The latest example is from a great community-based initiative called "Centretown Movies". They're looking for summer volunteers and emailed out the following:

quote:

---

Summer volunteers
You've seen these guys in action every Friday and Saturday night Centretown
Movies shows a film - maybe you've even been one! This summer, we'll need more
volunteers to help direct people to their seats, answers questions and help with
the set-up and tear-down in our open-air theatre.

---

Does "guy" really come from Guy Fawkes?

(edited to eliminate sleepy and idiotic misspelling)...

[ 16 March 2006: Message edited by: lagatta ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
I can't stand the use of "guys" to refer to both sexes - there are so many terms that could be used instead... I think it is a creeping USianism....

---

Oops. I've been using the word that way for a decade. I honestly do mean the women folk too, but I can see that won't fly here.

My only excuse (apart from being a USian) is an aversion for the use of the word 'people' in such circumstances that I acquired from listening to my first boss howling, "PEE-pull! PEE-pull! Can I have your attention, PEE-pull?"

Anyway, that's what I teach to my classes. No apologies, my job is to teach English as I know it to be commonly spoken.

How about "folks"? Or simply, "you"?

When we were kids, we were saying "Aw, you guys [alt: youse guys] ..." all the time. Everyone in my family uses "guys" that way.

I fear that I have picked up the "y'all" habit as well. I plead cousins from No'th Ca'lina.

[Edited to put the apostrophe in the right place.]

[ 16 March 2006: Message edited by: skdadl ]

Type is a very accurate translation of chap. In France, years back, one would hear "typesse" as a feminine, but it has pretty much died out, and I don't think it was ever used here.

Ha! Runyon's "Dolls" were also "Molls", at least many of them...

Here's Desjardins' "bon gars" - a "good guy", but dull and conventional:

Richard Desjardins
Le bon gars

Le bon gars
Quand j'vas être un bon gars
Pas d'alcool pas d'tabac
M'as rester tranquille
M'as payer mes bills
M'en vas apprendre l'anglais
M'as l'apprendre pour le vrai
Quand j'vas être un bon gars
Pas d'alcool pas d'tabac
M'as mettre des bobettes
M'as lire la gazette
M'as checker les sports
M'as compter les morts
M'as passer mon checkup
M'en va faire mon ketchup
On va voir c'qu'on va voir
M'as m'forcer en ciboire
Quand j'vas être un bon gars
Pas d'alcool pas d'tabac
J'vas avoir l'esprit d'équipe
Impliqué tout' le kit
M'as cramper en masse
M'as m'tailler une place
Quand j'vas être un bon gars
M'as gravir les échelons
M'as comprendre mon patron
M'as faire semblant
Qu'y est intéressant
L'argent va rentrer
Pas trop trop mais steady
Ma photo laminée
" L'employé de l'année "
Quand j'vas être un bon gars
M'en vas les inviter
M'en vas faire un party
Des sushis des trempettes
Amènes-en m'as n'en mettre
M'as m'en déboucher une
Une fois n'est pas coutume
Ah là tout le monde va s'mettre
Tout le monde va s'mettre à parler
BMW, CLSC, TP4, IBM,
TPS, PME, OCQ, OLP, IGA,
IKEA, RPM, ONF, MTS,
Pis moi su' mon bord
M'as tomber dans l'fort
À onze heures et quart
M'as les crisser dehors
M'as sauter dans mon char
M'as descendre à Val-d'Or
Bon ben là ça va faire
M'as descendre en enfer
M'as flauber ma paye
M'as aller vendre des bouteilles
M'as rouler mon journal
M'as câler l'orignal
M'as virer su'l'top
Pas de cadran pas de capote
M'as trouver mon nom
Tatoué su' son front
A va dire: "Aaaaaaahhhhhhhh!
Enfin un bon gars!"
Après ça m'en va être un bon gars
Pas d'alcool pas d'tabac
M'as rester tranquille
M'as payer mes bills
M'en vas apprendre l'anglais
M'as l'apprendre pour le vrai
Sport, Smat and Blood
Y vont m'aimer en Hérode
Excellent citoyen
Pas parfait mais pas loin
M'as manger du poisson
M'en va faire du ski d'fond
M'as m'acheter des records
De Michel Rivard
M'as faire semblant
Qu'c'est intéressant
Quand j'vas être un bon gars
Pas d'alcool pas d'tabac

[ 16 March 2006: Message edited by: lagatta ]

quote:

---

Does "guy" really come from Guy Fox?

---

Are you thinking of Guy Fawkes?

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
PS: To the native French-speakers: what is the difference between "les gars" et "les types"?

---

Yes, of course I'm thinking of Fawkes. Brain turned to mush this morning, I'm afraid.

[ 16 March 2006: Message edited by: lagatta ]

And then there is the very colloquial "vous autres" "nous autres", referring to a group. Here never in written documents unless one wants to deliberately "faire peuple" but resembling vosotros in Spanish?

quote:

---

Yes, of course I'm thinking of Fawkes.

---

When that arrogant software salesperson made a reference to our office "IT guy" without knowing who that person is, I looked over at the woman who actually holds the IT staff position. She rolled her eyes. I gave her a sympathetic smile.

If the word is indeed being reclaimed I assume that eventually we wouldn't even notice. 'Cuz if times are a changin' and I'm a guy I'd just like to know it. I think I could adjust. Maybe it's the natural path to true gender equality?

I remember being horrified by the notion of using they as a pronon for a specific person. As in:

quote:

---

Chris went to the store. They bought an apple.

---

But over the years, and with a fair bit of exposure to some transgendered folk, I've gotten quite comfy saying they instead of he or she. I also use ya'll a fair bit. But guy will be a new challenge.

So here goes:

on the street:
That guy has a lovely skirt, I wonder where they bought it?

at the mall:
The guy are the lingeree store assured me that they only buy their bras at La Senza.

in the boardroom:
Oh crap. I forgot my tampons and the meeting is about to start. I wonder if that guy has one?

at the mainstream singles bar:
See that gorgeous guy at the bar? No, not the one with the goatee - the one to the right. No... not that far to the right, the one in between. Sheesh! No, I mean that one with slinky red cocktail dress!

Mmmmm.... this could take some getting used to.

[ 16 March 2006: Message edited by: Accidental Altruist ]

quote:

---

I saw a dictionary entry once which stated that "guys" in the plural can be used to refer to a group of people of either or both sexes. And that seemed to correspond with my experience of how the word is actually used.

---

quote:

---

Put me on the rack. Drive wee bamboo spikes under my fingernails. Drip water on my head. Pluck my eyebrows.

---

But they will not violates agreement of number.

Hahaha, it's rich. But in the real tale, this is a ruse, concocted to achieve the opposite results than the surface meaning. By rights, forcing your unquoted phrase into the violation of number, you should cry out 'I fooj'd ya I fooj'd ya. I's born 'n bred violatin 'greements of number.'

Somehow I don't think we'll be hearing that from she .. er .. her.

One thing, speaking of Spanish as we were, you don't hear much in Spanish as we do hear in English is the equivalent of the words 'male' and 'female'. (El varón / La hembra) I find that English speakers use male and female frequently to distinguish persons, as in male model, though we do say `feminine attire` not female clothes.

(My cat Renzo is a singularly refined critter though)...

quote:

---

But they will not violates agreement of number.

---

Huh? I have no idea what that means.

"They will not" = correct.

"They will not violate" = correct.

If you meant "But 'they will not' violates agreement of number," you are simply wrong.

If you meant "But 'they will not violates' agreement of number," you are writing nonsense.

quote:

---

Do the Spanish speakers view varón and hembra like the German speakers do essen and fressen, one more appropriate for humans, the other for animals?

---

No.

But the use of either of those two terms does place emphasis on the gender. So, you might say, "Tengo dos varones" for "I have two boys". It would be rare to say ""un varon caminaba en la calle" (A boy walked on the street) unless his maleness was about to be accentuated or threatened.

[ 16 March 2006: Message edited by: goyanamasu ]

There is minimal use of varon for an adult male, and somewhat more for hembra as an adult felmale.

I think the latter has a slightly denigratory sense to it. I am not a native Spanish speaker, so this is not gospel, but I think the usage varies from country to country.

quote:

---

There is minimal use of varon for an adult male, and somewhat more for hembra as an adult felmale.

---

I looked up 'male' on the English side of a phrase and sentence dictionary and it goes along well with the reading you gave:

male: macho Is the dog male or female? *Es este perro macho o hembra?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ShyViolet:
I often use guys when referring to large group of people that's either all male or mixed. If I'm referring to a group of females it's "those girls/ladies/women." To me, kind of like "ellos" and "ellas" in Spanish. Ellos = all male or mixed group, and Ellas = all female group. I suppose when addressing a large group I could say "Hey Everyone.." instead, but the whole "guys" thing is habit to me and it'd take a while for me to break myself of it. I would never use "You people" though, because that sounds too much like I'm ranting at them to me.

