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/