#3694
07/09/2000 12:06 AM
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
so which equivalent for 'guys' do you prefer? gals? dolls?? I'm sorry, but this reaction always amuses me because the alternatives are so few. I've found that most of my colleagues at work, when presented with a choice, opt for 'guys' over 'chicks'. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
>>so which equivalent for 'guys' do you prefer? gals? dolls?? I'm sorry, but this reaction always amuses me because the alternatives are so few. I've found that most of my colleagues at work, when presented with a choice, opt for 'guys' over 'chicks'.<<  Ok, Tsuwm, you asked for it!! Down here, thank you very much, you-all covers it nicely! But, since you-all don't say that up there, I DO happen to have some alternatives, as a matter of fact, ALL of which are VASTLY preferable to calling females "guys"!!! OH!!!! How are you ladies doing today? Would you fine ladies like some lunch? If they all had some similarity, say they're all in the secretarial pool, you can even say "types", as in, Would you wonderful secretarial types give me some ideas? People and folks work well, too: People, let's adjourn. I've enjoyed meeting with you fine people. It's good to see you folks again. You fun folks really liven up the place. Even "female types" can work, if it's in the proper context. Do you female types think adding a restroom would help? Even, facetiously probably, "you persons of the opposite sex" would be better than "guys"! OOH! THIS even makes me want to recommend that you use the term "you superior females"!!
|
|
|
#3696
07/09/2000 12:30 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
 okay, just three(3) quick points: 1. "guys" can be found in both M-WCD and AHD in the sense of "persons", although it is listed as "informal" -- what does this mean? it means that usage is widespread and has been for some years. 2. "ladies" is the counterpart for "gentlemen"; this only works well for formal occasions. 3. "you people" sounds too much like a drill sargeant in a good mood. 4. your other suggestions sound very forced, when what we're wanting is very informal. oops, that was four(4) things. so tsu-me. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
Response to point 1: I know this. Points 2, 3, and 4: The intent of any words can be indicated by the speaker's non-verbal communication. I have said every one of these with such things as a smile and a conspiratorial twinkle in my eye, and have yet to be rebuffed or misunderstood. I agree that if any speaker is not comfortable with the language he or she is using, it is quite likely to sound stiff and forced. FYI--I am not about the fact that your office staff, or anyone, uses the term guys when talking to females. I am angry because you are amused at the situation. I can even, in a way, see why you are amused, but I don't have to like it! No hard feelings here. I still love (usually!) reading your posts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 444
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 444 |
>>so which equivalent for 'guys' do you prefer? gals? dolls?? I'm sorry, but this reaction always amuses me because the alternatives are so few. I've found that most of my colleagues at work, when presented with a choice, opt for 'guys' over 'chicks'<< Back to my original point - why is an alternative for 'guys' necessary? What is wrong with plain old 'you'? Works for the British, the Aussies, the Kiwis and as far as I know every English-as-a-foreign-language textbook. As for 'guys' over 'chicks', I thikn you were stacking the odds by offering your colleagues only these two choices. Have you tried them on Jackie's suggestions to see what they think, or did you dislike those too much to ask? Personally, I'd rather have 'people' or 'folks' if I have to have anything at all.
|
|
|
#3699
07/10/2000 11:59 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
The problem with the words you mention is:
dolls - this refers to plastic things with straw blonde hair and unfeasibly small waists - some of us don't want to be Barbie (I know it wasn't what Damon Runyon intended).
chicks - may have been fine in its day but far too fluffy - sounds like a word for arm fluff, which is what a chick was.
We've had a re-surgence of "girls" here, it seems to have been re-claimed to a certain extent and we have "girls' nights out" and "boys' nights out" without feeling we are all twelve.
I always notice in America that people use names so much more - we would rarely say in conversation "Well Walt, what do you think about the latest figures". We'd more likely say "What do you think about the latest figures". Sometimes I wish we used names more as I am so bad at them and it takes me ages to learn people's names.
That might be why we are quite happy to use impersonal words like "you" and "anyone". I'd be more likely to say "does anyone want to come for a drink?" which unintentionally avoids the need to differentiate between the sexes.
So in the end it's a bit of a non-issue for me. I'd prefer not to be called anything, except perhaps my name.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 679
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 679 |
>>> >>in Australia the term "youse" is used as the 2nd person plural pronoun<<
It is used that way plus the singular, if I listened to the
people on TV right, in parts of the northeastern U.S., too.
Maybe Brooklyn, or Chicago--one of them thar places! This may be a stereotype I picked up from
TV, but I think it was
used by mafiosos.
>>the long-lamented 'ye'<< is alive and kicking in Ireland. At least the west.
Apologies people - I've come back to this forum as it is well and truly ending.
I hate to be one to break the news but 'youse' is most definitely an Irish term. Australia, Chicago and Brooklyn all contain Irish communities and 'youse' is commonly heard on Irish streets as an alternative for the plural 'you'. Not many Italian (Sicilian) mafioso types on this sceptered isle!
Bridget is spot on. 'Ye' is used as the singular 'you' in the west of Ireland and in Dublin by migrants from those parts. I went to school on the west coast for two years and it took me aback when I heard it for the first time in conversation. I really thought they were joking. It was like listening to a Dicken's novel. I never use (sic) it myself but I have been known to say 'youse' in my youth. Here aswell it is frowned upon as uneducated and common but very much part of the dialect.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 200
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 200 |
jmh suggests the use "anyone" and i'd like to add "everyone" as in "what's everyone doing tonight?"
this comes back in a way to emanuela's italian point about "lei" the "she" for the formal "you". "voi", the plural "you" was also acceptable until some time in the past, i believe, but was changed after the second world war. (please correct me if i'm wrong, emanuela!) "lei" is a superbly indirect way of addressing the speaker and seems to have some parallels in highly formal english as in "your honour" or "what would her majesty like for tea?" which assumes a third person present since addressing the individual directly would be brash.
in this way "would anyone like to go out for a beer?" is an indirect way of addressing the people present through an anonymous group which is understood by everyone present to be the actual group. am i reading too much into it?
one other point. thou seems to me to be used today only with a deliberately clumsy attempt to match an old fashioned verb to it, usually in creating an 11th commandment: "thou shalt not take mine beer from the fridge unless thoust payest first". not a bad commandment when you think about it...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065 |
Indonesian can also refer to the person being addressed indirectly. One way is just to use the person's name or name and title: "(Pak) Candi ke mana besok?" = "Where are you going tomorrow?" (literally " (Mr.) Candi to where tomorrow"). Or you can use some sort of relationship term "Kami telah menerima surat Ibu" = "We have received your letter" (literally "We have received mother's letter" (where the woman in question is not the writer's or the recipient's mother)). There are other ways but these are the most common.
Bingley
Bingley
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3 |
I recall my new wife's having problems of when to use "vous" and "tu" while learning French in francophone Burkina Faso. The French teacher told her not to worry about learning the "tu" form. "It is better," she said,"to call the dog 'vous' than the President 'tu.'" She still struggles with the difference but has learned the "tu" form better with my French children and grandchildren.
Excellency will do.
Excellency will do.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065 |
Just a thought while we're on the subject of the expansion of you , how do people feel about the expanding use of they/them/their as an indefinite 3rd person singular pronoun, e.g., Each student should check their work carefully and correct their own mistakes.
Bingley
Bingley
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
>how do people feel about the expanding use of they/them/their as an indefinite 3rd person singular pronoun
I certainly use this form in writing. I have written some "how to" books and avoid at all costs using his/her. I feel very comfortable with your example - "Each student should check their work carefully and correct their own mistakes". Some people would accuse it of being impersonal but I think that it is neutral and the rest of the writing can carry the responsibilty for sounding friendly.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 28
newbie
|
|
newbie
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 28 |
Yes, a perennial. One obvious solution (and my science students like cut and dried solutions), is to use plurals - not of course always the meaning one wishes to convey. But there is a move among grammarians/linguists in Australia to simply accept that their/they are third person singular non-gender specific pronouns. I'm sure that it will come. My aging Macquarie Dictionary (the Oz OED) says that it is 'usually considered to be bad usage', BUT I think that I've read that the Macquarie editors are thinking of accepting what is (arguably) inevitable. Does any-one have any info on this?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 200
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 200 |
i believe "their" is listed as singular in the oxford dictionary these days. i did read that it should be avoided in formal writing but it's okay in conversation somewhere (which sounded odd at the time). i'm for it. it sounds fine. but everyone should follow their own feelings maybe.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
okay, I'm going to play devil's advocate (even though I'm an adiabolist) and ask the obvious question:
what makes distorting the meaning of 'they' by making it singular better than distorting the meaning of 'his' by making it neutral?
e.g., everyone should follow his own feelings vs. everyone should follow their own feelings (or, in the first case, as discussed elsewhere, the speaker/author can use her personal pronoun).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 200
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 200 |
tsuwm
HA!
there is no greater stretch in terms of stretches.
it's just that when one group becomes the default neutral then the other group becomes the default unrecognised.
plural just happens to cover everyone and is thus fairer.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
>>okay, I'm going to play devil's advocate (even though I'm an adiabolist) and ask the obvious question: what makes distorting the meaning of 'they' by making it singular better than distorting the meaning of 'his' by making it neutral?<< First, 'play'fully--what do you mean, play devil's advocate?? Serious, now--Tsuwm, you have just caused me to go thru a thinking process that led to an embarrassing realization. I have always been taught to object to using their as a singular. But I have always accepted his as a neutral, because that was already in place (in use) when I was in school. Seemed just fine to me, that's the way things were. But your post made me realize (again) that the world did not begin with my birth! I imagine that when his first crept into use as a singular, there were probably rantings against this, just as in my school days there were rantings against using their as a singular, and...  just as I now rant against using 'guys' to address females! ...and the language goes on...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,094
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,094 |
Well, if we're now allowed to use they as singular then the ACT is wrong. In my past year of schooling we've gone over a large bit of grammar, including much concerning the ACT and SAT. I've been told that if you're going to use singular in a sentence, such as Bingley's example, it should be written as "Each student should check his or her work carefully and correct their own mistakes." I think it sounds a little awkward myself, but yes, we're supposed to use "his or her" rather than "their." Now, we can use just "his" or just "her", but it's considered politically correct to alternate. Of course, we can also use "one" as in "One should be careful about what one is saying."
|
|
|
#3712
07/19/2000 10:15 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
>the ACT is wrong
Sounds fine by me. Pillars of education need to be kept in their place as followers not leaders! By the way what is ACT?
That wasn't meant to be as rude as it sounded - I went to UCL which you may not have heard of either.
I do find the idea of alternating his/her supremely silly. Its only the kind of idea that only an academic could come up with as a solution. Do people use him/her alternately in normal speech - hardly. I occasionally use "one" and always sound as if I've stepped off the ark. Whole sections of the community may well have never heard the term "one"!
A message for your tutors - get real! It might lose you a few marks but then surely education is about formulating arguments not just lamely accepting an arbitrary ruling. You can tell that I'm a child of the sixties, just wasn't made for conforming!
Footnote: I've now looked up the ACT. It looks like it is a college entrance examination. In which case I can see that an exam which is open to a wide range of people tends to lag current thinking, otherwise they would never be able to set a standard. I always found this to be a problem of school-level English language. It was always taught as if there were absolute rules. The better student was often marked down for failing to conform to the average. There is an earlier discussion of times when we felt that teachers had misunderstood our contributions. The simple answer is stick to mathematics. 1=1, 2=2,
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 444
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 444 |
>>i believe "their" is listed as singular in the oxford dictionary these days. i did read that it should be avoided in formal writing but it's okay in conversation somewhere (which sounded odd at the time).<<
My Oxford Dictionary is too old to check this out, but I think I've heard the same story that the 'authorities' are starting to accept this usage.
As for 'it should be avoided in formal writing but it's okay in conversation', this is how language evolves. Speech is living and 'realtime' - writing of its very nature is slower and lags behind. So an innovation or evolution is accepted orally first and in writing later.
I suspect the web may be changing this balance - you only need to look at what is acceptable punctuation / grammar in email / discussion board versus traditional standards for writing letters to see how the pressure on writing to be 'realtime' too is changing it.
Your lack of capitals is a case in point. No problem whatsoever to me on this board, but if you'd put it in a formal letter (or even a formal email) I'd probably react differently. Formal communication is more considered and polished and its rules just change much more slowly.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
I have a friend who is a lawyer with a top UK firm. She has never learned to type, she has always had a secretary and a dictating machine. I suspect she hasn't actually "written" anything for years.
I am hugely amused by her e-mails which are truly - awful. they are full of typos, careless spelling, dubious grammar and random abbreviations. She would never send out a business letter looking like that.
I think that is where a lot of the tolerance is coming from on the internet. A lot of very clever people are out there trying to communicate but they can't actually ... type. Their tolerance level has a trickle down effect and us lesser mortals get away with more in their slipstream.
I've always thought of a (non-business) e-mail as "written down talking" not a letter. I suppose that is why the rate of change is increasing. We throw together a quick e-mail, rather than writing a considered letter. Aplogies for those of you who manage to post e-mails in perfect prose!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 37
newbie
|
|
newbie
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 37 |
<there is no greater stretch in terms of stretches> Would that be the preponderant pandiculation?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
jmh>I do find the idea of alternating his/her supremely silly. I agree wholeheartedly with this, and I will throw in "his or her" and the artificial concepts (like jhe) which have been suggested over the years. But I also prefer me using 'his' and you using 'her' as opposed to 'their' as a singualar -- it just "sounds" better to these Old Ears. Each to his own, I guess. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 200
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 200 |
heavens above! such big words. you're going to lose me with the old pandiculation thing i'm afraid.
language usually changes for a reason and "his" sounds crazy no matter who taught it to us at school. "his or her" is too much trouble in most speech and even writing (because we love to read a smooth sentence) so "their" sounds the best alternative. some words don't sound right at first and some do get discarded as it becomes obvious we were trying to hard. i think "their" is becoming accepted.
i had a teacher at school who adamantly taught us "his" and this grand old gentleman also objected to "okay" telling us we shouldn't use it if we don't know what it means. i looked it up and it didn't help me use the word at all. the fact is "okay" fits a slot perfectly. all this taught me was that rules don't count for ****!
on the toeic and toefl tests there is often a question about group pronouns as in "the team lost their/its way", well, either sounds okay to me but the real answer is "its" because "team" is techically singular. but if you think without grammar rules "their" refers to the people within the team.
how does everyone feel about "Ms"? i never use it, not because i don't like the idea but because it's too much trouble to even pronounce the zzzz sound. i'm not in the mainstream here so i don't know how things are in the real world with that one. i'd be interested to hear...
i also have no reason to use super polite english so i've never had "their" tested in a formal situation.
my old teacher tried to keep the status quo in the face of an unrelenting laziness. i think changing it in the face of the same laziness won't help either. ten years or so might tell which way we go!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
Well, I certainly feel humbled... I thought that his (or her, as the case may be) sounded better -- but now I'm informed it "sounds crazy"... no matter where I learned it.
I guess I better get an adjustment on my hearing aids.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 200
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 200 |
tsuwm
SORRY!!!!!!
let me rephrase that....
it sounds wrong (to me) when some of the hises are hers.
but i understand perfectly anyone who feels "their" is pushing thngs too much. that was meant to be my point.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
>it sounds wrong (to me) when some of the hises are hers.
sure, and this touches on the fairness issue which came up here earlier and also on the "one of the guys" thread. I'm going to start a new thread....
|
|
|
#3721
07/21/2000 12:46 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
>>it sounds wrong (to me) when some of the hises are hers.<< Oh, william, how funny that sounds! I've never seen a plural of the word 'his' before! My lookup offered alternatives from hisses to hives! That was pretty good, Friend! I even understood what you meant, and that kinda worries me! But I'm wondering: how many of the hises belong to her?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 37
newbie
|
|
newbie
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 37 |
> how does everyone feel about "Ms"? < A couple of current threads can be tied together for this. One thread remarked that a word was a "skin of thought" which conveys underlying ideas. Another was the role of language in adapting to cultural attitudes and behaviours from the "political correctness" strand. I think the evolution of the past use of "Mister" and "Miss" can guide us in it's future use. (Historians please feel free to confirm alter or refute this )It could be argued that Mister has evolved to a more generic adult male title and is no longer an indication of social status. (It could be argued that the advent of the industrial revolution altered the "status quo" so to speak.) As the importance of defining class/occupation in a title has changed, so has the word. Miss has become a generic unmarried female title, and no longer has it's place in marking the eldest female and consequestly the most eligible to be married. Perhaps this happened as such a marker was no longer considered so important that it was everpresent in a title. I would argue that a female's marital status is now no longer such an imperative piece of information to convey that it needs to be in a title (and thus on your telephone bill, listserves, etc.), and consequestly, can be shed also. Perhaps Mrs. could be the generic female term. or Ms. or something else. To take it a step further, are we really conveying much information in our titles anyway? It strikes me that apart from the married/unmarried female thing it's only purpose is to lend a polite form of address by not using a person's first name. The whole caper could be dispensed with by simply considering it polite to address people by their given names. This has the added benefit of giving people the choice to pick their own title, like Supreme Ultimate, for example What do youse think?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
> The whole caper could be dispensed with by simply considering it polite to address people by their given names.
I agree. I always use whole names, omitting the Mr/Mrs/Whatever. It is common pravtice in the field that I work in and I have never received a complaint.
If I am asked for a title I say Ms. I have been a Ms. since I was 13 or 14, I suppose. I decided I didn't want to be a Miss any longer. I retained my original name on marriage, as did many of my friends. I am the final member of a large family. I thought I might as well let the name die with me, rather than discarding it on marriage.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 200
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 200 |
ms seems fine for writing, and if we're all happy - i certainly am - to give up titles when being addressed in person, then it may work out fine. i sometimes get addressed as mr. in shops and it feels really strange.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
>>i sometimes get addressed as mr. in shops and it feels really strange.<<
Good heavens, william, aren't you one??
