Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Referring to someone by their last name
1,259 views
Skip to first unread message
Berkeley Brett
Mar 4, 2014, 5:51:36 AM3/4/14
to
I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
If I refer to Mr. Jonathan Simmons simply as "Simmons," it might be disrespectful or merely matter-of-fact.
I'd be interested to know: in your part of the English-speaking world, what are the formal or informal rules on referring to someone by their last name.
Thank you in advance for anything you may choose to share....
--
Brett (in Berkeley, California, USA)
On Twitter at: http://twitter.com/BerkeleyBrett
(You don't have to be a Twitter user to view this stream of ideas.)
If I refer to Mr. Jonathan Simmons simply as "Simmons," it might be disrespectful or merely matter-of-fact.
I'd be interested to know: in your part of the English-speaking world, what are the formal or informal rules on referring to someone by their last name.
Thank you in advance for anything you may choose to share....
--
Brett (in Berkeley, California, USA)
On Twitter at: http://twitter.com/BerkeleyBrett
(You don't have to be a Twitter user to view this stream of ideas.)
Guy Barry
Mar 4, 2014, 6:00:11 AM3/4/14
to
"Berkeley Brett" wrote in message
news:e621e83e-722f-438e...@googlegroups.com...
routinely referred to as "Barry" when I was in the private education system,
but haven't been since. Because my surname can also be a first name, people
sometimes mistakenly call me "Barry" nowadays from time to time, and I
intensely disliked it, mainly because it reminds me of being at school. I
regard it as disrespectful, although I imagine there are some contexts where
it's acceptable (e.g. the armed forces).
If we're talking about third-person references, I think it's acceptable in
the context of something like an academic paper where the convention is to
refer to authors by surnames. Some journalists also do it, although I think
there's more of a tendency to use titles before surnames now - unless the
person being referred to is dead. Winston Churchill is unquestionably
"Churchill".
--
Guy Barry
news:e621e83e-722f-438e...@googlegroups.com...
>
>I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
>
>If I refer to Mr. Jonathan Simmons simply as "Simmons," it might be
>disrespectful or merely matter-of-fact.
>
>I'd be interested to know: in your part of the English-speaking world, what
>are the formal or informal rules on referring to someone by their last
>name.
Are we talking about addressing people directly by their surname? I was
>I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
>
>If I refer to Mr. Jonathan Simmons simply as "Simmons," it might be
>disrespectful or merely matter-of-fact.
>
>I'd be interested to know: in your part of the English-speaking world, what
>are the formal or informal rules on referring to someone by their last
>name.
routinely referred to as "Barry" when I was in the private education system,
but haven't been since. Because my surname can also be a first name, people
sometimes mistakenly call me "Barry" nowadays from time to time, and I
intensely disliked it, mainly because it reminds me of being at school. I
regard it as disrespectful, although I imagine there are some contexts where
it's acceptable (e.g. the armed forces).
If we're talking about third-person references, I think it's acceptable in
the context of something like an academic paper where the convention is to
refer to authors by surnames. Some journalists also do it, although I think
there's more of a tendency to use titles before surnames now - unless the
person being referred to is dead. Winston Churchill is unquestionably
"Churchill".
--
Guy Barry
Berkeley Brett
Mar 4, 2014, 6:11:07 AM3/4/14
to
Thank you, Mr. Barry.
Actually, both uses are interesting to me.
Thank you for your response. Surnames that can also be first names do present a tricky case!
Brett in Berkeley
Actually, both uses are interesting to me.
Thank you for your response. Surnames that can also be first names do present a tricky case!
Brett in Berkeley
the Omrud
Mar 4, 2014, 6:27:53 AM3/4/14
to
On 04/03/2014 10:51, Berkeley Brett wrote:
> I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
>
> If I refer to Mr. Jonathan Simmons simply as "Simmons," it might be disrespectful or merely matter-of-fact.
>
> I'd be interested to know: in your part of the English-speaking world, what are the formal or informal rules on referring to someone by their last name.
>
> Thank you in advance for anything you may choose to share....
The BBC has a convention of using individuals' full names or titles
> I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
>
> If I refer to Mr. Jonathan Simmons simply as "Simmons," it might be disrespectful or merely matter-of-fact.
>
> I'd be interested to know: in your part of the English-speaking world, what are the formal or informal rules on referring to someone by their last name.
>
> Thank you in advance for anything you may choose to share....
(John Smith or Mr Smith or Sir John) until they're convicted, at which
point they become "Smith".
The only time I've been routinely referred to by my surname (other than
by friends in a sort of jolly way) was at secondary school. It was a
mixed grammar school where boys were addressed by surname, but girls
were addressed by given name. We saw nothing odd in this at the time.
--
David
CDB
Mar 4, 2014, 6:49:00 AM3/4/14
to
On 04/03/2014 5:51 AM, Berkeley Brett wrote:
> I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
> If I refer to Mr. Jonathan Simmons simply as "Simmons," it might be
> disrespectful or merely matter-of-fact.
> I'd be interested to know: in your part of the English-speaking
> world, what are the formal or informal rules on referring to someone
> by their last name.
There's masculine solidarity to consider. Oscar Wilde famously
> I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
> If I refer to Mr. Jonathan Simmons simply as "Simmons," it might be
> disrespectful or merely matter-of-fact.
> I'd be interested to know: in your part of the English-speaking
> world, what are the formal or informal rules on referring to someone
> by their last name.
insisted (in Frank Harris's book?) on either "Mr Wilde" or "Oscar"; none
of your bluff equality, please. They probably called him something more
generic at Reading.
In a very specialised case, employees of the Canadian House of Commons
routinely refer to Members by their surnames, differentiating them where
necessary by adding the riding-name: "Richardson", or "Richardson
(Berkely) and Richardson (Venice Beach)". Tha form of address is of
course "Ms/Mr Richardson", perhaps indicating some lack of solidarity.
> Thank you in advance for anything you may choose to share....
charles
Mar 4, 2014, 7:00:26 AM3/4/14
to
In article <e621e83e-722f-438e...@googlegroups.com>,
the 1960s. It went out of fashion with the arrival of a much more casual
attitude to life. People stopped wearing ties, too.
--
From KT24
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18
Berkeley Brett <roya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
> If I refer to Mr. Jonathan Simmons simply as "Simmons," it might be
> disrespectful or merely matter-of-fact.
> I'd be interested to know: in your part of the English-speaking world,
> what are the formal or informal rules on referring to someone by their
> last name.
Being called by ones surname only was very much the norm in then UK until
> I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
> If I refer to Mr. Jonathan Simmons simply as "Simmons," it might be
> disrespectful or merely matter-of-fact.
> I'd be interested to know: in your part of the English-speaking world,
> what are the formal or informal rules on referring to someone by their
> last name.
the 1960s. It went out of fashion with the arrival of a much more casual
attitude to life. People stopped wearing ties, too.
--
From KT24
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18
Cheryl
Mar 4, 2014, 7:14:10 AM3/4/14
to
I, too, encountered a teacher - a university professor, in my case - who
used surnames to address students, but that was many years ago and even
then, he was the only one who did so. He also apparently decided to be
completely non-sexist, and when more women started attending his
classes, he also addressed them by their surnames.
Local media usually uses first name plus last name, at least the first
time the person is mentioned. Titles aren't usually used, except for
some public figures like Prime Minister, Premier, President, Queen etc.
I checked a recent crime report, and found that the recently-convicted
person was referred to as Firstname Lastname, and then as Lastname
throughout the discussion of the case. A similar pattern was followed in
an article about the current mayor of Toronto, which may not be a good
example, but an article about a hockey team used the same pattern for
the name of the spokesperson.
--
Cheryl
Don Phillipson
Mar 4, 2014, 9:36:43 AM3/4/14
to
"charles" <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:53e3188d...@charleshope.demon.co.uk...
> Being called by ones surname only was very much the norm in then UK until
> the 1960s. It went out of fashion with the arrival of a much more casual
> attitude to life. People stopped wearing ties, too.
Military service reinforced other infliuences or habits of addressing
boys and men only by surname. This changed in the 1960s when "national
service" was abolished, i.e. Britons born in 1940 or later no longer
expected to live under military discipline for a couple of years.
A second reinforcer was emulation of the social pattern of British
boys' schools. The all-girl high school attended by my friends in
SE London in the 1950s emulated boys' public schools, thus
identified girls by their surnames, so most girls acquired nicknames
based on their surnames, not their Christian names.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
news:53e3188d...@charleshope.demon.co.uk...
> Being called by ones surname only was very much the norm in then UK until
> the 1960s. It went out of fashion with the arrival of a much more casual
> attitude to life. People stopped wearing ties, too.
boys and men only by surname. This changed in the 1960s when "national
service" was abolished, i.e. Britons born in 1940 or later no longer
expected to live under military discipline for a couple of years.
A second reinforcer was emulation of the social pattern of British
boys' schools. The all-girl high school attended by my friends in
SE London in the 1950s emulated boys' public schools, thus
identified girls by their surnames, so most girls acquired nicknames
based on their surnames, not their Christian names.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Whiskers
Mar 4, 2014, 10:38:19 AM3/4/14
to
such practices (and such distinctions) are now archaic. Addressing or
referring to someone by their surname only might be considered an
insult, so don't do it unless you're very certain of your own position.
Authors of academic texts are often referred to by 'surname' as a sort
of shorthand, usually after they have been more fully identified first.
The same happens in journalism, when an article refers to someone more
than once the later mentions may be limited to 'surname' if it can be
done without ambiguity.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Garrett Wollman
Mar 4, 2014, 12:03:58 PM3/4/14
to
>I'd be interested to know: in your part of the English-speaking world,
>what are the formal or informal rules on referring to someone by their
>last name.
Well, as I'm sure you know, Mr. Richardson,[1] some publications have
>what are the formal or informal rules on referring to someone by their
>last name.
policies requiring the use of honorifics on second reference to a
person. The New York Times is perhaps the most famous example of this
(except in the sports section), but The Wall Street Journal does it as
well.
In general discourse, it seems to me that children are still taught to
use the honorifics -- even for sports figures! -- but most people
don't unless they are being intentionally formal or supercilious.
As a matter of direct address, we've seen a decrese in the level of
formality generally; people who used to be addressed solely with an
honorific are now generally addressed by their given names, except in
the most formal or official situations, and even then, the implied
level of formality has decreased. (Nobody addresses the Governor of
Massachusetts as "Your Excellency"; "Governor" suffices, and when he
leaves office, he will go back to being "Deval" or "Mr. Patrick" on
most occasions, except in the press.)
You see in the Sherlock Holmes novels a system of increasingly formal
address: Holmes and his brother (and only them) call each other by
given name; Holmes and Watson call each other by family name; and
everyone else addresses "Mr. Holmes" and "Dr. Watson". The middle
level of formality has dropped out of conversational use, but the
upper level of formality has dropped out of most journalism.
-GAWollman
[1] Or whatever your name actually is.
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
James Silverton
Mar 4, 2014, 3:37:10 PM3/4/14
to
solicitor asks "Is this James?", which is a certain indicator that they
don't know me since anyone who did would use "Jim". There's an even more
irritating question: "Is this Jas?" because many years ago the phone
directory abbreviated "James" to "Jas".
--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)
Extraneous "not." in Reply To.
Robert Bannister
Mar 4, 2014, 6:35:18 PM3/4/14
to
On 4/03/2014 6:51 pm, Berkeley Brett wrote:
> I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
>
> If I refer to Mr. Jonathan Simmons simply as "Simmons," it might be disrespectful or merely matter-of-fact.
>
> I'd be interested to know: in your part of the English-speaking world, what are the formal or informal rules on referring to someone by their last name.
>
> Thank you in advance for anything you may choose to share....
>
It used to be common, normal even, back when I was a boy - not just for
> I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
>
> If I refer to Mr. Jonathan Simmons simply as "Simmons," it might be disrespectful or merely matter-of-fact.
>
> I'd be interested to know: in your part of the English-speaking world, what are the formal or informal rules on referring to someone by their last name.
>
> Thank you in advance for anything you may choose to share....
>
boys, but for adults too. It was often seen as an expression of
affection, believe it or not. I think it died out at the end of the 1950s.
--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia
charles
Mar 4, 2014, 11:29:14 AM3/4/14
to
In article <slrnlhbsrb.1...@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
just by surname. Inferiors were Mr x.
> Authors of academic texts are often referred to by 'surname' as a sort
> of shorthand, usually after they have been more fully identified first.
> The same happens in journalism, when an article refers to someone more
> than once the later mentions may be limited to 'surname' if it can be
> done without ambiguity.
Don't forget composers. Once dead they are just surname, (unless it's a
shared one); alive they get a first name, too.
Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
> On 2014-03-04, charles <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <e621e83e-722f-438e...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Berkeley Brett <roya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
> >
> >> If I refer to Mr. Jonathan Simmons simply as "Simmons," it might be
> >> disrespectful or merely matter-of-fact.
> >
> >> I'd be interested to know: in your part of the English-speaking
> >> world, what are the formal or informal rules on referring to someone
> >> by their last name.
> >
> > Being called by ones surname only was very much the norm in then UK
> > until the 1960s. It went out of fashion with the arrival of a much
> > more casual attitude to life. People stopped wearing ties, too.
> It used to be normal to address one's social inferiors by 'surname', but
> such practices (and such distinctions) are now archaic. Addressing or
> referring to someone by their surname only might be considered an
> insult, so don't do it unless you're very certain of your own position.
Not this side of the pond. It was your social equals that you addressed
> On 2014-03-04, charles <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <e621e83e-722f-438e...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Berkeley Brett <roya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
> >
> >> If I refer to Mr. Jonathan Simmons simply as "Simmons," it might be
> >> disrespectful or merely matter-of-fact.
> >
> >> I'd be interested to know: in your part of the English-speaking
> >> world, what are the formal or informal rules on referring to someone
> >> by their last name.
> >
> > Being called by ones surname only was very much the norm in then UK
> > until the 1960s. It went out of fashion with the arrival of a much
> > more casual attitude to life. People stopped wearing ties, too.
> It used to be normal to address one's social inferiors by 'surname', but
> such practices (and such distinctions) are now archaic. Addressing or
> referring to someone by their surname only might be considered an
> insult, so don't do it unless you're very certain of your own position.
just by surname. Inferiors were Mr x.
> Authors of academic texts are often referred to by 'surname' as a sort
> of shorthand, usually after they have been more fully identified first.
> The same happens in journalism, when an article refers to someone more
> than once the later mentions may be limited to 'surname' if it can be
> done without ambiguity.
shared one); alive they get a first name, too.
R H Draney
Mar 4, 2014, 7:39:04 PM3/4/14
to
charles filted:
Gets confusing when one or more parts of the name is multi-word...do you shelve
Sherlock Holmes collections under C or D?...r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
Sherlock Holmes collections under C or D?...r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
Mark Brader
Mar 4, 2014, 8:00:59 PM3/4/14
to
Draney writes:
> Gets confusing when one or more parts of the name is multi-word...
> do you shelve Sherlock Holmes collections under C or D?
W, of course. :-)
> Gets confusing when one or more parts of the name is multi-word...
> do you shelve Sherlock Holmes collections under C or D?
--
Mark Brader | "I thought at first that you had done something clever,
Toronto | but I see that there was nothing in it, after all."
m...@vex.net | "I begin to think, Watson, that I make a mistake
| in explaining." --Doyle
Mike Barnes
Mar 5, 2014, 2:37:16 AM3/5/14
to
Your question wouldn't arise here, but if it did, the answer would be
"S" (sbe "Fve").
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England
Bob Martin
Mar 5, 2014, 2:49:41 AM3/5/14
to
in 2053290 20140304 143643 "Don Phillipson" <e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
>"charles" <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:53e3188d...@charleshope.demon.co.uk...
>
>> Being called by ones surname only was very much the norm in then UK until
>> the 1960s. It went out of fashion with the arrival of a much more casual
>> attitude to life. People stopped wearing ties, too.
>
>Military service reinforced other infliuences or habits of addressing
>boys and men only by surname. This changed in the 1960s when "national
>service" was abolished, i.e. Britons born in 1940 or later no longer
>expected to live under military discipline for a couple of years.
Addressing people by surname is still the norm in the police and the armed forces.
>"charles" <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:53e3188d...@charleshope.demon.co.uk...
>
>> Being called by ones surname only was very much the norm in then UK until
>> the 1960s. It went out of fashion with the arrival of a much more casual
>> attitude to life. People stopped wearing ties, too.
>
>Military service reinforced other infliuences or habits of addressing
>boys and men only by surname. This changed in the 1960s when "national
>service" was abolished, i.e. Britons born in 1940 or later no longer
>expected to live under military discipline for a couple of years.
Guy Barry
Mar 5, 2014, 3:11:33 AM3/5/14
to
"R H Draney" wrote in message news:lf5rn...@drn.newsguy.com...
One exception, curiously, seems to be "Chomsky". I've known people who
assumed that Noam Chomsky must be dead because he's so often referred to
exclusively by his surname.
--
Guy Barry
>
>charles filted:
>>
>>In article <slrnlhbsrb.1...@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
>> Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Authors of academic texts are often referred to by 'surname' as a sort
>>> of shorthand, usually after they have been more fully identified first.
>>> The same happens in journalism, when an article refers to someone more
>>> than once the later mentions may be limited to 'surname' if it can be
>>> done without ambiguity.
>>
>>Don't forget composers. Once dead they are just surname, (unless it's a
>>shared one); alive they get a first name, too.
I think that's true for famous people generally (authors, politicians etc.)
>charles filted:
>>
>>In article <slrnlhbsrb.1...@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
>> Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Authors of academic texts are often referred to by 'surname' as a sort
>>> of shorthand, usually after they have been more fully identified first.
>>> The same happens in journalism, when an article refers to someone more
>>> than once the later mentions may be limited to 'surname' if it can be
>>> done without ambiguity.
>>
>>Don't forget composers. Once dead they are just surname, (unless it's a
>>shared one); alive they get a first name, too.
One exception, curiously, seems to be "Chomsky". I've known people who
assumed that Noam Chomsky must be dead because he's so often referred to
exclusively by his surname.
--
Guy Barry
Jerry Friedman
Mar 5, 2014, 10:25:25 AM3/5/14
to
When I was in elementary school in the suburbs of Cleveland, Ohio, boys
almost always called each other by last name, probably imitating the
military and sports. The same was often true in the private middle
school and high school I went to. British schools may have had some
influence there. I think boys in public schools where I lived used
first names more. When I got to college, everyone used first names.
In the town I live in now, a few people call each other by last names at
least on occasion, but as an overall practice it wouldn't work, because
about ten percent of the population has the surname Martinez.
--
Jerry Friedman
Jeffrey Turner
Mar 5, 2014, 2:01:08 PM3/5/14
to
are recognizable by a single name. "Did you see Bellafonte on
Letterman last night?" Kanye. And I haven't kept up with Diddy's
latest self-appellation in a while. Sinatra and Streisand in their
day. Cher.
--Jeff
I knew Gaga before she was knighted.
Whiskers
Mar 5, 2014, 2:09:16 PM3/5/14
to
On 2014-03-04, charles <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <slrnlhbsrb.1...@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
> Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
>> On 2014-03-04, charles <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> > In article <e621e83e-722f-438e...@googlegroups.com>,
>> > Berkeley Brett <roya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
>> >
>> >> If I refer to Mr. Jonathan Simmons simply as "Simmons," it might be
>> >> disrespectful or merely matter-of-fact.
>> >
>> >> I'd be interested to know: in your part of the English-speaking
>> >> world, what are the formal or informal rules on referring to someone
>> >> by their last name.
>> >
>> > Being called by ones surname only was very much the norm in then UK
>> > until the 1960s. It went out of fashion with the arrival of a much
>> > more casual attitude to life. People stopped wearing ties, too.
>
>> It used to be normal to address one's social inferiors by 'surname', but
>> such practices (and such distinctions) are now archaic. Addressing or
>> referring to someone by their surname only might be considered an
>> insult, so don't do it unless you're very certain of your own position.
>
>
> Not this side of the pond. It was your social equals that you addressed
> just by surname. Inferiors were Mr x.
Interesting. I think we're on the same side of the pond, so some other
> In article <slrnlhbsrb.1...@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
> Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
>> On 2014-03-04, charles <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> > In article <e621e83e-722f-438e...@googlegroups.com>,
>> > Berkeley Brett <roya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
>> >
>> >> If I refer to Mr. Jonathan Simmons simply as "Simmons," it might be
>> >> disrespectful or merely matter-of-fact.
>> >
>> >> I'd be interested to know: in your part of the English-speaking
>> >> world, what are the formal or informal rules on referring to someone
>> >> by their last name.
>> >
>> > Being called by ones surname only was very much the norm in then UK
>> > until the 1960s. It went out of fashion with the arrival of a much
>> > more casual attitude to life. People stopped wearing ties, too.
>
>> It used to be normal to address one's social inferiors by 'surname', but
>> such practices (and such distinctions) are now archaic. Addressing or
>> referring to someone by their surname only might be considered an
>> insult, so don't do it unless you're very certain of your own position.
>
>
> Not this side of the pond. It was your social equals that you addressed
> just by surname. Inferiors were Mr x.
factor must affect our different perceptions. My grounding was
middle-class far south-west Britain, state schools, 1950s and 60s.
At my boys-only grammar school, pupils often used surname only among
themselves unless a nickname was available or friendship made given
names acceptable. That is certainly among equals, but I think that's a
special case. Use of an honorific usually signified respect (except
when, in BrE fashion, it signified something else entirely).
>> Authors of academic texts are often referred to by 'surname' as a sort
>> of shorthand, usually after they have been more fully identified first.
>> The same happens in journalism, when an article refers to someone more
>> than once the later mentions may be limited to 'surname' if it can be
>> done without ambiguity.
>
> Don't forget composers. Once dead they are just surname, (unless it's a
> shared one); alive they get a first name, too.
R H Draney
Mar 5, 2014, 2:44:51 PM3/5/14
to
Jeffrey Turner filted:
For a living composer already known chiefly by his surname, note that nobody
ever speaks of the uproar when "Bob" went electric....r
>
>On 3/5/2014 3:11 AM, Guy Barry wrote:
>> "R H Draney" wrote in message news:lf5rn...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>>
>>> charles filted:
>>>>
>On 3/5/2014 3:11 AM, Guy Barry wrote:
>> "R H Draney" wrote in message news:lf5rn...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>>
>>> charles filted:
>>>>
>>>> Don't forget composers. Once dead they are just surname, (unless it's a
>>>> shared one); alive they get a first name, too.
>>
>> I think that's true for famous people generally (authors, politicians
>> etc.) One exception, curiously, seems to be "Chomsky". I've known
>> people who assumed that Noam Chomsky must be dead because he's so often
>> referred to exclusively by his surname.
>
>Madonna is dead?! Honestly, there are plenty of famous people who
>are recognizable by a single name. "Did you see Bellafonte on
>Letterman last night?" Kanye. And I haven't kept up with Diddy's
>latest self-appellation in a while. Sinatra and Streisand in their
>day. Cher.
Most of yours are first names, which is a whole different matter....
>>>> shared one); alive they get a first name, too.
>>
>> I think that's true for famous people generally (authors, politicians
>> etc.) One exception, curiously, seems to be "Chomsky". I've known
>> people who assumed that Noam Chomsky must be dead because he's so often
>> referred to exclusively by his surname.
>
>Madonna is dead?! Honestly, there are plenty of famous people who
>are recognizable by a single name. "Did you see Bellafonte on
>Letterman last night?" Kanye. And I haven't kept up with Diddy's
>latest self-appellation in a while. Sinatra and Streisand in their
>day. Cher.
For a living composer already known chiefly by his surname, note that nobody
ever speaks of the uproar when "Bob" went electric....r
James Silverton
Mar 5, 2014, 3:06:21 PM3/5/14
to
"Midori" or "Kennedy" even if I acknowledge the talents of the
performers. Madonna, indeed, is a very competent actress besides being a
singer and one has to admit that the other two are fine musicians.
Django Cat
Mar 5, 2014, 5:54:54 PM3/5/14
to
> The same happens in journalism, when an article refers to
> someone more than once the later mentions may be limited to 'surname'
> if it can be done without ambiguity.
true when the report is about a man, but women's names are usually
given in full. The exception to this is the Guardian, which insists on
refering to women by their surname. This is, I'm sure, in the interests
of equality but somehow... it just... isn't... right...
DC
--
Mike L
Mar 5, 2014, 6:00:37 PM3/5/14
to
have groups in which they're sometimes at least addressed as "Lyle".
Not sure about my son, but probably he too.
--
Mike.
Django Cat
Mar 5, 2014, 6:26:39 PM3/5/14
to
DC
--
Jennifer Murphy
Mar 5, 2014, 9:18:22 PM3/5/14
to
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 02:51:36 -0800 (PST), Berkeley Brett
<roya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
>
>If I refer to Mr. Jonathan Simmons simply as "Simmons," it might be disrespectful or merely matter-of-fact.
>
>I'd be interested to know: in your part of the English-speaking world, what are the formal or informal rules on referring to someone by their last name.
>
>Thank you in advance for anything you may choose to share....
I recently had a birthday involving a number that ends in a zero. While
<roya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
>
>If I refer to Mr. Jonathan Simmons simply as "Simmons," it might be disrespectful or merely matter-of-fact.
>
>I'd be interested to know: in your part of the English-speaking world, what are the formal or informal rules on referring to someone by their last name.
>
>Thank you in advance for anything you may choose to share....
visiting my mother-in-law in another state, she and several others threw
a surprise party that involved a very nice dinner at a very nice
restaurant. Somehow, the topic of thank you notes came up among the
"younger" generation. One person said that my mother-in-law (who was not
present) had mentioned several times that I always address my thank you
notes to her as "Jane Doe" rather than "Mrs. John Q. Doe". I was quite
surprised by this. I asked what everyone else did. Every single person,
including her own (adult) children, said that they always address
letters to her as "Mrs. John Q. Doe". My father-in-law, passed away
several years ago. I didn't ask if that mattered.
Another member of the birthday party is a woman whose birthday is just a
few days after my own. I consider her a good friend, even though we only
see each other a couple of times a year. The party was also for her, but
for some reason she was in on the surprise. At the dinner, she gave me a
very nice present. No other gifts were exchanged as are my wishes.
However, I felt badly as, not knowing it was a birthday party, I didn't
have anything for her. Someone asked how I planned to address my thank
you note to this woman (who also was not present). I must have looked
shocked, because everyone laughed. Incidentally, her husband, who was
much older than she is, also died a few years ago. I said that I hadn't
thought about it, but would probably address it as "Sally Roe". I was
informed that she would prefer "Mrs. Arthur P. Roe".
I complied with both suggestions, but do not agree with either.
My inlaws are a very formal east coast family. I come from a very
informal west coast background. I wouldn't think of addressing a letter
to my mother as "Mrs. Fred F. Flintstone" and I think she would be
slightly taken aback if I did.
I hope this was more or less on topic.
Robert Bannister
Mar 5, 2014, 10:07:39 PM3/5/14
to
grown-ups to call each other by surnames, but only friends. The others
were Mr Whoever. Agreed, the bosses probably also used surnames to their
workers, but by cow-orkers it was used more as a mark of friendship.
Robert Bannister
Mar 5, 2014, 10:08:37 PM3/5/14
to
Jeffrey Turner
Mar 6, 2014, 12:29:32 AM3/6/14
to
On 3/5/2014 2:44 PM, R H Draney wrote:
> Jeffrey Turner filted:
>> On 3/5/2014 3:11 AM, Guy Barry wrote:
>>> "R H Draney" wrote in message news:lf5rn...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>>> charles filted:
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't forget composers. Once dead they are just surname, (unless it's a
>>>>> shared one); alive they get a first name, too.
>>>
>>> I think that's true for famous people generally (authors, politicians
>>> etc.) One exception, curiously, seems to be "Chomsky". I've known
>>> people who assumed that Noam Chomsky must be dead because he's so often
>>> referred to exclusively by his surname.
>>
>> Madonna is dead?! Honestly, there are plenty of famous people who
>> are recognizable by a single name. "Did you see Bellafonte on
>> Letterman last night?" Kanye. And I haven't kept up with Diddy's
>> latest self-appellation in a while. Sinatra and Streisand in their
>> day. Cher.
>
> Most of yours are first names, which is a whole different matter....
Only Kanye and Cher. And maybe Diddy. I think it's just a matter of
> Jeffrey Turner filted:
>> On 3/5/2014 3:11 AM, Guy Barry wrote:
>>> "R H Draney" wrote in message news:lf5rn...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>>> charles filted:
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't forget composers. Once dead they are just surname, (unless it's a
>>>>> shared one); alive they get a first name, too.
>>>
>>> I think that's true for famous people generally (authors, politicians
>>> etc.) One exception, curiously, seems to be "Chomsky". I've known
>>> people who assumed that Noam Chomsky must be dead because he's so often
>>> referred to exclusively by his surname.
>>
>> Madonna is dead?! Honestly, there are plenty of famous people who
>> are recognizable by a single name. "Did you see Bellafonte on
>> Letterman last night?" Kanye. And I haven't kept up with Diddy's
>> latest self-appellation in a while. Sinatra and Streisand in their
>> day. Cher.
>
> Most of yours are first names, which is a whole different matter....
uniqueness.
> For a living composer already known chiefly by his surname, note that nobody
> ever speaks of the uproar when "Bob" went electric....r
--Jeff
Jeffrey Turner
Mar 6, 2014, 12:31:09 AM3/6/14
to
--Jeff
Jeffrey Turner
Mar 6, 2014, 12:32:20 AM3/6/14
to
Bob Martin
Mar 6, 2014, 2:34:19 AM3/6/14
to
in 2053538 20140305 152525 Jerry Friedman <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 3/5/14 12:49 AM, Bob Martin wrote:
>> in 2053290 20140304 143643 "Don Phillipson" <e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
>>> "charles" <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:53e3188d...@charleshope.demon.co.uk...
>>>
>>>> Being called by ones surname only was very much the norm in then UK until
>>>> the 1960s. It went out of fashion with the arrival of a much more casual
>>>> attitude to life. People stopped wearing ties, too.
>>>
>>> Military service reinforced other infliuences or habits of addressing
>>> boys and men only by surname. This changed in the 1960s when "national
>>> service" was abolished, i.e. Britons born in 1940 or later no longer
>>> expected to live under military discipline for a couple of years.
>>
>> Addressing people by surname is still the norm in the police and the armed forces.
>
>And on sports teams in America, I believe.
Sports teams everywhere.
>On 3/5/14 12:49 AM, Bob Martin wrote:
>> in 2053290 20140304 143643 "Don Phillipson" <e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
>>> "charles" <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:53e3188d...@charleshope.demon.co.uk...
>>>
>>>> Being called by ones surname only was very much the norm in then UK until
>>>> the 1960s. It went out of fashion with the arrival of a much more casual
>>>> attitude to life. People stopped wearing ties, too.
>>>
>>> Military service reinforced other infliuences or habits of addressing
>>> boys and men only by surname. This changed in the 1960s when "national
>>> service" was abolished, i.e. Britons born in 1940 or later no longer
>>> expected to live under military discipline for a couple of years.
>>
>> Addressing people by surname is still the norm in the police and the armed forces.
>
>And on sports teams in America, I believe.
Guy Barry
Mar 6, 2014, 4:17:15 AM3/6/14
to
"Jennifer Murphy" wrote in message
news:94lfh9l0q5eh4upcr...@4ax.com...
> I wouldn't think of addressing a letter
>to my mother as "Mrs. Fred F. Flintstone" and I think she would be
>slightly taken aback if I did.
I think most people's mothers would be.
(Yes, I know what you meant.)
--
Guy Barry
news:94lfh9l0q5eh4upcr...@4ax.com...
> I wouldn't think of addressing a letter
>to my mother as "Mrs. Fred F. Flintstone" and I think she would be
>slightly taken aback if I did.
(Yes, I know what you meant.)
--
Guy Barry
R H Draney
Mar 6, 2014, 4:21:22 AM3/6/14
to
Jeffrey Turner filted:
"GILLIGAN!"...r
R H Draney
Mar 6, 2014, 4:24:17 AM3/6/14
to
Guy Barry filted:
Shirley that's "Mrs. Fred *J.* Flintstone"...all cartoon characters, unless
otherwise specified, are assumed to have the middle initial J....r
otherwise specified, are assumed to have the middle initial J....r
Cheryl
Mar 6, 2014, 6:49:18 AM3/6/14
to
On 2014-03-05 10:48 PM, Jennifer Murphy wrote:
> My inlaws are a very formal east coast family. I come from a very
> informal west coast background. I wouldn't think of addressing a letter
> to my mother as "Mrs. Fred F. Flintstone" and I think she would be
> slightly taken aback if I did.
>
> I hope this was more or less on topic.
>
I think the general rule is that you use the form of address the person
> My inlaws are a very formal east coast family. I come from a very
> informal west coast background. I wouldn't think of addressing a letter
> to my mother as "Mrs. Fred F. Flintstone" and I think she would be
> slightly taken aback if I did.
>
> I hope this was more or less on topic.
>
you are addressing prefers, but, that being said, the "Mrs. Fred F.
Flintstone" form does seem rather old-fashioned to me.
It reminds me a bit of an incident I think I mentioned here before. When
I was a child - at a rough guess 40 years or so ago - my mother, who
always signed her name in the form "Wilma Flintstone" was informed by
one of her friends that, since she was not divorced, she should use
"Mrs. Fred Flintstone". My mother thought that was a very silly idea and
didn't change her habits in the least.
I have no idea why her friend was so worked up about the proper way to
address married women vs divorcees. Divorce was almost unheard-of in my
childhood home town, so the issue can't have arisen often.
--
Cheryl
charles
Mar 6, 2014, 7:44:14 AM3/6/14
to
In article <bnr5lv...@mid.individual.net>,
sudden they magazine stopped arriving. She sent off a postcard, with her
name and address printed on the top in the form Mrs Fred Flintstone, asking
waht had happened. No answer. She wrote a letter signing herself Wilma
Flintstone - still nothing. My father, a lawyer, wrote a formal letter on
behalf of his client Mrs Fintstone. Thereafter 3 copies arrived each month
- 1 for Mrs Fred Flintstone, 1 for Mrs Wilma Flintstone and 1 for Mrs
Flintsone. Regretably she died befoer the house became full of Readers
Digests.
Cheryl <cper...@mun.ca> wrote:
> On 2014-03-05 10:48 PM, Jennifer Murphy wrote:
> > My inlaws are a very formal east coast family. I come from a very
> > informal west coast background. I wouldn't think of addressing a letter
> > to my mother as "Mrs. Fred F. Flintstone" and I think she would be
> > slightly taken aback if I did.
> >
> > I hope this was more or less on topic.
> >
> I think the general rule is that you use the form of address the person
> you are addressing prefers, but, that being said, the "Mrs. Fred F.
> Flintstone" form does seem rather old-fashioned to me.
> It reminds me a bit of an incident I think I mentioned here before. When
> I was a child - at a rough guess 40 years or so ago - my mother, who
> always signed her name in the form "Wilma Flintstone" was informed by
> one of her friends that, since she was not divorced, she should use
> "Mrs. Fred Flintstone". My mother thought that was a very silly idea and
> didn't change her habits in the least.
my mother used to be a Readers Digest subscriber. (it happens) All of a
> On 2014-03-05 10:48 PM, Jennifer Murphy wrote:
> > My inlaws are a very formal east coast family. I come from a very
> > informal west coast background. I wouldn't think of addressing a letter
> > to my mother as "Mrs. Fred F. Flintstone" and I think she would be
> > slightly taken aback if I did.
> >
> > I hope this was more or less on topic.
> >
> I think the general rule is that you use the form of address the person
> you are addressing prefers, but, that being said, the "Mrs. Fred F.
> Flintstone" form does seem rather old-fashioned to me.
> It reminds me a bit of an incident I think I mentioned here before. When
> I was a child - at a rough guess 40 years or so ago - my mother, who
> always signed her name in the form "Wilma Flintstone" was informed by
> one of her friends that, since she was not divorced, she should use
> "Mrs. Fred Flintstone". My mother thought that was a very silly idea and
> didn't change her habits in the least.
sudden they magazine stopped arriving. She sent off a postcard, with her
name and address printed on the top in the form Mrs Fred Flintstone, asking
waht had happened. No answer. She wrote a letter signing herself Wilma
Flintstone - still nothing. My father, a lawyer, wrote a formal letter on
behalf of his client Mrs Fintstone. Thereafter 3 copies arrived each month
- 1 for Mrs Fred Flintstone, 1 for Mrs Wilma Flintstone and 1 for Mrs
Flintsone. Regretably she died befoer the house became full of Readers
Digests.
Tony Cooper
Mar 6, 2014, 9:31:25 AM3/6/14
to
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
Whiskers
Mar 6, 2014, 9:31:33 AM3/6/14
to
include an honorific or given name on the envelope of a letter, or in a
postcard; using initials and surname only is often requested by women,
particularly those living alone. I think there's also a feminist or
sexist aspect - sex, gender, and marital status, are not relevant for
the delivery of letters or parcels.
Of course, some people with titles do like to see their status mentioned
at every possible opportunity (but I don't know any of them).
Jerry Friedman
Mar 6, 2014, 9:59:33 AM3/6/14
to
On 3/5/14 7:18 PM, Jennifer Murphy wrote:
...
> I wouldn't think of addressing a letter
> to my mother as "Mrs. Fred F. Flintstone" and I think she would be
> slightly taken aback if I did.
...
I used to address letters to my mother as "Femininename Friedman", but
something like thirty years ago she mentioned that she thought I knew
better, so now I use "Ms. Femininename Friedman". I can't remember now
whether I ever used "Mrs. Masculinename Friedman or "Mr. and Mrs.
Masculinename Friedman"--maybe the latter for letters from summer camp?
--
Jerry Friedman
...
> I wouldn't think of addressing a letter
> to my mother as "Mrs. Fred F. Flintstone" and I think she would be
> slightly taken aback if I did.
I used to address letters to my mother as "Femininename Friedman", but
something like thirty years ago she mentioned that she thought I knew
better, so now I use "Ms. Femininename Friedman". I can't remember now
whether I ever used "Mrs. Masculinename Friedman or "Mr. and Mrs.
Masculinename Friedman"--maybe the latter for letters from summer camp?
--
Jerry Friedman
R H Draney
Mar 6, 2014, 2:36:36 PM3/6/14
to
Jerry Friedman filted:
>
>I used to address letters to my mother as "Femininename Friedman", but
>something like thirty years ago she mentioned that she thought I knew
>better, so now I use "Ms. Femininename Friedman". I can't remember now
>whether I ever used "Mrs. Masculinename Friedman or "Mr. and Mrs.
>Masculinename Friedman"--maybe the latter for letters from summer camp?
And Christmas cards, addressed to "The Friedmen"....r
>I used to address letters to my mother as "Femininename Friedman", but
>something like thirty years ago she mentioned that she thought I knew
>better, so now I use "Ms. Femininename Friedman". I can't remember now
>whether I ever used "Mrs. Masculinename Friedman or "Mr. and Mrs.
>Masculinename Friedman"--maybe the latter for letters from summer camp?
Jerry Friedman
Mar 6, 2014, 4:46:08 PM3/6/14
to
On Thursday, March 6, 2014 12:36:36 PM UTC-7, R H Draney wrote:
> Jerry Friedman filted:
>
> >I used to address letters to my mother as "Femininename Friedman", but
> >something like thirty years ago she mentioned that she thought I knew
> >better, so now I use "Ms. Femininename Friedman". I can't remember now
> >whether I ever used "Mrs. Masculinename Friedman or "Mr. and Mrs.
> >Masculinename Friedman"--maybe the latter for letters from summer camp?
>
> And Christmas
or whatever
> Jerry Friedman filted:
>
> >I used to address letters to my mother as "Femininename Friedman", but
> >something like thirty years ago she mentioned that she thought I knew
> >better, so now I use "Ms. Femininename Friedman". I can't remember now
> >whether I ever used "Mrs. Masculinename Friedman or "Mr. and Mrs.
> >Masculinename Friedman"--maybe the latter for letters from summer camp?
>
> And Christmas
> cards, addressed to "The Friedmen"....r
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
Mar 6, 2014, 4:48:43 PM3/6/14
to
On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 8:07:39 PM UTC-7, Robert Bannister wrote:
> On 6/03/2014 3:09 am, Whiskers wrote:
...
> On 6/03/2014 3:09 am, Whiskers wrote:
> > At my boys-only grammar school, pupils often used surname only among
> > themselves unless a nickname was available or friendship made given
> > names acceptable. That is certainly among equals, but I think that's a
> > special case. Use of an honorific usually signified respect (except
> > when, in BrE fashion, it signified something else entirely).
> That was at school, but in the fifties is was still pretty normal for
> grown-ups to call each other by surnames, but only friends. The others
> were Mr Whoever. Agreed, the bosses probably also used surnames to their
> workers, but by cow-orkers it was used more as a mark of friendship.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
Mar 6, 2014, 5:38:48 PM3/6/14
to
On Thursday, March 6, 2014 12:31:09 AM UTC-5, Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> > That was at school, but in the fifties is was still pretty normal for
> > grown-ups to call each other by surnames, but only friends. The others
> > were Mr Whoever. Agreed, the bosses probably also used surnames to their
> > workers, but by cow-orkers it was used more as a mark of friendship.
>
> "Norton!"
Archie Bunker called George Jefferson "Jefferson." George Jefferson called
> > That was at school, but in the fifties is was still pretty normal for
> > grown-ups to call each other by surnames, but only friends. The others
> > were Mr Whoever. Agreed, the bosses probably also used surnames to their
> > workers, but by cow-orkers it was used more as a mark of friendship.
>
> "Norton!"
Archie Bunker "Mr. Bunker."
OTOH, Norton's equivalent was "Ralphie-boy!"
Robert Bannister
Mar 6, 2014, 6:38:42 PM3/6/14
to
Peter Moylan
Mar 6, 2014, 9:51:35 PM3/6/14
to
On 07/03/14 01:31, Whiskers wrote:
> Of course, some people with titles do like to see their status mentioned
> at every possible opportunity (but I don't know any of them).
In my (academic) experience, titles are used only by those who haven't
> Of course, some people with titles do like to see their status mentioned
> at every possible opportunity (but I don't know any of them).
earned them.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
charles
Mar 6, 2014, 6:08:49 PM3/6/14
to
In article <1b84df2e-f4aa-4de4...@googlegroups.com>, Jerry
My original offer of employment (1962) was phrased that way.
R H Draney
Mar 7, 2014, 5:19:26 AM3/7/14
to
Jerry Friedman filted:
>
>The one that seems strangest to me is starting a letter "Dear Smith".
Perhaps one expects that the reply will be forged....r
>The one that seems strangest to me is starting a letter "Dear Smith".
David D S
Mar 7, 2014, 1:11:07 PM3/7/14
to
Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 07/03/14 01:31, Whiskers wrote:
>
> > Of course, some people with titles do like to see their status
> > mentioned at every possible opportunity (but I don't know any of
> > them).
>
> In my (academic) experience, titles are used only by those who haven't
> earned them.
I caused consternation in my department when, being the only non-
> On 07/03/14 01:31, Whiskers wrote:
>
> > Of course, some people with titles do like to see their status
> > mentioned at every possible opportunity (but I don't know any of
> > them).
>
> In my (academic) experience, titles are used only by those who haven't
> earned them.
medical person with a doctorate of any kind as a degree, I declined to
be called by my title, and insisted that people just used my first given
name.
It has caused problems too when certain journals I was encouraged
to publish research or professional writings in insisted that I was
given my full title also with my degrees after my name. I felt somehow
a pompous fool if I agreed to this.
--
David D S: UK and PR China. (Native BrEng speaker)
Use Reply-To header for email. This email address will be
valid for at least 2 weeks from 2014/3/8 2:07:33
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Jerry Friedman
Mar 7, 2014, 1:58:16 PM3/7/14
to
On Friday, March 7, 2014 11:11:07 AM UTC-7, David D S wrote:
> Peter Moylan wrote:
> > On 07/03/14 01:31, Whiskers wrote:
> > > Of course, some people with titles do like to see their status
> > > mentioned at every possible opportunity (but I don't know any of
> > > them).
>
> > In my (academic) experience, titles are used only by those who haven't
> > earned them.
Also to express annoyance or contempt? "I cannot endorse Professor Doe's
> Peter Moylan wrote:
> > On 07/03/14 01:31, Whiskers wrote:
> > > Of course, some people with titles do like to see their status
> > > mentioned at every possible opportunity (but I don't know any of
> > > them).
>
> > In my (academic) experience, titles are used only by those who haven't
> > earned them.
methods or agree with his conclusions."
> I caused consternation in my department when, being the only non-
> medical person with a doctorate of any kind as a degree, I declined to
> be called by my title, and insisted that people just used my first given
> name.
>
> It has caused problems too when certain journals I was encouraged
> to publish research or professional writings in insisted that I was
> given my full title also with my degrees after my name.
> I felt somehow
> a pompous fool if I agreed to this.
Does anyone have any thoughts on writing both "Dr." and the degree,
like "Dr. Jane Doe, Ph. D."? This came up between me and a student,
though she's not arguing with me about it.
--
Jerry Friedman
Cheryl
Mar 7, 2014, 2:02:46 PM3/7/14
to
name as "Dr. Jane Smith" or "Jane Smith, MD (plus any fellowships, other
degrees etc)". The second seems to be more popular usage around here in
formal letters and so on, although the holders of the degrees in
question quite often go by their first names in workplace conversations.
--
Cheryl
Leslie Danks
Mar 7, 2014, 2:03:19 PM3/7/14
to
but never both.
--
Les (BrE)
The days are long gone when the equipment for an attempt on Nanga Parbat
comprised stout walking boots, a tweed jacket and a stolen washing line.
David D S
Mar 7, 2014, 2:56:06 PM3/7/14
to
Stefan Ram wrote:
> "David D S" <inv...@m-invalid.invalid> writes:
> > It has caused problems too when certain journals I was encouraged
> > to publish research or professional writings in insisted that I was
> > given my full title also with my degrees after my name. I felt
> > somehow a pompous fool if I agreed to this.
>
> Being demonstratively modest is just another form of boasting.
You can think of it as that, but my reasoning was that it is a central
part of scientific and any serious academic work that something
stands by the argument alone, not by the reputation of the person
providing the argument. As an extension of that, I seriously think
that it is only administrative issues to do with rewards and
micro-management (which can be accommodated in other ways)
that leads to names being given on published academic papers.
If we accept that blind refereeing or review is desirable, then
so should blind publication,. Though I accept that this may be a
minority position, I don't consider the initial point as being a form
of boasting at all, any more than your decrying it could also be
such a thing as well.
> "David D S" <inv...@m-invalid.invalid> writes:
> > It has caused problems too when certain journals I was encouraged
> > to publish research or professional writings in insisted that I was
> > given my full title also with my degrees after my name. I felt
> > somehow a pompous fool if I agreed to this.
>
You can think of it as that, but my reasoning was that it is a central
part of scientific and any serious academic work that something
stands by the argument alone, not by the reputation of the person
providing the argument. As an extension of that, I seriously think
that it is only administrative issues to do with rewards and
micro-management (which can be accommodated in other ways)
that leads to names being given on published academic papers.
If we accept that blind refereeing or review is desirable, then
so should blind publication,. Though I accept that this may be a
minority position, I don't consider the initial point as being a form
of boasting at all, any more than your decrying it could also be
such a thing as well.
--
David D S: UK and PR China. (Native BrEng speaker)
Use Reply-To header for email. This email address will be
valid for at least 2 weeks from 2014/3/8 3:51:14
David D S: UK and PR China. (Native BrEng speaker)
Use Reply-To header for email. This email address will be
Mike L
Mar 7, 2014, 3:07:03 PM3/7/14
to
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 11:08:37 +0800, Robert Bannister
<rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>On 6/03/2014 7:00 am, Mike L wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 07:35:18 +0800, Robert Bannister
>> <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>>> boys, but for adults too. It was often seen as an expression of
>>> affection, believe it or not. I think it died out at the end of the 1950s.
>>
>> It's still around as an expression of affection -- all my daughters
>> have groups in which they're sometimes at least addressed as "Lyle".
>> Not sure about my son, but probably he too.
>>
>Did they go to an all-girls school?
One did; but even there it was first-names. My son certainly never got
into a girls-only school as far as I know...
--
Mike.
<rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>On 6/03/2014 7:00 am, Mike L wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 07:35:18 +0800, Robert Bannister
>> <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/03/2014 6:51 pm, Berkeley Brett wrote:
>>>> I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
>>>>
>>>> If I refer to Mr. Jonathan Simmons simply as "Simmons," it might be disrespectful or merely matter-of-fact.
>>>>
>>>> I'd be interested to know: in your part of the English-speaking world, what are the formal or informal rules on referring to someone by their last name.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you in advance for anything you may choose to share....
>>>>
>>>
>>> It used to be common, normal even, back when I was a boy - not just for
>>> On 4/03/2014 6:51 pm, Berkeley Brett wrote:
>>>> I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
>>>>
>>>> If I refer to Mr. Jonathan Simmons simply as "Simmons," it might be disrespectful or merely matter-of-fact.
>>>>
>>>> I'd be interested to know: in your part of the English-speaking world, what are the formal or informal rules on referring to someone by their last name.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you in advance for anything you may choose to share....
>>>>
>>>
>>> boys, but for adults too. It was often seen as an expression of
>>> affection, believe it or not. I think it died out at the end of the 1950s.
>>
>> It's still around as an expression of affection -- all my daughters
>> have groups in which they're sometimes at least addressed as "Lyle".
>> Not sure about my son, but probably he too.
>>
>Did they go to an all-girls school?
One did; but even there it was first-names. My son certainly never got
into a girls-only school as far as I know...
--
Mike.
Message has been deleted
Cheryl
Mar 7, 2014, 3:20:02 PM3/7/14
to
On 2014-03-07 4:42 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:
> "David D S" <inv...@m-invalid.invalid> writes:
>> my reasoning was that it is a central
>> part of scientific and any serious academic work that something
>> stands by the argument alone, not by the reputation of the person
>> providing the argument
>
> This is true when the argument is being analyzed in isolation.
> "David D S" <inv...@m-invalid.invalid> writes:
>> my reasoning was that it is a central
>> part of scientific and any serious academic work that something
>> stands by the argument alone, not by the reputation of the person
>> providing the argument
>
>
> However, a reason to include a degree might be as simple as the
> need to tell apart several persons with the same name. Sometimes
> they can be told apart by different kinds of degrees.
>
I really wouldn't want to depend on my memory of exactly what degrees
two individuals have to distinguish them. If the need arises, 'John
Michael Smith from University X' is much simpler than trying to remember
which Smith had his PhD from University Y - and the chance that two of
the Smiths at University X have exactly the same names and work in
exactly the same fields would seem to be vanishingly small.
--
Cheryl
James Silverton
Mar 7, 2014, 3:26:04 PM3/7/14
to
James V. Silverton Esq., PhD. but non-one in America has asked me for
legal advice :-)
--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)
Extraneous "not." in Reply To.
Jennifer Murphy
Mar 7, 2014, 3:27:17 PM3/7/14
to
On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 13:51:35 +1100, Peter Moylan
<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>On 07/03/14 01:31, Whiskers wrote:
>
>> Of course, some people with titles do like to see their status mentioned
>> at every possible opportunity (but I don't know any of them).
>
>In my (academic) experience, titles are used only by those who haven't
>earned them.
Quite. And this is not just in academia. Here in California, we are
<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>On 07/03/14 01:31, Whiskers wrote:
>
>> Of course, some people with titles do like to see their status mentioned
>> at every possible opportunity (but I don't know any of them).
>
>In my (academic) experience, titles are used only by those who haven't
>earned them.
awash in "professional" schools churning out PhDs, mostly in the social
"sciences". In my experience, these folks almost always use "Dr." in
front of their name and usually include the degrees after, especially if
there is more than one (Dr. Jane Doe, MS, PsyD, PhD). They also make
sure to include it in their email addresses (Dr.J...@gmail.com).
It's not all that different when it comes to physcial strength. The
biggest, toughest kid in school is rarely the bully.
j...@mdfs.net
Mar 7, 2014, 3:35:54 PM3/7/14
to
An oddity that still persisted when I was a local councillor was
councillors would be males councillors were titled Cllr Smith but
females Cllr Mrs Jones.
jgh
councillors would be males councillors were titled Cllr Smith but
females Cllr Mrs Jones.
jgh
j...@mdfs.net
Mar 7, 2014, 3:48:32 PM3/7/14
to
An oddity that still persisted when I was a local councillor was that
male councillors were titled Cllr Smith but females Cllr Mrs Jones.
jgh
Jerry Friedman
Mar 7, 2014, 4:18:06 PM3/7/14
to
On Friday, March 7, 2014 3:19:26 AM UTC-7, R H Draney wrote:
> Jerry Friedman filted:
>
> >The one that seems strangest to me is starting a letter "Dear Smith".
>
> Perhaps one expects that the reply will be forged....r
At least if one bellows.
> Jerry Friedman filted:
>
> >The one that seems strangest to me is starting a letter "Dear Smith".
>
> Perhaps one expects that the reply will be forged....r
--
Jerry Friedman
R H Draney
Mar 7, 2014, 5:18:37 PM3/7/14
to
James Silverton filted:
Not at all surprising...they're probably afraid of being billed for it....r
Tony Cooper
Mar 7, 2014, 5:49:46 PM3/7/14
to
On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 20:07:03 +0000, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>One did; but even there it was first-names. My son certainly never got
>into a girls-only school as far as I know...
Are you sure? Sons have a way of getting into places where they are
>One did; but even there it was first-names. My son certainly never got
>into a girls-only school as far as I know...
not allowed, and they don't always divulge this to their parents. I
got into the girl's dorm at Indiana University on a few occasions, and
managed to get out undetected a few hours later. I never told my
father.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
Tony Cooper
Mar 7, 2014, 6:01:23 PM3/7/14
to
retired military officers. I think they migrated here because it's a
golf course community and they could walk out their door and play golf
or keep a motorized golf cart in their garage.
There used to be a lot of mailboxes with the name and former rank
written out, usually followed by "Ret". While I thought it was rather
presumptuous, it was nice to know where I might go if the area was
attacked and I felt the sudden need to rally under command leadership.
Over the years, though, the neighborhood has changed. Now I see more
university flags than military markers.
Dr Nick
Mar 7, 2014, 6:17:11 PM3/7/14
to
David D S
Mar 7, 2014, 10:25:53 PM3/7/14
to
--
David D S: UK and PR China. (Native BrEng speaker)
Use Reply-To header for email. This email address will be
David Kleinecke
Mar 7, 2014, 10:39:18 PM3/7/14
to
On Thursday, March 6, 2014 6:51:35 PM UTC-8, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 07/03/14 01:31, Whiskers wrote:
>
> > Of course, some people with titles do like to see their status mentioned
> > at every possible opportunity (but I don't know any of them).
>
> In my (academic) experience, titles are used only by those who haven't
> earned them.
In my days in industry I never mentioned my doctorate EXCEPT when it was
> On 07/03/14 01:31, Whiskers wrote:
>
> > Of course, some people with titles do like to see their status mentioned
> > at every possible opportunity (but I don't know any of them).
>
> In my (academic) experience, titles are used only by those who haven't
> earned them.
necessary to bulldoze some stubborn engineer or accountant. Then I would
cue one of my colleagues to start calling me "Dr. Kleinecke". With the
really stubborn ones I even admitted my doctorate was in mathematics. That
was a real conversation stopper. Almost everyone in industry was afraid of mathematics.
of mathematics
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Jerry Friedman
Mar 8, 2014, 1:13:04 AM3/8/14
to
That's what I told her. Thanks to you, Les, and Jim for confirming it.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Moylan
Mar 8, 2014, 3:44:24 AM3/8/14
to
custom to use "Lady Mayoress" to mean the wife of the Lord Mayor. This
caused some confusion, and I even saw a newspaper article where the
husband of the Lord Mayor was referred to as the Lady Mayoress.
Eventually the obvious solution was found. The spouse of a Lord Mayor no
longer gets a courtesy title.
By the time Australia got its first female Prime Minister, this had
evolved to the point where her partner had no public role whatsoever. In
fact he was rarely mentioned, except when her political opponents
attempted to suggest that she was living with a homosexual man. (On the
grounds that he was a hairdresser.)
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Peter Moylan
Mar 8, 2014, 3:50:06 AM3/8/14
to
the tricky part; I had to walk about two miles, and some of the streets
were brightly lit.
At the all-male student residence where I lived, it was not unusual to
see young women climbing out of windows after curfew.
the Omrud
Mar 8, 2014, 4:50:19 AM3/8/14
to
On 08/03/2014 03:25, David D S wrote:
> Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 20:07:03 +0000, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> One did; but even there it was first-names. My son certainly never
>>> got into a girls-only school as far as I know...
>>
>> Are you sure? Sons have a way of getting into places where they are
>> not allowed, and they don't always divulge this to their parents. I
>> got into the girl's dorm at Indiana University on a few occasions, and
>> managed to get out undetected a few hours later. I never told my
>> father.
>
> How's your father?
<giggle>
> Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 20:07:03 +0000, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> One did; but even there it was first-names. My son certainly never
>>> got into a girls-only school as far as I know...
>>
>> Are you sure? Sons have a way of getting into places where they are
>> not allowed, and they don't always divulge this to their parents. I
>> got into the girl's dorm at Indiana University on a few occasions, and
>> managed to get out undetected a few hours later. I never told my
>> father.
>
> How's your father?
And did he know Lloyd George?
--
David
Guy Barry
Mar 8, 2014, 5:32:39 AM3/8/14
to
"Jerry Friedman" wrote in message
news:b299674e-9ea0-477a...@googlegroups.com...
>Does anyone have any thoughts on writing both "Dr." and the degree,
>like "Dr. Jane Doe, Ph. D."? This came up between me and a student,
>though she's not arguing with me about it.
Yes, it's redundant as far as I'm concerned. Either "Dr Jane Doe" or "Jane
Doe PhD" would do nicely. (Being British, I also dispense with all the
punctuation marks.)
--
Guy Barry
news:b299674e-9ea0-477a...@googlegroups.com...
>Does anyone have any thoughts on writing both "Dr." and the degree,
>like "Dr. Jane Doe, Ph. D."? This came up between me and a student,
>though she's not arguing with me about it.
Doe PhD" would do nicely. (Being British, I also dispense with all the
punctuation marks.)
--
Guy Barry
Mark Brader
Mar 8, 2014, 6:54:17 AM3/8/14
to
J.G. Harston:
You may remember that in 2009 I asked here (copyedited):
| Speaking of puzzling abbreviations used together with surnames,
| when reading some Toronto Daily Star issues from 1945 recently...
| I came across a person being identified as "Con. Smith". I know
| what it meant from seeing other mentions of him, but how many of
| you can tell just from that?
The answer was Controller, meaning that Smith was a member of the
city's Board of Control. In those days a member of City Council
was an "alderman" and would have been "Ald. Smith". But today they
are "councillors", and I sometimes see the form "Coun. Smith".
--
Mark Brader "Things are getting too standard around here.
Toronto Time to innovate!"
m...@vex.net -- Ian Darwin and David Keldsen
My text in this article is in the public domain.
> An oddity that still persisted when I was a local councillor was that
> male councillors were titled Cllr Smith but females Cllr Mrs Jones.
Interesting abbreviation.
> male councillors were titled Cllr Smith but females Cllr Mrs Jones.
You may remember that in 2009 I asked here (copyedited):
| Speaking of puzzling abbreviations used together with surnames,
| when reading some Toronto Daily Star issues from 1945 recently...
| I came across a person being identified as "Con. Smith". I know
| what it meant from seeing other mentions of him, but how many of
| you can tell just from that?
The answer was Controller, meaning that Smith was a member of the
city's Board of Control. In those days a member of City Council
was an "alderman" and would have been "Ald. Smith". But today they
are "councillors", and I sometimes see the form "Coun. Smith".
--
Mark Brader "Things are getting too standard around here.
Toronto Time to innovate!"
m...@vex.net -- Ian Darwin and David Keldsen
My text in this article is in the public domain.
![Peter Duncanson [BrE]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjU1GGYFBCZgBCNB-pRgkosMu-ej0qpnECw3jc8uGYOTiF8a=s40-c)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Mar 8, 2014, 7:34:50 AM3/8/14
to
On Sat, 08 Mar 2014 19:44:24 +1100, Peter Moylan
<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>On 08/03/14 07:35, j...@mdfs.net wrote:
>
>> An oddity that still persisted when I was a local councillor was
>> councillors would be males councillors were titled Cllr Smith but
>> females Cllr Mrs Jones.
>
>The first time Newcastle elected a female Lord Mayor, it was still the
>custom to use "Lady Mayoress" to mean the wife of the Lord Mayor. This
>caused some confusion, and I even saw a newspaper article where the
>husband of the Lord Mayor was referred to as the Lady Mayoress.
>
>Eventually the obvious solution was found. The spouse of a Lord Mayor no
>longer gets a courtesy title.
>
Meanwhile in Newcastle upon Tyne:
<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>On 08/03/14 07:35, j...@mdfs.net wrote:
>
>> An oddity that still persisted when I was a local councillor was
>> councillors would be males councillors were titled Cllr Smith but
>> females Cllr Mrs Jones.
>
>The first time Newcastle elected a female Lord Mayor, it was still the
>custom to use "Lady Mayoress" to mean the wife of the Lord Mayor. This
>caused some confusion, and I even saw a newspaper article where the
>husband of the Lord Mayor was referred to as the Lady Mayoress.
>
>Eventually the obvious solution was found. The spouse of a Lord Mayor no
>longer gets a courtesy title.
>
The Lord Mayor is Councillor Margaret Wood (married to David)
The Lady Mayoress is Jackie Pittam,
and
The Consort is Councillor David Wood
http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/your-council-and-democracy/councillors-and-democracy/lord-mayor/the-lady-mayoress-or-lord-mayors-consort
From the Lord Mayor's Acceptance Speech:
I have great pleasure in appointing my very good friend Jackie
Pittam as my Lady Mayoress and also Dave as my Consort.
....
My Chaplain for the year will be Glyn Evans, so be prepared for lots
of bad jokes.
http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/your-council-and-democracy/councillors-and-democracy/lord-mayor/lord-mayors-acceptance-speech
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
Mar 8, 2014, 8:30:28 AM3/8/14
to
On Saturday, March 8, 2014 3:44:24 AM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:
> The first time Newcastle elected a female Lord Mayor, it was still the
> custom to use "Lady Mayoress" to mean the wife of the Lord Mayor. This
> caused some confusion, and I even saw a newspaper article where the
> husband of the Lord Mayor was referred to as the Lady Mayoress.
>
> Eventually the obvious solution was found. The spouse of a Lord Mayor no
> longer gets a courtesy title.
Over Here there's no problem at all. The spouse of a female chief executive
> The first time Newcastle elected a female Lord Mayor, it was still the
> custom to use "Lady Mayoress" to mean the wife of the Lord Mayor. This
> caused some confusion, and I even saw a newspaper article where the
> husband of the Lord Mayor was referred to as the Lady Mayoress.
>
> Eventually the obvious solution was found. The spouse of a Lord Mayor no
> longer gets a courtesy title.
(there have been lots of women governors and mayors) is the First Gentleman
of the state or city. There have been a number of fictional woman presidents
and there's no confusion about the title of the First Gentleman of the United
States.
> By the time Australia got its first female Prime Minister, this had
> evolved to the point where her partner had no public role whatsoever. In
> fact he was rarely mentioned, except when her political opponents
> attempted to suggest that she was living with a homosexual man. (On the
> grounds that he was a hairdresser.)
controversial issues as their special province for publicity and activism
-- Lady Bird Johnson had "highway beautification," Nancy Reagan had "war
on drugs," Michelle Obama has "childhood obesity."
(Eleanor Roosevelt had been a special case.)
Cheryl
Mar 8, 2014, 8:40:29 AM3/8/14
to
on the basis that their spouse has won an election. A purely ceremonial
role, I can see - attending ceremonies and listening with apparent
interest to the spouse's speeches, sure. That's just an extension of the
habit of providing some public support to a close relative. But an
official position, complete (often) with title, office, staff and public
activities of their own, all paid for by the taxpayers who didn't elect
or hire them? Weird.
And yes, I've heard the arguments that (a) whether the spouse has an
active public role or not, he/she is bound to influence the elected one
anyway, so why not acknowledge them? and (b) the spouse can't really
continue in or start an independent career without accusations of undue
influence, so why not given him/her something useful to do?
--
Cheryl
Peter T. Daniels
Mar 8, 2014, 8:53:29 AM3/8/14
to
work outside the home. Obviously the President's wife has no domestic
duties. She therefore adopted a cause to occupy her time and take
advantage of her popularity. (Except for Reagan, First Ladies seem
always to have higher ratings than their spouses.)
I don't know what Bess Truman's and Mamie Eisenhower's public personas
were.
The sheer glamour of Jacqueline Kennedy changed the office -- her principal
activity was the restoration of the White House as a museum of American
history. Mrs. Johnson had enormous shoes to fill and knew it.
Peter Percival
Mar 8, 2014, 9:01:02 AM3/8/14
to
Berkeley Brett wrote:
> I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
>
> If I refer to Mr. Jonathan Simmons simply as "Simmons," it might be disrespectful or merely matter-of-fact.
>
> I'd be interested to know: in your part of the English-speaking world, what are the formal or informal rules on referring to someone by their last name.
>
> Thank you in advance for anything you may choose to share....
It changes. Not so long ago "Simmons" would have been friendly, "Mr
Simmons" would have been distant (one might address ones boss as Mr
so-and-so), putting a stress on the Mr would have been downright rude.
"Jonathan" would have been reserved for intimates.
Now-a-days one starts of with "Mr Simmons" who immediately says "please
call me Jonathan." Or quite often one starts off with "Jonathan" which
seems over-familiar to me. But academics may call one another by their
surnames only. So Professor Jones will say in a lecture "Smith's paper
on hallucinogenic daisies is authoritative" even when Professor John
Smith is in the audience. If Jones wishes to be more personal he will
wave an arm in Smith's direction and say "my colleague Smith's
paper..."--still no "Professor" or "John". (Later in the SCR he will
say "Isn't the weather awful today John?" not "Professor" or "Smith".)
--
Madam Life's a piece in bloom,
Death goes dogging everywhere:
She's the tenant of the room,
He's the ruffian on the stair.
> I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
>
> If I refer to Mr. Jonathan Simmons simply as "Simmons," it might be disrespectful or merely matter-of-fact.
>
> I'd be interested to know: in your part of the English-speaking world, what are the formal or informal rules on referring to someone by their last name.
>
> Thank you in advance for anything you may choose to share....
It changes. Not so long ago "Simmons" would have been friendly, "Mr
Simmons" would have been distant (one might address ones boss as Mr
so-and-so), putting a stress on the Mr would have been downright rude.
"Jonathan" would have been reserved for intimates.
Now-a-days one starts of with "Mr Simmons" who immediately says "please
call me Jonathan." Or quite often one starts off with "Jonathan" which
seems over-familiar to me. But academics may call one another by their
surnames only. So Professor Jones will say in a lecture "Smith's paper
on hallucinogenic daisies is authoritative" even when Professor John
Smith is in the audience. If Jones wishes to be more personal he will
wave an arm in Smith's direction and say "my colleague Smith's
paper..."--still no "Professor" or "John". (Later in the SCR he will
say "Isn't the weather awful today John?" not "Professor" or "Smith".)
--
Madam Life's a piece in bloom,
Death goes dogging everywhere:
She's the tenant of the room,
He's the ruffian on the stair.
CDB
Mar 8, 2014, 9:11:46 AM3/8/14
to
On 07/03/2014 6:17 PM, Dr Nick wrote:
> Jennifer Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> writes:
> Jennifer Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> writes:
>> Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>>> Whiskers wrote:
>>>> Of course, some people with titles do like to see their status
>>>> mentioned at every possible opportunity (but I don't know any
>>>> of them).
>>> In my (academic) experience, titles are used only by those who
>>> haven't earned them.
>> Quite. And this is not just in academia. Here in California, we
>> are awash in "professional" schools churning out PhDs, mostly in
>> the social "sciences". In my experience, these folks almost always
>> use "Dr." in front of their name and usually include the degrees
>> after, especially if there is more than one (Dr. Jane Doe, MS,
>> PsyD, PhD). They also make sure to include it in their email
>> addresses (Dr.J...@gmail.com).
>> It's not all that different when it comes to physcial strength.
>> The biggest, toughest kid in school is rarely the bully.
> I'm at risk of taking some of this personally.
Hi, Dr Nick!
>>> Whiskers wrote:
>>>> Of course, some people with titles do like to see their status
>>>> mentioned at every possible opportunity (but I don't know any
>>>> of them).
>>> In my (academic) experience, titles are used only by those who
>>> haven't earned them.
>> Quite. And this is not just in academia. Here in California, we
>> are awash in "professional" schools churning out PhDs, mostly in
>> the social "sciences". In my experience, these folks almost always
>> use "Dr." in front of their name and usually include the degrees
>> after, especially if there is more than one (Dr. Jane Doe, MS,
>> PsyD, PhD). They also make sure to include it in their email
>> addresses (Dr.J...@gmail.com).
>> It's not all that different when it comes to physcial strength.
>> The biggest, toughest kid in school is rarely the bully.
> I'm at risk of taking some of this personally.
Peter Percival
Mar 8, 2014, 9:24:12 AM3/8/14
to
CDB wrote:
> insisted (in Frank Harris's book?) on either "Mr Wilde" or "Oscar"; none
> of your bluff equality, please. They probably called him something more
> generic at Reading.
>
> In a very specialised case, employees of the Canadian House of Commons
> routinely refer to Members by their surnames, differentiating them where
> necessary by adding the riding-name: "Richardson", or "Richardson
> (Berkely) and Richardson (Venice Beach)".
In the UK House of Commons, it's "the honourable (or right honourable if
they are Privy Councillors) member for <constituency name>" by fellow
members, but "Mr Anthony Smith" by the Speaker (who is addressed "Mr (or
Madam) Speaker") or even "Mr Tony Smith" (but in the latter case I would
guess that Smith has indicated that, if he is to be addressed by his
first name at all, he prefers "Tony"). Member of the same party are "my
honourable friend" (even if they are bitter enemies), members who are
lawyers are "the honourable and learned...", former members of the armed
forces are "the honourable and gallant...". After the constituency has
been identified, "the honourable lady/gentlemen..." is used.
In the House of Lords, it's "the noble (and learned/gallant as
appropriate) lord".
Some ladies are also lords I think. E.g., if the Lord Chancellor was a
woman she would still be Lord Chancellor. But the present Lord
Chancellor is a commoner...
People more knowledgeable than I can tell you if
honourable/learned/gallant, and what-have-you, should be
Honourable/Learned/Gallant.
> On 04/03/2014 5:51 AM, Berkeley Brett wrote:
>
>> I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
>
>> If I refer to Mr. Jonathan Simmons simply as "Simmons," it might be
>> disrespectful or merely matter-of-fact.
>
>> I'd be interested to know: in your part of the English-speaking
>> world, what are the formal or informal rules on referring to someone
>> by their last name.
>
> There's masculine solidarity to consider. Oscar Wilde famously
>
>> I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
>
>> If I refer to Mr. Jonathan Simmons simply as "Simmons," it might be
>> disrespectful or merely matter-of-fact.
>
>> I'd be interested to know: in your part of the English-speaking
>> world, what are the formal or informal rules on referring to someone
>> by their last name.
>
> insisted (in Frank Harris's book?) on either "Mr Wilde" or "Oscar"; none
> of your bluff equality, please. They probably called him something more
> generic at Reading.
>
> In a very specialised case, employees of the Canadian House of Commons
> routinely refer to Members by their surnames, differentiating them where
> necessary by adding the riding-name: "Richardson", or "Richardson
> (Berkely) and Richardson (Venice Beach)".
In the UK House of Commons, it's "the honourable (or right honourable if
they are Privy Councillors) member for <constituency name>" by fellow
members, but "Mr Anthony Smith" by the Speaker (who is addressed "Mr (or
Madam) Speaker") or even "Mr Tony Smith" (but in the latter case I would
guess that Smith has indicated that, if he is to be addressed by his
first name at all, he prefers "Tony"). Member of the same party are "my
honourable friend" (even if they are bitter enemies), members who are
lawyers are "the honourable and learned...", former members of the armed
forces are "the honourable and gallant...". After the constituency has
been identified, "the honourable lady/gentlemen..." is used.
In the House of Lords, it's "the noble (and learned/gallant as
appropriate) lord".
Some ladies are also lords I think. E.g., if the Lord Chancellor was a
woman she would still be Lord Chancellor. But the present Lord
Chancellor is a commoner...
People more knowledgeable than I can tell you if
honourable/learned/gallant, and what-have-you, should be
Honourable/Learned/Gallant.
CDB
Mar 8, 2014, 10:09:23 AM3/8/14
to
On 08/03/2014 9:24 AM, Peter Percival wrote:
>> In a very specialised case, employees of the Canadian House of
>> Commons routinely refer to Members by their surnames,
>> differentiating them where necessary by adding the riding-name:
>> "Richardson", or "Richardson (Berkely) and Richardson (Venice
>> Beach)".
> In the UK House of Commons, it's "the honourable (or right honourable
> if they are Privy Councillors) member for <constituency name>" by
> fellow members,
That is for formal reference in the House. In formal circumstances, we
would have said "Mr/Mrs/Ms Surname", but still used the riding name to
disambiguate them. But the custom in the House is much disregarded over
here: I heard the Prime Minister address a Member directly by name the
other day without so much as a hiccup from the Speaker.
> but "Mr Anthony Smith" by the Speaker (who is addressed "Mr (or
> Madam) Speaker") or even "Mr Tony Smith" (but in the latter case I
> would guess that Smith has indicated that, if he is to be addressed
> by his first name at all, he prefers "Tony").
That suprises me. Traditionally, the Speaker addresses and refers to
Members by their constituency-names (the Hon. Member for X) or
parliamentary functions (the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minster
for Y), and reserves the (formal) use of their personal names for
banishing them from the Chamber for defying the authority of the Chair.
> Member of the same party are "my honourable friend" (even if they are
> bitter enemies), members who are lawyers are "the honourable and
> learned...", former members of the armed forces are "the honourable
> and gallant...". After the constituency has been identified, "the
> honourable lady/gentlemen..." is used.
> In the House of Lords, it's "the noble (and learned/gallant as
> appropriate) lord".
> Some ladies are also lords I think. E.g., if the Lord Chancellor was
> a woman she would still be Lord Chancellor. But the present Lord
> Chancellor is a commoner...
> People more knowledgeable than I can tell you if
> honourable/learned/gallant, and what-have-you, should be
> Honourable/Learned/Gallant.
Probably. We, for our part, capitalised everything we could trap.
> CDB wrote:
>> Berkeley Brett wrote:
>>> I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
>>> If I refer to Mr. Jonathan Simmons simply as "Simmons," it might
>>> be disrespectful or merely matter-of-fact.
>>> I'd be interested to know: in your part of the English-speaking
>>> world, what are the formal or informal rules on referring to
>>> someone by their last name.
[...]
>> Berkeley Brett wrote:
>>> I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
>>> If I refer to Mr. Jonathan Simmons simply as "Simmons," it might
>>> be disrespectful or merely matter-of-fact.
>>> I'd be interested to know: in your part of the English-speaking
>>> world, what are the formal or informal rules on referring to
>>> someone by their last name.
>> In a very specialised case, employees of the Canadian House of
>> Commons routinely refer to Members by their surnames,
>> differentiating them where necessary by adding the riding-name:
>> "Richardson", or "Richardson (Berkely) and Richardson (Venice
>> Beach)".
> In the UK House of Commons, it's "the honourable (or right honourable
> if they are Privy Councillors) member for <constituency name>" by
> fellow members,
would have said "Mr/Mrs/Ms Surname", but still used the riding name to
disambiguate them. But the custom in the House is much disregarded over
here: I heard the Prime Minister address a Member directly by name the
other day without so much as a hiccup from the Speaker.
> but "Mr Anthony Smith" by the Speaker (who is addressed "Mr (or
> Madam) Speaker") or even "Mr Tony Smith" (but in the latter case I
> would guess that Smith has indicated that, if he is to be addressed
> by his first name at all, he prefers "Tony").
Members by their constituency-names (the Hon. Member for X) or
parliamentary functions (the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minster
for Y), and reserves the (formal) use of their personal names for
banishing them from the Chamber for defying the authority of the Chair.
> Member of the same party are "my honourable friend" (even if they are
> bitter enemies), members who are lawyers are "the honourable and
> learned...", former members of the armed forces are "the honourable
> and gallant...". After the constituency has been identified, "the
> honourable lady/gentlemen..." is used.
> In the House of Lords, it's "the noble (and learned/gallant as
> appropriate) lord".
> Some ladies are also lords I think. E.g., if the Lord Chancellor was
> a woman she would still be Lord Chancellor. But the present Lord
> Chancellor is a commoner...
> People more knowledgeable than I can tell you if
> honourable/learned/gallant, and what-have-you, should be
> Honourable/Learned/Gallant.
Guy Barry
Mar 8, 2014, 10:13:45 AM3/8/14
to
"Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message
news:7d42ca78-274e-46fe...@googlegroups.com...
>There have been a number of fictional woman presidents
Surely "fictional women presidents"? "Woman" is a noun, not an adjective.
--
Guy Barry
news:7d42ca78-274e-46fe...@googlegroups.com...
>There have been a number of fictional woman presidents
--
Guy Barry
LFS
Mar 8, 2014, 10:16:28 AM3/8/14
to
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
LFS
Mar 8, 2014, 10:17:49 AM3/8/14
to
Guy Barry
Mar 8, 2014, 10:26:30 AM3/8/14
to
"Cheryl" wrote in message news:bo0ktn...@mid.individual.net...
>I've never really understood why people should have a special activity on
>the basis that their spouse has won an election.
Nor I.
>A purely ceremonial role, I can see - attending ceremonies and listening
>with apparent interest to the spouse's speeches, sure. That's just an
>extension of the habit of providing some public support to a close
>relative.
When does it happen with non-elected offices then? Does (say) the head of
the local transport authority make speeches with his or her partner standing
by? I would have thought that most people had better things to do with
their time than stand round and listen to their partner making speeches.
--
Guy Barry
>I've never really understood why people should have a special activity on
>the basis that their spouse has won an election.
>A purely ceremonial role, I can see - attending ceremonies and listening
>with apparent interest to the spouse's speeches, sure. That's just an
>extension of the habit of providing some public support to a close
>relative.
the local transport authority make speeches with his or her partner standing
by? I would have thought that most people had better things to do with
their time than stand round and listen to their partner making speeches.
--
Guy Barry
James Silverton
Mar 8, 2014, 10:37:17 AM3/8/14
to
probably better.
--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)
Extraneous "not." in Reply To.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Mar 8, 2014, 12:08:10 PM3/8/14
to
the sense of "on the 8th March 2014") has a Première Dame, but I think
it's probably a recent invention modelled on the US. However, it
creates problems that don't normally arise in the US. The last
President became divorced and remarried during his presidency, so we
had a change of Première Dame. The present President separated from the
mother of his four children a while before he was elected, and
nominated his then partner (Valerie Trierweiler, commonly known as
Valerie Rotweiler, as that no one much liked her, apart, presumably,
from the President) as Première Dame. When his night-time motorcycling
escapades became known he dumped her, and I don't think we have a
Première Dame at the moment.
> A purely ceremonial role, I can see - attending ceremonies and
> listening with apparent interest to the spouse's speeches, sure. That's
> just an extension of the habit of providing some public support to a
> close relative. But an official position, complete (often) with title,
> office, staff and public activities of their own, all paid for by the
> taxpayers who didn't elect or hire them? Weird.
l'Elysée, and I suppose the taxpayers paid for them. Carla Bruni is
independently wealthy, so I don't suppose she needed to have any money
diverted in her direction.
>
> And yes, I've heard the arguments that (a) whether the spouse has an
> active public role or not, he/she is bound to influence the elected one
> anyway, so why not acknowledge them? and (b) the spouse can't really
> continue in or start an independent career without accusations of undue
> influence, so why not given him/her something useful to do?
--
athel
> And yes, I've heard the arguments that (a) whether the spouse has an
> active public role or not, he/she is bound to influence the elected one
> anyway, so why not acknowledge them? and (b) the spouse can't really
> continue in or start an independent career without accusations of undue
> influence, so why not given him/her something useful to do?
--
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Mar 8, 2014, 12:17:04 PM3/8/14
to
On 2014-03-08 15:37:17 +0000, James Silverton said:
> On 3/8/2014 10:13 AM, Guy Barry wrote:
>> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message
>> news:7d42ca78-274e-46fe...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> There have been a number of fictional woman presidents
>>
>> Surely "fictional women presidents"? "Woman" is a noun, not an adjective.
>>
> I don't see any problem in using "woman" as an adjective but "female"
> is probably better.
Acceptable, yes, but I don't regard it as better. Steven Pinker says
> On 3/8/2014 10:13 AM, Guy Barry wrote:
>> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message
>> news:7d42ca78-274e-46fe...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> There have been a number of fictional woman presidents
>>
>> Surely "fictional women presidents"? "Woman" is a noun, not an adjective.
>>
> I don't see any problem in using "woman" as an adjective but "female"
> is probably better.
that irregular plural nouns can be used as adjectives, but regular ones
can't, so "women presidents" is OK, as "women" is irregular (and sounds
OK to me), but "The Monuments Men" isn't (and doesn't sound OK to me).
Actually, I think Pinker's rule works better in American English than
it does in British English, and we certainly have terms like
"sportsjacket" that American English doesn't allow.
Drifting away from the point, I was surprised to learn a little while
ago that "male" and "female" are not cognate.
--
athel
Jenn
Mar 8, 2014, 1:01:46 PM3/8/14
to
On 3/7/2014 12:11 PM, David D S wrote:
--
Jenn
> Peter Moylan wrote:
>
>> On 07/03/14 01:31, Whiskers wrote:
>>
>>> Of course, some people with titles do like to see their status
>>> mentioned at every possible opportunity (but I don't know any of
>>> them).
>>
>> In my (academic) experience, titles are used only by those who haven't
>> earned them.
>
>
>> On 07/03/14 01:31, Whiskers wrote:
>>
>>> Of course, some people with titles do like to see their status
>>> mentioned at every possible opportunity (but I don't know any of
>>> them).
>>
>> In my (academic) experience, titles are used only by those who haven't
>> earned them.
>
> I caused consternation in my department when, being the only non-
> medical person with a doctorate of any kind as a degree, I declined to
> be called by my title, and insisted that people just used my first given
> name.
>
> It has caused problems too when certain journals I was encouraged
> to publish research or professional writings in insisted that I was
> given my full title also with my degrees after my name. I felt somehow
> medical person with a doctorate of any kind as a degree, I declined to
> be called by my title, and insisted that people just used my first given
> name.
>
> It has caused problems too when certain journals I was encouraged
> to publish research or professional writings in insisted that I was
> a pompous fool if I agreed to this.
>
It's called "humility".
>
--
Jenn
Message has been deleted
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Mar 8, 2014, 3:28:55 PM3/8/14
to
On 2014-03-08 19:54:05 +0000, Lewis said:
> In message <bo11kg...@mid.individual.net>
> sports jackets.
I guess I've been misinformed. I thought you called them sportjackets.
--
athel
> In message <bo11kg...@mid.individual.net>
> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>> On 2014-03-08 15:37:17 +0000, James Silverton said:
>
>>> On 3/8/2014 10:13 AM, Guy Barry wrote:
>>>> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message
>>>> news:7d42ca78-274e-46fe...@googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>> There have been a number of fictional woman presidents
>>>>
>>>> Surely "fictional women presidents"? "Woman" is a noun, not an adjective.
>>>>
>>> I don't see any problem in using "woman" as an adjective but "female"
>>> is probably better.
>
>> Acceptable, yes, but I don't regard it as better. Steven Pinker says
>> that irregular plural nouns can be used as adjectives, but regular ones
>> can't, so "women presidents" is OK, as "women" is irregular (and sounds
>> OK to me), but "The Monuments Men" isn't (and doesn't sound OK to me).
>> Actually, I think Pinker's rule works better in American English than
>> it does in British English, and we certainly have terms like
>> "sportsjacket" that American English doesn't allow.
>
> What are my American sportsjackets called then? I mean, other than
>> On 2014-03-08 15:37:17 +0000, James Silverton said:
>
>>> On 3/8/2014 10:13 AM, Guy Barry wrote:
>>>> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message
>>>> news:7d42ca78-274e-46fe...@googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>> There have been a number of fictional woman presidents
>>>>
>>>> Surely "fictional women presidents"? "Woman" is a noun, not an adjective.
>>>>
>>> I don't see any problem in using "woman" as an adjective but "female"
>>> is probably better.
>
>> Acceptable, yes, but I don't regard it as better. Steven Pinker says
>> that irregular plural nouns can be used as adjectives, but regular ones
>> can't, so "women presidents" is OK, as "women" is irregular (and sounds
>> OK to me), but "The Monuments Men" isn't (and doesn't sound OK to me).
>> Actually, I think Pinker's rule works better in American English than
>> it does in British English, and we certainly have terms like
>> "sportsjacket" that American English doesn't allow.
>
> sports jackets.
I guess I've been misinformed. I thought you called them sportjackets.
--
athel
Cheryl
Mar 8, 2014, 4:11:23 PM3/8/14
to
people who wanted both to convince people of ideas and to show that
their nearest and dearest are nice honest people who agree with them.
That is, politicians and the clergy.
It's not that long ago that the spouse - back then, the wife - of other
authority figures would be expected to support her husband's career in
other ways - by engaging in social activities with those he wanted to
reward or wanted to be rewarded by, for example. I gather that in some
circles, like the diplomatic services, this was pretty well a full-time
activity.
Some of the stories I heard of life in a company town back in the first
part of the 20th century involved a manager's wife who ran her home and
family (probably with the assistance of a maid), and many local affairs,
including managing the social and educational lives of the children of
the workers. Or trying the latter.
This sort of thing was considered a very valuable use of time - and
could in fact be so, depending on the wife and her social skills. I
think I would have been abysmal at that sort of life, so it's probably
just as well I never tried for it, and it was dying out anyway when I
was growing up.
--
Cheryl
Mike L
Mar 8, 2014, 4:29:41 PM3/8/14
to
On Sat, 8 Mar 2014 05:59:32 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>In message <fj9kh9l7qqccv7763...@4ax.com>
> Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 11:08:37 +0800, Robert Bannister
>> <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>
>>>On 6/03/2014 7:00 am, Mike L wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 07:35:18 +0800, Robert Bannister
>>>> <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>>>>> boys, but for adults too. It was often seen as an expression of
>>>>> affection, believe it or not. I think it died out at the end of the 1950s.
>>>>
>>>> It's still around as an expression of affection -- all my daughters
>>>> have groups in which they're sometimes at least addressed as "Lyle".
>>>> Not sure about my son, but probably he too.
>>>>
>>>Did they go to an all-girls school?
As Tony emphasises, fathers don't generally get to know these things.
--
Mike.
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>In message <fj9kh9l7qqccv7763...@4ax.com>
> Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 11:08:37 +0800, Robert Bannister
>> <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>
>>>On 6/03/2014 7:00 am, Mike L wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 07:35:18 +0800, Robert Bannister
>>>> <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/03/2014 6:51 pm, Berkeley Brett wrote:
>>>>>> I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I refer to Mr. Jonathan Simmons simply as "Simmons," it might be disrespectful or merely matter-of-fact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd be interested to know: in your part of the English-speaking world, what are the formal or informal rules on referring to someone by their last name.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you in advance for anything you may choose to share....
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It used to be common, normal even, back when I was a boy - not just for
>>>>> On 4/03/2014 6:51 pm, Berkeley Brett wrote:
>>>>>> I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I refer to Mr. Jonathan Simmons simply as "Simmons," it might be disrespectful or merely matter-of-fact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd be interested to know: in your part of the English-speaking world, what are the formal or informal rules on referring to someone by their last name.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you in advance for anything you may choose to share....
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> boys, but for adults too. It was often seen as an expression of
>>>>> affection, believe it or not. I think it died out at the end of the 1950s.
>>>>
>>>> It's still around as an expression of affection -- all my daughters
>>>> have groups in which they're sometimes at least addressed as "Lyle".
>>>> Not sure about my son, but probably he too.
>>>>
>>>Did they go to an all-girls school?
>
>> One did; but even there it was first-names. My son certainly never got
>> into a girls-only school as far as I know...
>
>Not for a lack of trying though, amiright?
>> One did; but even there it was first-names. My son certainly never got
>> into a girls-only school as far as I know...
>
As Tony emphasises, fathers don't generally get to know these things.
--
Mike.
Mike L
Mar 8, 2014, 4:35:12 PM3/8/14
to
glorious Kathryn Tickell.
--
Mike.
Mike L
Mar 8, 2014, 4:45:16 PM3/8/14
to
On Sat, 08 Mar 2014 10:37:17 -0500, James Silverton
<not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote:
>On 3/8/2014 10:13 AM, Guy Barry wrote:
>> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message
>> news:7d42ca78-274e-46fe...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> There have been a number of fictional woman presidents
>>
>> Surely "fictional women presidents"? "Woman" is a noun, not an adjective.
>>
>I don't see any problem in using "woman" as an adjective but "female" is
>probably better.
I just hate this depersonalising use of "male" and "female". Except
<not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote:
>On 3/8/2014 10:13 AM, Guy Barry wrote:
>> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message
>> news:7d42ca78-274e-46fe...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> There have been a number of fictional woman presidents
>>
>> Surely "fictional women presidents"? "Woman" is a noun, not an adjective.
>>
>I don't see any problem in using "woman" as an adjective but "female" is
>probably better.
for particular cases, those two words apply to animals and electrical
connections. It's an extension of American cop-speak as far as I can
tell, and that's not a good style model. It's ponderous even as an
adjective, but I regard the noun "a female" as a calculated insult.
--
Mike.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages