Elaine Hills (ehills@SOLEIL.ACOMP.USF.EDU)
Tue, 7 Nov 1995 10:22:22 -0500


I am new to this list but find this "Korean Shamanism" quite interesting
(although I have no clue where it started). The only problem I have here
and why I am replying is that it seems to me Alan was pointing out that
using the term "us," however realistic it may be, singles out a group and
alienates that group from the masses. Who is it that the effects of
the grammer police are aimed towards? The groups within society, or the
masses who will dominate for quite some time until the masses catch on to
what the groups are doing, or in this case, saying? I don't feel that
Alan was directing his comment and singling out the term "us" as singling
out femenists, but merely pointing out that alienation that was implied.

--Elaine | |

On Sun, 5 Nov 1995, Ruby Rohrlich wrote:

> The aim in this case happens to be descriptive, but even if the intent
> were directive, why should this cause alienation? Noone can force
> language change, especially on the internet, which only expresses
> *virtual* reality, and even in real reality, since users of language
> don't generally have coercive powers, what's to be so scared of, if
> you'll pardon the linguistic lapse. Why are some men panicked (sp.?) by
> what they construe as feminist direction, especially again on the
> internet. This doesn't, unfortunately, threaten male domination in this
> country,economically or politically, if you look at Congress or the heads
> of large corporations. So why take it so seriously, as ifmale power or
> something were really at stake. Ruby Rohrlich
> On Sat, 4 Nov 1995, Allan Dunn wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 4 Nov 1995, Ruby Rohrlich wrote:
> >
> > > While it is undoubtedly true that changing attitudes precedes changing
> > > language, still perhaps it helps change attitudes when those of us whose
> > > attitudes have changed indicate the changes in language that have
> > > ensued. Ruby Rohrlich
> >
> > What worries me, however, is who is "us", and that the language may have
> > changed for a portion of intelligencia (which could be a start), but not for
> > speakers in general, which only alienates and seperates them.
> > If the aim is descriptive, not directive then I happen to agree with you.
> > The best vehicle for change in language
> > is awareness and usage by speakers in that language
> >
> > AD
> >