home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!bnr.co.uk!uknet!edcastle!edcogsci!iad
- From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
- Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
- Subject: Re: American English
- Message-ID: <12198@scott.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 23 Dec 92 11:58:29 GMT
- References: <BzMup6.Fry@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> <BznotD.DJ6@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <12195@scott.ed.ac.uk> <1992Dec22.235749.14921@bmerh85.bnr.ca>
- Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK
- Lines: 25
-
- In article <1992Dec22.235749.14921@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
- >In article <12195@scott.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
- >>[...] and since I don't buy the claim that the polysemy of "man"
- >>[...] could lead to significant loss of meaning in a natural
- >>situation, I see no need for shunning one of the meanings in an
- >>artificial manner, or any other similar major surgery.
- >
- >But will you violently object if some people prefer to use a less
- >ambiguous word, like "person"?
-
- Certainly not. Neither would I expect anyone else to object,
- violently or otherwise. I use "person" myself, most of the time.
- Sometimes I find it more appropriate to use "human being" instead.
- And sometimes the first choice is "man". It depends on many factors.
- If someone is unhappy with my choice, I'll listen to him, but he ought
- to be able to demostrate that there is a real danger of ambiguity. It
- is my opinion that this was not the case on the several occasions when
- Mandar was asked whether he had used "men" as `men' or as `men and
- women' in some context, although the intended meaning was quite clear.
-
- --
- `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
- Ivan A Derzhanski (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu) Gospel)
- * Centre for Cognitive Science, 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, UK
- * Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
-