LL-L "Semantics" 2008.05.16 (02) [E]

[Lowlands-L List]

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

 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  - 16 May 2008 - Volume 02
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please set the encoding mode to Unicode (UTF-8).
If viewing this in a web browser, please click on
the html toggle at the bottom of the archived page
and switch your browser's character encoding to Unicode.
 ========================================================================

From: Ben J. Bloomgren <ben.j.bloomgren at gmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Semantics" 2008.05.16 (01) [E]

 I find the phenomenon of semantic shift quite fascinating and feel that
more attention ought to be paid to it in etymological research.

I wonder if you agree with me about the following current shift development
in English and if you can provide more information. In particular, I am
interested to know whether or not this shift has spread from US English to
other dialects in the meantime, which would not be surprising given the
power of the US media.

It seems that the countable noun "man" (as distinct from uncountable and
article-less "man" = "mankind") is retreating.

Its use as "adult male human" seems to be retreating to scientific and other
"serious" areas, styles and registers. In casual speech, "guy" seems to be
the usual word of choice (not counting what seem to be generational fashion
words, currently "dude").

In polite speech (in which "guy" would be considered too casual), quite
typically heard in the news, is "gentleman". What fascinates me about this
use is that, while it belongs to an elevated mode of speech, this word has
lost its original connotation of "distinguished" and "well-mannered"
(originally "belonging to gentility"). Because of this, people that, like
me, remember its special use, tend to find it rather strange that
"gentleman" is now being used to refer to men that are anything but gentle
or genteel, in the news for instance referring to murderers and other sorts
of convicted criminals. I believe this is a case in which people have ceased
to etymologically analyze a word, where it has simply become a series of
sounds and letters.

On the other hand, "lady" seems to have pretty much fallen by the wayside in
the US, at least in the northern states. I get strange looks when I use it
occasionally.  Apparently, the word to use is "woman," even though this
usage would have been considered impolite in the past. So we are dealing
with asymmetry here: "woman" = yes, "man" = limited, "lady" = no,
"gentleman" = yes.

 Ron,

At least down here in Arizona, man and lady are very common even among
my generation. I'm not saying that my 12 and 14-year-old cousins would use
them, but I think they would. Yes, guy and dude are used, but dude is seen
as very low speech unless you're with the guys. If I don't know someone who
is an adult mail, I refer to him as a man. Rarely would I say gentleman, for
that connotes a middle-aged to older man. I have a friend who is in North
Carolina, and he uses woman a lot more than I do. Maybe it's different down
here, but I don't see such a shift unless you're referring to the generation
immediately below mine.

Ben

----------

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

Hi, Ben!

It's great to hear from you again.

I, too, believe that there are lots of geographical, social and contextual
variations within the US.

I myself still have a hard time referring to a woman as "woman," especially
when it's within earshot of her. My inclination is to say "lady". I guess
that's a generational thing.

Some people say "person" even when the gender is obvious. Also, sometimes
people use the gender-neutral pronoun "they" even when the context is
clearly gender-specific. It's a bit silly and impersonal for my liking, I
must admit.

Regards,
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.

*********************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20080516/464c5f3e/attachment.htm>