Assaults on the England language

[Douglas Laycock]

Point taken.
 
Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX  78705
   512-232-1341 (phone)
   512-471-6988 (fax)
 

________________________________

From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ann Althouse
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 10:44 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Assaults on the England language


The correct adjective is "female," but people avoid it because they feel
it has the wrong connotation. That's really the same thing you're seeing
with those who avoid the adjective "Democratic" when referring to the
party.  

And I'm on the side of calling people and groups what they want to be
called -- unless I want to express contempt for them. And, really,
that's what we're seeing here. I recommend only saying "Democrat Party"
if you mean to express some serious contempt. For those who don't like
it: that's the whole point! It's a taunt.

And, to go back to this "woman" thing. Note that you don't say "men
lawyers." Oh, look, Bush picked a man justice! 
That sounds subliterate or nutty. But we say, Bush failed to pick
another woman justice, without even thinking of the lack of parallelism.
What's with that?

This sense that there's something wrong with using "female" ought to be
examined. It reminds me of the way some people feel there's something
wrong with calling someone a Jew. Might there not be an unexamined
prejudice in there? 

Ann

On Jul 21, 2005, at 10:24 AM, Douglas Laycock wrote:


	But there isn't any corresponding adjective that serves the
purpose.
	"Womanish lawyers," "womanly lawyers," or "feminine lawyers"
would all
	mean something very different.  "Female lawyers" is sometimes
used, but
	sounds more clinical.  Female is also used as both noun and
adjective,
	and English is sufficiently flexible that a word like "women,"
which is
	usually a noun, can be pressed into service as an adjective and
no
	listener or reader would be confused.  

	The claim of the people making the gramatical argument depends
on the
	fact that with Democrat and Democratic, the language has clearly
	differentiated the noun from the adjective.  


	Douglas Laycock
	University of Texas Law School
	727 E. Dean Keeton St.
	Austin, TX  78705
	   512-232-1341 (phone)
	   512-471-6988 (fax)

	-----Original Message-----
	From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
	[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ann
Althouse
	Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 9:29 AM
	To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
	Subject: Re: Assaults on the England language

	I like the title of this thread "Assaults on the England
language,"  
	which suggests the grammatical argument for why it's wrong to
say
	Democrat Party. But if the grammatical point is so strong, why
do we say
	"women lawyers"? "Women" isn't an adjective.

	Ann




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20050721/c7385179/attachment.html