Print

Print


On Thursday, October 23, 2003, at 06:39 , Tristan McLeay wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Nik Taylor wrote:
>
>> Tristan McLeay wrote:
>>> Yeah, well you still need one for 'male person'. There isn't really one,
>>> and it seems that whenever one gets created (e.g. guy) it becomes
>>> neutral.
>>> 'Bloke' is sort of an exception, but I think it's more specific than
>>> just
>>> 'male adult person'.
>>
>> Sure, but that's not what Ray Brown was talking about.  We also need one
>> for "female person" while we're at it.
>
> Woman unambiguously fits the bill, doesn't it? Perhaps I've misunderstood
> Ray's post or something.

'woman' fits the bill OK.  You haven't misunderstood. 'man', although in
theory
possible a a generic word, also has the meaning 'adult male', and is at
best prone
to ambiguity.  I've heard it stated, e.g. that the Christmas message was
essentially
directed as males since we read:"Glory to God in the Highest, and on the
earth peace,
goodwill toward _men_"!!! The small point that Greek has 'anthro:pois' i.e.
  to persons
of both sexes, irrespective of age, and not 'andrasi' seemed to be of no
account.
(Presumably because no version of the scriptures has divine authority
except the KJV!)

That's an extreme case, I grant, and IMHO shows willful ignorance.

But also the suggestions 'human' or 'persons' doesn't work too well either:
  "...
goodwill toward humans", ".....goodwill toward persons".  Both IMO sound
unnatural.

(Yes, I know the best MSS have 'goodwill' (eudokias) in the genitive, not
the
nominative - but I don't want to complicate the issue).


Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
[log in to unmask]    (home)
[log in to unmask]   (work)
===============================================