---

I've used guys when referring to groups that are all male, mixed or all female. The non-pluralized guy, however, sounds distinctly gendered to me.

quote:

---

babblerwannabe : I think all gender specific prnouns suck ass.

Trailwalker : You guys spend too much time worrying about things that don't matter!

---

And besides, I might have a snap quiz tomorrow in my Spanish class. Even if they're going to elect Fidel Castro to a dual presidency in Cuba AND Colombia in May, I still might have a snap quiz in my Spanish class.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raos:

I've used guys when referring to groups that are all male, mixed or all female. The non-pluralized guy, however, sounds distinctly gendered to me.

I've never really found anything else that I find works. I can't stand y'all, sounds way to American to me. People just sounds too formal for mixed groups in informal settings, and girls (especially, but ladies also) sounds, to me ear at least, condescending, and I feel weird saying it. Maybe if they were really young, like under 10, I'd call a group of females girls.

---

I wouldn't use girls for people my age or older, but I would use girls for a group of females younger than me. Being 20, I consider anything younger than that a girl. Obviously it would be different if i were, say, 30 or 40. Women and ladies I tend to use interchangably, though I'm more likely to refer to someone/a group of people as lad(ies) if she/they are someone I'm supposed to show respect to. *shrugs* Maybe that has something to do with growing up in the southern US.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trailwalker:
You guys spend too much time worrying about things that don't matter!

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
babblerwannabe : I think all gender specific prnouns suck ass.
Trailwalker : You guys spend too much time worrying about things that don't matter!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And besides, I might have a snap quiz tomorrow in my Spanish class. Even if they're going to elect Fidel Castro to a dual presidency in Cuba AND Colombia in May, I still might have a snap quiz in my Spanish class.

Please, babblerwannabe and Trailwalker, go rent the old video 'Friendly Persuasion' which offers the lesson 'if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.'

[ 16 March 2006: Message edited by: goyanamasu ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by goyanamasu:

One thing, speaking of Spanish as we were, you don't hear much in Spanish as we do hear in English is the equivalent of the words 'male' and 'female'.

---

and goyanamasu, you can go fuck urself.

good bye babble.

[ 17 March 2006: Message edited by: babblerwannabe ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by babblerwannabe:
Thanks for labelling me as a "big mean boy"

and goyanamasu, you can go fuck urself.

good bye babble.

[ 17 March 2006: Message edited by: babblerwannabe ]

---

Whoa! How did this harmless discussion escalate so quickly! Ipes!

It's late at night, I've been busy all week...but I thought I'd give my two cents.

I like what Raos said...which is that "guy" singular seems a lot more gendered than the way "guys" tends to be used in 'common parlance'. That being said, I try to use "folks" when I remember. I usually use guys casually only when it is, in fact, a group of guys. But...I've never really met any woman who's been offended to be included in "guys", and in fact, a lot of women I know use "guys" in casual conversation.

I've also had discussions with a woman who finds "ladies" to be a draconian, offensive term. We argue back and forth, because I simply love that word!

At any rate, you guys, I've gotta hit the hay.

quote:

---

aborman: We really, really need a second person plural.

---

'We' used to have one, in fact a whole system of such ones.

In Old English, there were second-person singular pronouns like "thu" "thin" and "the" (I can't do a 'thorn' here), as well as second-person plural pronouns like "ge," "eower" and "eow," and even second person dual pronouns, for addressing a pair of people, like "git," "incer," and "inc."

In the Middle English period, 'we' still had a distinction not dissimilar to that between present-day French "Vous" and "Tu," such that "Ye," "Your" and "You" were used of plural groups or of those with whom one was not on intimate terms, while "Thee," "Thine / Thy" and "Thou" were used singularly and with one's intimates or subordinates.

Over time, 'we' lost "Thee," "Thy / Thine" and "Thou" and now use "you" and "yours" as 'our' second-person pronouns in English.

quote:

---

My best friend in high school used to say, "all a' ye, follow me", a lot. But he was being intentionally goofy.

