How to address people in emails/letters
Gunter Kuhnle
I always wonder what the appropriate way of addressing people in emails
is. Being German, I'm not feeling very comfortable in addressing other
people by their first name if I don't know them personally. Especially
with persons more senior than myself I prefer to err on the wrong side
and be rather more formal (and write 'Dear $title $lastname' and end
with 'Yours sincerely' or something similar), even if they address me
with my first name and sign with their first name.
Now I've been told that some people may consider it rude if this isn't
reciprocated. Is there any general rule which applies on this issue? Is
it safe to remain on the formal side? Or is it better to be less formal
as soon as the 'counterpart' starts to be less formal?
Thank you for your help,
Gunter
david56
It has become conventional in English emails not to use Dear (as in
written letters), but to open with the addressee's first name. I
work in a very large pan-European company where I address everybody
from the Managing Director to the most junior assistant by their
first name - this is considered perfectly normal. However, I do not
think that anybody would be offended by your being more formal then
them.
It is also unusual to use the standard written sign-off phrases
(yours sincerely) in emails. Instead, people tend to use Regards,
Best Regards, or (my preference), nothing at all other than your own
name.
My German colleagues sign off with "Mit freundlichen Gruessen", which
seems entirely natural, even when writing in English. My Japanese
contacts guess which is my first name and which is my surname; they
sometimes get it right and sometimes write to "Mr David". It's not
significant - they are trying to be polite.
English speakers should not expect people who are using English as a
second language to get everything perfectly correct. If an
English/American person were to be offended by you making slight
mistakes in written English, I would consider them rude.
--
David
=====
Gunter Kuhnle
> It has become conventional in English emails not to use Dear (as in
> written letters), but to open with the addressee's first name. I
> work in a very large pan-European company where I address everybody
> from the Managing Director to the most junior assistant by their
> first name - this is considered perfectly normal. However, I do not
> think that anybody would be offended by your being more formal then
> them.
Within my workplace it is fine for me to follow this convention, but
it is different for me if I have to contact someone outside, especially
someone quite senior in industry or academia. Would you also address
someone outside your company in this way, or would you be more formal?
> English speakers should not expect people who are using English as a
> second language to get everything perfectly correct. If an
> English/American person were to be offended by you making slight
> mistakes in written English, I would consider them rude.
I think 'offended' was a bit too harsh - perhaps just making them feel
uncomfortable.
Living in England for some time now, I try to follow the
local customs, but this seems to be one thing which is particular
difficult.
Thank you!
Gunter
--
http://www.kuhnle.co.uk
ICQ: 250623065
arachedeux
news:bua180$fgp4a$1...@ID-69091.news.uni-berlin.de...
> * david56 <bass.c...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > It has become conventional in English emails not to use Dear (as in
> > written letters), but to open with the addressee's first name. I
> > work in a very large pan-European company where I address everybody
> > from the Managing Director to the most junior assistant by their
> > first name - this is considered perfectly normal. However, I do not
> > think that anybody would be offended by your being more formal then
> > them.
>
> Within my workplace it is fine for me to follow this convention, but
> it is different for me if I have to contact someone outside, especially
> someone quite senior in industry or academia. Would you also address
> someone outside your company in this way, or would you be more formal?
I'd suggest that if someone has a title beyond Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms etc you should
use it.
> > English speakers should not expect people who are using English as a
> > second language to get everything perfectly correct. If an
> > English/American person were to be offended by you making slight
> > mistakes in written English, I would consider them rude.
>
> I think 'offended' was a bit too harsh - perhaps just making them feel
> uncomfortable.
>
> Living in England for some time now, I try to follow the
> local customs, but this seems to be one thing which is particular
> difficult.
I can imagine. Should you choose to share some more details about the kinds
of people you're addressing we might be able to provide more relevant help.
cheers,
Adrian Bailey
If you consider the person you are writing to to be your senior, I would
play safe at first and stick to convention (Dear Mr Smith, etc.) but it is
indeed wise to match any informality they display.
For anyone else I use "Hi" all the time, whether I know them or not. I can't
think of any occasions where a correspondent has taken umbrage.
Adrian
Molly Mockford
<PG1Ob.93$oT...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>If you consider the person you are writing to to be your senior, I would
>play safe at first and stick to convention (Dear Mr Smith, etc.) but it is
>indeed wise to match any informality they display.
>
>For anyone else I use "Hi" all the time, whether I know them or not. I can't
>think of any occasions where a correspondent has taken umbrage.
However, it is perfectly usual (and acceptable in most cases) to have no
salutation whatsoever, especially if it is not the first time that you
have e-mailed that person. Also, bearing in mind that a lot of spammers
start their e-mails with "Dear ...", some anti-spam software will treat
it as a spam indicator.
--
Molly Mockford
I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that
lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be!
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)
Gunter Kuhnle
>> Living in England for some time now, I try to follow the local
>> customs, but this seems to be one thing which is particular
>> difficult.
> I can imagine. Should you choose to share some more details about the
> kinds of people you're addressing we might be able to provide more
> relevant help. cheers,
The kind of people are mainly senior persons in academia or industry,
whom I ask for a favour, ie some information on a certain topic etc. In
an initial email, I always address them in the (IMHO at least) most
appropriate way, ie with their title & last name.
For people at the same academic level (and age), I'm happy to address
them by their first name. But I had some lecturers and professors at
university who were extremely opposed to the (in Germany less common)
fashion to address everyone by their first name. And I've been brought
up in a part of Germany where this kind of formality is quite strict and
some people still expect you to address the wife with the title of her
husband (Frau Dr ...). So I'm always a bit doubtful.
Sometimes they respond with a 'Dear $firstname' or '$firstname', and I
never know whether this is just a way to address more junior people, an
'offer' (or request) to use a less formal way or doesn't have any
meaning at all.
Thank you for your help - I realise more and more how difficult it is to
learn a foreign language (it seemed easier to me when I arrived here).
Gunter Kuhnle
> If you consider the person you are writing to to be your senior, I would
> play safe at first and stick to convention (Dear Mr Smith, etc.) but it is
> indeed wise to match any informality they display.
That's what I thought - but I hope it wouldn't considered rude to be a
bit slow in matching the informality. Btw, would you extend this
informality to real life, or just to email contacts?
Wanderer
> * david56 <bass.c...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> It has become conventional in English emails not to use Dear (as in
>> written letters), but to open with the addressee's first name. I
>> work in a very large pan-European company where I address everybody
>> from the Managing Director to the most junior assistant by their
>> first name - this is considered perfectly normal. However, I do not
>> think that anybody would be offended by your being more formal then
>> them.
> Within my workplace it is fine for me to follow this convention, but
> it is different for me if I have to contact someone outside, especially
> someone quite senior in industry or academia. Would you also address
> someone outside your company in this way, or would you be more formal?
IMO it's always better to err on the side of politeness and good
manners. It doesn't actually cost anything. I'd always tend to go for a
more formal style of address. 'Dear Mr......' or whatever their title
might be. In closing 'Regards' seems to have become more or less
standard use now, reflecting perhaps the perception that emails tend to
be less formal than written letters.
When you get a response, you can then judge the tone for future
correspondence. If you happen to build up a rapport over a period, then
certainly you can move to first name terms. IME that change just sort of
comes about naturally.
One could argue that there is an inherrent danger with emails in that
they tend to isolate the sender and the recepient from the realities of
life. They are so easy to send that it's quite possible to become
somewhat 'addicted' to shooting off emails when a face-to-face word with
a colleague or a telephone call to a client or customer is more
appropriate!
Gunter Kuhnle
> However, it is perfectly usual (and acceptable in most cases) to have no
> salutation whatsoever, especially if it is not the first time that you
> have e-mailed that person. Also, bearing in mind that a lot of spammers
> start their e-mails with "Dear ...", some anti-spam software will treat
> it as a spam indicator.
Even though I know that having no salutation or just the first name is
perfectly usual, these emails (if they're some sort of 'first contact')
sound a bit rude to me.
But this does probably depend very much on the attitude, upbringing and
cultural background of the sender and recipent, so I try to assume that
no one sending me an email plans to be rude.
I've never really understood why it is usual to omit things like an
salutation or closing in an email, or write them in a quick and dirty
style. When I started using email, I've been told to keep them short
(especially if they were to go overseas) but still as friendly as
possible. Now I've learned in a so called 'training' that one sentence
emails are perfectly acceptable ... but this is a different question and
a bit off topic here.
Wanderer
> * arachedeux <arach...@shotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Living in England for some time now, I try to follow the local
>>> customs, but this seems to be one thing which is particular
>>> difficult.
>> I can imagine. Should you choose to share some more details about the
>> kinds of people you're addressing we might be able to provide more
>> relevant help. cheers,
> The kind of people are mainly senior persons in academia or industry,
> whom I ask for a favour, ie some information on a certain topic etc. In
> an initial email, I always address them in the (IMHO at least) most
> appropriate way, ie with their title & last name.
> For people at the same academic level (and age), I'm happy to address
> them by their first name. But I had some lecturers and professors at
> university who were extremely opposed to the (in Germany less common)
> fashion to address everyone by their first name. And I've been brought
> up in a part of Germany where this kind of formality is quite strict and
> some people still expect you to address the wife with the title of her
> husband (Frau Dr ...). So I'm always a bit doubtful.
As I said in my earlier reply, politeness doesn't cost anything and you
really can't go wrong if you follow the conventions. I used to write
numerous quite detailed and technical letters when I was working (now
retired) and I was always of the opinion that my first name is for *me*
to give to others as an invitation to them to use. I don't subscribe to
modern idiom of everybody using first names for everything!
In much the same way, 'Mr.' is a polite salutation that you afford to
others. It rankles when I see people, sadly usually tradesmen, styling
themselves as 'Mr. John Smith'. Conversely, a woman who signs a letter
as just 'Ann Smith' must expect to be addressed as 'Ms.' or 'Miss'. My
wife always included her correct title (Mrs) in brackets after her
signature.
I'm sure a lot of people who do subscribe to the modern idiom of first
names will consider my pov as rather old fashioned, but like I said,
politeness and good manners don't actually cost anything at all!
Molly Mockford
<jmg6a7rox8zt$.1caevabltw07n$.d...@40tude.net>:
>In much the same way, 'Mr.' is a polite salutation that you afford to
>others. It rankles when I see people, sadly usually tradesmen, styling
>themselves as 'Mr. John Smith'.
A generation or two ago, Mr (no full stop, because r is the last letter
of Mister) was applied *only* to tradesmen and such lower-class types.
Gentlemen used the format John Smith Esq. As far as I remember, though,
when using Mr one used only the initial - Mr J. Smith - presumably on
the grounds that one wouldn't be expected to know a tradesman's first
name!
Gunter Kuhnle
> As I said in my earlier reply, politeness doesn't cost anything and you
> really can't go wrong if you follow the conventions. I used to write
> numerous quite detailed and technical letters when I was working (now
> retired) and I was always of the opinion that my first name is for *me*
> to give to others as an invitation to them to use. I don't subscribe to
> modern idiom of everybody using first names for everything!
