Xref: utzoo sci.bio:3734 alt.romance:5239 soc.men:23576 soc.women:29657 soc.singles:72086
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!bbs!ddsw1!bhv
From: bhv@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Bronis Vidugiris)
Newsgroups: sci.pschology,sci.bio,alt.romance,soc.men,soc.women,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Are Humans Naturally Monogamous?
Message-ID: <1990Oct27.184654.23902@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
Date: 27 Oct 90 18:46:54 GMT
References: <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> <1990Oct24.233638.1774@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> <1990Oct25.131109.28884@athena.mit.edu>
Reply-To: bhv@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Bronis Vidugiris)
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Wheeling, IL
Lines: 22

In article <1990Oct25.131109.28884@athena.mit.edu> bjohnson@athena.mit.edu (Brett W Johnson) writes:
)In article <1990Oct24.233638.1774@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> wp6@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Walter Pohl) writes:
)>In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve Reiser) writes:
)>>begun to wonder what man's true nature really is. I have nothing against
)>		       ^^^
)>
)>	When I read this article, at first I was confused as to whether you
)>meant "male" or "person".  All possible ambiguity would be removed if you 
)>used "person" in place of "man".
)
)"Man" is used correctly here.  "Person" would NOT have been correct.

"begun to wonder what person's true nature really is" - is defintiely
not correct.

"begun to wonder what people's nature really is" seems a little off - 
"begun to wonder what people's nature really are" seems worse

"begun to wonder what human nature really is" is a little better, IMO.

The difference between people's nature and human nature isn't very great -
I think it boils down to a matter of personal preference here.