[TheForge] autodarkening helmet and other OT thoughts

[Peter Fels & Phoebe Palmer]

Respectfully; i think language is as plastic as metal and our's to abuse.
I believe this because i was a dismal student and am a facile 
rationalizer.  pf

Bruce Freeman wrote:
> Nice to know I'm not the only semantically oral compulsive in the
> group.  (I figure "semantic" fits with "oral" but  not the other end.)
> 
> Ever notice how letters and syllables are disappearing - or being
> inserted - into our words.
> 
> Real-A-tor (an invented word, anyway), daylight savingS time, tin[NED]
> can (poor example, I admit.  Sad headache today and can't think of a
> better one, except, perhaps, for duc[T] (aka duck) tape.
> 
> My real pet peeve is the destruction of our grammar due to ignorant PC
> forces.  I've probably spoken of this before in this forum because it
> is a pet peeve.  Preface:  I am proudly a feminist (though male),
> which is to say I consider women to be the complete political equals
> of men.  (This is  not to say men and women are in any way the same.
> "Viva la difference.")  Furthermore, despite the multiple uses of the
> words, "masculine" and "feminine," in the GRAMMATICAL sense, have
> NOTHING to do with "male" and "female" (which are biological
> referents).  English speakers, especially Americans, most of whom have
> never studied a foreign language, just can't grasp that concept.  But
> in German, "das maedchen," means "the young woman," yet is NEUTER.
> Nobody in his right mind would consider "ein maedchen" to be neuter -
> it is the WORD that is neuter.  Only one of many possible examples.
> The consequence of this is that the PC construction "he/she" is
> bullshit, and nothing more.  The use of "they" for "he" is worse,
> though sometimes a sentence can be rewritten to make it acceptable.
> "He" is proper to refer to persons of unspecified sex, because "he" is
> masculine gender and implies nothing about sex.  Animals and (strictly
> speaking) babies should be referred to as "it."  It, however, is not a
> personal pronoun, but an impersonal pronoun, hence our use of "he" and
> "she" for animals and babies we hold dear.  (I think few would object
> to calling a rat or lawyer "it".)
> 
> Oh, and by the way, "gender" is a grammatical concept, not a
> biological one.  The proper word is "sex" when asking whether one is
> male or female.  Funny how folks are shying away from that now.  I
> suspect that's because some think "sex" is a verb, or at least that it
> describes the act.  Even in Victorian time, "sex" was very commonly
> used correctly.
> 
> [Stepping down from soapbox.}
> 
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 3:18 AM, terry l. ridder <terrylr at blauedonau.com> wrote:
>> hello dave;
>>
> <snip>
>> i totally agree.
>>
>> several years ago i was on a one man crusade to bring back the use of
>> 'may' in place of 'can' as in 'may i have a piece of candy?'
>> as in 'may i have a cup of coffee?' instead of 'can i have a piece of
>> candy?' and 'can i have a cup of coffee?'
>>
>>> I realize that even the folks that make the product have begun to call
>>> it a "helmet" but a helmet it is not. A lot like "duck tape" rather
>>> than "duct tape" it is a misnomer.
>>>
> <snip>
>>> So please, if not for the sake of proper English then for respect of
>>> the tens of thousands of welders that have gone before you, call it
>>> a "shield".
>>>
>> i will call it a shield when you are within earshot range. ;-)
>> <snip>
> 
>