TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Changing our Language From:"Thomas E. Potter" <TPotter243 -at- AOL -dot- COM> Date:Mon, 18 Dec 1995 20:49:42 -0500
In a message dated 95-12-17 13:01:08 EST, taltom -at- IQUEST -dot- NET (Tim Altom)
>You're correct that populations change language, while academics record the
>changes. But changes never take place because of imposition from without, as
>you're trying to do. You imagine that if only you and every other writer
>simply switch to a sexless form of indeterminate, the language itself will
>creakingly follow suit, having no choice.
>But language doesn't bow to the preferences of writers, be they few or
>numerous. It changes only when the majority of its users agree with the
>writers. Writers have tried many times to change usage, only to have the
>vast milling multitudes pointedly ignore the improvements. The herd DOES
>endorse change that makes life and spelling easier: "gauge" is now spelled
>"gage" and "dialogue" is now "dialog," for example. But things simply deemed
>to be "good ideas" by a cadre of writers and/or editors are usually
>summarily dismissed and subsequently ignored. I'm afraid that a sexless
>indeterminant comes under that heading.
I enjoyed your appraisal of the fruitless effort to force sexless pronouns. I
think you are correct; however, I don't want to give up keeping the pressure
on to force the gradual changes you describe.
TPotter243 -at- aol -dot- com