Roger, without making too long-winded a response, the British Parliament did not pass a law as you indicate because the use of ‘he’ and ‘man’ was murky, but was rather a qualification the legal draftsmen felt was necessary to a law under parliamentary discussion.
In my understanding of legal ‘English’ the over-riding requirement is that the meaning should be absolutely clear even at the expense of grammatical niceties.
So I wouldn’t be inclined to use the convolutions of a legal document to make a case for the development or useage of grammar generally.
Edmund Burke, an Irish parliamentarian, was being no more than thorough in the circumstances of the French revolution when he felt that his use of ‘men’ might be taken to exclude the gentler sex from the havoc he was referring to. I doubt he found any other occasion to make such meaning clear.
|