Frosh (was Re: Sexist language (was...
Rosemary Waigh
>In article <1992Dec12....@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rw...@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>->In article <1992Dec11.0...@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> ml...@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (MICHAEL LAUREN SHERMAN) writes:
>->>In article <1992Dec10....@gacvx2.gac.edu>, cen...@dion.gac.edu (Topher
>->>the Gustie) writes:
>->>>In article <1992Dec10.1...@cdf.toronto.edu> (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>->>>> (At UofT we don't use the sexist term "Freshman" any more.)
>->>>At Gustavus we officially use the term First-Year Students.
>->[...] but there is something wrong with mindlessly clinging to
>->tradition, using inaccurate language, and being inconsiderate, especially
>->when it is trivially simple to use inoffensive language.
>Simple? Whaddaya mean, simple? "Freshman" has only two syllables, while
>"First-Year Student" has four.
I guess you missed my original posting, which gaved the non-sexist term used
at UofT, namely "frosh". Only one syllable! Just think of the time you can
save by adopting this term! :-)
>Also, what is so inaccurate about "freshman"? If words in the english language
>are which end in "-man" are generally used to describe humans of either
>gender, what is wrong with using them.
From _The_Handbook_of_Nonsexist_Writing_ by Casey Miller and Kate Swift:
"Recent studies of college students and school children indicate that the broad
definitions of *man* and *men* [i.e. to refer to all humans and not just males],
although still taught, have to a significant degree become inoperative at a
subliminal level. Phrases like *economic man* and *political man*, or
statements like 'Man domesticated animals' and 'Man is a dreamer,' it turns
out, tend to call up images of male people only, not female people or females
and males together." (p 10)
References:
"Among studies which report and discuss evidence indication that the so-called
generics *man* and *men* (and compounds incorporating them) are not generally
understood to include females are the following:
"Johanna S. DeStefano, Mary W. Kuhner, and Harold B. Pepinsky, 'An
Investigation of Referents of Selected Sex-Indefinite Terms in English,'
paper presented at the Ninth World Congress of Sociology, Uppsala, Sweden,
August 1978.
"LaVisa Cam Wilson, 'Teachers' Inclusion of Males and Females in Generic Nouns,'
_Research_in_the_Teaching_of_English_, May 1978, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 155-161.
"Ozella M. Y. Eberhart, 'Elementary Students' Understanding of Certain
Masculine and Neutral Generic Nouns,' doctoral dissertation, Kansas State
University, 1976, _Dissertation_Abstracts_, 1976, Vol. 37, pp. 4113A-4114A.
(University Microfilms No. 76-29,993.)
"Linda Harrison, 'Cro-Magnon Woman--In Eclipse,' _The_Science_Teacher_, April
1975, pp. 8-11.
"Linda Harrison and Richard Passero, 'Sexism in the Language of Elementary
School Textbooks,' _Science_and_Children_, January 1975, Vol. 12, pp. 22-25.
"Joseph W. Schneider and Sally L. Hacker, 'Sex Role Imagery and the Use of the
Generic "Man" in Introductory Texts: A Case in the Sociology of Sociology,'
_The_American_Sociologist_, February 1973, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 12-18."
>Why do you take the word "freshman"
>(or any other -man word, for that matter) as being offensive when no one
>(absolutely no one - you find someone, and I'll stop using the word) uses
>it in a derogatory fashion?
Because it is inaccurate, and perpetuates the myth that being male is the
norm and being female is exceptional.
--
Rosemary Waigh Undergraduate, Computer Science / Linguistics
g9rw...@cdf.utoronto.ca University of Toronto
"Looking at the Earth from afar you realize it is too small
for conflict and just big enough for co-operation." Yuri Gagarin
J. Theodore Schuerzinger
year at a college or university, who insists on the use of so-called
gender-neutral language':
'freshbitch'
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
--Ted Schuerzinger
email: .zed@Dartmouth.EDU
"I should have known it would be bad vodka when all the label said was
'Russian Vodka'."
Mandar M. Mirashi
>In article <101...@netnews.upenn.edu> var...@lindy.seas.upenn.edu (Kristofor A Varhus) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec12....@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rw...@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>->In article <1992Dec11.0...@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> ml...@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (MICHAEL LAUREN SHERMAN) writes:
>>->>In article <1992Dec10....@gacvx2.gac.edu>, cen...@dion.gac.edu (Topher
>>->>the Gustie) writes:
>>->>>In article <1992Dec10.1...@cdf.toronto.edu> (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>
>From _The_Handbook_of_Nonsexist_Writing_ by Casey Miller and Kate Swift:
>"Recent studies of college students and school children indicate that the broad
>definitions of *man* and *men* [i.e. to refer to all humans and not just males],
>although still taught, have to a significant degree become inoperative at a
>subliminal level. Phrases like *economic man* and *political man*, or
>statements like 'Man domesticated animals' and 'Man is a dreamer,' it turns
>out, tend to call up images of male people only, not female people or females
>and males together." (p 10)
>References:
>"Among studies which report and discuss evidence indication that the so-called
>generics *man* and *men* (and compounds incorporating them) are not generally
>understood to include females are the following:
[long list of references deleted]
>
>Because it is inaccurate, and perpetuates the myth that being male is the
>norm and being female is exceptional.
>--
>Rosemary Waigh Undergraduate, Computer Science / Linguistics
>g9rw...@cdf.utoronto.ca University of Toronto
> "Looking at the Earth from afar you realize it is too small
> for conflict and just big enough for co-operation." Yuri Gagarin
Remember, prejudice never exists in language, but rather, in the minds
of people. So, when terms such as "mankind" conjure up masculine images
more often than female images, it is actually the PERSON who's responsible
for the thought.
Waging war on language to further the equality of sexes, will serve
little purpose. As long as certain traits are primarily associated with
either sex, it is impossible to efface these distinctions in language.
I commend your egalatarian efforts, but they are misdirected. Attack the
root cause of the problem, instead of attempting to cure its symptoms.
Besides, when I presented similar views last summer on a.u.e, one
gentleman provided us with the example of Farsi. Farsi is a "sexless"
language. Yet, *men* dominated and the nature of the language did little
to alleviate prejudices.
Mandar.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Space the final frontier" - Star Trek.
"Try to see it my way, only time will tell if I am right or I am wrong"
- The Beatles
Rheal Nadeau
>
>Remember, prejudice never exists in language, but rather, in the minds
>of people. So, when terms such as "mankind" conjure up masculine images
>more often than female images, it is actually the PERSON who's responsible
>for the thought.
I'm sorry, but if "mankind" evokes "man" evokes "male", that is most
definitely a function of language. "Man" does mean "male human", so it
is normal that this is the image it raises.
Now, if the word "person" evokes a male, that is purely a function of
the hearer's own mental processes.
> Waging war on language to further the equality of sexes, will serve
>little purpose. As long as certain traits are primarily associated with
>either sex, it is impossible to efface these distinctions in language.
>I commend your egalatarian efforts, but they are misdirected. Attack the
>root cause of the problem, instead of attempting to cure its symptoms.
>Besides, when I presented similar views last summer on a.u.e, one
>gentleman provided us with the example of Farsi. Farsi is a "sexless"
>language. Yet, *men* dominated and the nature of the language did little
>to alleviate prejudices.
No one is claiming language is the sole factor, but it is a factor.
No one wins a "war" by ignoring some battles as irrelevant . . .
The Rhealist - nad...@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Rosemary Waigh
>>From _The_Handbook_of_Nonsexist_Writing_ by Casey Miller and Kate Swift:
>>"Recent studies of college students and school children indicate that the broad
>>definitions of *man* and *men* [i.e. to refer to all humans and not just males],
>>although still taught, have to a significant degree become inoperative at a
>>subliminal level. Phrases like *economic man* and *political man*, or
>>statements like 'Man domesticated animals' and 'Man is a dreamer,' it turns
>>out, tend to call up images of male people only, not female people or females
>>and males together." (p 10)
>>References:
>>"Among studies which report and discuss evidence indication that the so-called
>>generics *man* and *men* (and compounds incorporating them) are not generally
>>understood to include females are the following:
>
>[long list of references deleted]
>
>of people. So, when terms such as "mankind" conjure up masculine images
>more often than female images, it is actually the PERSON who's responsible
>for the thought.
Or is it because words such as "mankind" are the masculine counterparts of
words such as "womankind"?
>
> Waging war on language to further the equality of sexes, will serve
>little purpose. As long as certain traits are primarily associated with
>either sex, it is impossible to efface these distinctions in language.
>I commend your egalatarian efforts, but they are misdirected. Attack the
>root cause of the problem, instead of attempting to cure its symptoms.
But language reinforces the attitudes which cause the problems!
I have never said that language is the only factor in sexism, but it is a
factor.
Dennis Baron
>No one is claiming language is the sole factor, but it is a factor.
>No one wins a "war" by ignoring some battles as irrelevant . . .
>
> The Rhealist - nad...@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
For much of its recent history, *person* and more especially *young
person* was a code word for *woman*. Woman is often considered
too blunt, and lady, especially in British usage, tends to be a class
marker rather than a polite term for woman. In addition, as a euphemism,
person was often used in an ironic or mildly derogatory way--at least
in literature--making fun of the way people use euphemisms.
Further back in the history of person lies persona, the mask, the
personification or impersonation, and all that that entails.
Aside from rejecting -person compounds because they may be legislated,
like chairperson, there is this whole history of dysphemism surrounding
person that we cannot get beyond. Is it any wonder then that people
come up with joke forms like personhole cover?
but the alternative is not to go back to masculine generics -- yes, go
back, for the language has indeed left them behind:
singular they is not the darling of the politically correct, but has
always been the common spoken English indefinite singular pronoun, and
quite frequently the written one as well
man for some time now has existed as a generic only in proverbial
usage (man cannot live by bread alone) and to a lesser extent in
anthropology)--for confirmation see the OED comment, which predates
feminist language reform by a good half century.
there are a variety of options, all of which are triggered by context;
what goes for conversation may not be suitable for a formal speech;
you can put in a letter or a memo something that may not fly in a
scientific or technical journal; and literary language, which is not to
be confused with the sesquipedalian verbiage of William F. Buckley, is
something else again, only more so.
but back to person: most trackers of new words dutifully record the new
formations in -person, but note as well that these tend to be
ephemeral. words that stay are ones like server (no, not waitron or
waitroid) and chair, neither one a new word, both capable of doing
what we need them to do.
--
Dennis
deb...@uiuc.edu (\ 217-333-2392
\'\ fax: 217-333-4321
Dennis Baron \'\ __________
Department of English / '| ()_________)
Univ. of Illinois \ '/ \ ~~~~~~~~ \
608 S. Wright St. \ \ ~~~~~~ \
Urbana IL 61801 ==). \__________\
(__) ()__________)
Roger Lustig
>of people.
Funny, but that's where language exists, too! What a coincidence.
>So, when terms such as "mankind" conjure up masculine images
>more often than female images, it is actually the PERSON who's responsible
>for the thought.
So? When I see a fish, and think "fish," am I responsible for the thought,
or is the fish? Or could it be that BOTH share responsibility for
the thought? Or perhaps that "responsibility" isn't a very useful
term in this case?
>
> Waging war on language to further the equality of sexes, will serve
>little purpose.
Bad faith will not further your argument, either. Nobody's "waging
war on language," whatever that might mean. Influencing usage *is*
possible, and *can* be done under some circunstances. Examples: we
don't say "nigger" anymore, and we do say "Ms."
>As long as certain traits are primarily associated with
>either sex, it is impossible to efface these distinctions in language.
Utterly irrelevant to the discussion of "mankind" or "freshman."
Especially since more than half of each category are women.
>I commend your egalatarian efforts, but they are misdirected.
Another authoritative statement from Mandar. Do you suppose you'll
get one right one of these days?
>Attack the
>root cause of the problem, instead of attempting to cure its symptoms.
The root causes include unawareness of the problems. This is a great
way to attack that.
>Besides, when I presented similar views last summer on a.u.e, one
>gentleman provided us with the example of Farsi. Farsi is a "sexless"
>language. Yet, *men* dominated and the nature of the language did little
>to alleviate prejudices.
So? We want to *use* the language to effect change.
Roger
Mandar M. Mirashi
>In article <BzABs...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>
>>Remember, prejudice never exists in language, but rather, in the minds
>>of people. So, when terms such as "mankind" conjure up masculine images
>>more often than female images, it is actually the PERSON who's responsible
>>for the thought.
>
>I'm sorry, but if "mankind" evokes "man" evokes "male", that is most
>definitely a function of language. "Man" does mean "male human", so it
>is normal that this is the image it raises.
>
image of a man? After all, "woman" does contain "man". It is just that
you have learnt to associate "woman" with a woman and not a man. Now,
somewhere in your life, you learnt about the suppression of women by
men for centuries, and let this cloud your judgement about matters
totally unrelated to the hardships suffered by women. If you object
to the usage of "mankind", your argument holds for "woman" too. It
is just that you have learnt to associate these terms differently.
Learn to associate "mankind" with the human race as a whole, and
help efface your prejudice.
>Now, if the word "person" evokes a male, that is purely a function of
>the hearer's own mental processes.
>
True.
>> Waging war on language to further the equality of sexes, will serve
>>little purpose. As long as certain traits are primarily associated with
>>either sex, it is impossible to efface these distinctions in language.
>>I commend your egalatarian efforts, but they are misdirected. Attack the
>>root cause of the problem, instead of attempting to cure its symptoms.
>>Besides, when I presented similar views last summer on a.u.e, one
>>gentleman provided us with the example of Farsi. Farsi is a "sexless"
>>language. Yet, *men* dominated and the nature of the language did little
>>to alleviate prejudices.
>
>No one is claiming language is the sole factor, but it is a factor.
>No one wins a "war" by ignoring some battles as irrelevant . . .
>
How ridiculous can you get? What you term "battle" isn't a battle at
all. I feel pity for the poor, misguided, narrow-minded souls who let
their mind be clouded by their prejudices, when interpreting language.
Mandar.
--
"Imagine there are no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die
for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people living life in peace.
You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope that some
day you'll join us, and the world will be as one." - John Lennon.
Mandar M. Mirashi
>In article <BzABs...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec13.1...@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rw...@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>>From _The_Handbook_of_Nonsexist_Writing_ by Casey Miller and Kate Swift:
>>
>>
>>Remember, prejudice never exists in language, but rather, in the minds
>>of people. So, when terms such as "mankind" conjure up masculine images
>>more often than female images, it is actually the PERSON who's responsible
>>for the thought.
>
>Or is it because words such as "mankind" are the masculine counterparts of
>words such as "womankind"?
But they aren't! I suspect that the word womankind was drummed up
by rabid feminists. Mankind encompasses *both* men and women. You
are trying to associate the prefix "man" with the general usage of
the word "man". The meaning conveyed by the word "man" depends upon
the context of its usage. If you let your prejudices cloud your
ability to recognise this context, then I cannot help you.
>>
>> Waging war on language to further the equality of sexes, will serve
>>little purpose. As long as certain traits are primarily associated with
>>either sex, it is impossible to efface these distinctions in language.
>>I commend your egalatarian efforts, but they are misdirected. Attack the
>>root cause of the problem, instead of attempting to cure its symptoms.
>
>But language reinforces the attitudes which cause the problems!
No!
*Society* reinforces the attitudes which cause the problems. These
attitudes get reflected in language. It is *not* the other way around.
>--
> "Looking at the Earth from afar you realize it is too small
> for conflict and just big enough for co-operation." Yuri Gagarin
Indeed! :)
Mandar M. Mirashi
>In article <BzABs...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>Remember, prejudice never exists in language, but rather, in the minds
>>of people.
>
>Funny, but that's where language exists, too! What a coincidence.
>
If A belongs to C, and B belongs to C, then A need not belong to B!
>>So, when terms such as "mankind" conjure up masculine images
>>more often than female images, it is actually the PERSON who's responsible
>>for the thought.
>
>So? When I see a fish, and think "fish," am I responsible for the thought,
>or is the fish? Or could it be that BOTH share responsibility for
>the thought? Or perhaps that "responsibility" isn't a very useful
>term in this case?
>
How can the fish be responsible for the thought? *You* are responsible
for the thought, as the complex process of determining that
the object viewed is indeed a fish and not something else, carried
out by your brain, belongs to you and *not* to the fish.
>>
>> Waging war on language to further the equality of sexes, will serve
>>little purpose.
>
>Bad faith will not further your argument, either. Nobody's "waging
>war on language," whatever that might mean. Influencing usage *is*
>possible, and *can* be done under some circunstances. Examples: we
>don't say "nigger" anymore, and we do say "Ms."
>
Hey Roger.....you *must* read Lauren's article. It's simply hilarious!
It demonstrates how ridiculous these chauvinists really appear when they
apply their beliefs to language.
>>Attack the
>>root cause of the problem, instead of attempting to cure its symptoms.
>
>The root causes include unawareness of the problems. This is a great
>way to attack that.
>
Denis has amply illustrated that these attempts to efface prejudices
by effacing gender in language, have failed miserably. Please look
up his article, especially the portion where he states that "person"
has come to be regarded as an euphemism for "woman", in certain
contexts.
>>Besides, when I presented similar views last summer on a.u.e, one
>>gentleman provided us with the example of Farsi. Farsi is a "sexless"
>>language. Yet, *men* dominated and the nature of the language did little
>>to alleviate prejudices.
>
>So? We want to *use* the language to effect change.
>
>Roger
>
And thou shalt fail again, and again, and again.... :)
Try removing the prejudices deeply rooted in the minds of men.
The need to modify existing usage for this reason, will disappear on
its own.
Rosemary Waigh
>In article <1992Dec15.1...@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rw...@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>In article <BzABs...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>>Remember, prejudice never exists in language, but rather, in the minds
>>>of people. So, when terms such as "mankind" conjure up masculine images
>>>more often than female images, it is actually the PERSON who's responsible
>>>for the thought.
>>Or is it because words such as "mankind" are the masculine counterparts of
>>words such as "womankind"?
>But they aren't!
What word do you use to refer to male humans in general?
--
Rosemary Waigh Undergraduate, Computer Science / Linguistics
g9rw...@cdf.utoronto.ca University of Toronto
The Meach
> I feel pity for the poor, misguided, narrow-minded souls who let
>their mind be clouded by their prejudices, when interpreting language.
>
>
It had to be done.
Heather Garvey
>
>What word do you use to refer to male humans in general?
Gee, I dunno...maybe I should pull out a thesaurus...no, i'll
just try to wing it...mmmm, maybe, how about....
MM MM EEEEEEEEE NN N
M M M M EE N N N
M M M M EEEEE N N N
M MM M EE N N N
M M EEEEEEEEE N NN
SEEMS PRETTY FRICKIN' OBVIOUS TO *ME*!
--
| Heather "Moose" Garvey
"CHAD BLUNT, the BALL carrier!" | Biochemistry - CWRU '93
-- The entire band after | <h...@po.cwru.edu>
any given running play | "Wooooooah, PIZZA!"
e...@ccu.umanitoba.ca
>From _The_Handbook_of_Nonsexist_Writing_ by Casey Miller and Kate Swift:
>"Recent studies of college students and school children indicate that the
>broad
>definitions of *man* and *men* [i.e. to refer to all humans and not just
>males],
>although still taught, have to a significant degree become inoperative at a
>subliminal level. Phrases like *economic man* and *political man*, or
>statements like 'Man domesticated animals' and 'Man is a dreamer,' it turns
>out, tend to call up images of male people only, not female people or females
>and males together." (p 10)
This is no doubt true, but it is also necessary to demonstrate that
the same cannot be said of phrases like 'economic person' or
'political person'. It so happens that most of the horse-breakers were
male. The word 'doctor' still calls up an image of a male figure
for many people. That this is changing has nothing to do with
language.
I am not arguing against gender-neutral language; only that the
justification you give is insufficient.
Werner
Roger Lustig
>In article <1992Dec15.1...@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rw...@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>In article <BzABs...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec13.1...@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rw...@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>>>From _The_Handbook_of_Nonsexist_Writing_ by Casey Miller and Kate Swift:
>>>[long list of references deleted]
>>>Remember, prejudice never exists in language, but rather, in the minds
>>>of people. So, when terms such as "mankind" conjure up masculine images
>>>more often than female images, it is actually the PERSON who's responsible
>>>for the thought.
