Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxr.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mfs
From: mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: A Small Victory; Not at All
Message-ID: <290@mhuxr.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 8-Apr-85 13:49:43 EST
Article-I.D.: mhuxr.290
Posted: Mon Apr  8 13:49:43 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Apr-85 02:31:02 EST
References: <824@druxo.UUCP> <269@mhuxr.UUCP> <2349@randvax.UUCP> <277@mhuxr.UUCP> <237@h-sc1.UUCP> <2376@randvax.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 24

> Ed Hall:
> I meant ``ambiguity'', as a *means* of indicating ``generality''.
> You're right, so far as the implications of what I said, but I felt it
> important to point out that AMBIGUITY CONVEYS MEANING AS TO WHAT IS AND
> IS NOT IMPORTANT.  Marcel seems to feel that ambiguity implies some
> failure of communication. ...
[Hall goes on to elaborate on the above point. He does so very clearly.
I have deleted it in the interest of brevity, but strongly encourage
everyone to read the posting (<2376@randvax.UUCP> ]

You are absolutely right. Ambiguity is useful in conveying "body english"
as it were, through the language. We are no longer in agreement when
you assert that ambiguity is desirable in "everyday" communication.
A lot of problems are caused by one of the communicating parties not
quite getting the intended shade of meaning. This is not a matter
of "owning" the language, but as my 10th grade teacher always said,
"if I don't understand what you said, then you have not said anything."
I don't see the value of increased ambiguity if the price is occasional
"noise on the communications line." To continue on the computer
analogy, not all of us do flow control, or can request retransmission.
This feeling is the basis for my lonely (and probably foolish) resistance
against the singular 'they' as an instrument of gender neutrality.

Marcel Simon