TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
>What this means is that although the original meaning was sex-neutral, our
>substitution of "person" etc., has given -man the meaning of male. The
>original meaning was not like that. (As David Dvorkin is trying to point
>out, our PC-ness caused the change.) It's like a case of "If it ain't broke,
>don't fix it." But we fixed it. The question is whether it can be un-fixed.
>Seems not.
I don't think that PC-ness changed usage. I think society's changes
prompted it. While the "intent" of -man may have been generic, its
application (and perception) was not. Many a Ladies' Auxiliary had a
"chairwoman", not a chairman.
It's not that things "weren't broke." The ending just didn't fit the
situation anymore.
Tech writers are (I believe) careful people by nature. We use great care
in crafting our sentences; I think this is just another item on the
checklist.
