6.1108, Disc: Kinship Terms, Re: 1100, 1104

[The Linguist List]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List:  Vol-6-1108. Wed Aug 16 1995. ISSN: 1068-4875. Lines:  75
 
Subject: 6.1108, Disc: Kinship Terms, Re: 1100, 1104
 
Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar: Texas A&M U. <aristar at tam2000.tamu.edu>
            Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at emunix.emich.edu>
 
Associate Editor:  Ljuba Veselinova <lveselin at emunix.emich.edu>
Assistant Editors: Ron Reck <rreck at emunix.emich.edu>
                   Ann Dizdar <dizdar at tam2000.tamu.edu>
                   Annemarie Valdez <avaldez at emunix.emich.edu>
 
Software development: John H. Remmers <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
 
Editor for this issue: dseely at emunix.emich.edu (T. Daniel Seely)
 
---------------------------------Directory-----------------------------------
1)
Date:  Tue, 15 Aug 1995 14:53:21 EDT
From:  Wechsler at world.std.com (Allan C Wechsler)
Subject:  Vocative kin-terms
          6.1104, Disc: Sex/Lang, Re: 1100
 
2)
Date:  Wed, 16 Aug 1995 09:42:12 MDT
From:  r.hudson at linguistics.ucl.ac.uk (Richard Hudson)
Subject:  sons and daughters
 
---------------------------------Messages------------------------------------
1)
Date:  Tue, 15 Aug 1995 14:53:21 EDT
From:  Wechsler at world.std.com (Allan C Wechsler)
Subject:  Vocative kin-terms
          6.1104, Disc: Sex/Lang, Re: 1100
 
Regarding Dick Hudson's and Alexis Manaster Ramer's recent exchange on
which kin-terms can be used as vocatives, I add the following data:
 
(1) (a) Mom
    (b) Dad
    (c) Sis
    (d) * Broth [bR&D]
 
There is no equivalent colloquial vocative for male siblings, although
"Bub" and "Bud" might have served that role historically.  Also note
BVE "Bro".
 
-A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
Date:  Wed, 16 Aug 1995 09:42:12 MDT
From:  r.hudson at linguistics.ucl.ac.uk (Richard Hudson)
Subject:  sons and daughters
 
Alex Manaster Ramer makes an interesting point, which confirms something
that Stavros Macrakis told me. According to Stavros, it's only fathers, not
mothers, that say `son', which suggests that the aim is to build solidarity,
on the basis of shared gender. This fits exactly with Alex's observation,
which was that `son' is never used just for attracting the person's
attention, but only for solidarity-reinforcement (as in Alex's example `Hand
me that, son!' or mine, `Listen, son, I've got something important to tell
you.') So while all this man-to-man bonding is going on, what are mothers
and daughters doing?
 ===========================================================================
Prof Richard Hudson                           Tel: +44 171 387 7050 ext 3152
                                             E-mail: r.hudson at ling.ucl.ac.uk
Dept. of Phonetics and Linguistics                     Tel: +44 171 380 7172
   e                                                   Fax: +44 171 383 4108
UCL
Gower Street
London WC1E 6BT
UK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-6-1108.