# Words you Hate but have resigned yourself they are here to stay **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 2, 2016, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/words-you-hate-but-have-resigned-yourself-they-are-here-to-stay/756311 "2016-06-02T15:06:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2016, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/words-you-hate-but-have-resigned-yourself-they-are-here-to-stay/756311/201 "2016-06-12T01:23:51Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > Except that that is how living languages work. New words are coined; old worlds fall out of favor; some words shift meaning. If you dislike that, try speaking Latin. That’s how it used to work, when nobody knew what they were doing. Now we have clear grammar and spelling rules, maybe we can slow down the unnecessary changes. ---
**Author:** ![Arcite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/67e7ee/32.png) [@Arcite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arcite)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2016, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/words-you-hate-but-have-resigned-yourself-they-are-here-to-stay/756311/202 "2016-06-12T01:36:41Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > One word I no longer use is “actress”. A person who acts is an “actor”, regardless of gender. “Waitress”, well, that becomes a little less practical to shed, unless one goes with “server” or “tipee”. > > But “chairman” could easily be a genderless title: “man” derives from “manual”, meaning to handle or operate, so “chairman” should be seen to be “person who mans the chair”, not “man of the chair”. I think that’s a valid point. When I was in elementary school in the early 80’s, my mother volunteered to be the “chairman” of the school fair. Literally, that was her title: “chairman of the fair,” even though she was a woman. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2016, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/words-you-hate-but-have-resigned-yourself-they-are-here-to-stay/756311/203 "2016-06-12T02:22:28Z")
> [@GuanoLad](#): > > That’s how it used to work, when nobody knew what they were doing. Now we have clear grammar and spelling rules, maybe we can slow down the unnecessary changes. 1. It’s not how things USED to work. It’s how language works, period. We don’t speak the same way as even Abraham Lincoln, much less Shakespeare or Chaucer or whoever that wonderful person was who wrote Beowulf. 2. English doesn’t have clear spelling rules. Consider “used”, which can be pronounced two different ways depending on its meaning but does not change spelling. Consider that “mean” has the same vowel as “meet,” not “bread.” Consider that “table” and “tablet” do not have the same vowel in the first syllable. Consider … well, you get the idea. 3. _Living languages change over time_. Sound and grammar change are inevitable partly because of the way milk tongues are acquired, and partly because human nature delights in coining new words and modifying old ones. To me that is part of the charm of languages. I love encountering new words, old words in new contexts, even nearly dead words. Maybe you don’t. But in either case it’s beyond human agency to stop. You might as well try to shine a white light through a prism without splitting it into the rainbow. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2016, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/words-you-hate-but-have-resigned-yourself-they-are-here-to-stay/756311/204 "2016-06-12T18:47:01Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > Cite on that etymology for man. It doesn’t gibe with the OED or any other source that I have ever encountered. > > Chairman is far from genderless. Like fireman, policeman, and so forth, it comes from the era when positions of authority were male by default. I am not saying that it _is_ the literal etymology, I am saying that for “chairman” specifically, one could realistically deconstruct it into a genderless form. “Fireman” and “policeman” are somewhat problematic, in that respect, but at least “cop” is gender-neutral. ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2016, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/words-you-hate-but-have-resigned-yourself-they-are-here-to-stay/756311/205 "2016-06-13T01:39:06Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > 1. _Living languages change over time_. Because we didn’t have rules. But now we have rules. I accept necessary and colloquial changes. I don’t accept unnecessary ones. “Alternate” used in this way is entirely unnecessary. We have a word for that use, it’s almost the same word and it works fine in every case. I know everyone (in America mostly) is used to it now and I can’t stop it, but that doesn’t mean I can’t hate it for its misuse. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2016, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/words-you-hate-but-have-resigned-yourself-they-are-here-to-stay/756311/206 "2016-06-13T20:14:12Z")
> [@GuanoLad](#): > > That’s how it used to work, when nobody knew what they were doing. Now we have clear grammar and spelling rules, maybe we can slow down the unnecessary changes. We have no rules for American English. We have many guidelines, but no rules. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2016, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/words-you-hate-but-have-resigned-yourself-they-are-here-to-stay/756311/207 "2016-06-13T21:15:16Z")
> [@Quimby](#): > > This one I am still resisting but I think the fight is lost: saying “Screen saver” when you mean “Wallpaper”. The background of your Desktop or phone is Wallpaper! But if enough people say something wrong it becomes right. Language is the ultimate democracy and this one is almost there. Don’t give up on this one! You correct every single one of the fuckers who dares to call it the wrong name! By god, this far, _NO FURTHER!!_ ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/words-you-hate-but-have-resigned-yourself-they-are-here-to-stay/756311/208 "2016-06-14T02:00:46Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > Cite on that etymology for man. It doesn’t gibe with the OED or any other source that I have ever encountered. > > Chairman is far from genderless. Like fireman, policeman, and so forth, it comes from the era when positions of authority were male by default. Actually, no. The _-man_ suffix started off as a non-gender-specific term (which is how we get “woman” and “human”). “Man” originally mean a person, a human being, and cognate words still have that sense in other Germanic languages. A yeoman or a kinsman could be of either sex. The use of “man” as a poetic synonym for humanity also dates from this time, as does the word “mankind”. It isn’t until about 1200 that “man” starts being used in opposition to “woman”, and for a long time after that this remained the secondary sense. About the same time, “man” starts being used in opposition to “child”, to suggest adulthood. So, an Englishman or a bondsman or a penman was not originally so called because he was male, but because he (or she) was English, or had given a bond, or was handy with a pen. But the bulk of these compound words relate to offices, trades or professions, and historically these were mostly filled by men. This, I think, contributed to the gendering of the term. It wasn’t so much the case that, e.g., swordsmen were so called because they were male. Rather, all the swordsmen were male, and this contributed to a development in which the _-man_ suffix was considered to refer to males. And this has now become so strongly entrenched that most people don’t even see the _-man_ suffix in words like woman and human. (It occasionally strikes me that, rather than object to terms like “chairman”, advocates for equality could instead have sought to reclaim the “-man” suffix, and restore its orginal gender neutrality.) ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/words-you-hate-but-have-resigned-yourself-they-are-here-to-stay/756311/209 "2016-06-14T02:30:45Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > One word I no longer use is “actress”. A person who acts is an “actor”, regardless of gender. “Waitress”, well, that becomes a little less practical to shed, unless one goes with “server” or “tipee”. “Waiter.” Though few waitresses will appreciate that. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/words-you-hate-but-have-resigned-yourself-they-are-here-to-stay/756311/210 "2016-06-14T04:10:30Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Actually, no. The _-man_ suffix started off as a non-gender-specific term (which is how we get “woman” and “human”). “Man” originally mean a person, a human being, and cognate words still have that sense in other Germanic languages. A yeoman or a kinsman could be of either sex. The use of “man” as a poetic synonym for humanity also dates from this time, as does the word “mankind”. > > It isn’t until about 1200 that “man” starts being used in opposition to “woman”, and for a long time after that this remained the secondary sense. About the same time, “man” starts being used in opposition to “child”, to suggest adulthood. …right. And for the past 800 years, we’ve been using it to represent male humans. The etymology of a word may illuminate interesting facts about a word, but it no more determines modern usage than the geological substrate under a restaurant writes tonight’s dessert menu. > [@GuanoLad](#): > > Because we didn’t have rules. But now we have rules. > > I accept necessary and colloquial changes. I don’t accept unnecessary ones. That’s ducky for you! Me, I don’t accept summer weather. It’s too hot! Hey, I have an idea for a contest. Let’s see which one of us can make our lack of acceptance of reality have any impact on reality whatsoever. Ready? Go! ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/words-you-hate-but-have-resigned-yourself-they-are-here-to-stay/756311/211 "2016-06-14T04:21:37Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > …right. And for the past 800 years, we’ve been using it to represent male humans. Only in some contexts. The words “woman”, “human”, “mankind”, and no doubt others, don’t refer to male humans. And it follows that a word like “chairman” refers only to male occupants of such an office if, and only if, we all agree that it is so limited. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > The etymology of a word may illuminate interesting facts about a word, but it no more determines modern usage than the geological substrate under a restaurant writes tonight’s dessert menu. Oh, I completely agree. The relevance of etymology here is to show that the word “man” hasn’t always been confined to males, and even today is still not completely confined to males. And, since the meaning of words changes, it can again become less gender-specific than it currently is. Either way, remember, we are seeking to bring about a change in language. Either we want to get people to stop using words like “chairman” at all, or we want to get them to use words like “chairman” to refer equally to men and women. The former is the course we have chosen, but it doesn’t challenge the appropriate of the word “man” in general. The latter course would be the more radical challenge to the gendering of the language, it seems to me. ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/words-you-hate-but-have-resigned-yourself-they-are-here-to-stay/756311/212 "2016-06-14T07:20:17Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Hey, I have an idea for a contest. Let’s see which one of us can make our lack of acceptance of reality have any impact on reality whatsoever. Ready? Go! Did anyone actually read the name of this thread? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/words-you-hate-but-have-resigned-yourself-they-are-here-to-stay/756311/213 "2016-06-14T11:17:35Z")