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 200
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 200 |
technically, yes!
i guess my face is older than my heart. inside i'm still a child!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 444
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 444 |
>>The whole caper could be dispensed with by simply considering it polite to address people by their given names.<<
Yes, I do this a lot, and I prefer to be called Bridget rather than anything else. (And I bet I'm older than you, William, but that Mr / Mrs / Ms / Miss in shops is still disturbing to me too.)
If people ask I say I'm Ms - I'm not a Mrs as I've never been married, but after years in a live-in relationship, Miss seems equally inappropriate.
I'm actually Bridget Holland and my partner is Steve Doughty. I get called Mrs Holland, Mrs Doughty, Ms Holland, Miss Holland and so on. I answer to anything as long as it's clear that it's me who is meant and as long as it's not too rude.
I don't care what surname is used - as I look at it I can use my father's or my partner's. I don't feel either is particularly mine.
The one form of address I really objected to was a boss of mine (Japanese) who used to call me 'O-ne-chan'. This is literally 'Sister' and is used as a term of address for an unknown young female. (Much as I imagine 'Miss' on its own was used in earlier times. Or as in 'O-ne-chan, would you make some coffee.' But putting feminism aside...)
...what drove me mad about this was that the guy knew my name and couldn't be bothered to use it. There were four young women in the office who could have been meant by 'O-ne-chan' and he just saw us as interchangeable. My identity was irrelevant, let alone my marital status!
I stopped answering until he started addressing me by name.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
>When I was learning French at school, I was taught that "tu" was the familiar form of address - to a friend, peer, or sometimes to one who was perceived as "inferior" (a servant, a student, etc.)
Other languages have similar constructions. In Russian, if I remember correctly from almost 40 years ago, the informal and formal can be found in endings on verbs themselves. Thus, if you were greeting someone you knew well you would say something that sounded similar to strawstvee, but strawstveetye if it was a casual acquaintance, superior, etc.
Of course it may be that this word wasn't a verb, but I seem to remember it translated to "how are you" or some such.
TEd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 444
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 444 |
>>Miss has become a generic unmarried female title, and no longer has it's place in marking the eldest female and consequestly the most eligible to be married. << I always thought that Miss was applied to all unmarried females, not just the eldest. The distinction was that 'Miss X' with no given name defaulted to the eldest, so if you wanted to talk about a younger sister, you had to include that sister's given name. So for example, I would be Miss Holland and my younger sister would be Miss Jane Holland, but we would both be Miss. If actually in conversation with Jane, though, someone would surely have addressed her to her face as 'Miss Holland', since at that point it would have been quite clear which particular Miss Holland that person (they? he/she? see how I avoid having to make a decision!!! ) meant? Also, did the rule about adding a given name if you wanted to indicate anyone other than the eldest also apply to Mr? I have the impression it did, but wouldn't like to bet on it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
A friend who is rathter pround to be a "Miss" visited friends in France recently, having just celebrated her 50th birthday. She was most upset to be called Madame rather than Mademoiselle. Apparently once an unmarried woman reaches a certain age she is called Madame out of respect, whether or not she is married. The impression she was given was - we've waited all this time for you to get married, so now we've given up on you and given you the title anyway!
I don't know if she got the wrong end of the stick - I'm sure there are experts out there - but she was quite taken aback.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 444
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 444 |
>A friend who is rathter pround to be a "Miss" visited friends in France recently, having just celebrated her 50th birthday. She was most upset to be called Madame rather than Mademoiselle. Apparently once an unmarried woman reaches a certain age she is called Madame out of respect, whether or not she is married. < Yes, this is how it works. But if your friend got to 50 before it happened to her, she's doing pretty well. I was called Madame at the age of 17 - just because I had someone else's 4 year-old child with me! And even without a child in tow, I've been called Madame for the last year or two, although I'm only 33. 
|
|
|
#3732
07/22/2000 10:28 AM
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 37
newbie
|
|
newbie
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 37 |
>It strikes me that apart from the married/unmarried female thing it's only purpose is to lend a polite form of address by not using a person's first name.
The whole caper could be dispensed with by simply considering it polite to address people by their given names.<
From your stories, it seems as if there is more offense and confusion generated from the use of Mrs/Miss/Ms than there would be in dispensing with them. Here's to the scrapheap! (and less boxes to fill in on forms)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,094
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,094 |
I've always found it somewhat strange that there are three formal addresses for the female, but only one for the male. It seems perfectly logical that those three should be reduced to one and I would say that Ms. would be the most appropriate due to the fact that it's the same length as Mr. and, tying into the PC thread, it doesn't contain Mr, as does Mrs.
|
|
|
|
|