---

Well being intentionally goofy can be as easily misconstued as habits like using 'guys' for 'gals' or 'girls'.

and I think you referred to babblewannabe and Trailwalker as "big mean boys"
Which, someone like babblewannabe who lists their gender as "fluid", might find doubly insulting. If someone isn't what you think they are and you decide to slap your own label on them for your own comfort/convenience then certainly they might get miffed. I don't think it was worth storming off the board but sometimes folk get tired of always having to explain their position. As though they have to justify their need for oxygen to everyone they meet.

starting a thread like this would have seemed ridiculous to me 5 years ago. I thought then that how you referred to someone was unimportant. I thought he/she was pretty darned progressive thankyouverymuch. but now, I feel differently. for sure I've been influenced by experiences like the The Radical Cheerleading conference, the Quebec City summit of the Americas, the Ottawa Social Forum. mostly it's been my social life I think. Knowing a number of folk who's gender identity isn't immediately apparent- who aren't really "one or the other" or, who have decided to transition from one gender to the other and need to feel recognized for where they are in their journey. so I use "they" sometimes. or I'll make a point of referring to someone by name rather than use the pronoun. It's a small effort on my part but this represents something very important to a more and more visible segment of the population.

[ 17 March 2006: Message edited by: Accidental Altruist ]

sheesh.

unless you were being sarcastic at some point in this thread and I totally missed that?

[ 17 March 2006: Message edited by: Accidental Altruist ]

quote:

---

But I do feel more sorry for babblers who truly believe in the practise of 'pronoun hygiene'. They are misleading themselves. The 'big boy' is merely being stupid, insane or both.

---

In my experience, women often refer to their platonic female friends as "girlfriends", but men NEVER refer to their platonic male friends as "boyfriends".

Okay, maybe this is inegalitarian and reflects a persistent fear of male/male intimacy rooted in homophobia, patriarchy etc.

So do we have any male babblers who are willing to be in the vanguard of equality and start referring to their platonic male friends as "boyfriend" in everyday conversation?

Anyone?

Nope, didn't think so.

And does anyone seriously think our society is going to be any worse off because of the unwillingness of males to rush to the front lines on this issue?

quote:

---

Originally posted by voice of the damned:

So do we have any male babblers who are willing to be in the vanguard of equality and start referring to their platonic male friends as "boyfriend" in everyday conversation?

Anyone?

Nope, didn't think so.

And does anyone seriously think our society is going to be any worse off because of the unwillingness of males to rush to the front lines on this issue?

Anyone?

---

HA! In straight relationships I've heard men refer to their wives as 'girlfriends'. When questioned they've said the 'habit is hard to break'. I've never heard a new wife refer to a spouse as a 'boyfriend'. Funny that?

And you might not think it's a big deal, but I think it is. I was able to influence a $350,000 sale recently. 2 teams of salespeople presented their similar yet competing products. The first team used "he" and "him" consistently. Called our IT person a "guy" and so-on. I quickly disengaged from the presentation. They aren't trying to sell to me so why buy their product? The second team used "staff", "they" & "one". I felt that they were actually talking to me. I'm not the only one in the room who felt that way. The ones who noticed were all female. If you can make a sale by changing a small few syllables wouldn't you do it?

No, I don't think males will rush to the front lines for this. Since when is the status quo challenged by the ruling class anyways? It'll be women and transgendered folk who make the change and show more leadership in making language more inclusive. It's already happening. It started with he/she and will just continue evolving.

[ 17 March 2006: Message edited by: Accidental Altruist ]

quote:

---

No, I don't think males will rush to the front lines for this. Since when is the status quo challenged by the ruling class anyways? It'll be women and transgendered folk who make the change and show more leadership in making language more inclusive. It's already happening. It started with he/she and will just continue evolving.

---

Ah, but here's the difference.

"He" signifies "male". That's just understood. But I think it's also understood that "guys" in the plural can mean either sex or both. That's why people(including women) use it to refer to real-life groups consisiting of both sexes or even all female. Whereas those same people would never refer to a woman as "he".

quote:

---

And does anyone seriously think our society is going to be any worse off because of the unwillingness of males to rush to the front lines on this issue?

---

But it does not work worth a damn. That's what I learned.

Are you saying I'm as 'mean' as the other babbler because neither one of us put down our sex as straight M or F?

Sounds like were in a minority and that it bothers you. Well, not being sarcastic, if you think about it you'll see we avoid the issue of gender you would have constantly looking us up.

Being sarcastic now: you can refer to me as Thou, with a capital 't'.

There are reasons, despite the lesson I learned, for being sarcastic. But changing tone mid-thread 'suck ass' like He-She-It posted. Spanish, for example, as spoken in the Americas, does NOT use the second-person (youse-all) plural address as they do in Spain. Vosotros and vosotras are skipped completely in preference for ustedes, which is neutral.

Life is full of ironies. It is not the lack of a pronoun here and there that makes the difference. Calling men 'caballeros' with nothing so image laden with positives for women leaves the Hispanophones in a worse position than the Anglophones.

We've been to some of the same demos and NGO conferences, Accidental Anarchist. For your sake and mine, I hope neither of us is more worried about a pop quiz in an adult ed class than about the destiny of Colombia and who is elected this coming May 2006.

quote:

---

Originally posted by voice of the damned:
So when a slaesman only uses "he" in his example, it can be interpreted as indicating that he thinks the real-life equivalent of that person is likely to be a male. But I don't think that "guys" in the plural is so cloesly wedded to the idea of "men".

---

Salesman huh? Thanks for that.

quote:

---

Salesman huh? Thanks for that.

---

Christ, talk about BUSTED!

In my defense, I will say that I was assuming that the salesperson who kept saying "he" during your presentation was male(and not just because I think all salespeople are male), and that is who I kinda sorta had in mind when I wrote my reply.

quote:

---

Originally posted by goyanamasu:
Yes, Accidental Anarchist, I was being sarcastic at some point in this thread. You could say, and probably will, that I was being sarcastic at many points in this thread.

But it does not work worth a damn. That's what I learned.

Are you saying I'm as 'mean' as the other babbler because neither one of us put down our sex as straight M or F?

Sounds like were in a minority and that it bothers you. Well, not being sarcastic, if you think about it you'll see we avoid the issue of gender you would have constantly looking us up.

Being sarcastic now: you can refer to me as Thou, with a capital 't'.

There are reasons, despite the lesson I learned, for being sarcastic. But changing tone mid-thread 'suck ass' like He-She-It posted. Spanish, for example, as spoken in the Americas, does NOT use the second-person (youse-all) plural address as they do in Spain. Vosotros and vosotras are skipped completely in preference for ustedes, which is neutral.

Life is full of ironies. It is not the lack of a pronoun here and there that makes the difference. Calling men 'caballeros' with nothing so image laden with positives for women leaves the Hispanophones in a worse position than the Anglophones.

We've been to some of the same demos and NGO conferences, Accidental Anarchist. For your sake and mine, I hope neither of us is more worried about a pop quiz in an adult ed class than about the destiny of Colombia and who is elected this coming May 2006.

Yes, and thanks for the opportunity to say it under interrogation, I WAS being sarcastic at a few points in this thread.

---

Are you trying to be funny by getting my name wrong?

and uh. I LIKE the way you've indicated gender in your profile. i've put myself down as natal female because the other board i hang out on is a freakin' transgendered site. i VALUE people claiming their identity. i RESPECT people's right to self-identify. to mould gender and identity as they need. so no, I'm not saying you are mean for putting "flux" as your gender. what i was calling you on was labelling babblerwannabe as a boy when that person has clearly shown on their profile that they would like to be known as "fluid". I thought you of all people would appreciate the similarity in profiles. take a deep breath and please read what I posted again. you might see my words in a different light.

interrogation? bah. i'm trying to find meaning in what you said. all i wanted was clarification. that's why i ended with "maybe you were being sarcastic". i just didn't get where you are coming from. your writing doesn't help me understand your position so i asked. silly moi.

i took babblerwannabe's comment that "I think all gender specific pronouns suck ass" as meaning just that. gender specific pronouns, as my spouse would say, suck gross dirty bum. (because nice clean bum isn't a bad thing and one might want to suck one if they should so choose.) buuuuuuuut i digress.

but at least I didn't digress as far as Colombia! Where the hell did you go on that one? what does that have to do with this discussion?

i just think ya got me all wrong here goyanamasu. it probably started with your thinking i was an anarchist and slid downhill from there.

"GUYS?" said one of them. "We aren't guys!"

Maybe it is only used this way in Canada.

Here's something about me: people who are anarchists have my ear and eyes more in focus than someone who is an altruist.

The Colombia segue was thrown in on one of my previous posts as well. I thought it was a flag, indicating that the post was in the sarcastic mode.

I'm changing my mind. Maybe being sarcastic works after all. You are starting a dialogue directly because of a few deliberate misunderstandings. Using misdirection, irony and the unreliable first person narrator, in a forum where the majority expect forthright self-expression and political probity, is a two-edged sword.

