# Proper English **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 13, 2009, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-english/481042 "2009-01-13T04:32:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2009, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-english/481042/21 "2009-01-14T02:50:14Z")
> [@Vox\_Imperatoris](#): > > Well, I’m sure the Romans had absolutely no intention of the word “senator” (in fact, it comes from the word for “old man”) being gender-neutral, but that’s commonly accepted, and the same goes for all other “-or” words. I think “dominatrix” ruined things for all other English words that could be feminized with the ending “-trix”. ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2009, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-english/481042/22 "2009-01-14T03:49:57Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Tell me which style guides allow for the use of congressman as a term embracing both male and female representatives. The style guide of the [He-man Woman Hater’s Club.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Gang) :rolleyes: Several of us have pointed out that “proper” can be defined within the context of a given style guide, but otherwise there is no absolute guide to English usage. You come along and make an absolute pronouncement with no cite, and when challenged on it you fall back on style guides. WTF, **Exapno**? ---
**Author:** ![fachverwirrt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/94ad74/32.png) [@fachverwirrt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fachverwirrt)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2009, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-english/481042/23 "2009-01-14T04:07:11Z")
> [@drastic\_quench](#): > > Similarly my obscure word calendar included executrix - defined their as a female executioner. I’m pretty sure an executrix is a female executor, which is rather different from an executioner. ---
**Author:** ![drastic\_quench](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e36b37/32.png) [@drastic\_quench](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drastic_quench)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2009, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-english/481042/24 "2009-01-14T04:38:27Z")
> [@fachverwirrt](#): > > I’m pretty sure an executrix is a female executor, which is rather different from an executioner. Yeah, I know that’s definitely the standard definition. This was just some cheapo mall calender gift, but it did have a cite to some old tome where the executioner meaning was used. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2009, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-english/481042/25 "2009-01-14T04:53:06Z")
**Exapno** , I thought you’ve come down pretty squarely against prescriptivism on other occasions? ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2009, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-english/481042/26 "2009-01-14T04:59:12Z")
A descriptivist could take the position that “congressman” cannot apply to a female, if that is indeed what analysis of common usage shows. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2009, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-english/481042/27 "2009-01-14T17:42:29Z")
I’ve always come down on the position that good usage is what good writers do. That has two sides. If good writers (“good” meaning the kind of writing displayed in newspapers, books, articles etc.) generally use a word or term or locution, then it is acceptable. Conversely if good writers all avoid the use of a word or term or locution then it isn’t acceptable. The use of congressman to refer to all representatives has fallen out of use in good writing. It has vanished so completely that I would be very surprised if I ran across its use. Chair, OTOH, is used frequently and preferentially these days. I think congressman as a gender-neutral term is as obsolete as colored. I would never recommend using it under any circumstances. I can’t think of where you might find it used these days, outside of some extreme right-wing publication making some kind of point against gender stylings. I also came down against calling a specific female representative a congressman. That is truly an absolute wrong. I maintain that position is completely justified. Nobody anywhere in any writing can refer to, say, Congressman Louise Slaughter of Rochester and have anyone think it is correct. The use of congressman has evolved. Use it to refer to a specific male representative only. If you want to use it otherwise then understand you take on the entire burden of its connotations. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Jones](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Cat\_Jones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Jones)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2009, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-english/481042/28 "2009-01-14T17:54:27Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > On a similar note, a “fireman” starts or maintains fires, while a person who puts them out is a “firefighter” And there was me thinking that a firefighter was an _American_ fireman :smack: OK - time to contact the editors of all British based English dictionaries, and I guess [this guy](http://www.dvdprodeti.cz/images/Fireman%20Sam_Saves%20teh%20Day.jpg) is out of a job eh ? Different varieties of English do exist, even different varieties of “standard” English. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2009, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-english/481042/29 "2009-01-14T18:55:24Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Representative is more correct but should be capitalized when used in the Congressional sense. Let me add to what others have said by saying that the style manuals I work with also lower-case “congressional.” ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2009, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-english/481042/30 "2009-01-14T22:05:58Z")
Since everyone is throwing around style guides, let me quote from the Associated Press: > [@](#): > > Rep.[resentative] and U.S. Rep. are the preferred first-reference forms when a formal title is used before the name of a U.S. House member. The term _congressman_ or _congresswoman_ [emphasis included], in lowercase, may be used in subsequent references that do not use an individual’s name, just as senator is used in references to members of the Senate. So it is Rep. Diane Goss Farrell, who can be described as a congresswoman. A whole passel of generic congresscritters would be described as “members of Congress” or perhaps “representatives.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-english/481042.md?page=1)