ellis (04/22/83)
I don't know if the derivation of the word "man" and the suffix -"man"
belongs in net.women, maybe it does. I just hope never again to hear
the following justification for the increasingly obsolete use of -"man"
suffix as a generic term to cover both men & women:
===========================================================================
<<Just to say it one more time - since there are people who seem not to have
heard it:
The "man" in, for example, "repairman" does NOT derive from "man" as in
"male person"; it derives from the Anglo-Saxon "mann", meaning "one who". >>
<<The FACTS - as indicated by the OED, usually taken as a standard reference
on this kind of thing; you are welcome to go argue with them - are as
follows:
In Old English, "man" was a specifically neuter term, refering to a person
of either sex... The use of "man" to refer to the male is, linguistically
speaking, a relatively recent development.>>
yale-com!leichter (Jerry Leichter)
=============================================================================
Several comments on Jerry Leichter's arguments:
1. How, exactly, does the meaning of "man(n)" in Old English relate to
a discussion on words like fireman, mailman, repairman and the like,
especially when you consider that these compounds were created in
relatively modern times? How can you say that the "man" of "repairman"
is from Old English "man(n)" and not Middle English "man" or Modern
English "man"?
Your arguments are possibly valid in support of the word "woman",
but it is hard to think of anything else to apply them to. (yeoman?)
2. I found this quote in the OED -- perhaps it's where you got the
idea that OE "man(n)" is identical to "human being", with no
additional idea of "adult male human":
<<In many OE instances, and in a few of later date, ["man(n)" was] used
explicitly as a designation equally applicable to either sex. >>
OED does not say "in all instances" or "in most instances". It was
frequently used as the generic term for "human being", more so than
today, but it could also stand by itself to mean "adult male human".
This would not stop me from complaining about being called "mailman"
if I were a woman who delivered mail.
3. My final point is a continuation of one I made previously -- that if
etymology is to be used at all to defend language use as non-sexist,
then "man = human being" is in real trouble. The idea is to demonstrate
the falsity of the statement...
<<The use of "man" to refer to the male is, linguistically speaking, a
relatively recent development.>>
...by taking the etymology of "man" back to the language that Old
English comes from. After all, that's why you went back to Old English.
Since there are no written records of the postulated "proto-teutonic"
language, all we can do is look at languages closely related to english:
German - Mann = man, husband
Maennlich (ae = a umlaut) = male, manly, masculine
Dutch - man = man, husband
mannelijk = male, masculine
mannetje = little man, male animal
Norwegian - mann = man, husband
mannsperson = male
manlig = male, manly, masculine
Swedish - man = man, husband
Danish - mand (the "d" was added) = man, husband
(These languages also have "man" words meaning "human being")
If this is not enough to demonstrate that the roots of "man" always
contained a "masculine" meaning (after all, you could counter with
a "linguistic drift" argument), let's check with the OED "man" entry,
since you're willing to accept its authority:
<<In all teutonic languages, the word had the twofold sense of "human being"
and "adult male human being"...>>
"man" is now, and always was, an imprecise synonym for "person".
Please don't use etymology to support your false claim that "man"
was originally a completely un-sexed word for human being...
You're wrong.
Michael Ellis
flairvax!ellis
PS- You were not mistaken when you spelled it "mann". Old English spelling
was not very consistent.
PPS- I was mistaken when I implied that "man" was derived from a word
meaning only "male human being".
PPPS- This is all bullshit anyway. The only thing really pertinent to a
discussion on how people feel about present day usage is, well,
present day usage. If a growing number of people feel that "mailman"
is a bad name for a person who delivers mail, then the word is in
the process of becoming obsolete.
Why cling onto "...man"? It WAS accurate 30 years ago. It's NOT
accurate today.leichter (04/24/83)
In reply to Michael Ellis: 1. In your list of the use of "man" in other languages, you miss the most obvious use of the word in German "man", with a LOWER case "m", as contrasted to "Man" with an upper case "m", is and indefinate pronoun meaning "one, they, people, men" (Cassel's New Compact German Dictionary; it is unclear whether "men" is to be taken as sex-free in this context, although I believe it is; other German-English dictionaries don't include it as a synonym.) I am not in a position to comment on the use of the word in the other languages you list. 2. If you are going to start quoting the OED, and choosing individual sentences I will do the same. The PRIMARY definition of "man" begins as follows: I 1. A human being (irrespective of age and sex); = L. homo. In OE, the prevailing sense. a. In many OE instances, and in a few of later date, used explicitly as a designation equally applicable to either sex. Obs. In OE, the words distinctive of sex were wer and wif, wepman and wifmann, Support for both our positions is there, in an absolute sense; but... 3. I am certainly not arguing that "repairman" is an OE word. When one talks about "derivation" of words, one means a couple of things. Languages have typical ways of forming compounds. "wepman", "wifmann", and, yes, "woman" and "human" are instances of the construction <predicate>-man to mean "per- sons (of either sex) of whom the predicate (construed broadly) is true." The formation of such words has been going on for a long time. Consider some other examples that happen to be old "yeoman" and "journeyman". If you watch Startrek does it ever strike you as odd that Janice Rand is "Yeoman Rand"? If I were to describe a woman as having done a "journeyman job", would that strike you as inappropriate? I doubt it, because in both these cases the particles "yeo" and "journey" are either not English words or have no obvious relation to the compound. (In fact, "yeo" comes from "young"...) Now, a word like "repairman" is a recent coinage, and has an obvious relation to the word "repair". This seems to imply a derivation from the English words "repair" and "man", but in fact the consistency of the word with the older style of formation is the argu- ment for claiming it is, in fact, an example of it - Occam's Razor at work. 4. In a sense, you are right to say that the original derivation is irrelevant, and that we should look at current usage and understanding. However, once you do this logical debate has to stop. Usage and understanding are varied. The fact is, "madam chairman" is a common phrase, widely