LL-L "Semantics" 2008.05.15 (06) [E]

[Lowlands-L List]

=======================================================================

 L O W L A N D S - L * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226

 http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands.list at gmail.com

 Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.php

 Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org - lowlands.list at gmail.com

 Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.net

 Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html

 Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html

 Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]

 Administration: lowlands.list at gmail.com or sassisch at yahoo.com


 You have received this because you have been subscribed upon request.
 To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l" as message
 text from the same account to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or
 sign off at http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.


 A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
 L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
 S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West) Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)

=======================================================================

 ========================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 14 May 2008 - Volume 06
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please set the encoding mode to Unicode (UTF-8).
If viewing this in a web browser, please click on
the html toggle at the bottom of the archived page
and switch your browser's character encoding to Unicode.
 ========================================================================

From: Danette & John Howland <dan_how at msn.com>
Subject: LL-L "Semantics" 2008.05.15 (02) [E]

Lowlanders:

Reinhard brings up an interesting point when he writes:

"It seems that the countable noun "man" (as distinct from uncountable and
article-less "man" = "mankind") is retreating.

Its use as "adult male human" seems to be retreating to scientific and other
"serious" areas, styles and registers. In casual speech, "guy" seems to be
the usual word of choice (not counting what seem to be generational fashion
words, currently "dude")."

As a native U.S. English speaker I have some sense of the possible motives
for this. The word "guy" was once a pejorative and sarcastically described a
foppish man, similar to the manner in which "dude" drew attention to a man's
outlandish dress ("duds") and mannerisms. There seems to be a continuum of
acceptance in which a pejorative term meant to abase someone becomes
familiar and takes on a tone of mild sarcasm and then good-natured humor (as
in "You old hoss thief!"). When "guy" reached this level of informal and
common usage we forgot it was ever a "put down" and applied it
indiscriminately to our friends and to any man (or woman, nowadays) who
does not require formal mention. I am less tolerant about this tendency than
anyone I know and am annoyed when a waiter refers to my party as "you guys"
for the third or fourth time. To me it is still inappropriately informal in
that situation.

"Man" may sound awkward to many because of associations of "manhood,"
because it seems too formal for the context or the code of the speaker, and
because it can sound simplistic or stilted like the wording of a children's
story, e.g. "The man in the yellow hat picked up the monkey."

Just my tuppence worth.

John Howland

----------

From: Danette & John Howland <dan_how at msn.com>
Subject: LL-L "Semantics" 2008.05.15 (05) [E]

Heather gave the following examples:

(Quote) So for example: " A lady called this morning with tickets for the
Summer Raffle" rather than " A woman called this morning with tickets for
the Summer Raffle"

But on the other hand you would use: " A woman was knocked over by a hit
and run driver this morning"  rather than "A lady was knocked over by a hit
and run driver this morning"

I can 'feel' the difference even tho' I can't quite quantify it.(End Quote)

I agree with this. "Woman" frequently has the feel of journalistic reporting
or a distancing effect from the speaker. But this can also be made fun of
and turned around into something more affectionate. By adding a hint of
self-mockery "woman" becomes a title of endearment.

"Gentlemen" is also used frivolously in a kind of role playing. Think of a
group of military officers during a briefing or a group of men at a 19th
century private club or stuffy board meeting. This playful usage makes it
palatable in cases where it might otherwise be a little embarrassing to the
speaker = too formal for comfort. I am a corrections officer at a prison and
hear the word used almost daily among staff members and even toward
prisoners. The double intention of the term allows it to sound respectful
and at the same time it is playful enough to relieve social tension.

Be well.

John Howland
----------

From: Sandy Fleming <sandy at scotstext.org>
Subject: LL-L "Semantics" 2008.05.15 (02) [E]

> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Semantics
>
> Dear Lowlanders,
>
> I find the phenomenon of semantic shift quite fascinating and feel
> that more attention ought to be paid to it in etymological research.
>
> I wonder if you agree with me about the following current shift
> development in English and if you can provide more information. In
> particular, I am interested to know whether or not this shift has
> spread from US English to other dialects in the meantime, which would
> not be surprising given the power of the US media.

I would say that the power of the US media to influence other Englishes
is mainly on countries where English is a second language, and people
are actually trying to improve their English through the media.

I don't think many people would say "guy" in the UK. In much of England
the equivalent word is "bloke", but then I would never use either of
these, because I'm Scottish!

I think the problem with the words "man" and "woman" is that they have a
distancing effect and people often seem to need more friendly versions
of these words. I don't know if that would mean they're receding - they
may just be playing their normal role as formal words that tend to have
cant versions for everyday speech.

"Man" in England is generally "bloke" - "fellow" is a bit old-fashioned
perhaps, while "fella" used to be common but I think it sounds too
"sixties" now.

In the north of England and the south of Scotland "chap" (or "chep" in
some regions) is common, as is "fellae" (fellow), while in the north of
Scotland we have "chiel".

Remember the old forties American films where "dame" seemed to be
becoming the word for "woman"? "Guy" does seem to have lasted a lot
better in the States!

Popular words for women do seem to come and go much more quickly than
those for men: "doll", "dame", "chick", "bird" and so on. Could this be
because women tend to object to being referred to in such terms more
than men do?

Do women often have specialised names where their male counterparts
don't? What's the male equivalent of "flapper", for example?

In Scots there tend to be some gender-free terms popularly applied to
people: "sowel" (soul), "body" (person). Paisley people are particularly
referred to as "Paisley bodies" (in this case pronounced "buddies"),
while Falkirk people are referred to as "Fawkirk bairns" (children).

But there's nae folk like Falkland folk: "gentleman" seems to have had a
chequered past. In the Middle Ages it meant a nobleman, as opposed to a
peasant, and you got fined more if you killed a gentleman than if you
killed a peasant!

I think the idea eventually got taken more literally as "gentle man" (or
the meaning of "gentle" changed: meaning a person of refined manners
(and was extended to the term "gentlewoman"). By Victorian times the
meaning was becoming rather fragmented - ideally it meant a chap who was
tolerant and understanding towards people who were different from
himself, or it could mean a chap who was just nice to "ladies" but
carried a cane partly for the purpose of thrashing any poor beggar who
got in his way or made too much noise, or looked at him!

In the sixties a man, if he wanted to be thought of as a gentleman, was
still expected to stand up when a woman entered the room, to always let
a woman go first (except when ascending a staircase) and to walk on the
outside of the pavement and so on. But by the seventies women were
decidedly starting to object to this sort of behaviour and for a while
it was a minefield if a chap didn't know which side of the fence a woman
was on. These days I don't even bother thinking about any of that and
just try to be polite to everyone indiscriminately!

Now "gentleman" just seems to be a polite way of referring to a man,
although my skin crawls when someone (other than my friends) refers to
_me_ that way!

Sandy Fleming
http://scotstext.org/

•

==============================END===================================

 * Please submit postings to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.

 * Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.

 * Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.

 * Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l")

   are to be sent to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or at

   http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.

*********************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20080515/6342e701/attachment.htm>