This message is a reply to yours numbered 100930, Starr*:

Warmest greetings back!

It felt good to be called lovely. Thanks for the uplift : ) You bring a talent for socializing to our roundtable that I work on acquiring, as such niceties do make public discourse more pleasureably purposeful.

Now to your observations about English...

I've only taken three university courses, none of which covered this and other subjects we're discussing, but I find that life experience teaches the same thing university studies you've mentioned do:

Language influences thought, belief, assumptions and deeds a LOT more than most people care to admit. How fortunate I feel to be here corresponding with you who understands this too. In each other we might finally have found company who doesn't find grueling investigation of particulars 'tedious' ; )

Your argument that English has been more of an offender than I've supposed has me thinking you might be confusing conventions with rules of English usage. I agree that English is frequently misused, and has been put to purposes such as you've described; but I find that it's not from limitations endemic to English but imposing the limitations of lesser languages on it, rather that accounts for the unhealthy, person- and people-dividing uses made of it.

It's understandable that this happens, too, considering what a cultural melting-pot the USA is and that it's the USAmerican way that spreads so much of English throughout the world today, and that the pace of living makes conducting daily business fully consciously a rare occurrence.

Still, that English has been used by many to perpetuate imbalanced social systems first produced by users of lesser languages should not be taken as evidence that English usage requires such of ANY user of English, for it does not.

English, possessing both gendered and gender-free personal pronouns, makes no demand that any user default to a gendered term when generally referring to individuals or co-ed groups.

Conforming to popularized misuse of the English vocabulary gets some people supposing the language itself hinders universally free self-expression. But close inspection of cases where a user felt or feels pressured to misrepresent truth or facts due to limits of vocabulary will show that such limits were set by assuming English suffers a paucity of words it does not actually suffer.

In all such cases that I've studied, I found that simple alterations of sentence structure or greater use of rules for indicating dimensions of personhood would have enabled greater capitalization on what's an already adequate vocabulary for sharing truth in all it's wholeness, broadly.

On to other items you bring up...

What is the title of the whole Revelation you found, Starr*? It would thrill me to discover another book was written in truly universal language.

Also, I'm eager for your message providing details on the term you've found needing resacralization. It sounds intriguing and like a promising venture for us to partner in.

Enjoying your pleasant blend of lightness and pondering,

R.