"people" Vs "men" In The Current English Translation O

[Aloysius]

the reason the language changed stems from academics who literally went to linguistic war with the gender-neutral definition of "man". it was phased out purposefully, not as part of an organic change in the language. and the connotation remains only captured by the word "man", there remains no good substitute that does not carry a different connotation. it's a whole linguistic mess because of, as I said, linguistic engineers with a particular agenda and a grossly misinformed view that sexism was reinforced by this particular aspect of our language. it was not.

for anyone who has read an old document where the neutral word "man" was used and you understood it in what it meant, you can easily see that words like "human being" and "person" do not adequately replace that word. there is no word that adequately replaces it, it has a particular meaning and the politically correct assault on our language has left us with a hole that can't be filled, and it impoverishes our language IMO.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1327140064' post='2372560']
for anyone who has read an old document where the neutral word "man" was used and you understood it in what it meant, you can easily see that words like "human being" and "person" do not adequately replace that word. there is no word that adequately replaces it, it has a particular meaning and the politically correct assault on our language has left us with a hole that can't be filled, and it impoverishes our language IMO.
[/quote]
In your point of view, what are the differences in nuance between "man" and "person"?

[Aloysius]

they are vastly different concepts. part of a human being is their personhood, but that is not the whole thing of what it means to be man. angels are persons, there are Three Persons in the Blessed Trinity, and those are not men. when we talk about a person, we are speaking of the charecteristics that make up one's consciousness and personality. when we talk about a man, (or a human being), we are talking about the complete whole composite of body and soul that is uniquely exhibited by the human person.

I think in this context we can especially look at why we could not use "person" in the Creed, to emphasize the difference. if we said "For us people and for our salvation, He became a person", we would be in grave heretical error, Christ was already a person. The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity became man, if the words person and man were interchangeable, that would not make sense.