Re: Gender-specific or gender-inclusive?

Date: Wed Feb 23 2000 - 07:38:03 EST

In a message dated 2/23/2000 6:49:43 AM Central Daylight Time, writes:

 If by "exclusive" you mean an exclusive-gender term, you are wrong here.
 The English term "man" has often been used in an exclusive-gender sense,
 such as in the phrase: "I saw a man and a woman walk down the street just

I never said that the word man never designated the male gender. My point
was that it is not used exclusively thus. Similarly the word ANQRWPOS could
be applied to males or could include women. Context determines which usage
is intended.

It appears that there are differing viewpoints on this matter. Personally, I
have never seen anyone fail to understand when the word "man" is used in an
inclusive sense. I have heard some claim that some nebulous "they" don't
understand that usage, but that has not been my experience. The only thing I
have noted is some who wish to remake the language to suit their preferences.
 It then becomes a matter of attempting to fit your translation to the latest
jargon. This could conceivably lead to a Year 1000 Revised Translation, Year
2001 Revised Translation, etc. I tend to think that our understanding of the
English Language is a bit more durable than that. There are people even
today who prefer the KJV in spite of the fact that there is not only almost
400 yrs. of change in the language but also a large change in what we know
about the original text. Perhaps we simply must agree to disagree. I don't
see that either is likely to convince the other.


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