I had no idea someone who uses phrases as crude as the one you used would take such strong offense at me, acting like a poseur, referring to your interjection as the act of a 'big mean boy'.

It took Accidental Altruist to point out that you were being serious by saying good-bye to this forum. Thanks, AA. Does anybody have any suggestion, maybe a third-party arbitrator, about what can be done to bring babblerwannabe back into the fold?

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
How about "folks"?

---

It has a long pedigree. For example, in past centuries when the term "Gentlemen" was ubiquitous, the well-born ladies would not accept non-inclusive terminology, and the term "gentlefolk" was in common use.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
Couldn't "Listen, everyone" do in the example?

---

I do sometimes use "y'all" quite naturally. I like it. It answers a need, it's become a single word, and it is effectively a new pronoun in English. I refuse to say "all y'all" as, except in addressing a group of groups, I can't see what it could add.

I like the egalitarianism behind having only one 2nd person pronoun, the respectful form having at one time become so universal, the non-honorific was dispensed with. But as the evolution of the language shows, we feel the need for singular and plural forms. So I regret the disappearance of "thou".

The attitude behind the single "you" form seems deepset. In Hindi, where there are three grades of respect in the second person singular, and two in the plural, I found most native English speakers were very uncomfortable using anything but the most honorific form ("aap") in the second person. Interestingly, since both honorific pronouns are grammatically plural, there is a similar need in Hindi to clarify at times the grammatically plural pronoun is being used to refer to more than one person, by adding the Hindi word for "people", i.e. "log", as in "aap log", "tum log". Further, because in many parts of the Hindi belt, the plural 1st person is invariably used instead of the singular by a person referring to themselves, i.e. "ham" instead of "mai~", the plural form being like the dialectical first person singular form, and use of the grammatically singular first person being considered egotistical, you also get "ham log" to clarify that you really mean the first person plural. Finally, because the plural forms of the third person pronouns sound incredibly overwrought and pedantic, now you get plural forms "vo log", "ye log". Very confusingly, the honorific 2nd person form, "aap", is also the correct honorific third person form to use when the referent is present, as in an introduction.

What really would be handy in English are distinctive exclusive/inclusive first person plural forms, like you have in Tamil. I.e. "we (including you)" versus "we (not including you)".

[ 17 March 2006: Message edited by: rasmus raven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
Without the s, "folk" is common British usage. When I was growing up, "folks" with the s was definitely American.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasmus raven:
What really would be handy in English are distinctive exclusive/inclusive first person plural forms, like you have in Tamil. I.e. "we (including you)" versus "we (not including you)".

---

Sometimes I tell that story about the NDP.

[ 17 March 2006: Message edited by: rasmus raven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by F.:

Are you thinking of Guy Fawkes?

"A desperate disease requires a dangerous remedy."

---

It would remain a third-person reference: "Some folk do this; some folk do that."

Note, however, that it is already a plural, so the addition of the s would be one of those things that happened post-C18, after the two cultures separated, an evolutionary phenom we see also in post-C17 French here. And the Americans do use "folks" in direct address, in both the second and the third person plural.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
"some folk do that." Note, however, that it is already a plural.

---

If old folk sometimes live in an old folks' home, and I go to visit my folks in the old folks' home, why does a plural collective noun need more pluralising?

Online etymology: O.E. folc "common people, men, tribe, multitude," from P.Gmc. *folkom (cf. O.Fris. folk, M.Du. volc, Ger. Volk "people"), from P.Gmc. *fulka-, perhaps originally "host of warriors;" cf. O.N. folk "people," also "army, detachment;" and Lith. pulkas "crowd," O.C.S. pluku "division of an army," both believed to have been borrowed from P.Gmc. Some have attempted, without success, to link the word to Gk. plethos "multitude;" L. plebs "people, mob," populus "people" or vulgus. Superseded in most senses by people. Colloquial folks "people of one's family" first recorded 1715. Folksy "sociable, unpretentious" is 1852, U.S. colloquial, from folks + -y.

In German "ein Volk" is clearly not plural, though beyond doubt collective.

While speaking of African-Americans one writes:

quote:

---

Penn Center's objective is to provide interested people with knowledge about the African-American people and their heritage. This morning we wanted to familiarize ourselves with the history, the culture, and traditions of the Gullah people. This folk is considered as having been able to preserve its unique culture, including the language.