>>Or is it because words such as "mankind" are the masculine counterparts of
>>words such as "womankind"?
>But they aren't!
"Mankind" isn't a counterpart to "womankind"? If it isn't, then what is?
>I suspect that the word womankind was drummed up by rabid feminists.
Why don't you stop suspecting for a moment, Mandar, and look in a
dictionary? As usual, you're wrong.
And in this case, you're also using a stupid, insulting stereotype of
"rabid" feminists. Care to name one who might have done this?
>Mankind encompasses *both* men and women.
In some senses and uses, yes. Other times, no. Note that the
word "humankind" is not a recent coinage, either.
>You are trying to associate the prefix "man" with the general usage of
>the word "man". The meaning conveyed by the word "man" depends upon
>the context of its usage.
And yet, it conveys the association with men-and-not-women in all
its uses. This has been demonstrated over and over again. People
who eschew its use in the sense of "human" are, generally speaking,
writing *carefully* and *precisely* and *consideratly.* They don't
want to give mistaken impressions or allusions.
>If you let your prejudices cloud your
>ability to recognise this context, then I cannot help you.
Look who's talking! YOUR prejudices have lept you from even looking
up the words in question. They've led you to fantasies about "Rabid
feminists" and to claims about the contexts of usage that are demonstrably
false. Your prejudice needs a good dose of fact. Go read some of the
references already given here on the subject.
>>> Waging war on language to further the equality of sexes, will serve
>>>little purpose. As long as certain traits are primarily associated with
>>>either sex, it is impossible to efface these distinctions in language.
>>>I commend your egalatarian efforts, but they are misdirected. Attack the
>>>root cause of the problem, instead of attempting to cure its symptoms.
>>But language reinforces the attitudes which cause the problems!
>No!
Try again. Try finding out before responding reflexively and in
ignorance. Do you do your homework this way, shouting NO! at problems
that confuse you or lead to a result you don't like?
>*Society* reinforces the attitudes which cause the problems. These
And society uses language to do so. Society has all kinds of choices
in language use. Some of us make those choices responsibly.
>attitudes get reflected in language. It is *not* the other way around.
So what happens to those of us who *don't* have those attitudes? Must
we use language that nonetheless reflects attitudes we reject?
Roger
Roger Lustig
>In article <1992Dec15....@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nad...@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>>In article <BzABs...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>>Remember, prejudice never exists in language, but rather, in the minds
>>>of people. So, when terms such as "mankind" conjure up masculine images
>>>more often than female images, it is actually the PERSON who's responsible
>>>for the thought.
>>I'm sorry, but if "mankind" evokes "man" evokes "male", that is most
>>definitely a function of language. "Man" does mean "male human", so it
>>is normal that this is the image it raises.
>Why does "man" evoke the image of a man only, and "woman" not evoke the
>image of a man?
Who cares? The point is that it *does.*
>After all, "woman" does contain "man". It is just that
>you have learnt to associate "woman" with a woman and not a man. Now,
>somewhere in your life, you learnt about the suppression of women by
>men for centuries, and let this cloud your judgement about matters
>totally unrelated to the hardships suffered by women.
More insults. More nonsense. More presumption. Less comprehension, as
usual. Sorry, Mandar, but it's *not* unrelated. It's *not* unrelated
to the *continuation* of these hardships.
>If you object
>to the usage of "mankind", your argument holds for "woman" too. It
Why? You're making no sense, especially in light of your overt
acknowledgement that "Woman" does *not* inlcude males.
>is just that you have learnt to associate these terms differently.
That is, these terms have *meanings.* The problem is that "man" has *two*
meanings, and that they overlap in problematic ways.
>Learn to associate "mankind" with the human race as a whole, and
>help efface your prejudice.
Or simply use a different word so as not to confuse people who don't
know what you mean otherwise. After all, it's not just a matter of
learning to read -- it's a matter of learning to communicate.
Before we go on, remember that in the past, the ambiguity of "man"
has been used specifically in the oppression of women. Some legal
codes included women explicitly in any refrence to "man" -- but
courts nonetheless excluded women in some cases because "man" meant
"man."
>>> Waging war on language to further the equality of sexes, will serve
>>>little purpose. As long as certain traits are primarily associated with
>>>either sex, it is impossible to efface these distinctions in language.
>>>I commend your egalatarian efforts, but they are misdirected. Attack the
>>>root cause of the problem, instead of attempting to cure its symptoms.
>>>Besides, when I presented similar views last summer on a.u.e, one
>>>gentleman provided us with the example of Farsi. Farsi is a "sexless"
>>>language. Yet, *men* dominated and the nature of the language did little
>>>to alleviate prejudices.
>>No one is claiming language is the sole factor, but it is a factor.
>>No one wins a "war" by ignoring some battles as irrelevant . . .
>How ridiculous can you get? What you term "battle" isn't a battle at
>all.
And yet some people get hurt in this non-battle.
>I feel pity for the poor, misguided, narrow-minded souls who let
>their mind be clouded by their prejudices, when interpreting language.
Like prejudices about "native speakers" and the "standard" of a language?
Like prejudices about "proper" spelling? Like prejudices about what
linguists are, where they reside, and that they do? Self-pity is bad
for you, Mandar.
Roger
Roger Lustig
>In article <1992Dec15.1...@Princeton.EDU> ro...@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>In article <BzABs...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>>Remember, prejudice never exists in language, but rather, in the minds
>>>of people.
>>Funny, but that's where language exists, too! What a coincidence.
>Maybe some set theory will make the distinction clearer : :)
>If A belongs to C, and B belongs to C, then A need not belong to B!
OK, now keep talking. You're not done yet. Are you claiming that they
*don't* overlap? That they're not interrelated? That prejudice doesn't
affect language? That language does not affect how one thinks about
things?
>>>So, when terms such as "mankind" conjure up masculine images
>>>more often than female images, it is actually the PERSON who's responsible
>>>for the thought.
>>So? When I see a fish, and think "fish," am I responsible for the thought,
>>or is the fish? Or could it be that BOTH share responsibility for
>>the thought? Or perhaps that "responsibility" isn't a very useful
>>term in this case?
>How can the fish be responsible for the thought? *You* are responsible
>for the thought, as the complex process of determining that
>the object viewed is indeed a fish and not something else, carried
>out by your brain, belongs to you and *not* to the fish.
Would I have thought the thought ifthe fish hadn't been there? No.
>>> Waging war on language to further the equality of sexes, will serve
>>>little purpose.
>>Bad faith will not further your argument, either. Nobody's "waging
>>war on language," whatever that might mean. Influencing usage *is*
>>possible, and *can* be done under some circunstances. Examples: we
>>don't say "nigger" anymore, and we do say "Ms."
>Hey Roger.....you *must* read Lauren's article. It's simply hilarious!
>It demonstrates how ridiculous these chauvinists really appear when they
>apply their beliefs to language.
Isn't chauvinism the word that means unrealistic, patriotic attachment
to a nationality? Like claiming that only the English are native speakers
of English, and that their spelling is necessarily correct in a sense
that that of Americans can't be?
Now, what were you saying? Does this have anything to do with the
issue of "waging war on language" or influencing usage?
>>>Attack the
>>>root cause of the problem, instead of attempting to cure its symptoms.
>>The root causes include unawareness of the problems. This is a great
>>way to attack that.
>Denis has amply illustrated that these attempts to efface prejudices
>by effacing gender in language, have failed miserably. Please look
>up his article, especially the portion where he states that "person"
>has come to be regarded as an euphemism for "woman", in certain
>contexts.
Correct--in certain contexts, but not in others. Here in America,
it does *not* mean that. Dennis (note spelling) did NOT make the
claim you attribute to him (Hey Mandar, learn to read yet?); he
merely noted that *some* efforts of this type, because of the way
they were applied, failed.
>>>Besides, when I presented similar views last summer on a.u.e, one
>>>gentleman provided us with the example of Farsi. Farsi is a "sexless"
>>>language. Yet, *men* dominated and the nature of the language did little
>>>to alleviate prejudices.
>>So? We want to *use* the language to effect change.
>And thou shalt fail again, and again, and again.... :)
Wishing won't make it so. For one thing, we've already succeeded in
more ways than one. Racial and ethnic hatreds are not what they used
to be, and awareness of language has had something to do with that.
Besides, your Farsi example is irrelevant -- because the issue was
not where the prejudice came from, but how it was perpetuated.
Farsi did not contribute to that; English -- demonstrably -- did.
>Try removing the prejudices deeply rooted in the minds of men.
>The need to modify existing usage for this reason, will disappear on
>its own.
Why make things harder? Why *not* use one of the most compelling
avenues of thought -- language -- as an ally?
Roger
Mandar M. Mirashi
>In article <BzBtq...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec15.1...@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rw...@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>>In article <BzABs...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>>>Remember, prejudice never exists in language, but rather, in the minds
>>>>of people. So, when terms such as "mankind" conjure up masculine images
>>>>more often than female images, it is actually the PERSON who's responsible
>>>>for the thought.
>>>Or is it because words such as "mankind" are the masculine counterparts of
>>>words such as "womankind"?
>>But they aren't!
>
>What word do you use to refer to male humans in general?
Gee...what a tough question to answer! :)
Didn't we have the "you guys" debate recently? :)
Coming back to your question, no doubt you wanted me to answer "men".
Well, as I said earlier, "men" is used to indicate "men" and "women"
as well. The predominant usage is to indicate the male species, of
course. But, "men" includes women too, depending upon the context of
the word. This usage is common in philosophical and proverbial
quotes.
Compare this argument to words which have many meanings, depending
upon the context. Just because one meaning is conveyed more often than
others doesn't justify your attempt to attach this meaning to the word,
when it used in a different context.
Mandar M. Mirashi
>In article <BzBtq...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec15.1...@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rw...@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>>In article <BzABs...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Dec13.1...@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rw...@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>>>>From _The_Handbook_of_Nonsexist_Writing_ by Casey Miller and Kate Swift:
>
>>>>[long list of references deleted]
>
>>>>Remember, prejudice never exists in language, but rather, in the minds
>>>>of people. So, when terms such as "mankind" conjure up masculine images
>>>>more often than female images, it is actually the PERSON who's responsible
>>>>for the thought.
>
>>>Or is it because words such as "mankind" are the masculine counterparts of
>>>words such as "womankind"?
>
>>But they aren't!
>
>"Mankind" isn't a counterpart to "womankind"? If it isn't, then what is?
>
>>I suspect that the word womankind was drummed up by rabid feminists.
>
>Why don't you stop suspecting for a moment, Mandar, and look in a
>dictionary? As usual, you're wrong.
>
>And in this case, you're also using a stupid, insulting stereotype of
>"rabid" feminists. Care to name one who might have done this?
>
this is *only* when mankind is used in a context that includes *only*
men.
I didn't intend to insult feminists. But you realise that there *are*
feminists who believe that the female race is superior to the male
race, don't you? Not just that, they allow this prejudice to distance
themselves from men.
>>Mankind encompasses *both* men and women.
>
>In some senses and uses, yes. Other times, no. Note that the
>word "humankind" is not a recent coinage, either.
>
Yes, but that doesn't make "humankind" a *better* word than "mankind".
>>You are trying to associate the prefix "man" with the general usage of
>>the word "man". The meaning conveyed by the word "man" depends upon
>>the context of its usage.
>
>And yet, it conveys the association with men-and-not-women in all
>its uses. This has been demonstrated over and over again. People
>who eschew its use in the sense of "human" are, generally speaking,
>writing *carefully* and *precisely* and *consideratly.* They don't
>want to give mistaken impressions or allusions.
>
Exactly! *Mistaken* impressions or allusions.
>>If you let your prejudices cloud your
>>ability to recognise this context, then I cannot help you.
>
>Look who's talking! YOUR prejudices have lept you from even looking
>up the words in question. They've led you to fantasies about "Rabid
>feminists" and to claims about the contexts of usage that are demonstrably
>false. Your prejudice needs a good dose of fact. Go read some of the
>references already given here on the subject.
>
Hehehee....I wouldn't term those "fantasies". They would be "nightmares"! :)
Seriously though, I haven't anything against feminists, except those of
the radical kind! ;)
>>>> Waging war on language to further the equality of sexes, will serve
>>>>little purpose. As long as certain traits are primarily associated with
>>>>either sex, it is impossible to efface these distinctions in language.
>>>>I commend your egalatarian efforts, but they are misdirected. Attack the
>>>>root cause of the problem, instead of attempting to cure its symptoms.
>
>>>But language reinforces the attitudes which cause the problems!
>
>>*Society* reinforces the attitudes which cause the problems. These
>
>And society uses language to do so. Society has all kinds of choices
>in language use. Some of us make those choices responsibly.
>
Am I not glad to hear that! :)
>>attitudes get reflected in language. It is *not* the other way around.
>
>So what happens to those of us who *don't* have those attitudes? Must
>we use language that nonetheless reflects attitudes we reject?
>
>Roger
>
Those of you who *don't* have those attitudes can do better than just
fiddling with words. Help the rest of the world realise the detrimental
effects of such attitudes. When these attitudes dissappear, the need to
change language will no longer exist.
Mandar M. Mirashi
>In article <BzBxx...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec15.1...@Princeton.EDU> ro...@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>>In article <BzABs...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>>>Remember, prejudice never exists in language, but rather, in the minds
>>>>of people.
>
>>>Funny, but that's where language exists, too! What a coincidence.
>
>>Maybe some set theory will make the distinction clearer : :)
>>If A belongs to C, and B belongs to C, then A need not belong to B!
>
>OK, now keep talking. You're not done yet. Are you claiming that they
>*don't* overlap? That they're not interrelated? That prejudice doesn't
>affect language? That language does not affect how one thinks about
>things?
>
Prejudices are built by societal attitudes and personal experiences.
>>>>So, when terms such as "mankind" conjure up masculine images
>>>>more often than female images, it is actually the PERSON who's responsible
>>>>for the thought.
>
>>>So? When I see a fish, and think "fish," am I responsible for the thought,
>>>or is the fish? Or could it be that BOTH share responsibility for
>>>the thought? Or perhaps that "responsibility" isn't a very useful
>>>term in this case?
>
>>How can the fish be responsible for the thought? *You* are responsible
>>for the thought, as the complex process of determining that
>>the object viewed is indeed a fish and not something else, carried
>>out by your brain, belongs to you and *not* to the fish.
>
>Would I have thought the thought ifthe fish hadn't been there? No.
You can *imagine* a fish. Anyway, you digress.
>>Hey Roger.....you *must* read Lauren's article. It's simply hilarious!
>>It demonstrates how ridiculous these chauvinists really appear when they
>>apply their beliefs to language.
>
>Isn't chauvinism the word that means unrealistic, patriotic attachment
>to a nationality? Like claiming that only the English are native speakers
>of English, and that their spelling is necessarily correct in a sense
>that that of Americans can't be?
>
If you look up "chauvinism" in your dictionary, it also means :
"unreasoning devotion to one's race, sex, etc. with contempt for
for other races, the opposite sex, etc."
Hmmm....if you can't realise this meaning of chauvinism, no wonder
you have problems in dealing with "mankind".
>
>>>>Attack the
>>>>root cause of the problem, instead of attempting to cure its symptoms.
>
>>>The root causes include unawareness of the problems. This is a great
>>>way to attack that.
>
>>Denis has amply illustrated that these attempts to efface prejudices
>>by effacing gender in language, have failed miserably. Please look
>>up his article, especially the portion where he states that "person"
>>has come to be regarded as an euphemism for "woman", in certain
>>contexts.
>
>Correct--in certain contexts, but not in others. Here in America,
>it does *not* mean that. Dennis (note spelling) did NOT make the
>claim you attribute to him (Hey Mandar, learn to read yet?); he
>merely noted that *some* efforts of this type, because of the way
>they were applied, failed.
>
I would say *most* rather than *some*. Look up Dennis'(The previous
spelling mistake was a typo :( ) article where he mentions that
apart from "saleswoman" and subsequently "salesperson", few of
the -person innovations have been treated seriously. Perhaps Dennis
would be good enough to elucidate once again.
>>>>Besides, when I presented similar views last summer on a.u.e, one
>>>>gentleman provided us with the example of Farsi. Farsi is a "sexless"
>>>>language. Yet, *men* dominated and the nature of the language did little
>>>>to alleviate prejudices.
>
>>>So? We want to *use* the language to effect change.
>
>>And thou shalt fail again, and again, and again.... :)
>
>Wishing won't make it so. For one thing, we've already succeeded in
>more ways than one. Racial and ethnic hatreds are not what they used
>to be, and awareness of language has had something to do with that.
>
No. Language had nothing to do with it. It has been more of a
concerted effort on the behalf of all men.
>Besides, your Farsi example is irrelevant -- because the issue was
> not where the prejudice came from, but how it was perpetuated.
>Farsi did not contribute to that; English -- demonstrably -- did.
>
*English* didn't. People who deliberately misconstrued statements,
did (just as you deliberately assumed the incorrect meaning of
"chauvinist" used in the context above).
As long as ambiguity exists in English, it is always possible
for people to deliberately use incorrect meanings. This usage
also has given us the "pun". In fact, if you think that changing
a word will help remove deeply built prejudices, you're wrong.
People will simply invent new terms to express their prejudices,
or, assign new meanings to existing words. The crux of the problem
lies with the people themselves.
>>Try removing the prejudices deeply rooted in the minds of men.
>>The need to modify existing usage for this reason, will disappear on
>>its own.
>
>Why make things harder? Why *not* use one of the most compelling
>avenues of thought -- language -- as an ally?
>
>Roger
>
Because language isn't anyone's ally. It is an expression of the
thoughts of people. If you cannot change the way people think,
fiddling with language isn't going to achieve much.
Compare the use of the so-called "sexist" words to the use of
nuclear energy. Nuclear energy can be put to *both* constructive
and destructive purposes. If people are taught to eschew the
destructive use of nuclear energy, "nuclear-free" zones will not
be necessary. The problem lies *not* with the tool/weapon, but rather,
with the wielder of that tool/weapon. Besides, any amount of
"constructive improvement" on this tool/weapon can always be circumvented
by an equivalent "destructive design", by the abuser.
Roger Lustig
>In article <1992Dec16.0...@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rw...@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>What word do you use to refer to male humans in general?
>Coming back to your question, no doubt you wanted me to answer "men".
>Well, as I said earlier, "men" is used to indicate "men" and "women"
>as well. The predominant usage is to indicate the male species, of
>course. But, "men" includes women too, depending upon the context of
>the word. This usage is common in philosophical and proverbial
>quotes.
Right. Also true: there is often some ambiguity; context doesn't
always make clear what you mean, and the fact that the situation
maps rather nicely onto the marginalized status of women -- not least
in the realms of philosophy and the stuff of proverbs.
> Compare this argument to words which have many meanings, depending
>upon the context. Just because one meaning is conveyed more often than
>others doesn't justify your attempt to attach this meaning to the word,
>when it used in a different context.
You mean, as with "Dialect"? You tried to do that just the other day.
But you're right, "just because" that's true is no reason.
Of course, nobody's *given* that as a reason. The reason given -- you
*have* been reading the posts you're replying to, right? -- is that
the usage in question has the effect in the minds of many -- even most --
users of the language of suggesting men, and not men-and-women. To be
sure, the speaker in question may *mean* both, but the effect of the
word is different.
Accordingly, some people who want their meaning to get across without
ambiguity or unwanted associations avoid the "humans" meaning of "men"
because it just doesn't do what they want it to.
Roger
Roger Lustig
>In article <1992Dec16....@Princeton.EDU> ro...@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>In article <BzBtq...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec15.1...@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rw...@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>>>In article <BzABs...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>>>>In article <1992Dec13.1...@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rw...@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>>>>>From _The_Handbook_of_Nonsexist_Writing_ by Casey Miller and Kate Swift:
>>>>>[long list of references deleted]
Try undeleting them, Mandar. You might learn something.
>>>>>Remember, prejudice never exists in language, but rather, in the minds
>>>>>of people. So, when terms such as "mankind" conjure up masculine images
>>>>>more often than female images, it is actually the PERSON who's responsible
>>>>>for the thought.
>>>>Or is it because words such as "mankind" are the masculine counterparts of
>>>>words such as "womankind"?
>>>But they aren't!
>>"Mankind" isn't a counterpart to "womankind"? If it isn't, then what is?
>>>I suspect that the word womankind was drummed up by rabid feminists.
>>Why don't you stop suspecting for a moment, Mandar, and look in a
>>dictionary? As usual, you're wrong.
>>And in this case, you're also using a stupid, insulting stereotype of
>>"rabid" feminists. Care to name one who might have done this?
>Hmm..ok...I concede that womankind is a counterpart to mankind. But
>this is *only* when mankind is used in a context that includes *only*
>men.
Which is more often than you think. In many of those philosophical
and proverbial contexts you're referred to, the authors in question
*do* essentially mean men only, because they then turn around and
come up with a whole separate, subordinate category of"female" as
an afterthought.
>I didn't intend to insult feminists.
You certainly meant to insult *someone.*
>But you realise that there *are*
>feminists who believe that the female race is superior to the male
>race, don't you?
In your previous posting, you refered to "the male species." Now
it's "the male/female race." Do you have a hangup about "sex"?
>Not just that, they allow this prejudice to distance
>themselves from men.
a) I have no idea what this has to do with the discussion.
b) Hundreds of millions of men think that they're innately superior to
women, too. We don't call them "masculinists," or anything like that;
most places, that's simply accepted as normal. Including the distancing.
c) Do you suppose that's why there *are* feminists, including the
radical ones?
>>>Mankind encompasses *both* men and women.
>>In some senses and uses, yes. Other times, no. Note that the
>>word "humankind" is not a recent coinage, either.
>Yes, but that doesn't make "humankind" a *better* word than "mankind".
Correct. What DOES make it a better word in many contexts is its
lack of ambiguity and its explicit inclusion of all humans -- not
the implicit one in "mankind," which sometomes turns out not to
be there after all.
>>>You are trying to associate the prefix "man" with the general usage of
>>>the word "man". The meaning conveyed by the word "man" depends upon
>>>the context of its usage.
>>And yet, it conveys the association with men-and-not-women in all
>>its uses. This has been demonstrated over and over again. People
>>who eschew its use in the sense of "human" are, generally speaking,
>>writing *carefully* and *precisely* and *consideratly.* They don't
>>want to give mistaken impressions or allusions.
>Exactly! *Mistaken* impressions or allusions.
Doesn't matter. We're not here to place blame; we're here to communicate
effectively. People believe all kinds of things that you do't like,
or that you know are wrong. You can't go around pretending they don't; that
will get you into all kinds of trouble. You have to improve your
communication by becoming aware of what your readers and listeners
may be thinking when they hear this or that word. You can do this
by studying the history and usage of the word, and the things that
have led people to pay attention to it. Simply pounding on a
dictionary will not help.
>>>If you let your prejudices cloud your
>>>ability to recognise this context, then I cannot help you.
>>Look who's talking! YOUR prejudices have lept you from even looking
>>up the words in question. They've led you to fantasies about "Rabid
>>feminists" and to claims about the contexts of usage that are demonstrably
>>false. Your prejudice needs a good dose of fact. Go read some of the
>>references already given here on the subject.
>Hehehee....I wouldn't term those "fantasies". They would be "nightmares"! :)
Well, I'm sorry they scare you so much. Perhaps if you figured out
that women were neither species nor race, it wouldn't be so spooky
out there.
>Seriously though, I haven't anything against feminists, except those of
>the radical kind! ;)
Who are they?
>>>attitudes get reflected in language. It is *not* the other way around.
>>So what happens to those of us who *don't* have those attitudes? Must
>>we use language that nonetheless reflects attitudes we reject?
>Those of you who *don't* have those attitudes can do better than just
>fiddling with words. Help the rest of the world realise the detrimental
>effects of such attitudes. When these attitudes dissappear, the need to
>change language will no longer exist.
You keep saying that, but you aren't willing to enlist the help of
words in the struggle! Words are very powerful things; why *not*
use them toward changing attitudes?
Again, you're being insulting by trivializing serious efforts as
"fiddling with words." In fact, what you're objecting to is the
result of serious study of words -- you deleted the references to
some of the studies -- and the observaion that word choice *is*
powerful and can be a means toward change.
Roger
Roger Lustig
>In article <1992Dec16....@Princeton.EDU> ro...@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec15....@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nad...@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>>>>In article <BzABs...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>>>>Remember, prejudice never exists in language, but rather, in the minds
>>>>>of people. So, when terms such as "mankind" conjure up masculine images
>>>>>more often than female images, it is actually the PERSON who's responsible
>>>>>for the thought.
>>>>I'm sorry, but if "mankind" evokes "man" evokes "male", that is most
>>>>definitely a function of language. "Man" does mean "male human", so it
>>>>is normal that this is the image it raises.
>>>Why does "man" evoke the image of a man only, and "woman" not evoke the
>>>image of a man?
>>Who cares? The point is that it *does.*
>Since we are discussing a pertinent issue, the statement just made is
>germane to the discussion.
Which statement? That "man" and "woman" evoke what they do?
>>>After all, "woman" does contain "man". It is just that
>>>you have learnt to associate "woman" with a woman and not a man. Now,
>>>somewhere in your life, you learnt about the suppression of women by
>>>men for centuries, and let this cloud your judgement about matters
>>>totally unrelated to the hardships suffered by women.
>>More insults. More nonsense. More presumption. Less comprehension, as
>Insults? Nonsense? Presumption???
>Is the supression of women by men for many years, not a recorded fact?
Yes. So is the relationship between language and oppression -- the
relationship you deny, the relationship that has been demonstrated
in countless studies, studies whose citations you seem to have deleted
without checking them out.
The insult is in "cloud your judgment." You simply don't want there to
be any relationship between one thing and the other, so you insult
people as "clouded" who see such a relationship.
>>usual. Sorry, Mandar, but it's *not* unrelated. It's *not* unrelated
>>to the *continuation* of these hardships.
>Language isn't related to the continuation of these hardships, *people*
>are.
Well, if that's all there is to your argument we can stop right now.
Mandar, people *use* language. Language is of no interest whatever
aside from its uses by people. And we're discussing one of those
uses -- its use toward continuing social and cultural situations that
some of us find unacceptable. The inclusive uses of "man" and "mankind"
and "he" have indeed been used to justify male superiority; even if
those arguments don't of themselves hold water, they color the perception
of those words.
Likewise, any other use of a word affects how it will be perceived. And
unawareness of -- or refusal to consider -- the resonance of a word
means that one may be suing the word to unintended effect.
>>>If you object
>>>to the usage of "mankind", your argument holds for "woman" too. It
>>Why? You're making no sense, especially in light of your overt
>>acknowledgement that "Woman" does *not* inlcude males.
>If mankind includes only "men", why doesn't women include "men" too?
Huh? Are you getting down to pettiness about spelling? Why not
just quit instead?
>>>is just that you have learnt to associate these terms differently.
>>That is, these terms have *meanings.* The problem is that "man" has *two*
>>meanings, and that they overlap in problematic ways.
>And the problem lies in the eye of the beholder.
Right. And I have to talk to beholders, and write things for them
to read. So do you. You ignore facts about them at your peril.
>>>Learn to associate "mankind" with the human race as a whole, and
>>>help efface your prejudice.
>>Or simply use a different word so as not to confuse people who don't
>>know what you mean otherwise. After all, it's not just a matter of
>>learning to read -- it's a matter of learning to communicate.
>Won't it be better if people learnt the language better? After all,
>nothing else would improve communication further.
Of course it would be nice if we all agreed on what words mean in all cases.
But we don't, and never have, and probably never will. Accordingly,
we must pay attention to the situation that exists today if we wish to
communicate today. Saying "wouldn't it be better" is useful only
if you do not intend to communicate anything until such time as
people actually learn to understand your set of preferred usages.
And judging by the rate at which you post, you're not likely to
wait.
>>Before we go on, remember that in the past, the ambiguity of "man"
>>has been used specifically in the oppression of women. Some legal
>>codes included women explicitly in any refrence to "man" -- but
>>courts nonetheless excluded women in some cases because "man" meant
>>"man."
>This illustrates *exactly* what I wanted to prove. Prejudices are
>harmful.
And words that make people aware of prejudices they might otherwise
carry with them untinkingly are *useful.* Substituing "humankind"
for an expected "mankind" conveys just the same amount of information
AND reminds people not to forget about women.
Just saying "prejudices are harmful and if you misconstrue my correct
English, it's your fault" is irresponsible. YOU must be aware of the
effects of YOUR words on other people, even if those effects are mediated
by prejudices of which you do not approve.
>>>>> Waging war on language to further the equality of sexes, will serve
>>>>>little purpose. As long as certain traits are primarily associated with
>>>>>either sex, it is impossible to efface these distinctions in language.
>>>>>I commend your egalatarian efforts, but they are misdirected. Attack the
>>>>>root cause of the problem, instead of attempting to cure its symptoms.
>>>>>Besides, when I presented similar views last summer on a.u.e, one
>>>>>gentleman provided us with the example of Farsi. Farsi is a "sexless"
>>>>>language. Yet, *men* dominated and the nature of the language did little
>>>>>to alleviate prejudices.
>>>>No one is claiming language is the sole factor, but it is a factor.
>>>>No one wins a "war" by ignoring some battles as irrelevant . . .
>>>How ridiculous can you get? What you term "battle" isn't a battle at
>>>all.
>>And yet some people get hurt in this non-battle.
>They get hurt by prejudices in the minds of men, by the incorrect
>interpretation of language, *not* by the language itself.
And yet this language has changed again and again to accomodate the
shifts in perception by those who use them. Here a shift is taking
place -- why do you object to the corollary changes in language?
Here people are using language *responsibly*, by being aware of the
prejudices in the interpretation of language. "Incorrect interpretation"
misses the point -- sender *and* recipient are responsible for communication.
To claim that the language itself has not been shaped, affected,
changed by prejudices in the past is to misunderstand the very
nature of a language.
(Not that that would be the first time with you...)
>>>I feel pity for the poor, misguided, narrow-minded souls who let
>>>their mind be clouded by their prejudices, when interpreting language.
>>Like prejudices about "native speakers" and the "standard" of a language?
>>Like prejudices about "proper" spelling? Like prejudices about what
>>linguists are, where they reside, and that they do? Self-pity is bad
>>for you, Mandar.
>Hmmm....I have *no* such prejudices. What I argue for are realities.
Big man -- just stamp your foot and say "I'm right." We'll all be
convinced.
Of course, it would help if you could even make a non-contradictory set of
arguments. A few weeks ago, you told us that we should use "dialect"
in the sense that the majority of users use it. Today, you state that
majorities do *not* determine the meaning of a word. Which reality
do you prefer today?
Sorry, Mandar, but your utter inability to produce logical arguments
for your assertions, your internal contradictions, your sheer nonsense,
your refusal to look things up, your deletion of evidence and references
that would argue against your ideas about language, and on and on --
all these make it hard for us to believe in your "Realities." You'll
have to do better than that.
>There *are* native speakers. There *is* a standard. And there *is*
>a proper spelling.
And you've managed to come up with nonsensical definitions of all
three, and much more of the same. Several of us have pointed out
the contradictions in your method, and all we get in return is
shouting.
Roger
Roger Lustig
>In article <1992Dec16....@Princeton.EDU> ro...@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>In article <BzBxx...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec15.1...@Princeton.EDU> ro...@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>>>In article <BzABs...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>>>>Remember, prejudice never exists in language, but rather, in the minds
>>>>>of people.
>>>>Funny, but that's where language exists, too! What a coincidence.
>>>If A belongs to C, and B belongs to C, then A need not belong to B!
>>OK, now keep talking. You're not done yet. Are you claiming that they
>>*don't* overlap? That they're not interrelated? That prejudice doesn't
>>affect language? That language does not affect how one thinks about
>>things?
>Prejudice does affect language, but language doesn't affect prejudice.
How do you know this? More wishful thinking, I bet. Did you ever
study the matter?
>Prejudices are built by societal attitudes and personal experiences.
Most of which involve language, and many of which involve language
choices that reinforce or even lead to prejudice. If you'd read a few
of those articles instead of deleting the references, you'd know this.
Instead, you just prattle on, without any arguments.
>>>>>So, when terms such as "mankind" conjure up masculine images
>>>>>more often than female images, it is actually the PERSON who's responsible
>>>>>for the thought.
>>>>So? When I see a fish, and think "fish," am I responsible for the thought,
>>>>or is the fish? Or could it be that BOTH share responsibility for
>>>>the thought? Or perhaps that "responsibility" isn't a very useful
>>>>term in this case?
>>>How can the fish be responsible for the thought? *You* are responsible
>>>for the thought, as the complex process of determining that
>>>the object viewed is indeed a fish and not something else, carried
>>>out by your brain, belongs to you and *not* to the fish.
>>Would I have thought the thought ifthe fish hadn't been there? No.
>You can *imagine* a fish. Anyway, you digress.
Nice try. I *could* imagine the fish, but I'd be unlikely to. After
all, in the vast majority of situations when I *don't* see fish,
I don't think about them either. But when I see them, I tend -- atl
least -- to think "fish" or something similar.
And, no, it's not a digression. Stimulus *does* have something to
do with the response to it. You were arguing that it does not.
>>>Hey Roger.....you *must* read Lauren's article. It's simply hilarious!
>>>It demonstrates how ridiculous these chauvinists really appear when they
>>>apply their beliefs to language.
>>Isn't chauvinism the word that means unrealistic, patriotic attachment
>>to a nationality? Like claiming that only the English are native speakers
>>of English, and that their spelling is necessarily correct in a sense
>>that that of Americans can't be?
>If you look up "chauvinism" in your dictionary, it also means :
>"unreasoning devotion to one's race, sex, etc. with contempt for
>for other races, the opposite sex, etc."
Fair enough. How was I to know that from your context? Especially
since you'd already given such a wonderful impression of a chauvinist
(other definition).
>Hmmm....if you can't realise this meaning of chauvinism, no wonder
>you have problems in dealing with "mankind".
Sorry -- YOUR responsibility. You communicated lots of chauvinism,
and so I thought of you when I saw the word. See how it works?
>>>>>Attack the
>>>>>root cause of the problem, instead of attempting to cure its symptoms.
>>>>The root causes include unawareness of the problems. This is a great
>>>>way to attack that.
>>>Denis has amply illustrated that these attempts to efface prejudices
>>>by effacing gender in language, have failed miserably. Please look
>>>up his article, especially the portion where he states that "person"
>>>has come to be regarded as an euphemism for "woman", in certain
>>>contexts.
>>Correct--in certain contexts, but not in others. Here in America,
>>it does *not* mean that. Dennis (note spelling) did NOT make the
>>claim you attribute to him (Hey Mandar, learn to read yet?); he
>>merely noted that *some* efforts of this type, because of the way
>>they were applied, failed.
>I would say *most* rather than *some*. Look up Dennis'(The previous
>spelling mistake was a typo :( ) article where he mentions that
>apart from "saleswoman" and subsequently "salesperson", few of
>the -person innovations have been treated seriously. Perhaps Dennis
>would be good enough to elucidate once again.
I'm sure he would -- but note that "person" doesn't constitute more
than a small portion of the area we're talking about. Many other
efforts have succeeded. Dennis has written a book about some kinds
of language reform; I suggest you read it.
>>>>>Besides, when I presented similar views last summer on a.u.e, one
>>>>>gentleman provided us with the example of Farsi. Farsi is a "sexless"
>>>>>language. Yet, *men* dominated and the nature of the language did little
>>>>>to alleviate prejudices.
>>>>So? We want to *use* the language to effect change.
>>>And thou shalt fail again, and again, and again.... :)
>>Wishing won't make it so. For one thing, we've already succeeded in
>>more ways than one. Racial and ethnic hatreds are not what they used
>>to be, and awareness of language has had something to do with that.
>No. Language had nothing to do with it.
Stamp, stamp, stamp! Say it often enough and we'll believe it, eh?
You *Still* haven't read the books whose refs you deleted...
>It has been more of a concerted effort on the behalf of all men.
Huh? What does this mean? What kind of effort?
Not that you've told us *why* the efforts that included use of
lanugage were necessarily ineffectual.
But then, you've probably never heard of rhetoric, either. That's
the 3000-year-old art of choosing and using words to sway listeners
more effectively. What we're talking about is a modern application
of rhetoric.
Does language *never* have anything to do with societal change?
I'd like to see you support that assertion.
>>Besides, your Farsi example is irrelevant -- because the issue was
>> not where the prejudice came from, but how it was perpetuated.
>>Farsi did not contribute to that; English -- demonstrably -- did.
>*English* didn't. People who deliberately misconstrued statements,
>did (just as you deliberately assumed the incorrect meaning of
>"chauvinist" used in the context above).
What about people who deliberately used statements they knew would
be --- or could be -- misconstrued? What of those who *assumed*
that a word meant one thing and not another, not considering the
ambiguity that in fact was there? What of those who exploited
the convenient congruence between the "inclusive" words and the
patterns of thought regarding the status and place of women?
These people shaped the language. These people -- who spoke and
wrote the language -- *were* the language, in effect; because the
language doesn't exist outside of the poeple who use it. It is
utterly meaningless if considered as an abstract code, as you seem
to wish to; its use and purpose and nature are inextricably bound
up with the set of its speakers.
> As long as ambiguity exists in English, it is always possible
>for people to deliberately use incorrect meanings. This usage
As long as ambiguity exists, the notion of "incorrect meanings"
is useless here.
>also has given us the "pun". In fact, if you think that changing
> a word will help remove deeply built prejudices, you're wrong.
Stamp, stamp, stamp. What of the cases where this step has
demonstrably done so?
Besides, "changing a word" isn't the point. CHOOSING a word is the
point.
>People will simply invent new terms to express their prejudices,
>or, assign new meanings to existing words. The crux of the problem
>lies with the people themselves.
So tell me -- how will we reason with those people, if not with words?
How will we sway thm, if not with rhetoric? How will we make them
aware of their use of words, if not with our own use of words that
makes them conscious of their ways?
>>>Try removing the prejudices deeply rooted in the minds of men.
>>>The need to modify existing usage for this reason, will disappear on
>>>its own.
>>Why make things harder? Why *not* use one of the most compelling
>>avenues of thought -- language -- as an ally?
>Because language isn't anyone's ally.
I was right -- you *don't* know what "rhetoric" means.
>It is an expression of the thoughts of people.
WHAAAAT? This is your worst howler so far, Mandar!
Language is no such thing -- it is a *means* of such expression.
Especially YOUR definition of language -- which involves an
unchanging thing with "correct" and "incorrect" usages and so on.
Language -- certainly according to you so far -- is a code for
expressing oneself, not the expression itself.
>If you cannot change the way people think,
>fiddling with language isn't going to achieve much.
How do YOU change the way people think, Mandar?
How did your teachers do it?
How does an effective orator do it?
They use words. They *choose* words. They choose words that, by
the very fact of their presence in the speech or writing at hand,
draw attention to some matter outside themselves in a way that
other words cannot.
Rhetoric, Mandar. The effective use of language. Not "fiddling"
(can't drop the insults...) -- but careful use.
> Compare the use of the so-called "sexist" words to the use of
>nuclear energy. Nuclear energy can be put to *both* constructive
>and destructive purposes. If people are taught to eschew the
>destructive use of nuclear energy, "nuclear-free" zones will not
>be necessary. The problem lies *not* with the tool/weapon, but rather,
>with the wielder of that tool/weapon. Besides, any amount of
>"constructive improvement" on this tool/weapon can always be circumvented
>by an equivalent "destructive design", by the abuser.
What took you so long? I *knew* we could get another silly analogy
out of you.
Yes, the problem lies with the users. How do we get the users to
use words/nuclear energy responsibly? Many ways. By example. By
law. Force. Whatever.
Of course, the goal here is not to get people to use certain words
(here the analogy collapses) but to get them to think and act differently.
On the other hand, people must *continually* be taught to eschew
bad uses of nuclear energy; each generation must learn all over again
what's good and bad (not that people agree on wht those things are,
either. Prejudice, on the other hand, must be taught; the default
is no prejudice.