When did this start in Britain? In some older books I noticed that people
address each other (even friends) by their last name.
> In much the same way, 'Mr.' is a polite salutation that you afford to
> others. It rankles when I see people, sadly usually tradesmen, styling
> themselves as 'Mr. John Smith'. Conversely, a woman who signs a letter
> as just 'Ann Smith' must expect to be addressed as 'Ms.' or 'Miss'. My
> wife always included her correct title (Mrs) in brackets after her
> signature.
Isn't this sometimes necessary to give the other person the opportunity
to use the appropriate form? It's often difficult to guess from the name
whether someone is male or female, especially with foreign names (I've
been addressed more than once as Mrs or Ms).
Gunter
Enrico C
<news:1wmh5m8h7ps6.e...@40tude.net>
> In closing 'Regards' seems to have become more or less standard use
> now, reflecting perhaps the perception that emails tend to be less
> formal than written letters.
Is "Regards" less formal than "Yours Sincerely"?
--
Enrico C ~ No native speaker
Adrian Bailey
> * Adrian Bailey <da...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > If you consider the person you are writing to to be your senior, I would
> > play safe at first and stick to convention (Dear Mr Smith, etc.) but it
is
> > indeed wise to match any informality they display.
>
> That's what I thought - but I hope it wouldn't considered rude to be a
> bit slow in matching the informality. Btw, would you extend this
> informality to real life, or just to email contacts?
Thinking about it, I'm pretty sure I've always called my boss by his/her
first name. Maybe others will disagree, but in the UK I think it's unusual
for two adults to address each other as "Mr(s) X" or "sir/madam" if they
know each other's first name.
Adrian
Wanderer
> * Wanderer <wand...@tesco.net> wrote:
>> As I said in my earlier reply, politeness doesn't cost anything and you
>> really can't go wrong if you follow the conventions. I used to write
>> numerous quite detailed and technical letters when I was working (now
>> retired) and I was always of the opinion that my first name is for *me*
>> to give to others as an invitation to them to use. I don't subscribe to
>> modern idiom of everybody using first names for everything!
> When did this start in Britain? In some older books I noticed that people
> address each other (even friends) by their last name.
I'd guess in the 1980s or thereabouts, when many large companies started
looking to America for ideas on how to restructure. I *always* answered
the telephone with my last name, as did most of my colleagues (we were
in the Electricity Supply Industry). With the advent of the forthcoming
privatisation at that time, emphasis shifted from customer service[1] to
profit and creating a 'modern image' company.
>> In much the same way, 'Mr.' is a polite salutation that you afford to
>> others. It rankles when I see people, sadly usually tradesmen, styling
>> themselves as 'Mr. John Smith'. Conversely, a woman who signs a letter
>> as just 'Ann Smith' must expect to be addressed as 'Ms.' or 'Miss'. My
>> wife always included her correct title (Mrs) in brackets after her
>> signature.
> Isn't this sometimes necessary to give the other person the opportunity
> to use the appropriate form?
No problems with that, but anyone who wishes to identify themselves
should properly do so in brackets after their name. The point I was
making is that 'Mr', 'Mrs', or 'Miss' are a politeness of salutation
that you afford to others, they are not a title you assume for yourself.
Of course, just to muddy the waters, the situation gets complicated when
an individual has a form of title he or she is entitled to use through
common useage and custom, such as 'Sir' from a knighthood, Prof.' or
'Dr' through academic acheivement, or some form of civil or military
rank or award, 'Lt. Colonel' 'MBE' or whatever. It didn't occur very
often, but our typists had an invaluable and very old and battered
reference book that covered such issues of ettiquette! I guess class is
alive and well in the UK!
> It's often difficult to guess from the name
> whether someone is male or female, especially with foreign names (I've
> been addressed more than once as Mrs or Ms).
I'd say the rule is always address the other person as 'Mr' unless they
include a form of salutation or their name tells you otherwise. In the
end, it's their problem if they choose not to give you sufficient
information for you to be able to address them properly.
[1] Please discuss: Any company or organisation that publishes a list of
customer standards is, by definition, admitting that it may not be able
to acheive those standards with its present structure and manpower
levels! Alright I'm being facetious, but as emphasis moves from the core
business of a company to the bottom line of the balance sheet, standards
of customer service are usually the first things to slip.
Wanderer
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, Wanderer <wand...@tesco.net> wrote in
> <jmg6a7rox8zt$.1caevabltw07n$.d...@40tude.net>:
>>In much the same way, 'Mr.' is a polite salutation that you afford to
>>others. It rankles when I see people, sadly usually tradesmen, styling
>>themselves as 'Mr. John Smith'.
> A generation or two ago, Mr (no full stop, because r is the last letter
> of Mister)
'S funny how we all develop mental blocks over certain things. I *know*
there shouldn't be a full stop if the abbreviation has the last letter
of the word, but I still do it!
> was applied *only* to tradesmen and such lower-class types.
> Gentlemen used the format John Smith Esq. As far as I remember, though,
> when using Mr one used only the initial - Mr J. Smith - presumably on
> the grounds that one wouldn't be expected to know a tradesman's first
> name!
Must be honest and say that I thought the two had become more or less
interchangeable over the last half century or so, although 'Esq.' always
seemed to have an air of the quaint about it.
John Hall
Molly Mockford <nos...@mollymockford.me.uk> writes:
>Mr (no full stop, because r is the last letter of Mister)
This seems to be a difference between British and American usage. We
British do not put a full stop after "Mr" (or "Dr"). However it seems to
be standard practice to do so in the US. Of course, we are right and
they are wrong. :)
--
John Hall "George the Third
Ought never to have occurred.
One can only wonder
At so grotesque a blunder." E.C.Bentley (1875-1956)
david56
I've read through the discussion. I would add to my previous reply
that you would be correct to use a formal approach when writing to
somebody you don't know, no matter how senior; there is something
slightly strange about addressing somebody more formally just because
they are paid more than you.
If they reply informally, you have a choice - you can match the
informality, which is unlikely to cause offence, or you can continue
with the formal address, which will not cause offence. If somebody
addresses me formally more than twice, I am likely to add "Please
call me David" as an explicit invitation. I expect everybody to call
me David, unless they are trying to sell me something (in which case
I would rather they didn't talk to me at all).
--
David
=====
Mike Stevens
news:jmg6a7rox8zt$.1caevabltw07n$.dlg@40tude.net...
> I'm sure a lot of people who do subscribe to the modern idiom of first
> names will consider my pov as rather old fashioned, but like I said,
> politeness and good manners don't actually cost anything at all!
I have always been attracted to (but haven't consistently used) the
(very old) Quaker convention of always addressing people other than
family members and close friends as <first name><surname>.
--
Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
"Million-to-one chances come up nine times out of ten." (Terry
Pratchett)
Mike Stevens
> In some older books I noticed that people
> address each other (even friends) by their last name.
Yes, that certainly used to happen, and still does among some older
people. I think it had its roots in the English Public Schools (which,
for the benefit of non-UKians, are a complete misnomer as they are
actually exclusive private schools). In practice I think it was
restricted (a) to members of the Upper and Middle classes talking to
their inferiors or equals of the same gender, (b) to the same group of
people talking to their servants or tradesmen, (c) to a much wider group
of people when speaking about third parties, especially writers,
musicians, artists, scientists, historic figures, footballers etc etc.
--
Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Old mathematicians never die. They simply count for less.
Mike Stevens
"Adrian Bailey" <da...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kj9Ob.815$nC6...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
When I started teaching, back in the late 1960s, it would have been
unthinkable to speak to our Headteacher as anything but "Mr Sumner" or
Headmaster". Behind his back he was "the Old Man". Four years later, I
changed schools and was quickly on first-name terms with my new Head.
This continued over the years with his various successors. There was
one, I remember, with whom I often disagreed (by this time I was in
Senior Management). Most of the time I spoke to him by his first name.
When I called him "Headmaster" (either in one-to-one conversation or in
a staff meeting) he knew I was displeased with him.
--
Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Old teachers never die, they simply lose their class.
Wanderer
> "Gunter Kuhnle" <gk-u...@kuhnle.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:bub4vk$fgtl5$1...@ID-69091.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> In some older books I noticed that people
>> address each other (even friends) by their last name.
> Yes, that certainly used to happen, and still does among some older
> people. I think it had its roots in the English Public Schools (which,
> for the benefit of non-UKians, are a complete misnomer as they are
> actually exclusive private schools). In practice I think it was
> restricted (a) to members of the Upper and Middle classes talking to
> their inferiors or equals of the same gender, (b) to the same group of
> people talking to their servants or tradesmen, (c) to a much wider group
> of people when speaking about third parties, especially writers,
> musicians, artists, scientists, historic figures, footballers etc etc.
Must agree to disagree on that one. As I said in another post, I used to
do it at work and so did most of my colleagues. We were all professional
engineers, and to the best of my knowledge there were no ex-public
school amongst us.
Molly Mockford
<bubr09$fuvai$1...@ID-170573.news.uni-berlin.de>:
>Yes, that certainly used to happen, and still does among some older
>people. I think it had its roots in the English Public Schools (which,
>for the benefit of non-UKians, are a complete misnomer as they are
>actually exclusive private schools).
It may also have had some roots in the army - two world wars and many
years of National Service, during which men of equal rank would have
only ever used each other's surnames.
> In practice I think it was
>restricted (a) to members of the Upper and Middle classes talking to
>their inferiors or equals of the same gender,
When it was equals, it would be males only, I would have thought. When
used by females to/of females (which I have only ever come across in
literature) it seemed to be a clear indication of aping the male form
and therefore lesbianism! (Females would of course refer to inferior
males that way, as in "Of course I'm not shagging Mellors").
> (b) to the same group of
>people talking to their servants or tradesmen, (c) to a much wider group
>of people when speaking about third parties, especially writers,
>musicians, artists, scientists, historic figures, footballers etc etc.
Although Prime Ministers were regularly referred to by their surnames
alone in the press, when That Woman arrived it threw the papers into
confusion - they were at first very unhappy about referring to her as
Thatcher with no Mrs.
By and large, I would sum it up as:
(1) Males speaking to and about equals
(2) Either sex speaking to a social inferior, servant or tradesman
(3) Either sex speaking about notable public figures, as in your (c).
Gunter Kuhnle
> Yes, that certainly used to happen, and still does among some older
> people. I think it had its roots in the English Public Schools (which,
> for the benefit of non-UKians, are a complete misnomer as they are
> actually exclusive private schools).
Doesn't this naming convention date back to the time when schools were
run by the church? It is a long time ago, but this was something our
English teacher was particular keen on (to use the word 'public'
school). But I have the impression that more and more people use the
word 'private' school and even refer to state schools as 'public'
school. Is this something they do because they think I wouldn't
understand as a foreigner, or is this a new fashion?