---

The Swedish are a people, and the Swedish people living in Finland are represented in Parliament by the Swedish People's Party. When does a group noun become a collective noun become a plural noun?

Speaking of the Palestinian people, one writes:

quote:

---

This message must give hope in addition to providing a new strategy for a peaceable people. This people is primarily unarmed, occupied by a state that is predominately military in nature with full nuclear capability and an arsenal of advanced conventional weapons.

---

quote:

---

If old folk sometimes live in an old folks' home, and I go to visit my folks in the old folks' home, why does a plural collective noun need more pluralising?

---

Well, obviously it didn't, except some C17-C18 Americans decided that it did.

quote:

---

I never heard those expressions (folks, old folks' home, etc) used when I was growing up in Alberta.

---

That's interesting. When I was growing up in Edmonton, "old folks home" was the standard terminology. At least in my family.

quote:

---

Originally posted by babblerwannabe:
I actually have to apologize to everyone, including goyanamas. I was unnecessarily being a bitch. (I do hate being called a boy, especially a big mean boy or male or man or whatever. I am actually thinking of transitioning and I will do it. I was just in a bitchy mood, so I apologize. And I was off subject, this is not a thread to discuss the hatred I feel for gender specific pronouns. You definitely should not leave, goyanamas.

Do carry on.

---

In truth, though, I think this IS the thread to come in and discuss being put off by 'he' or 'she' as pronouns. No thread on language use is very rich when it's only a two-way conversation.

I don't know all the dynamics of sex change, but I have gotten along well with a couple people who went through it. Any big personal change is likely to come out wrong in what we say in an Internet forum in terms of our reactions to others. Two of us discussed this in a café and agreed that 1) if we had not taken the time to become acquanted and 2) if we could not see each others body language that we would probably just be flaming on the imagined Internet thread of our conversation.

The vibes between a few people seem to count for more than what they actually say. But, unfortunately here at babble, this often means that the little gang on the same wavelength ignore what newcomers to their thread have to say. Look at some active threads and you will see cases of a babbler posting the most cogent and on-topic remark but being completely ignored as the babble rolls on as a mutual admiration society of old friends.

Welcome back. Sorry I referred to you the way I did.

[ 18 March 2006: Message edited by: goyanamasu ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
I never heard those expressions (folks, old folks' home, etc) used when I was growing up in Alberta.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ShyViolet:

I do use "y'all" and "all y'all" when talking to or referring to a group of people. It's hard for me to explain the difference b/t the two though. But, if asked "Are you talking to us or everyone here?" the answer for "us" would be "y'all" and the answer for everyone here would be "all y'all"

---

Hehehe. I spent a good deal of time down in NC and NOLA and figured this out:

All y'all is the plural of y'all.

I find myself saying y'all but it feels just as awkward as 'guys' in a mixed group.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:

Does "guy" really come from Guy Fawkes?
[ 16 March 2006: Message edited by: lagatta ]

---

Nope. Guy was a Norman name and became popular after the pesky French invaded in 1066. This predates the Guy Fawkes era by 500 years or so. =)

I don't know if you are serious about "ladies". It was the kind of false respect known as putting on a pedestal (as in "men's" vs "ladies' " (toilets) and seen as overly genteel, and considering "woman" as a very sexual and slightly derogative term. That does not mean the term "lady" doesn't have its place, but it should not be used as a parallel with "men".

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:

I never heard those expressions (folks, old folks' home, etc) used when I was growing up in Alberta. I read them, I guess, but no one used them.

---

I grew up in Alberta (though I suspect a little bit later on) and there were two 'old folks homes' in our town.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:

In French, mesdames et messieurs is fine. (Mademoiselle is not used very much any more in a business setting).

---

I still get called Mademoiselle, once in a while, by people in stores who want to sell me stuff. Makes me nervous, I have to look around to see if there's a real mademoiselle standing behind me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:

I don't know if you are serious about "ladies". It was the kind of false respect known as putting on a pedestal (as in "men's" vs "ladies' " (toilets) and seen as overly genteel, and considering "woman" as a very sexual and slightly derogative term. That does not mean the term "lady" doesn't have its place, but it should not be used as a parallel with "men".

In French, mesdames et messieurs is fine. (Mademoiselle is not used very much any more in a business setting).

---

I am always serious....OK, maybe not always. =)

I would use the term 'ladies' in the same context as I would use 'gentlemen'. Both, to me at least, confer a higher level of respect and politeness.

I remmember being taught by my mother from a very early age that all women should be shown a level of respect that was often considered higher than that that would be automatically bestowed upon a man. It was never presented, however, as an attempt to put women on a pedestal to convey the message 'don't worry little lady the men will deal with this'. Moreso it was to convey a message that women deserved teh same level of opportunity and respect as men, whatever the situation. I am not sure if that would qualify as 'affirmative action'. =)

I give my mum a ton of credit for the person I am today, i.e. somebody who treats everybody as equals irrespective of their gender. I am also cognisant that not everybody is brought up with the same level of mutual respect and that 'action' is often required to enlighten people. That being said it can be very frustrating to have certain actions interpreted as putting a woman on a pedestal because it is cliche (e.g. holding a door) when it is something you do for everybody. But I'm not bitter =) and it won't stop me doing what my mother taught me and continues to teach me, irrespective of the person's gender. =)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Indeed - I have a valuable collection of '60's folk music albums with classic LP's by Woodie Guthrie, Pete Seeger, Odetta, Tom Rush, Tom Paxton, Dave Van Ronk, and so on and so forth.

---

Do you have any Ed McCurdy? I only had one album of his, borrowed the others from the library. He was 'authentic' like the Oscar Brand field recordings. I also regard Leadbelly as 'folk' more than Delta Blues, but love the way these blur into each other.

Boom Boom, have you heard that Burl Ives sang in the '50s while Seeger and The Weavers were blacklisted because Ives cooperated with the Commie witch-hunt? Some families blacklisted him in their collections.

Ed McCurdy

b. January 11, 1919 / Willow Hill, PA
d. March 23, 2000 / Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Singer / Songwriter /Actor

My brother does. I liked him a lot.

Boom Boom, have you heard that Burl Ives sang in the '50s while Seeger and The Weavers were blacklisted because Ives cooperated with the Commie witch-hunt? Some families blacklisted him in their collections.

I've never had a Burl Ives recording. I've always considered him as the Wonder Bread of folk music.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makwa:
"Awww you guyyyz - HOLY MACKEREL!" - dil

---

Okay, I just have to say that it made my day to see a quote from "Stickin' Around". My brother used to do storyboard clean up on that show at Nelvana. I quite liked it, especially the theme song.

Thanks Makwa!

Ok, April 1 aside, my gut instinct is that "guys" became the gender neutral stance because men would FREAK THE HELL OUT if you walked up to a mixed group and said "Hiya [ladies/lasses/gals/whatever feminine version]".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jooge:

Nope. Guy was a Norman name and became popular after the pesky French invaded in 1066. This predates the Guy Fawkes era by 500 years or so. =)

Somebody mentioned the term 'ladies' being considered offensive by some. In the circles I keep this term is used as a mark of respect rather than a derogatory term so I would be interested to have somebody explain to me how this could be interpreted as derogatory.

---

Not as a derogatory, per se, but in an informal setting, and when speaking to/about teenaged girls and younger, it seems insincere. In informal setting, with boys you have a personal relationship with, would you refer to them as gentlemen, to get their attention and get them to quiet down? It's not being derogatory, but it isn't entirely appropriate to the situation.

Edited to respond to the post above: I can't count the number of times I've been in a group with women, and had the group referred to as girls, ladies, or another feminine gendered term. Although I did often get the always amusing "girls and boy."

[ 01 April 2006: Message edited by: Raos ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jooge:
Just as an aside, my mum will physically clip my ear if she sees me walking next to a woman and I am not on the side nearest the road! =) Not sure where that fits into teh argument but I thought I would share. =)

---

There are arguments for both the street-side of the sidewalk and the inner side of the sidewalk. The inner-side supposedly originates from when people emptied their bedpans/chamberpots out the window due to there being no indoor plumbing. The man would walk on the inside so that the woman wouldn't be hit by the falling excrement.

The outer-side approach is intended to use the man as a shield against mud/excrement/etc. splashed towards the couple by passing carriages/horses.

quote:

---

Originally posted by het heru:
I'm just going to start calling my friends "Bitches" and "Homies" (and "hey bitches and homies" when it's a mixed group). I may even do that in business correspondence.

You're guilty of enciting a chuckle out of me with with that one.

Ok, April 1 aside, my gut instinct is that "guys" became the gender neutral stance because men would FREAK THE HELL OUT if you walked up to a mixed group and said "Hiya [ladies/lasses/gals/whatever feminine version]".

---