Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alberta.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!decvax!microsoft!uw-beaver!ubc-visi!alberta!stephen
From: stephen@alberta
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: More on my hard-to-unsexist word - (nf)
Message-ID: <523@alberta.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 22-Oct-83 02:48:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: alberta.523
Posted: Sat Oct 22 02:48:30 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 18-Oct-83 01:37:02 EDT
References: <2035@hp-pcd.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
Lines: 24

Although himan and hymen may rhyme, himan comes from him-man and
therefore the 'i' is soft. The phonetic difference is not unlike
'hick' and 'hike'. 
  Since the words refer to two obviously different genders, context
problems are likely to be rare (the worst case I can think of is
"Himen don't have hymen." and even that is reasonably clear...

  Also, for those of you who are hell bent on PERSONifying the 
english language, consider the fact that you may be executing a
self-fulfilling prophecy. 

  Consider what fun the lawyers could have if
	"...all men were created equal."
were  interpreted as
	"...all HIMEN were created equal.".
Although this may seem ludicrus now, it might not be as unlikely
after a couple of generations of 'PERSONification'.

  As I said before, I think that removing the malenes from 'man'
would be easier, and safer than removing the femaleness from it
and 'himan' is the best tool I can come up with.

	Stephen Samuel
	  (alberta!stephen)