language devices in actual texts and (5) to argue that the failure of such devices is inevitable, and not simply the failure of maladroit translators. Groome, Language for a 'Catholic' Church, 2d ed. Witherup, A Liturgist's Guide to Inclusive Language (Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1996), with bibliography on pp. Kimel, ed., Speaking the Christian God (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1992) Helen Hull Hitchcock, ed., The Politics ofPrayer (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1992), with bibliography on pp. In the case of new renderings of the Bible and of liturgical texts the passions of the disputants run particularly deep, for the obvious reason that all parties to the dispute recognize that more than sentiment or aesthetics is at stake.1 The purpose of this essay is fivefold: (1) to lay out the arguments of the adversaries in a dear light (2) to demonstrate that only one of the rival accounts is tenable on linguistic grounds (3) to elucidate the function of unmarked forms in general and their distribution in English in particular (4) to examine the problems caused by the employment of inclusive1 See, mu/ta inter alia, Gail Ramshaw, God beyond Gender: Feminist Christian God-Language (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) Alvin F. Pontifical Biblical Institute Rome, Italy THE DISPUTE concerning the existence and extent of gender-exclusivity in natural languages, the relation ofsuch exclusivity to sexism, and the use of so-called inclusive language as a remedy for such exclusion has been heightened in recent years by controversy surrounding the use of inclusive language in translation-especially the translation of texts considered to be, in some sense, 'common property': the works of ancient authors and other classics, traditional songs and carols, national documents of foundational stature, etc. The Thomist 62 (1998): 445-68 THE NECESSARY FAILURE OF INCLUSIVE-LANGUAGE TRANSLATIONS: A LINGUISTIC ELUCIDATION PAUL MANKOWSKI, S.J. In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Elucidate translation