"Man-day"
Norman D. Megill
Is "man-day" still acceptable? I need a term for billable units of labor
in project estimates, yet "days" is ambiguous with elapsed time,
"person-days" seems contrived, and "days of work" or "days of labor" seems
awkward or slightly vague as a unit of measure (at least in the context of
a contractor's estimate). My dictionary gives only "man-day";
"person-day" is not listed. Suggestions or opinion?
Norm
Truly Donovan
Norman D. Megill wrote:
If you're in the US, "person-day" should not raise any eyebrows. Most people
got past snickering about it about a decade ago.
--
Truly Donovan
reply to truly at lunemere dot com
Brian J Goggin
On 19 Sep 1997 13:42:24 -0400, n...@shore.net (Norman D. Megill) wrote:
>Is "man-day" still acceptable? I need a term for billable units of labor
>in project estimates, yet "days" is ambiguous with elapsed time,
>"person-days" seems contrived, and "days of work" or "days of labor" seems
>awkward or slightly vague as a unit of measure (at least in the context of
>a contractor's estimate). My dictionary gives only "man-day";
>"person-day" is not listed. Suggestions or opinion?
>
I've used "work-day". However, I don't know that manpower (sic) and
other personnel specialists do so.
bjg
earle jones
Good question: I think the best answer might depend on what type of people
are involved. If you are selling high-powered consulting time, you might
want to bill for "Professional Days". If you are delivering gardening
help, you might want to bill for "Shifts" or "Eight-hour shifts". Or
perhaps "Labor hours", since "Labor days" carries another meaning.
earle
--
In article <5vudi0$7...@northshore.shore.net>, n...@shore.net (Norman D.
Megill) wrote:
>Is "man-day" still acceptable? I need a term for billable units of labor
>in project estimates, yet "days" is ambiguous with elapsed time,
>"person-days" seems contrived, and "days of work" or "days of labor" seems
>awkward or slightly vague as a unit of measure (at least in the context of
>a contractor's estimate). My dictionary gives only "man-day";
>"person-day" is not listed. Suggestions or opinion?
>
>Norm
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
Want to get rid of Spam? See http://www.cauce.org
Gary
On 19 Sep 1997 13:42:24 -0400, n...@shore.net (Norman D. Megill) wrote:
>
>Is "man-day" still acceptable? I need a term for billable units of labor
>in project estimates, yet "days" is ambiguous with elapsed time,
>"person-days" seems contrived, and "days of work" or "days of labor" seems
>awkward or slightly vague as a unit of measure (at least in the context of
>a contractor's estimate). My dictionary gives only "man-day";
>"person-day" is not listed. Suggestions or opinion?
>
>Norm
I have seen "labor" used frequently, as in labor day, labor month and
labor year.
Gary
email: Replace x with g
O&W
Norman D. Megill <n...@shore.net> wrote in article
<5vudi0$7...@northshore.shore.net>...
> Is "man-day" still acceptable? I need a term for billable units of labor
> in project estimates, yet "days" is ambiguous with elapsed time,
> "person-days" seems contrived, and "days of work" or "days of labor"
seems
> awkward or slightly vague as a unit of measure (at least in the context
of
> a contractor's estimate). My dictionary gives only "man-day";
> "person-day" is not listed. Suggestions or opinion?
Nothing wrong with 'workdays.'
joy beeson
Truly Donovan <lex...@lunemere.com> wrote:
>Norman D. Megill wrote:
>> Is "man-day" still acceptable? I need a term for billable units of labor
>> in project estimates, yet "days" is ambiguous with elapsed time,
>> "person-days" seems contrived, and "days of work" or "days of labor" seems
>> awkward or slightly vague as a unit of measure (at least in the context of
>> a contractor's estimate). My dictionary gives only "man-day";
>> "person-day" is not listed. Suggestions or opinion?
>If you're in the US, "person-day" should not raise any eyebrows. Most people
>got past snickering about it about a decade ago.
Snickering yes, vomiting, no.
Joy Beeson
To use my address, replace the "x" with my first initial.
Truly Donovan
joy beeson wrote:
> Truly Donovan <lex...@lunemere.com> wrote:
> >If you're in the US, "person-day" should not raise any eyebrows. Most people
> >got past snickering about it about a decade ago.
>
> Snickering yes, vomiting, no.
I trust you excuse yourself from the room first.
John Dean
Why not 'staff-day' unless you still preserve a distinction between
'workers' & 'staff'? 'Working -days' seems better than 'days of work' altho
some might interpret '20 working-days' as total duration of project rather
than total people-days used.
Norman D. Megill <n...@shore.net> wrote in article
<5vudi0$7...@northshore.shore.net>...
Mark Barton
On Fri, 19 Sep 1997 19:46, Brian J Goggin <mailto:b...@wordwrights.ie>
wrote:
>>"person-days" seems contrived, and "days of work" or "days of labor"
seems
>>awkward or slightly vague as a unit of measure (at least in the context
of
>>a contractor's estimate). My dictionary gives only "man-day";
>>"person-day" is not listed. Suggestions or opinion?
>>
>other personnel specialists do so.
I would be confused if you used it to mean "mandays" without warning.
"Mandays" specifically means the product of time and the number of workers.
However I would tend to assume that "workdays" was the simple count of
elapsed non-holidays without the extra factor.
Cheers,
Mark B.
----------------
Please remove the spam filter from my address before replying.
Truly Donovan
O&W wrote:
> Norman D. Megill <n...@shore.net> wrote in article
> <5vudi0$7...@northshore.shore.net>...
> > Is "man-day" still acceptable? I need a term for billable units of labor
> > in project estimates, yet "days" is ambiguous with elapsed time,
> > "person-days" seems contrived,...
>
> Nothing wrong with 'workdays.'
Except in those cultures where "workdays" denotes a span of time, not a level
of effort. Having lived in such a culture for a long, long time, I would highly
recommend against the use of "workdays" unless you are absolutely certain that
that is the interpretation that will be placed on it.
Brian J Goggin
On 20 Sep 97 21:52:28 +0000, "Mark Barton"
<mba...@icrr.no.u-tokyo.spam.ac.jp> wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Sep 1997 19:46, Brian J Goggin <mailto:b...@wordwrights.ie>
[...]
>>I've used "work-day". However, I don't know that manpower (sic) and
>>other personnel specialists do so.
>
>I would be confused if you used it to mean "mandays" without warning.
>"Mandays" specifically means the product of time and the number of workers.
>However I would tend to assume that "workdays" was the simple count of
>elapsed non-holidays without the extra factor.
I see what you mean. Your "workdays" would be called "working days"
here, but even so it could confuse.
Back to the drawing-board.
bjg
Truly Donovan
Jonathan Mason wrote:
> You could just say that the job required so many hundred hours labo(u)r.
You could say that, but in a business culture that doesn't calculate labor
expenditures in hours but rather in days, you'd immediately be asked to provide
the conversion to days. It pays to pay attention to your audience.
Jonathan Mason
Albert Marshall
>> in project estimates, yet "days" is ambiguous with elapsed time,
>> awkward or slightly vague as a unit of measure (at least in the context of
>> a contractor's estimate). My dictionary gives only "man-day";
>> "person-day" is not listed. Suggestions or opinion?
>
>got past snickering about it about a decade ago.
>
--
Albert Marshall
Executive French
Language Training for Businesses in Kent
01634 400902
Larry Phillips
John Dean wrote:
>
> Why not 'staff-day' unless you still preserve a distinction between
> 'workers' & 'staff'? 'Working -days' seems better than 'days of work' > altho
> some might interpret '20 working-days' as total duration of project
> rather than total people-days used.
Then again, why not just use 'man-days', in its well known and
understood meaning, which already IS gender-neutral, and tell the
PC crowd to blow it out the orifice of their own choosing.
Jonathan Mason
Truly Donovan <lex...@lunemere.com> wrote:
>
>
>Jonathan Mason wrote:
>
>> You could just say that the job required so many hundred hours labo(u)r.
>
>expenditures in hours but rather in days, you'd immediately be asked to provide
>the conversion to days. It pays to pay attention to your audience.
>
depending on the length of the workweek. It seems to me more accurate to
work in hours, because your workers may be working 10 or 12 hour shifts,
or overtime. Then again, you could give the figure in hours, in days, and
in dollars if you really want to do a bang up job.
You are quite right that it all depends on context.
Truly Donovan
Larry Phillips wrote:
The "PC crowd" in question might very well include your employer or your client
(both of whom might sneakily have neglected to warn you in advance). If you feel so
strongly that this is a matter of principle, you might well be prepared to take the
consequences of such a refreshing release of pressure, but I think that a
considerate person might think twice about giving such advice to an innocent.
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
In article <01bcc5f1$da6b8140$6e6e...@cappy.clemson>,
> Norman D. Megill <n...@shore.net> wrote in article
> <5vudi0$7...@northshore.shore.net>...
> Nothing wrong with 'workdays.'
I don't think I agree. The idea is that the unit is one worker times one
workday; "workday" tells us how many days the project required exclusive of
days in which the project workforce is idle or engaged in other projects, but
does not tell us how many workers are required. The idea would be that a
project requiring four [man]-days could be done by two workers in two days, or
one worker in four days, or any other combination of days times workers
yielding four.
"Workdays" as a substitute for "mandays" strikes me as a little like
"current-hours" as a substitute for "kilowatt-hours".
Gary Williams
WILL...@AHECAS.AHEC.EDU
Stefano MacGregor
John Dean <john...@msn.com> wrote in article
<01bcc624$28bc90a0$225295c1@default>...
<<Why not 'staff-day' unless you still preserve a distinction between
'workers' & 'staff'?>>
Because it would mean something different. If you have a staff of
three people, and they work for five days, you have five staff-days,
but fifteen man-days (three people times five days).
Larry Phillips
Truly Donovan wrote:
> The "PC crowd" in question might very well include your employer or
> your client (both of whom might sneakily have neglected to warn you
> in advance). If you feel so strongly that this is a matter of
> principle, you might well be prepared to take the consequences of
> such a refreshing release of pressure, but I think that a
> considerate person might think twice about giving such advice to an > innocent.
I would not long remain employed with a company whose policies included
enforcement of PCish bastardization of the English language upon me.
If enough people felt this way, we would not long have the problem.
Truly Donovan
Larry Phillips wrote:
> I would not long remain employed with a company whose policies included
> enforcement of PCish bastardization of the English language upon me.
> If enough people felt this way, we would not long have the problem.
Happily, enough people don't.
Ernest Miggs
>Is "man-day" still acceptable? I need a term for billable
units of labor
>in project estimates, yet "days" is ambiguous with elapsed
time,
of labor" seems
>awkward or slightly vague as a unit of measure (at least
in the context of
>a contractor's estimate). My dictionary gives only
"man-day";
>"person-day" is not listed. Suggestions or opinion?
Seems to me an innocuous term that covers all bases is
"worker-days."
Not that I think it's going to win awards for elegance, but
when did that ever stop somebody who multiplies people by
days?
--
Ernest Miggs
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ignore embedded email address;
reply to: miggs at asan dot com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Robin Lionheart
> Is "man-day" still acceptable? I need a term for billable units of labor
> in project estimates, yet "days" is ambiguous with elapsed time,
Try "worker days" or just "N days of labor".
femal...@sprintmail.com
Robin Lionheart wrote:
>
> > Is "man-day" still acceptable? I need a term for billable units of labor
> > in project estimates, yet "days" is ambiguous with elapsed time,
> > "person-days" seems contrived,...
How about "work-hours," "billable hours,""hours worked," "days worked,"
or "per [eight]-hour day of labor"? If you are doing this for project
estimates or contracts, it's a good idea to define your terms as clearly
as possible, so as to insure their being interpreted as you intend. This
Personally I prefer "work-hours" to "man-hours" and "running,"
"operating," or even "staffing" to "manning."
I would probably draw the line at "staff the torpedoes, full speed
ahead." <g>
Bruce Tindall
In article <34314...@sprintmail.com>, <femal...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>I would probably draw the line at "staff the torpedoes, full speed
>ahead." <g>
Oh, I doubt there's much need to draw said line. I haven't seen anyone
suggest using the verb "to staff" to replace the verb "to damn".
Nor do I think I've ever heard a Naval officer order anyone to
"man the torpedoes", though it does bring to mind a certain fictitious
Air Force officer played most excellently by Slim Pickens.
B "a feller could have a great weekend in a.u.e with all this stuff" T
--
Bruce Tindall tin...@panix.com
femal...@sprintmail.com
LOL! This is why I should never post anything after twelve hours without
food. The incomplete sentence beginning "This" is also a goodie; I
wonder what I was going to say.
female(half)wi...@sprintmail.com
Brian J Goggin
On 1 Oct 1997 03:31:51 GMT, apo...@tomco.net (John Starr) wrote:
>femal...@sprintmail.com wrote:
>
>> . . .I prefer. . ."running," "operating," or even "staffing" to "manning."
>> I would probably draw the line at "staff the torpedoes, full speed ahead."
> ^^^^^
>
>That's about the level of erudition I'd expect to find, in a radical
>feminist.
>
I know nothing of femalewits but what I can gather from some postings
in the past few days. She or he has shown an awareness of some
problems of English usage, a willingness to suggest solutions instead
of simply complaining --- and, best of all, a sense of humour.
These are valuable qualities; a minor mistake in the wording of a
quotation is insignificant by comparison, especially when an earlier
correction was accepted with such good grace.
bjg
femal...@sprintmail.com
To Brian Goggin:
> I know nothing of femalewits but what I can gather from some postings
> in the past few days. She or he has shown an awareness of some
> problems of English usage, a willingness to suggest solutions instead
> of simply complaining --- and, best of all, a sense of humour.
>
> These are valuable qualities; a minor mistake in the wording of a
> quotation is insignificant by comparison, especially when an earlier
> correction was accepted with such good grace.
I quote your courteous defense in full only so that those coming late to
the thread will know why I thank you.
To John Starr:
You're the first person (to my knowledge) who has ever labeled me a
"radical feminist." As I don't know how you define the term, I may as
well accept the label as not. I find it curious, however, that you
attribute my nonsensical misquote to a political stand. I assure you my
mistake sprang from my having spent too many hours in front of the
computer and too few in the fresh air. I had the rhythm right; I
remembered the vowel correctly; without further thought I joined the
society of that well-known defender of women's rights, Mrs. Malaprop;
and then (my only real crime against this group that I can see) I posted
the product of my addled brain without taking time to reflect on what
I'd written.
I wouldn't say it could happen to anyone, but...
For the record, my definition of "feminist" (adopted from a
half-remembered statement by someone else) is: "someone who subscribes
to the radical notion that women are people." By that standard, I am
indeed a feminist. Radical? I dunno.
I'd hate to think my standing in this group will rest entirely on my
inauspicious debut. I can't promise never to make an error again, but if
they're all as funny as the first one, at least you'll get some laughs
out of me.
Pax?
femalewits
(who can usually spell but is a lousy typist--you have been warned)
femal...@sprintmail.com
Mimi Kahn wrote:
> Welcome to aue!
Thanks!
femalewits
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
> I'd hate to think my standing in this group will rest entirely on my
> inauspicious debut. I can't promise never to make an error again, but if
> they're all as funny as the first one, at least you'll get some laughs
> out of me.
I couldn't say what my standing in this group is, other than among the top ten
bandwidth-hogs, but if it is low it is entirely due, I think, to my accumulated
posts, and not to one of my first, which contained a major stupidity, which I
do not remember and would not want to revisit if I did.
Gary Williams
WILL...@AHECAS.AHEC.EDU
Robert Lieblich
Bob-Bob Burran wrote:
>
> femal...@sprintmail.com wrote in article
> <34314...@sprintmail.com>...
> Robin Lionheart wrote:
>
> <<How about "work-hours,"...>>
>
> No good. An hour is a unit of time, and a man-hour is a unit of
> work. Work is power times time. What is a work-hour a unit of?
Not to deny the truth of the foregoing, but the US government,
assiduously in search of gender-neutral terms, has fastened on
"work-hour" as the new term for what used to be "man-hour." I don't
know if it is in universal use throughout the govt (hard to believe the
govt is that organized about anything), but it is definitely very
common. And like so many other imprecise terms chosen to have a
specific meaning, it is coming to have that meaning - logical or not.
Bob Lieblich
Bob-Bob Burran
femal...@sprintmail.com wrote in article
<34314...@sprintmail.com>...
Robin Lionheart wrote:
<<How about "work-hours,"...>>
No good. An hour is a unit of time, and a man-hour is a unit of
work. Work is power times time. What is a work-hour a unit of?
--
(Reply to SPMacGregor at NetValue dot Net)
----------------------------------------------
Stamp out, eliminate, and abolish unsolicited commercial email!
----------------------------------------------
Barbara Briggs
Bob-Bob Burran <Spa...@Spam.Spam.Spam> wrote in article
<01bccfaa$de422cc0$b49c...@goodnet.goodnet.com>...
> femal...@sprintmail.com wrote in article
> <34314...@sprintmail.com>...
> Robin Lionheart wrote:
>
> <<How about "work-hours,"...>>
>
> No good. An hour is a unit of time, and a man-hour is a unit of
> work. Work is power times time. What is a work-hour a unit of?
