3 ms·

Man was always intended as being gender neutral anyway: >The term man (from Proto-Germanic *mann- "person") and words derived from it can designate any or even

by 7ewis 4y ago

Man was always intended as being gender neutral anyway: >The term man (from Proto-Germanic *mann- "person") and words derived from it can designate any or even all of the human race regardless of their sex or age. In traditional usage, man (without an article) itself refers to the species or to humanity (mankind) as a whole. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_(word) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_(word)

macguillicuddy 4y ago
True - but there's no reason why language shouldn't continue to evolve with society. There are many instances where common words or phrases have changed over time in line with changing societal conditions. "It's [supposed to mean | always meant] this" just isn't a great argument for such mutable systems as languages. Also it seems like such a tiny personal cost to tweak one's use of language where it may make a non-zero impact on some of our biggest social challenges.
- woojoo666 4y ago
  There are other costs, like fragmentation: not everybody agrees that "monster" is a good replacement, and there are many places where it definitely isn't a good replacement. Then there's changes to documentation, wikis, and other written documents. Not to mention time spent discussing alternatives and spreading the word. On a personal level, it may be a few tiny tweaks but also very tiny personal impact. On a global scale, it could be a larger impact but also takes a lot more effort (combined effort of millions of tiny tweaks). Whether that effort is worth the payoff is debatable, especially considering what other initiatives that effort could be directed to.
  - macguillicuddy 4y ago
    This is a good point :-) I suppose if we gradually evolve language over time then we amortise and reduce any cost. I don't think we necessarily need to go around rewriting any books for most issues - but if this blog author (and others) tweak their language, maybe the next book to be written on the issue will make a more meaningful step forward, without any refactor cost. In any case there seems to be be no argument here that a given author shouldn't choose to tweak their words as they see fit where meaning is still clear - something that the parent commenter was implying as an issue.

by 7ewis 4y ago

macguillicuddy 4y ago

True - but there's no reason why language shouldn't continue to evolve with society. There are many instances where common words or phrases have changed over time in line with changing societal conditions. "It's [supposed to mean | always meant] this" just isn't a great argument for such mutable systems as languages. Also it seems like such a tiny personal cost to tweak one's use of language where it may make a non-zero impact on some of our biggest social challenges.

woojoo666 4y ago
There are other costs, like fragmentation: not everybody agrees that "monster" is a good replacement, and there are many places where it definitely isn't a good replacement. Then there's changes to documentation, wikis, and other written documents. Not to mention time spent discussing alternatives and spreading the word. On a personal level, it may be a few tiny tweaks but also very tiny personal impact. On a global scale, it could be a larger impact but also takes a lot more effort (combined effort of millions of tiny tweaks). Whether that effort is worth the payoff is debatable, especially considering what other initiatives that effort could be directed to.
- macguillicuddy 4y ago
  This is a good point :-) I suppose if we gradually evolve language over time then we amortise and reduce any cost. I don't think we necessarily need to go around rewriting any books for most issues - but if this blog author (and others) tweak their language, maybe the next book to be written on the issue will make a more meaningful step forward, without any refactor cost. In any case there seems to be be no argument here that a given author shouldn't choose to tweak their words as they see fit where meaning is still clear - something that the parent commenter was implying as an issue.