home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!bnr.co.uk!uknet!comlab.ox.ac.uk!oxuniv!wilcox
- From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
- Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
- Subject: Re: Shaking people up with "she"? (was Re: Sexist language)
- Message-ID: <1992Dec21.145333.10933@vax.oxford.ac.uk>
- Date: 21 Dec 92 14:53:33 GMT
- References: <724568836snx@warren.demon.co.uk> <BzDw15.MnD@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>
- Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620
- Lines: 20
-
- In article <BzDw15.MnD@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
- > Who says it isn't? The meaning conveyed is different, that's all.
- > The word should be found in all dictionaries.
-
- You have misunderstood the nature of this debate. English and Americans alike
- understand the same by the word, it's just that the word has dropped out of the
- dialect of English spoken by most English people, as I am sure *you* are
- aware, Mandar. I, and several others, are arguing that it conveys a misleading
- impression of the first-year student: that he or she is necessarily male. THe
- dictionary definition I have here (shorter OED, 1933) gives: A student during
- *his* first year, esp. *his* first term at university (US school) [my emphasis]
- and gives an original date of 1596 in this sense. I'm sure I need hardly remind
- you that between 1596 and 1933 women were allowed to be students at a
- university in Britain for all of ten years so the word was not inappropriate.
- Now, however, that women make up nearly 50% of our university students, I think
- you will agree that it is time for a change.
- --
-
- Stephen Wilcox | For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
- wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk | outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
-