In any case, we achieve the end we want, whether it's responsible use of
atomic energy or the end of bigotry, by changing the way people think.
And we have found no better way to do that than to speak and write
effectively. Doing this requires awareness of the resonance of words,
and sometimes means avoiding this word or that, even if *we* know what
we want it to mean.
Roger
Heidi de Wet
>>to the *continuation* of these hardships.
>
>are.
Yes, 'people' are related to the problem. No, that doesn't mean language
is unrelated.
Some more set theory: if set A intersects with set B, and set B and set
C are disjoint, that does not imply that set A does not intersect with
set C.
Language shapes thought, and therefore affects what people do. It is
not the only influence - I haven't seen *anyone* suggest that it is -
but it is nevertheless not unimportant.
--
The net is like a vast sea of lutefisk with tiny dinosaur brains embedded
in it here and there. Any given spoonful will likely have an IQ of 1, but
occasional spoonfuls may have an IQ more than six times that!
- James 'Kibo' Parry
Rheal Nadeau
>
>Language isn't related to the continuation of these hardships, *people*
>are.
"Guns don't shoot people, people shoot people."
But people do use guns to hurt each other, and people use language to
hurt each other. Just as I would not approve of someone going down the
street shooting at people, I do not approve of people using language
that diminishes others - and this includes language that implies women
are subsidiary to men.
>Hmmm....I have *no* such prejudices. What I argue for are realities.
*No* prejudices, Mandar? Why, why, you must be GOD!
Do you really *know* all of reality? Are you really all-knowing,
infinitely wise? Do you really consider your pronouncements Eternal
Truth? Gee, must be nice to be perfect!
Rheal Nadeau
>
>I didn't intend to insult feminists. But you realise that there *are*
>feminists who believe that the female race is superior to the male
>race, don't you? Not just that, they allow this prejudice to distance
>themselves from men.
The male "race"? The female "race"?
For a person who claims to defend language, you are remarkably careless
with your own use of words!
>Those of you who *don't* have those attitudes can do better than just
>fiddling with words. Help the rest of the world realise the detrimental
>effects of such attitudes. When these attitudes dissappear, the need to
>change language will no longer exist.
And how can we change attitudes without using language? Surgery, maybe?
Rheal Nadeau
>
> Compare the use of the so-called "sexist" words to the use of
>nuclear energy. Nuclear energy can be put to *both* constructive
>and destructive purposes. If people are taught to eschew the
>destructive use of nuclear energy, "nuclear-free" zones will not
>be necessary. The problem lies *not* with the tool/weapon, but rather,
>with the wielder of that tool/weapon. Besides, any amount of
>"constructive improvement" on this tool/weapon can always be circumvented
>by an equivalent "destructive design", by the abuser.
OK, so nuclear energy can be used destructively, however many safeguards
one puts into place. No point in putting in any safeguards then, is
there? No point trying to design safer nuclear plants, no point in
non-proliferation treaties, no point in keeping nuclear technology out
of the hands of Khaddafi and Saddam Hussein.
Is this really what you believe?
Just what *is* wrong with seeking to use non-sexist language? Just what
*is* wrong with people saying "people" instead of "men" (as I do in this
sentence)?
If I'd said "men using" instead of "people using", people might have
thought "men and women"; then again they might not. By using "people",
I safeguard myself against a possible misunderstanding.
Most people will agree if I say "All men are created equal" - but they
won't all be agreeing to the same thing. Some *will* think this
excludes women, so I will not have made my point clear to them. If I
say "All persons are created equal", I will make my point much more
clearly. I won't necessarily convince anyone who doesn't believe women
are equal, but at least I will have communicated to them that I believe
so.
BTW, I started reading "Five Children And It" by E. Nesbit last night -
a book written years ago, in very English English. On the first page,
I read:
Everyone got its legs kicked or its feet trodden on in the scramble
to get out of the carriage that very minute, but no one seemed to
mind.
Do you consider this bad writing, Mandar? Would you really have been
happier if Nesbit had used "his" in that sentence?
Rich Brown -- Neither
In article <BzDLx...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>
>I didn't intend to insult feminists. But you realise that there *are*
>feminists who believe that the female race is superior to the male
>race, don't you? Not just that, they allow this prejudice to distance
>themselves from men.
This must be an "English English" use of the word "race". I am not hearing it
before until now. Is this the same Mandar who chided someone for using the
word "chauvinism" in its recent meaning of pigginess (as opposed to its earlier
usage to mean overly patriotic). Yet "race" means whatever Mandar intends it
to mean... Maybe he can't bring himself to say "sex"?
You do realize that there are idiots who believe the English race is superior
to the American race, don't you? Not just that, they allow this prejudice to
distance themselves from Americans.
Of all the arrogant, hypocritcal bullshit I've seen on the net, this Mandar guy
takes the cake, isn't it? Hahahahaha!
Get lost, bozo! This group used to be entertaining and informative before you
came along. You have singlehandedly ruined it, so please to be fucking your-
self greatly, as well as the horse upon which you rode. In.
I'm usually much nicer than this, really! But I'm hoping that if enough
people point out Mandar's guilt in being an ignorant hypocritical jerk, he
will be ashamed enough of his stupid arrogant blindness to quit posting.
I used to be able to read this group for postings on etymology, usage, dialect,
and *FACTS* about the English language as it is spoken and as it used to be, in
its many interesting varieties. Now all I see are Mandar's asshole opinions.
I apologize to anyone _else_ this may have offended. And I am also sorry that
this posting has no *FACTS* about the English language as it is spoken and as
it used to be, in its many interesting varieties. God, am I ashamed of myself!
The last time I posted about Mandar, I said I felt sorry for him, especially
since he had to put up with the Oklahoma dialect spoken where he is. I've
changed my sentiments: Now I feel sorry for the Oklahomans!
Rich Brown
--
Rich Brown (Neither)
rbr...@ncsa.uiuc.edu
Mandar M. Mirashi
>In article <BzDLx...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec16....@Princeton.EDU> ro...@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>>In article <BzBtq...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Dec15.1...@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rw...@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>>>>In article <BzABs...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>>>>>In article <1992Dec13.1...@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rw...@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>>>>>>From _The_Handbook_of_Nonsexist_Writing_ by Casey Miller and Kate Swift:
>
>>>>>>[long list of references deleted]
>
>Try undeleting them, Mandar. You might learn something.
>
As I said earlier, I do not dispute their results.
>
>>Hmm..ok...I concede that womankind is a counterpart to mankind. But
>>this is *only* when mankind is used in a context that includes *only*
>>men.
>
>Which is more often than you think. In many of those philosophical
>and proverbial contexts you're referred to, the authors in question
>*do* essentially mean men only, because they then turn around and
>come up with a whole separate, subordinate category of"female" as
>an afterthought.
>
Prove this.
>
>>But you realise that there *are*
>>feminists who believe that the female race is superior to the male
>>race, don't you?
>
>In your previous posting, you refered to "the male species." Now
>it's "the male/female race." Do you have a hangup about "sex"?
>
Of course not! I LOVE sex. :)
Seriously though, I didn't deliberately avoid reference to the word.
I could have used female sex, female humans, female people, female
species, female race or just plain "females".
>>Not just that, they allow this prejudice to distance
>>themselves from men.
>
>a) I have no idea what this has to do with the discussion.
>
*They* are responsible for this ridiculous and misguided "reform".
>b) Hundreds of millions of men think that they're innately superior to
>women, too. We don't call them "masculinists," or anything like that;
>most places, that's simply accepted as normal. Including the distancing.
>
Haven't you heard the term "MCP" ?
>c) Do you suppose that's why there *are* feminists, including the
>radical ones?
>
Of course. If men had treated women equally, *everyone* would be
"feminists".
>>>>Mankind encompasses *both* men and women.
>
>>>In some senses and uses, yes. Other times, no. Note that the
>>>word "humankind" is not a recent coinage, either.
>
>>Yes, but that doesn't make "humankind" a *better* word than "mankind".
>
>Correct. What DOES make it a better word in many contexts is its
>lack of ambiguity and its explicit inclusion of all humans -- not
>the implicit one in "mankind," which sometomes turns out not to
>be there after all.
The word "human" itself stems from "man" - from the Latin homo man,
ME humain, etc. Besides the dictionary states the meaning of human
as "of, relating to, or characteristic to man". :)
How do you ensure that human won't convey the image of man?
>
>>>>You are trying to associate the prefix "man" with the general usage of
>>>>the word "man". The meaning conveyed by the word "man" depends upon
>>>>the context of its usage.
>
>>>And yet, it conveys the association with men-and-not-women in all
>>>its uses. This has been demonstrated over and over again. People
>>>who eschew its use in the sense of "human" are, generally speaking,
>>>writing *carefully* and *precisely* and *consideratly.* They don't
>>>want to give mistaken impressions or allusions.
>
>>Exactly! *Mistaken* impressions or allusions.
>
>Doesn't matter. We're not here to place blame; we're here to communicate
>effectively. People believe all kinds of things that you do't like,
>or that you know are wrong. You can't go around pretending they don't; that
>will get you into all kinds of trouble. You have to improve your
>communication by becoming aware of what your readers and listeners
>may be thinking when they hear this or that word. You can do this
>by studying the history and usage of the word, and the things that
>have led people to pay attention to it. Simply pounding on a
>dictionary will not help.
>
And the solution lies in changing the way people learn to associate
things and the elimination of their prejudices by *reasoning* with
them. By teaching them the way sentences can be misconstrued. This
is much simpler than attempting to make them change the way they
write.
>>>>If you let your prejudices cloud your
>>>>ability to recognise this context, then I cannot help you.
>
>>>Look who's talking! YOUR prejudices have lept you from even looking
>>>up the words in question. They've led you to fantasies about "Rabid
>>>feminists" and to claims about the contexts of usage that are demonstrably
>>>false. Your prejudice needs a good dose of fact. Go read some of the
>>>references already given here on the subject.
>
>>Hehehee....I wouldn't term those "fantasies". They would be "nightmares"! :)
>
>Well, I'm sorry they scare you so much. Perhaps if you figured out
>that women were neither species nor race, it wouldn't be so spooky
>out there.
>
I don't find *women*(in general) spooky! I find "rabid feminists" spooky! :)
>>Seriously though, I haven't anything against feminists, except those of
>>the radical kind! ;)
>
>Who are they?
>
You contradict yourself, Roger. You have acknowledged their existence
in this very article. (look back a few lines.....point (c) ).
>>>>attitudes get reflected in language. It is *not* the other way around.
>
>>>So what happens to those of us who *don't* have those attitudes? Must
>>>we use language that nonetheless reflects attitudes we reject?
>
>>Those of you who *don't* have those attitudes can do better than just
>>fiddling with words. Help the rest of the world realise the detrimental
>>effects of such attitudes. When these attitudes disappear, the need to
>>change language will no longer exist.
>
>You keep saying that, but you aren't willing to enlist the help of
>words in the struggle! Words are very powerful things; why *not*
>use them toward changing attitudes?
>
Use the *meanings* behind those words, rather than the words themselves.
>Again, you're being insulting by trivializing serious efforts as
>"fiddling with words." In fact, what you're objecting to is the
>result of serious study of words -- you deleted the references to
>some of the studies -- and the observaion that word choice *is*
>powerful and can be a means toward change.
>
Those studies proved that words like "mankind", when used generically,
tend to bring up images of men more often than women. They did not
prove what you claim.
>Roger
wil...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
> I propose the following word meaning 'any woman, studying in her first
> year at a college or university, who insists on the use of so-called
> gender-neutral language':
>
> 'freshbitch'
So what do you call those of us who are not women, in our fifth year of study
at University who try and use gender-neutral language wherever possible?
Staledogs?
>
> :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
>
In my experience any more than one smiley indicates someone who thinks he's
being funny by being insulting.
--
Stephen Wilcox | For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
wil...@vax.oxford.ac.uk | outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
Mandar M. Mirashi
>In article <BzDu5...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec16....@Princeton.EDU> ro...@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>>In article <BzBxx...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Dec15.1...@Princeton.EDU> ro...@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>>>>In article <BzABs...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>
>>Prejudice does affect language, but language doesn't affect prejudice.
>
>How do you know this? More wishful thinking, I bet. Did you ever
>study the matter?
>
>>Prejudices are built by societal attitudes and personal experiences.
>
>Most of which involve language, and many of which involve language
>choices that reinforce or even lead to prejudice. If you'd read a few
>of those articles instead of deleting the references, you'd know this.
>
>Instead, you just prattle on, without any arguments.
>
"mankind" and "man" when used generically, tend to bring up images
of male people only. I do *not* dispute this fact. What I disagree
upon is the role of language in forming prejudices. These prejudices
are formed from the way we are taught to associate meanings with words;
not from the words themselves.
>>>>>>So, when terms such as "mankind" conjure up masculine images
>>>>>>more often than female images, it is actually the PERSON who's responsible
>>>>>>for the thought.
>
>>>>>So? When I see a fish, and think "fish," am I responsible for the thought,
>>>>>or is the fish? Or could it be that BOTH share responsibility for
>>>>>the thought? Or perhaps that "responsibility" isn't a very useful
>>>>>term in this case?
>
>>>>How can the fish be responsible for the thought? *You* are responsible
>>>>for the thought, as the complex process of determining that
>>>>the object viewed is indeed a fish and not something else, carried
>>>>out by your brain, belongs to you and *not* to the fish.
>
>>>Would I have thought the thought ifthe fish hadn't been there? No.
>
>>You can *imagine* a fish. Anyway, you digress.
>
>Nice try. I *could* imagine the fish, but I'd be unlikely to. After
>all, in the vast majority of situations when I *don't* see fish,
>I don't think about them either. But when I see them, I tend -- atl
>least -- to think "fish" or something similar.
>
>
>And, no, it's not a digression. Stimulus *does* have something to
>do with the response to it. You were arguing that it does not.
>
I wasn't arguing that stimulus doesn't produce a response. What I was
arguing about was your classification of "stimulus".
>>>>Hey Roger.....you *must* read Lauren's article. It's simply hilarious!
>>>>It demonstrates how ridiculous these chauvinists really appear when they
>>>>apply their beliefs to language.
>
>>>Isn't chauvinism the word that means unrealistic, patriotic attachment
>>>to a nationality? Like claiming that only the English are native speakers
>>>of English, and that their spelling is necessarily correct in a sense
>>>that that of Americans can't be?
>
>>If you look up "chauvinism" in your dictionary, it also means :
>>"unreasoning devotion to one's race, sex, etc. with contempt for
>>for other races, the opposite sex, etc."
>
>Fair enough. How was I to know that from your context? Especially
>since you'd already given such a wonderful impression of a chauvinist
>(other definition).
>
>>Hmmm....if you can't realise this meaning of chauvinism, no wonder
>>you have problems in dealing with "mankind".
>
>Sorry -- YOUR responsibility. You communicated lots of chauvinism,
>and so I thought of you when I saw the word. See how it works?
>
Haven't I given you the context - LAUREN'S ARTICLE. It conveys *nothing*
about the former kind of chauvinism. Now who's spouting statements
without looking up the appropriate reference? Be gracious enough to
admit your mistake.
About the meaning of chauvinism which conveys "patriotism", I
do not see how my articles have conveyed a "chavinistic" view. I haven't
posted articles which say "India is the best country in the world". In
fact, I am NOT chauvinistic. I like to think of myself as a world
citizen (look up my .sig). I have also elucidated upon the fact that I
do not consider myself as a "subject of the British Empire".
>>I would say *most* rather than *some*. Look up Dennis'(The previous
>>spelling mistake was a typo :( ) article where he mentions that
>>apart from "saleswoman", and subsequently "salesperson", few of
>>the -person innovations have been treated seriously. Perhaps Dennis
>>would be good enough to elucidate once again.
>
>I'm sure he would -- but note that "person" doesn't constitute more
>than a small portion of the area we're talking about. Many other
>efforts have succeeded. Dennis has written a book about some kinds
>of language reform; I suggest you read it.
>
I would gladly do that. Could you name the book please?
Anyway, does it show how the elimination of prejudices is linked to
language reform? Does it conclusively prove that language is an
indisputable factor in the elimination of prejudices?
>
>>>Wishing won't make it so. For one thing, we've already succeeded in
>>>more ways than one. Racial and ethnic hatreds are not what they used
>>>to be, and awareness of language has had something to do with that.
>
>>No. Language had nothing to do with it.
>
>Stamp, stamp, stamp! Say it often enough and we'll believe it, eh?
>
*You* haven't come across as convincing, either.
>You *Still* haven't read the books whose refs you deleted...
>
I agree with their results. But I dispute the link from language to
prejudice.
>>It has been more of a concerted effort on the behalf of all men.
>
>Huh? What does this mean? What kind of effort?
>
I meant an increased level of awareness in the minds of men about
the condition of women in society.
>Not that you've told us *why* the efforts that included use of
>lanugage were necessarily ineffectual.
>
Dennis amply illustrated the failure of most of these efforts. People
will continue to associate new meanings with words, whether they
already exist or whether they have been newly formed. They may
even contrive neologisms to further their prejudices.
>But then, you've probably never heard of rhetoric, either. That's
>the 3000-year-old art of choosing and using words to sway listeners
>more effectively. What we're talking about is a modern application
>of rhetoric.
>
Has mere rhetoric (the way you choose and use words) ever eliminated
*fundamental* prejudices in the minds of men? These were eliminated
by *their* realisation of the fact that the way they thought and
acted, was no longer considered acceptable by society. What changed
their minds? Society, and not "words".
>Does language *never* have anything to do with societal change?
>I'd like to see you support that assertion.
>
I do. In fact, societal change affects language.
>>>Besides, your Farsi example is irrelevant -- because the issue was
>>> not where the prejudice came from, but how it was perpetuated.
>>>Farsi did not contribute to that; English -- demonstrably -- did.
>
>>*English* didn't. People who deliberately misconstrued statements,
>>did (just as you deliberately assumed the incorrect meaning of
>>"chauvinist" used in the context above).
>
>What about people who deliberately used statements they knew would
>be --- or could be -- misconstrued? What of those who *assumed*
>that a word meant one thing and not another, not considering the
>ambiguity that in fact was there?
If these statements couldn't be resolved by context, then these
people are at fault. For e.g., when I state "Evil lurks in the
minds of men", it is clear that I am referring to the generic
meaning. However, should I state "Those men belong to the football
team", I use the more common meaning of "men". If the context is
clear but is deliberately misconstrued then the reader/listener
is at fault.
>What of those who exploited
>the convenient congruence between the "inclusive" words and the
>patterns of thought regarding the status and place of women?
>
Narrow minded bigots! :)
>These people shaped the language. These people -- who spoke and
>wrote the language -- *were* the language, in effect; because the
>language doesn't exist outside of the poeple who use it. It is
>utterly meaningless if considered as an abstract code, as you seem
>to wish to; its use and purpose and nature are inextricably bound
>up with the set of its speakers.
>
Exactly! These people shaped the language; the language didn't shape
them.
>
>
>Stamp, stamp, stamp.
Do you work in the post office, btw? :)
I would like some good stamps, please; especially the one which has
Elvis on it. ;)
>
>>People will simply invent new terms to express their prejudices,
>>or, assign new meanings to existing words. The crux of the problem
>>lies with the people themselves.
>
>So tell me -- how will we reason with those people, if not with words?
>How will we sway thm, if not with rhetoric? How will we make them
>aware of their use of words, if not with our own use of words that
>makes them conscious of their ways?
>
By teaching children to associate words and meanings differently.
By condemning deliberate abuse of words.
By inculcating a higher sense of values in people.
By teaching them the role of women in society and the hardships
they have endured.
>>>>Try removing the prejudices deeply rooted in the minds of men.
>>>>The need to modify existing usage for this reason, will disappear on
>>>>its own.
>
>>>Why make things harder? Why *not* use one of the most compelling
>>>avenues of thought -- language -- as an ally?
>
>>Because language isn't anyone's ally.
>
>I was right -- you *don't* know what "rhetoric" means.
>
I *do*. And coming back to the issue of language, people will always
find ways to circumvent your "barriers".
>>It is an expression of the thoughts of people.
>
>WHAAAAT? This is your worst howler so far, Mandar!
>
>Language is no such thing -- it is a *means* of such expression.
>
Oooops....sorry...I meant *means* of expression. :)
>
>>If you cannot change the way people think,
>>fiddling with language isn't going to achieve much.
>
>How do YOU change the way people think, Mandar?
>
>How did your teachers do it?
>
>How does an effective orator do it?
>
>They use words. They *choose* words. They choose words that, by
>the very fact of their presence in the speech or writing at hand,
>draw attention to some matter outside themselves in a way that
>other words cannot.
>
>Rhetoric, Mandar. The effective use of language. Not "fiddling"
>(can't drop the insults...) -- but careful use.
>
It is *not* the words, but the *meaning* behind those words which
draws their attention. Now if you can make people associate the
word "mankind" with men and women, this entire controversy wouldn't
exist at all.
>> Compare the use of the so-called "sexist" words to the use of
>>nuclear energy. Nuclear energy can be put to *both* constructive
>>and destructive purposes. If people are taught to eschew the
>>destructive use of nuclear energy, "nuclear-free" zones will not
>>be necessary. The problem lies *not* with the tool/weapon, but rather,
>>with the wielder of that tool/weapon. Besides, any amount of
>>"constructive improvement" on this tool/weapon can always be circumvented
>>by an equivalent "destructive design", by the abuser.
>
>What took you so long? I *knew* we could get another silly analogy
>out of you.
>
>Yes, the problem lies with the users. How do we get the users to
>use words/nuclear energy responsibly? Many ways. By example. By
>law. Force. Whatever.
>
>Of course, the goal here is not to get people to use certain words
>(here the analogy collapses) but to get them to think and act differently.
>
It doesn't collapse. People *should* be taught to think and act
differently. They should be taught about the dangers of nuclear
energy and constructive ways to harness it. Should we use another
source of energy (not necessarily as effective) just because this
form of energy can be put to destructive use? No, because there
is no guarantee that this "new" form of energy will not be abused,
either.
>On the other hand, people must *continually* be taught to eschew
>bad uses of nuclear energy; each generation must learn all over again
>what's good and bad (not that people agree on wht those things are,
>either.
Yes...that's true.
>Prejudice, on the other hand, must be taught; the default
>is no prejudice.
>
Correct, and should we not attempt to thwart efforts which foster
prejudice?
>In any case, we achieve the end we want, whether it's responsible use of
>atomic energy or the end of bigotry, by changing the way people think.
>And we have found no better way to do that than to speak and write
>effectively.
Exactly. Not only that, but also *teaching* others how to speak, write
and UNDERSTAND effectively.
>Doing this requires awareness of the resonance of words,
>and sometimes means avoiding this word or that, even if *we* know what
>we want it to mean.
>
>Roger
Shouldn't people be made aware of the meanings of words and the way
they have been abused? This will instill a far greater sense of
awareness in them, than forcing them to avoid certain words ever will.
Steve Hayes
>>What word do you use to refer to male humans in general?
>
> Gee, I dunno...maybe I should pull out a thesaurus...no, i'll
>just try to wing it...mmmm, maybe, how about....
>
> MM MM EEEEEEEEE NN N
> M M M M EE N N N
> M M M M EEEEE N N N
> M MM M EE N N N
> M M EEEEEEEEE N NN
>
> SEEMS PRETTY FRICKIN' OBVIOUS TO *ME*!
I ususally use "men" inclusively, so when I want to refer specifically to
male human beings I usually use "males" - it's usually pretty obvious form
the context that I'm not talking about ducks, ticks or elephants. Perhaps we
need a new noun - how about mamen and women?
Steve Hayes, Department of Missiology & Editorial Department
Univ. of South Africa, P.O. Box 392, Pretoria, 0001 South Africa
Internet: haye...@risc1.unisa.ac.za
steve...@f20.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
A.P.K.
pick on any one person within this discussion, just my $.02:
g9rw...@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
> I guess you missed my original posting, which gaved the non-sexist term used
> at UofT, namely "frosh". Only one syllable! Just think of the time you can
> save by adopting this term! :-)
No thanks, I don't like "frosh". In German it means "frog", and I
don't think I'd want to be considered a frog.
>
>>Why do you take the word "freshman"
>>(or any other -man word, for that matter) as being offensive when no one
>>(absolutely no one - you find someone, and I'll stop using the word) uses
>>it in a derogatory fashion?
>
> Because it is inaccurate, and perpetuates the myth that being male is the
> norm and being female is exceptional.
Following this argument to it's fullest, we aren't humans anymore,
right? We're now hu-persons.
Also, following the idea of "first-year student" vs. "freshman",
I could say that I find that particularly offensive on the
grounds that I'm considered a non-traditional student. Being
non-traditional, I've gone to school year-round and first-year
only implies the more traditional angle of students just out of
high school and attending a regular schedule of classes, to include
a definitive separation between "years" as having summers off.
But then, I'm a W.A.S.P. male, so I'm politically incorrect in
just about everything I think and do unless it's deliberately
thought about and _made_ politically correct, so... :)
Jim
Mandar M. Mirashi
>In article <BzDII...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>> Compare this argument to words which have many meanings, depending
>>upon the context. Just because one meaning is conveyed more often than
>>others doesn't justify your attempt to attach this meaning to the word,
>>when it used in a different context.
>
>You mean, as with "Dialect"? You tried to do that just the other day.
>But you're right, "just because" that's true is no reason.
>
I opposed the very notion. I reminded you that NOT everyone has the
same interpretation of dialect, as *you* do. Isn't it ironic that
you oppose the prevalent notions about the word "dialect", yet
acknowledge those about the word "man"?
>Of course, nobody's *given* that as a reason. The reason given -- you
>*have* been reading the posts you're replying to, right? -- is that
>the usage in question has the effect in the minds of many -- even most --
>users of the language of suggesting men, and not men-and-women. To be
>sure, the speaker in question may *mean* both, but the effect of the
>word is different.
>
So, the fault lies *not* in the word but in *how* the people who hear/see
it, learn to interpret it.
>Accordingly, some people who want their meaning to get across without
>ambiguity or unwanted associations avoid the "humans" meaning of "men"
>because it just doesn't do what they want it to.
>
>Roger
Why doesn't "human" not convey "man" any more than "mankind" does?
*And*, just *how* far do you propose to carry out this "reform"?
Please propose a solution which eliminates "man", "his", etc. and
replaces them with "truly non-sexist" words. Also, please be kind
enough to elaborate how you propose to educate people to accept
these new words. Not just that, please convince me how this
"sexless" language will eliminate prejudices. Should you succeed in
such an attempt, I will gladly accept that my opinion is incorrect.
Mandar M. Mirashi
>In article <BzDML...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec16....@Princeton.EDU> ro...@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>>In article <BzBsy...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Dec15....@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nad...@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>>>>>In article <BzABs...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>
>>>>>>Remember, prejudice never exists in language, but rather, in the minds
>>>>>>of people. So, when terms such as "mankind" conjure up masculine images
>>>>>>more often than female images, it is actually the PERSON who's responsible
>>>>>>for the thought.
>
>>>>>I'm sorry, but if "mankind" evokes "man" evokes "male", that is most
>>>>>definitely a function of language. "Man" does mean "male human", so it
>>>>>is normal that this is the image it raises.
>
>>>>Why does "man" evoke the image of a man only, and "woman" not evoke the
>>>>image of a man?
>
>>>Who cares? The point is that it *does.*
>
>>Since we are discussing a pertinent issue, the statement just made is
>>germane to the discussion.
>
>Which statement? That "man" and "woman" evoke what they do?
>
plays a major role in shaping our prejudices.
>>>>After all, "woman" does contain "man". It is just that
>>>>you have learnt to associate "woman" with a woman and not a man. Now,
>>>>somewhere in your life, you learnt about the suppression of women by
>>>>men for centuries, and let this cloud your judgement about matters
>>>>totally unrelated to the hardships suffered by women.
>
>>>More insults. More nonsense. More presumption. Less comprehension, as
>
>>Insults? Nonsense? Presumption???
>>Is the supression of women by men for many years, not a recorded fact?
>
>Yes. So is the relationship between language and oppression -- the
>relationship you deny, the relationship that has been demonstrated
>in countless studies, studies whose citations you seem to have deleted
>without checking them out.
>
Ok....here's a clipping of the original posting once again :
>In article <1992Dec13.1...@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rw...@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>From _The_Handbook_of_Nonsexist_Writing_ by Casey Miller and Kate Swift:
>>"Recent studies of college students and school children indicate that the broad
>>definitions of *man* and *men* [i.e. to refer to all humans and not just males],
>>although still taught, have to a significant degree become inoperative at a
>>subliminal level. Phrases like *economic man* and *political man*, or
>>statements like 'Man domesticated animals' and 'Man is a dreamer,' it turns
>>out, tend to call up images of male people only, not female people or females
>>and males together." (p 10)
>>References:
>>"Among studies which report and discuss evidence indication that the so-called
>>generics *man* and *men* (and compounds incorporating them) are not generally
>>understood to include females are the following:
>
>[long list of references deleted]
>
I DON'T disagree with these results. But these studies do NOT prove
that using the word "humankind" instead of "mankind" alleviates
prevalent prejudices.
>
>>>usual. Sorry, Mandar, but it's *not* unrelated. It's *not* unrelated
>>>to the *continuation* of these hardships.
>
>>Language isn't related to the continuation of these hardships, *people*
>>are.
>
>Well, if that's all there is to your argument we can stop right now.
>
>Mandar, people *use* language. Language is of no interest whatever
>aside from its uses by people. And we're discussing one of those
>uses -- its use toward continuing social and cultural situations that
>some of us find unacceptable. The inclusive uses of "man" and "mankind"
>and "he" have indeed been used to justify male superiority; even if
>those arguments don't of themselves hold water, they color the perception
>of those words.
>
"Woman" itself comes from "man". Literally, it means "wife of man".
And, it was constructed when women were suppressed. ME, fr. OE wif-man.
Why didn't we drop the usage of "woman" then? Because, the word
"woman" ceased to be associated with "companion of man". Similarly,
if we can stop people from associating "mankind" with *only* men, when
used in a different context, the need to avoid its use will be
eliminated.
>>If mankind includes only "men", why doesn't women include "men" too?
>
>Huh? Are you getting down to pettiness about spelling? Why not
>just quit instead?
>
*Sigh*. Read the explanation given above.
>>>>is just that you have learnt to associate these terms differently.
>
>>>That is, these terms have *meanings.* The problem is that "man" has *two*
>>>meanings, and that they overlap in problematic ways.
>
>>And the problem lies in the eye of the beholder.
>
>Right. And I have to talk to beholders, and write things for them
>to read. So do you. You ignore facts about them at your peril.
>
Well, DO NOT ignore facts about them. STATE assumptions you make
before you start. (Isn't this a bit like the program/me argument? ;) )
>
>>>Before we go on, remember that in the past, the ambiguity of "man"
>>>has been used specifically in the oppression of women. Some legal
>>>codes included women explicitly in any refrence to "man" -- but
>>>courts nonetheless excluded women in some cases because "man" meant
>>>"man."
>
>>This illustrates *exactly* what I wanted to prove. Prejudices are
>>harmful.
>
>And words that make people aware of prejudices they might otherwise
>carry with them untinkingly are *useful.* Substituing "humankind"
>for an expected "mankind" conveys just the same amount of information
>AND reminds people not to forget about women.
>
So you expect them to use "humankind" instead of "mankind" everytime.
Aren't you being unrealistic, Roger? People will continue to
write the way they wish and will continue to misinterpret words (e.g.
-person). In fact, since humankind is a synonym for mankind, it
hardly changes things. You'll find "mankind" in hundreds of books.
And you can't turn back time, you know.
>Just saying "prejudices are harmful and if you misconstrue my correct
>English, it's your fault" is irresponsible. YOU must be aware of the
>effects of YOUR words on other people, even if those effects are mediated
>by prejudices of which you do not approve.
>
Exactly. And an attempt should be made to concisely state the assumptions
I make, before I start.
>
>>They get hurt by prejudices in the minds of men, by the incorrect
>>interpretation of language, *not* by the language itself.
>
>And yet this language has changed again and again to accomodate the
>shifts in perception by those who use them. Here a shift is taking
>place -- why do you object to the corollary changes in language?
>
Because the existing language already encompasses this change.
>Here people are using language *responsibly*, by being aware of the
>prejudices in the interpretation of language. "Incorrect interpretation"
>misses the point -- sender *and* recipient are responsible for communication.
>To claim that the language itself has not been shaped, affected,
>changed by prejudices in the past is to misunderstand the very
>nature of a language.
>
>
I never disagreed with the fact that language has been shaped, affected,
changed by prejudices in the past. I disagreed with the vice-versa.
>
>Of course, it would help if you could even make a non-contradictory set of
>arguments. A few weeks ago, you told us that we should use "dialect"
>in the sense that the majority of users use it. Today, you state that
>majorities do *not* determine the meaning of a word. Which reality
>do you prefer today?
>
I didn't ask you to use the word "dialect" ONLY in that sense. I
asked you to recognise the fact that most people don't accept your
definition of dialect, that's all. And today, I state that majorities
do not determine the ONLY meaning of a word. Do not attempt to
produce contradictions where they do not exist.
>
>>There *are* native speakers. There *is* a standard. And there *is*
>>a proper spelling.
>
>And you've managed to come up with nonsensical definitions of all
>three, and much more of the same. Several of us have pointed out
>the contradictions in your method, and all we get in return is
>shouting.
>
>Roger
>
Since you do not accept my point of view, indeed it appears to you
that I talk "nonsense" and I "shout" for no reason at all. NONE of
you has succeeded in finding contradictions in my methods. I am open
to further discussion on this issue. Perhaps you can illustrate
your "contradictions".
Mandar M. Mirashi
In article <101...@netnews.upenn.edu> pezz...@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Amy J. Pezzillo) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14....@hobbes.kzoo.edu> k04...@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:
>>gm...@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>WRONG!!!!! He *is * sexist when used to denote both genders, because
>it indicates only ONE -- the male. Seriously, when you hear "he," do
>you EVER think of a woman? NO!!! Consider the following statement:
>"Every person is entitled to his right to have an abortion." You
To tell the truth (and I'm not just saying this), the 'his' in that sentence
did not conjure up an image of men. When I read a pronoun like 'his' or 'he'
which has no antecedent, I don't really pay attention to the fact that
'his' is usually used to denote someone of the male gender. I think of it
as referencing anyone. (By the way, 'his' is not a correct word to use
in that sentence, because 'his' is for either gender, and obviously the
persons referenced by 'his' must be women, and cannot be men.) It seems
kind of strange that I, a male, would be so "non-sexist" (I know, it's not
a word, but don't flame me over it). I think that's the way everyone thinks
about these kinds of words (like 'his'), and if you had not called attention
to it before hand and made is look for the incorrect usage of the pronoun,
no one agree with you that that sounded strange. In fact, if someone used
that sentence in real life almost no one would notice.
>thought that sounded strange, because "he" automatically brought up
>the image of men. The only reason that "he" was ever
>accepted as denoting everyone was because males USED to be in charge.
>Well, no more baby. Women are waking up and realizing that we have a
>right to be included in those non-gender neutral terms. So we're
>using TRULY gender neutral terms wherever possible, "she or he" where
>appropriate, and just plain old "she" once in a while to shake you all
>up. And you know what? I don't CARE if you don't like hearing it. I
>never liked hearing about "forefathers" and "mankind" and
>"brotherhood" and feeling totally excluded by these terms either.
If you want to use 'she or he', go ahead. And even 'she' is fine with me,
even though 'she' brings up images of females (unlike 'he'). But I don't
really see how 'she' is truly gender-neutral. For that matter, 'she or he',
'he or she', and 'he' aren't either. The only ones, however, that are
correct language for denote people of either gender, are 'he' or 'he or she'.
--
\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_ \_ \_ \_ \_ | Kristofor A. Varhus
\_ \_ \_ \_\_ \_ \_\_ \_ | var...@eniac.seas.upenn.edu
\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ |
\_ \_ \_ \_\_ \_ \_\_ | University of Pennsylvania
\_ \_\_\_\_ \_ \_ \_ \_ | Engineering and Applied Science
Mandar M. Mirashi
>In article <BzBxx...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>> Try removing the prejudices deeply rooted in the minds of men.
>clear from your context.
>> The need to modify existing usage for this reason, will disappear on
>> its own.
>to provide ammunition for those who seek to perpetuate it.
>--
Exactly! Make the context clear.
Mandar M. Mirashi
g9rw...@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>In article <Bz9oI...@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cbu...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Christopher J Burian) writes:
>>pezz...@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Amy J. Pezzillo) writes:
>>>The only reason that "he" was ever
>>>accepted as denoting everyone was because males USED to be in charge.
>> Yikes! A bit misandrist, aren't we? Are you really
>> convinced that gender-specific pronouns are part of
>> a huge conspiracy?
>>
>They do reflect the traditional dominance of men, as you yourself point out
>later on.
No, I didn't point that out. I pointed out (and someone deleted) that
the root "man" was gender-neutral and it had both male and female
prefixes. Who knows why the male prefix was dropped. (Note: this
happened before transliteration into English. As far as I know, the
actual word man has always been sans prefix)
>> Unlike you, many people aren't disturbed by the use of
>> traditionally gender-typed nouns and pronouns in neutral
>> situations.
>Speak for yourself.
I do speak for myself. Many can mean two dozen. Maybe I'm one of
only two dozen who aren't suffering from self-doubt.
>> The documentation for PGP, a cryptography
>> program written by a *man* uses she and her in gender-
>> neutral terms throughout. Surprised me, but it didn't
>> make me all uptight and defensive! I guess I don't
>> suffer an inferiority complex.
>Or could it be that as a man you are less frequently diminished by sexist
>pronouns?
I simply can't imagine being "diminished" by a pronoun. :) So I guess
the answer to that is "I don't know."
>How would you feel if this were the default usage?
Wouldn't bother me. Unless I thought it was some *female comspiracy*.
Then I would get all uptight and defensive and "diminished".
>>>I never liked hearing about "forefathers" and "mankind" and
>>>"brotherhood" and feeling totally excluded by these terms either.
>> Does "sisterhood" make you spastic, too? Sorry to bust
>> your bubble, but "forefathers" is appropriate because
>> there weren't any women politicians in the 18th century.
>Before you criticized Amy for attributing the sexist usage of "he" to the
>former dominance of men, now you are telling her that we say "forefathers"
>because of the former dominance of men. I think you are being inconsistent.
Men used to dominate. Ha, they still do. That's something to be
corrected, but nagging about the use of language doesn't solve
anything. I'm perfectly happy to read he, him, she, her or whatever
when I, the reader, am being addressed. It just doesn't bother me
one hoot. Perhaps people irritated by these things need some self-
assertiveness courses. Firefighter for fireman, police officer for
policeman-- hey no problem. They sound just fine. But "longshoreperson"
just sounds stupid. So do the other "-person"s.
Use sie and hir for your gender neutral pronouns. I find them
satisfactory when I'm not conversing with neanderthals. Hey, that's
it: go to the museum to see a depiction of the Neanderthal Person!
>Rosemary Waigh Undergraduate, Computer Science / Linguistics
Chris---
Mandar M. Mirashi
In article <101...@netnews.upenn.edu>, pezz...@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Amy J. Pezzillo) writes:
> In article <1992Dec14....@hobbes.kzoo.edu> k04...@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:
>>gm...@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>>>
>>And, as we all know, there's nothing sexist about someone writing "he"
>>in place of "he or she." People who have to resort to artificial,
>>politically correct non-words like "first-year" and the singular "they"
>>are uneducated malcontents with nothing to do, and they're making up
>>problems where none exist.
>>
>>Right?
>
Exactly, couldn't have said better.
Darrick Mix
Georgetown University
m...@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu
Mandar M. Mirashi
In article <1992Dec14.0...@midway.uchicago.edu> th...@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.0...@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> DS...@db1.cc.rochester.edu (DAVID SCOTT) writes:
>For that matter, show me where I argue "freshman" should be changed.
>I've only noted that complaining that students are called "first-years"
>is far more silly than complaining that students are called "freshmen."
