HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: st891425@pip.cc.brandeis.edu (Andrew Weiskopf)
Subject: Re: Tenants of English
Reply-To: st891425@pip.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 00:51:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.180019.15692@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.162635.5438@seas.gwu.edu> willson@seas.gwu.edu (Stephen R. Willson) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec16.151519.3485@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal
>>Nadeau) writes:
>>>Or, in Humpty Dumpty fashion, does a word mean just what you want it to
>>>mean, no more and no less?

>>Isn't this a basic tenant of English? :-)

>I don't know -- who's the landlord of English?
>ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 

Edwin Newman?

yeesh....

-Andy Weiskopf
 ST891425@pip.cc.brandeis.edu
From: alasnik@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Adam Lasnik)
Newsgroups: soc.college
Subject: Re: FratERNITY, please
Date: 21 Dec 92 01:04:15 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA

In <1992Dec20.194309.22690@news.cs.indiana.edu> "Amy Young Leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:

>Oh, ok.  I'll be sure to tell all of the people I know who are members
>of various Greek organizations that The Charlton has spoken, and they
>must now change their way of expressing themselves, and ban the word
>"frat" from their vocabulary.

>As I said in an earlier post, most members I know refer to them as
>"frats."

I can't resist adding my thoughts on this, though my 'frat' brothers may
disagree :-)

I'll stop calling frats 'frats' when we do away with the misnomer 'greek'.
How's that? :-)

--ADAM "KEYS" LASNIK
  ...whose frat uses greek letters from tradition, but thankfully doesn't
     consider itself to be a 'greek' organization, despite the presence
     of at least two REAL 'Greeks' :-)
From: pezzillo@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Amy J. Pezzillo)
Newsgroups: soc.college
Subject: Re: PC world--the word is...
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:31:50 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1gqf6oINNfgi@news.gac.edu> censtad@nic.gac.edu writes:
>When you talk about fraternities all you PC people do NOT use the word  
>frat if you are really as PC as you think you are
>
>
>I mean... would you call your mother a moth?
>		would you call your country a cunt?

No.  But I'll be happy to start calling your fraternity a frat if you
want to be obnoxious about it.


In other words, people are going to be more willing to call your group
what it wants to be called if you simply ask them to instead of
insulting and offending them with that stupid rhyme.

ajp 














Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
From: g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh)
Subject: Everyone ... they ... (was Re: Sexist language)
Organization: University of Toronto Computing Disciplines Facility
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 18:14:36 GMT

In article <12144@scott.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.172421.2007@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu> mix@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Dec14.171017.2005@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu>, mix@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes:
>>> 	Oh God, not this!  Can't everyone just accept the generic "he" 
>>> and get on with their lives?!
>>		    |----------->or is it "his life"?!?!		
>
>Since the referent of "everyone" is really plural (_cf._ German "alle",
>French "tous", Russian _vse_, all of which are grammatically plural),
>"they" with "everyone" as antecedent seems to work much better than
>"they" referring to a single person of unspecified sex, for speakers
>of the variety of English which used "he" as generic singular.

"Everyone" is *semantically* plural, but grammatically it is singular as
evidenced by the verb form following:

    Everyone is looking forward to the holidays.
   *Everyone are looking forward to the holidays.

The workings of other languages do not indicate anything about how English
works.

The use of "they" to refer back to "everyone" shows that "they" *can* have
a singular antecedent.
-- 
Rosemary Waigh             Undergraduate, Computer Science / Linguistics
g9rwaigh@cdf.utoronto.ca   University of Toronto
	"Looking at the Earth from afar you realize it is too small
	for conflict and just big enough for co-operation."  Yuri Gagarin
Xref: sparky soc.college:5654 alt.usage.english:9632
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Frosh (was Re: Sexist language (was...
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 16:13:43 GMT

In article <BzABs3.37r@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>
>Remember, prejudice never exists in language, but rather, in the minds
>of people. So, when terms such as "mankind" conjure up masculine images
>more often than female images, it is actually the PERSON who's responsible
>for the thought. 

I'm sorry, but if "mankind" evokes "man" evokes "male", that is most
definitely a function of language.  "Man" does mean "male human", so it
is normal that this is the image it raises.

Now, if the word "person" evokes a male, that is purely a function of
the hearer's own mental processes.

>     Waging war on language to further the equality of sexes, will serve
>little purpose. As long as certain traits are primarily associated with
>either sex, it is impossible to efface these distinctions in language. 
>I commend your egalatarian efforts, but they are misdirected. Attack the
>root cause of the problem, instead of attempting to cure its symptoms.
>Besides, when I presented similar views last summer on a.u.e, one 
>gentleman provided us with the example of Farsi. Farsi is a "sexless"
>language. Yet, *men* dominated and the nature of the language did little
>to alleviate prejudices.

No one is claiming language is the sole factor, but it is a factor.
No one wins a "war" by ignoring some battles as irrelevant . . .

       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
From: lamontg@stein.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Newsgroups: soc.college
Subject: Need help from SFSU people (or other San Fransiscoans)
Date: 19 Dec 92 02:41:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Dec19.024154.422
Organization: 'Operation: Mindcrime'

I have this feeling that this is the wrong place to post this, but I
don't know where else it goes....

Anyway, I need help getting onto a machine in SF and telnetting up to
Washington.  Specifically, I need a 1200-baud dialin to a micom so that
I can telnet to UW, or else a 1200-baud dialin to the SFSU machines.
(which I can get an account on, since one of my parental units is a prof
there....).

Thanx in advance....

-- 
Lamont Granquist  lamontg@u.washington.edu
  "When dogma enters the brain, all intellectual activity ceases."
                                      -- Robert Anton Wilson
Xref: sparky soc.college:5571 alt.usage.english:9524
From: heidi@ucthpx.uct.ac.za (Heidi de Wet)
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Shaking people up with "she"? (was Re: Sexist language)
Date: 15 Dec 92 08:39:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: ucthpx.1992Dec15.083958.4948
Organization: Dept of Elec Eng, UCT

thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.002645.1684@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger) writes:
>>BTW: Finnish has one word, han (with two dots over the a), to specify
>>both he and she.
>
>It's a shame we don't have a third-person singular the way the Finnish
>do.  It would be a simple solution. 

Unfortunately, as soon as anyone suggests developing one, they get
flamed to extinction by the language purists :-}

-- 
The net is like a vast sea of lutefisk with tiny dinosaur brains embedded 
in it here and there. Any given spoonful will likely have an IQ of 1, but 
occasional spoonfuls may have an IQ more than six times that!
                                                     - James 'Kibo' Parry
Xref: sparky soc.college:5649 alt.usage.english:9628
From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Date: 16 Dec 92 22:51:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: constell.BzDJIp.GHq
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <1992Dec16.151519.3485@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>In article <BzBs7x.97G@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>
>>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.
>
>My "prejudice" that men includes men only, and not women?  Oh my!  What
>a dreadful person I must be not to realize that "men" means "women" too
>(except, of course, when it means "men" only!)
>
>In the sentence "men includes men and women", does the second "men" also
>include women?  "Men includes men (and women) and women".
>

This reminds me of recursion in programming.  :)

If you have sentences such as 
A calls A,
then if the first A calls the second A, and if the second A is actually the
*real* A, then he too calls A, and so on...ad infinitum....

These sort of constructs can cause a real headache when programming,
causing infinite loops, and never letting your program to terminate.

The solution is simple (just as it is in English). Decide a condition
(read "context") when A does not call (read "include") A. Infinite
recursion can be avoided in this fashion. So, in the sentence :
"Men includes men and women",
the second "men" isn't actually the same as the first "men".
The condition here is "decide upon context". 

I hope this clears up your confusion!   ;)

>(Apply some set theory to THAT, Mandar!  Set A is composed of distinct
>sets A and B - the corollary of course is that B is and is not a member
>of A - presto, proof by contradiction! 
>
Well, I think programming theory can be used to more precisely define
this. Actually, if you have read about nonmonotic logic, that would
apply here too. "Men" would indicate male humans only or *both* male
and female humans, depending upon the context.

>Or, in Humpty Dumpty fashion, does a word mean just what you want it to
>mean, no more and no less?  And anyone who doesn"t instantly realize
>what you mean is, of course, prejudiced.
>
Well..."ignorant of alternate meanings" would better describe it.

>Someone is indeed confused!
>
>       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself

Since you speak for yourself, it doesn't take much guessing to figure out 
who that "someone" is.     :)


                                                           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.
From: varhus@lindy.seas.upenn.edu (Kristofor A Varhus)
Newsgroups: soc.college
Subject: Re: Sexist language Re: Comments on F/S (was Re: Comments on Gxxxx Life)
Date: 13 Dec 92 01:48:30 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Dec12.002855.643@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
->In article <1992Dec11.031911.63804@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> mlsa@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (MICHAEL LAUREN SHERMAN) writes:
->>In article <1992Dec10.110032.2784@gacvx2.gac.edu>, censtad@dion.gac.edu (Topher
->>the Gustie) writes:
->>>In article <1992Dec10.142759.13000@cdf.toronto.edu>  (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
->>>> (At UofT we don't use the sexist term "Freshman" any more.)
->>>
->>>At Gustavus we officially use the term First-Year Students.
->>>
->It's kind of funny to have someone lecture us about other people destroying
->the language, when he himself uses a massive run-on sentence and highly
->repetitive vocabulary.
->
->Language changes all the time.  Some of us prefer to use terms which are
->accurate and do not have sexist connotations.
->
->There is nothing wrong with being an upper middle class white male, my
->husband was one, but there is something wrong with mindlessly clinging to
->tradition, using inaccurate language, and being inconsiderate, especially
->when it is trivially simple to use inoffensive language.

Simple?  Whaddaya mean, simple?  "Freshman" has only two syllables, while
"First-Year Student" has four.  I refuse to waste so much energy to change
from using a normal, widely accepted, only considered offensive by people
who have too much time on their hands term to a twice as long one.

Also, what is so inaccurate about "freshman"?  If words in the english language
are which end in "-man" are generally used to describe humans of either
gender, what is wrong with using them.  (Or are you one of those "womyn" 
people?  If so, then there's no reasoning with you.)  I suppose next we'll
change the word "human" into "huperson".  Why do you take the word "freshman"
(or any other -man word, for that matter) as being offensive when no one
(absolutely no one - you find someone, and I'll stop using the word) uses
it in a derogatory fashion?  I'd love to see someone try to use the word
offensively: (to a female student) "YOU FRESHMAN!!  HAHAHA!"

I enjoy talking about this topic, so feel free to e-mail me, or reply to the
net.
From: tgpt_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tom Guptill)
Newsgroups: soc.college
Subject: Re: PC world--the word is...
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:40:26 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York


Perhaps we should be politically correct and not use that particular
abbreviation.  After all, it has come to mean 'personal computer'. 

Tom.  (Who wouldn't want to offend the PC among us by assuming that PC
refers only to the IBM PC, as opposed to personal computers in general. 
That wouldn't be PC.)

-- 
| Tom Guptill           | tgpt_ltd@cc.rochester.edu (internet) |
| CPU Box 277445 U of R | tgpt_ltd@uordbv (bitnet)             |
| Rochester NY 14627    |                                      |
| (716) 274-0156        |                                      |
Newsgroups: soc.college
Subject: Re: school uniform
From: censtad@nic.gac.edu (Topher the Gustie)
Date: 14 Dec 92 17:20:42 -0600
Reply-To: censtad@nic.gac.edu   
Distribution: soc

In article <1992Dec13.205259.11337@news.cs.indiana.edu>  writes:
> Just because you live under the same roof with people does not mean
> you are "forced" to be nude around them.  That'd be one strange
> household if it was.  I have lived in co-ed situations, and it's no
> big deal.  If you can't handle it, I have to question the evolvement
> of your attitudes about sex, men and women, and a whole slew of other
> things. 


No, you shouldn't question my evolvement when I don't have the same ideas  
as YOU.  YOU should not be telling ME if I'm am sexually maladjusted  
because YOU feel fine walking around nude.  That is a feeling that YOU  
have acquired and one that I have NOT.  I would like to be allowed to have  
the freedom to walk around nude without being self-conscious of it.  That  
is the way my feelings have developed and my humble apologies to the  
sexual upper class who feel that I'm unevolved.


Sorry massa, I's doin' the best I can!!
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:41:04 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.210420.23759@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger) writes:
>Well I thought it was rather funny -- but I forgot that the politically
>correct disallow any sort of humor that can in any way be perceived as
>being directed at an 'oppressed minority'.  

I'm hardly politically correct.  I just have a better sense of humor than
you do.

Are your opponents' arguments so strong that the only way you can refute
them is to misrepresent them and then make fun of the straw man?  

>In PC-lingo, women count as an 'oppressed minority'.

Your school shows plenty of evidence of sexism.  Take a look around you.
You don't have to be left-wing to notice it.

>Another point was
>to show that it wouldn't necessarily even be desirable to get rid of
>all 'sexist' terms.

And who called "this" a sexist term?  Other than you, that is?

>(Smileys for the humor-impaired, which I'd guess includes Ted Frank :-)

Funny, I keep turning up the brightness control on my monitor, but
your post doesn't seem to be getting any more intelligent.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
From: mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 04:47:25 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <1992Dec17.091530.18924@ucthpx.uct.ac.za> heidi@ucthpx.uct.ac.za (Heidi de Wet) writes:
>mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec16.184814.3504@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>>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?
>>
>>How is changing a word or using a different word going to help?
>
>Admittedly, removing existing prejudices in peoples' minds by means 
>of barring certain forms of speech is highly unlikely to work.  On the 
>other hand, removing prejudices is much more difficult if the language 
>people use every day reinforces the prejudices, so it makes sense to 
>provide unprejudiced forms of speech where possible, and for 
>(relatively) unprejudiced people to try to use those forms.
>
Again I ask, how does it REINFORCE prejudices?
Prejudices are formed at an early stage when you learn to associate
a word with a particular meaning. 

>Moreover, we should try not only to remove existing prejudices, but
>to prevent them forming in children's minds.  Language shapes thought;
>if children are taught that the word for all people is 'man', and the 
>word for a male person is 'man', they cannot avoid the inference that 
>males are the dominant/important part of the human race.  

Why can they not? Illustrate to them the meaning of mankind. Elucidate
the role of women in society. After all, "woman" contains "man" too, and 
the child learns to associate it differently.

>We simply
>can't afford to ignore language as a tool for avoiding prejudice.
>
Prove that language is effective in reinforcing/dispelling prejudice.

                                                         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
Subject: Re: Comments on Greek life
From: serhienk@cobber.cord.edu (David Serhienko)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:01:33 GMT
Organization: Concordia College, Moorhead, MN

To Ted Frank, Rosemary Waigh, and Gavin Fisher (sic?) and whoever else :

	I have been following this debate for the past few weeks and it seems
that the three of you (plus a couple others whose names I can not remember)
seem to be the most active.  It is my belief that headway was being made on
this discussion, but that lately the debate has begun to deteriorate into
various subtopics and flames.  Perhaps, a solution should be sought to
restore direction to this interesting topic.  My personal suggestion would
be for the major proponents of the various viewpoints (those I have named)
to issue 'official' position statements...say of a couple hundred
lines...preferably with full reference pages...the works.  Maybe this is NOT
the way to go, but I know that I would find that extremely helpful and I
have to believe that a complete statement of beliefs/facts by all sides
would do ALOT to clarify this debate.  Questions?  Comments?  Other
Suggestions?  Feel free to comment in any way...I have no karma riding on
this proposal.  

David W Serhienko
serhienk@cobber.cord.edu
"No disclaimer here.  You don't like what I think?  Sue!  I'm broke already."

Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 06:13:13 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.044024.22225@Princeton.EDU> grweiss@ernst.Princeton.EDU (Gregory Robert Weiss) writes:
>In article <1ggp8rINNivb@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> garvey@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (Heather Garvey) writes:
>>roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>>J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger) writes:

>>>>Of course, just saying 'first-year' doesn't specify which year the
>>>>student will graduate.

>>>Neither does "freshman"... 8-)

>>	Yes, it does. Freshman is a much kinder term. :) 

>Why be kind? ;->  I think we should call them all freshlings.  It's PC;
>neither masculine nor feminine, but it still has that derogatory potential so 
>important when labelling freshmen. :-)

Absolutely.  In fact, it makes them sound like fish -- small fry, to be
exact.

Roger
Xref: sparky soc.college:5604 alt.usage.english:9573
From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Frosh (was Re: Sexist language (was...
Date: 16 Dec 92 00:37:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: constell.BzBtqy.9tL
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <1992Dec15.183908.27702@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>In article <BzABs3.37r@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec13.194608.22045@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>>From _The_Handbook_of_Nonsexist_Writing_ by Casey Miller and Kate Swift:
>>
>>[long list of references deleted]
>>
>>Remember, prejudice never exists in language, but rather, in the minds
>>of people. So, when terms such as "mankind" conjure up masculine images
>>more often than female images, it is actually the PERSON who's responsible
>>for the thought. 
>
>Or is it because words such as "mankind" are the masculine counterparts of
>words such as "womankind"?

But they aren't!  I suspect that the word womankind was drummed up
by rabid feminists. Mankind encompasses *both* men and women. You
are trying to associate the prefix "man" with the general usage of 
the word "man". The meaning conveyed by the word "man" depends upon
the context of its usage. If you let your prejudices cloud your
ability to recognise this context, then I cannot help you.

>>
>>     Waging war on language to further the equality of sexes, will serve
>>little purpose. As long as certain traits are primarily associated with
>>either sex, it is impossible to efface these distinctions in language. 
>>I commend your egalatarian efforts, but they are misdirected. Attack the
>>root cause of the problem, instead of attempting to cure its symptoms.
>
>But language reinforces the attitudes which cause the problems!

No! 
*Society* reinforces the attitudes which cause the problems. These
attitudes get reflected in language. It is *not* the other way around.

>-- 
>	"Looking at the Earth from afar you realize it is too small
>	for conflict and just big enough for co-operation."  Yuri Gagarin

Indeed! :)

                                                       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