Print

Print


I said nothing about the words I use.  I've already said this and won't say it again.  You are putting ideas and words into my mouth.  Please don't.  I speak with appropriate care.  You'll have to have this imagined fight with me on your own.

Best,
Marcia

Nancy Gish wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
I think it admirable that you make a point of knowing.  Why is that not
a good thing?  It means you went to the trouble of finding out.

You are right that knowing and feeling are different.  But then many
people have found that terrible words "resonate" for them.  Is it ok to
say them (words like nigger or kike or slut) if they resonate with your
feelings?  It does matter what words mean and what their "semantic
history" has been.  When we use them, we continually reconstruct a
world.  And that world is benevolent or destructive for others whom we
name.  
Nancy

  
[log in to unmask] 04/09/06 1:46 PM >>>
        
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.