From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Date: 17 Dec 92 03:15:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: constell.BzDvqF.MJF
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <1992Dec16.184814.3504@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>In article <BzBs7x.97G@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec15.160035.6467@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>>>In article <BzACqt.40D@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>
>
>>It isn't clear to persons who are *already* prejudiced. When they
>>encounter the proverbial usage of "man", "mankind", etc. they
>>assume that these usages refer to men only and NOT to women.
>
>EXACTLY.  And we meet people like that every day.  Now, if we wish
>to *communicate* with those people, we must use the right word to
>do so.  Either that, or we can begin by lecturing them on context
>and the like, which isn't a good way to go about one's daily business.
>So we *need* to use accurate words that get the meaning we want across
>to the people we're talking to.  And that means not saying "men" if
>we don't *know* that the listener will assume "human."
>
>And we rarely know.

Ambiguities have always existed in the English language. These can
be resolved by looking at the context of the word. Are you suggesting
a removal of all ambiguities? Do you wish every word to carry a *single*
meaning? I doubt if you'll succeed. People will continue to use words
differently. In fact, this very ambiguity is the scourge of researchers
who study "Natural Language Processing". Semantic ambiguity is
extremely hard to resolve when processing language on a computer.
Consider the sentence : "Bill shot Bob". Did Bill take a photograph of
Bob, or did he shoot him with a bullet? The word "shot" can convey
different meanings depending upon the context. Because the latter
may be meant more often than the former, doesn't justify an attempt
to apply the latter when the former is meant to be conveyed. English
is so highly interspersed with ambiguous usage that the task of
removing ambiguities can be considered well nigh impossible. 

>
>>   In this case, I was replying to a prejudiced individual, and
>>felt the need to make the distinction clear. If these prejudices
>>weren't in existence, I would have had no cause to elaborate; nor
>>would  anyone else have the "sexist" problems we are currently
>>encountering in our English usage.
>
>Mandar, you're writing to 50,000 people here.  "A prejudiced individual"
> is not the issue on a newsgroup. 
>
Well...ok. I agree that *most* people have these prejudices. Isn't it
time we removed these prejudices directly, rather than make a futile
attempt to remove them by fiddling with words?

>>>Now if you'd writing "in people's minds", there would have been no
>>>confusion . . .
>
>>Really!  I think you are confused!  :)
>>You let your prejudice that men includes men only, and not women,
>>when used in this context, override your ability to make logical
>>decisions.
>
>It's not a prejudice.  It's a FACT.  To many people, that's what 
>"men" means.  And you're always at risk of speaking to one or more
>of those people.  
>
How is changing a word or using a different word going to help?
Using the word "black" instead of "nigger" did little to alleviate
prejudices. In fact, "black" came to be associated with the same
stigma that "nigger" did. Now we have "African-American". I am
sure people are going to conjure up a word like "Afro" (similar
to "spics") and associate the same meaning with it. 
      The decrease in racist attitudes cannot be attributed to
language. The decrease is due to an increase in the general
consciousness of the people.

>Besides, what marker *was* there to signal the "men-and-women"
>context?  I didn't see one.  How do you know what context you're 
>in here?  Show your work.
>
>Roger
>

How do you know the context when I say "Bill shot Bob"? Obviously,
some a priori knowledge is involved. In the absence of this
knowledge, some default is assumed. 
   
                                                      Mandar. 
-- 
"Imagine there are no countries. It isn't hard to do. 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. I hope that some
 day you'll join us, and the world will be as one." - John Lennon.
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english