On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 10:22:18PM +0200, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Heh heh. Heh heh. Heh heh. He said "manus". Heh heh.
>
> Don't laugh. If you have something to say, well, say
> it. Laughing is not an argument.
What, have you never watched "Beavis and B
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 11:25:22AM +1000, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > Come on, the only possible conclusion of this line of reasoning is
> > that communication between two people is impossible.
>
> Not at all. Humans communicated quite successfully long before
> dictionaries or grammarians came abou
> Come on, the only possible conclusion of this line of reasoning is
> that communication between two people is impossible.
Not at all. Humans communicated quite successfully long before
dictionaries or grammarians came about. A large portion of one's
vocabulary is learned through a mixture of
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Heh heh. Heh heh. Heh heh. He said "manus". Heh heh.
Don't laugh. If you have something to say, well, say
it. Laughing is not an argument.
> Come on, the only possible conclusion of this line
> of reasoning is
> that communication between two people is
Am Samstag, 21.08.04 um 16:33 Uhr schrieb Ben Burton:
"mankind" has a similar problem, since it can be easily perceived as
"man" + "kind" (whether this be at a conscious or subconscious level).
Man or German Mann have the origin in words for men (indogermanic
languages)
"human" (or "human
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 12:33:39AM +1000, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > Interestingly enough, "humanity" has "man" in it too, but like
> > "mankind", its origins have nothing to do with gender.
>
> FWIW, perception is not based on etymology.
>
> "chairman" is treated as gender-specific because it is
> Interestingly enough, "humanity" has "man" in it too, but like
> "mankind", its origins have nothing to do with gender.
FWIW, perception is not based on etymology.
"chairman" is treated as gender-specific because it is easily read as
"chair" + "man", i.e., the man leading the organisation. W
On Saturday 21 August 2004 00:56, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > "The world is made up of both men and women. Please use
> > gender-neutral constructs in your writing. This is not Political
> > Correctness, this is showing respect to all mankind."
> >
> > And in fact, I'd like to lose "mankind", too
> It's because it contains "man". In modern English "mankind" is often
> percieved as having an emphasis on men and a corresponding demphasis on
OK, I understand. We have some similar issues in French. Not for
"mankind" directly though we often speak about "l'Homme" when it comes
at speaking a
Hi Christian,
Christian Perrier wrote:
"The world is made up of both men and women. Please use gender-neutral
constructs in your writing. This is not Political Correctness, this is
showing respect to all mankind."
And in fact, I'd like to lose "mankind", too, and replace it with
"humanity" or
Quoting Helen Faulkner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> "The world is made up of both men and women. Please use gender-neutral
> constructs in your writing. This is not Political Correctness, this is
> showing respect to all people."
Done.
Thanks to you all again.
> > "The world is made of men and women. Please use gender-neutral
> > constructions in your writing. This is not political correctness, this
> > is respect towards half of the mankind."
>
> /me points quietly at the last word of the paragraph...
/me will use his bad English knowledge as an ex
> "The world is made up of both men and women. Please use gender-neutral
> constructs in your writing. This is not Political Correctness, this is
> showing respect to all mankind."
>
> And in fact, I'd like to lose "mankind", too, and replace it with
> "humanity" or "people".
Is this because i
Hi again Christian,
I am ashamed to note that I suggested something that is grammatically
wrong in my own language. Where was my brain when I wrote that!?
(that's a rhetorical question)
Peter's suggestion is the best, namely:
"The world is made up of both men and women. Please use gender-n
> I think that is slightly misleading, in that a construction where the
> gender of the user is implied can't really be neutral. A better way to
> phrase it could be something like this:
>
> "The world is made of men and women. Please use gender-neutral
> constructions in your writing. This i
> "The world is made of men and women. Please use gender-neutral
> constructions in your writing. This is not political correctness, this
> is respect towards half of the mankind."
Thanks, Helen. You're absolutely right, my original sentence was a bit
strange. I used your proposal in the new o
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:27:28 +0100, Helen Faulkner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that is slightly misleading, in that a construction where the
> gender of the user is implied can't really be neutral. A better way to
> phrase it could be something like this:
>
> "The world is made of men a
Hello Christian, all,
Thanks very much for doing this.
You have certainly noticed that I'm not a native English speaker, so
this paragraph may be badly written. I'm also not completely sure if
the way I have chosen for explaining this was right and thus I need
input from people more familiar w
Hello ladies and gentlement (or should I say "girls and guys"...is
this too familiar?),
One document I maintain, named "Debconf Templates Style Guide", gives
Debian developers indications about the proper way to write templates
for debconf, the Debian configuration system (the thing which drops
sc
19 matches
Mail list logo
