 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / British English / February 2004How to address people in emails/letters
Hallo, I always wonder what the appropriate way of addressing people in emails is. Being German, I'm not feeling very comfortable in addressing other people by their first name if I don't know them personally. Especially with persons more senior than myself I prefer to err on the wrong side and be rather more formal (and write 'Dear $title $lastname' and end with 'Yours sincerely' or something similar), even if they address me with my first name and sign with their first name. Now I've been told that some people may consider it rude if this isn't reciprocated. Is there any general rule which applies on this issue? Is it safe to remain on the formal side? Or is it better to be less formal as soon as the 'counterpart' starts to be less formal? Thank you for your help, Gunter gk-usenet@kuhnle.co.uk spake thus: > Hallo, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > it safe to remain on the formal side? Or is it better to be less formal > as soon as the 'counterpart' starts to be less formal? It has become conventional in English emails not to use Dear (as in written letters), but to open with the addressee's first name. I work in a very large pan-European company where I address everybody from the Managing Director to the most junior assistant by their first name - this is considered perfectly normal. However, I do not think that anybody would be offended by your being more formal then them. It is also unusual to use the standard written sign-off phrases (yours sincerely) in emails. Instead, people tend to use Regards, Best Regards, or (my preference), nothing at all other than your own name. My German colleagues sign off with "Mit freundlichen Gruessen", which seems entirely natural, even when writing in English. My Japanese contacts guess which is my first name and which is my surname; they sometimes get it right and sometimes write to "Mr David". It's not significant - they are trying to be polite. English speakers should not expect people who are using English as a second language to get everything perfectly correct. If an English/American person were to be offended by you making slight mistakes in written English, I would consider them rude.  SignatureDavid ===== > It has become conventional in English emails not to use Dear (as in > written letters), but to open with the addressee's first name. I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > think that anybody would be offended by your being more formal then > them. Within my workplace it is fine for me to follow this convention, but it is different for me if I have to contact someone outside, especially someone quite senior in industry or academia. Would you also address someone outside your company in this way, or would you be more formal? > English speakers should not expect people who are using English as a > second language to get everything perfectly correct. If an > English/American person were to be offended by you making slight > mistakes in written English, I would consider them rude. I think 'offended' was a bit too harsh - perhaps just making them feel uncomfortable. Living in England for some time now, I try to follow the local customs, but this seems to be one thing which is particular difficult. Thank you! Gunter Signaturehttp://www.kuhnle.co.uk ICQ: 250623065 > > It has become conventional in English emails not to use Dear (as in > > written letters), but to open with the addressee's first name. I [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > someone quite senior in industry or academia. Would you also address > someone outside your company in this way, or would you be more formal? I'd suggest that if someone has a title beyond Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms etc you should use it. > > English speakers should not expect people who are using English as a > > second language to get everything perfectly correct. If an [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > local customs, but this seems to be one thing which is particular > difficult. I can imagine. Should you choose to share some more details about the kinds of people you're addressing we might be able to provide more relevant help. cheers, >> Living in England for some time now, I try to follow the local >> customs, but this seems to be one thing which is particular >> difficult. > I can imagine. Should you choose to share some more details about the > kinds of people you're addressing we might be able to provide more > relevant help. cheers, The kind of people are mainly senior persons in academia or industry, whom I ask for a favour, ie some information on a certain topic etc. In an initial email, I always address them in the (IMHO at least) most appropriate way, ie with their title & last name. For people at the same academic level (and age), I'm happy to address them by their first name. But I had some lecturers and professors at university who were extremely opposed to the (in Germany less common) fashion to address everyone by their first name. And I've been brought up in a part of Germany where this kind of formality is quite strict and some people still expect you to address the wife with the title of her husband (Frau Dr ...). So I'm always a bit doubtful. Sometimes they respond with a 'Dear $firstname' or '$firstname', and I never know whether this is just a way to address more junior people, an 'offer' (or request) to use a less formal way or doesn't have any meaning at all. Thank you for your help - I realise more and more how difficult it is to learn a foreign language (it seemed easier to me when I arrived here). Gunter Signaturehttp://www.kuhnle.co.uk ICQ: 250623065 >>> Living in England for some time now, I try to follow the local >>> customs, but this seems to be one thing which is particular >>> difficult. >> I can imagine. Should you choose to share some more details about the >> kinds of people you're addressing we might be able to provide more >> relevant help. cheers, > The kind of people are mainly senior persons in academia or industry, > whom I ask for a favour, ie some information on a certain topic etc. In > an initial email, I always address them in the (IMHO at least) most > appropriate way, ie with their title & last name. > For people at the same academic level (and age), I'm happy to address > them by their first name. But I had some lecturers and professors at [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > some people still expect you to address the wife with the title of her > husband (Frau Dr ...). So I'm always a bit doubtful. As I said in my earlier reply, politeness doesn't cost anything and you really can't go wrong if you follow the conventions. I used to write numerous quite detailed and technical letters when I was working (now retired) and I was always of the opinion that my first name is for *me* to give to others as an invitation to them to use. I don't subscribe to modern idiom of everybody using first names for everything! In much the same way, 'Mr.' is a polite salutation that you afford to others. It rankles when I see people, sadly usually tradesmen, styling themselves as 'Mr. John Smith'. Conversely, a woman who signs a letter as just 'Ann Smith' must expect to be addressed as 'Ms.' or 'Miss'. My wife always included