From the above cite:
:smack:
Yeah, well the cold war ended 15 years ago. It’s like saying “female attorney” when the sex of the laywer is irrelevant–marking terms out of prejudice. It’s not just prejudiced, it’s completely pointless.
Now that’s just downright stupid.
I don’t know why anyone would make a fuss over it. Language works better when terms are more specific instead of less. “Cosmonaut” gives you more information than just “astronaut.” We need more words, not fewer.
More words is double plus ungood. :mad: :mad:
Because “cosmonaut” is a Communist word. Even sorta sounds like “Communist”. Our red-blooded, God-fearing spacemen are astronauts, dammit.
But, if not for the Cold War, we still might not have cosmonauts, astronauts, or yuhangyuan.
Would you propose coining a different word for every profession, for each country? That’s an M x N solution for an M + N sort of problem, and one that English already solved pretty neatly some time ago. Can’t we just use the nationality adjectives that already exist, and apply them as we do for doctors, cars, and cheeses? And then not apply them when the nationality is irrelevant, as it often is?
I’m with the OP. Suppose I’m writing an article on the space program, and I say: “Astronauts living in zero-gravity for extended periods take on a risk of permanent bone loss.” Some smart-aleck comes along and says, “So cosmonauts are immune to the effect?”. Do I now have to go back and substitute “astronauts, cosmonauts, spacionauts, and taikonauts” wherever I wrote “astronauts”? God help me if that’s true. More likely, I’ll abandon all these terms and write “space traveller” or some-such term, but then that looks silly too, in its own way. People will wonder whether I’m talking about a real profession, or whether I’m a Raelian cult member.
Anyway, I’ve seen the terms “Russian astronaut” and “American astronaut” invoked before, in the major newspapers no less, so the usage can’t be completely alien to people. By all means, let’s go with that.
I dunno. Ever been to Siberia?