required plural marking in 2PP

[Jonathan Lighter]

See  "guy" in HDAS.

And "frosh" too: apparently it used to be nearly universal.

Back when "guy" was applied only to freaky-looking people it sometimes had
a unisex reference (at least in the US).

JL



On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:33 AM, Benjamin Barrett <gogaku at ix.netcom.com>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
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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
>



--
"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."

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