> [@GuanoLad](#): > > Did anyone actually read the name of this thread? What, you mean the title about resigning yourself that words are here to stay, and then you say > [@Guanolad](#): > > I don’t accept unnecessary [changes to language]. Yeah, I read it. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/words-you-hate-but-have-resigned-yourself-they-are-here-to-stay/756311/214 "2016-06-14T11:40:25Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Actually, no. The _-man_ suffix started off as a non-gender-specific term (which is how we get “woman” and “human”) Those two words have very different origins, their endings are similar by coincidence rather than because of having similar roots. Unless you’re saying that the “-man” is proto-IndoEuropean. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/words-you-hate-but-have-resigned-yourself-they-are-here-to-stay/756311/215 "2016-06-14T11:55:50Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Actually, no. The _-man_ suffix started off as a non-gender-specific term (which is how we get “woman” and “human”). Nitpick here which actually matters: -man was never a suffix. What you’re looking at is compound words with “man” as the second word. **Chairman, fireman, policeman** all work the same way. Listeners interpret them as compound words, which means “man” is interpreted as a word. It’s so heavily connoted male that it’s easier to remove that word from nongendered uses than to change the connotations. And that’s a key difference. The two changes aren’t similar. Replacing one word with another is far easier than replacing one connotation with another. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/words-you-hate-but-have-resigned-yourself-they-are-here-to-stay/756311/216 "2016-06-14T13:48:56Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Actually, no. The _-man_ suffix started off as a non-gender-specific term (which is how we get “woman” and “human”). “Man” originally mean a person, a human being, and cognate words still have that sense in other Germanic languages. A yeoman or a kinsman could be of either sex. The use of “man” as a poetic synonym for humanity also dates from this time, as does the word “mankind”. > > It isn’t until about 1200 that “man” starts being used in opposition to “woman”, and for a long time after that this remained the secondary sense. About the same time, “man” starts being used in opposition to “child”, to suggest adulthood. > > So, an Englishman or a bondsman or a penman was not originally so called because he was male, but because he (or she) was English, or had given a bond, or was handy with a pen. But the bulk of these compound words relate to offices, trades or professions, and historically these were mostly filled by men. This, I think, contributed to the gendering of the term. It wasn’t so much the case that, e.g., swordsmen were so called because they were male. Rather, all the swordsmen were male, and this contributed to a development in which the _-man_ suffix was considered to refer to males. And this has now become so strongly entrenched that most people don’t even see the _-man_ suffix in words like woman and human. > > (It occasionally strikes me that, rather than object to terms like “chairman”, advocates for equality could instead have sought to reclaim the “-man” suffix, and restore its orginal gender neutrality.) 1. The etymology I was contesting was the claim that the “man” suffix comes from “manual.” 2. While it’s true tht in OE, “man” simply meant “human” and did not specify sex, that is not how the word evolved The fact that there’s a separate word for “female human” based on “man,” but no such term for “male human,” shows that masculinity is meant to be the default–that women are a variation on the male theme. And the fact we’ve never used words like “policehuman”, “firehuman,” etc. causes the image conjured by “policeman,” “fireman,” “chairman” and so forth to be male. Feminists who criticize the insidious effect of such words are correct. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/words-you-hate-but-have-resigned-yourself-they-are-here-to-stay/756311/217 "2016-06-14T13:51:32Z")
> [@GuanoLad](#): > > Because we didn’t have rules. But now we have rules. > > I accept necessary and colloquial changes. I don’t accept unnecessary ones. “Alternate” used in this way is entirely unnecessary. We have a word for that use, it’s almost the same word and it works fine in every case. I know everyone (in America mostly) is used to it now and I can’t stop it, but that doesn’t mean I can’t hate it for its misuse. Do you curse Poseidon when the tide washes away your sand castles? ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/words-you-hate-but-have-resigned-yourself-they-are-here-to-stay/756311/218 "2016-06-14T14:23:49Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > Do you curse Poseidon when the tide washes away your sand castles? Yes! Because it’s satisfying to do so. ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/words-you-hate-but-have-resigned-yourself-they-are-here-to-stay/756311/219 "2016-06-14T14:29:57Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > What, you mean the title about resigning yourself that words are here to stay, and then you say > > [QUOTE=Guanolad] > I don’t accept unnecessary [changes to language]. Yeah, I read it. [/QUOTE] I’m resigned to it, that doesn’t mean I have to like it. This is IMHO, after all. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2016, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/words-you-hate-but-have-resigned-yourself-they-are-here-to-stay/756311/220 "2016-06-14T14:41:47Z")
> [@GuanoLad](#): > > I’m resigned to it, that doesn’t mean I have to like it. This is IMHO, after all. The thing is, the changes aren’t unnecessary. They’re built into the structure of a living language, particularly one as widespread as English. Only languages acquired only in academic and literary environments (Sanskrit, Latin, Quenya, Klingon) have frozen grammars and vocabularies. Decrying linguistic drift as unnecessary is like complaining that you periodically must buy new shoes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/words-you-hate-but-have-resigned-yourself-they-are-here-to-stay/756311.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/words-you-hate-but-have-resigned-yourself-they-are-here-to-stay/756311.md?page=12)