🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Oct25.131109.28884@athena.mit.edu> bjohnson@athena.mit.edu (Brett W Johnson) writes:
>In article <1990Oct24.233638.1774@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> wp6@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Walter Pohl) writes:
>>In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve Reiser) writes:
>>>begun to wonder what man's true nature really is. I have nothing against
>>		       ^^^
>>
>>	When I read this article, at first I was confused as to whether you
>>meant "male" or "person".
   [stuff deleted]
>
>"Man" is used correctly here.  "Person" would NOT have been correct.
>God, I hate feminist quibbling about de-sexing the English language.
>
>"Homo sapiens" would have been correct and not at all ambiguous, but
>I suppose you would argue that because it translates to "wise man"
>it too would have been confusing.
>
 [some stuff deleted]

"Homo sapiens" is better translated as "wise human being."  The Latin word
for "adult male human being" is "vir."  Many languages are unlike English
in having separate words for the concepts of "human being" and "adult male
human being."  It is pretty well established that language shapes culture,
as well as vice versa; I leave the implications of this to the reader.

Now back to some biology.  (As in "a little" biology.) I think about all
that can be said that is unequivocably biological is that human sexual
behavior is, if not unique among mammals, at least unusual in that the female
is receptive to the male even during non-fertile periods.  Presumably this
has something to do with the formation of a pair bond between a male and a
female.  It says nothing about whether such pair bonds necessarily form, nor
about how long they "should" last if they do.

That's my $0.02 worth.

 Katherine

(no .signature yet)