understood; if I call a company and ask for a "repairman" I'm really not astonished to have a woman show up; but people DO certainly remark "how can you be a mailMAN" (to a woman I knew who did that job one summer.) I think people who insist on this kind of misunderstanding of the language fall in one of two extreme camps: Those who are strongly FOR women's liberation and have a political ax to grind; and those who are strongly AGAINST it, and have a political ax to grind. Most people couldn't care less. My claim from the start has been that (a) the first group has no right to "legislate" changes in the language, which belongs to ALL of us; and (b) that the important issue is to EDUCATE the second group; changing the language will have no effect on their preconceptions whatsoever. As an illustration of why I refuse to say "well, the (a) people have their hearts in the right place, why argue with them about a triviality": If the PERCEPTION of the hyper-perceptive is all that matters, must we also listen to them if they decide that "person", because it happens to contain the sord \\\word "son", is inherently male? (If "per" caught on as a neuter pronoun, I can see this happening before long.) (BTW: "person" is from the French, and the "son" in it has nothing to do with the English word "son".) If you really want to tilt at windmills, why don't you object to the many English NAMES that actually do imply sex - like "Donaldson" (= son of Donald), for example? I have yet to see ANYONE take up this issue (not that I'm complaining!) As a final note: I've noticed that just about all the writers complaining about what I have to say have been men. (Given the population of USENET users, this is probably not that surprising.) I would just like to suggest to you all that you consider the fine line between support and condescension. -- Jerry devax!yale-comix!leichter leichter@yale
jj (04/27/83)
Ahhhhhh! uicsl!wombat summed it up very nicely when he said that children do not learn the entemology and dictionary meaning of a word. In an nutshell, that's the problem. If people were educated well enough to know what the words they use incorrectly (and establish a new usage for) are supposed to mean, then there wouldn't be a problem with sexist language. (Except, of course, where some bully deliberately uses language in a sexist manner. Of course, an educated person would understand and reject that.) Frankly, changing the language isn't going to do any good, because when you change the word "fireman" to "firefighter", for example, the SAME poorly educated, sexist parents who now teach sexism to their children are going to teach their children that "firefighter" means "fireMAN". Not only will you NOT make a dent in sexism, you will debase the word you invented (and debased the language with) so that IT is, in effect, a gendered word, with sexist connotations. A lot of good that will do any of us. I think (as if you haven't already figured it out) that education is the key. If the parents teach their children to be sexist, then the child will be sexist in turn. If the parents (AHEM, I've GOT to get schools in here somewhere!) teach their children that the usual roles of the sexes are just that, roles, and that they are not, nor should they be, binding, THEN the child will start to understand, perhaps even well enough to reject the programming that society (and the school system) tries to build in. When, and only when, you enable the child to understand sexism, and why it is bad, will you enable the child to reject it, when it is forced upon that child. A change in language, without any accompanying education, will not teach anyone (child or adult) to think, and to question the environment. Don't complain about my use of language, it's early in the morning, yes, but for me it's late at night, and I'm tired. If you have problems with my language <which, at this point is probable> just try to read what I say in context. rabbit!<educate the masses>jj
woods (04/28/83)
Even better, how about having mailpersons deliver the femail? (I wish!) :-)
jj (05/02/83)
Well, from the mail I've received about my article, several things are apparent: The first is that my "error" about wombat's sex seems to be more important to most of those who wrote than the subject of the article, which is a very revealing phenomina. I ask: Why does wombat's sex MATTER? I am well aware by now (thanks to all your sarcastic cards and letters) that wombat is a she. SO WHAT? At least until some consensus regarding language is reached, "he" is the "proper" usage for someone whose sex I am unaware of. Also: Why should I care (other than for politeness sake, which I can tell, dear readers, you don't give a damn about) which sex wombat's is? Do you think I should argue any differently because she is a "she"? WELL? Do you??? <Sexual comments *will* be kept to yourself.> Second, I thank all of you for your comments about my spelling. TOUGH. Why don't you just admit that you want to divert the argument to something that you feel comfortable with? Third: With the exception of two letters, no one even addressed the idea of education as a basis of prevention of discrimination. I am quite distressed that, while the effects and problems brought about by discrimination are constantly discussed, the idea of long term solution is either strongly resisted or (in this case) ignored. No one has yet addressed the question of how to cope with the debasement of the "new" vocabulary due to ignorance. Frankly, I fear the more subtle discrimination of saying "firefighter" and meaning "fireman" more than I fear the much more obvious way of saying "fireman" and meaning "man who fights fires" rather than "person who fights fires". (I feel that the first actually has the possibility of being used deceptively, being a learned behavior.) While the language may be sexist, (and may have recently, in historical terms, become that way) the language is not, and can clearly be seen not to be, the CAUSE of sexist (or racist, etc) attitudes. The language is clearly the symptom, brought about by teaching people sexist attitudes. If one wants the language to be non-sexist, I suggest educating the populace to be non-sexist, and the language will either change, or come to be understood as non-sexist. Treating symptoms, as our currently disintegrating society (welfare, social security, racial violence, crime, affirmitive action, lawsuits that extend liability, lack of responsibility for one's actions, skewed penalties for crimes <currently drunk driving in NJ has a much more severe sentence, when no death, etc, is concerned, than homicide or armed robbery, and guess sentence which is mandatory>) shows, is counterproductive. Why not instead try a new approach? I don't know. Can someone write a nice, carefully though out article for this group explaining why or why not? Thank you (in advance, by necessity, there being no precedent) for all your kind support and thoughtful comments. rabbit!<think about what you're writing>jj