Thomas wrote:J_B -- I used the word in the context of discussing nuclear waste. Here is the relevant paragraph.
Addressing georgeob1 in another thread, Thomas wrote:I'd like to add a point that may go without saying for you, but may not be obvious to the others. The state-of-the-art processing for spent fuel elements is to melt them into a glass. Lays usually connote the word "fuel" with something liquid. Hence they get worried when somebody dumps spent nuclear "fuel" into the sea. What we are talking about is a solid that does not dissolve in water. So even in a leaky container, it will just keep sitting wherever it sits.
It
sounds right to me -- but I'm no native English speaker, and my dictionary does not list "lay" as a gender-neutral variant of "layman".
No sorry Thomas you cant really use "lays" in that way, it doesnt work. If you want a gender neutral option for "layman"....you would use "lay-person". Layman is a funny word, I would say its useage is decreasing. Years ago layman would automatically have included women ...just like human means hus (!) of both sexes and mankind generally means men and women...(unless you were specifcially talking about all the women in the world in which case woman-kind would be ok, but you would 'make' the 'word' with the hyphon).
I think it has something to do with the non specific nature of layman or human. But the chairman or chairperson is one individual and clearly a woman might object to being described as the chairman. Chairwoman is awkward to use, so 'chair' is common parlance these days.
But layman is not used very much, and never laywoman (unless it was a woman lying down...and thats another story
), so there isnt imo a commonly used gender neutral version of layman...except as I said lay-person. You cant cut out the person and refer to lays.. like you can 'chair'.
The plural would be lay-people. Help! this is confusing me now...
to take your example I would have said
Lay-people usually connote
or rather I wouldnt because I dont like the word lay (it does have a slight derogatory sense to it)
I would probably have said
The general public...
or
Non-specialists
The casual observer...
etc
but the more I think about this, the more impressed I am by anyone like yourself who has a much better command of English than many native born speakers!! :wink:
