Re: Mixed Message

Subject: Re: Mixed Message
From: David Dvorkin <ddvorki -at- USWEST -dot- COM>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 09:02:09 -0700

Stephen Victor wrote:

> That's what the whole issue of inclusive language is about: whether or
> not -man (as in chairman) and the "generic" pronoun he/him/his refer to
> a "person" or to a "man."

> Proponents of inclusive language believe the terms are sexist, exlude
> women, and should be changed to be inclusive. Opponents believe the
> terms are inclusive already and no changes are needed.

> You clearly fall into the latter group, and you are entitled to your
> opinion, but calling inclusive language "silliness" isn't really a
> constructive contribution to the discussion.


Read more carefully. I pointed out that -man means -person, not -male,
and is therefore already inclusive. It was specifically the habit of
creating ugly neologisms in order to avoid an ending that already means
what the neologism-creators want that I called silly.

This isn't my opinion. This is etymology.

David Dvorkin

Previous by Author: Re: Mixed Message
Next by Author: Re: Mixed Message
Previous by Thread: Re: Mixed Message
Next by Thread: Re: Mixed Message

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads

Sponsored Ads