<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font face="Calibri">Dear Colleagues,<br>
<br>
Seen from this side of the ocean, this whole discussion appears
surrealist </font>– and quite American. <br>
<br>
Let me leave the topic for a moment, in order to make my point.
There is a system of intonation that is known (by many) as "just
intonation". Others would (rightly) argue that just intonation is
anything but "just" in any acceptable meaning, and that the term
should therefore be abandoned to be replaced by... [make your
suggestions, I personally don't know].<br>
The real question is: why is "just intonation" (which everybody
knowledgeable about the matter knows as the least "just" intonation
available) called "just intonation"? Is that some kind of a former
aberration akin to "sexist" language? <br>
One must realize that "just intonation" is the term chosen in
the early 18th century by the French Académie des Sciences, to
describe a system that would not have been more "just" than any
other, but merely whose construction was based exclusively on "just"
intervals (resulting nevertheless in a system that, even then, must
have appeared as anything but "just").<br>
To call "just intonation" by this particular name is to
acknowledge a historical usage that has its justifications; to
denounce it as inexact merely fails to see the origin and the
history of the term – and, eventually, its true meaning.<br>
<br>
At one point, particular rhymes in the French language were dubbed
"feminine" because they used the mute e which also was a common sign
of the grammatical "feminine" category. How can one denounce the
term "feminine rhyme" as sexist without denouncing the grammatical
feminine category itself as sexist? Are we arguing that gendered
grammatical categories are to be abandoned altogether? Would <u>that</u>
help the feminists cause today? <br>
[Should we follow the recommendations of the former Texas
Institute of Theory (of which some of you might remember; some of it
survives at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://web.archive.org/web/19990127234125/ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~bogo/tit/home.html">http://web.archive.org/web/19990127234125/ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~bogo/tit/home.html</a>)?]<br>
<br>
The legitimate case of feminism deserves better than that. The
"Sensitive Female Chord Progression" that prompted this thread
indeed must be condemned or, better, merely abandoned, as nasty,
ridiculous, unneeded, etc. But, even if we might claim that
grammatical categories are sexist, that languages themselves are,
that language itself is, we should not advocate the abandonment of
language altogether, because that would mean as excessive move
backwards for humanity. Besides, the feminist cause needs language.<br>
Gendered categories do exist, I think, in all languages and all
cultures. It will not be possible to eradicate them, and trying to
do so would be the wrong combat. What must be attacked is not their
existence, but all what they exclude. What we need to claim is
diversity, which is the exact contrary to rejecting diversity.<br>
We may choose not to use such terms as "feminine ending" any
more in our daily usage, and I'd indeed agree to that; but to claim
that they are wrong is denying both their history and their true
meaning.<br>
<br>
Nicolas Meeùs<br>
Professeur émérite<br>
Université Paris-Sorbonne<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:nicolas.meeus@scarlet.be">nicolas.meeus@scarlet.be</a><br>
</body>
</html>