LL-L "Semantics" 2008.05.17 (01) [E]

Sat May 17 16:13:08 UTC 2008

=========================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 17 May 2008 - Volume 01
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sandy Fleming <sandy at scotstext.org>
Subject: LL-L "Semantics" 2008.05.16 (02) [E]

> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Semantics
>
> Some people say "person" even when the gender is obvious. Also,
> sometimes people use the gender-neutral pronoun "they" even when the
> context is clearly gender-specific. It's a bit silly and impersonal
> for my liking, I must admit.

I think there may be conversations where "they" is used, not to avoid
specifying gender, but to speak in a deliberately less personal way
about a person, especially if they're not present.

"Don't leave newspapers lying about James's flat."
"Why not?"
"Because they don't like it."

"I don't think Phyllis will want to come."
"I don't know, why not give them a call?"

I have to say that this looks odd in writing - maybe this is something
that we're just not used to reading because it's not traditionally part
of authorial style?

Anyway, my guess is that this arose because of people being guarded
about being quoted as saying something specific about someone behind
their back. If they avoid "he" or "she" then perhaps the listener is
thought to be less likely to remember it as being targeted at a specific
person?

But it seems to me to be a fairly unconscious part of the language, at
least these days.

Sandy Fleming
http://scotstext.org/

----------

From: Mike Morgan <mwmosaka at gmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Semantics" 2008.05.16 (01) [E]

R/R wrote:
> Mark [sic!], I take it Indian English "uncle" for "man" is a calque (i.e.
loan
> translation) from one or more local languages (where it is supposedly
> polite). Or?

Indeed. In South Asian countries generally, kinship terms are used as
terms of address and (to a lesser extent?) terms of reference. So a
boy or young man refers to someone of his father's generation
(roughly) as  ka:ka: or ca:ca: (younger paternal uncle ... why not
ever elder paternal uncle I wonder?) or ma:ma: (maternal uncle, here
ther eis no distinction between elder or younger). In Nepal (the South
Asian country I am most at home in, though my home is now India), the
system of kinship terms is much more complex than in Hindi (a possible
Creolised form of Bra:j?), and so if the person addressed is older
than you but NOT old enough to be in your parents' generation, they
are referred to as da:j(y)u: or da:i (older brother). Here in
Hindi-land, the form which in Nepali means YOUNGER brother (bha:i:)
simply means 'brother' (or in fact cousin brother (the proper Indian
English for "male cousin), or ANY same-generation male who is related
... and by extension, ANY male ... as I said, Hindi is quite "simple"
compared to Nepali.

(The system for referring to and addressing females (women? ladies?)
is similar ... BUT again in Nepal it is likely that IF you have some
relationship with the woman's husband -- be it friend or co-worker or
whatever -- THEN you (a male) would refer to her NOT as "sister" but
as "sister-in-law" (younger or older, as the case may be). And in this
it is NOT parallel to the system of referring to and addressing males,
as I am pretty sure I would NOT refer to any male as my brother-in-law
... UNLESS he actually WAS my brother-in-law. In fact, in Hindi,
sa:la: (meaning brother-in-law in the sense of "brother of my wife")
is "fightin' words" -- inferring a sexual relationship with a man's
sister!)

So to a certain degree the Indian English usage of "uncle" IS a
"calque" from Hindi (or some other Indian language(s)). However, to my
knowledge in Hindi one would NOT refer to a male of approximately your
OWN age as either ka:ka: or ma:ma:. So the bus conductor (with
henna-died graying hair!)'s use of the term "uncle" to me is NOT
exactly parallel to the Hindi usage.

(Note of course that unlike most the autorickshaw drivers in Bombay
who are supposedly from economic "refugees" from Bihar and UP, the bus
conductors are mostly Marathi-speakers. So maybe their usage is a bit
different ... BUT, I don't think so. While my Marathi is not all that
good, but as I do hear it everywhere around me, and I certainly
understand the bits and pieces that are similar to Hindi -- and both
ma:ma: and ka:ka: are shared terms with equivalent meanings --, and I
haven't noticed a marked difference in this sphere.)

>  What's the feminine equivalent? "Aunt"?

"Auntie" in fact

> From your description
> I takeit that "uncle" is also a form of address, something like "sir"
> elsewhere.

Correct.

> I can relate to your feeling of unease about being called "uncle"
especially
> by people that are your seniors. This reminds me of one of my three pet
> peeves in Indonesia (a country I absolutely loved otherwise).

 I wonder what your OTHER TWO pet peeves are ... Indonesia is
similarly a country I love (present tense!) ...

> As I mentioned
> before, everyone, irrespective of age, class and ethnic background,
referred
> to and addressed me with oom, Dutch for "uncle", consistently when
speaking
> Indonesian,  .... What irked me about it was the fact
> that oom was only used for men of Caucasian European background, was thus
a
> specific leftover from the Dutch colonial era several decades after it
> ended. I felt most uncomfortable when older people addressed me with oom,
> including for instance penghulu (village chiefs), people locally held in
> highest esteem (while I was a wandering student traveling on a
shoestring).
> And there was nothing I could do about it despite the negative semantic
> connotations in my mind.

Yes, I have had that same experience in numerous parts of the globe,
Indonesia included ... respect given by virtue (sic!) of race.

In the case of "uncle" in Bombay, That is NOT the case ... any older /
elderly (?) male who is being addressed or referred to with respect
and whose name is not known (or for whatever reason not used) is
referred to as "uncle" ... be they Westerner or well-dressed
(Western-dressed?) Indian. ... (and in any case, generally I am
considered Western only about 50% of the time, NRI (non-resident
Indian) about 30% of the time , and Indian (most likely Punjabi or
Gujarati or Sindhi or maybe Parsi ... any typically lighter-skinned
Indian) the remaining 20% of the time.

MWM || マイク || Мика || माईक || માઈક || ਮਾਈਕ
================
Dr Michael W Morgan
Managing Director
Ishara Foundation
Mumbai (Bombay), India
++++++++++++++++
माईकल मोर्गन (पी.एच.डी.)
मेनेजिंग डॉयरेक्टर
ईशारा फॉउंडेशन (मुंबई )
++++++++++++++++
茂流岸マイク(言語学博士)
イシャラ基金の専務理事・事務局長
ムンバイ(ボンベイ)、インド

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Semantics

Thanks, guys.

Mark, I'm sure I'd still love Indonesia if I went there now. What I meant
was that I went there and love it then.

Another pet peeve was that I kept being forced into the role of a
colonial *orang
belanda* (Dutchman) and was once chastised for being too nice to hotel and
restaurant staff and for not calling the males among them "boy" -- again,
decades after the end of the colonial era. Another one was about expressions
of generalized hatred of Chinese Indonesians. This one at least, I'm told
has subsided somewhat in the meantime. Bear in mind that at the time I was
less mature and compassionate about these and other matters than I am today.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20080517/267a4a2d/attachment.htm>