=======================================================================
<p>
L O W L A N D S - L * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
<p>
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands.list@gmail.com
<p>
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.php
<p>
Posting: lowlands-l@listserv.linguistlist.org - lowlands.list@gmail.com
<p>
Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv@listserv.net
<p>
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
<p>
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
<p>
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
<p>
Administration: lowlands.list@gmail.com or sassisch@yahoo.com
<p>
<p>
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@listserv.linguistlist.org or
sign off at http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
<p>
<p>
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)
<p>
=======================================================================
<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"> </span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">L O W L A N D S - L - 09 January 2008 - Volume 01
</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">=========================================================================</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">From: </span><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" class="HcCDpe"><span class="EP8xU" style="color: rgb(0, 104, 28);">
James Ward</span> <span class="lDACoc"><<a href="mailto:jamesward@earthlink.net">jamesward@earthlink.net</a>></span></span><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"> </span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Subject: </span><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" class="HcCDpe">"Idiomatica"<br><br></span><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
Hi all,</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">A couple of days ago Ron wrote:</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">> Thanks a lot, James (or do you go by "Jim"?), for filling in the many</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">> blanks and for doing some tweaking.</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
I just go by "James", but "Jim" doesn't bother me, thanks!</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
> For instance, did immigrants' languages that do have second person</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">> singular and plural distinction have anything to do with the need for
</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">> creating "you all," "you guys," etc.? If so, why did this not assert</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">> itself earlier? Could it be that it did but that it has been only</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
> recently that the boundaries of American English have grown more</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">> amorphous, making more acceptable what used to be excluded as "slang"?
</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">This is an interesting thought. I would say that in my own experience
</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">I feel a need to demonstrate the inclusion of everyone listening in the</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">term of address. Even when "you" could clearly be taken to refer to</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
everyone listening, it is sometimes not easy to supplement this by</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">looking at each person in turn, or including everyone with a gesture of
</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">the arm (that would be awkward, actually!). If I am for the moment</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">talking with a particular person in a group conversation, it might seem</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
necessary to communicate the fact that I haven't forgotten the presence</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">of the others, assuming that what we two people are saying still has
</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">relevance for the other people present and the group is not splitting</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">up into smaller conversational groups. Or I may want to broaden our</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
specific two-person conversation into terms applicable to everyone</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">present. This may sound like over-analyzing or over-sensitivity, but I
</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">don't think it is -- it seems to be a real, visceral social need. (So</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">why, indeed, has this not been reflected in the language for the past</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
couple of centuries? Surely not more inclusiveness in the present day!</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"> I expect I also lack some information in this regard.)
</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">> What is also very interesting is that when it comes to
</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">> grammaticalization, as in the case of enclitic "guys," we don't seem</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">> to be able to get away from using masculine forms as gender-neutral</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
> collectives, just as it is in pretty much all other Indo-European and</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">> also in all Semitic languages, to name but a few. Does anyone know any
</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">> language in which originally feminine forms serve as collectives?</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Now this is remarkable! What an interesting observation! It ties in</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">with what John Howland said yesterday:</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
> This reminded me of of something I have become aware of in the last</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">> year or so. The word "dude" may be on its way to becoming
</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">> gender-neutral. My sole source for this observation is my</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">> twelve-year-old daughter who consistently in telephone conversations</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
> refers to her girlfriends as "dude." When I first heard this I almost</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">> choked, it sounded so strange. Now I find I'm getting used to it.
</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">which Ron also discussed. How funny that both of these instances
</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">should be masculine-on-the-way-to</span><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" id="1fjh" class="ArwC7c ckChnd">
-neutral... I would be surprised if<br>there were any direct linguistic connection to the use of "he-him-his"<br>as an inclusive term -- it doesn't feel (that word again!) like the<br>latter would influence the former, but perhaps it is possible on some
<br>subterranean level.<br><br>By the way, Ron, I think maybe [dju:d] is okay at least in California<br>surfer speech or its close relatives, especially as an exclamation! :)<br><br>> "Girl" (and "gal") for "woman" is another story, and there seems to be
<br>> much more sociolectical and dialectical variety. As far as I am<br>> concerned, it's on its way out, though even many women still use it,<br>> especially older ones, younger one often using "us girls" as the
<br>> female equivalent of "us guys" when referring to their in-groups. I<br>> would recommend that early-stage learners of American English avoid<br>> the word "girl" in such contexts because it's too tricky to use. I
<br>> certainly only use "girl" when referring to prepubescent females.<br>> Being influenced by their own languages, many Europeans refer to<br>> unmarried young women as "girls," which doesn't go down well with most
<br>> Americans these days.<br><br>That is a wise recommendation. "Girls" is certainly very informal. It<br>probably also depends on the people addressed. For a male in a group<br>of male acquaintances or friends it's fine, especially when the subject
<br>is one of feminine appeal. (A: "What are you thinking about?" B:<br>"Girls." A: "Ah, of course!") Sometimes to make clear that one is<br>referring to a prepubescent female (or even a person of high-school
<br>age, for those of us who are getting on) one might say "young girl".<br><br>I have found myself using "young lady" at work, which I suppose might<br>sound dreadfully formal and antiquated ("quaint"), when introducing a
<br>-- well, a young lady! -- whom I have just met into a new social<br>situation ("this young lady would like to talk to you about<br>something"). Admittedly this is a very limited scenario, and I don't<br>
use the phrase outside of such situations (so far... Actually, I can<br>imagine referring to a nubile young lady as a "young lady" -- it<br>communicates a certain tone of respect, even if "quaint").<br>
<br>I would address more of this exchange, but I've run out of steam! More<br>later.<br><br>Best wishes,<br><font color="#888888"><br>James<br></font></div><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
----------</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
From: R. F. Hahn <</span><a style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" href="mailto:sassisch@yahoo.com" target="_blank">sassisch@yahoo.com</a><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">> </span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Subject: Idiomatica<br><br>Thanks a lot, James, for the very interesting response.<br><br>Of course I am no authority here, but I use "young lady" mostly in a (mockingly) admonishing way, much like a father addresses his daughter,
e.g., "Now listen here, young lady!" If used sparingly, this can come across as the funny surprise mock posturing it is intended to be, especially if the lady ain't a spring chicken no mo'.<br><br>(As you may have gathered by now, I can be a bit of a prankster at times, or rather a "jokester." My specialties are lightening things up when they get to serious and but, hard though it may be to believe, I seem dour compared with my younger brother ...)
<br><br>I look forward to you gathering some more steam, James.<br><br>Regards,<br>Reinhard/Ron<br><br>P.S.: By the way, James, I had a serious word with the Kahuna. Respectfully, I essentially complained about the absence you and Rick Denkers on the New Year's Honors List. Wordlessly, he handed me an amended version of the list (
<a href="http://lowlands-l.net/treasures/kahuna.htm">http://lowlands-l.net/treasures/kahuna.htm</a>).<br><br></span>
•
<p>
==============================END===================================
<p>
* Please submit postings to lowlands-l@listserv.linguistlist.org.
<p>
* Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
<p>
* Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
<p>
* Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l")
<p>
are to be sent to listserv@listserv.linguistlist.org or at
<p>
http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
<p>
*********************************************************************