Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:
I genuinely believe that we should
be moving towards a more inclusive society, in which each can
express his or her ideas in his or her own native language.
But Philip ... isn't that precisely the *opposite* of "inclusive"? It
seems to be the same with so-called "inclusive" language (this, I
believe is a very recent English-speaking phenomenon): in fact, it
actually /divides/ male and female rather than including them together
under some universal term. This, however, is the limit of our language
that needs to be accepted. I don't think it can be changed.
Speaking from experience, in the world of Catholic parishes, when there
was /one/ liturgical language for Roman rite Catholics (Latin), one
could go anywhere in the world and find a prayer by which to commune
with others. Not uncommon in wartime (esp. in Europe) a soldier from one
army could serve Mass for a chaplain from the opposing army --- it
wasn't unknown to happen. Interesting, no?
Now, to illustrate the point from present time, in typical parishes here
in the US, you'll find the English (i.e., American) Mass, the Spanish
Mass, the Polish, Vietnamese, etc. Whatever benefits it brings, it
certainly /divides/ the community in one parish, since the English
speaking parishioners are unlikely ever to attend the Vietnamese Mass.
Computers are the very tools that make this feasible : is it
not time that we started to exploit them more fully, for the benefit
of all ?
Many benefits come from computers, and esp. from *this* community of
XeTeX friends --- and for that, I'm grateful. If others can tailor (pun
intended, Philip) the software to their needs, it's fine with me.
--
United in adoration of Jesus,
fr. michael gilmary, mma
Most Holy Trinity Monastery
67 Dugway Road
Petersham, MA 01366-9725
www.MaroniteMonks.org
--------------------------------------------------
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
