Scotland Independence Vote

[ban-all-sheds]

I meant reason as in "he has lost his sense of reason".

 

[EFLImpudence]

I beg your pardon.

 

[JohnW2]

There's probably no reason behind it.

Well, there must be at least an explanation as to why language evolved in the way it did. The examples we're discussing (King/Queen, actor/actress) are just examples of a tiny proportion of professions/occupations/roles for which gender-specific words have arisen/evolved; in the great majority of cases, this hasn't happened (even when the profession etc. was once dominated by individuals of one gender).

ust like there is none behind the idea that "chairman" is a sexist term and that we should use chairperson, chairwoman (if appropriate) or just chair.

As I've just written, I think that's a bit different. Assuming it derived from the English word 'man', these words with "-man" endings clearly are (or apparently are) gender-specific - so it may not be so much a matter of 'sexist' as plain incorrect/inaccurate, when the individual concerned is female.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

As I've just written, I think that's a bit different. Assuming it derived from the English word 'man'

And what does that word mean, in a derivation context?

these words with "-man" endings clearly are (or apparently are) gender-specific - so it may not be so much a matter of 'sexist' as plain incorrect/inaccurate, when the individual concerned is female.

They are not "clearly" so, and are only "apparently" so to the ignorant.

What next? Renaming Jacob Bronowksi's TV series to "The Ascent of Person"? Darwins 2nd book on evolution to "The Descent of Person"?

 

[JohnW2]

They are not "clearly" so, and are only "apparently" so to the ignorant.

Whether you call them ignorant or not (of the potential meanings of "-man"), I would suggest that only a very small proportion of the English-speaking world would consider that a "fireman" or "coal man" could be female - and I can understand many women not wanting to be described in such terms.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I can understand their ignorance leading them to that position.

But that does not mean I agree with the debasement of the English language in order to pander to the prejudices of the ignorant.

 

[JohnD]

It would certainly be debasing the English language to call a woman a chairman. It would just be pandering to the prejudices of those who are stuck in the past.

Now that we have moved into the 1940's and have realised that women can do things that used to be thought of as mens' jobs, we have learned how to use terms such as "firefighter" and "chair" which are not sexually inaccurate.

I wonder if any man calls himself a "housewife" when he is cooking the Sunday lunch.

 

[JohnW2]

I can understand their ignorance leading them to that position. ... But that does not mean I agree with the debasement of the English language in order to pander to the prejudices of the ignorant.

I think one has probably lost sight of the primary purpose of language if one attempts to impose (or merely advocates) a strict linguistic accuracy of which the vast majority of people who speak the language are 'ignorant'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

It would certainly be debasing the English language to call a woman a chairman. It would just be pandering to the prejudices of those who are stuck in the past.

I agree - since, as I've said, I think the vast majority of people regard the "-man" ending as relating to the OED's primary definition of the word "man" ("an adult human male"). However, BAS is trying to argue that the "-man" ending could relate to the OED's second meaning ("a human being of either sex; a person").

However, even if BAS is right about the derivation (and I'm far from sure that he is), since I do not believe that a significant number of English-speaking people would think the same way as him, I am definitely with you!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It would certainly be debasing the English language to call a woman a chairman.

No it would not.

It would just be pandering to the prejudices of those who are stuck in the past.

No it would not.

Now that we have moved into the 1940's and have realised that women can do things that used to be thought of as mens' jobs, we have learned how to use terms such as "firefighter" and "chair" which are not sexually inaccurate.

I've not looked into "fireman", but "chairman" is not sexually inaccurate.

I wonder if any man calls himself a "housewife" when he is cooking the Sunday lunch.

Why should he?

If anything, what you've done there is to expose your own ignorance and your own gender bias.

 

[JohnD]

"Fred is a cleaner. His job title is "cleaning lady." He used to be called a "charwoman."

"Mary is chair of BG. Her job title is "chairman""

"Susanne collects rubbish. Her job title is "binman""

"Anastasia drives a fire engine. Her job title is "Fireman""


Utter nonsense.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I think one has probably lost sight of the primary purpose of language if one attempts to impose (or merely advocates) a strict linguistic accuracy of which the vast majority of people who speak the language are 'ignorant'.

I'm sorry that you regard accuracy as something undesirable.

I agree

You agree that someone using the word "chairman" in its correct sense is pandering to the prejudices of those who are stuck in the past?

Good grief.

since, as I've said, I think the vast majority of people regard the "-man" ending as relating to the OED's primary definition of the word "man" ("an adult human male").

Perhaps those people should go and read the OED's definition of "chairman".

since I do not believe that a significant number of English-speaking people would think the same way as him, I am definitely with you!

I must have missed the bit where it was decided that the usage of our language should be determined by popular choice amongst those who know the least about it.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

"Fred is a cleaner. His job title is "cleaning lady." He used to be called a "charwoman."

"Mary is chair of BG. Her job title is "chairman""

"Susanne collects rubbish. Her job title is "binman""

"Anastasia drives a fire engine. Her job title is "Fireman""


Utter nonsense.

You really are very determined to prove that you don't know anything about it, aren't you.

 

[JohnD]

I must have missed the bit where it was decided that the usage of our language should be determined by popular choice amongst those who know the least about it.

The first duty of a grammarian or a lexicographer is to establish how a language is used. Not to lay down rules on how he thinks it should be used.

It is a nice point but that is presently how it needs to be done.

 

[JohnW2]

Perhaps those people should go and read the OED's definition of "chairman".

Even the OED recognises that there is an issue in some people's minds (whom it does not simply dismiss as 'ignorant'):

The word chairman found itself accused of sexism in the 1970s, with critics opposed to the way it combined the notion of power with a grammatical gender bias. Two neutral alternatives were proposed, chair (which was actually recorded in this sense in the 17th century) and the neologism chairperson. Both terms faced initial resistance, and although they have now become accepted in standard English, the Oxford English Corpus shows that they are still far less common than chairman.

Kind Regards, John