Print

Print


I said it resonates; knowing and feeling are not the same.  Eliot knew 
that.  I'm not saying my feeling about the word is good or that I go 
around finding opportunities to offend, but why should I lie about how 
the language is deep inside?

I hope I don't make a point of knowing, but of those pertinent things I 
know or wonder about.

Best,
Marcia

Nancy Gish wrote:

>Except it does not, in fact, mean that.  It means whatever is
>convenient--and politically that has been a disaster in addition to a
>linguistic falsehood.  That it "resonates" does not affect its
>linguistic and historical status.  This seems oddly out of character
>since you make a point of knowing facts and history.
>Nancy
>
>  
>
>>>>[log in to unmask] 04/09/06 9:57 AM >>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>Brother Ken, Brother CR, make room for me in your pew.
>"Man" still resonates for me, in some instances, as humankind. 
>
>Marcia
>
>Ken Armstrong wrote:
>
>  
>
>>--On Saturday, April 08, 2006 11:42 PM -0500 Carrol Cox 
>><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Movement afoot. Have you been sleeping for 40 years. "Man" as generic
>>>      
>>>
>is
>  
>
>>>simply vulgar and illiterate.
>>>      
>>>
>> I heard you the first time. I am asking you why you think it is in 
>>wide use. Apparently you are saying it is only among the vulgar and 
>>illiterate, who do, of course, outnumber the population of whatever 
>>category you are placing yourself in. I am saying you are, to put it 
>>plainly, underestimating its use and its users.
>>
>>Ken A.
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>