the words
> "teacheress, danceress, Jewess, editress", and "doctress" into the
> English language.
Methinks it's a little late. Jewess and editress have long been in the
English language although the use of the latter has certainly declined
along with authoress.
Henry Churchyard
In article <537j4d$o...@riscsm.scripps.edu>,
Umm... no.
I began participating in Usenet sometime about late 1989, I barely remember
Roger Lustig, and I don't really remember you from sci.lang at all (sorry...).
I never read _ALL_ the articles on sci.lang, and while I vaguely remember
striking a rhetorical blow on the side of anti-prescriptivism from time to
time in various debates, a discussion specifically about Fowler might not have
held much interest for me, because I don't really know very much about
Fowler's stands on most isssues. I have "looked" at your FAQ, and even read
some fairly substantial chunks of it, but I've never read the whole thing from
beginning to end, and nothing there about Fowler has particularly stuck in my
memory.
>> [...] but in either case he was simply _wrong_ about some basic facts of
>> the English language [...]
> Name one.
He felt that whenever there was a female form of a particular noun (suffixed
with "-ess" or whatever), then this meant that the corresponding unsuffixed
form was basically and properly male-referring ("his name"), but which could
then be also _extended_ in some cases to designate females. Now, I realize
that this is really more of a philosophical position than anything, but if
we bring to bear the facts of actual English usage, and the history of
English usage, then things turn out to be a good deal more complex than
Fowler allowed for. His position is correct for some pairs like "duke" -
"duchess", but in many more cases in the modern English period (from the
17th century on, say), feminine-suffixed forms have become moribund, or were
always moribund (i.e. they went straight from neologism to the linguistic
scrap heap -- labelled "obs. rare" in the OED), or they have persistently
coexisted together with the use of the corresponding unsuffixed forms to
denote females also. In such words, the female denotation of the unsuffixed
form doesn't appear to be an_extension_ of the word's basic (masculine)
meaning at all, but rather the unsuffixed word is simply gender-neutral.
However, Fowler ignores all this complexity in usage, and levels everything
down to the categorical statement that whenever a feminine-suffixed form
exists, then the unsuffixed form is "his name", and not "her name" -- which
in many cases is false.
"We do not call a female author an _authoress; and if a lady
writes poems she is, now-a-days, called a _poet_, rather than
a _poetess_."
-- Joseph Priestley, 1761.
--
"Haughty Spain's fleet Advances to our shores, while ||chur...@ccwf.cc.utexas.
England's fate, Like a clipp'd guinea, trembles in ||edu Henry Churchyard
the scale!" -- Sheridan "The Critic" (1779) http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~churchh
Truly Donovan
--
Truly Donovan
"Industrial-strength SGML," Prentice Hall 1996
ISBN 0-13-216243-1