=======================================================================
<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>
=======================================================================
<div style="text-align: center; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">=========================================================================<br>L O W L A N D S - L - 15 May 2008 - Volume 02<br style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">
<span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">-------------------------------------------------------------------------</span><br style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);"><span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">Please set the encoding mode to Unicode (UTF-8).</span><br style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">
<span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">If viewing this in a web browser, please click on</span><br style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);"><span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">the html toggle at the bottom of the archived page </span><br style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">
<span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">and switch your browser's character encoding to Unicode.</span><br>=========================================================================<br></div><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: Semantics<br><br>Dear Lowlanders,<br><br>I find the phenomenon of semantic shift quite fascinating and feel that more attention ought to be paid to it in etymological research.<br><br>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.<br>
<br>It seems that the countable noun "man" (as distinct from uncountable and article-less "man" = "mankind") is retreating. <br><br>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").<br>
<br>In polite speech (in which "guy" would be considered too casual), quite typically heard in the news, is "gentleman". What fascinates me about this use is that, while it belongs to an elevated mode of speech, this word has lost its original connotation of "distinguished" and "well-mannered" (originally "belonging to gentility"). Because of this, people that, like me, remember its special use, tend to find it rather strange that "gentleman" is now being used to refer to men that are anything but gentle or genteel, in the news for instance referring to murderers and other sorts of convicted criminals. I believe this is a case in which people have ceased to etymologically analyze a word, where it has simply become a series of sounds and letters.<br>
<br>On the other hand, "lady" seems to have pretty much fallen by the wayside in the US, at least in the northern states. I get strange looks when I use it occasionally. Apparently, the word to use is "woman," even though this usage would have been considered impolite in the past. So we are dealing with asymmetry here: "woman" = yes, "man" = limited, "lady" = no, "gentleman" = yes.<br>
<br>Regards,<br>Reinhard/Ron</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
•
<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>
*********************************************************************