Dear Martha, and all-

I've been very interested in the conversation, here, especially the
information and helpful websites concerning both the origin of the term
'rule of thumb' and its dubious connection to the issue of wife beating.
Compelling.

I'm not sure what I'd do; Martha, you are in a difficult place.  Would you
have the option of changing the label, but discussing the change in the
preface to the new edition?  It might  be instructive to students who use
coming editions of _Understanding English Grammar_ to learn about the
change and what motivated it.  There are some issues for them to reflect
on, all related to language study.

I do have one experience to share (you don't even have to ask...smile).  I do
remember the heat generated by the use of the word 'niggardly' and the
consequences for the individual who used it.  It was very easy to point to
the dictionary and its citations dating back to Chaucer's use of this word,
and of its having no relationship, etymologically to the "N-word."   I was
thinking a lot about this, and about the pride, for example, that an
administrator took in reminding us all of this, when I was at an upscale
sports store (buying overpriced shoes for my now 15 year old daughter).

In the window was an advertisement for Guess watches.  It was a huge
poster--taking up the entire window display--showing the backs of two
shapely legs, starting at the top, suggestively, with the hem of an
apparently very short skirt.  At the bottom of the poster, these legs gave
way to ankles, and feet, seen also from the back, in a pair of stiletto heels.
On one of these very shapely ankles was strapped a Guess watch.  The
caption at the bottom of the poster read, "Twenty for hours of secs."

"Secs."  Short for "seconds," of course.

Sensitivity to the folk etymology in 'rule of thumb' is different from the
power of homophony;  I understand that.  Still, the power of words and
expressions can reside in any of the ways we associate them with
meanings, since they only carry the meaning we impute to them.  And if
some (enough?) people have imputed an offensive connotation to the
expression, "rule of thumb,"  perhaps we should respect that.

On the other hand, I don't know how I'd feel if an editor of a text that I was
writing suggested/requested  that I take out references to a woman's
choice to an abortion, to the potential benefits of stem cell research, to the
preventive powers of condom use, or to the principles of evolutionary
biology, for example, because one of these might be offensive to potential
readers.

Hard.  What's the line, and where should/might it be drawn?   It's not easy.

be well, all
sharon klein

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/