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.


Nancy Gish wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
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.

[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. 


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
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.