Re: Gener-specific or gender-inclusive?

Date: Tue Feb 22 2000 - 21:24:29 EST

In a message dated 2/22/2000 8:08:00 PM Central Daylight Time, writes:

<< << After all, although such use of (so called)
> "politically correct" language sounds silly to some, the lack of such
> sound sexist and bigoted to others. That seems to be a fair enough
> statement, wouldn't you agree? >>
> Absolutely NOT!
 What I find interesting about our sensibilities with regard to
 gender-specific or gender-inclusive language is that when people who prefer
 to keep the masculine read the Scriptures or preach from it, they still can
 be observed to say things like "Obviously the masculine here also includes
 women too." Why then are they squeamish about this being in the text in the
 first place? [I'm a cautious user of inclusive language, btw.]

I would say the same (that the masc. incluedes the femine), but I would not
admit it to the actual translation. There was an inclusive use of the
masculine in the original which I think should be faithfully produced in
translation. That we understand that it was an inclusive use and even take
pains to explicitly acknowledge that fact in our comments is acceptable --
just don't mess with the original unless there is no other way to be clear.


B-Greek home page:
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: []
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
To subscribe, send a message to

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:58 EDT