>
The company that I work for calls it FTE which means full time equivilancy.
For staffing purposes if your department is alloted 8 FTE that would mean
that you have 8 X 8 hours of staffing time to schedule. The 64 hours can
be divided any way that works. 8 people working 8 FTE or 16 people working
4 FTE and so on.
Barbara Briggs
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
In article <01bccfff$fc0c35c0$2d9660ce@barb-s-computer>, "Barbara Briggs"
<brigg...@mail.telis.org> writes:
> The company that I work for calls it FTE which means full time equivilancy.
> For staffing purposes if your department is alloted 8 FTE that would mean
> that you have 8 X 8 hours of staffing time to schedule.
We also use FTE, but one FTE equates to a man-year, rather than to a man-day,
which would result in impractically small fractions for small projects. Your
company's usage, however, would mean that, for annual budgeting purposes, a
single employee would equate to 260 FTE. I suppose FTE-hour, FTE-day, FTE-year
would work.
But I favor the earlier suggestion of "employee-day/hour/whatever". Maybe
"worker-hour" would work, also.
Gary Williams
WILL...@AHECAS.AHEC.EDU
Daan Sandee
In article <343239...@sprintmail.com> femal...@sprintmail.com writes:
>
>For the record, my definition of "feminist" (adopted from a
>half-remembered statement by someone else) is: "someone who subscribes
>to the radical notion that women are people." By that standard, I am
>indeed a feminist.
Well, if that's your definition, join the crowd. (I would never object
if someone called me a feminist, even if intended as a derogatory
qualification, but radicals on both sides of the issue would, violently.)
>I'd hate to think my standing in this group will rest entirely on my
>inauspicious debut. I can't promise never to make an error again, but if
>they're all as funny as the first one, at least you'll get some laughs
>out of me.
Fem, I don't know you, but you sound like the kind of person who we
would be glad to have here (unlike chip-on-the-shoulder types like your
late opponent.) All you have to do is not make sweeping generalizations
on subjects that have been amply covered in the FAQ.
>
>femalewits
>(who can usually spell but is a lousy typist--you have been warned)
Sounds like me, except I usually leave off the "usually."
Daan Sandee
Burlington, MA Use this email address: sandee (at) east . sun . com
Michael Westfall
femal...@sprintmail.com wrote:
> . . .I prefer. . ."running," "operating," or even "staffing" to "manning."
> I would probably draw the line at "staff the torpedoes, full speed ahead."
^^^^^
So would I, especially since "staff" doesn't come anywhere near
close to the meaning of "damn".
:-)
-Mike
ccz...@szn1.nott.ac.uk
Barbara Briggs wrote:
> The company that I work for calls it FTE which means full time equivilancy.
> For staffing purposes if your department is alloted 8 FTE that would mean
> that you have 8 X 8 hours of staffing time to schedule. The 64 hours can
> be divided any way that works. 8 people working 8 FTE or 16 people working
> 4 FTE and so on.
FTE is now a common term in British universities to cover the
possibility that students are not full-time.
Thus, 100 full-time students are 100 FTEs. However, 100 students who
attend for one day a week constitiute 20 FTEs.
tanyasea...@gmail.com
> John Dean wrote:
> >
> > some might interpret '20 working-days' as total duration of project
> > rather than total people-days used.
>
> Then again, why not just use 'man-days', in its well known and
> understood meaning, which already IS gender-neutral, and tell the
Because it is not inclusive. Surely you would not want them called woman-days.
charles
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> In article <f0223b0f-6182-41eb...@googlegroups.com>,
> <tanyasea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 21, 1997 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Larry Phillips wrote:
>>> John Dean wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why not 'staff-day' unless you still preserve a distinction between
>>>> 'workers' & 'staff'? 'Working -days' seems better than 'days of work'
>>>>> altho some might interpret '20 working-days' as total duration of
>>>> project rather than total people-days used.
>>>
>>> Then again, why not just use 'man-days', in its well known and
>>> understood meaning, which already IS gender-neutral, and tell the PC
>>> crowd to blow it out the orifice of their own choosing.
>
>> Because it is not inclusive. Surely you would not want them called
>> woman-days.
>
>
> "Perchild" days surely
no matter, the topic reminds me of something I've been thinking about.
The verbs "man", as in "man the barricades", and "manhandle" are quite
standard and probably became established at a time when manning and
manhandling were usually done by men. Nowadays, however, I'm wondering
whether they can be replaced by "woman" (as a verb) and "womanhandle"
in appropriate contexts.
--
athel
LFS
> On 2019-07-22 14:45:32 +0000, charles said:
>
>> In article <f0223b0f-6182-41eb...@googlegroups.com>,
>> <tanyasea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, September 21, 1997 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Larry Phillips wrote:
>>>> John Dean wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not 'staff-day' unless you still preserve a distinction between
>>>>> 'workers' & 'staff'? 'Working -days' seems better than 'days of work'
>>>>>> altho some might interpret '20 working-days' as total duration of
>>>>> project rather than total people-days used.
>>>>
>>>> Then again, why not just use 'man-days', in its well known and
>>>> understood meaning, which already IS gender-neutral, and tell the PC
>>>> crowd to blow it out the orifice of their own choosing.
>>
>>> Because it is not inclusive. Surely you would not want them called
>>> woman-days.
>>
>>
>> "Perchild" days surely
>
> It's extremely unlikely that the original poster is still around,
but no
> matter, the topic reminds me of something I've been thinking about. The
> verbs "man", as in "man the barricades", and "manhandle" are quite
> standard and probably became established at a time when manning and
> manhandling were usually done by men. Nowadays, however, I'm wondering
> whether they can be replaced by "woman" (as a verb) and "womanhandle" in
> appropriate contexts.
>
--
![Peter Duncanson [BrE]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjU1GGYFBCZgBCNB-pRgkosMu-ej0qpnECw3jc8uGYOTiF8a=s40-c)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
wrote:
As explained in the OED's long etymological entry on the origin of the
word "man" it has two separate senses:
In all the Germanic languages the word had the two senses ‘human
being’ and ‘adult male human being’, though except in English it has
been mainly replaced in the former sense by a derivative (German
Mensch, Dutch mens, Swedish människa, Danish menneske person, human
being: compare mannish n.). In Old English the words distinctive of
sex were wer were n.1 and wif wife n., w?pmann wapman n. and wifmann
woman n.; both the masculine terms became obsolete by the end of the
13th cent., leaving English with no means of distinguishing the two
major senses. The genderless uses of man to mean ‘human being’ or
‘person’ are now often objected to on the grounds that they
depreciate women, and are frequently replaced by human, human being,
or person.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
occam
conversion rate. How many days does a man take to do the same job as a
woman? 'Work-days' sounds like a good compromise.
Lewis
> On 2019-07-22 14:45:32 +0000, charles said:
>> In article <f0223b0f-6182-41eb...@googlegroups.com>,
>> <tanyasea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, September 21, 1997 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Larry Phillips wrote:
>>>> John Dean wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not 'staff-day' unless you still preserve a distinction between
>>>>> 'workers' & 'staff'? 'Working -days' seems better than 'days of work'
>>>>>> altho some might interpret '20 working-days' as total duration of
>>>>> project rather than total people-days used.
>>>>
>>>> Then again, why not just use 'man-days', in its well known and
>>>> understood meaning, which already IS gender-neutral, and tell the PC
>>>> crowd to blow it out the orifice of their own choosing.
>>
>>> Because it is not inclusive. Surely you would not want them called
>>> woman-days.
>>
>>
>> "Perchild" days surely
> It's extremely unlikely that the original poster is still around, but
> no matter, the topic reminds me of something I've been thinking about.
> The verbs "man", as in "man the barricades", and "manhandle" are quite
> standard and probably became established at a time when manning and
> manhandling were usually done by men.
male human. The terms for sexed humans were woman or wifman and wereman
or wepman.
Confusingly, it was the root wif that meant female and wep/were that
meant male, since man simply meant human. (Wep is supposed to be the
root word that gives English vir- as in virile and virtue, but I thought
wer was Germanic, while vir is Latin for male).
I'm not sure what the difference is in Latin between vir and humanus,
but I suspect it is that humanus meant person, while vir meant
specifically male but that is simply a guess.
By the time Middle English started to roll around, the words had shifted
to basically their current form, and wifman was now woman and werman or
wepman had lost its 'man' prefix.
> Nowadays, however, I'm wondering whether they can be replaced by
> "woman" (as a verb) and "womanhandle" in appropriate contexts.
--
What was it they said about gods? They wouldn't exist if there weren't
people to believe in them? And that applied to everything. Reality was
what went on inside people's heads. --Moving Pictures
Athel Cornish-Bowden
English in words like "virile", but curiously the words for a male
person in modern Romance languages ("homme","hombre", "uomo") are
derived from "homo", not from "vir", so apparently the confusion goes
back a long way. The plural "uomini" on toilet doors in Italy is
especially confusing for English speakers if they know how it is
pronounced.
> By the time Middle English started to roll around, the words had shifted
> to basically their current form, and wifman was now woman and werman or
> wepman had lost its 'man' prefix.
>
>> Nowadays, however, I'm wondering whether they can be replaced by
>> "woman" (as a verb) and "womanhandle" in appropriate contexts.
>
> Persons of non-specific gender identity to the barricades!
--
Ken Blake
that it's confusing. I think that almost everyone who knows how to
pronounce it also knows what it means.
The words on toilet doors in Italy that *are* confusing are "signori"
and "signore," even for someone like me who knows the two words. It's
easy to miss the very slight difference between them.
John Varela
--
John Varela
Lewis
--
O is for OLIVE run through with an awl
P is for PRUE trampled flat in a brawl
Sam Plusnet
> Persons of non-specific gender identity to the barricades!
--
Sam Plusnet
Athel Cornish-Bowden
When I went to Israel in 1963 I saw that the doors were marked "oo" and
"ooo". I found out which was which (but have now forgotten) but I
didn't discover what the logic was. I suppose one can think of
anatomical explanations.
--
athel
bill van
bill
J. J. Lodder
Jan
J. J. Lodder
See Delacroix. Apart from her striking revolutionaire attire
she does carry a musket too,
Jan
PS Dutch has 'Kenau' for a formidable woman that you don't want to
quarrel with, after a historical Kenau.
She was active in defending Haarlem against the Spaniards,
in the first stage of the Dutch war of independence.
She led a company of like-minded women. (1573)
Cheryl
(1797), Jemima Nicholas, who used a pitchfork when arresting and
delivering to jail some of the French invaders. There's also a story
that women wearing the traditional (well, it became traditional later)
Welsh hat were mistaken by the invaders for English soldiers, which
contributed their defeat.
--
Cheryl
Lewis
--
WHO KNOWS WHAT EVIL LURKS IN THE HEART OF MEN? The Death of Rats looked
up from the feast of potato. SQUEAK, he said. Death waved a hand
dismissively. WELL, YES, OBVIOUSLY *ME*, he said. I JUST WONDERED IF
THERE WAS ANYONE ELSE. --The Truth
Ken Blake
Athel Cornish-Bowden
--
athel
Janet
Janet
Joy Beeson
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> The genderless uses of man to mean ‘human being’ or
> ‘person’ are now often objected to on the grounds that they
> depreciate women, and are frequently replaced by human, human being,
> or person.
such usage implies that women are not extra-special not-quite-human
creatures who are never included unless specifically invited.
And that, in turn, implies that we don't get to defend and protect
women without their permission.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
Snidely
/dps
--
I have always been glad we weren't killed that night. I do not know
any particular reason, but I have always been glad.
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain
j...@mdfs.net
> More likely they date from a time when 'man' simply meant human, and not
> male human. The terms for sexed humans were woman or wifman and wereman
> or wepman.
jgh
Quinn C
| Nautical meaning "to move by force of men" (without levers or tackle)
| is attested from 1834, and is the source of the slang meaning "to
| handle roughly"
<https://www.etymonline.com/word/manhandle>
--
In the old days, the complaints about the passing of the
golden age were much more sophisticated.
-- James Hogg in alt.usage.english
Ken Blake
Paul Carmichael
> If that was John Dean, sadly he died some years ago.
My wife tells me she saw a TV prog where they had collated evidence from all over the
planet showing that everyone who has "died" and been dragged back to life says dying is great.
That was a long sentence.
--
Paul.
https://paulc.es/
https://asetrad.org
Cheryl
> On 23/07/2019 08:44, LFS wrote:
>
>> If that was John Dean, sadly he died some years ago.
>
> Funny how people say "sadly".
>
> My wife tells me she saw a TV prog where they had collated evidence from
> all over the planet showing that everyone who has "died" and been
> dragged back to life says dying is great.
>
> That was a long sentence.
>
>
died" is rather self-centred, and means something like "I would have
preferred him to continue writing, acting etc until after my own death".
--
Cheryl
Katy Jennison
> On 23/07/2019 08:44, LFS wrote:
>
>> If that was John Dean, sadly he died some years ago.
>
> Funny how people say "sadly".
>
> My wife tells me she saw a TV prog where they had collated evidence from
> all over the planet showing that everyone who has "died" and been
> dragged back to life says dying is great.
>
> That was a long sentence.
>
>
dying, probably not so much.
--
Katy Jennison
Jerry Friedman
> On 23/07/2019 08:44, LFS wrote:
>
> > If that was John Dean, sadly he died some years ago.
>
> Funny how people say "sadly".
>
> My wife tells me she saw a TV prog where they had collated evidence from all over the
> planet showing that everyone who has "died" and been dragged back to life says dying is great.
> That was a long sentence.
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
> In message <gpnjmt...@mid.individual.net> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> > It's extremely unlikely that the original poster is still around, but
> > no matter, the topic reminds me of something I've been thinking about.
> > The verbs "man", as in "man the barricades", and "manhandle" are quite
> > standard and probably became established at a time when manning and
> > manhandling were usually done by men.
>
> More likely they date from a time when 'man' simply meant human, and not
> male human. The terms for sexed humans were woman or wifman and wereman
> or wepman.
>
> Confusingly, it was the root wif that meant female and wep/were that
> meant male, since man simply meant human. (Wep is supposed to be the
> root word that gives English vir- as in virile and virtue, but I thought
> wer was Germanic, while vir is Latin for male).
Yes. They're both from Proto-Indo-European "wi-ro-", as is Irish
"fer", meaning "man".
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Fir+Bolg
--
Jerry Friedman
RH Draney
character what it's like to die...he answers "like being born, only
backwards"....r
Peter T. Daniels
I certainly didn't think of Casper the Friendly Ghost as a Dead Person.
Do today's children?
David Kleinecke
> On 23/07/2019 08:44, LFS wrote:
>
> > If that was John Dean, sadly he died some years ago.
>
> Funny how people say "sadly".
>
> My wife tells me she saw a TV prog where they had collated evidence from all over the
> planet showing that everyone who has "died" and been dragged back to life says dying is great.
she saw a TV prog +
where they had collated evidence from all over the planet showing that .
everyone + says [that] ...
who has "died"
and
[who has] been dragged back to life
dying is great.
That's five levels. I know of no deeper recursion. So let that be the
record.
RH Draney
I once heard a theory that, given the time the comics and cartoons
began, Casper was supposed to have been the Lindbergh baby....r
Jerry Friedman
eliminates, say, Gibbon or Milton?
--
Jerry Friedman
David Kleinecke
real life examples greater than five abound. But this metric
is not too easy to measure.
Quinn C
There is no need to retain the outer levels in memory.
--
Bring home one dismembered body part, once, mind you, once,
and people get twitchy about checking your luggage ever after.
-- Vicereine Cordelia
in L. McMaster Bujold, Gentleman Jole and the Red Queen
Jerry Friedman
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
> * Jerry Friedman:
>
> > On Wednesday, July 31, 2019 at 5:16:14 PM UTC-4, David Kleinecke wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, July 31, 2019 at 3:25:10 AM UTC-7, Paul Carmichael wrote:
> >>> On 23/07/2019 08:44, LFS wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > If that was John Dean, sadly he died some years ago.
> >>>
> >>> Funny how people say "sadly".
> >>>
> >>> My wife tells me she saw a TV prog where they had collated evidence from all over the
> >>> planet showing that everyone who has "died" and been dragged back to life says dying is great.
> >>
> >> My wife tells me that ...
> >> she saw a TV prog +
> >> where they had collated evidence from all over the planet showing that .
> >> everyone + says [that] ...
> >> who has "died"
> >> and
> >> [who has] been dragged back to life
> >> dying is great.
> >> That's five levels. I know of no deeper recursion. So let that be the
> >> record.
> >
> > Oo, a record I could try to beat. Is there a restriction that
> > eliminates, say, Gibbon or Milton?
>
> But this way, it's not difficult anyway, because it's not embedded.
> There is no need to retain the outer levels in memory.
on TV" would be a normal response.
--
Jerry Friedman
Quinn C
memory. You can send them to semantic memory. Among other things, that
one isn't word for word, e.g. you might not retain whether it was "saw"
or "watched".
--
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach him to use
the 'Net and he won't bother you for weeks.