sexist language

[Root Boy Jim]

? From: Frederic Maffray <maffray at porthos.rutgers.edu>

? Pierre Laforgue wrote:
? #> Why don't you  use the latin  language, instead of decadent
? #> ones as is the english ? ...
? #> The french language is more subtil than english : ...

? # From the folks that brought us that admirable word "Chauvinisme".

? It's funny, this  newsgroup gets  cluttered every   month  by  yet
? another (American) person  who starts again the  usual  discussion
? about English beign the richest  language,  with the most nuances,
? the most words, etc.  In a word "the best language in  the world."
? This usually does not even elicit  accusations  of chauvinism. But
? if  one person who  happens  to be   French does  just  the  same,
? obviously with his tongue in cheek, he is immediately flamed.

Well, I'd still take Anglais sur Francais, but you let that bozo
off the hook too easily. He thinks the word `chauvinism' has something
to do with sexism. It does not, except in a derivitive sense. Look it up.

Besides, we have words for lotsa nice stuff too. And it's not fineness
of meaning or MAXWORDS that excite me. It's the shedding of excess
baggage: gender, (most) conjugation, diacritical marks, and the
addition of the possessive form instead of "R$*'s $*	$2 de $1"
(of course, since the worm struck we're all sendmail experts :-).
In return we give up fonetik pronunciation, but I would argue for doing
violence in that arena to rid the language some of the more rediculous
spellings. Even those who flamed me unmercifully for my abundance of
x's in the C language newsgroup (hey, may I should overuse c's in the
X newsgroup :-), seem to tolerate my use of `copys' instead of `copies',
and the more blatent `enuf'.

Actually, perhaps that bozo isn't so far off the mark, as our language
adapts thru usage, words actually change their meaning. We have no
Purity Of Essence committee saying what is and whut ain't English.
So for example, one older dictionary gives two definitions for
chauvinism, excessive {patriotism,devotion}, while a newer one
adds the more modern definition with the implied adjective `male'.

? [Reminds me of the case of the Dutch person who posted a month ago
? and who got flamed by Americans for his spelling mistakes.]

Hey, I can relate to that! :-)

? Fred

	(Root Boy) Jim Cottrell	(301) 975-5688
	<rbj at nav.icst.nbs.gov> or <rbj at icst-cmr.arpa>
	Crackers and Worms -- Breakfast of Champions!