Somebody flagged my former reply to the above, for reasons unknown: here is a copy. Yes, the content remains important, in terms of the above reply to the origi

Somebody flagged my former reply to the above, for reasons unknown: here is a copy. Yes, the content remains important, in terms of the above reply to the original. ==== Which language are you speaking? Before something "«comes across»" to you, do you have your duly interposed cold-minded understanding modules on? -- A "Man" is that entity which has a mind superior to that of e.g. monkeys. (In the context, the nuance is that of Dignity.) -- A "person" is that entity which expresses a particular side of the possible expressions of being. ...Your proposal would be translated as "People with their own special ideas and leaning would etc." - it is not only hardly relevant to what was communicated, but possibly even stating the opposite. The original post, like in general the rest we post, was not meant to be written in demotic. ==== And again to another reply, now hidden, if the above still needed: 'Man' has the same root of "mind", it means "having a mind", but so many things have it, so it must be a special one, must it not? 'Person' is a mask - that thing in which the voice "per-sonat". It means the mask, the specific one - crying, laughing, irate, whatever. No, you cannot use 'person' if you do not mean "that with a personality" - because that is what it means. ==== Edit: Oh, and incidentally - "why not just sticking to invented groupspeak?" Well, paradoxically, also because it is not inclusive, is it, if some demand the normalcy of speaking actual Language, or maybe just when dealing with individuals from other groups! A convention is limited to convention adherents; this public is varied!