From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Date: 17 Dec 92 16:36:59 GMT
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <BzDvqF.MJF@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>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:

>>>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. 

Wrong.  They can SOMETIMES be resolved, but not always.  Sometimes one
has to guess, or to choose a *probable* meaning.

>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. 

Why don't you -- just for once -- read what I've been writing?

No, I don't want there to be one meaning.  (That would be like the
"standard" you propose.)  I want people to be AWARE of possible ambiguities,
and of the fact that the use of a word with multiple meanings can 
result in people thinking of, not one, but of *several* of those 
meanings.  That other meanings will have resonance in a particular 
use.

>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. 

Right -- which means that we can only communicate well if we are AWARE
of how ambiguities work.

This means that we can't put our heads in the sand the way you insist
on doing, and say : "man in this context means human, and it's just not
my fault if I get misunderstood."  We must use the words that are most
likely to convey our meaning and ONLY our meaning.

>>>   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?

False dichotomy, and the same stupid, ignorant insult you've used over 
and over.

HOW ELSE will we remove the prejudices other than by making people
aware of them?  HOW ELSE will we make people aware other than by talking to
them?  HOW ELSE will we use language to make them aware other than by
choosing our words to make them see the difference?

"Fiddling" is the exact opposite of what we're doing here.  Conscious,
directed word choice with rhetorical intent is a better description.

>>>>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?

IT DOES NOT ALLOW THEM TO MISCONSTRUE!  It gets your meaning across
with less danger of misunderstanding. It awakens them to the difference
between the word they expected and the word they heard.  

>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. 

Where did you get that idea?  This is sheer nonsense.  

>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. 

And yet they haven't.  As usual, you're using a very poor example.
"Nigger" was always used as an insult -- "black" very rarely was or is.
"Black" iddn't replace "nigger" -- it replaced "Negro" and "colored."
Those were not insults, either; you needto read a little history -- as usual.'

>      The decrease in racist attitudes cannot be attributed to
>language. 

Stamp, stamp, stamp.  Wish, wish,. wish.  Language made people AWARE
of what they were doing, AWARE of their attitudes.

>The decrease is due to an increase in the general
>consciousness of the people.

Was this accomplished without language?  Was this accomplished without
increased awareness of the insulting quality of "nigger"?  Of course
not.  You are talking about things you know nothing -- NOTHING -- of.

>>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.

>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. 

Well, which default WAS assumed in this case? How do you know? As I
said, show your work.

Roger
Newsgroups: soc.college