|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is inclusive language really necessary?
|
Eloise
Shipmate
# 4292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
Almost all other languages have two or more genders.
So what? English nouns don't have gender, so all your stuff about languages that do is irrelevant to what we say in English.
If, like many anglophones, you think that English is either the only language in the world or clearly the superior one, and that where it came from is uninteresting and unimportant, then I suppose you might have a point of sorts.
I think it would be fair to say that, although it is descended from languages in which gender (which is fairly closely correlated to physical sex where such exists) is an inherent property of all nouns, modern English is closer to languages like Chinese, which only have gendered pronouns, if that. The situation is quite different from many European languages in that English words, in and of themselves, don't have any particular gender. So, I don't really think that you can talk about gendered words in English and gendered words in Latin as though they were the same concept - they're not.
Just like English used to have case marking on all nouns, has now lost it except on pronouns, and seems to be losing that too (whom etc), I think the same sort of thing has happened with gender (although the pronouns don't seem to be losing it, yet) . . .
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
English does have genders in some cases. Battleships are female, for example (and I managed to type that with a straight face). The Church is female (another case of linguistic discrimination which, strangely, no-one wants to fight, despite the incredibly culture-bound understanding of marriage roles that underpins it).
. . . in particular, I don't think this holds for people (at least in Australia) of my generation (I'm 19). I know I do a double-take when I hear ships referred to as 'she' (FWIW, I did the same thing the first time I heard 'midwife' used in a contemporary, official context) - the half a dozen people I just did a straw poll on also seem to confirm this. The interesting exception was a person who works for the department of defence. She said that when she first went there she said 'it' for battleships, but the hierarchy don't like it and so she has got used to using 'she.' If this is representative, it would seem to suggest that the losing of gender on nouns in English is not something being imposed (unsuccessfully) from the top, as you seem to suggest, but something that's happening naturally, in defiance of the officially correct way of doing things. All of which is tangential to the issue of words like 'mankind' (because the gender thing there is in the overt form of the word, not just associated with it), still, it's interesting.
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
Traditional English ways of referring to gender follow other languages, notably the ones on which it draws. There is nothing natural about inclusive language, it's a deliberate attempt to redesign language for possibly dubious ideological reasons, so it is entirely reasonable to take a step back from that project and see what it looks like in the wider scheme of human language.
And, apart from looking eccentric, it also looks doomed to failure. As the Académie Française keeps discovering to its annoyance, language is defined by how common people use it, not by how an intellectual elite (in which I would include people who write liturgies) try to manipulate it. If you've ever heard a group of young kids use "ESN" (educationally subnormal) as a playground taunt instead of "stupid", you'll recognise that people are going to find a way to say what they want to say in spite of - and often with the unwitting help of - the PC lobby.
Aside from the fact that it's not all that eccentric not to have a gender system for nouns (and some languages that do don't relate it to sex at all, just things like animacy) such things have been done. For instance, in classical Chinese, there was only one third person pronoun??, which consisted of a man radical (the bit on the left if you can see the character) plus another bit. In the early 20th century (after the fall of the last dynasty but before the rise of the communists) the May Fourth movement arose among the literati (it was centred around Peking University). Their agenda was mainly anti-confucianist, and one of the things they pushed the hardest was gender equality. The relevant point is this: they invented a new character ? which replaced the man radical with a woman one, but kept the same pronunciation. This character is now totally normative - so a) it can be done, and b) other languages have tried it too, it's not just crazy english-speakers!
--------------------
Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. - The Red Queen
Posts: 419 | From: Bay Area, USA | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chap
Shipmate
# 4926
|
Posted
Personally I find the majority of cases to be more of a pain than they are worth. There is certianly a need to be sensitive to the feelings of others and not to intentionaly offend. However, there is a big difference in a person being truly ofensive and those that have simply taken it upon themselves to be easily offended.
Posts: 454 | From: Texas | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lurker McLurker™:
Learning new words to a song? How hard is it? Really, if you consider the cost of learning a few new words to a song against the benefit of not pissing people off by careless use of language, how can anyone come to the conclusion that not changing the words is the best option?
Because your position as stated above is absurdly simplistic and totally out of touch with reality?
You have plenty of people posting above who are pis... vexed in their spirits when the words are changed. So it isn't a question of either offending people or not offending people, it's more a question of deciding which groups of people you least want to/most enjoy offending.
We started off this thread with people being offended by allegedly sexist language. Some of us aren't offended by that, but are offended by allegedly zionist language. Presumably some of us are not offended by either, and some are offended by both, and I'm sure there are plenty more axes of offence we can dig up with a bit of effort. So do you have a single editorial policy that will guarantee that no-one is offended? And which leaves any content behind? And which results in songs that scan?
One of the key aspects of language, especially in liturgy, is that it is shared. If every person in church is going to sing different words on a line by line basis depending on their personal set of circumstances, is the result Church of Babel?
If people use "exclusive" language when speaking or writing about events set firmly in the modern idiom, there might be a point to argue. But to put 21st Century political correctness into the mouth of people who died 200, 400 or 1,000 years ago is an insult to everyone's intelligence. Should we make Shakespeare's Shylock a person of unspecified race too while we are about it? Should the cross be carried by Simon Of A Place From Where People Tend To Have Darker Skin Than The European Average Although That Point Has No Bearing On The Narrative? Should the lyrics to "Ring-a-ring of roses" be changed to "Your chances of recovering from a severe illness are now extremely good"? Where do you want to stop, and what transparent and consistent criteria do you propose for drawing the line?
If you are going to sing hymns written in a previous century, you need to remember that they were, well, written in a previous century, and interpret their lyrics accordingly. Or don't sing them, and pretend that the Age of Enlightenment began at Woodstock (and don't expect your congregation to make a lot of sense of the Bible once the sexual and racial politics that form the backdrop to much of what happens have been airbrushed out in the interests of decorum).
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963
|
Posted
In reply to me, Melon wrote:
quote:
You're right. When the Bible says that we are all sons of God, it means that we all benefit from what at the time were uniquely male inheritance rights. That's a radically liberating message for women, and we can't have that. By reverting to "child", we emasculate (sic) the whole thrust of that dangerous feminist Paul's argument in Galatians 3:26, thus undermining the most famous feminist proof-text in the Bible, Gal 3:28, and assert our conviction that the blessing is reserved for men. The natural order of things is restored!
Oh, wait, that wasn't your point, was it?
Maybe we should rewrite ancient history to be consistent with our linguistic hang-ups?
Actually, I rather think this proves the point. While you are correct about first century property rights etc. and the theology of Paul referring to 'sons' of God etc., today this is not part of English culture (nor of other English speaking cultures I'd guess) and so 'sons of God' comes across as male. Recasting into 'child' in the song I cites is therefore not a distortion of the Biblical message but rather an attempt to make it clear for this generation.
As to inclusive language being a postmodern thing - well you can argue for it on those terms ('language is the only reality') but also on decidedly modernist terms too ('language must express truth clearly'). The philosophy of inclusive language is not as straightforward as you imply. Added to this, in terms of this thread:
a) liturgical language is philosophically complicated of itself
b) classic texts are - for a variety of reasons - not easily inclusivised well
so that's why inclusivising older hymns is tricky - though I think it can occasionally work. Writing texts de novo is another matter...
--------------------
"I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi
"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh
Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
At the risk of offending (at least) two women for whom I have an enormous respect, to wit Ariel and Ruth, may I share my own experience? When I first ordained I was massively into inclusive languange. I loudly sang "She who would valiant be" and changed the words at carol services so that the congregation had no idea what was coming next. Bit by bit I left that position, mainly because of female colleagues who took the line: "Language isn't everything. Let's get on with real equality". I think I've done my bit to rise to that challenge (although I take Sine's point - when you're a white male you may not notice a lot of prejudice at work).
Self-consciously using lots of feminine images and referring to God constantly as "she" is not what I call inclusive.
I honestly don't think that there is any reason, ever, to use "mankind" instead of humanity (notice that "humanity" is not feminine-gendered). And I'd estimate that in 90% of instances, there are perfectly natural phraseologies that don't involve suggesting that God is male.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eloise:
Aside from the fact that it's not all that eccentric not to have a gender system for nouns <snip> This character is now totally normative - so a) it can be done, and b) other languages have tried it too, it's not just crazy english-speakers!
It's not the absence of a gender system that I'm describing as eccentric, it's the obsession with tinkering with the language.
The Chinese example is interesting. Languages obviously do move on, typically towards simpler grammar, and I'm sure some top-down attempts to do this work. But there are an awful lot of counter-examples - several decades of the French civil service having a dictionary of banned (English-origin) words that cannot appear in any official publication has not prevented hundreds of English words from entering the French language, to the point where if you use the official term as a foreigner you get corrected to the English version.
And the problem with the English language PC drive is that it just doesn't end. If we were just talking about avoiding "he" when the subject could be male or female, I could see the point. If it was a question of choosing the least offensive of several commonly used and sepersontically* equivalent words, I'd say "why not"? It's when "manhole cover" has to become "personnel access cover" that I start to dispair. It's a ridiculous, contrived phrase that no-one used before, and which is only going to be adopted if people are threatened with disciplinary sanctions for using the far shorter older term. And much of the inclusive language used in church has the same artificial ring to it. You get the impression that it isn't about improving communication, it's about making communication about anything other than gender politics nigh on impossible. And of course that's a worthy postmodernist ambition.
* inclusive version of "semantically"
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Unfortunately, feminism has got a bad name, due to extremism or, arguably, something else masquerading as feminism. I changed my attitude to it when it was pointed out to me that many men were, in fact, feminists - it is just that they would never use that actual word. Perhaps the word should be changed to one which indicates people who believe that all human life is equally precious.
As some people have already said, it is easy to focus on language and forget the wider expressions of equality. I will certainly find it easier to sing the new words knowing it is helping some people, because up to now all I've heard is criticism (from women as well as men).
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Actually, I rather think this proves the point. While you are correct about first century property rights etc. and the theology of Paul referring to 'sons' of God etc., today this is not part of English culture (nor of other English speaking cultures I'd guess) and so 'sons of God' comes across as male. Recasting into 'child' in the song I cites is therefore not a distortion of the Biblical message but rather an attempt to make it clear for this generation.
That's fine until your congregation stumbles across Galatians 3, on which the song you mention is based, and which relies upon exclusive language as the basis of its argument. At that point I can see a number of options, none of which fills me with enthusiasm:
- They substitute "son or daughter" for "son", at which point the passage makes no logical sense anymore (there is neither male nor female because, err, we are sons and daughters...)
- They conclude that everything they have heard about Paul is true, he really did hate women
- They stop singing the new song because it is heretical
- (most likely) They stop trying to reconcile what happens in church with what they read in the Bible
The basic problem here is that the Bible isn't remotely PC, and fiddling with the pronouns and replacing "mankind" with "humanity" doesn't even start to address that. Teaching people to look for what the Bible was saying in its original context, and then to make appropriate contemporary applications, is hard work, but the alternative of pretending that the Bible is contemporary is just mad. If your liturgy includes the Bible, you are going to hit this problem time and time again.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
...
I honestly don't think that there is any reason, ever, to use "mankind" instead of humanity (notice that "humanity" is not feminine-gendered). ...
Humanity includes the word man just like mankind does. Therefore, both should be avoided, or neither.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
...
I honestly don't think that there is any reason, ever, to use "mankind" instead of humanity (notice that "humanity" is not feminine-gendered). ...
Humanity includes the word man just like mankind does. Therefore, both should be avoided, or neither.
You might have a point if I were advocating the eradication of the letters "man" from the English language since the letters "man" are also a constitutent part of the word "woman". However, I'm not advocating that.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boopy
Shipmate
# 4738
|
Posted
Sometimes it's a question of being able to see both sides - or having a view about both sides - but that one side of the argument weighs more strongly.
For me, I love traditional hymns, especially the internal rhymes and rhythms; and dislike the tinkerings which as a by-product tend to ruin the internal rhymes and stresses. So I find modernised versions absolutely painful. On the other hand, as a woman I feel utterly left out by references to 'sons', 'man' etc; I'm fully aware of their historical meanings etc but this doesn't make them acceptable to me *today*.
Some who can't understand that others find exclusive language difficult seem to assume that it's because we don't understand the history behind it, or don't care for 'proper' or traditional prayers and hymns. Not at all. For some of us its' not about misunderstanding historical usage, or even feeling offended, and it's certainly not about having a tin ear! It's that exclusive language creates a perception for some of restricting access to God. To me that is the heart of the matter and that is why it is an important issue rather than a petty one.
Posts: 1170 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Unfortunately, feminism has got a bad name
Suspect that it always had a bad name (amongst those who didn't agree with it).
But that the centre of gravity of society has moved on this issue, so what was feminist at the beginning of the 20th century is mainstream today.
(Not implying that further change in a feminist direction is either desirable or undesirable - make up your own mind on that).
Seems pretty clear to me that inclusive language isn't "really necessary" - because the Church got along without it for hundreds of years.
But concern for others is really necessary. Both those others who - because they have suffered in some way - are unduly sensitive to suggestions of inferiority where none is intended. And those others who are attached to the old forms.
How can we say that either group don't matter ?
Part of the lyric-writer's art is to choose the word which rhymes/scans and which is close enough in meaning to what is intended. Automatic eradication of gender reference is bad art...
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But concern for others is really necessary. Both those others who - because they have suffered in some way - are unduly sensitive to suggestions of inferiority where none is intended. And those others who are attached to the old forms.
Even when no suggestion of inferiority is intended, it is entirely possible that one may be conveyed. Our societies (and their languages) have an ingrained sexism that will take a long time to eradicate. So for many years yet to come there will be women who are suffering, women who are defensive because they are afraid they will be made to suffer, men ditto on both counts, people who appreciate the new forms and phrasings, people who dislike them, and people who wish the whole thing would just be over and go away.
This is all still a very new change. Women in the UK and the US have had the vote for less than 100 years, after being second-class citizens for all of these countries' recorded history (and before anyone objects, yes, I know that it's not as if all men were considered equal under the law all that time). It will take generations for our societies to absorb the change, not to mention what will happen in other societies; women in Kuwait got the vote just last week.
Melon, sorry, but I don't buy your argument that tinkering with the language is all due to some post-modernist agenda. You seem to have the idea that languages are a natural phenomenon over which we have no control, and this is simply not so. Languages don't evolve like species evolve; we can and do make conscious choices about how we will use language, and to make the conscious choice to use language that demeans other people is plainly quite wrong.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Forgot something.
