At 02:22 PM 1/13/00 -0500, Sunnan wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, Michelle Peglar wrote:
> > of my personal soap box topics - I think we should all get rid of using
> > gender specific language when referring to something or someone that could
> > possibly be male or female.
>
>I disagree - imagine having two regents instead of a king or a queen, or hm..
>perhaps it's not such a bad idea in english after all.
>Surely it will avoid sillinesses like 'mistress', which used to mean
>'lover' in
>auld england if I'm not guessing totally wrong.
Sorry, "mistress" means lover _now_, but not then :). It meant ... umm,
it's been a while ... woman of property, I believe (sort of like
Esquire). As opposed to a wench, who was just some working woman. (No,
not in the US euphemism for "lady of the evening," etc. :D!) And as
opposed to a slattern/hussy, which is what we think of for "wench" now.
Other interesting linguistic tidbit -- "Miss" and "Mrs." are both
abbreviations for "Mistress." So if we go back to one abbreviation, we'll
be full circle.
Kimbol, who really enjoyed Chaucer along with her English lit degree :)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kimbol Soques [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Master's Candidate, Information Science UTAustin GSLIS
************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