Here's something you and I are in total agreement on, ted. If you want to call
people "first-year students", that's fine with me. But I will still call them
freshmen, no matter what anyone tells me.
wil...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
> Why does "man" evoke the image of a man only, and "woman" not evoke the
> image of a man?
Could it perhaps be that "woman" only refers to female members of the species
homo sapiens sapiens?
> After all, "woman" does contain "man". It is just that
> you have learnt to associate "woman" with a woman and not a man.
And have also learnt to associate "man" with a male member of homo sapiens
sapiens.
> I feel pity for the poor, misguided, narrow-minded souls who let
> their mind be clouded by their prejudices, when interpreting language.
In this newsgroup, Mandar, self-pity will get you nowhere.
Mandar M. Mirashi
rbr...@troon.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Rich Brown -- Neither) spews scurrilous
balderdash :
>Hahahaha. It is to laugh, when
>In article <BzDLx...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>
>>I didn't intend to insult feminists. But you realise that there *are*
>>feminists who believe that the female race is superior to the male
>>race, don't you? Not just that, they allow this prejudice to distance
>>themselves from men.
>
>This must be an "English English" use of the word "race". I am not hearing it
>before until now. Is this the same Mandar who chided someone for using the
>word "chauvinism" in its recent meaning of pigginess (as opposed to its earlier
>usage to mean overly patriotic). Yet "race" means whatever Mandar intends it
>to mean... Maybe he can't bring himself to say "sex"?
>
The dictionary also carries the foll. meaning for "race" :
race : A class or kind of individuals with common characteristics, interests
or habits.
So, *I* am not the only individual who accords this meaning to race.
Yes, I could have used "sex" as well, but then, I like variety in
words. ;)
>You do realize that there are idiots who believe the English race is superior
>to the American race, don't you? Not just that, they allow this prejudice to
>distance themselves from Americans.
>
Oh really? Well, I am *glad* that I am NOT one of them. Let me make myself
clear. I certainly do not believe that one race is superior to another in
any way. Nor do I, for that matter, any religion, nation, class, caste,
sex, (...add your favourite factors for discrimination, here...).
My only contention was that English spread to other lands from
England. She is the mother country of the English language. Hence, the
English used in England is the yardstick by which other dialects must
be measured.
>Of all the arrogant, hypocritcal bullshit I've seen on the net, this Mandar guy
>takes the cake, isn't it? Hahahahaha!
>
>Get lost, bozo! This group used to be entertaining and informative before you
>came along. You have singlehandedly ruined it, so please to be ***** your-
>self greatly, as well as the horse upon which you rode. In.
>
I suggest you calm down. Obviously you have written this article in a
state of emotional stress. Analyse your feelings. Why do you feel such
hatred towards me? Undoubtedly it is because my opinions are in direct
contradiction to what you firmly believe in. Learn to be tolerant of others'
attitudes. Although I dislike the American way of spelling, I am tolerant
of their attitudes and opinions. I do not take this whole matter
personally. I suggest you to not do so, either. Hey...life is full of
dissenting individuals. If you really dislike my opinions, DON'T
read them. Take it easy.
>I'm usually much nicer than this, really!
Your demeanour isn't quite supportive of that assertion.
>But I'm hoping that if enough
>people point out Mandar's guilt in being an ignorant hypocritical jerk, he
>will be ashamed enough of his stupid arrogant blindness to quit posting.
>
>I used to be able to read this group for postings on etymology, usage, dialect,
>and *FACTS* about the English language as it is spoken and as it used to be, in
>its many interesting varieties. Now all I see are Mandar's ***** opinions.
>
I didn't start that totally irrelevant thread about "knives and forks".
Why don't you flame those persons as well? After all,that thread doesn't
have anything to do with "etymology, usage, dialect, and facts about the
English language as it is spoken". Remember that this is a "newsgroup",
where people discuss as well as present matters. Not everyone is going
to see things *exactly* the way *you* do. If you are against my opinions,
you are cutting a sorry picture by spewing obscenities. If you find them
offensive, DON'T read them. Or, if you would like to dispute them, present
cogent arguments.
>I apologize to anyone _else_ this may have offended. And I am also sorry that
>this posting has no *FACTS* about the English language as it is spoken and as
>it used to be, in its many interesting varieties. God, am I ashamed of myself!
>
You *ought* to be.
>The last time I posted about Mandar, I said I felt sorry for him, especially
>since he had to put up with the Oklahoma dialect spoken where he is. I've
>changed my sentiments: Now I feel sorry for the Oklahomans!
>
You needn't feel sorry for anyone except yourself. You haven't learnt
how *not* to take things so seriously. There is more to life than that.
Learn how to make a kill file and you'll be rid of the "nuisance called
Mandar". ;) Also, you'll forget your penchant for excretory apertures. ;)
>Rich Brown
>--
>Rich Brown (Neither)
>rbr...@ncsa.uiuc.edu
>
Mandar.
Mandar M. Mirashi
In article <101...@netnews.upenn.edu> pezz...@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Amy J. Pezzillo) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14....@hobbes.kzoo.edu> k04...@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:
>>Because, after all, the use of the third person plural as an ersatz
>>third person neuter singular is ungrammatical, right? And
>>awkward-sounding besides, right?
>
>But infinitely preferable to hearing "he" used all the time.
Preferability is in the ear of the hearkener. There seem to be
reasons to believe that both gender-neutral "he" and singular "they"
belong naturally into the English language, having coexisted for
several centuries, so using either of them is acceptable.
(Which means that you are both wrong.)
>>And, as we all know, there's nothing sexist about someone writing "he"
>>in place of "he or she."
So far, so good, except that we don't all know this. There are some
who don't, or rather pretend not to.
>>People who have to resort to artificial,
>>politically correct non-words like "first-year" and the singular "they"
>>are uneducated malcontents with nothing to do, and they're making up
>>problems where none exist.
>>
>>Right?
>
>WRONG!!!!!
Wrong, in so far as singular "they" is not a politically correct
artifact, although it is hardly surprising that it is frequently
treated as if it were one, because of its marketing.
>He *is * sexist when used to denote both genders, because
>it indicates only ONE -- the male.
Wrong.
>Seriously, when you hear "he," do you EVER think of a woman? NO!!!
Switching to shouting and using three exclamation marks where one (or
indeed a full stop) would have sufficed works wonders for your argument.
It so happens that for many native speakers gender-neutral "he" is an
integral part of the English language.
>Consider the following statement:
>"Every person is entitled to his right to have an abortion." You
>thought that sounded strange, because "he" automatically brought up
>the image of men.
Yes. The use of gender-neutral "he" sounds strange, because the
referent is _a` priori_ female, so it ought to have been "Every woman
is entitled to her right to have an abortion." Try again.
>The only reason that "he" was ever
>accepted as denoting everyone was because males USED to be in charge.
What evidence is there for this? What was the gender-neutral pronoun
in Old English? Proto-Germanic? Proto-Indoeuropean? Nostratic?
What is the gender-neutral pronoun in languages spoken by societies
where women are in charge? Who is in charge in those few societies
which use languages with gender-neutral `she'?
I suggest you take the first 'plane to Iran. They speak a non-"sexist"
(can't use this meaningless word without double quotes) language there,
with only one word for both `he' and `she', and quite predictably they
treat women exactly as some of them deserve.
>Well, no more baby.
****
Is this the regular form for addressing male strangers in Feminese?
>So we're
>using TRULY gender neutral terms wherever possible, "she or he" where
>appropriate, and just plain old "she" once in a while to shake you all up.
Now I can't wait to hear from R Lustig, D Johns and some other netters,
who get horribly upset lest someone should try to "modify" English by
shunning singular "they", which is a natural part of the language, has
been around since Shakespeare and what not, and yet are very quiet
when someone expresses the desire to shun the equally natural gender-
neutral "he" or to introduce some artifact such as gender-neutral "she"
or some arbitrary string of letters.
>And you know what? I don't CARE if you don't like hearing it.
Oh, of course not. You're just trying to be obnoxious.
Well, go ahead. You're doing a good job.
--
`D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski (i...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; i...@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu) Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science, 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
wil...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
> Try removing the prejudices deeply rooted in the minds of men.
Tell me, is that men as in men or men as in men and women? It's not entirely
clear from your context.
> The need to modify existing usage for this reason, will disappear on
> its own.
But until it does it is better to avoid prejudice clearly in one's writing than
to provide ammunition for those who seek to perpetuate it.
Mandar M. Mirashi
>In article <BzG3B...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, mmmi...@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>[much deleted]
>> My only contention was that English spread to other lands from
>> England. She is the mother country of the English language. Hence, the
>> English used in England is the yardstick by which other dialects must
>> be measured.
>
>from Italy. She is the mother country of the Latin language. Hence, the
>Latin used in Italy (now considered a distinct language, Italian) is the
>yardstick by which all other dialects of Latin must be measured.
>
Let me make myself clearer. The language spoken in Italy is NOT Latin
but Italian (as you yourself concede). Hence, it can no longer govern
Latin in other lands. However, if the differences in present day Italian
and Latin were minor enough to justify their being NOT called separate
languages, then Italian Latin would be the standard.
To stir up a little dust, I proclaimed a while ago that the
language the Americans use, isn't English and shouldn't be termed so.
Immediately, indignant Americans pointed out that I was mistaken and
how the language they speak is indeed English. Well then, why are
they vain enough to deny the superiority of English English and its
existence as a standard? I certainly bow down to this standard. The
reason of their defial goes back to the war between Britain and America.
In their effort to break away from the British, the Yanks have waged war upon
the language. And, they refuse to accept the superiority of English
English, because they are afraid that if they were to do so, it
would somehow be linked to an acceptance of the British as their
overlords. Can these blind persons not see that acknowledgement of
English English as a standard is NOT linked!
>
>>[more deleted]
>>[about his opinions, if you find them...]
>> offensive, DON'T read them. Or, if you would like to dispute them, present
>> cogent arguments.
>
>Others have done so. You appear to be completely immune to the effects of
>any rational argument. This causes people to become frustrated, abandon the
>use of rational arguments, and flame you instead.
>
I am NOT immune to rational argument. But shouldn't this argument be
effective enough to convince me? So far, all I have seen are feeble
attempts to disprove me. In cases where I have misunderstood the
person or seen the flaws in my argument, I have willingly admitted
it. However, no one has been able to put together an effective argument
that challenges the superiority of English English. I think the
reason behind this is that IT'S A FACT. *No one* can dispute that
English spread from England to other lands.
>>[more deleted]
>> Learn how to make a kill file and you'll be rid of the "nuisance called
>> Mandar". ;)
>
>Excellent suggestion. Welcome to my kill file.
>--
>James Harvey
>har...@iupui.edu
Killing me won't solve all your problems. ;)
Mandar.
har...@indyvax.iupui.edu
>[much deleted]
> England. She is the mother country of the English language. Hence, the
> English used in England is the yardstick by which other dialects must
> be measured.
Sheesh. Well, suppose MY contention is that Latin spread to other lands
from Italy. She is the mother country of the Latin language. Hence, the
Latin used in Italy (now considered a distinct language, Italian) is the
yardstick by which all other dialects of Latin must be measured.
Mandar, only a bozo would believe this argument. Surely you can see that?
>[more deleted]
>[about his opinions, if you find them...]
> offensive, DON'T read them. Or, if you would like to dispute them, present
> cogent arguments.
Others have done so. You appear to be completely immune to the effects of
any rational argument. This causes people to become frustrated, abandon the
use of rational arguments, and flame you instead.
>[more deleted]
> Learn how to make a kill file and you'll be rid of the "nuisance called
> Mandar". ;)
Excellent suggestion. Welcome to my kill file.
--
James Harvey
har...@iupui.edu
Mandar M. Mirashi
>> Why does "man" evoke the image of a man only, and "woman" not evoke the
>> image of a man?
>
>Could it perhaps be that "woman" only refers to female members of the species
>homo sapiens sapiens?
>
pointed out the reverse, you would have accepted it ungrudgingly (
assuming of course, that you were a child when you learnt the word "man").
Similarly, a child would have no problems in associating man with "men"
AND "women" and woman with only women, as long as examples of its usage
are illustrated.
>> After all, "woman" does contain "man". It is just that
>> you have learnt to associate "woman" with a woman and not a man.
>
>And have also learnt to associate "man" with a male member of homo sapiens
>sapiens.
>
And have learnt to associate "man" with women too. (depending
upon the context) At least *I* have; I don't know about you.
>--
>
>Stephen Wilcox | For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
>wil...@vax.oxford.ac.uk | outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
Mandar.
Rosemary Waigh
>In article <1992Dec18.2...@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nad...@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>>If I say "all persons are created equal", I don't have to explain that
>>"this means women too".
>But you *do* have to explain that "this means animals and other living
>beings too", don't you? After all, animals too have rights, don't they?
>The point I am trying to make is : No matter how hard you strive, ambiguity
>in the English language is unresolvable.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say, Mandar.
"Persons" does *not* include animals. To include all species of animals,
use the word "animals" (which includes people too).
--
Rosemary Waigh Undergraduate, Computer Science / Linguistics
g9rw...@cdf.utoronto.ca University of Toronto
"Looking at the Earth from afar you realize it is too small
for conflict and just big enough for co-operation." Yuri Gagarin
Mandar M. Mirashi
>>
>>Yes, and sometimes people don't wish to shoot one another AT ALL. Yet
>>they misunderstand each other. The responsibility of the misunderstanding
>>lies in the speaker/writer as well as the listener/reader. It is the
>>listener/reader's responsibility to infer the meaning of a word from
>>its context. In cases where the meaning cannot be resolved from the
>>context of the word, it is the speaker/writer's responsibility to
>>include an explanatory note.
>
>Or to use words that need less explaining . . .
>
>To use a famous example - the "All men are created equal" phrase that is
>the basis of the U.S. constitution. Was this meant to be an inclusive
>or exclusive usage of the word? The authors neglected to explain, and
>the word has been interpreted in a wide variety of ways of the years
>(and sometimes used to explicitely deny women equal rights). In fact,
>remembering that many of the authors of that constitution were
>themselves slave owners, one can't even be sure they didn't just mean
>"male whites" (and there are still those who hold this view!)
>
Hasn't it been pointed out on this group before that whatever "other
words" you use, they too can be attached "sexist" meanings by prejudiced
individuals. What do you do then? Take a new word? Your method is
practically infeasible. You are trying to stem the flow of a river with
your bare hands.
>>Nor do *I* approve of it. People who deliberately misinterpret words
>>are the ones at fault as are the ones who deliberately use these
>>words out of context.
>
>Am I "deliberately" misinterpreting when the word "men" brings up a
>mental image of males? This is, after the all, the most frequent usage
>of the word.
>
>Are women "men"? Only when it suits the speaker. Reread that sentence,
>and think of how the word "men" can be used to diminish women -
>deliberately or otherwise.
>
>I have no intention of being misunderstood; therefore, I will use words
>that do not so easily lend themselves to being misinterpreted,
>deliberately or otherwise.
>
Really? Then why do you not go around removing ALL ambiguities
from the English language? You do not know of the matters you speak.
If the only argument you can give me for using a different word is :
"it removes ambiguity", then I counter that argument with "Well then,
why stop at "man"? Why not extend this concept of resolving ambiguity?"
Have you ever studied the ambiguities inherent in speech and writing?
Mind you, sometimes even replacing a word will not do much to clear
up the ambiguity. Accept the language the way it is, and stop waging
the "war of the sexes" on language.
>The easiest way to properly establish context, Mandar, is to use the
>word that most clearly conveys my meaning, not to use a less precise
>word then surround it with "this means women too!" explananations.
It is not always possible to find a precise word. And you are being
dense enough NOT to acknowledge that man includes women in certain
contexts, EVEN when the context is clear.
>If
>I say "all persons are created equal", I don't have to explain that
>"this means women too".
>
But you *do* have to explain that "this means animals and other living
beings too", don't you? After all, animals too have rights, don't they?
The point I am trying to make is : No matter how hard you strive, ambiguity
in the English language is unresolvable.
Mandar.
Rheal Nadeau
>
>Yes, and sometimes people don't wish to shoot one another AT ALL. Yet
>they misunderstand each other. The responsibility of the misunderstanding
>lies in the speaker/writer as well as the listener/reader. It is the
>listener/reader's responsibility to infer the meaning of a word from
>its context. In cases where the meaning cannot be resolved from the
>context of the word, it is the speaker/writer's responsibility to
>include an explanatory note.
Or to use words that need less explaining . . .
To use a famous example - the "All men are created equal" phrase that is
the basis of the U.S. constitution. Was this meant to be an inclusive
or exclusive usage of the word? The authors neglected to explain, and
the word has been interpreted in a wide variety of ways of the years
(and sometimes used to explicitely deny women equal rights). In fact,
remembering that many of the authors of that constitution were
themselves slave owners, one can't even be sure they didn't just mean
"male whites" (and there are still those who hold this view!)
>Nor do *I* approve of it. People who deliberately misinterpret words
>are the ones at fault as are the ones who deliberately use these
>words out of context.
Am I "deliberately" misinterpreting when the word "men" brings up a
mental image of males? This is, after the all, the most frequent usage
of the word.
Are women "men"? Only when it suits the speaker. Reread that sentence,
and think of how the word "men" can be used to diminish women -
deliberately or otherwise.
I have no intention of being misunderstood; therefore, I will use words
that do not so easily lend themselves to being misinterpreted,
deliberately or otherwise.
The easiest way to properly establish context, Mandar, is to use the
word that most clearly conveys my meaning, not to use a less precise
word then surround it with "this means women too!" explananations. If
I say "all persons are created equal", I don't have to explain that
"this means women too".
The Rhealist - nad...@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Mandar M. Mirashi
>In article <BzDu5...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>
>> Compare the use of the so-called "sexist" words to the use of
>>nuclear energy. Nuclear energy can be put to *both* constructive
>>and destructive purposes. If people are taught to eschew the
>>destructive use of nuclear energy, "nuclear-free" zones will not
>>be necessary. The problem lies *not* with the tool/weapon, but rather,
>>with the wielder of that tool/weapon. Besides, any amount of
>>"constructive improvement" on this tool/weapon can always be circumvented
>>by an equivalent "destructive design", by the abuser.
>
>OK, so nuclear energy can be used destructively, however many safeguards
>one puts into place. No point in putting in any safeguards then, is
>there? No point trying to design safer nuclear plants, no point in
>non-proliferation treaties, no point in keeping nuclear technology out
>of the hands of Khaddafi and Saddam Hussein.
>
>Is this really what you believe?
What you are attempting to do is replacing nuclear energy with another
(not necessarily as effective) form of energy. There is no guarantee that
this source will not be abused, either. What I believe is that people
should be made to understand the destructive use of nuclear energy
and be taught to use it only for constructive purposes.
>
>Just what *is* wrong with seeking to use non-sexist language? Just what
>*is* wrong with people saying "people" instead of "men" (as I do in this
>sentence)?
>
Nothing, but then, there is nothing wrong in saying "men" either (as
long as the context resolves the ambiguity).
>If I'd said "men using" instead of "people using", people might have
>thought "men and women"; then again they might not. By using "people",
>I safeguard myself against a possible misunderstanding.
>
Correct, but that doesn't mean that we discard the generic use of "men".
We *teach* people to appreciate its other meanings too.
>
>BTW, I started reading "Five Children And It" by E. Nesbit last night -
>a book written years ago, in very English English.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So *someone* does accept the existence of English English. :)
>On the first page,
>I read:
>
> Everyone got its legs kicked or its feet trodden on in the scramble
> to get out of the carriage that very minute, but no one seemed to
> mind.
>
>Do you consider this bad writing, Mandar? Would you really have been
>happier if Nesbit had used "his" in that sentence?
>
> The Rhealist - nad...@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Hmmm...tricky question. I am not sure if that grammatical usage is
standard. If it is, then I do not see anything wrong with it; but
then, nor do I do so had he used "his".
Ivan A Derzhanski
>I'm sorry, but if "mankind" evokes "man" evokes "male", that is most
>definitely a function of language. "Man" does mean "male human", so it
>is normal that this is the image it raises.
What if "man" has two meanings ((1) `human', (2) `male human')? This
happens in many other languages as well. In some its counterpart also
means (3) `human of our tribe/ethnic group'.