> In practice I think it was
> restricted (a) to members of the Upper and Middle classes talking to
> their inferiors or equals of the same gender, (b) to the same group of
> people talking to their servants or tradesmen, (c) to a much wider group
> of people when speaking about third parties, especially writers,
> musicians, artists, scientists, historic figures, footballers etc etc.
Thank you,
Mike Stevens
news:ItRyvRFh...@molly.mockford...
> When it was equals, it would be males only, I would have thought.
When
> used by females to/of females (which I have only ever come across in
> literature) it seemed to be a clear indication of aping the male form
> and therefore lesbianism!
From my reading I'd say it was common usage in girls' public schools (in
England - Molly was IIRC educated in Scotland) and among female
academics once they'd managed to fight their way in to Oxbridge.
I grew up in a context of teachers (my father was one), in which people
referred to one another by their surnames alone, irrespective of gender.
We had two particularly close female friends of the family who were each
known to my brother and I during our childhood as Auntie <surname>.
--
Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Molly Mockford
>"Molly Mockford" <nos...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote in message
>news:ItRyvRFh...@molly.mockford...
>
>> When it was equals, it would be males only, I would have thought.
>When
>> used by females to/of females (which I have only ever come across in
>> literature) it seemed to be a clear indication of aping the male form
>> and therefore lesbianism!
>
>From my reading I'd say it was common usage in girls' public schools (in
>England - Molly was IIRC educated in Scotland) and among female
>academics once they'd managed to fight their way in to Oxbridge.
I did indeed go to a private school in Scotland (we tend not to call
then public schools there), and there was no surname business. The
teachers and other staff were all "Miss whatever" and the girls were all
addressed by their first names by everyone. The only Scottish schools I
can think of where surnames for pupils (and possibly between staff)
would have been the norm would be boys' boarding schools. I don't know
anything about English girls' schools, although I read a lot of books
about them - Dorothea Moore, a kind of Angela Brazil type author, was a
friend of my grandmother's, so I had her entire oeuvre. "A Plucky
Schoolgirl" was the archetype - the heroine saves the school from fire
one night and hits the winning six in an inter-school cricket match the
next day!
Tony Mountifield
Gunter Kuhnle <gk-u...@kuhnle.co.uk> wrote:
> * Mike Stevens <mike...@which.net> wrote:
> > Yes, that certainly used to happen, and still does among some older
> > people. I think it had its roots in the English Public Schools (which,
> > for the benefit of non-UKians, are a complete misnomer as they are
> > actually exclusive private schools).
>
> Doesn't this naming convention date back to the time when schools were
> run by the church? It is a long time ago, but this was something our
> English teacher was particular keen on (to use the word 'public'
> school). But I have the impression that more and more people use the
> word 'private' school and even refer to state schools as 'public'
> school. Is this something they do because they think I wouldn't
> understand as a foreigner, or is this a new fashion?
It differs between the UK and the US. I can only speak for the UK, but
my understanding has always been that a state school you can attend
without fee; a private school you have to pay fees to; and a public
school is a private school of some elevated status (there may be a
formal definition, but I don't know it).
Cheers,
Tony
--
Tony Mountifield
Work: to...@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: to...@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org
Mike Stevens
> It differs between the UK and the US. I can only speak for the UK, but
> my understanding has always been that a state school you can attend
> without fee; a private school you have to pay fees to; and a public
> school is a private school of some elevated status (there may be a
> formal definition, but I don't know it).
I think the definition usually taken of "Public School" is one whose
Headteacher is a member of either the Headmasters' and Headmistresses'
Conference or of the Girls Schools Association.
--
Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
C-Beeby
"david56" <bass.c...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a7353478...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> gk-u...@kuhnle.co.uk spake thus:
>
> > Hallo,
> >
> > I always wonder what the appropriate way of addressing people in emails
At work I usually don't bother with a salutation, but some of my friends and
relations think that rather abrupt, so I often start with Hallo! and end
with Regards, then first and last name or (more informally) Take care, then
my first name. I would be happy to receive e-mails in this style from
anyone, unless they were trying to sell me something or were from
officialdom. In such cases I would expect them to call me Mrs. If they don't
know I'm a Mrs then they probably have no business e-mailing me!
To a great extent e-mails in England seem to be following the conventions of
telephone conversations rather than letters, which many people don't write
anymore.
One more comment on the last-name only convention, in the eighteenth century
in England it was the norm for wives to address husbands by surname (or Mr
and surname) only, also nieces and nephews to address aunts and uncles by
Uncle/Aunt + surname. People were pretty much only on first name terms if
they'd known each other from childhood. See Jane Austen for examples.
Regards,
Helen.
mUs1Ka
> In article <buc5u5$ftqo1$1...@ID-69091.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> Gunter Kuhnle <gk-u...@kuhnle.co.uk> wrote:
>> * Mike Stevens <mike...@which.net> wrote:
>>> Yes, that certainly used to happen, and still does among some older
>>> people. I think it had its roots in the English Public Schools
>>> (which, for the benefit of non-UKians, are a complete misnomer as
>>> they are actually exclusive private schools).
>>
>> Doesn't this naming convention date back to the time when schools
>> were run by the church? It is a long time ago, but this was
>> something our English teacher was particular keen on (to use the
>> word 'public' school). But I have the impression that more and more
>> people use the word 'private' school and even refer to state schools
>> as 'public' school. Is this something they do because they think I
>> wouldn't understand as a foreigner, or is this a new fashion?
>
> It differs between the UK and the US. I can only speak for the UK, but
> my understanding has always been that a state school you can attend
> without fee; a private school you have to pay fees to; and a public
> school is a private school of some elevated status (there may be a
> formal definition, but I don't know it).
>
state school is only open to applications from the local area.
m.
Enrico C
<news:buce3h$eai$1...@softins.clara.co.uk>
> a public school is a private school of some elevated status
Why do you call them "public" schools if they are actually private?
^___^
david56
> Tony Mountifield | uk.culture.language.english in
> <news:buce3h$eai$1...@softins.clara.co.uk>
>
> > a public school is a private school of some elevated status
>
> Why do you call them "public" schools if they are actually private?
Because when they were so named, a couple of hundred years ago
(although many are far older), they were the only schools open to
everybody (although you had to have the money or a bursary).
"private" now means "not run by the state", but there were no schools
run by the state when the Public Schools started.
--
David
=====
Molly Mockford
<budn2q$gftfq$1...@ID-198887.news.uni-berlin.de>:
>One more comment on the last-name only convention, in the eighteenth century
>in England it was the norm for wives to address husbands by surname (or Mr
>and surname) only, also nieces and nephews to address aunts and uncles by
>Uncle/Aunt + surname. People were pretty much only on first name terms if
>they'd known each other from childhood. See Jane Austen for examples.
A particularly interesting example is in Emma - Mr Knightley, who was 16
when Emma was born and knew her from babyhood, always calls her "Emma",
while she always calls him "Mr Knightley"[1]. They actually discuss
this during their engagement, and she says that she could not bring
herself to call him "George", but will always call him "Mr Knightley".
Her sister and his brother (married when the books starts), however,
always address each other by their first names.
[1] She did once, when a child, address him as "George" just to see what
would happen but, since he made no objection, she never did it again.
Wanderer
<snip>
> We had two particularly close female friends of the family who were each
> known to my brother and I during our childhood as Auntie <surname>.
Auntie Wainwright? <g>
John Hall
Molly Mockford <nos...@mollymockford.me.uk> writes:
>A particularly interesting example is in Emma - Mr Knightley, who was
>16 when Emma was born and knew her from babyhood, always calls her
>"Emma", while she always calls him "Mr Knightley"[1].
>
>[1] She did once, when a child, address him as "George" just to see
>what would happen but, since he made no objection, she never did it
>again.
Mr Knightley clearly knew the most effective way of dealing with
trolling. :)
--
John Hall
"If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come
sit next to me."
Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
Dave Fawthrop
wrote:
| We had two particularly close female friends of the family who were each
| known to my brother and I during our childhood as Auntie <surname>.
We had several Aunties and Uncles when we were kids, besides the *real*
aunties and uncles.
This was an indication that they were to be trusted.
Dave F
Phil C.
<mike...@which.net> wrote:
>
>"Gunter Kuhnle" <gk-u...@kuhnle.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:bub4vk$fgtl5$1...@ID-69091.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>> In some older books I noticed that people
>> address each other (even friends) by their last name.
>
>Yes, that certainly used to happen, and still does among some older
>people. I think it had its roots in the English Public Schools (which,
>for the benefit of non-UKians, are a complete misnomer as they are
>actually exclusive private schools). In practice I think it was
>restricted (a) to members of the Upper and Middle classes talking to
>their inferiors or equals of the same gender, (b) to the same group of
>people talking to their servants or tradesmen, (c) to a much wider group
>of people when speaking about third parties, especially writers,
>musicians, artists, scientists, historic figures, footballers etc etc.
At my single-sex state grammar school, 1960s, we used surnames or
nicknames for each other. First names were never used. To use them
would have been considered babyish or soppy. At my wife's school, the
teachers called the boys by their surnames and the girls by their
first names. Grammar schools were notorious for trying to ape public
schools.
I remember my father being proud that he was the last person in his
office to call his junior by his surname. But then that was my father
for you.
--
Phil C.
Phil C.
And, of course, many public schools were intended to be for the public
when they started - charitable foundations for the children of the
poor. My village was owned and built by a C17th charity that actually
funded a leading public school.
--
Phil C.
Gwilym Calon
> The only Scottish schools I
> can think of where surnames for pupils (and possibly between staff)
> would have been the norm would be boys' boarding schools.
I went to a boys boarding school (though in England rather than Scotland) and I
can say:
- Teaching staff were always known as Mr. / Mrs. <surname>. The forename was
never used.
- Ancillary staff were known as Mr. / Ma <surname> E.g. the sewing mistress was
an Italian lady known as Ma Piperno
- Other boys were known as <surname> only. Most of the boys I was at school with
never told me their forename, and I never told them mine.
------------
GC
Mike Stevens
To add a little detail to what David's written, the early public
schools, mainly monastic foundations, were so called because anybody
could send their sons (girls' school came much later) to them if they
could afford the fees. This was to distinguish them from private
education which a wealthy man would arrange for his sons (or, less
often, his daughters) at home by employing one or more tutors.
As for the term which is used to distinguish non-state schools, within
the teaching profession in the UK the phrase used is "independent
schools".
In my experience (22 years teaching and a further 13 as a Trade Union
official visiting schools of all kinds), while the best independent
schools are really extremely good, particularly for academic
high-fliers, at the other end of the scale some independent schools are
much worse than the worst in the State sector, "educational
bucket-shops", as my ex-boss once called them.
--
Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Phil C.
<mike...@which.net> wrote:
>In my experience (22 years teaching and a further 13 as a Trade Union
>official visiting schools of all kinds), while the best independent
>schools are really extremely good, particularly for academic
>high-fliers, at the other end of the scale some independent schools are
>much worse than the worst in the State sector, "educational
>bucket-shops", as my ex-boss once called them.
