Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site hoptoad.uucp
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!sun!hoptoad!laura
From: laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.singles,net.nlang
Subject: Re: Grammar and Spelling on the Net
Message-ID: <638@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: Fri, 21-Mar-86 14:19:54 EST
Article-I.D.: hoptoad.638
Posted: Fri Mar 21 14:19:54 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Mar-86 08:00:16 EST
References: <658@frog.UUCP> <62800002@ism780> <3403@umcp-cs.UUCP> <323@meccts.UUCP> <12460@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: laura@hoptoad.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco
Lines: 48
Xref: linus net.singles:10026 net.nlang:4001


I was going to write this up, but then this article comes along.  The problem
which I have with the lnaguage changers is that they have a non-falsifiable
hypothesis.  And some of them present their opinions as scientific fact.


In article <12460@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> asimov@degas.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Daniel Asimov) writes:
>It has been suggested that examining cultures in whch the language
>is neuter can show that it may be of little value to try to 
>"neuterize" the English language.  
>
>I would like to comment that this idea ignores the effect of 
>*change* itself.  The process of changing our language from one
>which routinely uses ambiguous words ("man" for either all humans
>or a male) or highly assymetrical ones (as "mailman" for mail carrier)
>to a hypothetical English which doesn't do this, will (I conjecture)
>have the effect of raising a lot of consciousnesses.  No?
>--Dan Asimov

Now Dan Asimov has presented this nicely. He has a conjecture -- a hypothesis,
an OPINION.  He may be right.  I happen to think that he is wrong, but
that is okay.  What is *not* okay is that a lot of people who share this
opinion are forcing it down the throats of the rest of us.

There are few things as frustrating as to have a paper or article which
you have written mangled by some editor determined to get the ``sexism''
out.  It is bad enough that they replace the elegent sentences that you
have laboured over with stilted and ugly prose -- but sometimes they
get in there and change teh whole meaning of what you wrote.  To add to
the frustration, if you talk to these same editors you discover that they
have a very vague idea of what linguistics is, and that they are unaware
of what the Sapir Whorf hypothesis is -- let alone any of the relevant
research.

So what do they have -- an opinion.  A belief.  Something they thinks
*sounds* good or perhaps *feels* good.

And because feminism is a politically active issue, feminists get to
impose their beliefs and feelings on me.  And I resent this a great
deal.




-- 
Laura Creighton		
ihnp4!hoptoad!laura  utzoo!hoptoad!laura  sun!hoptoad!laura
toad@lll-crg.arpa