What is wrong with a word having more than one meaning?
It's a pity Webster (CBUH) didn't invent a new spelling for "man", which
the rest of the English-speaking world could use for one of the meanings.
Mandar M. Mirashi
>In article <BzFKJ...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>,
>mmmi...@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>>
>> Why doesn't "human" not convey "man" any more than "mankind" does?
>> *And*, just *how* far do you propose to carry out this "reform"?
>> Please propose a solution which eliminates "man", "his", etc. and
>> replaces them with "truly non-sexist" words. Also, please be kind
>> enough to elaborate how you propose to educate people to accept
>> these new words. Not just that, please convince me how this
>> "sexless" language will eliminate prejudices. Should you succeed in
>> such an attempt, I will gladly accept that my opinion is incorrect.
>>
>> Mandar.
>>
>
>understand the various positions in this discussion and to think your
>own position through in relation to them?
>
>Not *one* person in this *entire* thread has said, "let's eliminate all
>words that relate to specific gender." NOT ONE PERSON! NOT ONE PERSON
>wants to eliminate "man" and other specific-sex referents from the
>language.
Maybe not. But everyone agrees that there are words which evoke male
images more frequently than female images, and the vice-versa.
Furthermore, some persons want to drop these words from usage and
replace them with other words. Well, why stop at "sexist" words?
Why not resolve ALL ambiguity?? I challenge anyone to do that.
>WHERE ON EARTH do you get that idea? WHY ON EARTH are you so prescriptive
>and insecure about your viewpoint?
>
>The point is simple, and I fail to see how it can be so difficult to
>understand. Language is a tool for communication, and the more precisely
>you use language, the more effectively you communicate. I don't say
>"Jim Johnson is unhappy" when I mean to impart the meaning "Everyone
>is unhappy." I don't use a specific referent to identify a general group.
>I don't say "Mankind is annoyed with Mandar Mirashi" unless I
>*specifically* mean all males, which is definitely not the case.
>
In that context, mankind includes *both* men AND women. Shed your
prejudices, Brent. You'll find HUNDREDS of books where mankind has
been used generically.
>Happily, English provides me with a simple solution: If I mean all males, I
>say "mankind." If I mean all females I say "womankind." If I mean all
>people
>I say "all people," "everyone," "humankind," etc. But perhaps that is too
>precise or too logical for Mandar Mirashi. Perhaps he prefers the ambiguity
>of "mankind." Perhaps he enjoys his elitist, arrogant attitude that if he
>uses an unclear, ambiguous term like this and people misunderstand, then
>the people are boneheads unable to think with the same prejudices ("contexts")
>that he does. Bah.
>
>--
So you do NOT like ambiguity, huh? Let me tell you something. Ambiguity
is an INHERENT part of the English language. It is so widely interspersed
in the language that the task of removing all ambiguity from the language
is well nigh impossible. Consider the sentence "Bill shot Bob". Now, did
Bill take a photograph of Bob OR did Bill shoot Bob with a bullet. Most
people when presented with this example will assume the latter. Later on
comes a person who claims that the meaning "shoot with a camera" isn't
being conveyed. So, the word "shoot/shot" should be dropped all together
and a different word should be substituted for shot. Which word? Fired?
Incidentally, "fired" has many meanings too. Can you see how ridiculous
you look when you try to wage the "battle of the sexes" on the English
language?
Besides, words which have been suggested for replacement, have
been euphemistically looked upon as substitutes for the very words they
substituted. So, chairperson came to be looked upon as an euphemism for
a female chairman. In the references that Rosemary provided, none of
the authoresses has been able to conclusively prove that a change in
language has brought about a change in thinking. People will go on
thinking and speaking the way they do. Changing mere words will not
change their prejudices. These prejudices will find their outlet in
other words/connotations/etc.
Mandar M. Mirashi
>In article <BzJoI...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmi...@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec18.2...@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nad...@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>>>If I say "all persons are created equal", I don't have to explain that
>>>"this means women too".
>>But you *do* have to explain that "this means animals and other living
>>beings too", don't you? After all, animals too have rights, don't they?
>>The point I am trying to make is : No matter how hard you strive, ambiguity
>>in the English language is unresolvable.
>
>I'm not really sure what you're trying to say, Mandar.
>"Persons" does *not* include animals. To include all species of animals,
>use the word "animals" (which includes people too).
Compare that to the usage of the word "men" (which includes women too) ;)
Now WHY did you add that, if the meaning of animals is unambiguous?
You cleared up the context, didn't you? That's because some people
don't consider people to be animals. Similarly, there is NOTHING wrong
with clearing up the context when using the word "man".
Mandar M. Mirashi
>In article <BzBxx...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>,
>mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) wrote:
>>
>>
>> Try removing the prejudices deeply rooted in the minds of men.
>> its own.
>>
>
>Gee, how will we remove these prejudices? Using mime? Probably not too
>effective. With big clubs? Nah, violence turns me off. I guess I'll have
>to use (gasp) *language*.
>
Use the *meanings* behind those words, not those words as mere
placeholders.
>Mandar constantly contradicts himself. He states that this usage is not
>sexist, and then in the above paragraph states that there is no point in
>modifying usage, as the prejudiced attitudes that usage *reflects*
>need to change, not usage itself. If usage is a reflection of attitude,
>as Mandar states, and the attitude is sexism, then the usage is sexism.
>Seems obvious to me.
The usage would be sexism/racism/whatever-ism if the word unilaterally
carried the same meaning. But it *doesn't*. Mankind doesn't mean men
*only* in ALL contexts. If it did, dropping its usage would be
justified (just as we did that with the word "nigger").
>
>Mandar also states that the need to modify this usage will go away as
>prejudice disappears. So if some people find "mankind" sexist when used as
>a general tag, after deeply rooted sexist prejudices disappear they will
>perceive it as a good, generic, non-sexist term?
>
Of course.
That is how the word "woman" has ceased to mean "companion of man" ONLY.
The word woman comes from "wife of man" - ME, fr. OE wif-man.
>I think not. The fact is that as sexism fades, so will the sexist usage
>that springs from it. And like it or not, that is what is happening
>now.
>
You *must* read Dennis Baron's article on alt.usage.english for a
clearer picture of how people have circumvented efforts to make
the language "non-sexist".
>Have you no emphathy? Isn't it strange that only men speak up for "he"
>and "mankind," saying that "everyone" knows that it is meant in a
>generic sense? Isn't it enough for you that a number of women have told
>you clearly and openly in this thread that it *does* offend them to be
>lumped under the term "mankind?"
These women do not realise that they are being hypocritical. The
word woman itself has its roots from man. Why don't they object
to its usage as well? And if we stretch to ridiculous limits,
why do they not object to "this"? It should be rewritten as "tits",
shouldn't it? ;)
>Can't you imagine how you would feel if
>the situation was reversed?
>
I would have absolutely *no* reservations if I were to be clubbed
under some term as "womankind", assuming of course that "womankind"
encompassed both men and women.
>--
>Brent Jones, Lead Tech. Editor, U S WEST IT, bjo...@denitqm.uswest.com
Mandar M. Mirashi
>>
>>Language isn't related to the continuation of these hardships, *people*
>>are.
>
>
Yes, and sometimes people don't wish to shoot one another AT ALL. Yet
they misunderstand each other. The responsibility of the misunderstanding
lies in the speaker/writer as well as the listener/reader. It is the
listener/reader's responsibility to infer the meaning of a word from
its context. In cases where the meaning cannot be resolved from the
context of the word, it is the speaker/writer's responsibility to
include an explanatory note.
>But people do use guns to hurt each other, and people use language to
>hurt each other. Just as I would not approve of someone going down the
>street shooting at people, I do not approve of people using language
>that diminishes others - and this includes language that implies women
>are subsidiary to men.
Nor do *I* approve of it. People who deliberately misinterpret words
are the ones at fault as are the ones who deliberately use these
words out of context.
>
>
> The Rhealist - nad...@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Mandar.
Mandar M. Mirashi
>>
>>I didn't intend to insult feminists. But you realise that there *are*
>>feminists who believe that the female race is superior to the male
>>race, don't you? Not just that, they allow this prejudice to distance
>>themselves from men.
>
>
>For a person who claims to defend language, you are remarkably careless
>with your own use of words!
>
My dictionary recognises the meaning of race as "a class or kind of
individuals with common characteristics, interests or habits". So do
*most* dictionaries.
>>Those of you who *don't* have those attitudes can do better than just
>>fiddling with words. Help the rest of the world realise the detrimental
>>effects of such attitudes. When these attitudes dissappear, the need to
>>change language will no longer exist.
>
>And how can we change attitudes without using language? Surgery, maybe?
>
> The Rhealist - nad...@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
I recommend lobotomy! ;)
Seriously though, we need to educate people about the meanings of
such ambiguous words. We need to get them to realise the negative
impact these words can carry, if abused. Further more, we need
to exhort them to make the context clear, or, supply explanatory
notes when the context doesn't make the distinction clear.
wil...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
> Coming back to your question, no doubt you wanted me to answer "men".
> Well, as I said earlier, "men" is used to indicate "men" and "women"
> as well. The predominant usage is to indicate the male species, of
> course.
You mean vir sapiens sapiens as opposed to femina sapiens sapiens. Or should
that be vir insipiens. Hmmm... (Dons daydreaming cap) If all sexist men did
actually belong to a different species it wouldn't be long before equality of
the sexes came about.
Dennis Baron
>>>apart from "saleswoman", and subsequently "salesperson", few of
>>>the -person innovations have been treated seriously. Perhaps Dennis
>>>would be good enough to elucidate once again.
>>>>I'm sure he would -- but note that "person" doesn't constitute more
>>than a small portion of the area we're talking about. Many other
>>efforts have succeeded. Dennis has written a book about some kinds
>>of language reform; I suggest you read it.
>>
>I would gladly do that. Could you name the book please?
>Anyway, does it show how the elimination of prejudices is linked to
>language reform? Does it conclusively prove that language is an
>indisputable factor in the elimination of prejudices?
>
>>
Um, ok, yes, the book . . .Well, I do hate to mention this (maybe I
don't seem reticent on the net but I am, at times) -- because I do
have a financial stake (now very small) in the matter --
Dennis Baron, *Grammar and Gender* (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1986).
It is available in paper. It is historical in scope, tracing attempts
to reform grammar, spelling, vocabulary, and usage, showing that the
linguistic treatment of grammatical gender and etymology often reflects
societal views of the biological/social roles of men and women. Deals
with recent reforms as well, suggests reasons why their success may only
be limited. Nonetheless affirms the need many people feel to highlight
certain aspects of language for comment, consciousness raising, and
social commentary, and does all of this in unobtrusive sex-neutral
language (my wife checked it very carefully), because sometimes you
want to foreground language, and sometimes you don't.
--
Dennis
deb...@uiuc.edu (\ 217-333-2392
\'\ fax: 217-333-4321
Dennis Baron \'\ __________
Department of English / '| ()_________)
Univ. of Illinois \ '/ \ ~~~~~~~~ \
608 S. Wright St. \ \ ~~~~~~ \
Urbana IL 61801 ==). \__________\
(__) ()__________)
Mandar M. Mirashi
>mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>>Sorry, Mandar, but it's *not* unrelated. It's *not* unrelated
>>>to the *continuation* of these hardships.
>>
>>are.
>
>is unrelated.
>
>Some more set theory: if set A intersects with set B, and set B and set
>C are disjoint, that does not imply that set A does not intersect with
>set C.
>
Nor does it imply that it *does*. Your example proves exactly *nothing*.
>Language shapes thought, and therefore affects what people do. It is
>not the only influence - I haven't seen *anyone* suggest that it is -
>but it is nevertheless not unimportant.
>
>--
As I said earlier, prove it.
Rheal Nadeau
>
> Really? Then why do you not go around removing ALL ambiguities
>from the English language? You do not know of the matters you speak.
>If the only argument you can give me for using a different word is :
>"it removes ambiguity", then I counter that argument with "Well then,
>why stop at "man"? Why not extend this concept of resolving ambiguity?"
>Have you ever studied the ambiguities inherent in speech and writing?
>Mind you, sometimes even replacing a word will not do much to clear
>up the ambiguity. Accept the language the way it is, and stop waging
>the "war of the sexes" on language.
This may be a strange concept to you, Mandar, but I do try to write and
speak in the least ambiguous way possible. I do try to choose the words
that will convey my meaning most precisely, taking into account the
mental images my words will bring up in the reader's or listener's mind.
This is considered good communications.
And I believe saying "people" is more effective than saying "men
(including women)". And less offensive to the women, since it includes
them as a matter of course, not as an afterthought.
Rosemary Waigh
>In article <1992Dec20.0...@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rw...@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>I'm not really sure what you're trying to say, Mandar.
>>"Persons" does *not* include animals. To include all species of animals,
>>use the word "animals" (which includes people too).
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Compare that to the usage of the word "men" (which includes women too) ;)
>Now WHY did you add that, if the meaning of animals is unambiguous?
Because the meaning of animals is not unambiguous; to some people it means
only non-human animals. This leads to all sorts of tiresome qualifications
when trying to write, say, animal rights literature.
>You cleared up the context, didn't you? That's because some people
>don't consider people to be animals. Similarly, there is NOTHING wrong
>with clearing up the context when using the word "man".
However, in the case of human beings, we are fortunate to have many
unambiguous terms to include people of both genders, making the sexist use
of "man" especially pointless and undesirable.
Mandar M. Mirashi
>In article <BzJoI...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmi...@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>
>> Really? Then why do you not go around removing ALL ambiguities
>>from the English language? You do not know of the matters you speak.
>>If the only argument you can give me for using a different word is :
>>"it removes ambiguity", then I counter that argument with "Well then,
>>why stop at "man"? Why not extend this concept of resolving ambiguity?"
>>Have you ever studied the ambiguities inherent in speech and writing?
>>Mind you, sometimes even replacing a word will not do much to clear
>>up the ambiguity. Accept the language the way it is, and stop waging
>>the "war of the sexes" on language.
>
>This may be a strange concept to you, Mandar, but I do try to write and
>speak in the least ambiguous way possible. I do try to choose the words
>that will convey my meaning most precisely, taking into account the
>mental images my words will bring up in the reader's or listener's mind.
>This is considered good communications.
>
upon the context of the word? I cannot see a justification for your
attempt to drop the usage of a word when its meaning can be inferred
from its context.
>And I believe saying "people" is more effective than saying "men
>(including women)".
Apples are better than oranges, aren't they?
>And less offensive to the women, since it includes
>them as a matter of course, not as an afterthought.
That *afterthought* exists only in YOUR thoughts. It isn't added as
an afterthought. It is added as a "context-clearer" for the "contextually
dense". (Just as smileys are added superfluously for the humour impaired)
>
> The Rhealist - nad...@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Mandar.
Mandar M. Mirashi
>In article <BzJv4...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmi...@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec20.0...@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rw...@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>>I'm not really sure what you're trying to say, Mandar.
>>>"Persons" does *not* include animals. To include all species of animals,
>>>use the word "animals" (which includes people too).
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Compare that to the usage of the word "men" (which includes women too) ;)
>>Now WHY did you add that, if the meaning of animals is unambiguous?
>
>Because the meaning of animals is not unambiguous; to some people it means
>only non-human animals. This leads to all sorts of tiresome qualifications
>when trying to write, say, animal rights literature.
>
which is unambiguous in this context - "living beings". So, from now
on, we should use "living beings" when we mean "animals".
>>You cleared up the context, didn't you? That's because some people
>>don't consider people to be animals. Similarly, there is NOTHING wrong
>>with clearing up the context when using the word "man".
>
>However, in the case of human beings, we are fortunate to have many
>unambiguous terms to include people of both genders, making the sexist use
>of "man" especially pointless and undesirable.
So you *do* agree with me. The *use* of man is sexist, not the word
itself. AND, the people who *use*/interpret it incorrectly are sexist.
Yes, the *sexist* use of "man" is pointless and undesirable. But the
"non-sexist" use of man isn't.
Rosemary Waigh
>In article <1992Dec20.2...@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rw...@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>Because the meaning of animals is not unambiguous; to some people it means
>>only non-human animals. This leads to all sorts of tiresome qualifications
>>when trying to write, say, animal rights literature.
>>
>Aha! The "unambiguous" writer caught red-handed!
I think you have me confused with someone else.
>There *is* a phrase
>which is unambiguous in this context - "living beings". So, from now
>on, we should use "living beings" when we mean "animals".
No, living beings includes plants, bacteria, etc.
>
>>However, in the case of human beings, we are fortunate to have many
>>unambiguous terms to include people of both genders, making the sexist use
>>of "man" especially pointless and undesirable.
>
>So you *do* agree with me. The *use* of man is sexist, not the word
>itself. AND, the people who *use*/interpret it incorrectly are sexist.
That's what this whole thread has been about! I have been arguing against
the *sexist* (i.e. including women) use of "man", not the use of "man" to
designate male human beings. I thought you were arguing in favour of the
sexist use of "man" to include women.
>Yes, the *sexist* use of "man" is pointless and undesirable. But the
>"non-sexist" use of man isn't.
What is the sexist use of "man" then, since in an earlier post you said
it could be used to include women? If that isn't the sexist use, what is?
e...@ccu.umanitoba.ca
> To stir up a little dust, I proclaimed a while ago that the
>language the Americans use, isn't English and shouldn't be termed so.
>Immediately, indignant Americans pointed out that I was mistaken and
>how the language they speak is indeed English.
How does 'Linguistics According to Mirashi', resolve the following?
On the one hand, The Mirashi Order regards the British as the final
authorities on English. The British (common man and linguist alike)
call the (predominant) American language, English. So bowing to their
superiority, a Mirashist must also call it English.
On the other hand, Mirashi himself proclaims repeatedly that the American
language is not English, himself contradicting the normal British
usage of 'English'.
What's a would-be disciple to do?
Werner
Mandar M. Mirashi
>In article <BzL60...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec20.2...@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rw...@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>>Because the meaning of animals is not unambiguous; to some people it means
>>>only non-human animals. This leads to all sorts of tiresome qualifications
>>>when trying to write, say, animal rights literature.
>>>
>>Aha! The "unambiguous" writer caught red-handed!
>Um, I don't think I have ever claimed that natural language was unambiguous;
>I think you have me confused with someone else.
>
But you *did* claim that you try to write unambiguously whenever possible.
Don't deny that. And here I have very clearly shown that you don't
practise what you preach.
>>There *is* a phrase
>>which is unambiguous in this context - "living beings". So, from now
>>on, we should use "living beings" when we mean "animals".
>No, living beings includes plants, bacteria, etc.
>>
>>>However, in the case of human beings, we are fortunate to have many
>>>unambiguous terms to include people of both genders, making the sexist use
>>>of "man" especially pointless and undesirable.
>>
>>So you *do* agree with me. The *use* of man is sexist, not the word
>>itself. AND, the people who *use*/interpret it incorrectly are sexist.
>
>That's what this whole thread has been about! I have been arguing against
>the *sexist* (i.e. including women) use of "man", not the use of "man" to
>designate male human beings. I thought you were arguing in favour of the
>sexist use of "man" to include women.
>
Huh? "Man" isn't sexist when it is used to include women.
>>Yes, the *sexist* use of "man" is pointless and undesirable. But the
>>"non-sexist" use of man isn't.
>
>What is the sexist use of "man" then, since in an earlier post you said
>it could be used to include women? If that isn't the sexist use, what is?
>
The sexist use of "man" occurs when it isn't clear from the context
whether it includes women as well. Further, this ambiguity is exploited
by others to demean women.
Mandar M. Mirashi
Can't you see that I did it deliberately? I proclaimed that the American
language isn't English so that I would get people strongly affirming
the fact that they *do* speak English. Well then, if you *do* speak
English then why do you defy standard English? (No....the argument
"there is no standard English, isn't good enough.")
Mandar.
--
"Imagine there's no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die
for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people living life in peace.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope some
Rheal Nadeau
>In article <1992Dec21....@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rw...@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>In article <BzL60...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>>>
>>>Aha! The "unambiguous" writer caught red-handed!
>>Um, I don't think I have ever claimed that natural language was unambiguous;
>>I think you have me confused with someone else.
>>
>
>But you *did* claim that you try to write unambiguously whenever possible.
>Don't deny that. And here I have very clearly shown that you don't
>practise what you preach.
I don't remember Rosemary saying that - maybe you've got her confused with
me? I assure you, we don't look very much alike (right, Ro?).
Anyway, note the word "try". Check your English English dictionary,
Mandar - "try" isn't the same as "do". (Except, of course, for Yoda.)
Liz Jones
Oh dear. I can't wait for the day when the word "man" becomes archaic in
some of its supposed meanings.
My dictionary, the Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary, has the following:
"man (pl. men). 1. human being...; (in indefinite or general application)
person; ... 2. the human race; " ... etc etc.
These are the ones I am interested in. Oh. except for no.4: "adult human male".
"Mankind" does not seem to be listed.
Therefore, when wishing to make our meaning clear, why can't we use
man = male person
people = > 1 human being
men = > 1 male person
and spell out "the human race" in various ways to fit the application?
Because it would spoil many classic and quotable quotes that have been ground
into us and help to create a base for our outlook on life (forgive me for not
using the pre***ice word, mandar might notice ;)?
Liz.
Paul Osborn
>Subject: Re: Frosh (was Re: Sexist language (was...
>Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 15:36:45 GMT
>In article <BzDLx...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>
>>I didn't intend to insult feminists. But you realise that there *are*
>>feminists who believe that the female race is superior to the male
>>race, don't you? Not just that, they allow this prejudice to distance
>>themselves from men.
>
>The male "race"? The female "race"?
>
Perhaps the poster meant the male race and female race as subsets of the
human race ? And sometimes the feminists mentioned are right, some females
are superior to some males, in some things.
-------- PAUL R OSBORN, Research Scientist, Sensing Technology --- /\/\ --
BHP Research - Newcastle Laboratories, Australia / / /\
Snail : P.O. Box 188, Wallsend, NSW 2287 / / / \
Tel : +61 49 51-0605 Fax : +61 49 50-2126 / / / /\ \
Telex : AA 28768 \ \/ / / /
Internet: p...@resntl.bhp.com.au \ / / /
----------------------------------------------------------------- \/\/\/ -
Mandar M. Mirashi
>In article <BzMsC...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec21....@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rw...@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>>In article <BzL60...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>Aha! The "unambiguous" writer caught red-handed!
>>>Um, I don't think I have ever claimed that natural language was unambiguous;
>>>I think you have me confused with someone else.
>>>
>>
>>But you *did* claim that you try to write unambiguously whenever possible.
>>Don't deny that. And here I have very clearly shown that you don't
>>practise what you preach.
>
>I don't remember Rosemary saying that - maybe you've got her confused with
>me? I assure you, we don't look very much alike (right, Ro?).
>
*Sigh*. These are times when I wish my newsreader would save former
articles and that their expiry date be much later. Rosemary *did*
make a claim saying that we should write unambiguously, whenever
possible.
>Anyway, note the word "try". Check your English English dictionary,
>Mandar - "try" isn't the same as "do". (Except, of course, for Yoda.)
No it isn't. So, we should "try" to avoid "ambiguities" in the case
of gender and shouldn't attempt to do the same when speaking of other
things? No. That theory doesn't cut much ice with me. If Rosemary
*was* such a careful writer, she should have seen possible ambiguities.
Anyway, my original claim stands. It is impossible to ALWAYS be TOTALLY
unambiguous when writing/speaking. The meanings of words will
continue to be inferred from their context.
>
> The Rhealist - nad...@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Mandar.
--
"Imagine there's no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die
for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people living life in peace.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope some
har...@indyvax.iupui.edu
> In article <1992Dec18...@indyvax.iupui.edu> har...@indyvax.iupui.edu writes:
>>In article <BzG3B...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, mmmi...@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>>[much deleted]
>>> My only contention was that English spread to other lands from
>>> England. She is the mother country of the English language. Hence, the
>>> English used in England is the yardstick by which other dialects must
>>> be measured.
>>
>>Sheesh. Well, suppose MY contention is that Latin spread to other lands
>>from Italy. She is the mother country of the Latin language. Hence, the
>>Latin used in Italy (now considered a distinct language, Italian) is the
>>yardstick by which all other dialects of Latin must be measured.
>>
>
> Let me make myself clearer. The language spoken in Italy is NOT Latin
> but Italian (as you yourself concede). Hence, it can no longer govern
> Latin in other lands. However, if the differences in present day Italian
> and Latin were minor enough to justify their being NOT called separate
> languages, then Italian Latin would be the standard.
Granted it was not the best analogy in the world.
So go back a thousand years to a time when Latin wasn't a dead language.
What is your "standard," the typical speech of a barbarian bopping around
in Italy or that of the court in Byzantium? (that's not in Italy BTW).
Or maybe something else? The Latin of Livy? Tacitus? The Pope? Why?
What do you mean by "govern?" Is there a little committee that goes around
telling people they can't use words they find useful?
>
> To stir up a little dust, I proclaimed a while ago that the
> language the Americans use, isn't English and shouldn't be termed so.
> Immediately, indignant Americans pointed out that I was mistaken and
> how the language they speak is indeed English. Well then, why are
> they vain enough to deny the superiority of English English and its
> existence as a standard? I certainly bow down to this standard. The
> reason of their defial goes back to the war between Britain and America.
> In their effort to break away from the British, the Yanks have waged war upon
> the language. And, they refuse to accept the superiority of English
> English, because they are afraid that if they were to do so, it
> would somehow be linked to an acceptance of the British as their
> overlords. Can these blind persons not see that acknowledgement of
> English English as a standard is NOT linked!
You must be confused. So the Yanks just started talking funny because
they wanted to piss off the mother country, huh? Mandar, American and
British English were beginning to diverge much earlier than that. Some
words that remained in use here became obsolete in Britain. Some words
were introduced here for things that didn't need words to refer to them
in Britain, like words for topographical features. Some words became obsolete
here but remained in use in Britain. Sometimes new words for new concepts
were invented in both places at about the same time. And a lot of slang
terms, many of which have since fallen out of use even here. Your idea
that we were intentionally waging war on the language is just silly.
And you keep claiming that English English (whatever that is) is "superior."
What is so superior about it? I'm not saying it isn't superior for the people
who speak it, but what could make it superior for US? Isn't the language and
dialect best understood by the person you are communicating with superior?
Do you deny that each dialect has contributed to the other? If you don't,
then how would the language be better if this did not happen? (assuming you
find a way to implement whatever you meant by "govern" above)
Did you know that Swift once proposed an academy, like those of France and
Italy, to purge the English language of "corruption?" However, the eminent
Dr. Samuel Johnson frowned on the idea as inimical to the "spirit of English
liberty." This effectively killed it. That was over two hundred years ago,
Mandar. So I think you are a bit late...
>>
>>>[more deleted]
>>>[about his opinions, if you find them...]
>>> offensive, DON'T read them. Or, if you would like to dispute them, present
>>> cogent arguments.
>>
>>Others have done so. You appear to be completely immune to the effects of
>>any rational argument. This causes people to become frustrated, abandon the
>>use of rational arguments, and flame you instead.
>>
> I am NOT immune to rational argument. But shouldn't this argument be
> effective enough to convince me? So far, all I have seen are feeble
> attempts to disprove me. In cases where I have misunderstood the
> person or seen the flaws in my argument, I have willingly admitted
> it. However, no one has been able to put together an effective argument
> that challenges the superiority of English English. I think the
> reason behind this is that IT'S A FACT. *No one* can dispute that
> English spread from England to other lands.
Sure it did. But there is nothing superior about it other than your baldfaced
assertion that it is superior. Sorry, but that's just not good enough.
Hey, I prefer the word "lift" to "elevator." But if I am trying to catch
one, and yell "Hold the elevator!" the people inside are much more likely
to know what I'm talking about (assuming I'm on this side of the pond).
So I use "elevator." What's so difficult to understand about that?
Oops. Now that I think about it, I'd probably just say "Hold the door!"
But can't you see the point I'm trying to make?
>>>[more deleted]
>>> Learn how to make a kill file and you'll be rid of the "nuisance called
>>> Mandar". ;)
>>
>>Excellent suggestion. Welcome to my kill file.
>>--
>>James Harvey
>>har...@iupui.edu
>
> Killing me won't solve all your problems. ;)
Not kill YOU, but mark your articles as already read, silly. :-)
Yes, it won't solve all my problems, but it will be one less know-it-all
engineer I have to listen to, babbling on and on about something he doesn't
know much of anything about...
--
James Harvey
har...@iupui.edu
Rheal Nadeau
>In article <BzJpF...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, mmmi...@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>
>>>Excellent suggestion. Welcome to my kill file.
>>
>
>Not kill YOU, but mark your articles as already read, silly. :-)
Sure - make your newsreader read Mandar's articles for you, eh? Cruelty
to software, that's what that is! :-)
(Of course, "software" includes "firmware", except when it doesn't!)
e...@ccu.umanitoba.ca
>Can't you see that I did it deliberately? I proclaimed that the American
>language isn't English so that I would get people strongly affirming
>the fact that they *do* speak English.
And you needed a few hundred posts before you were satisfied? Or did the
fact that not a single English poster backed you up finally get
through to you.
>Well then, if you *do* speak
>English then why do you defy standard English? (No....the argument
>"there is no standard English, isn't good enough.")
It's good enough for the British, so it ought to be good enough
for you.
Werner
wil...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
> Can't you see that I did it deliberately? I proclaimed that the American
> language isn't English so that I would get people strongly affirming
> the fact that they *do* speak English. Well then, if you *do* speak
> English then why do you defy standard English? (No....the argument
> "there is no standard English, isn't good enough.")
gospel according to the blessed Mandar falls because it does not acknowledge
simple truths.
wil...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
>> However, no one has been able to put together an effective argument
>> that challenges the superiority of English English. I think the
>> reason behind this is that IT'S A FACT. *No one* can dispute that
>> English spread from England to other lands.
That sounds like a challenge to me! Here goes. We are trying to demostrate to
Mandar that "English English" is not superior to the other dialects of English.
I will attempt a demonstration by reductio ad absurdum on the statement
"English English is the superior dialect of English", which will have ad
hominem arguments against Mandar's assertions in it.
1. WHAT IS ENGLISH ENGLISH?
Answer 1: The English spoken by the Queen. In that case she speaks the same
dialect as a tiny minority of her subjects.
Answer 2: THe English spoken by BBC newsreaders. In that case there is no such
thing as English English because they speak several different dialects.
Answer 3: The English spoken in England. In that case there is no such thing as
English English because there is no such thing as *the* English spoken in
England.
Summary: "English English" is a spirit summoned by Mandar with no substance.
2. HOW IS ENGLISH ENGLISH SUPERIOR.
Just for the sake of argument I will ignore my conclusions in 1 above and
concentrate on the English/US distinction.
For English English to be superior it must be superior for some reason.
Reason 1: History---after independence the US veered away from "correct" English
English.
Answer: At the time of US independence there was no such thing as a standard
English pronunciation or spelling; the vast majority of people were illiterate
so any attempts at standardisation could only reach a few; it has been
suggested that East-Coast US English (as much a fiction as English English) is
closer to the way the first English settlers spoke than modern English English;
many spelling differences occur because English grammarians preferred
non-English forms which reflected the origins of words.
Reason 2: Name---English must be judged by England.
Answer: I defeated this one a week or two back. Briefly if this were the case
we should not be able to judge most of the world's languages because they are
not nationally based.
Reason 3: English people say so.
Answer: The vast majority aren't interested and are more influenced by US
culture than traditional English culture; those who are interested are more
interested in description than prescription.
Reason 4: A group of the Great and the Good say so.
Answer: They don't. Even if they did no-one would listen.
Reason 5: English English is somehow aesthetically better than other dialects.
Answer: If so that is a matter of personal taste not of demonstrable fact.
Reason 6: Mandar says so.
Answer: Mandar is not an expert in any linguistic field, he is not English and
does not listen to reasonable argument.
That should do it, but given Mandar probably won't.
Mandar M. Mirashi
>> In article <1992Dec18...@indyvax.iupui.edu> har...@indyvax.iupui.edu writes:
>>>In article <BzG3B...@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, mmmi...@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>>>[much deleted]
>
>What is your "standard," the typical speech of a barbarian bopping around
>in Italy or that of the court in Byzantium? (that's not in Italy BTW).
>Or maybe something else? The Latin of Livy? Tacitus? The Pope? Why?
>What do you mean by "govern?" Is there a little committee that goes around
>telling people they can't use words they find useful?
>
Hmm.....not exactly. But we need a standard to resolve interdialect
conflicts.
>>
>> To stir up a little dust, I proclaimed a while ago that the
>> language the Americans use, isn't English and shouldn't be termed so.
>> Immediately, indignant Americans pointed out that I was mistaken and
>> how the language they speak is indeed English. Well then, why are
>> they vain enough to deny the superiority of English English and its
>> existence as a standard? I certainly bow down to this standard. The
>> reason of their defial goes back to the war between Britain and America.
>> In their effort to break away from the British, the Yanks have waged war upon
>> the language. And, they refuse to accept the superiority of English
>> English, because they are afraid that if they were to do so, it
>> would somehow be linked to an acceptance of the British as their
>> overlords. Can these blind persons not see that acknowledgement of
>> English English as a standard is NOT linked!
>
>You must be confused. So the Yanks just started talking funny because
>they wanted to piss off the mother country, huh? Mandar, American and
>British English were beginning to diverge much earlier than that. Some
>words that remained in use here became obsolete in Britain. Some words
>were introduced here for things that didn't need words to refer to them
>in Britain, like words for topographical features. Some words became obsolete
>here but remained in use in Britain. Sometimes new words for new concepts
>were invented in both places at about the same time. And a lot of slang
>terms, many of which have since fallen out of use even here. Your idea
>that we were intentionally waging war on the language is just silly.
>
Have you heard of Noah Webster?
>And you keep claiming that English English (whatever that is) is "superior."
>What is so superior about it? I'm not saying it isn't superior for the people
>who speak it, but what could make it superior for US?
Because it is spoken in England - the mother country of English.
>Isn't the language and
>dialect best understood by the person you are communicating with superior?
>
Superior at the moment..yes. But not superior when comparing dialects.
>Do you deny that each dialect has contributed to the other? If you don't,
>then how would the language be better if this did not happen? (assuming you
>find a way to implement whatever you meant by "govern" above)
>
>Did you know that Swift once proposed an academy, like those of France and
>Italy, to purge the English language of "corruption?" However, the eminent
>Dr. Samuel Johnson frowned on the idea as inimical to the "spirit of English
>liberty." This effectively killed it. That was over two hundred years ago,
>Mandar. So I think you are a bit late...
>
I am not against changes or local dialects. All I am asking for is your
recognition of English English as the global standard for English.
>>>
>>>>[more deleted]
>>>
>> I am NOT immune to rational argument. But shouldn't this argument be
>> effective enough to convince me? So far, all I have seen are feeble
>> attempts to disprove me. In cases where I have misunderstood the
>> person or seen the flaws in my argument, I have willingly admitted
>> it. However, no one has been able to put together an effective argument
>> that challenges the superiority of English English. I think the
>> reason behind this is that IT'S A FACT. *No one* can dispute that
>> English spread from England to other lands.
>
>Sure it did. But there is nothing superior about it other than your baldfaced
>assertion that it is superior. Sorry, but that's just not good enough.
>
Why not?
>Hey, I prefer the word "lift" to "elevator." But if I am trying to catch
>one, and yell "Hold the elevator!" the people inside are much more likely
>to know what I'm talking about (assuming I'm on this side of the pond).
>So I use "elevator." What's so difficult to understand about that?
>
>Oops. Now that I think about it, I'd probably just say "Hold the door!"
>But can't you see the point I'm trying to make?
>
Well, even *I* try to speak like the locals when I am in a particular
place. But if I get into an argument with a local about the spelling
of a certain word, for instance. Then to resolve this inter-dialect
conflict, English English should be used.
Mandar M. Mirashi
>(Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>
>
>>Well then, if you *do* speak
>>English then why do you defy standard English? (No....the argument
>>"there is no standard English, isn't good enough.")
>
>It's good enough for the British, so it ought to be good enough
>for you.
>
be as good as English English.
>Werner
Graham Toal
:
:>Can't you see that I did it deliberately? I proclaimed that the American
:>language isn't English so that I would get people strongly affirming
:>the fact that they *do* speak English.
:
:And you needed a few hundred posts before you were satisfied? Or did the
:fact that not a single English poster backed you up finally get
:through to you.
Reminds me of a certain Ly Hoang of 'Ly-ers Gambit' infamy. You still
around, Ly? Still got it in for me? ;-)
G
Tom Christiansen
:>It's good enough for the British, so it ought to be good enough
:>for you.
Are people from Scotland British?
:It isn't. Prove to me that most Englishmen find American English to
:be as good as English English.
:
: Mandar.
Prove that it matters.
--tom
--
Tom Christiansen tch...@convex.com convex!tchrist
Ear, but earn and wear and tear
Do not rhyme with here but ere.
Tom Christiansen
Countries don't matter whit bit linguistically, O Mandar. Speakers do.
:Superior at the moment..yes. But not superior when comparing dialects.
:I am not against changes or local dialects. All I am asking for is your
:recognition of English English as the global standard for English.
You've asked enough. We aren't buying it. Haven't you figured
that out yet? And you aren't even a real Englishman. Take off.
Enough. After seeing 7 new articles in this newsgroup, all by
Mandar and all cut from the same rotten cloth, that I can see no
other solution than to relegate him to that place only 3 or 4 others
have merited in 10 years of reading USENET: my kill file.
--tom
--
Tom Christiansen tch...@convex.com convex!tchrist
Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things. -- Dan Quayle
Gabe M Wiener
>
>we need a standard to resolve interdialect conflicts.
What the hell is an "interdialect conflict" anyway? I've never heard of
such a thing. One dialect says X, another says Y. Big deal.
>Because it is spoken in England - the mother country of English.
Nope. Germany, France, Italy, and the Northern countries are the mother
countries of English.
--
Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ. "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings
gm...@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu to be seriously considered as a means of
N2GPZ in ham radio circles communication. The device is inherently of
72355,1226 on CI$ no value to us." -Western Union memo, 1877
Sue Miller
>From the keyboard of mmmi...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi):
>:>It's good enough for the British, so it ought to be good enough
>:>for you.
>
>Are people from Scotland British?
Yes. Scotland is located on the island of Great Britain.
>
>:It isn't. Prove to me that most Englishmen find American English to
>:be as good as English English.
>:
>: Mandar.
>
>Prove that it matters.
>
Can't be done. :-)
wil...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
> It isn't. Prove to me that most Englishmen find American English to
> be as good as English English.
You prove to those of us who live amongst English people of both sexes that
`most' English people find your myth of American English inferior to your myth
of English English.
David A. Johns
# However, no one has been able to put together an effective argument
# that challenges the superiority of English English. I think the
# reason behind this is that IT'S A FACT. *No one* can dispute that
# English spread from England to other lands.
How do you say "non sequitur" in English?
David
David A. Johns
# But everyone agrees that there are words which evoke male images
# more frequently than female images, and the vice-versa.
# Furthermore, some persons want to drop these words from usage and
# replace them with other words. Well, why stop at "sexist" words?
# Why not resolve ALL ambiguity?? I challenge anyone to do that.
What dictionary do you use that defines ambiguity as "evoking one
image more than another"? Did some mischievous Englishman tell you
that's what it means?
David "My hovercraft is full of eels" Johns
Fred Lukoff
to other lands. Does that mean the original is superior? Certainly not! I
hold that no language is SUPERIOR to any other. Furthermore by saying the
original is superior to the 'copy' (although American English is a further
DEVELOPMENT of English) would also mean that the Everly Brothers' version
of "Bye Bye Love" is superior to Simon and Garfunkels, which is simply untrue.
Graham Toal
:>terms, many of which have since fallen out of use even here. Your idea
:>that we were intentionally waging war on the language is just silly.
:
:Have you heard of Noah Webster?
Errr.... yes - Noah Webster is almost universally acknowledged as one of
the silliest people ever to lend his name to a dictionary; what's your point?
G