Thank you all for your responses. I may point out that I never use the neologism womyn though I frequently use confusticate ! I realise there are some
Message 1 of 50
, Apr 23, 2011
Thank you all for your responses. I may point out that I never use the neologism 'womyn' though I frequently use 'confusticate'!
I realise there are some deeply-held beliefs that I have no intention of quarrelling with, nor of asserting that my concerns are somehow more 'important'. But I am a little sad that Carl feels that destructive attitudes to women and vicious treatment of them is in any way confined to one culture or belief group. I can assure you it is not.
However, all that goes beyond the discusssion and I'm happy to drop it, for the sake of common humanity. In terms of 'misuse' of language, words wander away from their etymological families all the time; and the creation of a neologism is sometimes hailed with delight. (Dwarves, anyone?) If a group of people feels the need of a newly-made word to assert a point that's important to them, I don't have to use it; however, I don't need to sneer at it either. My main point remains that 'Humankind' is a existing, inclusive word and there's no reason not to use it. Is there?
Send Janet Reno s SWAT team to that house! There s a little old lady with a budgie and she might be calling it her pet ! ________________________________
Message 50 of 50
, Apr 29, 2011
Send Janet Reno's SWAT team to that house! There's a little old lady with a budgie and she might be calling it her "pet"!
From: Carl F. Hostetter <Aelfwine@...> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Sent: Fri, April 29, 2011 8:29:05 AM Subject:
[mythsoc] Re: Natural and artificial language change
A timely case in point, offered without comment as it more than speaks for itself: