required plural marking in 2PP

[Benjamin Barrett]

That's a good point. Also, it occurred to me that age might be a factor. I would have a little trouble saying "you guys" to people my father's age as well.

As for freshman, we were called "frosh" in 1981 when I entered high school, but I don't recall hearing that word before or since (though Wiktionary has it).

Benjamin Barrett
Seattle, WA

On Jul 8, 2012, at 11:28 PM, Michael Newman wrote:

> I think that your choice may come from the fact that you are interested =
> in and reflect on language far more than most people. Anyone on this =
> list is going to be an extreme outlier in this respect. That means you =
> analyze what you are saying and respond accordingly far more than most =
> people do. So your common sense is applied only after a morphological =
> analysis that most people do not perform.=20
>
> Unless we have empirical evidence (such as exists for man and he) that =
> you guys is associated with male reference, we don't know how non- =
> metalinguistic outliers process these forms. My hypothesis going into =
> these questions would be that "you guys" has little or no gender bias, =
> but that policeman and businessman do. I would think freshman has less =
> to none too. One reason is the bias in the history of the identities =
> being referred to and the other is the phonological reduction of the =
> "man" morpheme in "freshman." The fact that this has been removed from =
> its etymological roots can be seen in the common plural, freshmans. That =
> does not prevent some poeple from insisting on "firstyears," but that is =
> because they do the same kind of morphological analysis not one based on =
> empirical evidence.=20
>
>
>
>
> Michael Newman
> Associate Professor of Linguistics
> Queens College/CUNY
> michael.newman at qc.cuny.edu
>
>
>
> On Jul 9, 2012, at 8:01 AM, Benjamin Barrett wrote:
>
>> ---------------------- Information from the mail header =
> -----------------------
>> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>> Poster:       Benjamin Barrett <gogaku at IX.NETCOM.COM>
>> Subject:      Re: required plural marking in 2PP
>> =
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------=
> -----
>> =20
>> I'm one person. I know I'm more conscious of the form when women are =
> around.
>> =20
>> I use "guys" when women are present, but a flag goes up in my mind and =
> I perform a quick calculation of the situation (at least some of the =
> time). I wouldn't knowingly use "you guys" when women my mother's age =
> and older are included. Isn't that common sense?
>> =20
>> Surely the same thing applies to "businessperson" and "salesperson." =
> Aren't women more likely to be addressed that way than men?
>> =20
>> Benjamin Barrett
>> Seattle, WA
>> =20
>> On Jul 8, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Michael Newman wrote:
>> =20
>>> I got told off once too by an art education professor who sniffed =
> that =3D
>>> feminists care about such things. Later on by coincidence I heard she =
> =3D
>>> got told off by other people in recounting the story.=3D20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> it's ultimately an empircal question whether there's a semantic bias =
> =3D
>>> towards males in this form of address. Since no one has done the =3D
>>> necessary research, we can't say for sure. But I sure don't see it. =
> It =3D
>>> sure doesn't feel intuitively at all the same as generic man or =
> epicene =3D
>>> he.=3D20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> Michael Newman
>>> Associate Professor of Linguistics
>>> Queens College/CUNY
>>> michael.newman at qc.cuny.edu
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> On Jul 8, 2012, at 10:57 PM, Joel S. Berson wrote:
>>> =20
>>>> ---------------------- Information from the mail header =3D
>>> -----------------------
>>>> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>>>> Poster:       "Joel S. Berson" <Berson at ATT.NET>
>>>> Subject:      Re: required plural marking in 2PP
>>>> =3D
>>> =
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------=
> =3D
>>> -----
>>>> =3D20
>>>> At 7/8/2012 04:44 PM, Benjamin Barrett wrote:
>>>>> It would surprise me if "you all" isn't used more frequently than
>>>>> "you guys" when women are present. That's the hint.
>>>> =3D20
>>>> I've used "you guys" in addressing two or more women of my
>>>> acquaintance, and been called out by the more senior of them.  On =
> the
>>>> other hand, my unresearched impression is that it is not uncommon =
> for
>>>> women.  Or perhaps "among women" -- that is, like other epithets it
>>>> is OK for the in-group but not for outsiders.
>>>> =3D20
>>>> (Boston area.)
>>>> =3D20
>>>> Joel
>>>> =3D20
>> =20

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org