There always seemed to me to be a principle that the the worse and
more minor the private school the more lurid the uniform. I can't say
I've done a scientific study of it though.
--
Phil C.
arachedeux
SNiP
>
> For people at the same academic level (and age), I'm happy to address
> them by their first name. But I had some lecturers and professors at
> university who were extremely opposed to the (in Germany less common)
> fashion to address everyone by their first name. And I've been brought
> up in a part of Germany where this kind of formality is quite strict and
> some people still expect you to address the wife with the title of her
> husband (Frau Dr ...). So I'm always a bit doubtful.
I think most spouses might find the use of professional titles towards them
unexpected. There's little wrong in doing so, I imagine you'd just come
across as a polite German.
> Sometimes they respond with a 'Dear $firstname' or '$firstname', and I
> never know whether this is just a way to address more junior people, an
> 'offer' (or request) to use a less formal way or doesn't have any
> meaning at all.
I imagine it's any one of them and without asking you're unlikely to know
which. If it were me I'd be tempted to stick to the formal address until
requested to be more informal, or ask indirectly such as apologising for
possibly being too formal.
Do you have a title and do you sign off with it? If so and you're addresing
similar "ranks" I'd take their informality as an invitation to follow, maybe
not for the top of the tree as it were.
> Thank you for your help - I realise more and more how difficult it is to
> learn a foreign language (it seemed easier to me when I arrived here).
Quite, I have the same trouble with Rammstein lyrics. ;-}
Bear in mind that English as a tongue doesn't belong to anyone, so you can
do what you choose with it.
cheers,
Einde O'Callaghan
> In article <NtEz$oh1ER...@molly.mockford>,
> Molly Mockford <nos...@mollymockford.me.uk> writes:
>
>>Mr (no full stop, because r is the last letter of Mister)
>
>
> This seems to be a difference between British and American usage. We
> British do not put a full stop after "Mr" (or "Dr"). However it seems to
> be standard practice to do so in the US. Of course, we are right and
> they are wrong. :)
When I learned typing in the 1970s I was taught open punctuation for
business letters, that is leaving out the full stop after abbreviations,
regardless of whether the final letter of the abbreviation was teh final
letter of teh word or not (the rule I was taught in school). this is
also the main format used in the books on business correspondence that I
use when teaching Business English classes here in Germany.
I believe this form of punctuation started in typing pools (something
from the long-forgotten days before the desktop computer) where by doing
this and aligning eveything on the left it was possible to significantly
increase the productivity of the copytypists who produced circular
letters and the like.
(BTW The split infinitive is deliberate, because otherwise the adverb is
too far from the verb it refers to and I dislike putting the adverb
between the verb and its object)
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
Matthew Huntbach
> * Wanderer <wand...@tesco.net> wrote:
>> As I said in my earlier reply, politeness doesn't cost anything and you
>> really can't go wrong if you follow the conventions. I used to write
>> numerous quite detailed and technical letters when I was working (now
>> retired) and I was always of the opinion that my first name is for *me*
>> to give to others as an invitation to them to use. I don't subscribe to
>> modern idiom of everybody using first names for everything!
> When did this start in Britain? In some older books I noticed that people
> address each other (even friends) by their last name.
This indicates how you shouldn't rely on old books or old style guides
in using English. Fashions and usages can change remarkably quickly.
I'm just about old enough to remember when schoolboys would address
each other by their surnames, but that seems to have long gone now.
I wonder if primary school children even know each others surnames
now. Whenever I've been inside primary schools recently, material
displayed in the classrooms seems only to use first names.
I'm still put on edge by people who address me by my first name in a
business or professional context, but that's becoming increasingly
the norm now. It's meant to be more friendly, but my reaction is always
"here's someone tying to create a false sense of friendship that doesn't
yet exist, probably because he wants to get something out of me".
Usage here, however, is changing so fast, that there are plenty of contexts
where just ten and certainly twenty years ago, use of title and surname
would have been absolutely standard, but now appears stilted or over
formal.
In my work as a university lecturer, I find many students address me from
the start by my first name, which would never have happened when I was
a student. In general, I find it's stuydents who have come through the
British school system who do this, while students from other countries
tend to be more formal. I think there's a good reason to keep a certain
formality between student and lecturers, particularly since I will need
to sit in judgement on them and award them marks or possibly fail them,
but other members of staff seem to encourage this informality and think
it helps create a friendly atmosphere.
It seems that German society has maintained a formality in addressing
each other that British society has lost. Maybe it's to do with your
having a language which maintains a polite and informal second person,
or maybe it's something particularly German. The over-use of titles
by Germans, e.g. the use of her husband's title when addressing a woman,
has sometimes been thought humorous by Brits, even in those days when
we were more formal about titles ourselves.
My advice is that you keep on doing what makes you feel comfortable.
But, since your English is so good, you might want to drop something into
your written communication that reminds people you are German. Then
people will think not "Oh, isn't this person being so stiff and formal"
but "Oh, he's German, and they tend to be a little more formal than us".
>> In much the same way, 'Mr.' is a polite salutation that you afford to
>> others. It rankles when I see people, sadly usually tradesmen, styling
>> themselves as 'Mr. John Smith'. Conversely, a woman who signs a letter
>> as just 'Ann Smith' must expect to be addressed as 'Ms.' or 'Miss'. My
>> wife always included her correct title (Mrs) in brackets after her
>> signature.
> Isn't this sometimes necessary to give the other person the opportunity
> to use the appropriate form? It's often difficult to guess from the name
> whether someone is male or female, especially with foreign names (I've
> been addressed more than once as Mrs or Ms).
Yes. I deal with admissions for my university department, and many of
my students are of non-European origin. I still maintain the formality
(I note that quite a lot of university staff don't) of replying to
students when writing by title and surname, but I get a great many
communications which are just unfamiliar Asian first name plus surname,
so I have no idea which title to use.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach
> Doesn't this naming convention date back to the time when schools were
> run by the church? It is a long time ago, but this was something our
> English teacher was particular keen on (to use the word 'public'
> school). But I have the impression that more and more people use the
> word 'private' school and even refer to state schools as 'public'
> school. Is this something they do because they think I wouldn't
> understand as a foreigner, or is this a new fashion?
In the USA "public school" refers to a state run school, and I guess as in
so many other areas of life the USA usage is increasingly becoming the norm.
In Britain, however, "public school" is still always taken to mean a
school which is not run by the state and which charges fees. The word used
for a school which is part of the government funded education system is
"state school". I try to encourage the usage "county school" or
"borough school" to remind people that schools are officially run by
local government, not national government, but I think that's a lost
cause, and anyway the role of local government in running schools has
been diminished by successive national governments in recent years.
As other have suggested, the term "public school" meant "a school open
to any member of the public who is willing to pay for it" (and possibly
pass entrance exams), and made sense at a time when it was contrasted
with more private forms of education such as those attached to the
Church (before the reformation) or private tutors used by the aristocracy.
Now, while it has stuck, it is a source of confusion as it means just
the opposite of what "public school" means in the USA.
Matthew Huntbach
Mike Stevens
news:bugagb$5o4$2...@beta.qmul.ac.uk...
> The word used
> for a school which is part of the government funded education system
is
> "state school". I try to encourage the usage "county school" or
> "borough school" to remind people that schools are officially run by
> local government, not national government, but I think that's a lost
> cause,
Under the 1944 Education Act, and until recently, "County School" did
have a precise meaning about the status of the school - one funded and
controlled totally by a Local Education Authority, and paradoxically the
title was the same whether the LEA was a County, a County Borough, a
City or a Borough. This was in contradisctinction not only from
Independent Schools which were nothing to do with the LEA but also from
"Voluntary Aided" and "Voluntary Controlled" schools which were the
technical terms for different levels of joint control by the LEA and a
voluntary body (usually but not always a Church). Then there were
Direct Grant Schools - prestigious State Schools funded directly by
the national Government and independent of LEAs.
Things have changed since then, mostly since the 1989 Education Reform
Act. (Incidentally when this was sill before Parliament as a Bill, it
was called the Great Education Reform Bill, shortened by its critics to
"the Gerbil"). Already before that date, the Direct Grant schools had
been abolished and had to choose between the other possible legal
statuses. The Gerbil re-introduced something rather similar as "Grant
Maintained Schools". A subsequent change of Government led to them
having another change of name - to "Foundation Schools" and a renewed
link with the LEAs, not unlike that of the Voluntary Aided schools. At
the same time, for reasons I've never understood, the name "County
Schools" was replaced by "Community Schools".
> and anyway the role of local government in running schools has
> been diminished by successive national governments in recent years.
Sadly that's true, and has worked in two different ways. The Gerbil
brought in Local Management of Schools which gave the Governors of each
individual school more power and the LEA less in the running of the
school, allocating its budget, hiring & firing staff and so on. There
are different views about how good a thing this was - my own view is
that it's basically a good idea that has been badly implemented.
In the opposite direction, the Gerbil also put much tighter controls on
the curriculum than had previously existed, through the means of the
National Curriculum with Ofsted as the enforcement agency. Of course
the National Curriculum is a moving target with successive waves of
politicians and bureaucrats playing with it on the principle that any
change at all *must* be an improvement.
Then when the Government didn't like the way some Governing Bodies were
allocating their budgets, they changed the routeing of some of the
funding. Instead of giving LEAs a block grant which they used to
support the budgets they gave schools for the Governors to control, some
of the funding is now reserved by the Government for particular projects
and given directly to schools.
Sorry for the rant, but I was on the receiving end of this and other
nonsense for many years and feel quite strongly about it.
Matthew Huntbach
>> been diminished by successive national governments in recent years.
> Sadly that's true, and has worked in two different ways. The Gerbil
> brought in Local Management of Schools which gave the Governors of each
> individual school more power and the LEA less in the running of the
> school, allocating its budget, hiring & firing staff and so on. There
> are different views about how good a thing this was - my own view is
> that it's basically a good idea that has been badly implemented.
It sounds a good idea, but as my wife has found out, having been chair
of the board of governors of a local primary school for the past five
years (due to no-one else having the combinations of being competent
and willing to do it) in practice it means forcing hard professional
management work onto people without paying them for it. It used to be
the case that the governing body was just a sounding board, something
easily done to feel part of the community, but now they're expected to
do things which if done by a paid worker would attract heavy executive
salaries.
> Sorry for the rant, but I was on the receiving end of this and other
> nonsense for many years and feel quite strongly about it.
Ditto (though in a slightly different capacity, and in the present tense).
At least as a borough councillor I get an allowance for the work I do,
my wife seems to do approximately the same hours of work I do as a
councillor in her role as chair of board of governors, but gets nothing
financially for it.
Matthew Huntbach
john tunstill
Emailing is modern and informal, use Hi, or hello
best wishes
john
ps for fun things in the English language look at www.dislexicon.com
"Gunter Kuhnle" <gk-u...@kuhnle.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bu9p37$et81h$1...@ID-69091.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Hallo,
>
> I always wonder what the appropriate way of addressing people in emails
> is. Being German, I'm not feeling very comfortable in addressing other
> people by their first name if I don't know them personally. Especially
> with persons more senior than myself I prefer to err on the wrong side
> and be rather more formal (and write 'Dear $title $lastname' and end
> with 'Yours sincerely' or something similar), even if they address me
> with my first name and sign with their first name.
>
> Now I've been told that some people may consider it rude if this isn't
> reciprocated. Is there any general rule which applies on this issue? Is
> it safe to remain on the formal side? Or is it better to be less formal
> as soon as the 'counterpart' starts to be less formal?
>
> Thank you for your help,
>
> Gunter
>
Mike Bandy
<j...@NOSPAMtechnet.it> wrote:
...
>ps for fun things in the English language look at www.dislexicon.com
...
Cute. Don't forget something like this:
Allot -- To assign a lot
A lot -- Many of some things, or one piece of real estate
Alot -- Not a nonce word, but a nonword
I know: "Nonword" is a nonword.
It's silly, but it's fun.
--
Mike Bandy
Gunter Kuhnle
>> When did this start in Britain? In some older books I noticed that people
>> address each other (even friends) by their last name.
> This indicates how you shouldn't rely on old books or old style guides
> in using English. Fashions and usages can change remarkably quickly.
I know - but it seems to me one way to try to understand the language
and the underlying culture.
> In my work as a university lecturer, I find many students address me from
> the start by my first name, which would never have happened when I was
> a student. In general, I find it's stuydents who have come through the
> British school system who do this, while students from other countries
> tend to be more formal. I think there's a good reason to keep a certain
> formality between student and lecturers, particularly since I will need
> to sit in judgement on them and award them marks or possibly fail them,
> but other members of staff seem to encourage this informality and think
> it helps create a friendly atmosphere.
When I was at university, students normally addressed lectures (and
other staff) by last name & title, unless they were working in the lab
or doing a Master or PhD.
> It seems that German society has maintained a formality in addressing
> each other that British society has lost. Maybe it's to do with your
> having a language which maintains a polite and informal second person,
> or maybe it's something particularly German.
This may well be as it is quite similar (or even more extreme) in
French. But I always had (and still have) the impression, that the
English language is a very polite language (if a language can be called
polite).
> The over-use of titles by Germans, e.g. the use of her husband's title
> when addressing a woman, has sometimes been thought humorous by Brits,
> even in those days when we were more formal about titles ourselves.
This seems to be something very typical, especially in Southern Germany
and Austria. In Austria, people are normally addressed as 'Herr Doktor'
if there's no other title available.
> My advice is that you keep on doing what makes you feel comfortable.
> But, since your English is so good, you might want to drop something into
> your written communication that reminds people you are German. Then
> people will think not "Oh, isn't this person being so stiff and formal"
> but "Oh, he's German, and they tend to be a little more formal than us".
Thank you - this is a good iead and I will try to do this; after having
dropped my objective of learning good English, I think this is the best
way.
Best wishes,
Gunter
--
http://www.kuhnle.co.uk
ICQ: 250623065
Matthew Huntbach
>>> When did this start in Britain? In some older books I noticed that people
>>> address each other (even friends) by their last name.
>> This indicates how you shouldn't rely on old books or old style guides
>> in using English. Fashions and usages can change remarkably quickly.
...
>> It seems that German society has maintained a formality in addressing
>> each other that British society has lost. Maybe it's to do with your
>> having a language which maintains a polite and informal second person,
>> or maybe it's something particularly German.
> This may well be as it is quite similar (or even more extreme) in
> French. But I always had (and still have) the impression, that the
> English language is a very polite language (if a language can be called
> polite).
OK, but why do you have this impression? Is it because your mental image
of Britain is removed from reality? It seems that many people from outside
our country have a mental image of it based on how it was several decades
ago, and based on supposing it to be largely inhabited by the sort of
person who in reality forms only a small proportion of the population at
its wealthiest end.
Or are there structures in the English language itself which seem
"polite" to you? Does perhaps the lack of the polite/informal second
person singular forms in English unlike German and French make it
seem we are being polite to each other all the time?
Matthew Huntbach
Elisabetta
> >>> When did this start in Britain? In some older books I noticed that
people
> >>> address each other (even friends) by their last name.
> > French. But I always had (and still have) the impression, that the
> > English language is a very polite language (if a language can be called
> > polite).
>
> OK, but why do you have this impression? Is it because your mental image
> of Britain is removed from reality? It seems that many people from outside
> our country have a mental image of it based on how it was several decades
> ago, and based on supposing it to be largely inhabited by the sort of
> person who in reality forms only a small proportion of the population at
> its wealthiest end.
From an Italian point of view...
Partly it's because one always says "please" amd "thank you" in English. In
Italian we don't always, and I know it sounds very rude but you usually get
them from the intonation of voice (not so much the "thank you" though, which
is much more used than "please"). I do get funny looks when eating out in
Italy, as I keep saying thank you to the waiters every time they approach
our table to bring something or check everything is ok.
Also little things like "Pardon me!" after sneezing, "Excuse me" when you
walk past someone (in Italy we'd just shove them out of the way or step on
their toes) and the likes.
> Or are there structures in the English language itself which seem
> "polite" to you? Does perhaps the lack of the polite/informal second
> person singular forms in English unlike German and French make it
> seem we are being polite to each other all the time?
Again, from an Italian point of view, no.
In Italian we have a third person singular (feminine, but it applies to both
gender, so in this case it's a neutral, I suppose), "Lei", which is formal.
The second person plural "Voi" is antiquated and not used much any more,
other than in regional exceptions and some bureocratic writings.
The second person singular "tu", is informal. I remember having serious
difficulties when I started studying English at primary scool, when I just
could not bring myself to address teacher as "you". I kept wanting to say
"She" and it took me months to get used to it.
E
Gunter Kuhnle
>> This may well be as it is quite similar (or even more extreme) in
>> French. But I always had (and still have) the impression, that the
>> English language is a very polite language (if a language can be called
>> polite).
> OK, but why do you have this impression? Is it because your mental image
> of Britain is removed from reality? It seems that many people from outside
> our country have a mental image of it based on how it was several decades
> ago, and based on supposing it to be largely inhabited by the sort of
> person who in reality forms only a small proportion of the population at
> its wealthiest end.
This may be a reason, but I think Elisabetta pointed out another reason.
In English, you use pharses like 'Thank you', 'Please' or 'Sorry' very
often, IMHO more often than e.g. in German. I've also noticed that
people rarely tell you directly to do something, but put it in a
question 'Could you ...'. Even though this may sound perfectly normal to
a native speaker, it sounds rather polite to me.
However, I may have been influenced from my first couple of years here.
I was member of a research group whose leader was very keen on good
English and who did not accept any bad language, especially not in the
presence of us foreigners (to protect us from getting into the bad habit
of using foul language).
> Or are there structures in the English language itself which seem
> "polite" to you?
I think this is probably the reason. As to some people the the German
language seems to sound harsh and very formal.
> Does perhaps the lack of the polite/informal second person singular
> forms in English unlike German and French make it seem we are being
> polite to each other all the time?
This could be a reason; as there is no way to show politeness by using
the second form plural[1], it is necessary to do this by using proper
language. IMHO, you use a different kind of language (eg in a letter)
depending on whether you use a formal or an informal 'you'.
Gunter
[1] I've been once told that 'you' is actually 2nd person plural and
'thou' is 2nd person plural and would be the same as 'Du' or 'tu'; is
this in any way true?
Peter Duncanson
>
>[1] I've been once told that 'you' is actually 2nd person plural and
>'thou' is 2nd person plural and would be the same as 'Du' or 'tu'; is
>this in any way true?
Assuming that you mean "'thou' is 2nd person singular", the answer is yes.
However, 'thou' is not in general use, and is classified as archaic.
It is used in some religious contexts when praying to God. God is addressed
as Thou. This usage is a traditional survival.
Thou, along with 'thee', 'thy' and 'thine' may still be in use in some
dialects.
From the New Oxford Dictionary of English:
<quote>
'thou' pronoun [second person singular]
archaic or dialect form of 'you', as the singular subject of a verb: thou
art fair, o my beloved. Compare with 'thee'.
-ORIGIN Old English thu, of Germanic origin; related to German du, from an
Indo-European root shared by Latin tu.
-USAGE: In modern English, the personal pronoun 'you' (together with the
possessives 'your' and 'yours') covers a number of uses: it is both singular
and plural, both objective and subjective, and both formal and familiar.
This has not always been the case. In Old English and Middle English some of
these different functions of you were supplied by different words. Thus,
'thou' was at one time the singular subjective case ("thou art a beast"),
while 'thee' was the singular objective case ("he cares not for thee"). In
addition, the form 'thy' (modern equivalent 'your') was the singular
possessive determiner and 'thine' (modern equivalent 'yours') the singular
possessive pronoun, both corresponding to 'thee'. The forms 'you' and 'ye',
on the other hand, were at one time reserved for plural uses. By the 19th
century these forms were universal in standard English for both singular and
plural, polite and familiar. In present day use, 'thou', 'thee', 'thy', and
'thine' survive in some traditional dialects but otherwise are found only in
archaic contexts.
</quote>
<quote>
'thee' pronoun [second person singular] archaic or dialect form of 'you', as
the singular object of a verb or preposition: "we beseech thee O lord".
Compare with 'thou'.
-ORIGIN Old English th[1], accusative and dative case of th[1] 'thou'.
-USAGE: The word thee is still used in some traditional dialects (e.g. in
northern England) and among certain religious groups, but in standard
English it is restricted to archaic contexts.
</quote>
[1] The Old English representations have not survived the cut and paste from
the dictionary.
--
Peter Duncanson
UK
(posting from u.c.l.e)
Matthew Huntbach
>>> This may well be as it is quite similar (or even more extreme) in
>>> French. But I always had (and still have) the impression, that the
>>> English language is a very polite language (if a language can be called
>>> polite).
>> OK, but why do you have this impression? Is it because your mental image
>> of Britain is removed from reality?
> This may be a reason, but I think Elisabetta pointed out another reason.
> In English, you use pharses like 'Thank you', 'Please' or 'Sorry' very
> often, IMHO more often than e.g. in German.
I'm not sure this is actually directly an issue of the language.
It would be perfectly possible to speak grammatically correct English
but never say "please" and "thank you".
> I've also noticed that
> people rarely tell you directly to do something, but put it in a
> question 'Could you ...'. Even though this may sound perfectly normal to
> a native speaker, it sounds rather polite to me.
OK, that's a reasonable point. I might say "Open the window!" to my
nearest and dearest, but to anyone else it would be "Could you open
the window?". As you say, it's something that comes so natural to
native speakers that one hardly thinks about it.
However, the point I was making was that a language which actually has
different pronouns to use depending on whether you're being polite
of familiar with people is surely far more polite than English which
lacks this differentiation. I guess it's just a matter of what you're
used to.
> However, I may have been influenced from my first couple of years here.
> I was member of a research group whose leader was very keen on good
> English and who did not accept any bad language, especially not in the
> presence of us foreigners (to protect us from getting into the bad habit
> of using foul language).
Probably a good idea. Although the "taboo" words have lost a lot of
their shock value through more common usage these days, and there
are some people who habitually pepper their conversations with them,
they're still words one would not use in a polite or formal context.
Don't other language have similar taboo words, usually conneted with
sexual or excretory functions?
>> Does perhaps the lack of the polite/informal second person singular
>> forms in English unlike German and French make it seem we are being
>> polite to each other all the time?
>
> This could be a reason; as there is no way to show politeness by using
> the second form plural[1], it is necessary to do this by using proper
> language. IMHO, you use a different kind of language (eg in a letter)
> depending on whether you use a formal or an informal 'you'.
>
> Gunter
>
> [1] I've been once told that 'you' is actually 2nd person plural and
> 'thou' is 2nd person plural and would be the same as 'Du' or 'tu'; is
> this in any way true?
Yes. In fact you can see that by the similarity between "thou" and
"du" and "tu". It seems that English followed the road of other
European languages in adopting what was originally the second person
plural as a form to be used when addressing a single person politely,
but took it further, eventually leading to the point where *everyone*
had to be addressed in the plural. I wondered if you were aware of
this and that is why you thought of English as "polite".
"Thou" or related second person singular forms survives in some
dialects of English. Until recently, it was also widely used in
religious and poetical language - when it is you will see it is
only ever used to address the singular. Modern tastes in religion
and literature, however, are to use modern language. There is (at
least) one case where the second person singular survives in legal
language. I believe it is still the case that in any marriage ceremony
in England the words "I thee wed" must be used, and it is the
pronunciation of those words that count as the legal point of marriage.
Matthew Huntbach
Gunter Kuhnle
>>[1] I've been once told that 'you' is actually 2nd person plural and
>>'thou' is 2nd person plural and would be the same as 'Du' or 'tu'; is
>>this in any way true?
> Assuming that you mean "'thou' is 2nd person singular", the answer is yes.
>
> However, 'thou' is not in general use, and is classified as archaic.
Thanks - but do you know why the 'thou' etc disappeared?
Gunter
Gunter Kuhnle
>> This may be a reason, but I think Elisabetta pointed out another reason.
>> In English, you use pharses like 'Thank you', 'Please' or 'Sorry' very
>> often, IMHO more often than e.g. in German.
> I'm not sure this is actually directly an issue of the language.
> It would be perfectly possible to speak grammatically correct English
> but never say "please" and "thank you".
But would it still be proper English? I think that there is more to
speaking a language than just the vocabulary and grammar. The way the
language is commonly used is equally important (and probably the most
difficult to learn).
>> However, I may have been influenced from my first couple of years here.
>> I was member of a research group whose leader was very keen on good
>> English and who did not accept any bad language, especially not in the
>> presence of us foreigners (to protect us from getting into the bad habit
>> of using foul language).
> Probably a good idea. Although the "taboo" words have lost a lot of
> their shock value through more common usage these days, and there
> are some people who habitually pepper their conversations with them,
> they're still words one would not use in a polite or formal context.
I still don't see the point in doing this. What is the advantage?
> Don't other language have similar taboo words, usually conneted with
> sexual or excretory functions?
There are taboo words, but IMHO they are not as taboo as here. I'm
always surprised when I hear a (BBC) radio presenter apologising for bad
language - people would use much worse words than f*** or c*** in German
without apologising, even during day-time.
These 'taboo' words are something weird for a foreigner as there is no
cultural background telling that these words are really bad. I *know*
what I must not say, but I wouldn't really feel bad doing it (whereas I
witnessed several native speakers who had problems using really foul
language in the presence of others). But my time in the said group made
me very conscious of this kind of language, so I think my language
shouldn't be too bad.
>> [1] I've been once told that 'you' is actually 2nd person plural and
>> 'thou' is 2nd person plural and would be the same as 'Du' or 'tu'; is
>> this in any way true?
> Yes. In fact you can see that by the similarity between "thou" and
> "du" and "tu". It seems that English followed the road of other
> European languages in adopting what was originally the second person
> plural as a form to be used when addressing a single person politely,
> but took it further, eventually leading to the point where *everyone*
> had to be addressed in the plural. I wondered if you were aware of
> this and that is why you thought of English as "polite".
I think I learned this when I was already living here, so it can't be
the reason; I liked the English language before.
> "Thou" or related second person singular forms survives in some
> dialects of English.
In which dialects?
Gunter
Peter Duncanson
>* Peter Duncanson <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>>[1] I've been once told that 'you' is actually 2nd person plural and
>>>'thou' is 2nd person plural and would be the same as 'Du' or 'tu'; is
>>>this in any way true?
>> Assuming that you mean "'thou' is 2nd person singular", the answer is yes.
>>
>> However, 'thou' is not in general use, and is classified as archaic.
>[...]
>
>Thanks - but do you know why the 'thou' etc disappeared?
>
No. I don't know the history or reasons for the disappearnce of 'thou'.
Perhaps someone else can help.
Mike Stevens
> Gunter Kuhnle <gk-u...@kuhnle.co.uk> wrote:
> > [1] I've been once told that 'you' is actually 2nd person plural and
> > 'thou' is 2nd person plural and would be the same as 'Du' or 'tu';
is
> > this in any way true?
>
> Yes. In fact you can see that by the similarity between "thou" and
> "du" and "tu". It seems that English followed the road of other
> European languages in adopting what was originally the second person
> plural as a form to be used when addressing a single person politely,
> but took it further, eventually leading to the point where *everyone*
> had to be addressed in the plural. I wondered if you were aware of
> this and that is why you thought of English as "polite".
>
> "Thou" or related second person singular forms survives in some
> dialects of English. Until recently, it was also widely used in
> religious and poetical language - when it is you will see it is
> only ever used to address the singular. Modern tastes in religion
> and literature, however, are to use modern language. There is (at
> least) one case where the second person singular survives in legal
> language. I believe it is still the case that in any marriage ceremony
> in England the words "I thee wed" must be used, and it is the
> pronunciation of those words that count as the legal point of
marriage.
It's an interesting reflection that when "thou/thee/thy" fell out of use
as the familiar form of address, and everyone was called "you", the one
person who (with some modern exceptions, as Matthew says) was still
addressed by the familiar rather than the polite form was God.
--
Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
Web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
No man is an island. So is Man.
Mike Stevens
> These 'taboo' words are something weird for a foreigner as there is no
> cultural background telling that these words are really bad. I *know*
> what I must not say, but I wouldn't really feel bad doing it (whereas
I
> witnessed several native speakers who had problems using really foul
> language in the presence of others). But my time in the said group
made
> me very conscious of this kind of language, so I think my language
> shouldn't be too bad.
It's terribly subjective and culture-dependent. I remember a
particularly interesting conversation in a pub many years ago. It must
have taken place at least 20 years ago, as I was drinking with my
father-in-law, and he's been dead that long. One of the old chaps in
the pub (probably nearing 80) was talking about his youth when he'd
spent some years in Australia. At one point he said (in his North
Wiltshire accent) "That be a terrible place, that Australy. Down there
they calls one another a bastard as easy as you and I calls one another
a bugger." In his part of the country, "bugger" is used as much as a
term of endearment as anything else. If a child falls over, "Poor
little bugger" is likely to be the bystanders' comment.
> > "Thou" or related second person singular forms survives in some
> > dialects of English.
>
> In which dialects?
Mainly northern ones.
--
Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
"I'm not an old fart, and I'm not an old bore,
Or a grumpy old b*gg*r like Evelyn Waugh"
(Christopher Matthew)
Einde O'Callaghan
changing point in the usage of "you" and "thou". Perhaps it had
something to do with the social changes associated with cutting off the
king's head.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
David
<mike...@which.net> wrote:
> It's an interesting reflection that when "thou/thee/thy" fell out of
> use as the familiar form of address, and everyone was called "you",
> the one person who (with some modern exceptions, as Matthew says) was
> still addressed by the familiar rather than the polite form was God.
Isn't that a very good example of superstition?
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/ada/09-0.htm
...the few remaining haddocks were indistinguishable from halibut.
Matthew Huntbach
>>> This may be a reason, but I think Elisabetta pointed out another reason.
>>> In English, you use pharses like 'Thank you', 'Please' or 'Sorry' very
>>> often, IMHO more often than e.g. in German.
>> I'm not sure this is actually directly an issue of the language.
>> It would be perfectly possible to speak grammatically correct English
>> but never say "please" and "thank you".
> But would it still be proper English? I think that there is more to
> speaking a language than just the vocabulary and grammar. The way the
> language is commonly used is equally important (and probably the most
> difficult to learn).
I don't speak German, but I can manage a little French, so I'll assume
for the sake of argument that the same applies in both. When I'm speaking
French, I don't notice that I'm saying "S'il vous plait" and "Merci"
any less than I say "Please" and "Thank you" in English. It may be
that I do so more often than a native French speaker would, and therefore
appear excessively polite, but it's not something I was aware of until
you brought it up. However, I can't speak French without being aware
of the "tu/vous" issue, so it seems to me this is far more central to
the French language, and so the fact that French has this special polite
form which you have to use in many circumstances suggests to me that it
is a more polite language than English.
>>> However, I may have been influenced from my first couple of years here.
>>> I was member of a research group whose leader was very keen on good
>>> English and who did not accept any bad language, especially not in the
>>> presence of us foreigners (to protect us from getting into the bad habit
>>> of using foul language).
>> Probably a good idea. Although the "taboo" words have lost a lot of
>> their shock value through more common usage these days, and there
>> are some people who habitually pepper their conversations with them,
>> they're still words one would not use in a polite or formal context.
> I still don't see the point in doing this. What is the advantage?
I work as a university lecturer, and many of the students I teach have
come from overseas and speak English as a second language. I've often
seen these students using inappropriate colloquialisms in what is meant
to be formal written English. The reason is they haven't had enough
experience to realise that these forms that they have heard spoken
just don't look right when put in a piece of formal documentation.
For example, they may have heard "gonna" used to form the future
tense in spoken English or in pop song lyrics, and from that may
assume it is the standard way to form the future tense. So occasionally
I see it used in their exam scripts and project documentation. It looks
bad an unprofessional, and would certainly hold them back if they
were to do that when in employment.
Exactly the same might apply to the "four letter" taboo words.
Someone who hears them used casually in normal conversation, which
in many contexts isn't uncommon in England, might go on to use them in
contexts where it would be considered rude or unprofessional.
>> Don't other language have similar taboo words, usually conneted with
>> sexual or excretory functions?
> There are taboo words, but IMHO they are not as taboo as here. I'm
> always surprised when I hear a (BBC) radio presenter apologising for bad
> language - people would use much worse words than f*** or c*** in German
> without apologising, even during day-time.
English, unlike German, has developed a vocabulary of Latin-derived
words, which often parallel existing Germanic-derived words. In
some cases the Latin derived word is the one used in formal contexts.
I guess that as German did not develop this parallel vocabulary, the
Germanic derived word remains used throughout.
> These 'taboo' words are something weird for a foreigner as there is no
> cultural background telling that these words are really bad. I *know*
> what I must not say, but I wouldn't really feel bad doing it (whereas I
> witnessed several native speakers who had problems using really foul
> language in the presence of others). But my time in the said group made
> me very conscious of this kind of language, so I think my language
> shouldn't be too bad.
The idea of regarding these words as completely unpronounceable is now
regarded as somewhat old-fashioned. There was once a time when men might
use them in conversation between themselves but regard it as bad to
use them in a woman's presence. That no longer seems to be the case.
>> "Thou" or related second person singular forms survives in some
>> dialects of English.
> In which dialects?
Yorkshire in particular is known as a place where "thee", "thou" and
"thy" (all sometimes pronounced or written "tha") survive in the everyday
speech of ordinary people, and in some other northern parts. It also
survived in some south-west dialects such as Somerset, although these
have largely died out.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach
Although it's something that's argued about, there is some evidence that
it really was because of excessive politeness. That is, English had the
usage of other European languages where the second person plural form
became used when adressing singular people politely. But there were more
and more circumstances in which it became considered correct to use the
polite plural form, until the point was reached when it became universal.
The survival of "thee" and "thou" in Yorkshire is considered part of the
Yorkshireman's bluntness, so perhaps the urge to be polite was more
strongly resisted there than elsewhere.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach
> In article <bvpik8$ufd77$1...@ID-170573.news.uni-berlin.de>, Mike Stevens
> <mike...@which.net> wrote:
>> It's an interesting reflection that when "thou/thee/thy" fell out of
>> use as the familiar form of address, and everyone was called "you",
>> the one person who (with some modern exceptions, as Matthew says) was
>> still addressed by the familiar rather than the polite form was God.
> Isn't that a very good example of superstition?
No. It's just a linguistic convention. I don't think it was ever
considered somehow bad or unlucky to address God in the second person
plural, it was just not done as the convention. So far as I am aware,
in languages like French where the familiar/polite<->singular/plural
division in the second person applies, God is addressed in the
familiar second person singular, and not the polite second person plural.
An additional factor may come from the King James Bible, which was until
recently the standard Bible used in England. In order to translate
accurately from the Latin (where there doesn't seem to have been a
polite usage of the second person plural to address singular people),
the "thou/thee/thy" form was always used when the Latin had the second
person singular - this was done even though at the time of the
translation the second person singular form was already dropping out
of common usage at least in south-eastern English. So as time went on,
people's familiarity with "thou/thee/thy" would have been largely through
seeing it in Biblical texts. Thus grew the notion that it was a special
form of language to be used for religious purposes.
Matthew Huntbach
Peter Duncanson
Yes.
The Christian Bible records Jesus instructing his disciples how to pray. The
King James Bible has this in English as:
<quote Matthew chapter 6>
[9] After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name.
[10] Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
[11] Give us this day our daily bread.
[12] And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
[13] And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is
the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
</quote>
For some Christians whose Christianity is based on the King James Bible the
use of "thou/thee/thy" is close to being a Godly requirement.
Matthew Huntbach
> <quote Matthew chapter 6>
> [9] After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven,
> Hallowed be thy name.
> [10] Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
> [11] Give us this day our daily bread.
> [12] And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
> [13] And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is
> the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
> </quote>
My understanding is that the last part of verse 13 "For thine ..." is not
properly part of the Bible, and that is why it does not occur in the
Roman Catholic Pater Noster. However, the form with the use of "thy" is so
engrained in English usage that it is used in the modern English Roman
Catholic mass, even though God is addressed as "you" everywhere else
in the mass. E.g. in the Agnus Dei following, it's "Lamb of God, you
take away the sins of the world" (the older form was "Lamb of God who
takest away the sins of the world" which is a very sneaky form of the
second person singular). However, RCs use "Our father who art ..."
(not the more archaic "which art") and "trespasses" rather than "debts",
and while "For thine is ..." *does* now appear in the mass as a sort
of ecumenical gesture, it is separated from "Deliver us from evil"
by some text spoken by the priest alone.
Matthew Huntbach
David
Which is precisely my point about it being superstition. Nothing to do
with "luck" but a hangover of older practice.
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/joachim/14-0.htm
"Note that one night too, the three blutwursts for Lohengrin's
five very sick swans even got ate by nine. That's ten incidents!"
David
Matthew Huntbach <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote:
> Yorkshire in particular is known as a place where "thee", "thou" and
> "thy" (all sometimes pronounced or written "tha") survive in the
> everyday speech of ordinary people, and in some other northern parts.
> It also survived in some south-west dialects such as Somerset,
> although these have largely died out.
And as a clue for when to use 'thou': "Thee tha me when Ah tha thee."
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/yds/5sb-0.htm
The Yorkshire Dialect Society: Summer Bulletin
Matthew Huntbach
> In article <bvqf5e$ssn$1...@beta.qmul.ac.uk>,
> Matthew Huntbach <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Gunter Kuhnle <gk-u...@kuhnle.co.uk> wrote:
>> > In which dialects?
>> Yorkshire in particular is known as a place where "thee", "thou" and
>> "thy" (all sometimes pronounced or written "tha") survive in the
>> everyday speech of ordinary people,
> And as a clue for when to use 'thou': "Thee tha me when Ah tha thee."
An excellent indication that Yorkshire retains the same usage of
second person singular only when being familiar as does French and German.
Matthew Huntbach
david56
Yorkshire school children used to cheek new teachers without their
knowledge by addressing them as "thou".
--
David
=====
Gwilym Calon
> Yorkshire in particular is known as a place where "thee", "thou" and
> "thy" (all sometimes pronounced or written "tha") survive in the everyday
> speech of ordinary people, and in some other northern parts.
See:
http://www.yorksj.ac.uk/dialect/21texts.htm
for a modern example
--------------
GC
Dave Fawthrop
wrote:
Sorry to disillusion you, but as a Tyke Born and Bred, and living between
Bradford and Halifax, we no longer speak like that :-(((((
I can understand it though.
David
You might not, Dave, but there's still a lot as does.
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/yds/
The Yorkshire Dialect Society
- information, publications and forthcoming events
Matthew Huntbach
> | > Yorkshire in particular is known as a place where "thee", "thou" and
> | > "thy" (all sometimes pronounced or written "tha") survive in the everyday
> | > speech of ordinary people, and in some other northern parts.
> | See:
> | http://www.yorksj.ac.uk/dialect/21texts.htm
> |
> | for a modern example
> Sorry to disillusion you, but as a Tyke Born and Bred, and living between
> Bradford and Halifax, we no longer speak like that :-(((((
> I can understand it though.
Yes, it's a contrived example. If one is trying to illustrate modern usage
of ordinary people, it is not useful to quote a wedding speech deliberately
written in "dialect". The likelihood ia that, for effect, the person
writing it would play up forms, use forms which are already archaic,
and in other ways exaggerate. I am sure that with a little research
one could find links which contain genuine transcripts of ordinary
people speaking in a way they find natural, which nevertheless illustrate
the dialect form we're discussing.
Matthew Huntbach
Dave Fawthrop
Customers, Asian Bradfordians and Southerners get one version of
English/Yorkshire. The family gets another. The Yorkshire Dialect Society
yet another.
Davve F
David
It's a poem. You might just as well say: If one is trying to illustrate
modern usage of ordinary people, it is not useful to quote a wedding
speech deliberately written in "verse".
And as for "dialect": it isn't really what you'd call a good
illustration of WR dialect but only of a WR accented version of
standard modern English. I.e. there are no words in it that are
specific to the region.
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/zodiac/6vir-0.htm
Virgo (August 24th - September 23rd)
Images, Associations, Qualities, Careers, Health
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk "Matthew Huntbach" writes:
> in the mass. E.g. in the Agnus Dei following, it's "Lamb of God, you
> take away the sins of the world" (the older form was "Lamb of God who
> takest away the sins of the world" which is a very sneaky form of the
> second person singular).
Wasn't the older form "Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi"; in which
surely "tollis" is "taketh", not "takest"?
Anyway, it just shows that the RCs really buggered the Mass up, by
pandering to those who wanted translation into the vernacular: took away
all the mystery.
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} b...@dsl.co.uk
"We can no longer stand apart from Europe if we would. Yet we are
untrained to mix with our neighbours, or even talk to them".
George Macaulay Trevelyan, 1919
John Briggs
> In article <bvqvlf$49p$1...@beta.qmul.ac.uk>
> m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk "Matthew Huntbach" writes:
>
>> in the mass. E.g. in the Agnus Dei following, it's "Lamb of God, you
>> take away the sins of the world" (the older form was "Lamb of God who
>> takest away the sins of the world" which is a very sneaky form of the
>> second person singular).
>
> Wasn't the older form "Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi"; in which
> surely "tollis" is "taketh", not "takest"?
>
It depends: give is the forms of "take" and let us decide.
--
John Briggs
John Briggs
> Peter Duncanson <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>> <quote Matthew chapter 6>
>> [9] After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven,
>> Hallowed be thy name.
>> [10] Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
>> [11] Give us this day our daily bread.
>> [12] And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
>> [13] And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For
>> thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
>> </quote>
>
> My understanding is that the last part of verse 13 "For thine ..." is not
> properly part of the Bible, and that is why it does not occur in the
> Roman Catholic Pater Noster.
To say that the Doxology is "not properly part of the Bible" is contentious,
to say the least. In fact, the Lord's Prayer occurs twice in each of
Morning and Evening Prayer, so the opportunity was taken in the 1662 Book of
Common Prayer of using both versions, with and without the Doxology!
--
John Briggs
John Briggs
Umm, "to translate accurately from the Latin" wasn't the prime intention :-)
--
John Briggs
Molly Mockford
<gcuVb.1688$cb7....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>:
>To say that the Doxology is "not properly part of the Bible" is contentious,
>to say the least. In fact, the Lord's Prayer occurs twice in each of
>Morning and Evening Prayer, so the opportunity was taken in the 1662 Book of
>Common Prayer of using both versions, with and without the Doxology!
The Book of Common Prayer is not in any way part of the Bible.
--
Molly Mockford
I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that
lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be!
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)
John Briggs
> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in
> <gcuVb.1688$cb7....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>:
>
>> To say that the Doxology is "not properly part of the Bible" is
>> contentious, to say the least. In fact, the Lord's Prayer occurs twice
>> in each of Morning and Evening Prayer, so the opportunity was taken in
>> the 1662 Book of Common Prayer of using both versions, with and without
>> the Doxology!
>
> The Book of Common Prayer is not in any way part of the Bible.
Did I say it was? See Matthew 6, 9-13. The doxology is not there in the
Vulgate, nor in Tyndale's 1526 translation. It is, however, included in his
1534 translation, and in subsequent Protestant translations of the Bible.
For some reason, the services of Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer in the
1549 and 1552 Book of Common Prayer include the Lord's Prayer twice -
without the doxology. This is changed in the 1662 BCP - the first
occurrence is with the doxology, the second without.
--
John Briggs
Dave Fawthrop
The originals were in Greek and Hebrew, Latin was a late interloper.
Dave F
John Briggs
>
> An additional factor may come from the King James Bible, which was until
> recently the standard Bible used in England. In order to translate
> accurately from the Latin (where there doesn't seem to have been a
> polite usage of the second person plural to address singular people),
> the "thou/thee/thy" form was always used when the Latin had the second
> person singular - this was done even though at the time of the
> translation the second person singular form was already dropping out
> of common usage at least in south-eastern English. So as time went on,
> people's familiarity with "thou/thee/thy" would have been largely through
> seeing it in Biblical texts. Thus grew the notion that it was a special
> form of language to be used for religious purposes.
>
Do remember that all English translations are essentially copying Tyndale
(including the Roman Catholic Rheims-Douai version that was ostensibly a
direct translation from the Vulgate!) So the language of the King James
Version was up to eighty (say, an average of forty) years out of date when
it was published.
--
John Briggs
Dave Fawthrop
<john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
| Do remember that all English translations are essentially copying Tyndale
| (including the Roman Catholic Rheims-Douai version that was ostensibly a
| direct translation from the Vulgate!) So the language of the King James
| Version was up to eighty (say, an average of forty) years out of date when
| it was published.
Utter and complete rubbish.
Modern English translations go back to the Greek and Hebrew texts. Just
read the introductions. Not sure about RC versions.
Dave F
Molly Mockford
>Molly Mockford wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in
>> <gcuVb.1688$cb7....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>:
>>
>>> To say that the Doxology is "not properly part of the Bible" is
>>> contentious, to say the least. In fact, the Lord's Prayer occurs twice
>>> in each of Morning and Evening Prayer, so the opportunity was taken in
>>> the 1662 Book of Common Prayer of using both versions, with and without
>>> the Doxology!
>>
>> The Book of Common Prayer is not in any way part of the Bible.
>
>Did I say it was?
Your post strongly implied exactly that, unless one is to interpret the
second sentence as a non sequitur.
John Briggs
"Complete and utter rubbish" would be more idiomatic. But are you using
"complete" in some sense with which I am unfamiliar? What precisely are you
objecting to? Are you saying that the form of language used is totally
uninfluenced by previous versions?
--
John Briggs
John Briggs
> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in
> <Q5vVb.1761$cb7....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>:
>
>> Molly Mockford wrote:
>>> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in
>>> <gcuVb.1688$cb7....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>:
>>>
>>>> To say that the Doxology is "not properly part of the Bible" is
>>>> contentious, to say the least. In fact, the Lord's Prayer occurs twice
>>>> in each of Morning and Evening Prayer, so the opportunity was taken in
>>>> the 1662 Book of Common Prayer of using both versions, with and without
>>>> the Doxology!
>>>
>>> The Book of Common Prayer is not in any way part of the Bible.
>>
>> Did I say it was?
>
> Your post strongly implied exactly that, unless one is to interpret the
> second sentence as a non sequitur.
And I expanded the point in my second post, so why did you snip that?
--
John Briggs
Dave Fawthrop
<john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Yes! NIV, New English, Moffat, Good News, all translated from the Greek
and Hebrew.
Molly Mockford
In order to emphasise the effect of the two consecutive sentences in
your original post.
I'm not interested in any religious argument, I was just making a point
about the use of English!
John Briggs
> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in
> <AuwVb.1855$cb7....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>:
>
>> Molly Mockford wrote:
>>> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in
>>> <Q5vVb.1761$cb7....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>:
>>>
>>>> Molly Mockford wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in
>>>>> <gcuVb.1688$cb7....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> To say that the Doxology is "not properly part of the Bible" is
>>>>>> contentious, to say the least. In fact, the Lord's Prayer occurs
>>>>>> twice in each of Morning and Evening Prayer, so the opportunity was
>>>>>> taken in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer of using both versions, with
>>>>>> and without the Doxology!
>>>>>
>>>>> The Book of Common Prayer is not in any way part of the Bible.
>>>>
>>>> Did I say it was?
>>>
>>> Your post strongly implied exactly that, unless one is to interpret the
>>> second sentence as a non sequitur.
>>
>> And I expanded the point in my second post, so why did you snip that?
>
> In order to emphasise the effect of the two consecutive sentences in
> your original post.
>
> I'm not interested in any religious argument, I was just making a point
> about the use of English!
There is nothing wrong with either sentence.
--
John Briggs
Molly Mockford
Indeed, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with either of them. It is
simply their juxtaposition which makes it appear that the second is
evidence of the first. Forget it, I'm just being picky - but then,
that's what this group's for!
John Briggs
Look. We are talking about the English language. The NIV, in particular,
seeks to retain the "traditional language". Other versions attempt to use
"modern English" and I wasn't directly referring to them, but you overlook
the extent to which Tyndale actually influence the English language. Even
if he didn't actually invent it, he certainly popularised the form "The X of
the Y" (e.g. "The Ark of the Covenant" rather than "The Covenant's Ark")
which mirrored the Hebrew word order.
Many popular expressions (e.g the powers that be) are his, as are words such
as passover, scapegoat and peacemaker.
--
John Briggs
Mike Stevens
> In article <bvqvlf$49p$1...@beta.qmul.ac.uk>
> m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk "Matthew Huntbach" writes:
>
>> in the mass. E.g. in the Agnus Dei following, it's "Lamb of God, you
>> take away the sins of the world" (the older form was "Lamb of God who
>> takest away the sins of the world" which is a very sneaky form of the
>> second person singular).
>
> Wasn't the older form "Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi"; in which
> surely "tollis" is "taketh", not "takest"?
>
> Anyway, it just shows that the RCs really buggered the Mass up, by
> pandering to those who wanted translation into the vernacular: took
> away all the mystery.
Actually, it shows (IMO) their lack of understanding of liturgical form.
One of the standard forms of prayer is "O <title of God>, who
<description of an attribute relevant to the petition>, <Petition i.e.
asking for something>", {optional ending} "for <further attribute>". So
to translate "qui" as "you" rather than "who" makes nonsense of the
structure as well as being a mistranslation.
IMO the great masterpieces of this classical Collect form are among
Cranmer's translations from the Latin in the Anglican liturgy. Look, for
example, at the Collect for Christmas Day.
--
Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
Web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
No man is an island. So is Man.
John Briggs
> Brian {Hamilton Kelly} <b...@dsl.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <bvqvlf$49p$1...@beta.qmul.ac.uk>
>> m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk "Matthew Huntbach" writes:
>>
>>> in the mass. E.g. in the Agnus Dei following, it's "Lamb of God, you
>>> take away the sins of the world" (the older form was "Lamb of God who
>>> takest away the sins of the world" which is a very sneaky form of the
>>> second person singular).
>>
>> Wasn't the older form "Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi"; in which
>> surely "tollis" is "taketh", not "takest"?
>>
>> Anyway, it just shows that the RCs really buggered the Mass up, by
>> pandering to those who wanted translation into the vernacular: took
>> away all the mystery.
>
> Actually, it shows (IMO) their lack of understanding of liturgical form.
> One of the standard forms of prayer is "O <title of God>, who
> <description of an attribute relevant to the petition>, <Petition i.e.
> asking for something>", {optional ending} "for <further attribute>". So
> to translate "qui" as "you" rather than "who" makes nonsense of the
> structure as well as being a mistranslation.
>
I suppose they thought that "you who" sounded ridiculous and jumped the
wrong way :-)
--
John Briggs
Mike Stevens
> Matthew Huntbach wrote:
>> David <da...@dacha.freeuk.com> wrote:
>>> In article <bvpik8$ufd77$1...@ID-170573.news.uni-berlin.de>, Mike
>>> Stevens <mike...@which.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> It's an interesting reflection that when "thou/thee/thy" fell out
>>>> of use as the familiar form of address, and everyone was called
>>>> "you", the one person who (with some modern exceptions, as Matthew
>>>> says) was still addressed by the familiar rather than the polite
>>>> form was God.
>>
>>> Isn't that a very good example of superstition?
>>
>> until recently the standard Bible used in England. In order to
>> translate accurately from the Latin (where there doesn't seem to
>> have been a polite usage of the second person plural to address
>> singular people), the "thou/thee/thy" form was always used when the
>> Latin had the second person singular - this was done even though at
>> the time of the translation the second person singular form was
>> already dropping out of common usage at least in south-eastern
>> English. So as time went on, people's familiarity with
>> "thou/thee/thy" would have been largely through seeing it in
>> Biblical texts. Thus grew the notion that it was a special form of
>> language to be used for religious purposes.
> Umm, "to translate accurately from the Latin" wasn't the prime
> intention :-)
Just so - they were translating from the Greek, from which the (Latin)
Vulgate Bible had been translated some centuries earlier. Part of their
motive was a feeling that the Vulgate may not have been a very good
translation. Another part was a wish to get back to a pre-Roman Catholic
source text. And there is a school of thought that says that in order to
make the language sound dignified, the purposely made use of some
linguistic forms that were already slightly archaic.
--
Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
web site www.mike-stevens.co.yk
Old grammarians never die, they simply parse away.
Mike Stevens
> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in
> <gcuVb.1688$cb7....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>:
>
>> To say that the Doxology is "not properly part of the Bible" is
>> contentious, to say the least. In fact, the Lord's Prayer occurs
>> twice in each of Morning and Evening Prayer, so the opportunity was
>> taken in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer of using both versions, with
>> and without the Doxology!
>
> The Book of Common Prayer is not in any way part of the Bible.
True.
St Matthew's Gospels gives the Lord's Prayer with the doxology and St
Luke's gives it without. So both forms are thoroughly Biblical.
At any rate each of the 1549 and 1662 Prayer Books uses both forms with
no consistent pattern that I could recognise. And the two Prayer Books
aren't consistent with one another in when they choose to use which
version.
--
Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
John Briggs
Well, no - they (the revisers/translators of the King James Version) were
essentially revising and correcting earlier translations (leaning mostly to
the Bishops' Bible rather than the Geneva Bible), whilst retaining, as far
as possible, language which, even then, had become 'traditional'. And (as I
have posted elsewhere in this thread) all these translations derive to a
greater or lesser extent from the work of Tyndale. (The New Testament is
translated from the Greek, the Old Testament from the Hebrew - although the
Greek Septuagint often preserves better readings.)
--
John Briggs