As if anyone’s actually seeking employment anymore. Don’t we all? But, it’s too late - the message would be utterly and completely lost, now. In fact, in current context, I believe there are a great many who would cheer on the behavior written-about in that (shockingly prescient) book.
As a kid in the 70's we used to say "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me"... Now we have people tell us words are actually the violence.
THIS^^^^^. Drives me insane. Even “significant other” is better than that, and I don’t like that either. Or “SO” which is even worse. Before gays could marry, we (I used to hang with gays) used to go with “lover” or just boyfriend or girlfriend, because you couldn’t use husband or wife. Or maybe you did but not in the literal sense. Lover kind of references just the physical union and doesn’t really address a complete domestic commitment but the word was used anyway. Now gays can marry and everybody can use “spouse”. But that doesn’t work in today’s society where half the people don’t bother to marry at all, so you’re back to “partner”. Ugh.
More like rescuers or ambulance assistants nowadays. They go more for accidents and injuries, or to help medics move very large people into the ambulance. Occasionally there's a fire.
Civics is a required grade 10 course in Ontario high schools now; it didn't even exist as an option when I was there in the 1970s.
Or just let people use whatever term they prefer and don't worry about it? If someone wants to call their romantic counterpart a husband/wife, partner, spouse, significant-other, épouse, conjoint, or sidekick, it's no skin off my back. I'll try to respect their preference, as long as I remember it.
At least, it's why we have perma-threads on questions like what "coupled" means in an operating limitation for an autopilot.
So....I guess when John Wayne says....."Howdy partner..." that doesn't have the same meaning today? lol
Two weeks ago, I was offered snacks and beverage on my UAL flights 2 weeks ago. Except for the masks, it was pretty much like pre-pandemic including delayed flights Since we are discussing how language changes, can emoticons be used in place of a period to end a sentence?
Firefighters, these days. I haven't heard one called a fireman in a while now, other than with very small children. Meh. None of my business, partner.
Yeah I agree. Sometimes it’s easy to decipher and other times the context is left up for debate. Generally, when I hear someone say ‘my partner and I’ I automatically assume a same-sex relationship.
In a society with people who consistently take offense to everything, it’s unlikely the right set of terms will ever be agreed upon.
The trend hasn't hit hereditary titles yet: there are still duchesses, marchionesses, etc. However, I have noticed more gender-neutral terms to refer to them generally — "peeress" seems to have died out (the people in the House of Lords are all "peers" now most of the time), and the media seems to like the term "royals", which doesn't make a gender distinction. But because we use royal or aristocratic titles so rarely in ordinary speech, they're much slower to change (if at all). Just like with genes, you need opportunity for mutations to creep in. How many times have you used the word "marchioness" in ordinary speech so far in 2021?
A million years ago (or so), when early human language first emerged, I suspect the first thing they used it for was arguing about language. We are, after all, the chattering apes. Or, to give a more-recent example, Winston Churchill (American mother, British father) said "The United States and Great Britain are two countries separated by a common language."
It's more of a honorific. 'He is a good fireman' and its reserved for the person who goes into the house when the smoke pours out rather than finding an excuse not to go. Only matters if spoken by someone with 20+ years in the fire service.
I think, in order to be inclusive with the least effort, we should now say, as an example, "fire-anthropo" or maybe just "firehuman", as long as it doesn't offend someone because that name contains the letters "m", "a", and "n" in the same order the word "man" contains them. Unfortunately, that probably still wouldn't work, because it would exclude those who identify as animals. Hmm. Maybe we should just go back using representative language and not be so offended and persnickety about it?
You opened a can of worms here by pointing out that “human” contains “man”. We can’t have that. Homo Sapiens Sapiens must now be referred to as huperson. You also make a good point about it being huperson-centric to assume animals are excluded from being fireanthrops.
