GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
10:58 Dec 24, 2018 |
English language (monolingual) [PRO] Bus/Financial - Business/Commerce (general) / Disaster Prevention Strategy | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Selected response from: Charles Davis Spain Local time: 15:57 | ||||||
Grading comment
|
SUMMARY OF ALL EXPLANATIONS PROVIDED | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
4 +4 | generally best avoided |
|
Discussion entries: 1 | |
---|---|
generally best avoided Explanation: Obviously opinions are likely to differ on this one, and it will depend on who the text is aimed at, but I would say that "to man" is now likely to be frowned on by quite a lot of people: a significant if not considerable proportion of English speakers. Of course we all know that gender-related "political correctness" is a red rag to a bull for some people and is a factor in the rise of the populist right. Personally that makes me more inclined to avoid sexist language rather than less. One problem is that there is no single substitute; machines can be operated, aircraft and spacecraft can be crewed, and so on. The Cambridge Dictionary offers "staff", "be at", "attend to": https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/peo... NASA, for what it's worth, now refers to crewed and uncrewed flights/missions: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/crewed_vs_uncrewed_... |
| ||
Grading comment
| |||
Notes to answerer
| |||