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
At the risk of offending (at least) two women for whom I have an enormous respect, to wit Ariel and Ruth, may I share my own experience? When I first ordained I was massively into inclusive languange. I loudly sang "She who would valiant be" and changed the words at carol services so that the congregation had no idea what was coming next. Bit by bit I left that position, mainly because of female colleagues who took the line: "Language isn't everything. Let's get on with real equality". I think I've done my bit to rise to that challenge (although I take Sine's point - when you're a white male you may not notice a lot of prejudice at work).
Not all women everywhere want or need the same thing at the same time. It's confusing, but it's true. Sometimes there are things that are far more important than inclusive language--I would place the right to vote, freedom from discrimination in the workplace and access to education ahead of inclusive language. But sometimes inclusive language is very important. When we're talking about inclusive language in church, what to do and when to do it will vary from one congregation to the next, I think.
[fixed code]
[ 06. June 2005, 02:35: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foolhearty
Shipmate
# 6196
|
Posted
What Ruth said.
Beyond that is yet another issue. For many of us, inclusive language in the church setting represents a change. If we are long-time worshipers, we're asked to abandon old familiar (and often well-loved) phrasings for new ones that, to be fair, are sometimes pretty "clunky" to the ear.
We are forgetting, though, that whatever language we're using provides a first impression for many people -- people visiting the church, people looking for a spiritual home, etc.
These people enter into a church which is utterly new and strange in many ways. And they come from a world where "political correctness" reigns, for good or ill.
I wonder what impression non-inclusive languagae makes on such people?
--------------------
Fear doesn't empty tomorrow of its perils; it empties today of its power.
Posts: 2301 | From: Upper right-hand corner | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
...
I honestly don't think that there is any reason, ever, to use "mankind" instead of humanity (notice that "humanity" is not feminine-gendered). ...
Humanity includes the word man just like mankind does. Therefore, both should be avoided, or neither.
You might have a point if I were advocating the eradication of the letters "man" from the English language since the letters "man" are also a constitutent part of the word "woman". However, I'm not advocating that.
So, "man" being short for "human" you don't have a problem with?
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveTom
Contributing Editor
# 23
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
So, "man" being short for "human" you don't have a problem with?
"Man" isn't short for "human" any more than it's short for "woman". It's a different word altogether.
--------------------
I saw a naked picture of me on the internet
Wearing Jesus's new snowshoes.
Well, golly gee.
- Eels
Posts: 1363 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
...
I honestly don't think that there is any reason, ever, to use "mankind" instead of humanity (notice that "humanity" is not feminine-gendered). ...
Humanity includes the word man just like mankind does. Therefore, both should be avoided, or neither.
You might have a point if I were advocating the eradication of the letters "man" from the English language since the letters "man" are also a constitutent part of the word "woman". However, I'm not advocating that.
So, "man" being short for "human" you don't have a problem with?
Um, I'm not sure what we're talking about, Sharkshooter. It seems to me that this post directly contradicts your assertion that one cannot use the word "human" to include women because it contains the word "man".
So which is it? That the word "man" is genderless? Or that the word "human" doesn't include women by virtue of being masculine? I don't think you can have it both ways. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
Sorry for the long quote-inclusion. I tried to edit but missed the edit window.
Sharkshooter, I could be wrong, but you seem to have taken offence at my suggestion that the word "humanity" is more natural and normal these days and should be used in preference to "mankind". I really can't see how that suggestion could be offensive, but if it does offend you, I'll take note of the fact. Otherwise this conversation seems to be bordering on the surreal. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Melon mentioned midwife. I understand that the 'mid' bit means 'with.' A midwife is someone, male or female, who is skilled to be with a wife as she gives birth. It implies that mothers will be wives, but it does not imply that birth assistants will be female.
I think the argument that respect for the original texts of hymns and prayers means we should live with the exclusive language would be fine if we were talking about plays or poems. Hymns and prayers, though, are given to us in worship to use as our own. We sing or speak them and try to make them our own expression, and need to be reasonably comfortable with what they say and how they say it.
Not only this, but the language of hymns and prayers gives us much of our theological and devotional vocabulary; it educates us. This is therefore a very important subject.
William Tyndale was strangled to death and his body burnt for printing vernacular New Testaments. We remain a Word centred faith. I say language matters.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Not only this, but the language of hymns and prayers gives us much of our theological and devotional vocabulary; it educates us. This is therefore a very important subject.
This is the real reason why people either love or hate to use particular types of hymns or songs - regardless of whether they like the music.
Some of the theological points in hymns and songs are blindingly obvious. Others may be much more subtle, and only drip-feed into our consciousness. Perhaps the gender issue used to be a drip-feed one, but has now (with changing times) moved into the 'blindingly obvious' category.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveTom
Contributing Editor
# 23
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I think the argument that respect for the original texts of hymns and prayers means we should live with the exclusive language would be fine if we were talking about plays or poems. Hymns and prayers, though, are given to us in worship to use as our own. We sing or speak them and try to make them our own expression, and need to be reasonably comfortable with what they say and how they say it.
And not only that but the wording of hymns does change constantly, both by natural mutation and deliberate tinkering. Often it's a case of updating the language, or correcting the theology.
Crown Him with Many Crowns must have existed in scores of versions. Hark! the Herald Angel Sings started life as Hark How All the Welkin Rings.
So if this kind of thing is going on constantly anyway, there seems to be little reason not to extend the practice to inclusive language.
--------------------
I saw a naked picture of me on the internet
Wearing Jesus's new snowshoes.
Well, golly gee.
- Eels
Posts: 1363 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SteveTom:
So if this kind of thing is going on constantly anyway, there seems to be little reason not to extend the practice to inclusive language.
Yes, language keeps changing and growing for all sorts of reasons, intentional or not. If you accept a feminist ideology, you'll want to reflect the change in your way of speaking. If you don't, you won't. I don't accept the ideologies of feminism, so I don't feel the need to change my way of speaking in line with the dictates of feminism — unless it's going to be distracting from another point I'm trying to make, which is occasionally. I'm not a person, I'm a man, so I prefer to describe myself accordingly.
[ 06. June 2005, 10:24: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I'm not a person, I'm a man, so I prefer to describe myself accordingly.
I don't think you have that freedom. To me you are a person. I insist on giving you that designation, and it is one of great respect from my point of view.
A woman I know insisted that she was the chairman of the body she chaired, but I was not willing to call her that. To me she is a chairwoman.
Language is not private. You can call yourself what you like, I suppose, but communication requires shared usage and that is why we don't just do our own thing but argue, like we're doing here.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I don't accept the ideologies of feminism, so I don't feel the need to change my way of speaking in line with the dictates of feminism
What on earth is that meant to mean?
You don't except women should have the vote? Or equal pay and employment rights with men? You don't accept women should own property in their own right? You don't accept that women should be able to say no to sex, even to their husband? All those are "ideologies of feminism".
Not changing your language to fit the dictates of feminism means you'd be quite happy to talk about "the little woman back home", or describe women as "chicks", "dolls", "girls", "babes", etc. To pat your female colleagues on their bums and tell the "little ladies" that they should be looking after their husbands, not out in the workplace.
I suspect that you do modify your language in line with the dictates of feminism because, if you did not, one of your unfortunate female colleagues would have kneed you in the nuts long since. That or hauled you to a tribunal for sexual discrimination.
If you really don't accept the ideologies of feminism, then I'm more than happy to slug it out with you in hell. If you do acknowledge the rights that feminism has won for women, then why should that not effect your language, even in church?
quote:
I'm not a person, I'm a man, so I prefer to describe myself accordingly.
Well I'm not a man. I'm a woman, and I prefer to describe myself accordingly. In your church, it seems, I wouldn't have the option.
Peronel.
[ 06. June 2005, 11:12: Message edited by: Peronel ]
--------------------
Lord, I have sinned, and mine iniquity.
Deserves this hell; yet Lord deliver me.
Posts: 2367 | From: A self-inflicted exile | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963
|
Posted
Working backwards...
From Gordon Cheng:
quote:
I'm not a person, I'm a man, so I prefer to describe myself accordingly.
Since you are male, of course you can describe yourself aa a man. But that's not the issue here - it is about describing the whole human race as 'man'.
and also:
quote:
I don't accept the ideologies of feminism,
As has been pointed out, feminism is a very broad movement, so which feminism don't you agree with? On the one end of the scale, the equality of men and women as human persons (remember lots of early theologians did not accept this) or - on the other end of the scale - the need to reconceive of God as the goddess?? (Before anyone tells me, I know this is a blunt polarization...).
Then there was Russ:
quote:
Seems pretty clear to me that inclusive language isn't "really necessary" - because the Church got along without it for hundreds of years.
No- lots of early Christian theology in Latin and Greek was inclusive. The classic example is the Nicene Creed which seems to deliberately prefer inclusive words. Modern inclusive language has become necessary as language has changed - for most of us who advocate it, it is so we can present the (ancient) Gospel message in a contemporary way.
And encore un melon:
quote:
That's fine until your congregation stumbles across Galatians 3, on which the song you mention is based, and which relies upon exclusive language as the basis of its argument.
I'm afraid I don't get this - Gal 3 does not rely on exclusive language as far as I can see and 'Father God' does not seem to be based on that text in any specific way. And most congrgations I've ministered to get a lot of Gal 3...
--------------------
"I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi
"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh
Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I'm not a person, I'm a man, so I prefer to describe myself accordingly.
I don't think you have that freedom. To me you are a person. I insist on giving you that designation, and it is one of great respect from my point of view.
Well, that's OK with me. I don't think our language worlds are so far apart that we can't speak to each other, so we should enjoy our freedoms while they last, and not compel each other to speak in each other's ways.
