Print

Print


Jens Wilkinson skrev:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Stephen Rice <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>   
>> I can agree with that. For me, the primary argument for gender
>> neutrality is symmetry: it's derivationally tidier."Chairpeople"
>> sounds like a sci-fi or fantasy concept, but "chairman" and
>> "chairwoman" don't. Yet what other generic term can we use? I despise
>> "waitperson" and "waitstaff," but "server" is hardly any better. I'd
>> rather treat "waiter" as generic, as has largely happened with
>> "actor." In any case, it's better to avoid such problems by having
>> generic words.
>>
>>     
>
> This is one thing I really enjoy about Chinese and Japanese. The words
> are often xxx-person. In the case of chairman, it's ??, which means
> something like "association-head." The ? character can be placed after
> nearly anything to indicate that the person is the head of whatever it
> is. So ?? for company president, ?? for school principal, etc. There
> are very few compounds ("nurse" being a notable exception) where
> gender comes into it at all.
>
>   
Can't one just say "chair" in English?

The above reminds me of Esperanto's -estro. There is a potential for 
"kunvenestro" chair of a meeting, "kompaniestro" CEO of a corporation? 
Am not sure if it is used that way, but you have most certainly 
"shipestro" = ship's captain. Lernejestro for principal would work as 
well. So "go -estro, go!"

Kjell R