Klarinet Archive - Posting 000155.txt from 2008/07

From: "Michael H. Graff" <mhgraff@-----.net>
Subj: RE: [kl]"man"
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:33:59 -0400

Perhaps the use of man by some is too narrow:

From Wikipedia: The term man (from Proto-Germanic *mannaz "man, =
person")
and words derived from it can designate any or even all of the human =
race
regardless of their sex or age. This is indeed the oldest usage of =
"man".
The word developed into Old English man, mann "human being, person," =
(cf.
also German Mann, Old Norse ma=F0r, Gothic manna "man").

I guess if we get to sensitive about this we will need to change the =
word
human to huperson and mankind to personkind....

Mike Graff

-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph H. Fasel [mailto:jhf@-----.gov]=20
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 3:23 PM
To: klarinet@-----.org
Subject: Re: [kl]"man"

On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 14:00 -0400, Tom McKay wrote:
> Consider: "I met a craftsman yesterday, and she sold me a fine =
window."
> If the second part of that sentence seemed a little more surprising =
than
it
> would have with 'he', then you are not taking 'craftsman' as a
> gender-neutral word.

Perhaps the surprise doesn't have much to do with the "man" suffix.
Similar surprises (for some people) can be constructed using, say,
"surgeon" or "priest". It's sad that people have those expectations,
but there you go.

When my sister and brother and I were kids, my sister was acknowledged
as the best fisherman of the three of us.

Cheers,
--Joe

------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------