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
Not changing your language to fit the dictates of feminism means you'd be quite happy to talk about "the little woman back home", or describe women as "chicks", "dolls", "girls", "babes", etc. To pat your female colleagues on their bums and tell the "little ladies" that they should be looking after their husbands, not out in the workplace.
Now this representation of what I supposedly think is exactly the sort of ideological fascism that I reject out of hand. It's a million miles from representing my view accurately, which probably absolves me from having to treat it seriously. Thankfully the world of "not feminism" is a bit larger than this constrictive prison house represents it as being.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963
|
Posted
Cross posted with Peronel, who put it much better than me! Perhaps it is significant that a man and a woman both think along the same lines here....
--------------------
"I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi
"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh
Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
lots of early Christian theology in Latin and Greek was inclusive. The classic example is the Nicene Creed which seems to deliberately prefer inclusive words.
That Christian writers have chosen inclusive language sometimes is no surprise. I don't think anyone's arguing against choosing the "inclusive" form where there are two equally good alternative words. That in Christ there is no male or female, slave or free etc is part of the message.
The question, it seems to me, is about "really necessary". Is this an absolute requirement ? Is gender politics such a dominant concern that all other considerations - such as the artistic dimension of "what is good liturgy" - must be swept aside ?
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
Not changing your language to fit the dictates of feminism means you'd be quite happy to talk about "the little woman back home", or describe women as "chicks", "dolls", "girls", "babes", etc. To pat your female colleagues on their bums and tell the "little ladies" that they should be looking after their husbands, not out in the workplace.
Now this representation of what I supposedly think is exactly the sort of ideological fascism that I reject out of hand. It's a million miles from representing my view accurately, which probably absolves me from having to treat it seriously. Thankfully the world of "not feminism" is a bit larger than this constrictive prison house represents it as being.
Hyperbole, maybe, but hardly "ideological fascism". Feminism, after all, has given women the vote, the right to own property and to refuse sex, and the right to be employed (and paid) equally to men. Within living memory, remember, women were expected to quit work when they wed. So I ask again: what do you reject when you reject the ideologies of feminism?
My arguement is this: were you not modifying your language in accordance with the ideals of feminism this would be how you would speak, because all these phrases were wide-spread and acceptable once.
Given you say that these phrases are a million miles from your own position I can only conclude that feminism has modified your speech from that of your father or your grandfather. Why should the language we use in church be any different?
I'm not a man. Whilst I wouldn't advocate the bowlderisation of much loved hymns, why should new ones be written in such a way as to exclude me? Why should I have to stand up and say, "for us men and for our salvation"? To say that men includes women is a cop-out, because nowhere else does men routinely include women. If it did, I would be able to buy bras from mens clothing stores and use the mens room in theatres. That, at least, would save queueing, although it might cause embarrassment at the urinals.
The sub-text of "for us men and for our salvation" is that I'm an after-thought in God's plan of salvation. After all, its men who are made in the image of God, which makes me just a copy of a copy. Second rate, in fact. That wouldn't be so significant had the church not taught the inferiority of women for so much of its history. The medieval church believed that that women had less developed souls than men, and were not really capable of rationality. Even now a big chunk of the church believes that women are incapable of being priests, in part because they don't fully reflect the male nature of the incarnate christ.
So it's a double whammy. The church has taught the inferior nature of women, a teaching that - intentionally or not - has been reinforced by the gendered nature of its language. That's why inclusive language is important. It's not about whether "Dear Lord and Father of us all" is artistically superior to "Dear Lord and Father of Mankind"; clearly it isn't, and damaging old and well-loved hymns to make them politically correct isn't something that should be undertaken lightly. Rather, it's about how the church uses language now to express the nature and relative significance of men and women, and what that says about my redemption.
Whilst I've been writing this, Russ has posted:
quote:
The question, it seems to me, is about "really necessary". Is this an absolute requirement ? Is gender politics such a dominant concern that all other considerations - such as the artistic dimension of "what is good liturgy" - must be swept aside ?
It seems to me that a big part of art (and especially liturgy) is its ability to communicate. Where it not for the communicative potency hymns and prayers would be nothing more than pretty noise. Might make great ambient music cd's, but would be lousy worship. Art and meaning aren't, I would argue, in opposition. Rather, the artistic dimension of "good liturgy" is fundamentally damaged if it conveys - however unintentionally - messages which serve to exclude half of those who participate in it.
"For us and for our salvation" or even "for us men and women and for our salvation" might be linguistically less elegant than the traditional words, but fundamentally what is the purpose of the creed? Is it to string together pleasing sounding words, or is it to express truths about the nature of God and his creation? The latter, it seems to me, is more important when it comes to writing good liturgy.
Peronel.
--------------------
Lord, I have sinned, and mine iniquity.
Deserves this hell; yet Lord deliver me.
Posts: 2367 | From: A self-inflicted exile | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
Not changing your language to fit the dictates of feminism means you'd be quite happy to talk about "the little woman back home", or describe women as "chicks", "dolls", "girls", "babes", etc. To pat your female colleagues on their bums and tell the "little ladies" that they should be looking after their husbands, not out in the workplace.
Gordon Cheng said
quote:
It's a million miles from representing my view accurately, which probably absolves me from having to treat it seriously.
Well, what did you mean then?
quote:
It seems to me that a big part of art (and especially liturgy) is its ability to communicate. Where it not for the communicative potency hymns and prayers would be nothing more than pretty noise. Might make great ambient music cd's, but would be lousy worship. Art and meaning aren't, I would argue, in opposition. Rather, the artistic dimension of "good liturgy" is fundamentally damaged if it conveys - however unintentionally - messages which serve to exclude half of those who participate in it.
"For us and for our salvation" or even "for us men and women and for our salvation" might be linguistically less elegant than the traditional words, but fundamentally what is the purpose of the creed? Is it to string together pleasing sounding words, or is it to express truths about the nature of God and his creation? The latter, it seems to me, is more important when it comes to writing good liturgy.
Peronel.
If the men that originally wrote the liturgy weren't thinking exclusively - women being only fractionally above the levels of animals then, and certainly classed as chattels - then doubtless it would have been "great art". If you are going to write in flowing words and sentences, and still be theologically correct, you will write them, but they will reflect your inclusive or exclusive thinking.
"For us men and our salvation" comes from the pen of a man who really isn't considering women as being worthy of mention, maybe not even of salvation!
If there had been several women at the Council of Nicea doubtless the Nicene Creed would have come out a bit differently, but still in flowing language.
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
If there had been several women at the Council of Nicea doubtless the Nicene Creed would have come out a bit differently, but still in flowing language.
Agreed. Liturgy by its nature is communicative. If it's communicating a discriminatory subtext* then it is by definition bad liturgy, no matter how flowing the phrases.
Peronel.
*Unless, of course, you intended to convey discrimination. Then it may be good liturgy, but it's lousy theology.
--------------------
Lord, I have sinned, and mine iniquity.
Deserves this hell; yet Lord deliver me.
Posts: 2367 | From: A self-inflicted exile | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek.*
Resident alien
# 3207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
to make the conscious choice to use language that demeans other people is plainly quite wrong.
This the crux of it for me. Taking Paul's admonition to "prefer one another in love", it seems appropriate to stop and listen to what my siblings in Christ are saying and try to respond out of love and respect for their experience.
--------------------
.sig on holiday
Posts: 702 | From: Hot-on-us, TX | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HoosierNan
Shipmate
# 91
|
Posted
From about age 8 to about age 13, I would recite the creed saying, "for us GIRLS and our salvation." When called on this, I would say that Christ died for all of us, male and female, young and old. Since for centuries the "us men" had been being said, one kid in one church saying "us girls" is not going to cause the downfall of the institution of the church, but it might make people think.
Posts: 795 | From: Indiana, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveTom
Contributing Editor
# 23
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I'm not a person, I'm a man, so I prefer to describe myself accordingly.
Several people have called you on this, and as you haven't responded yet, I'll do it again.
Since you object to having your identity as a man subsumed under the umbrella of "person", can you not appreciate that a woman has as much and even more reason to object to having her identity subsumed under the umbrella of "man".
(And of course if a woman can object to sexism then so can a man.)
--------------------
I saw a naked picture of me on the internet
Wearing Jesus's new snowshoes.
Well, golly gee.
- Eels
Posts: 1363 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Corpus cani:
"Man" includes both male and female
But in ordinary everyday speech it doesn't, and hasn't for centuries. If we are to have our liturgy in a language "understanded of the people" we have to avoid using it that way.
It also sounds incredibly pompous these days.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
"For us men and our salvation" comes from the pen of a man who really isn't considering women as being worthy of mention, maybe not even of salvation!
If there had been several women at the Council of Nicea doubtless the Nicene Creed would have come out a bit differently, but still in flowing language.
Actually the Greek doesn't say that - the original wording is inclusive, it is only the English mistranslation as the word "men" that isn't.
And it isn't inclusive. No amount of special pleading here can change that. The ordinary everyday meaning of "man" and "men" in modern English is male.
And Melon, most languages do not have the kind of grammatical gender we are talking about here. Its a little indo-European peculiarity. Other kinds of languages often (not always) have other kinds of systems but they don't alway map on to our ideas of grammatical gender very closely at all. And many of them have nothing resembling it.
Anyway, its all irrelevant because modern English does not have grammatical gender. Insofar as ships are described by female words it is because we metaphorise them as female - a matter of sex, not gender. The word "man" is not masculine in English, it is male. We only have the barest remnants of grammatical gender. Treating English as if it were Latin produces sloppy English.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
HoosierNan - a girl with Attitude! ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
A slight tangent - but pertinent to the development of modern and future discourse, if not the past - what is the current received wisdom when writing about people of both sexes? When I used to write essays, the thinking was first that you should use he/she, then it changed to using she and he interchangeably, then to using either he or she (but usually she) with a rider that this was for ease of use, not for discriminatory purposes.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
I use "they" without apology ever since I looked it up in the OED (the old one) and found that the singular pronoun usage was actually listed among the definitions, with citations going back to Carlisle.
Timothy
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I use "they" without apology ever since I looked it up in the OED (the old one) and found that the singular pronoun usage was actually listed among the definitions, with citations going back to Carlisle.
So they missed out Milton & Shakespeare?
It's always been at least in colloquial use as a singular, for as long as there has been an English language.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Corpus cani:
"Man" includes both male and female
But in ordinary everyday speech it doesn't, and hasn't for centuries.
The "for centuries" part is wrong. To pick a fairly famous example, compare the intro to the original Star Trek,
quote:
to boldly go where no man has gone before
with the intro from Star Trek: The Next Generation,
quote:
to boldly go where no one has gone before
(To hear this for yourself, there's are WAV files of the Star Trek intros from http://www.fiftiesweb.com/tv/star-trek.htm.)
It has only been relatively recently that it stopped being acceptable for "man" or "men" to be used as generic pronouns that did not necessarily indicate gender.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
to boldly go where no man has gone before
But that is not ordinary everyday speech. It was deliberatly written to sound a high-toned and old-fashioned. No-one speaks like that unless they are trying to sound pretentious. And Star Trek TOS was famously pretentious.
quote:
It has only been relatively recently that it stopped being acceptable for "man" or "men" to be used as generic pronouns that did not necessarily indicate gender.
Whether or not it is acceptable, it has been centuries since it was colloquial.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
The church has taught the inferior nature of women, a teaching that - intentionally or not - has been reinforced by the gendered nature of its language. That's why inclusive language is important. It's not about whether "Dear Lord and Father of us all" is artistically superior to "Dear Lord and Father of Mankind"; clearly it isn't, and damaging old and well-loved hymns to make them politically correct isn't something that should be undertaken lightly. Rather, it's about how the church uses language now to express the nature and relative significance of men and women, and what that says about my redemption.
Pepone, I love you and want to have your babies!
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
The "for centuries" part is wrong. To pick a fairly famous example, compare the intro to the original Star Trek,
quote:
to boldly go where no man has gone before
Star Trek TOS cast women in two roles. Glorified secretaries, who answered phones (in the case of Uhura) or held charts (Nurse Chapel) or babes for Kirk to shag. Either way, they were dressed in tights and skirts so short it's amazing you couldn't see hair.
Using Star Trek as an example of how "men" can be gender-inclusive is nonsensical. I have no doubt that in the minds of the show's authors, it was men who were the bold explorers. Women were assistants and paper holders (frequently), objects of pity (occassionally), and desirable sexually (almost always). Frankly, I think the women in our churches deserve better.
Further, the comparison shows this: whilst "man" might have been acceptable once, it is no longer. If the telly can change one of the most recognisable intros ever, then why can't the church?
Peronel.
[preview post was not my friend]
[ 06. June 2005, 18:15: Message edited by: Peronel ]
--------------------
Lord, I have sinned, and mine iniquity.
Deserves this hell; yet Lord deliver me.
Posts: 2367 | From: A self-inflicted exile | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The question, it seems to me, is about "really necessary". Is this an absolute requirement ? Is gender politics such a dominant concern that all other considerations - such as the artistic dimension of "what is good liturgy" - must be swept aside ?
I think that, theologically speaking, it's imperative. The secular culture in which Jesus lived was all about ranking people in the order of their "worldly" importance. One of Jesus' central messages was that God does not recognise this human ranking of people in order of importance. Once society realised that it was doing to women what it had done to slaves (for example), there is absolutely no question that this form of "ranking" had to be viewed as unGodly.
IMO, Christians can't sacrifice this awareness that we are all morally level in God's sight any more than it can sacrifice concepts such as sin, forgiveness or redemption. IMO nothing can be "good liturgy" that "drip feeds" the idea that women are not 100% members of the human race.
I never thought I'd do the phrase "Young people today..." but here it goes... Most people today take the equality of the sexes for granted and that makes me happy because it means that the feminism of my youth - the one that wanted genuine equality and not false female 'superiority' - was successful. However, we should not forget that there are women still alive like my mother who lived well into middle age before the concept ever came about in society that they were in any sense equal to men.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
Do you want the French to develop a genderless third person plural pronoun as well? They use "ils" when it is a group of two or more containing at least one male. So a group of 1 man and 999 women is masculine.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
... I don't think you can have it both ways.
I am just trying to show how forced and sometimes ridiculous some of the arguments are. Obviously, I wasn't communicating well.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Do you want the French to develop a genderless third person plural pronoun as well?
So what?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
quote:
to boldly go where no man has gone before
He, she or it, its still a split infinitive!
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Fine. But "For us men" means the women aren't included. I guess its all a mattter of who you want to keep out. Or, more usefully, perhaps you can suggest a better translation.
I believe if you'll go back and read what I wrote, you'll see that I did.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
