Conference thebay::joyoflex

    Don't be ridiculous!

    It depends on how big it is and what kind it is:
    
    	Submarines are boats, not ships.
    	A rowboat is not a ship.
    
    Maybe this topic is limited to discussion of very large [ships, boats]
    that are intended to stay on the surface, like the Titanic or the SS
    United States.

    <START_RATHOLE>
    
    A ship is capable of routine ocean going use.
    
    A boat doesn't normally work further out than coastal waters.
    
    <END-RATHOLE>

    Um, I'd be surprised if in English there was a word-level distinction
    (except perhaps among speakers of English as a second language whose
    first language _has_ such a distinction, and their progeny... and ...
    oh dear, what _is English?). But two directions would be
    worth following up:

    	o	some linguist, whose name escapes me but who is getting
    		a lot of meedjer coverage at the moment, has written a
    		book about this sort of distinction as it applies to
    		language use (not word use, except for a few
    		trivial/jocular counter-examples that I'm sure must exist)

    	o	Japanese, or any other language that routinely calls for 
    		different words when used by different sexes (I say
    		`routinely' because in most languages with gender some
    		inflections - diminutives, for example - can be much more
    		common in one gender, therefore more widely used by
    		speakers of one or other sex - e.g. Portuguese
    		`obrigadinha' {meaning `thank-you [fem. dim.]'}; I've
    		never heard the masculine form, and I suspect a woman
    		wouldn't have heard it either) - Portuguese men just
    		don't say things like `I'm obliged that you should
    		help a feeble little thing like me]'.
    		NB - I'm not suggesting that women _should_ think anything
    		of the sort; I just think that, etymologically, this sort
    		of sexual/submissive posturing may have accounted for
    		this strange use of a diminutive [which has no hint
    		that the degree of thankfulness is diminished].

    b

    (From Usenet)
    If you send it by boat, it's cargo.
    If you send it by car, it's a shipment.
    
    Male:  Hmmmm.   Female:  Hrrrr.

>    If you send it by boat, it's cargo.
>    If you send it by car, it's a shipment.
    
    But if you send it by ship, then where does your car go?
    
    --bonnie

	I've heard of only a few examples where the lexicon (of English
	at least) divides up by sex.  Those were for adjectives like
	"cunnin'," "darling," etc., which were used almost exclusively
	by females (but, of course, not by all females).

		-- Cliff

>"cunnin'," "darling," etc., which were used almost exclusively	by females

    Hey, that's right!  And there are some words which were used almost
    exclusively by males, though are now used by both sexes.  And
    traditional men's words are considered less polite than traditional
    women's words.  I don't think we should stand for this.

    Sitting down, I thought I'd get a different response.  (I suppose
    I should be happy with *any* response.)
                                              
    For example, last century something may have cost "an arm and a leg",
    but when referring to anatomy genteel women preferred "limb".
                  
    Not sure if bosom vs. breast are points of contention; maybe someone
    who was alive during that era could help us out.          ;-)
    
    						Don
                                    

    Genteel Victorians of either sex preferred to refer to "limb" or
    to avoid such a crude reference altogether.
    
    --bonnie

    Re .11: And they also dressed the piano legs with stockings, so that
    they wouldn't bring lewd thoughts to the men's dirty minds!...
    			Denis.

    re. .12:
    
    But they introduced the idea of "principle boys" in pantomimes being
    played by girls, so that they could oggle their legs.
    
    
    Dave Hazel

.4>    A boat doesn't normally work further out than coastal waters.

When travelling by ship, both men and women generally hope that the lifeboats
*will* "work further out than coastal waters".

    How about:
    
    	Women "glow"; men "perspire"; animals "sweat".

    I'm surprised that no one has got it right yet!
    
    According to most organizations that I know of that deal with the sea 
    (including the U.S. Coast Guard), a boat is a vessel under 65' in length, 
    while a ship is a vessel over 65' in length.  The definition has nothing 
    to do with seaworthiness, cargo types, etc.  Of course, a ship may be
    more likely to survive the open sea, but that is a subjective point.
    
    As for submarines, I don't know how one could justify their being
    boats, unless we are talking of the midgets, which were somewhat
    smaller as I recall (even though they are referred to as "undersea
    boats" by some).  In any case, anyone silly enough to go to sea in one
    is entitled to call it whatever they wish to call it.
    
    Cheers...Gary

    What I heard is that the *real* definition of what makes a boat a boat
    is that a boat is a vessel that can be carried on another vessel. A
    ship is free-floating.
    
    Submarines were originally boats. These days, they're not, but they're
    called boats from historical reasons (i.e. "we've always done it that
    way"). 
    
    The Coast Guard rule is simply the bureaucracy's putting a number to
    the vague real definition.
    
    	Jon