LL-L "Terms of address" 2006.05.09 (10) [E]

Wed May 10 00:30:54 UTC 2006

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.net
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
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 at listserv.linguistlist.org or
sign off at http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================
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)
=======================================================================

L O W L A N D S - L * 09 May 2006 * Volume 10
======================================================================

From: "Kevin and Cheryl Caldwell" <kevin.caldwell1963 at verizon.net>
Subject: LL-L "Terms of address" 2006.05.09 (04) [E]

> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Terms of address
>
> What I was talking about is social
> differences *within* the English language and the feelings they can arouse
> among transplants.  To most Americans "sir" and "ma'am" are fine, while
> most Australians are uncomfortable with them.  Furthermore, as I said, I
> do accept "sir" and "ma'am" now, within the American context, especially
> where these are used as expressions of respect/politeness rather than
> expressions of submission (which is a personal call to make).  I was
> talking about the transition from Australian to American society.  The
> "creepy" thing has to do with discomfort with political attitudes and with
> what from an Australian viewpoint seems like rampant American political
> submissiveness and complacency, lack of "spunk" and "chutzpah," and that
> dose of irreverence that is an Australian expression of distrust of formal
> authority (possibly going back to disdain of British power among
> convicts).

I find it odd that non-Americans consider "Mr. President" to be an overly
formal way
of addressing the president of the U.S., since George Washington proposed
it as a
more egalitarian, less formal form of address than any of the other
proposals at the
time (such as "Your Excellency", which was actually a fairly common way of
addressing government officials and military officers in the 18th century).

But believe me, when we're talking _about_ the president, we get very
informal, even
downright disrespectful. The current president is known as "W" or "Dubya",
his
predecessor was "Bill", "Billary", "Bubba", or "Slick Willie", etc.

Personally, I'll take being addressed (by salespersons, waiters, etc.) as
"Sir" or
"Mr. Caldwell" any day over the faux familiarity that is rampant in American
society, where perfect strangers presume to address me by my first name.
I'd also
much prefer that children I know (but who aren't related) call me "Sir" or
"Mr.
Caldwell" instead of the annoying "Mr. Kevin" that is also in vogue, but
that seems
to be a lost cause as well. I'd even prefer what used to be common in the
U.S.,
which was for children to address adult friends of their parents as "Uncle
[first
name]" or "Aunt [first name]".

When I was growing up, I addressed my parents as "Mommy" and "Daddy" until
I was
about 13, when I shortened them to "Mom" and "Dad". But when I was in
trouble and
being reprimanded, I was expected to call them "Ma'am" and "Sir" when
asked "Do you
understand?" This was pretty much the general custom all over the country
at the
time, but especially in the South (where my parents were from) - I think
it started
disappearing in 1970s, though, when a lot of parents seemed to get the
idea that
they should be their children's buddies rather than their parents.

My father also had an interesting way of talking: when he was reprimanding
one of us
boys, if we didn't answer a question right away or loudly enough for him
to hear us
clearly, he'd say, "Sir?" with a rising intonation, which indicated,
"You'd better
speak up or you'll be in even more trouble."

Further to this discussion, my cousin (now in her 60s) still calls my aunt
and uncle
"Mother" and "Daddy". I think she uses the more formal "Mother" because my
aunt is
really her stepmother and they never really got along. They're from
Tennessee.

And John Boy Walton (from the TV show, "The Waltons," set in Virginia)
always called
his parents "Mama" and "Daddy" even when he was in his 20s.

Kevin Caldwell

----------

From: "Global Moose Translations" <globalmoose at t-online.de>
Subject: LL-L "Terms of address" 2006.05.09 (06) [E]

Ron wrote:
>Always happy to oblige with stuff for you to grab hold of and hold on to.

I appreciate the sentiment, but you do realise that I have yet to fully
recover from my surgery and... oh, never mind.

>Sorry, I did mean "mum" and "mom" in the context of "your mom," "her mum,"
>etc., meaning "your mother," "her mother," etc.

Mum's the word!
Gabriele

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Terms of address

Hi, Kevin!

> I find it odd that non-Americans consider "Mr. President" to be
> an overly formal way
> of addressing the president of the U.S., since George Washington
> proposed it as a
> more egalitarian, less formal form of address than any of the
> other proposals at the
> time (such as "Your Excellency", which was actually a fairly
> common way of
> addressing government officials and military officers in the
> 18th century).

You need to remember that this is Australia-specific, and you need to
understand that this irreverence, this "belligerence," goes back to the
early days of the colonies (and it wasn't a single colony at first) in
which not only real criminals but also petty thieves (people trying to
survive on the disenfranchized Dickensian fringes) and political
"troublemakers" ended up with one-way tickets to hell and, if they made it
to the end of their penalty, were then set free in an alien land and very
harsh environment, roaming the land in groups of men all the while cursing
the British authorities to kingdom-come, especially the non-English among
them.  If you visit the former jails and labor camps of Australia and look
at the "living" conditions you realize how truly horribly and inhumanly
people were treated, and this began in British jails before the voyages. 
(Many didn't even make it onto the ships.)  Also, among the early
non-convict and non-administrative immigrants there was a preponderance of
British and Irish malcontents.  This makes sense given that Australia was
then thought of as a destiny of no return, a place one step away from
hell.  To make that journey voluntarily you've got to have a good reason.

Much of this distrust of and disdain for British power came to be
transferred to the self-rule powers, to authority in general.  "Dinky-dye"
Australians are fiercely protective of their independence and privacy,
fight any type of "interference" and "manipulation" from above. 
Politicians are not necessarily very popular, and even the press gives
them as hard a time as they can to get to the truth.  No pussy-footing
there.  The attitude seems to be that if politicians can't take it they
should get out of politics.  In a way, you could say that the revolution
never ended, while after the Revolutionary War and the Civil War a lot of
complacency and dwelling on past glories set in in the United States.

"Mr. President" and "sir" are perceived as symbols of social hierarchy and
submissiveness, smacks of _de facto_ aristocracy, and it should not
surprise you that Australians avoid them.  In many ways, American,
Canadian and Australian histories, lifestyles and attitudes are very
similar, but in this regard Australia sticks out as the _enfant terrible_.
 Two things Australian culture in general will not put up with is
uppetiness and submissiveness.

I hope this made it clearer.

Reinhard/Ron

==============================END===================================
* Please submit postings to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
* Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
* Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
* Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
  to be sent to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or at
  http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
======================================================================