This message was originally submitted by [log in to unmask] to the
ATEG
list at MIAMIU.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU.
 
 
Alan Hynds asked:
>
> Could I have your opinions on a question of usage?
>
> I'm (still) translating a book on women in Mexico. At one point the
author
> says that historiography has been traditionally considered
"intrinsicamente
> masculina." I translated this as "instrincically male." The author, who,
by
> her own admission, does not speak perfect English, told me that "male"
> sounds to her like "macho," and that she prefers "masculine." The latter
> sounds way off to me--it sounds like "having manly qualities" more than
> "pertaining to men."
>
> Any comments or suggestions?
 
 
Alan, I agree with you.  On the semantic scale in my
native-English-speaker brain, "masculine" is closer in meaning to
"macho" than "male" is.  Interestingly, the entry in Roget's II gives
"manly" as the item that should be viewed for the word "male" and
then proceeds to list "male" right after the word "macho."  My
semantic netword rebels against that close of an identification.  If
the author wants to avoid giving the impression of "macho" then I
think she should follow your advice.
 
Mike Medley
 
 
 
**********************************************************************
R. Michael Medley       VPH 211                Ph: (712) 737-7047
Assistant Professor     Northwestern College
Department of English   Orange City, IA  51041
**********************************************************************