LL-L "Idiomatica" 2008.01.08 (02) [E]

[Lowlands-L List]

L O W L A N D S - L  -  08 January 2008 - Volume 02
=========================================================================

From: James Ward <jamesward at earthlink.net>
Subject: LL-L "Idiomatica"

Hi Ron,

You wrote:

> "What's up" and "Whazzup" as greetings are now commonly heard in
> casual broadcasting, though rarely coming from the hosts or
> moderators, more from "cool" guest, typically younger males, thus
> "cool dudes." You'll hear it more the more "cool"-male-oriented a
> program is, typically in contexts of sports and the like. It's a show
> of "cool" masculinity. "What's up, man," "Whazzup, dude," etc. are
> becoming very common place in casual contexts. Men don't address women
> that way, of course, but they will use "What's up" and "Whazzup" then,
> which simply means anything like "Hi!", "Hello!", "How do you do?",
> "Nice to meet you," etc. You'll hear "What's going on(, dude)?" also.
> Mind you: none of these are questions to be answered. And mind you
> also: these are displays of masculinity and "cooldudeness" (or is it
> "coolduditude"?), would sound strange coming from females and mostly
> also coming from older, more "distinguished" males.

For what it's worth, I would distinguish between "what's up" and
"whazzup" (and also " 't'sup").  I say "what's up" sometimes as a
greeting to intimates and closer colleagues, but never "whazzup", which
might imply that I allow myself to be influenced by beer advertisements
(at least I think it was beer...)  I would not think twice about a
friendly "what's up" from a female, but if she were to say "whazzup" I
would probably start trying to figure out the nature of the current
reality.  Most likely she would be younger than me (that is, less than
40), and I would be favorably impressed by her willingness to engage
socially in a gregarious way.

(Of course "what's up" can also be used as a genuine question by
someone desiring to know the nature of a particular situation or what
another person is thinking.)

> I do occasionally say "Whazzup" to guys that talk that way and
> perceive it as friendly, as opposed to "How are you?" or "How're
> things?" which sound distant. I don't use "dude," rarely "man."

Amazingly enough, I do say "dude" sometimes, usually in the context of
amazement or consternation.  I probably picked this up from being in
the company of younger males who used this term a very great deal.

In my circles I would say the use of "chick" for a female is still very
low, except in set phrases like "chick flick" (a film which will
presumably only really appeal to females) or "biker chick" (a female
motorcycle aficionado) -- the latter itself being a conversational
topic of rather low frequency!  To refer to one or more females
generically in the third person as "a girl" or "girls" is still
conversationally acceptable, I think, but second person use is
basically limited to females, and then primarily for emphasis in the
discussion of an unusual situation.

This leads naturally to the use of the term "guys".  Perhaps for us
middle-aged folk this term still has residual gender-specificity.  I
addressed my parents recently as "you guys" and reflexively examined my
use of it in the middle of the utterance or immediately afterward.  It
was sufficiently appropriate, but still did not feel entirely adequate.
 At other times when applied to mixed company I'm sure it has felt more
comfortable, yet without losing at least a faint aura of "searching for
a better expression".  And yet, if someone were to enter a room full of
people and greet them with a "hey you guys!", I think it would be
completely fine and acceptable -- I'm sure no one would give it a
second thought.

"You all" is sometimes better, as in "what do you all want to do?"...
("Y'all" has not been generalized throughout United States society).

During my three years in Pennsylvania from age 7 to 9 (1974-1977) I
heard an alternate plural pronounced "jənz", which I suppose must be a
shortened form of "you 'uns" (but it seems doubtful if this could ever
have been pronounced in a fuller "you ones" form!).  This seems to have
been quite adequate, at least among young people, but as I have never
heard it in any other part of the country, I think it must be very
localized, assuming it is still said.

In some ways this issue is reminiscent of the desire to find a
gender-neutral term to replace the constant repetition of "his or her",
often using "their" in a singular context that is still frowned upon by
purists.  They are interesting areas in which people are trying to
address emerging language needs.

James Ward
Santa Ana, California

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Idiomatica

Thanks a lot, James (or do you go by "Jim"?), for filling in the many blanks
and for doing some tweaking.

You wrote:

They are interesting areas in which people are trying to
address emerging language needs.

Very well put! It may be true that such needs were absent or weak in the
past, but for some reason it seems to be here now, probably has been here
for quite some time but only made it into non-standard varieties until
recently. It looks as though we are currently witnessing its entry into
Standard American English.

What brings about such needs is of course an interesting and huge question.

For instance, did immigrants' languages that do have second person singular
and plural distinction have anything to do with the need for creating "you
all," "you guys," etc.? If so, why did this not assert itself earlier? Could
it be that it did but that it has been only recently that the boundaries of
American English have grown more amorphous, making more acceptable what used
to be excluded as "slang"?

I am fascinated by the transition of "guys" to the status of pronominal
enclitic (and perhaps eventually suffix) and its loss of gender in the
process.

What is also very interesting is that when it comes to grammaticalization,
as in the case of enclitic "guys," we don't seem to be able to get away from
using masculine forms as gender-neutral collectives, just as it is in pretty
much all other Indo-European and also in all Semitic languages, to name but
a few. Does anyone know any language in which originally feminine forms
serve as collectives?

This stands in contrast with languages that don't have any grammatical
gender, apparently never had it, as for instance the Uralic and Altaic
languages.

Changing gears ...

Why a word like "guy" for "man"? It's not as though "man" has fallen by the
wayside. It coexists with gender-specific "guy" but in most sociolects the
two are different lexemes and are also assigned to different registers. In
my usage and in the usage of most people around me, "man" is more "serious,"
"guy" more casual, and using them in the wrong contexts could be jarring to
the listener.

"Girl" (and "gal") for "woman" is another story, and there seems to be much
more sociolectical and dialectical variety. As far as I am concerned, it's
on its way out, though even many women still use it, especially older ones,
younger one often using "us girls" as the female equivalent of "us guys"
when referring to their in-groups. I would recommend that early-stage
learners of American English avoid the word "girl" in such contexts because
it's too tricky to use. I certainly only use "girl" when referring to
prepubescent females. Being influenced by their own languages, many
Europeans refer to unmarried young women as "girls," which doesn't go down
well with most Americans these days. There has been a tendency toward
referring to all adult females as "women" and to think of marital status as
irrelevant.  (It has become socially inappropriate in most contexts to ask
someone if they are married, this in the wake of banning discrimination on
the basis of marital status and sexual preference.)  Distinguishing between
"Miss" ([mIs]) and "Mrs." (['mIsIz]) is pretty much out of the window, "Ms."
([mIz]) having replaced them. Thus, when addressing an adult female, using
the equivalent of *Fräulein*, *mademoiselle*, *señorita*, *juffrouw*, etc.
is inappropriate, certainly for flattery purposes, for age and marital
status are no longer indications of each other in today's Western society.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20080108/3d936220/attachment.htm>