Peter -- and everybody -- the *question* was asked *to* the list. It
wasn't about, say, do we prefer Brahms or Sting, it was about forms of
address TO the list. It is therefore eminently "appropriate" to the list.
Why is it, I wonder that the list police are asleep at the switch when
somebody sends an e-mail saying, "I saw that show too and liked it a lot",
or an even tinier factoid, or feeble "joke." (Replies off-list, please.)
Not that I mind; I don't. I find such "forbidden" comments quite
humanizing. But only when something a helluvalot more important AND
interesting, indeed of some significance in the grand scheme of things, AS
WELL AS to the list itself, comes up, are the list police suddenly on the
alert, finger on the trigger.
Therefore permit me to explain why the issue is entirely "appropriate" to
the list, in addition, that is, to having been raised by a writer who
wished not to offend, including I thought, me, as well as you.
That's because the average person, assuming he isn't a card-carrying
misogynist, doesn't want to speak or write habitually in terms that seem
wrong to, or even mildly irritate, the audience (and here I include men as
well as women). I would suppose also that ESPECIALLY those in non-English
speaking countries, where they don't see current usage in the media every
day, would be glad to learn how it has changed since the day their text
books were written, or their teachers went to school. Surely you
understand that usage changes, language being so famously living and
fluid. (And, rest assured, even England will change, although I notice
from a Darkroom User that arrived yesterday -- not yet.)
> However I read very day documents in which the older convention is still
> in use and this is certainly still a normal practice here (if one that I
> personally avoid, although I still happily continue use of mankind,
> human etc.)
What does this prove, Peter? My point in fact: "the 'older' convention is
still in use" in England. I'm perfectly happy to clue in the English.
Indeed this is exactly why it's so excellent to address the issue in an
international forum, where it is, as noted, relevant *every* day.
As for those writing in English-as-a-second-language -- I am continually
in awe of their prowess and grace, even when, in fact especially
when,their English is not fluent. They have made a great effort and had
great courage (more than many of the rest of us). But I bet there's not a
one of them wouldn't appreciate learning about such vital issues in a
living language.
> My fairly recent copy of 'Current English Usage' says on this matter that
> there are 3 possible responses (I summarise and slightly re-organise)
> a) "to continue with the traditional practice, as any careful writers still
> do"
I assume that's a typo and you meant to write "as *many* careful writers
still do." I can only say, not many, or even *any* that I know of in this
country. (Can't speak for Canada.) But let me add that this is such an
easy change, doesn't involve anything really major, like adding stalls in
theatre toilets, I'm suprised folks hang on so tenaciously. And oh yeah,
one more thing -- this forum being so predominantly male is exactly where
the issues have to be raised. You think you'd get this kind of argument
in a women's group?
cheers,
Judy