"resend"; on "using" women (82)

Willard McCarty (MCCARTY@VM.EPAS.UTORONTO.CA)
Sun, 23 Apr 89 20:29:58 EDT


Humanist Mailing List, Vol. 2, No. 878. Sunday, 23 Apr 1989.


(1) Date: Sunday, 23 Apr 1989 04:22:54 EDT (22 lines)
From: "Patrick W. Conner" <U47C2@WVNVM>
Subject: Not a word? Fie!

(2) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 89 12:58:13 EDT (16 lines)
From: Philippa Matheson <AMPHORAS@vm.epas.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Re: women in medicine? (21)

(3) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 89 13:24 EDT (19 lines)
From: Peter D. Junger <JUNGER@CWRU>
Subject: resend

(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sunday, 23 Apr 1989 04:22:54 EDT
From: "Patrick W. Conner" <U47C2@WVNVM>
Subject: Not a word? Fie!

Natalie--
You used a signifier, 'resend", and someone criticized you for it, saying
that 'resend' is not a word. Of course, it's a word. When you make an
utterance by which you intend to convey some message, and a person
hearing/reading that utterance understands fundamentally what you
intended to convey, then surely we can call that utterance a word. Of
course there's a word 'resend'. We may argue about its stylistic
domain, that is, whether it is acceptable in formal/professional
writing, etc., but anyone who thinks that a word which many people
use and understand can be declared not a word has an exceedingly
limited notion of how English works. Even Fowler (even he!) doesn't
condemn the use of the morpheme re- to modify verbs. Your
correspondent needs to reread some basic college texts on linguistics
and language, to rethink her position, and to repent her linguistic
snobbishness. (What would she say about the army verb, to re-up
meaning to enlist for a second--or any subsequent-- tour of duty? A
structuralist might say it proves that up can be a verb, as every poker
player knows it is).
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------21----
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 89 12:58:13 EDT
From: Philippa Matheson <AMPHORAS@vm.epas.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Re: women in medicine? (21)


> A query for various experts on Humanist, perhaps those
> interested in the history of medicine. Are there especially good books
> on the use of women in the practice of medicine, as midwives, doctors,
> or nurses? I am especially interested in the period 1450-1700, and I

I have no useful bibliography for Mr. Flannagan, but some advice on his
use of words. "Use of words," yes; "use of horses," yes; "use of
machines," yes; "use of women," no. I suppose in his terms I might say
that I was interested in the use of men in the practice of dish-washing,
but my respect for the opposite sex is sufficient to prevent me from
thinking of expressing it that way.
(3) --------------------------------------------------------------23----
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 89 13:24 EDT
From: Peter D. Junger <JUNGER@CWRU>
Subject: resend

I have no trouble with "resend". Perhaps that is
the result of knowing some German. In English we seem to
use "re-" the way Germans use "wieder". I know that we don't say
"Until resee(ing)", but that probably has more to do with the
fact that we can't use the infinitive as a noun the way Germans do
in "Auf wiedersehen". But we do reread, rewrite, remodel, return,
review, and, I believe, remail. Why shouldn't we resend? In the
Army, of course, "repeat" is transformed into "say again", but
I have always assumed that that ugly neologism is necessitated by
the fact that the command "repeat" is likely to start another
salvo of artillary on its way.

And surely resend is preferable to using "cc" as a verb.

Peter D. Junger--CWRU Law School--Cleveland, OH--bitnet: JUNGER@CWRU