Hi,
Am 12.10.2010 15:03, schrieb Fr. Michael Gilmary:
Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:
I genuinely believe that we should
be moving towards a more inclusive society, in which each can
express his or her ideas in his or her own native language.
But Philip ... isn't that precisely the *opposite* of "inclusive"? It
seems to be the same with so-called "inclusive" language (this, I
believe is a very recent English-speaking phenomenon): in fact, it
actually /divides/ male and female rather than including them together
under some universal term. This, however, is the limit of our language
that needs to be accepted. I don't think it can be changed.
This phenomenon is common to modern usage of the German language as
well. Universal groub identifiers like "painter" (in German: "Maler")
have an excluvely female version "paintress" (in German: "Malerin").
People think, that means that the universal identifier
("painter"/"Maler") is exclusvely male, as well. That's why they always
speak of "paintresses and painters" ("Malerinnen und Maler") [Btw: They
always name the female version first. No comment on that.], or in recent
years of "MalerInnen" (pronounced with a short pause before the capital I).
And when I speak of all of them without regard of the sex (or gender),
because sex (or gender) doesn't mean anything to me (most of the times),
using the universal identifier, they call me "sexist". No comment on that.
Speaking from experience, in the world of Catholic parishes, when there
was /one/ liturgical language for Roman rite Catholics (Latin), one
could go anywhere in the world and find a prayer by which to commune
with others. Not uncommon in wartime (esp. in Europe) a soldier from one
army could serve Mass for a chaplain from the opposing army --- it
wasn't unknown to happen. Interesting, no?
But does the usual "one" understand latin? Isn't the use of latin
dividing between those who understand it and those who don't? (So use of
the English language for TeX _is_ dividing between those who speak
English and those who don't.) But if I recall my school years correctly,
understanding wasn't really important to Catholics. ;-)
Now, to illustrate the point from present time, in typical parishes here
in the US, you'll find the English (i.e., American) Mass, the Spanish
Mass, the Polish, Vietnamese, etc. Whatever benefits it brings, it
certainly /divides/ the community in one parish, since the English
speaking parishioners are unlikely ever to attend the Vietnamese Mass.
Aren't the songs mostly the same? So a "good" Catholic (one who attends
church regularly) should know the contents of the song by the music. (I
know I'm mean.) ;-)
Computers are the very tools that make this feasible : is it
not time that we started to exploit them more fully, for the benefit
of all ?
Many benefits come from computers, and esp. from *this* community of
XeTeX friends --- and for that, I'm grateful. If others can tailor (pun
intended, Philip) the software to their needs, it's fine with me.
Yes, indeed. But it would be even finer, if others would tailor them
modularly and as foss. I hope this will happen.
bye
Toscho
--------------------------------------------------
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
