From: mikulska@crux.Princeton.EDU (Margaret Mikulska)
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: mikulska@astro.princeton.edu (Margaret Mikulska)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 22:45:43 GMT

In article <BzLCtr.3MI@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>In article <92355.210842HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> writes:
>>In article <BzL3Ft.JE5@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>,
>>mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) says:
>>>
>>>In article <92355.112019HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
>>>writes:
>>>>
>>
>>>"Imagine there are no countries. It isn't hard to do.
>>          ^^^^^^^^^
>>"Imagine there's no countries" in the version we've all heard.
>>
>>>Nothing to kill or die
>>> for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people living life in peace.
>>> You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
>>
>>That's "You-hoo-oo-oo, you may say I'm a dreamer" not "that I'm a
>>dreamer".
>>
>>>I hope that some day you'll join us, and the world will be as one."
>>
>>"I hope some day you'll join us", not "that some day". Okay?
>>H.
>
>Awwww....I was just changing the sentences to make them sound more
>correct, grammatically. The essence of what he wished to convey
>remains the same. Next you'll be asking me to *sing* it because
>mere words may not convey it as effectively as the song itself.  ;)
>Hey! I am a big fan of the Beatles and of John Lennon, too!
>
>                                                       Mandar.

Your insensivity to language and its use is mind-boggling.  I admit that
I'm not a fan of John Lennon (I neither like or dislike him), but I just
have to comment on this butchery of yours.  

First of all, you took a piece of poetry and destroyed its rhythm.
Perhaps it will sound insulting, but it takes a (metaphorically) deaf 
person to insert syllables into a poem or lyrics and ruin the rhythm 
"because otherwise it's ungrammatical".  This alone deserves capital
punishment.

Second, "the essence" of what JL meant to convey can be expressed in
zillions different ways.  You could even write a formal speech about it.
It may come to you as a great surprise, but _how_ you convey a message
is often just as important as _what_ you convey.  Or at least _very_
important, and this is particularly true in poetry.  The non-standard, 
informal usage that you object to was chosen on purpose: it's part of 
the style of these lyrics.

With a wooden ear like that, no wonder you keep insisting on following
inflexible rules; this is the only way you can use language,
because you just don't _hear_ the language, you don't have a "feel" 
for it - you need a crutch in form of binary, as it were, rules: 
for every expression, you can always check in your One And Only
Holy Grammar Book of True English English if the expression is correct
or incorrect.  No other possibilities, no allowance for context, no
realization that language changes or is used differently by different
people in different situation, etc., etc.

Oh, and if you intend to correct various greater and lesser masters, you
got yourself a job for the rest of your life.  Why don't you start with
Shakespeare, for example?


-Margaret