View Single Post
Old 09-01-2012, 01:15 PM   #136
pdurrant
The Ghost Mouse
pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
pdurrant's Avatar
 
Posts: 32,219
Karma: 89021440
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norfolk, England
Device: NOOK ST GlowLight
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze View Post
But if we're willing to defer to the male-specific gender there, then why not in the case of the pronoun he? Could it be we're overreacting to a red herring based on our mistaking secondary associations for the actual intention and function?
I think the difference is that for things like actor/actress, there is not the tight association with the base word with the male sex that there is with the male third person singular pronoun, "he".

Personally, I like the male/female words, but I'm willing to forgo them if they people involved prefer to move towards a unified word.

And when we consider professions which don't have separate words (e.g. weaver), it would seem pretty odd to try to add in a separate word. Can anyone imagine calling a female weaver a weavress?

So on the whole, it probably is the way the language will go. The simpler option (one word per profession) will win out.
pdurrant is offline   Reply With Quote