[Ads-l] Berkeley and gender neutral words

[Peter Reitan]

See also, "Huntress."

Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>

________________________________
From: American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU> on behalf of Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at GMAIL.COM>
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 6:16:23 PM
To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Berkeley and gender neutral words

---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Poster:       Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: Berkeley and gender neutral words
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Goddess" is somehow doing well.

The neutrality craze is based in part on the elementary fallacy that a
word's meaning is dictated by its etymology.  Another significant basis is
the a priori belief that speakers of English are as sensitive to nuance as
are a subset of people with Ph.Ds and must, in any case, be protected from
"-man" words, which are dangerously, irremediably sexist and malign.

JL

JL



On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 8:42 PM Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at yale.edu>
wrote:

> > On Jul 19, 2019, at 8:01 PM, Mark Mandel <markamandel at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> >
> > The Latin means "No one is an heir or a living person.=E2=80=9D
>
> Mark=E2=80=99s finger meant =E2=80=9Cof=E2=80=9D rather than =E2=80=9Cor=
=E2=80=9D; the claim as it stands is
> rather too strong.  More seriously, I don=E2=80=99t get the argument to r=
eplace
> =E2=80=9Cheir=E2=80=9D, which is parallel to =E2=80=9Cactor=E2=80=9D and =
arguably also to =E2=80=9Cpoet=E2=80=9D.  By all
> means, let=E2=80=99s dump =E2=80=9Cheiress=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=9Cadventuress=
=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=9Cactress=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=9Csculptress=E2=80=9D, or
> =E2=80=9Cpoetess=E2=80=9D, although it could be (and has been) argued tha=
t =E2=80=9Cactress=E2=80=9D
> performs a service that the others don=E2=80=99t, at least until sex-neut=
ral
> casting becomes universal; the tradeoff for sex specification may be deem=
ed
> worth it.  =E2=80=9CWaitress=E2=80=9D is another case, and I grant we all=
 have different
> cutoff points. (Mine is rather different from Jon=E2=80=99s, for example.=
)  But the
> fact that =E2=80=9Cheiress=E2=80=9D can be plausibly argued to be sexist =
on the grounds
> that it marks sex of the referent when it=E2=80=99s irrelevant, I don=E2=
=80=99t see why
> that consideration should infect =E2=80=9Cheir=E2=80=9D, which as noted b=
elow really is
> just =E2=80=98one who=E2=80=99, on grounds of both usage and etymology.
>
> LH
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019, 4:35 PM ADSGarson O'Toole <
> adsgarsonotoole at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> The word [*heir*] is correctly applied to either a male or a female,
> >> although,
> >> in the latter sense, heiress n.   has been in general use since 17th
> >> cent. In Law a person is not called an heir to any property until,
> >> through the death of its possessor, he becomes entitled to it (
> >> *nemo est heres viventis*).
> >> [End excerpt]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>


--=20
"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org