Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!nntp.sei.cmu.edu!news.psc.edu!hudson.lm.com!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!wang!news
From: bruck@actcom.co.il (Uri Bruck)
Subject: Re: Non-Sexist Language Reform (slightly long, examples from Israeli Hebrew)
Organization: ACTCOM - Internet Services in Israel
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 1995 18:48:37 GMT
Message-ID: <DG5891.9ny@actcom.co.il>
References: <kenmayer-2709951907590001@pilsudski.wag.utexas.edu> <44s9db$ntf@news.netvision.net.il>
Sender: news@wang.com
Lines: 110

Avi Jacobson (a-jacobson@netmedia.co.il) wrote:
: Interesting question, but in my opinion it somewhat misses the point.

No. You are missing the point, and in a big way

: It seems natural that the notion of "non-sexist langauge reform" would 
: arise in a society whose native language (English) is practically 
: gender-free for inanimate objects - unlike many spoken in the Western 
: world.   In English, the mission is simply to invent words and 
: constructions for people, professions, etc., which are as gender-free as 
: those used for inanimate objects.

Language both reflects attitudes and affects attitudes. The language 
reform is not just towards "non-sexist" language, but other towards
decreased use of terms offensive to other groups of society, whether they be
ethnic minorities, to whom most of us no longer reffer using derogatory
nicknames, or disabled people, or certain proffessions.

: It is relatively easy to coin an English term like "chairperson" or even 
: "chair" for the older "chairman".  Furthermore, in English, many 
: human-related (and therefore potentially gender-related) nouns were 
: already non-sexist even _before_ "non-sexist language reform": 
: technician, truck driver, teacher, etc.  In a language like Hebrew, where 
: gender is inherent to every noun, verb, and adjective, the mission is 
: impossible - barring the "slash solution" (Man/Frau, he/she).

That depends whether you are reffering to the name of the proffession. or 
describing a specific person's proffession. I believe that even people
who insist on using genderless job descriptions for the job itself, would 
agree that it sould be acceptable to use a gender word to describe a 
specific person perfoming that job, because we already know the
gender of that person, and people do have specific genders.

In this sense the 'slash solution' would only be necessary to describe
the occupations and not the people performing the jobs.
This still leaves some problems.
'ganan' (m.) - gardener
'ganenet' (f.) - kindergarten teacher
'mazkir' (m.) / 'mazkira' (f.) both translate as secretary
But while the feminine form is normally used in the context of
an office secretary, the masculine form usually conveys a meaning of
some sort sort of formal office (UN secretary, secretary of state)


: Written Hebrew often uses the "slash solution" - notably in the 
: classified ads, where it is illegal to advertise in a single gender 
: without a disclaimer.  The "slash" - a single byte - is much cheaper than 
: the requisite "Advertsements appearing in a particular gender are to be 
: read as applicable to either gender".
Open a paper and read the classifieds - the lash is used, and the disclaimer
appears _once_, for the entire section.

: There is a "non-sexist language reform" movement in Israel, but it is 
: marginal, and considered an eccentricity by the mainstream of Hebrew 
: speakers (as, incidentally, is much of what U.S. society now calls 
: "politically correct").  An example follows:

: When automatic phone answering machines first came out in Israel, they 
: were nicknamed _mazkirot_ ("secretaries" in Hebrew).  This does not seem 
: to be sexist in itself - (ignoring for a moment the U.S. p.c. 
: secretary/assistant controversy, which is not based on gender), and was 
: in fact a reflection of an apparently natural tendency to name a new 
: invention after the profession of the people whose function the invention 
: performs.  Cf. "valet" (a hat stand, according to Random House), 
: "dumbwaiter".  However, since the word "secretary" (like all nouns in 
: Hebrew) has an inherent gender (in this case, feminine), women's rights 
: groups took offense at the term and invented a new word - _meshivon_, 
: which means, literally, "one who answers" in the _masculine_ gender, with 
: a _diminutive suffix_ to boot!

1. A secretary's job is not just answering telephones. Anyone who has worked
with or as a secretary knows that effectively a secretary runs the office.
2. 'one who answers' seems a very good translation of the English name. 
The names invented for most appliances are often translations of the English
(/international) names. - translation in the sense that an object form
is derived from the root that is associated with that meaning.
3. you don't seem to object to _makhshevon_ for a calculator. Is that because 
claculating is more 'masculine' in more mind?
4. I remember the public service ads that demonstrated the answering-machines.
It was an animation where a feminine character, representing a secretary,
was facing the viewer - while her breasts changed into rolls of tape - 
what's not sesist about that image?

: In English, attempts at "reforming" the use of pronouns in writing can be 
: clumsy: "When the student notices that he/she needs a book, she/he (let's 
: not always put the man first) goes to a library and uses his/her libtrary 

Many texts now 'they' as a replacement, leaving the verb in the singular.
Not everyone likes that solution.

: that doesn't work, she might simply be overtired...."  In Hebrew, the 
: same clumsiness exists - but to a far greater extent, since unlike in 
: English (where the problem is limited to personal pronouns and the 
: occasional noun) in Hebrew, the solution must be exercised on every noun, 
: verb, and adjective.  Thus, a sentence like "Advanced students can 
: understand their instructors easily, but beginners might find themselves 
: confused" (which is totally non-sexist in English and requires no 
: doctoring) could only be rendered non-sexist in Hebrew by applying the 
: "slash solution" or the "'or' solution" to practically every word:

That's really not the point at all. You whole post only deals with 'sexist'
language - which, as I pointed out above, is not the major issue. 
It is taken as a rule, a sexist but a useful one, that the masculine plural
form can refer to a mixed group as well - no one expects such formal texts
as the one you cited to change, we expect everyday language to reflect
equalitarian attitudes. Language changes, we do not speak the same language 
that was spoken 50 of a hundred years ago, and language will change to 
accomodate new ways of thought, that is just the way things are.
Uri

