Xref: utzoo comp.unix.wizards:12811 sci.lang:3448
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!hubcap!gatech!uflorida!haven!ames!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!humu!uhccux!lee
From: lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards,sci.lang
Subject: Re: sexist language
Message-ID: <2696@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Date: 23 Nov 88 20:02:43 GMT
References: <722@quintus.UUCP>
Organization: University of Hawaii
Lines: 19

From article <722@quintus.UUCP>, by ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe):
" ...
" sci.lang readers:  Throop's claim that "if a typist ... she ..." is
" inaccurate (and the implicit corollary that this is sexist) is in error.
" The supposition here is that if something is "unmarked", it must be
" unmarked in all context.  That's not how it works.

Even if one could find this supposition in what Throop wrote, which
one cannot, and even if one could show that a usage was correct
by giving it the label unmarked, which is a silly way of reasoning,
this would still be incorrect.  In the way the term 'unmarked' has
ordinarily been used, e.g. by Prince Trubetskoy, what is 'unmarked'
is not determined by context.  (Though the realization of the
unmarked may be determined by context, which is a little different.)

I realize there is no way to convert determined proponents of sexist
language, but let's do try to distinguish reason from rationalization.

		Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu