Sir, or not Sir?
Larry Preuss
has been transferred there for two to three years by his US employer. I am
of an age group that was taught to address all strangers as Sir or Ma'am, or
as I have grown older, Miss. I use these forms in all situations,
regardless of relative age or type of interpersonal transaction. Though this
seems natural to US geezers such as I, I have understood that this is not
usual practice in the UK and might there be misunderstood. May I have some
guidance from the group.
Larry
John Dean
It is very rare in the UK though not unheard of. From someone with an
American accent, it might well be regarded as cute. Though, strictly, only
the Queen is addressed as Ma'am. There are many forms of address here such
as mate, pal, love, boss, darling, chief, my dear, moi duck, gel, John, Mrs
... but the social ramifications of each are too subtle to be easily
conveyed or remembered.
Personally, I would be charmed to be addressed as Sir - though it would take
me a moment or two to realise I was being addressed.
No one would take offence at being addressed without any formality - eg
'Excuse me, is this the train for Adlestrop?'
I hope your son & his family enjoy their time here and I hope you enjoy your
visits. Feel free to Email me direct if you think I can be of use
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
Laura F Spira
I doubt whether people addressed so politely would be anything but
charmed. Colloquial forms of address in the UK vary considerably from
region to region and trying to use them could present pitfalls for the
unwary.
I hope that your son and his family enjoy their stay here. If you let us
know when you will be visiting, perhaps we can boink in your honour?
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
richard.chambers7
"Larry Preuss" <LPr...@NocomNocast.net> wrote in message
news:BA7D898C.A572%LPr...@NocomNocast.net...
Although foreigners often accuse the British of being a society permeated by
class distinctions, I think this view is out of date. I am typical of modern
Britain in that I do not accept that any other citizen, excepting perhaps
the Queen and the Royal Family, is my social superior. For that reason, I
would never address anybody as "Sir". Furthermore, I do not expect anybody
to address me in this way. It is old fashioned beyond belief.
In a business situation, the customer may still sometimes be addressed as
"Sir". Particularly in pretentious 4-star and 5-star hotels, where the
practice seems to be on the increase. On the few occasions that I go to such
a hotel, I absolutely hate it. It has the effect of builiding an invisible
wall between two human beings.
The over-use of "Sir" is occasionally satirised (well out of hearing range
of the offender) by quoting back the line from the nursery rhyme Baa Baa
Black Sheep:- "Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir".
Surprisingly, my regular butcher in Leeds City Market has just started to
address me as "Sir", for some unknown reason. This after many satisfactory
years of not doing so. I'm going to have to speak to him about it.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
mUs1Ka
"Larry Preuss" <LPr...@NocomNocast.net> wrote in message
news:BA7D898C.A572%LPr...@NocomNocast.net...
of Brits would be quite used to hearing Americans say /Sir/. It wouldn't
sound right from a Brit nowadays, but if you are comfortable with it, use
it.
m.
Don Aitken
<richard....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"Larry Preuss" <LPr...@NocomNocast.net> wrote in message
>news:BA7D898C.A572%LPr...@NocomNocast.net...
>> I will soon begin visiting England frequently, as my son, with his family,
>> has been transferred there for two to three years by his US employer. I am
>> of an age group that was taught to address all strangers as Sir or Ma'am,
>or
>> as I have grown older, Miss. I use these forms in all situations,
>> regardless of relative age or type of interpersonal transaction. Though
>this
>> seems natural to US geezers such as I, I have understood that this is not
>> usual practice in the UK and might there be misunderstood. May I have some
>> guidance from the group.
>
>Although foreigners often accuse the British of being a society permeated by
>class distinctions, I think this view is out of date. I am typical of modern
>Britain in that I do not accept that any other citizen, excepting perhaps
>the Queen and the Royal Family, is my social superior. For that reason, I
>would never address anybody as "Sir". Furthermore, I do not expect anybody
>to address me in this way. It is old fashioned beyond belief.
>
You still sometimes hear it from the police. It can be delivered in a
range of inflections which carry different meanings, including "you
bastard".
--
Don Aitken
Per Rønne
> Surprisingly, my regular butcher in Leeds City Market has just started to
> address me as "Sir", for some unknown reason. This after many satisfactory
> years of not doing so. I'm going to have to speak to him about it.
A way of telling you that you're getting older?
Drawing your attention to the fact that you've forgotten your rollator
back home?
--
Per Erik Rønne
M. J. Powell
<don-a...@freeuk.com> writes
Hehe! Too true!
(Don't let us get involved in 'Useful Advice to Foreigners' like:
"Double Yellow lines mark all-day parking".
"Bus drivers like being given 5 pound notes, it lightens their load".)
No, no. I really mustn't.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Jacqui
> (Don't let us get involved in 'Useful Advice to Foreigners' like:
>
> "Double Yellow lines mark all-day parking".
>
> "Bus drivers like being given 5 pound notes, it lightens their
> load".)
Spooky. As I opened this message I was bewailing the fact that ISIHAC
isn't on on Sundays. I'd got used to having it on at 7pm. :-(
Jac
M. J. Powell
<sirlawren...@hotmail.com> writes
Another fan!
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Jacqui
> Jacqui writes
>>M. J. Powell wibbled:
>>
>>> (Don't let us get involved in 'Useful Advice to Foreigners' like:
>>>
>>> "Double Yellow lines mark all-day parking".
>>>
>>> "Bus drivers like being given 5 pound notes, it lightens their
>>> load".)
>>
>>Spooky. As I opened this message I was bewailing the fact that ISIHAC
>>isn't on on Sundays. I'd got used to having it on at 7pm. :-(
>
> Another fan!
Oh yes... DH archives it, and has about seven years' worth on tape.
We're looking into transferring it all to CD at the moment, to save on
space - in the meantime we're adding to the collection by taping from
BBC7, as they're occasionally rerunning older shows too.
Jac
Jonathan Jones
How do you get the attention of a man whose name you don't know? Tap him on
the shoulder? Here we say "excuse me, sir" and mean nothing by it except
"hey, you".
Thanks,
Jon J.
R Fontana
> I am typical of modern
> Britain in that I do not accept that any other citizen, excepting perhaps
> the Queen and the Royal Family, is my social superior.
Question: Is the Queen a "citizen"?
> For that reason, I would never address anybody as "Sir".
> Furthermore, I do not expect anybody
> to address me in this way. It is old fashioned beyond belief.
In the US, at least today, it doesn't imply that the person addressed
is the addressor's social better. It's just a polite alternative to
"Hey you!", and in many situations it seems to do a better job than
"Excuse me". The use of it in customer service contexts, which I
gather is on the rise in Britain (sorry!), is a bit closer to the idea
of making the customer feel valued and important (in theory).
BTW, why do you make an exception for the Royal Family -- I mean, what
is it about them that makes you feel they're socially superior? Just
curious, since it's sort of culturally foreign to me. I understand
that the monarchy exists and that there are traditional protocols and
so forth, but it sounds like even in your thoughts you regard the Queen
as your superior.
M. J. Powell
<sirlawren...@hotmail.com> writes
BBC7? Digital? Is it as good/bad as the ngs say?
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Jacqui
> Jacqui writes
>>Oh yes... DH archives it, and has about seven years' worth on
>>tape. We're looking into transferring it all to CD at the moment,
>>to save on space - in the meantime we're adding to the collection
>>by taping from BBC7, as they're occasionally rerunning older shows
>>too.
>
> BBC7? Digital? Is it as good/bad as the ngs say?
We like it. We have it on both digital cable (ntl) and Freeview (our
ex-OnDigital boxes) and the quality's good on both, and the range of
programmes excellent - but then we're both Radio 4/audiobook fans to
start with, which helps. I've really enjoyed revisiting shows like
Round the Horne (grew up on repeats) and The Goons, and discovering
other things such as The Men From The Ministry. And listening to 25yo
editions of Just A Minute is brilliant, since I don't think I ever
heard those as a child.
Jac
richard.chambers7
"R Fontana" <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.44.030223...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu...
> On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, richard.chambers7 wrote:
>
> > I am typical of modern
> > Britain in that I do not accept that any other citizen, excepting
perhaps
> > the Queen and the Royal Family, is my social superior.
>
> Question: Is the Queen a "citizen"?
Yes. Just as much as George Bush is a citizen of USA.
>
> > For that reason, I would never address anybody as "Sir".
> > Furthermore, I do not expect anybody
> > to address me in this way. It is old fashioned beyond belief.
>
> In the US, at least today, it doesn't imply that the person addressed
> is the addressor's social better. It's just a polite alternative to
> "Hey you!", and in many situations it seems to do a better job than
> "Excuse me". The use of it in customer service contexts, which I
> gather is on the rise in Britain (sorry!), is a bit closer to the idea
> of making the customer feel valued and important (in theory).
>
> BTW, why do you make an exception for the Royal Family -- I mean, what
> is it about them that makes you feel they're socially superior? Just
> curious, since it's sort of culturally foreign to me. I understand
> that the monarchy exists and that there are traditional protocols and
> so forth, but it sounds like even in your thoughts you regard the Queen
> as your superior.
>
I am just one of a sizeable proportion of this country who are not
particularly pro-Royalist, and not particularly anti-Royalist. While Britain
offers me a good life (which it does, very successfully), I would not wish
to radically upset the structure on which that good life is based. If
conditions ever change fundamentally, so that Britain can no longer offer
the large majority of her citizens these satisfactory terms, opinions will
change and there will be political pressure to remove the Royal Family from
office. The entire concept of the Royal Family (even though it is only a
constitutional monarchy with no power to make laws or Government policy) is
out of date and an anachronism. But they are tolerated and even (by many)
actively supported, for as long as the job that they do is a good one. But
not a moment longer than that. The Queen understands this fact as clearly as
do her subjects.
While she earns my support in this way, and while she is Head of State, it
is my duty to respect her and do my one-part-in-60Million to ensure that she
continues to be successful, so that her Government continues to help the
citizens attain a good life. To do otherwise would be to shoot myself in the
foot. This convoluted argument explains why I consider the Queen my social
superior. But this feeling is a conditional one.
While I accept that the Queen and the Royal Family are my social superiors,
I am adamant that they are all my mental and intellectual inferiors.
Especially the deceased Diana, Princess of the People.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Per Rønne
> BTW, why do you make an exception for the Royal Family -- I mean, what
> is it about them that makes you feel they're socially superior? Just
> curious, since it's sort of culturally foreign to me. I understand
> that the monarchy exists and that there are traditional protocols and
> so forth, but it sounds like even in your thoughts you regard the Queen
> as your superior.
Am I fully mistaken but isn't that the way Americans tend to regard the
U.S. Aristocracy - the Vanderbilts, the Rockefellers, the ...
--
Per Erik Rønne
M. J. Powell
<sirlawren...@hotmail.com> writes
I've been considering it for some time, but as I've just spent 1500 on
new gutters, downpipes and garage door it will have to wait a bit.
I'd like most of those repeats though, except Just a Minute. Kenneth
Williams was too overbearing at times.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Jacqui
(Freeview/digital/BBC7)
> I've been considering it for some time, but as I've just spent
> 1500 on new gutters, downpipes and garage door it will have to
> wait a bit. I'd like most of those repeats though, except Just a
> Minute. Kenneth Williams was too overbearing at times.
You can - or could - pick up ex-OnDigital boxes for very small amounts
of money. Now Freeview is up and running the price may have gone up,
though. (We offered a spare box to a friend for nothing last summer,
expecting the announcement of Freeview, and it was declined on the
grounds that "it'll never be useful". Ha. He has just had to pay for
cable installation, and the package he's getting is the minimum. He's
barely better off for channels than he would be with a FV box, and he
had to pay £50 for the installation.)
Personally I like hearing KW lose it a bit on JAM - he took it very
seriously, as his diaries and letters show, and although at times he is
overbearing and verging on disturbing, it's also very funny.
Jac
Larry Preuss
p...@ronne.invalid wrote on 2/24/03 8:29 AM:
You are "fully mistaken."
Larry
Harvey V
> in article 1fqw24k.14llnw46063kdN%p...@ronne.invalid, Per Rønne at
> p...@ronne.invalid wrote on 2/24/03 8:29 AM:
>> Am I fully mistaken but isn't that the way Americans tend to
>> regard the U.S. Aristocracy - the Vanderbilts, the Rockefellers,
>> the ...
> You are "fully mistaken."
> Larry
What if the question was slightly altered to "...isn't that the way
some Americans tend to...."?
--
Cheers, Harvey
For e-mail, harvey becomes whhvs.
rzed
I can't speak for most Americans, but although a vocal segment of the
population here seems to be deeply interested in what you call the
U.S. Aristocracy and (perhaps especially) European Aristocracy (and
Nobility, and Royalty), a very large segment doesn't pay the slightest
attention to any of these groups as a class. I have no way of
estimating whether the interested or uncaring group is larger, but the
uncaring group does not, as a rule, place stories in newspapers and
magazines that demontrate its lack of interest.
Neither I nor anyone I know would agree that a randomly-chosen
Rockefeller is "superior" -- but we'd likely give them the respect we
would to anyone else whose wealth and power we'd like to make use of.
In some social situations, there would certainly be evident deference
shown to the Aristocrats -- those in which they were on their turf. In
a different cultural context, it would be otherwise.
--
rzed
M. J. Powell
<p...@ronne.invalid> writes
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Larry Preuss
harve...@ntlworld.com wrote on 2/24/03 9:28 AM:
> On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:21:44 GMT, Larry Preuss wrote
>> in article 1fqw24k.14llnw46063kdN%p...@ronne.invalid, Per Rønne at
>> p...@ronne.invalid wrote on 2/24/03 8:29 AM:
>
>
>>> Am I fully mistaken but isn't that the way Americans tend to
>>> regard the U.S. Aristocracy - the Vanderbilts, the Rockefellers,
>>> the ...
>
>> You are "fully mistaken."
>> Larry
>
> What if the question was slightly altered to "...isn't that the way
> some Americans tend to...."?
There are Some, anywhere, who will tend to do Anything.
Larry
Don Aitken
<richard....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"R Fontana" <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> wrote in message
>news:Pine.GSO.4.44.030223...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu...
>> On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, richard.chambers7 wrote:
>>
>> > I am typical of modern
>> > Britain in that I do not accept that any other citizen, excepting
>perhaps
>> > the Queen and the Royal Family, is my social superior.
>>
>> Question: Is the Queen a "citizen"?
>
>Yes. Just as much as George Bush is a citizen of USA.
>
(yet).
--
Don Aitken
R Fontana
I'd say you're fully mistaken. Americans tend to be fascinated by the
lives of very wealthy people, especially those who lead very 'public'
lives. This isn't because they regard those people as their social
betters. In fact, I'd say that one of the most important cultural
characteristics of Americans is that they all secretly believe they
could become wealthy themselves. I think that some very wealthy
families behave like they *think* they're an aristocracy (the noblesse
oblige thing -- the Rockefellers are a good example of this). There's
some distinction between perception of social class and actual wealth,
but not really too much at the extremes of wealth and poverty, mainly
just within the vast middle classes. The Rockefeller and Vanderbilt
dynastic founders are still standardly regarded as "robber barons", and
I assume that the philanthropic efforts of such families are in part a
reaction to that. Also, families like the Rockefellers, the Carnegies,
the Kennedys and the C**pers fit in with the important American
cultural myth of the "rags to riches story" (related to the idea that
anyone can become rich).
M. J. Powell
<sirlawren...@hotmail.com> writes
>M. J. Powell wibbled:
>(Freeview/digital/BBC7)
>> I've been considering it for some time, but as I've just spent
>> 1500 on new gutters, downpipes and garage door it will have to
>> wait a bit. I'd like most of those repeats though, except Just a
>> Minute. Kenneth Williams was too overbearing at times.
>
>You can - or could - pick up ex-OnDigital boxes for very small amounts
>of money. Now Freeview is up and running the price may have gone up,
>though. (We offered a spare box to a friend for nothing last summer,
>expecting the announcement of Freeview, and it was declined on the
>grounds that "it'll never be useful". Ha. He has just had to pay for
>cable installation, and the package he's getting is the minimum. He's
>barely better off for channels than he would be with a FV box, and he
>had to pay £50 for the installation.)
I'll look around. Where are they likely to be? Are there any other
manufacturers making these converters?
>
>Personally I like hearing KW lose it a bit on JAM - he took it very
>seriously, as his diaries and letters show, and although at times he is
>overbearing and verging on disturbing, it's also very funny.
Yes, bordering on the manic I think.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Matti Lamprhey
> "richard.chambers7" <richard....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >"R Fontana" <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> wrote...
> >>
> >> Question: Is the Queen a "citizen"?
> >
> >Yes. Just as much as George Bush is a citizen of USA.
> >
> Actually, no. A sovereign cannot be a citizen. Bush is not a sovereign
> (yet).
My dictionary (NSOED) provides no basis for denying the Queen
citizenship. Can you explain?
Matti
R Fontana
> > Question: Is the Queen a "citizen"?
>
> Yes. Just as much as George Bush is a citizen of USA.
I assume, however, that the Queen is not a "subject" (or is she a
subject of herself, or is there some distinction between "the Crown"
and the citizen wearing the crown?). (Anyone? Anyone? Aitken?)
George W. Bush, like all American citizens, is a U.S. "national" (the
concept corresponding to "subject").
Harvey V
I think she is in the sense of being a UK National, but not if one
includes in "citizenship" the status of being being subject to the laws
of the nation.
The main royal website -- http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page503.asp -
- notes
Given the historical development of the Sovereign as the
'Fount of Justice', civil and criminal proceedings cannot be
taken against the Sovereign as a person. Acts of Parliament
do not apply to The Queen in her personal capacity unless
they are expressly stated to do so.
It also suggests that as a UK National, she is a citizen of the
European Union and theoretically subject to EU laws, but that since the
mechanism for enforcing such law is through national courts, there is
no method to apply those laws to her:
European Union law is enforced in the United Kingdom through
the United Kingdom's national courts; there is therefore no
machinery by which European law can be applied to The Queen
in her personal capacity. However, it makes no difference
that there is no such mechanism, as The Queen will in any
event scrupulously observe the requirements of EU law.
As a national of the United Kingdom, The Queen is a citizen
of the European Union, but that in no way affects her
prerogatives and responsibilities as the Sovereign.
Jacqui
> Jacqui writes
>>You can - or could - pick up ex-OnDigital boxes for very small
>>amounts of money. Now Freeview is up and running the price may
>>have gone up, though.
> I'll look around. Where are they likely to be? Are there any other
> manufacturers making these converters?
You can buy new ones from about £90, and you can find ex-On boxes on
eBay for upwards of £10 (average price today seems to be about £30).
Jac
Shakib Otaqui
piggybacking.
In article
<Xns932BA1F7152FDus...@151.164.30.48>,
Jonathan Jones <use...@spitzensparken.com> wrote:
> "richard.chambers7" <richard....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Larry Preuss" <LPr...@NocomNocast.net> wrote in message
> > news:BA7D898C.A572%LPr...@NocomNocast.net...
> > [...]
> > Although foreigners often accuse the British of being a society
> > permeated by class distinctions, I think this view is out of date. I am
> > typical of modern Britain in that I do not accept that any other
> > citizen, excepting perhaps the Queen and the Royal Family, is my social
> > superior. For that reason, I would never address anybody as "Sir".
> > Furthermore, I do not expect anybody to address me in this way. It is
> > old fashioned beyond belief.
> > [...]
Tell that Mr Justice Etherton:
Court win for the workers
Steven Morris
Saturday February 22, 2003
The Guardian
The question has long troubled sociologists and politicians and continues
to be a favourite subject at a certain kind of dinner party.
Yesterday, after a court battle between an aristocrat and a property
developer, a high court judge ruled that the working class does still exist
in 21st century Britain.
[...]
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4611133,00.html>
--
Tony Cooper
wrote:
There are parts of the US where the society element does revere the
famous names. However, if you would ask the average American about
this, they would think of Gloria Vanderbilt as a jeans designer and
not even know if she was related to "the" Vanderbilts. The
Rockefeller name is associated with David and politics. Most of us
don't even know if there are any surviving members of the one-time
aristocracy.
--
Tony Cooper aka: tony_co...@yahoo.com
Provider of Jots, Tittles, and Oy!s
Jerry Friedman
> "Larry Preuss" <LPr...@NocomNocast.net> wrote in message
> news:BA7D898C.A572%LPr...@NocomNocast.net...
> > has been transferred there for two to three years by his US employer. I am
> > of an age group that was taught to address all strangers as Sir or Ma'am,
> or
> > as I have grown older, Miss. I use these forms in all situations,
> > regardless of relative age or type of interpersonal transaction. Though
> this
> > seems natural to US geezers such as I, I have understood that this is not
> > usual practice in the UK and might there be misunderstood. May I have some
> > guidance from the group.
> Surprisingly, my regular butcher in Leeds City Market has just started to
> address me as "Sir", for some unknown reason. This after many satisfactory
> years of not doing so. I'm going to have to speak to him about it.
The age group is still around--I have to speak to some of my students
to get them to stop calling me "sir", "Mr. Friedman", etc. Addressing
them the same way that they address me usually works.
Be careful with "geezer" too, Larry. I don't think it means "old" in
England.
--
Jerry Friedman
M. J. Powell
<sirlawren...@hotmail.com> writes
Right. Thanks, Jacqui.
Mike
PS I'll have a look in 'Exchange & Mart' too.
--
M.J.Powell
M. J. Powell
<matti-...@totally-official.com> writes
The Law is the Queen's law?
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Don Aitken
wrote:
I think that explains it quite well. It needs to be pointed out,
though, that "UK national" (which she is), is a technical term of EU
law, and not the same thing as "British citizen" (which she isn't).
--
Don Aitken
Matti Lamprhey
> Matti Lamprhey <matti-...@totally-official.com> writes
> >"Don Aitken" <don-a...@freeuk.com> wrote...
> >> "richard.chambers7" <richard....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >> >"R Fontana" <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> wrote...
> >> >>
> >> >> Question: Is the Queen a "citizen"?
> >> >
> >> >Yes. Just as much as George Bush is a citizen of USA.
> >> >
> >> Actually, no. A sovereign cannot be a citizen. Bush is not a
> >> sovereign (yet).
> >
> >My dictionary (NSOED) provides no basis for denying the Queen
> >citizenship. Can you explain?
>
> The Law is the Queen's law?
Yes, but I'm still not persuaded of the implied equivalence of "subject"
and "citizen". I accept that the Queen is not a subject.
Matti
Larry Preuss
at jerry_f...@yahoo.com wrote on 2/24/03 2:25 PM:
Thank you, Jerry. I had actually looked it up on LondonSlang.com before
using the word, and found, "a very common term for a man." Looking at it
again I see that it doesn't imply age. Of course, my American dictionary
gives, "eccentric old man," which I am. I should avoid slang unless I am
sure of myself.
BTW, if I were your student I would call you Mr. Friedman, and in return
would hope that you would call me Mr. Preuss, thus demonstrating our mutual,
reciprocal, respect.
Larry (because all here are old friends)
Mike Lyle
> Larry Preuss wrote:
> > I will soon begin visiting England frequently, as my son, with his
> > family, has been transferred there for two to three years by his US
> > employer. I am of an age group that was taught to address all
> > strangers as Sir or Ma'am, or as I have grown older, Miss. I use
> > these forms in all situations, regardless of relative age or type of
> > interpersonal transaction. Though this seems natural to US geezers
> > such as I, I have understood that this is not usual practice in the
> > UK and might there be misunderstood. May I have some guidance from
>
> It is very rare in the UK though not unheard of. From someone with an
> American accent, it might well be regarded as cute. Though, strictly, only
> the Queen is addressed as Ma'am. There are many forms of address here such
> as mate, pal, love, boss, darling, chief, my dear, moi duck, gel, John, Mrs
> ... but the social ramifications of each are too subtle to be easily
> conveyed or remembered.
> Personally, I would be charmed to be addressed as Sir - though it would take
> me a moment or two to realise I was being addressed.
> No one would take offence at being addressed without any formality - eg
> 'Excuse me, is this the train for Adlestrop?'
(Americans are politer than Brits.)
Ah, I remember Adlestrop. But if anybody tells you this is the train
for it, they're conning you, as it was Beechinged. I treasure a 1958
BR timetable which Edward Thomas would have liked: Table 163,
Honeybourne, Chipping Campden, Blockley, Moreton-in-Marsh, Adlestrop,
among many others. Flanders and Swann's *Slow Train* is also relevant.
Our station master in those days not only called me "Sir" (better man
though he was, quite apart from a hell of a lot older) but turned out
to say goodbye to me when I went off to school at the beginning of
term.
I wish I had an Australian timetable from the same year: the poetry
would have been as great, but more startling. "And all the birds in
Wollongong, and Yerrinbool, and Shell Harbour..."
Mike.
M. J. Powell
<matti-...@totally-official.com> writes
Just like Oscar Wilde...
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Oliver Cromm
I learnt very recently, that not all US nationals are US citizens,
thus, national is broader than citizen in the US. OTOH, Canadians are
all subjects of the queen, thus, subject is indeed wider than citizen.
But is subject also narrower at the same time?
Oliver
Hedberg
<Crom...@compuNONserve.de> wrote:
[...]
>I learnt very recently, that not all US nationals are US citizens,
>thus, national is broader than citizen in the US. [...]
Can you provide a reference for that? I ( citizen of the U.S. by
birth) have always considered that "U.S. national" would mean exactly
the same thing as "U.S. citizen." We have permanent resident aliens,
but they're neither citizens or nationa;s as I understand it.
Who is it who can be a national and not a citizen?
Harold
Per Rønne
> I think she is in the sense of being a UK National, but not if one
> includes in "citizenship" the status of being being subject to the laws
> of the nation.
Doesn't the English language distinguish between »citizen« and
»subject«?
Before the Great Russian August Revolution [1991], I'd call Danes
»citizens« and Russians »subjects« ...
--
Per Erik Rønne
Per Rønne
> The age group is still around--I have to speak to some of my students
> to get them to stop calling me "sir", "Mr. Friedman", etc. Addressing
> them the same way that they address me usually works.
BTW, what is the standard in U.S. schools [, colleges, universities]. Do
you address the pupils and students by their first names or by their
family names, possible a Mr/Ms prefix? Do you say »sir« to the boys,
»madam« to the girls? Do you call them boys/girls/kids or gentlemen /
gentlewomen ?
In Denmark, pupils and students are always called by their first names.
Most teachers too. Formalism is /out/.
--
Per Erik Rønne
R Fontana
Oliver is correct. I addressed this issue on AUE in 1999:
I don't think 'subject' is a recognized legal term in the US....
[T]here is a legal distinction between 'citizen' and 'national'. All
US citizens are US nationals, ... but the reverse is not true.
Residents of certain US territories and possessions may be 'US
nationals' but might not be US citizens.... ['N]ational'
is equivalent to 'subject' ...
Bill Lieblich and Pierre Jelenc noted that only 'national' status
is held by people born in Samoa and Swains Island.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>> Be careful with "geezer" too, Larry. I don't think it means "old" in
>> England.
>
>Thank you, Jerry. I had actually looked it up on LondonSlang.com before
>using the word, and found, "a very common term for a man." Looking at it
>again I see that it doesn't imply age. Of course, my American dictionary
>gives, "eccentric old man," which I am. I should avoid slang unless I am
>sure of myself.
While I don't have a great deal of experience of British English, I think that
"geezer" means "bloke", but it usually has the qualifier "old" stuck in front
of it. I've often seen references in books to "old geezers" but never any to
"young geezers".
But "old geezers" is on its way out, and is being replaced by "old farts". No
doubt in the US that will become just "farts".
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Hedberg
I thought, incorrectly it seems, that American Samoans were U.S.
citizens.
Harold
Matti Lamprhey
> Matti Lamprhey <matti-...@totally-official.com> writes
> >"M. J. Powell" <mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote...
> >> Matti Lamprhey <matti-...@totally-official.com> writes
> >> >
> >> >citizenship. Can you explain?
> >>
> >> The Law is the Queen's law?
> >
> >Yes, but I'm still not persuaded of the implied equivalence of
> >"subject" and "citizen". I accept that the Queen is not a subject.
>
> Just like Oscar Wilde...
Now you're changing the subject.
Matti
Matti Lamprhey
> [...]
> While I don't have a great deal of experience of British English, I
> think that "geezer" means "bloke", but it usually has the qualifier
> "old" stuck in front of it. I've often seen references in books to
> "old geezers" but never any to "young geezers".
I've mentioned here before that Wodehouse has Bertie Wooster describing
Miss Stephanie (Stiffy) Byng as "a silly young geezer"; some seem to
assume that he was deliberately setting up a kind of antithetic effect,
but I don't believe that to be the case.
Matti
Simon R. Hughes
> Harvey V <harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > I think she is in the sense of being a UK National, but not if one
> > includes in "citizenship" the status of being being subject to the laws
> > of the nation.
>
> Doesn't the English language distinguish between »citizen« and
> »subject«?
The English language does (they're spelt differently), but the
constitutions (lowercase c, C**per) of the different English-
speaking countries confuse things.
> Before the Great Russian August Revolution [1991], I'd call Danes
> »citizens« and Russians »subjects« ...
Just how old are you?
--
Simon R. Hughes
"I often think there should exist a special typographical
sign for a smile -- some sort of concave mark, a supine
round bracket" -- Vladimir Nabokov, _Strong Opinions_.
Jacqui
> While I don't have a great deal of experience of British English,
> I think that "geezer" means "bloke", but it usually has the
> qualifier "old" stuck in front of it. I've often seen references
> in books to "old geezers" but never any to "young geezers".
But if you omit the "old" and insert "diamond", the geezer in question
might be any age at all (but is likely to be 20-40). You will also hear
"top geezer" (a good bloke, not a superior), and so on. If not "old",
"geezer" is usually a complimentary term.
Jac
Jacqui
> John Dean wrote
>> No one would take offence at being addressed
>> without any formality - eg 'Excuse me, is this the train for
>> Adlestrop?'
>
> (Americans are politer than Brits.)
> Ah, I remember Adlestrop. But if anybody tells you this is the
> train for it, they're conning you, as it was Beechinged. I
> treasure a 1958 BR timetable which Edward Thomas would have liked:
> Table 163, Honeybourne, Chipping Campden, Blockley,
> Moreton-in-Marsh, Adlestrop, among many others.
Strictly speaking, though, you can still have "a train for Adlestrop" -
it will deposit you at either Moreton or (IIRC) Kingham. Then you have
a pleasant ramble ahead of you. If I catch a train "for" somewhere, I
don't always expect it to deposit me directly on the doorstep of my
destination. ("A train home" will deposit me about 4 miles from my
front door, about the same distance from Moreton or Kingham to
Adlestrop IIRC.)
Jac
Per Rønne
> While I don't have a great deal of experience of British English, I think that
> "geezer" means "bloke", but it usually has the qualifier "old" stuck in front
> of it. I've often seen references in books to "old geezers" but never any to
> "young geezers".
Well, look at the example:
The NEW OXFORD Dictionary
of ENGLISH
geezer noun informal a man: he put up an amazing fight for an old
geezer.
ORIGIN late 19th cent.: representing a dialect pronunciation of earlier
guiser 'mummer'.
"
--
Per Erik Rønne
richard.chambers7
"Jacqui" <sirlawren...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns932D82FF26F...@163.1.2.7...
brought up in Leamington Spa, (140 km NW of London) and do not recall
hearing it there, although I did know what it meant. I have lived in Leeds
(300 km N of London) for the last 31 years, and do not recall ever hearing
it here, either. I should imagine that Oxford (80 km WNW of London) is about
as far north as geezers ever travel. Unless somebody knows otherwise.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Jacqui
> Jacqui wrote
>>
>> > While I don't have a great deal of experience of British
>> > English, I think that "geezer" means "bloke", but it usually
>> > has the qualifier "old" stuck in front of it. I've often seen
>> > references in books to "old geezers" but never any to "young
>> > geezers".
>>
>> But if you omit the "old" and insert "diamond", the geezer in
>> question might be any age at all (but is likely to be 20-40). You
>> will also hear "top geezer" (a good bloke, not a superior), and
>> so on. If not "old", "geezer" is usually a complimentary term.
>>
> It is worth adding here that "geezer" is a southern English term.
> I was brought up in Leamington Spa, (140 km NW of London) and do
> not recall hearing it there, although I did know what it meant. I
> have lived in Leeds (300 km N of London) for the last 31 years,
> and do not recall ever hearing it here, either. I should imagine
> that Oxford (80 km WNW of London) is about as far north as geezers
> ever travel. Unless somebody knows otherwise.
I am not even sure that they exist around here. I mainly hear "geezer"
IRL from my cousins, who are West Londoners. On TV I hear it from the
likes of Jade Goody (who was terrifying on the Driving School thing
yesterday) - Essex, Kent, London.
Jac
John Estill
wrote:
>Jerry Friedman <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> The age group is still around--I have to speak to some of my students
>> to get them to stop calling me "sir", "Mr. Friedman", etc. Addressing
>> them the same way that they address me usually works.
>
>BTW, what is the standard in U.S. schools [, colleges, universities]. Do
>you address the pupils and students by their first names or by their
>family names, possible a Mr/Ms prefix? Do you say »sir« to the boys,
>»madam« to the girls? Do you call them boys/girls/kids or gentlemen /
>gentlewomen ?
The practice around here, in public schools through grade 12, is that
pupils are addressed by their first names, while teachers and
administrators are addresses as Mr/Ms Whoever.
When I was in college, we students (BrE pupils) became worthy of our
own Mr./Miss (Ms wasn't an option, then), and our professors were
universally Dr. Whoever.
>In Denmark, pupils and students are always called by their first names.
>Most teachers too. Formalism is /out/.
I'm told that it's that way in Spain, too, although a net-friend who
is a teacher is addressed by his pupils as "don Ángel".
Regards,
John
--
John Estill
Native English speaker (midwestern variety), español al estilo mexicano
Millersburg, Ohio, U.S.A.
Oliver Cromm
news:2fem5vonfso2ic9be...@4ax.com:
I vaguely remember that there has been some controversy over the point that
things produced in A.Samoa can be marked "made in U.S.A.", although they
don't have citizen status, same minimal wages etc.
--
Oliver Cromm
My Predecessors?
Olivier LeDain - Oliver Cromwell - ?
Oliver Cromm
news:1fqx9fz.19s1wpr1ayckykN%p...@ronne.invalid:
> BTW, what is the standard in U.S. schools [, colleges, universities]. Do
> you address the pupils and students by their first names or by their
> family names, possible a Mr/Ms prefix? Do you say »sir« to the boys,
>»madam« to the girls? Do you call them boys/girls/kids or gentlemen /
> gentlewomen ?
>
> In Denmark, pupils and students are always called by their first names.
> Most teachers too. Formalism is /out/.
Some of our teachers in the 70s started it that they wanted to be called by
first name and "du", but most of us pupils didn't like it back then. Now it
has probably changed; I'll ask my nephew. Most teachers addressed us by
"Sie" after entering highschool; of those who didn't, some sounded close,
some condescending. No easy way to judge. I was on quite close terms with
my piano teacher, without changing to "du".
Jerry Friedman
> Jerry Friedman <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The age group is still around--I have to speak to some of my students
> > to get them to stop calling me "sir", "Mr. Friedman", etc. Addressing
> > them the same way that they address me usually works.
>
> BTW, what is the standard in U.S. schools [, colleges, universities]. Do
> you address the pupils and students by their first names or by their
> family names, possible a Mr/Ms prefix? Do you say »sir« to the boys,
> »madam« to the girls? Do you call them boys/girls/kids or gentlemen /
> gentlewomen ?
Kindergarten through high school: most teachers call students (BrE:
pupils) by their first names. Students call teachers Mr. X or
Miss/Mrs./Ms. X, according to her preference and if they can remember,
and may say "sir" or "ma'am". ("Madam" is almost unheard in the U.S.
except as a noun meaning a female owner or manager of a brothel. If
"Madam Chairman" and the like still exist, I don't move in those
circles.) Some teachers may encourage favored students, or all
students, to call them by their first names. Students would consider
this either cool or weird.
There seems to be a trend not to use "boy" for male high-school
students, but I'm not sure how widespread it is. I see high schools
with "Men's" and "Women's" basketball teams, "Men's" and "Women's"
rooms for the students, etc. After all, some of them are eighteen or
nineteen and thus officially adults. Among high-school kids
themselves, I think only girls use "boy" and only when the context is
love or sex--"She quit the yearbook 'cause there aren't any boys on
it." Otherwise the word is probably "guy". This may not be true in
the South, or anywhere else I don't know about.
Community college: the teacher decides, either the same as high school
(though teachers are more likely to be Dr. X) or first names for
everyone.
Four-year colleges and universities: When I was last there, the
professors decided, and were either "Professor X" or "Dr. X", or used
their first name (less likely). They probably address students by
their first names in the unlikely event that they know them, though
some might use Mr. and Ms. Teachers below the rank of professor
(graduate assistants and postdoctoral instructors) are probably on
first-name terms with their students. So are professors and the
graduate students they teach or advise, though grad students might use
"Professor X" with some other professors they talk to.
There's a small college, one of several called St. John's, where in
class the teachers ("tutors") and the students all call each other
"Mr. X" or "Ms. X", regardless of degrees or anything else. This is
the St. John's with a Great Books program and campuses in Annapolis
and here in Santa Fe (which is how I know about it). At the community
college where I teach, I have a colleague who taught at St. John's and
now enforces this practice in his class.
There are other possibilities--I've known of a "Dr. A." and a "Mr. T."
(a kindly Japanese cello professor who didn't remind anyone of the
entertainer called Mr. T.).
But maybe I shouldn't be giving my opinion, since I don't use either
names or substitutes (ma'am, bro, honey, etc.) very much in
conversation. I'm sure that as a student I got through whole classes,
with fewer than twenty students in them, without ever having to
address this problem.
I guess I could have given you a short answer: the teacher decides.
> In Denmark, pupils and students are always called by their first names.
> Most teachers too. Formalism is /out/.
(I'd say "formality".)
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
> in article 96efe132.03022...@posting.google.com, Jerry Friedman
> at jerry_f...@yahoo.com wrote on 2/24/03 2:25 PM:
> > The age group is still around--I have to speak to some of my students
> > to get them to stop calling me "sir", "Mr. Friedman", etc. Addressing
> > them the same way that they address me usually works.
> >
> > Be careful with "geezer" too, Larry. I don't think it means "old" in
> > England.
>
> Thank you, Jerry. I had actually looked it up on LondonSlang.com before
> using the word, and found, "a very common term for a man." Looking at it
> again I see that it doesn't imply age. Of course, my American dictionary
> gives, "eccentric old man," which I am. I should avoid slang unless I am
> sure of myself.
I should have guessed you'd be way ahead of me!
> BTW, if I were your student I would call you Mr. Friedman, and in return
> would hope that you would call me Mr. Preuss, thus demonstrating our mutual,
> reciprocal, respect.
I would try, though I'm so much in the habit of calling students by
first names that I might not be consistent. And I prefer that
friendly atmosphere, so I'd still like to call the other students by
their first names. We'd have Jose, Melissa, Andrea, and Mr. Preuss.
Not sure how well that would work.
I do try to respect my students (even the pinheads, whiners, and
cheaters), and there are other ways of demonstrating that.
> Larry (because all here are old friends)
Nice to meet you, old friend!
--
Jerry Friedman
Larry Preuss
> Four-year colleges and universities: When I was last there, the
> professors decided, and were either "Professor X" or "Dr. X", or used
> their first name (less likely). They probably address students by
> their first names in the unlikely event that they know them, though
> some might use Mr. and Ms. Teachers below the rank of professor
> (graduate assistants and postdoctoral instructors) are probably on
> first-name terms with their students. So are professors and the
> graduate students they teach or advise, though grad students might use
> "Professor X" with some other professors they talk to.
When I was in Medical School (in the US) the Dean of the school was so
absorbed in himself that he didn't remember anyone's name, but he managed to
carry it off by nodding at everyone he saw and saying, rather solemnly,
"Good morning, Doctor."
Larry
Larry Preuss
I am certainly not ahead of you, am never ahead of you, and I hope you do
not think I presume to instruct. However, I have had youngsters approach me
by my first name and insist that this is more democratic than using courtesy
titles. As long, however, as they use "Mr." when speaking to their Senator,
their college President and the CEO, they show awareness of a hierarchy. The
truly democratic approach is to show the same respect for everyone. Please
let me quote Stephen Carter, from his book _Civility_:
³I am annoyed when I go into a store and introduce myself, by my full name,
to a sales clerk, only to be immediately called by my first name alone.
First names are commonly used among close friends, but it is only recently
that they have trickled down into ordinary encounters. It may be that I am
especially sensitive on this issue. Black Americans fought hard and long for
the right to be called by ³Mr.² and ³Mrs.² (and, lately, ³Ms.²) rather than
by first names‹only to discover, just as the battle is won, that an
increasing number of white Americans think these politely formal sobriquets
should be discarded.
I was raised to think‹and I still think‹that the use of a stranger¹s first
name requires an invitation. It is a form of social intimacy, not an
entitlement. Using a more formal manner in addressing those we have just met
is more than common courtesy‹it is a signal of respect. But, of course,
respect for our fellow passengers is fast disintegrating. So I suppose I
should not be surprised when I see a receptionist at a doctor¹s office, a
young woman scarcely out of high school, call patients three times her age,
whom she evidently has never met before, by their first names. No doubt the
receptionist imagines that she is being politely informal, but what she is
really doing is forcing on strangers an intimacy they should not be required
to share. I suspect that the receptionist¹s thoughtless effort at
familiarity offends some of the patients, actually making them less, not
more, comfortable.²
You may remember that Martin Luther King said, in _Letter from Birmingham
Jail_:
³...when your first name becomes ³nigger² and your middle name becomes ³boy²
(however old you are) and your last name becomes ³John,² and when your wife
and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs.;...then you will
understand why we find it difficult to wait.²
Larry
Mike Oliver
> The main royal website -- http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page503.asp -
> - notes
>
> Given the historical development of the Sovereign as the
> 'Fount of Justice', civil and criminal proceedings cannot be
> taken against the Sovereign as a person. Acts of Parliament
> do not apply to The Queen in her personal capacity unless
> they are expressly stated to do so.
That's amazing. So she could just pull out a piece and ice one
of her courtiers, and there's nothing anyone could do about it?
Not that I really imagine this is a problem in practice, but
I still find it extremely surprising.
Per Rønne
> Harvey V wrote:
>
> > The main royal website -- http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page503.asp -
> > - notes
> >
> > Given the historical development of the Sovereign as the
> > 'Fount of Justice', civil and criminal proceedings cannot be
> > taken against the Sovereign as a person. Acts of Parliament
> > do not apply to The Queen in her personal capacity unless
> > they are expressly stated to do so.
>
> That's amazing. So she could just pull out a piece and ice one
> of her courtiers, and there's nothing anyone could do about it?
The same in Denmark but you do know that England has a precedent for
heading its Kings :-).
--
Per Erik Rønne
Per Rønne
> >In Denmark, pupils and students are always called by their first names.
> >Most teachers too. Formalism is /out/.
>
> I'm told that it's that way in Spain, too, although a net-friend who
> is a teacher is addressed by his pupils as "don Ángel".
When I was on i visit on the Freie Universität Berlins with the
University of Copenhagen, the German students told you that in Germany
you always were on first name [and »du«] with the students, even
students from other universities. And always said family name [and
»Sie«] to the teachers. The same way as it were in Denmark a few decades
ago. Children and students were addressed by first name and »du«,
teachers and other adults with family names and a prefix of Mr og Ms -
and »De« :-).
»De« [Danish] and »Sie« [German] is 3rd person plural used as 2nd person
singular when talking to adults ...
--
Per Erik Rønne
Per Rønne
> ("Madam" is almost unheard in the U.S.
> except as a noun meaning a female owner or manager of a brothel. If
> "Madam Chairman" and the like still exist, I don't move in those
> circles.)
Isaac Asimov used it in contexts like »Madam Prime Minister«. Doesn't
»ma'am« sound slightly derogatory compared to the more formal »Madam«?
> There seems to be a trend not to use "boy" for male high-school
> students, but I'm not sure how widespread it is. I see high schools
> with "Men's" and "Women's" basketball teams, "Men's" and "Women's"
> rooms for the students, etc. After all, some of them are eighteen or
> nineteen and thus officially adults. Among high-school kids
> themselves, I think only girls use "boy" and only when the context is
> love or sex--"She quit the yearbook 'cause there aren't any boys on
> it." Otherwise the word is probably "guy". This may not be true in
> the South, or anywhere else I don't know about.
In Danish high schools [grades 11-13, age 16-21] the /official/ words
are boys and girls and even at the university the use of »men« and
»women« is rare - they just seem to »formal«. But words like »guy« and
»chap« are widely used ...
--
Per Erik Rønne
Matti Lamprhey
> Harvey V wrote:
>
> > The main royal website --
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page503.asp -
> > - notes
> >
> > Given the historical development of the Sovereign as the
> > 'Fount of Justice', civil and criminal proceedings cannot be
> > taken against the Sovereign as a person. Acts of Parliament
> > do not apply to The Queen in her personal capacity unless
> > they are expressly stated to do so.
>
> That's amazing. So she could just pull out a piece and ice one
> of her courtiers, and there's nothing anyone could do about it?
Happens all the time, so the papers no longer report it.
Matti
-- all part of Death's rich tapestry
Matthew Huntbach
> I will soon begin visiting England frequently, as my son, with his family,
> has been transferred there for two to three years by his US employer. I am
> of an age group that was taught to address all strangers as Sir or Ma'am, or
> as I have grown older, Miss. I use these forms in all situations,
> regardless of relative age or type of interpersonal transaction. Though this
> seems natural to US geezers such as I, I have understood that this is not
> usual practice in the UK and might there be misunderstood. May I have some
> guidance from the group.
So long as you have a pronounced American accent, it will come across
as very cute and people will know you are using these forms because you
are American and these are forms that Americans use. I have an American
student who calls me "Sir" and it always makes a nice change from
"Oi, Matthew" from the Cockney Asians who dominate my class.
Matthew Huntbach
david56
> I will soon begin visiting England frequently, as my son, with his family,
> has been transferred there for two to three years by his US employer. I am
> of an age group that was taught to address all strangers as Sir or Ma'am, or
> as I have grown older, Miss. I use these forms in all situations,
> regardless of relative age or type of interpersonal transaction. Though this
> seems natural to US geezers such as I, I have understood that this is not
> usual practice in the UK and might there be misunderstood. May I have some
> guidance from the group.
Would you like to tell us which part of England? Culture and practice
change rapidly in a place which you might consider small, but which
encompasses considerable variety.
Be aware that you may be addressed as "love" by ladies, especially shop
assistants. They are not declaring specific affection but just being
friendly.
--
David
I say what it occurs to me to say.
=====
The address is valid today, but I will change it to keep ahead of the
spammers.
Alan Jones
> Larry Preuss wrote:
>> I will soon begin visiting England frequently, as my son, with his
>> family, has been transferred there for two to three years by his US
>> employer. I am of an age group that was taught to address all
>> strangers as Sir or Ma'am, or as I have grown older, Miss. I use
>> these forms in all situations, regardless of relative age or type of
>> interpersonal transaction. Though this seems natural to US geezers
>> such as I, I have understood that this is not usual practice in the
>> UK and might there be misunderstood. May I have some guidance from
>> the group.
>
> Would you like to tell us which part of England? Culture and practice
> change rapidly in a place which you might consider small, but which
> encompasses considerable variety.
>
> Be aware that you may be addressed as "love" by ladies, especially
> shop assistants. They are not declaring specific affection but just
> being friendly.
If you travel northwards, Larry, you may find yourself being addressed as
"love" by a male bus conductor, and if far enough westwards as "my lover" by
elderly gentlemen as well as ladies. They don't mean anything by it, except
a generalised bonhomie, but don't respond in kind. On your actual question,
don't call anyone Sir yourself (unless perhaps you happen upon a Prince of
the Blood or a Field Marshal), but if you have a son of teen age or below,
encourage him to use Sir; the term is still current in respectable schools.
Alan Jones
M. J. Powell
<p...@ronne.invalid> writes
No, no. They already had heads. We took them away.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
david56
I would think that addressing all males as Sir in a strong American
accent (preferably Texan) would break much ice and forge many introductions.
Larry Preuss
bass.b...@ntlworld.com wrote on 2/26/03 8:14 AM:
> Larry Preuss wrote:
>> I will soon begin visiting England frequently, as my son, with his family,
>> has been transferred there for two to three years by his US employer. I am
>> of an age group that was taught to address all strangers as Sir or Ma'am, or
>> as I have grown older, Miss. I use these forms in all situations,
>> regardless of relative age or type of interpersonal transaction. Though this
>> seems natural to US geezers such as I, I have understood that this is not
>> usual practice in the UK and might there be misunderstood. May I have some
>> guidance from the group.
>
> Would you like to tell us which part of England? Culture and practice
> change rapidly in a place which you might consider small, but which
> encompasses considerable variety.
>
> Be aware that you may be addressed as "love" by ladies, especially shop
> assistants. They are not declaring specific affection but just being
> friendly.
They will be in Brentwood, which I understand is in the London orbit. I am
delighted to know that the shop assistants will be so friendly.
Larry
Larry Preuss
a...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote on 2/26/03 8:30 AM:
Thank you for this. I will try to remember this, but will have a great deal
of difficulty changing my habits. When a man holds a door for me, or picks
up a dropped book for me, it is automatic for me to say, "Thank you, sir."
Larry
Larry Preuss
bass.b...@ntlworld.com wrote on 2/26/03 8:59 AM:
Being from Michigan I don't sound like, or even think like, our present
Leading Texan.
Larry
Matti Lamprhey
> david56 at bass.b...@ntlworld.com wrote:
> > [...]
> > Be aware that you may be addressed as "love" by ladies, especially
> > shop assistants. They are not declaring specific affection but just
> > being friendly.
>
> They will be in Brentwood, which I understand is in the London orbit.
> I am delighted to know that the shop assistants will be so friendly.
Brentwood. Ah, yes. Mmm. (Rubs jaw.)
Matti
M. J. Powell
<bass.b...@ntlworld.com> writes
>Larry Preuss wrote:
>> I will soon begin visiting England frequently, as my son, with his family,
>> has been transferred there for two to three years by his US employer. I am
>> of an age group that was taught to address all strangers as Sir or Ma'am, or
>> as I have grown older, Miss. I use these forms in all situations,
>> regardless of relative age or type of interpersonal transaction. Though this
>> seems natural to US geezers such as I, I have understood that this is not
>> usual practice in the UK and might there be misunderstood. May I have some
>> guidance from the group.
>
>Would you like to tell us which part of England? Culture and practice
>change rapidly in a place which you might consider small, but which
>encompasses considerable variety.
>
>Be aware that you may be addressed as "love" by ladies, especially shop
>assistants. They are not declaring specific affection but just being
>friendly.
Heh! And 'Ducky' and 'Chooky' oop north.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
david56
Ah. Brentwood. Famous for nylons (not stockings, but all things made
from Nylon). But not for 20 years, I think. In the county of Essex,
which is the butt of jokes about unintelligent girls:
- What do you call an Essex Girl with two brain cells?
- Pregnant.
and so on.
Larry Preuss
matti-...@totally-official.com wrote on 2/26/03 10:01 AM:
Matti, I am at a loss. What rubs your jaw?
Larry
Don Aitken
wrote:
>Jerry Friedman <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> ("Madam" is almost unheard in the U.S.
>> except as a noun meaning a female owner or manager of a brothel. If
>> "Madam Chairman" and the like still exist, I don't move in those
>> circles.)
>
>Isaac Asimov used it in contexts like »Madam Prime Minister«. Doesn't
>»ma'am« sound slightly derogatory compared to the more formal »Madam«?
>
In the UK "Ma'am" is the most formal style of all (other than "Your
Majesty"), being used to address the Queen. It is pronounced "mam",
not "marm" or "mahm". Few people have much occasion to use it.
"Madam Prime Minister", like "Mr. Prime Minister", is an Americanism,
modelled on "Mr. President". Prime Minister is an office, not a title.
The correct form of address is "Prime Minister".
The use of "Madam" is becoming rare. It still survives among shop
assistants in very old-fashioned and upmarket shops. Also from the
police, in the same way as "Sir" (qv).
--
Don Aitken
Don Aitken
<matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote:
>"Mike Oliver" <oli...@math.ucla.edu> wrote...
>> Harvey V wrote:
>>
>> > The main royal website --
>http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page503.asp -
>> > - notes
>> >
>> > Given the historical development of the Sovereign as the
>> > 'Fount of Justice', civil and criminal proceedings cannot be
>> > taken against the Sovereign as a person. Acts of Parliament
>> > do not apply to The Queen in her personal capacity unless
>> > they are expressly stated to do so.
>>
>> That's amazing. So she could just pull out a piece and ice one
>> of her courtiers, and there's nothing anyone could do about it?
>
>Happens all the time, so the papers no longer report it.
>
Actually, it happened a couple of years ago, although not in the UK.
The Crown Prince of Nepal wiped out most of his family, including the
King, with automatic weapons. As a result, he became King, and thereby
immune from prosecution. He also shot himself, and died a few days
later, thereby saving the Nepalese from a tricky constitutional
problem.
--
Don Aitken
Matti Lamprhey
> Matti Lamprhey at matti-...@totally-official.com wrote:
> > "Larry Preuss" <LPr...@NocomNocast.net> wrote...
> >> david56 at bass.b...@ntlworld.com wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>> Be aware that you may be addressed as "love" by ladies, especially
> >>> shop assistants. They are not declaring specific affection but
> >>> just being friendly.
> >>
> >> They will be in Brentwood, which I understand is in the London
> >> orbit. I am delighted to know that the shop assistants will be so
> >> friendly.
> >
> > Brentwood. Ah, yes. Mmm. (Rubs jaw.)
> >
It's a story for which the world is not yet prepared, Larry. My
thoughts will be with you on your trip to Brentwood. Stiff upper lip!
Matti
Jerry Friedman
> Jerry Friedman <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > ("Madam" is almost unheard in the U.S.
> > except as a noun meaning a female owner or manager of a brothel. If
> > "Madam Chairman" and the like still exist, I don't move in those
> > circles.)
>
> Isaac Asimov used it in contexts like »Madam Prime Minister«. Doesn't
> »ma'am« sound slightly derogatory compared to the more formal »Madam«?
As a "vocative" corresponding to "sir", absolutely not, at least in
any place I've ever been. I would never use "madam" this way to be
polite. I've used it occasionally as an affectation with friends, and
once or twice I've been told, "Don't call me 'madam'--I don't run a
whorehouse."
As the title corresponding to "Mr." in forms such as "Madam Prime
Minister"--as I said, I don't know. Of course, "ma'am" isn't an
option here.
> > There seems to be a trend not to use "boy" for male high-school
> > students, but I'm not sure how widespread it is. I see high schools
> > with "Men's" and "Women's" basketball teams, "Men's" and "Women's"
> > rooms for the students, etc. After all, some of them are eighteen or
> > nineteen and thus officially adults. Among high-school kids
> > themselves, I think only girls use "boy" and only when the context is
> > love or sex--"She quit the yearbook 'cause there aren't any boys on
> > it." Otherwise the word is probably "guy". This may not be true in
> > the South, or anywhere else I don't know about.
>
> In Danish high schools [grades 11-13, age 16-21] the /official/ words
> are boys and girls and even at the university the use of »men« and
> »women« is rare - they just seem to »formal«. But words like »guy« and
> »chap« are widely used ...
At American universities, I think "men" and "women" are the only
official terms. In my day the students didn't use them often,
especially not "men".
--
Jerry Friedman
Dennis Brennan
I see that letters to the editor of _The Economist_ are addressed to "Sir".
-Dennis Brennan
Larry Preuss
matti-...@totally-official.com wrote on 2/26/03 11:04 AM:
My, my. A rubbed jaw /and/ a stiff lip. This is sounding intenser and
intenser, and possibly, even, worser.
Larry
Jonathan Jones
> [I am an American.]
>
> I see that letters to the editor of _The Economist_ are addressed to "Sir".
So are letters to the editor of The (London) Times. Which reminds me of
something else that's curious. Such letters sometimes use the strangest
closings (instead of "Yours truly" or "Sincerely") such as "I am forever your
humble servant" -- strange because the authors don't appear to actually be
servants or employees of the editor. Why?
Thanks,
Jonathan Jones
Jerry Friedman
> >> Larry (because all here are old friends)
> >
> > Nice to meet you, old friend!
>
> I am certainly not ahead of you, am never ahead of you, and I hope you do
> not think I presume to instruct.
I presumed to instruct you, but you already knew what I was telling
you. Sorry about that.
> However, I have had youngsters approach me
> by my first name and insist that this is more democratic than using courtesy
> titles. As long, however, as they use "Mr." when speaking to their Senator,
> their college President and the CEO, they show awareness of a hierarchy. The
> truly democratic approach is to show the same respect for everyone. Please
> let me quote Stephen Carter, from his book _Civility_:
>
> łI am annoyed when I go into a store and introduce myself, by my full name,
> to a sales clerk, only to be immediately called by my first name alone.
> First names are commonly used among close friends, but it is only recently
> that they have trickled down into ordinary encounters. It may be that I am
> especially sensitive on this issue. Black Americans fought hard and long for
> the right to be called by łMr.˛ and łMrs.˛ (and, lately, łMs.˛) rather than
> by first names?only to discover, just as the battle is won, that an
> increasing number of white Americans think these politely formal sobriquets
> should be discarded.
> I was raised to think?and I still think?that the use of a strangerąs first
> name requires an invitation. It is a form of social intimacy, not an
> entitlement. Using a more formal manner in addressing those we have just met
> is more than common courtesy?it is a signal of respect. But, of course,
> respect for our fellow passengers is fast disintegrating. So I suppose I
> should not be surprised when I see a receptionist at a doctorąs office, a
> young woman scarcely out of high school, call patients three times her age,
> whom she evidently has never met before, by their first names. No doubt the
> receptionist imagines that she is being politely informal, but what she is
> really doing is forcing on strangers an intimacy they should not be required
> to share. I suspect that the receptionistąs thoughtless effort at
> familiarity offends some of the patients, actually making them less, not
> more, comfortable.˛
>
> You may remember that Martin Luther King said, in _Letter from Birmingham
> Jail_:
>
> ł...when your first name becomes łnigger˛ and your middle name becomes łboy˛
> (however old you are) and your last name becomes łJohn,˛ and when your wife
> and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs.;...then you will
> understand why we find it difficult to wait.˛
This famous passage may be important historical context for people's,
especially blacks', attitudes toward titles, but I think the
first-names-for-all movement was not yet well under way [*] by that
time (1963). The top priority was surely for whites to stop
addressing blacks with insults (nigger) or at least disrespectful
terms (John when that wasn't his name) while blacks had to address
whites with formal politeness. This actually got accomplished.
I agree with Stephen Carter that using titles and last names is the
better choice between customers and business employees, unless they
eventually become friendlier.
I think you and I agree that in a community-college class, the modes
of address between teacher and students should be the same. So I see
three choices for my classes: everybody uses first names (or nicknames
or words in the bro/honey/dog class), everybody uses last names and
titles (or sir and ma'am), or I let the students call me what they
want and I remember each one's preference and call them that way. The
first two have the disadvantages that some students will be
uncomfortable with either, I'm uncomfortable with the formal one, and
I'm undemocratically making the decision myself. The third seems
odd--"I have a question, Jerry." "Yes, Vanessa?"... "I have a
question too, Dr. Friedman." "Yes, Mr. Guzman?" I'll also make a lot
of mistakes--it takes me a while just to learn students' names.
Do you have a recommendation?
(We don't need to worry about what the students call each other,
because most of them don't learn each other's names, despite my
efforts to encourage cooperative learning.)
And what makes the difference between a.u.e. and a class? Faces? At
least one person in alt.usage.spanish has commented that she can use
the informal "tu" there with people who she could never use it with in
person--a doctor in his seventies, for example--because she can't see
them.
[*] Obaue: Something seems wrong with that. Is "well under way" a
positive polarity item?
--
Jerry Friedman
Oliver Cromm
news:zVHHM6KgVKX+Ew$l...@pickmere.demon.co.uk:
> In message <1fqz2s8.or21ibb8jyz2N%p...@ronne.invalid>, Per Rønne
> <p...@ronne.invalid> writes
>>
>>The same in Denmark but you do know that England has a precedent for
>>heading its Kings :-).
>
> No, no. They already had heads. We took them away.
The most interesting thing about King Charles the First is that he was 5
foot 6 inches tall at the start of his reign, but only 4 foot 8 inches tall
at the end of it... because of...
(fortissimo) Oliver Cromwell...
--
Oliver Cromm
My Predecessors?
Olivier LeDain - Oliver Cromwell - ?
M. J. Powell
<o...@c.de> writes
>"M. J. Powell" <mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>news:zVHHM6KgVKX+Ew$l...@pickmere.demon.co.uk:
>
>> In message <1fqz2s8.or21ibb8jyz2N%p...@ronne.invalid>, Per Rønne
>> <p...@ronne.invalid> writes
>>>
>>>The same in Denmark but you do know that England has a precedent for
>>>heading its Kings :-).
>>
>> No, no. They already had heads. We took them away.
>
>The most interesting thing about King Charles the First is that he was 5
>foot 6 inches tall at the start of his reign, but only 4 foot 8 inches tall
>at the end of it... because of...
>
>(fortissimo) Oliver Cromwell...
A 10 inch head? I never knew that.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Geoff Butler
Anyone for a Brentwood boink, then? Anyone? Hello? Hello, where's
everyone gone? Ah...
--
-ler
Larry Preuss
> Larry Preuss <LPr...@NocomNocast.net> wrote in message
You have stated this so well that I can take no exception to it, and I
believe I have learned something from the exchange. Also, I will apologise
for shifting from the discussion of name usage in the classroom to a much
broader and less relevant area.
When I quoted Martin Luther King I was not thinking so much of the "John" as
I was of "when your wife and mother are never given the respected title,
Mrs." In the broader context I still believe there is much to be gained by
doing people the honor of "Mrs. King" and "Thank you, sir."
My classroom experience precedes the open collar shirt, and even the
existence of Community Colleges. I would not be able to address a teacher by
their first name even if invited or asked to do so: the discomfort would be
too great. I recognise that this is not society's problem, but mine.
As far as the person in a.u.s, and the person with whom she could not use
"tu," I think you've been peeking.
Thank you for pleasant conversation.
Larry, if you will.
Mike Oliver
> Anyone for a Brentwood boink, then?
Sure! I'll be able to walk there. I live maybe 250 m from where
the Mezzaluna restaurant used to be, where Nicole had her last
meal.
Skitt
Oh, I thought it was the Brentwood where I almost bought a retirement
home -- one near Antioch, CA.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel (Fawlty Towers)
Michael Hatton
>
> Larry Preuss wrote:
> > in article 3E5CBDD3...@ntlworld.com, david56 at
> > bass.b...@ntlworld.com wrote on 2/26/03 8:14 AM:
> >
> >>Larry Preuss wrote:
> >>
> >>>I will soon begin visiting England frequently, as my son, with his family,
> >>>has been transferred there for two to three years by his US employer. I am
> >>>of an age group that was taught to address all strangers as Sir or Ma'am, or
> >>>as I have grown older, Miss. I use these forms in all situations,
> >>>regardless of relative age or type of interpersonal transaction. Though this
> >>>seems natural to US geezers such as I, I have understood that this is not
> >>>usual practice in the UK and might there be misunderstood. May I have some
> >>>guidance from the group.
> >>
> >>Would you like to tell us which part of England? Culture and practice
> >>change rapidly in a place which you might consider small, but which
> >>encompasses considerable variety.
> >>
> >>Be aware that you may be addressed as "love" by ladies, especially shop
> >>assistants. They are not declaring specific affection but just being
> >>friendly.
> >
> > They will be in Brentwood, which I understand is in the London orbit. I am
> > delighted to know that the shop assistants will be so friendly.
If you say sir etc. in South-East England [ie anywhere near London]
they'll think you're mocking tham!
>
> Ah. Brentwood. Famous for nylons (not stockings, but all things made
> from Nylon). But not for 20 years, I think.
Incorrect. You're thinking of BRENTFORD Nylons.
Brentford is in West London. Brentwood is the first town
outside London on the East.
I am a native of Brentwood.
> In the county of Essex,
> which is the butt of jokes about unintelligent girls:
>
> - What do you call an Essex Girl with two brain cells?
> - Pregnant.
Americans should note that Essex is indeed the but of jokes
like New Jersey in the US.
However Larry, Brentwood can claim to be the best bit of Essex,
I'll fill you in more in email.
Per Rønne
> Do you have a recommendation?
Use first names only. It sounds ridiculous the other way around.
> (We don't need to worry about what the students call each other,
> because most of them don't learn each other's names, despite my
> efforts to encourage cooperative learning.)
How large are the class sizes in these »community colleges« [I guess:
grades 13-14]?
--
Per Erik Rønne
Evan Kirshenbaum
The class I'm in has about thirty, which is a fair bit too many for
beginning guitar. I think I'm in grade 19.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |When all else fails, give the
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |customer what they ask for. This
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |is strong medicine and rarely needs
|to be repeated.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Hedberg
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>p...@ronne.invalid (Per Rønne) writes:
>
>> Jerry Friedman <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Do you have a recommendation?
>>
>> Use first names only. It sounds ridiculous the other way around.
>>
>> > (We don't need to worry about what the students call each other,
>> > because most of them don't learn each other's names, despite my
>> > efforts to encourage cooperative learning.)
>>
>> How large are the class sizes in these »community colleges« [I guess:
>> grades 13-14]?
>
>The class I'm in has about thirty, which is a fair bit too many for
>beginning guitar. I think I'm in grade 19.
You're a beginning guitar student? I hope you enjoy it, it can be
immensely rewarding.
Harold
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>
> >The class I'm in has about thirty, which is a fair bit too many for
> >beginning guitar. I think I'm in grade 19.
>
> You're a beginning guitar student? I hope you enjoy it, it can be
> immensely rewarding.
And immensely frustrating. Susan's getting tired of me getting up
from the piano after playing a reasonably complicated piece with
melody, harmony, complex rhythms and such and asking "So why is four
chords with a simple strum pattern so much harder than that?" A few
decades of practice, I guess.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The great thing about Microsoft
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |dominating the world is that
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |there's no shortage of support
|opportunities.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Sam Alvis
(650)857-7572
Hedberg
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>Hedberg <hhed...@swbell.net> writes:
>
>> Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>>
>> >The class I'm in has about thirty, which is a fair bit too many for
>> >beginning guitar. I think I'm in grade 19.
>>
>> You're a beginning guitar student? I hope you enjoy it, it can be
>> immensely rewarding.
>
>And immensely frustrating. Susan's getting tired of me getting up
>from the piano after playing a reasonably complicated piece with
>melody, harmony, complex rhythms and such and asking "So why is four
>chords with a simple strum pattern so much harder than that?" A few
>decades of practice, I guess.
I play guitar some but piano none. Personally, I think piano is more
complicated but that doesn't necessarily make guitar easy for a
beginner. Some of the things should translate from piano to guitar, I
would think. You already know about harmony and rhythm and all that
stuff and that's in the music and the player, not in the instrument.
You also have practice in getting your left and right hands doing
different but coordinated things.
Harold