LL-L "Idiomatica" 2008.01.10 (04) [E]

Thu Jan 10 16:37:41 UTC 2008

=======================================================================

 L O W L A N D S - L * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226

 http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands.list at gmail.com

 Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.php

 Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org - lowlands.list at gmail.com

 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.]

 Administration: lowlands.list at gmail.com or sassisch at yahoo.com

 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 January 2008 - Volume 01
 ========================================================================

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

Hi all,

A couple of days ago Ron wrote:

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

I just go by "James", but "Jim" doesn't bother me, thanks!

> 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"?

This is an interesting thought.  I would say that in my own experience
I feel a need to demonstrate the inclusion of everyone listening in the
term of address.  Even when "you" could clearly be taken to refer to
everyone listening, it is sometimes not easy to supplement this by
looking at each person in turn, or including everyone with a gesture of
the arm (that would be awkward, actually!).  If I am for the moment
talking with a particular person in a group conversation, it might seem
necessary to communicate the fact that I haven't forgotten the presence
of the others, assuming that what we two people are saying still has
relevance for the other people present and the group is not splitting
up into smaller conversational groups.  Or I may want to broaden our
specific two-person conversation into terms applicable to everyone
present.  This may sound like over-analyzing or over-sensitivity, but I
don't think it is -- it seems to be a real, visceral social need.  (So
why, indeed, has this not been reflected in the language for the past
couple of centuries?  Surely not more inclusiveness in the present day!
 I expect I also lack some information in this regard.)

> 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?

Now this is remarkable!  What an interesting observation!  It ties in
with what John Howland said yesterday:

> This reminded me of of something I have become aware of in the last
> year or so. The word "dude" may be on its way to becoming
> gender-neutral. My sole source for this observation is my
> twelve-year-old daughter who consistently in telephone conversations
> refers to her girlfriends as "dude." When I first heard this I almost
> choked, it sounded so strange. Now I find I'm getting used to it.

which Ron also discussed.  How funny that both of these instances
should be masculine-on-the-way-to-neutral...  I would be surprised if
there were any direct linguistic connection to the use of "he-him-his"
as an inclusive term -- it doesn't feel (that word again!) like the
latter would influence the former, but perhaps it is possible on some
subterranean level.

By the way, Ron, I think maybe [dju:d] is okay at least in California
surfer speech or its close relatives, especially as an exclamation!  :)

> "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.

That is a wise recommendation.  "Girls" is certainly very informal.  It
probably also depends on the people addressed.  For a male in a group
of male acquaintances or friends it's fine, especially when the subject
is one of feminine appeal.  (A: "What are you thinking about?"  B:
"Girls."  A: "Ah, of course!")  Sometimes to make clear that one is
referring to a prepubescent female (or even a person of high-school
age, for those of us who are getting on) one might say "young girl".

I have found myself using "young lady" at work, which I suppose might
sound dreadfully formal and antiquated ("quaint"), when introducing a
-- well, a young lady! -- whom I have just met into a new social
situation ("this young lady would like to talk to you about
something").  Admittedly this is a very limited scenario, and I don't
use the phrase outside of such situations (so far... Actually, I can
imagine referring to a nubile young lady as a "young lady" -- it
communicates a certain tone of respect, even if "quaint").

I would address more of this exchange, but I've run out of steam!  More
later.

Best wishes,

James

----------

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

Thanks a lot, James, for the very interesting response.

Of course I am no authority here, but I use "young lady" mostly in a
(mockingly) admonishing way, much like a father addresses his daughter, e.g.,
"Now listen here, young lady!" If used sparingly, this can come across as
the funny surprise mock posturing it is intended to be, especially if the
lady ain't a spring chicken no mo'.

(As you may have gathered by now, I can be a bit of a prankster at times, or
rather a "jokester." My specialties are lightening things up when they get
to serious and  but, hard though it may be to believe, I seem dour compared
with my younger brother ...)

I look forward to you gathering some more steam, James.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

P.S.: By the way, James, I had a serious word with the Kahuna. Respectfully,
I essentially complained about the absence you and Rick Denkers on the New
Year's Honors List. Wordlessly, he handed me an amended version of the list
(http://lowlands-l.net/treasures/kahuna.htm).

•

==============================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.

*********************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20080110/fd31f19c/attachment.htm>