From: CRAIG R HARMON (revcraigh@iexpress.net)
Date: Tue Nov 24 1998 - 21:16:37 EST
Dear list members,
Perhaps I don't understand. Are we to assume that the Bible is
agenda-neutral and that any agenda that comes through in translation is a
result of the translators' bias? I think not.
Furthermore, someone has said,
>> The simple fact is that the "generic he" is archaic in contemporary
English. It is no longer generic. >>
When did the words 'man' and 'he' loose their generic, gender neutral
meanings? I'll tell you when. When certain segments of society refused to
recognize them. I submit that this does not constitute their going out of
existence. In fact these still are the #2 meanings listed in my most recent
dictionary (the Oxford Desk Dictionary and Thesaurus: American Edition; the
Oxford University Press, 1997):
man...2a human being; person (no man is perfect). b the human race (man is
mortal).
and
he...2 person, etc., of unspecified sex.
No mention anywhere of these being archaic.
Does anyone seriously contend that either of these uses is incapable of
being understood today?
Sorry if this sounds inflammatory. I get hot when people make patently
untrue statements about the language I love.
Craig Harmon
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:08 EDT