her correct title (Mrs) in brackets after her signature. I'm sure a lot of people who do subscribe to the modern idiom of first names will consider my pov as rather old fashioned, but like I said, politeness and good manners don't actually cost anything at all! >In much the same way, 'Mr.' is a polite salutation that you afford to >others. It rankles when I see people, sadly usually tradesmen, styling >themselves as 'Mr. John Smith'. A generation or two ago, Mr (no full stop, because r is the last letter of Mister) was applied *only* to tradesmen and such lower-class types. Gentlemen used the format John Smith Esq. As far as I remember, though, when using Mr one used only the initial - Mr J. Smith - presumably on the grounds that one wouldn't be expected to know a tradesman's first name! SignatureMolly Mockford I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be! (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) >>In much the same way, 'Mr.' is a polite salutation that you afford to >>others. It rankles when I see people, sadly usually tradesmen, styling >>themselves as 'Mr. John Smith'. > A generation or two ago, Mr (no full stop, because r is the last letter > of Mister) 'S funny how we all develop mental blocks over certain things. I *know* there shouldn't be a full stop if the abbreviation has the last letter of the word, but I still do it! > was applied *only* to tradesmen and such lower-class types. > Gentlemen used the format John Smith Esq. As far as I remember, though, > when using Mr one used only the initial - Mr J. Smith - presumably on > the grounds that one wouldn't be expected to know a tradesman's first > name! Must be honest and say that I thought the two had become more or less interchangeable over the last half century or so, although 'Esq.' always seemed to have an air of the quaint about it. >Mr (no full stop, because r is the last letter of Mister) This seems to be a difference between British and American usage. We British do not put a full stop after "Mr" (or "Dr"). However it seems to be standard practice to do so in the US. Of course, we are right and they are wrong. :) SignatureJohn Hall "George the Third Ought never to have occurred. One can only wonder At so grotesque a blunder." E.C.Bentley (1875-1956) >>Mr (no full stop, because r is the last letter of Mister) > > This seems to be a difference between British and American usage. We > British do not put a full stop after "Mr" (or "Dr"). However it seems to > be standard practice to do so in the US. Of course, we are right and > they are wrong. :) When I learned typing in the 1970s I was taught open punctuation for business letters, that is leaving out the full stop after abbreviations, regardless of whether the final letter of the abbreviation was teh final letter of teh word or not (the rule I was taught in school). this is also the main format used in the books on business correspondence that I use when teaching Business English classes here in Germany. I believe this form of punctuation started in typing pools (something from the long-forgotten days before the desktop computer) where by doing this and aligning eveything on the left it was possible to significantly increase the productivity of the copytypists who produced circular letters and the like. (BTW The split infinitive is deliberate, because otherwise the adverb is too far from the verb it refers to and I dislike putting the adverb between the verb and its object) Regards, Einde O'Callaghan > As I said in my earlier reply, politeness doesn't cost anything and you > really can't go wrong if you follow the conventions. I used to write > numerous quite detailed and technical letters when I was working (now > retired) and I was always of the opinion that my first name is for *me* > to give to others as an invitation to them to use. I don't subscribe to > modern idiom of everybody using first names for everything! When did this start in Britain? In some older books I noticed that people address each other (even friends) by their last name. > In much the same way, 'Mr.' is a polite salutation that you afford to > others. It rankles when I see people, sadly usually tradesmen, styling > themselves as 'Mr. John Smith'. Conversely, a woman who signs a letter > as just 'Ann Smith' must expect to be addressed as 'Ms.' or 'Miss'. My > wife always included her correct title (Mrs) in brackets after her > signature. Isn't this sometimes necessary to give the other person the opportunity to use the appropriate form? It's often difficult to guess from the name whether someone is male or female, especially with foreign names (I've been addressed more than once as Mrs or Ms). Gunter >> As I said in my earlier reply, politeness doesn't cost anything and you >> really can't go wrong if you follow the conventions. I used to write >> numerous quite detailed and technical letters when I was working (now >> retired) and I was always of the opinion that my first name is for *me* >> to give to others as an invitation to them to use. I don't subscribe to >> modern idiom of everybody using first names for everything! > When did this start in Britain? In some older books I noticed that people > address each other (even friends) by their last name. I'd guess in the 1980s or thereabouts, when many large companies started looking to America for ideas on how to restructure. I *always* answered the telephone with my last name, as did most of my colleagues (we were in the Electricity Supply Industry). With the advent of the forthcoming privatisation at that time, emphasis shifted from customer service[1] to profit and creating a 'modern image' company. >> In much the same way, 'Mr.' is a polite salutation that you afford to >> others. It rankles when I see people, sadly usually tradesmen, styling >> themselves as 'Mr. John Smith'. Conversely, a woman who signs a letter >> as just 'Ann Smith' must expect to be addressed as 'Ms.' or 'Miss'. My >> wife always included her correct title (Mrs) in brackets after her >> signature. > Isn't this sometimes necessary to give the other person the opportunity > to use the appropriate form? No problems with that, but anyone who wishes to identify themselves should properly do so in brackets after their name. The point I was making is that 'Mr', 'Mrs', or 'Miss' are a politeness of salutation that you afford to others, they are not a title you assume for yourself. Of course, just to muddy the waters, the situation gets complicated when an individual has a form of title he or she is entitled to use through common useage and custom, such as 'Sir' from a knighthood, Prof.' or 'Dr' through academic acheivement, or some form of civil or military rank or award, 'Lt. Colonel' 'MBE' or whatever. It didn't occur very often, but our typists had an invaluable and very old and battered reference book that covered such issues of ettiquette! I guess class is alive and well in the UK! > It's often difficult to guess from the name > whether someone is male or female, especially with foreign names (I've > been addressed more than once as Mrs or Ms). I'd say the rule is always address the other person as 'Mr' unless they include a form of salutation or their name tells you otherwise. In the end, it's their problem if they choose not to give you sufficient information for you to be able to address them properly. [1] Please discuss: Any company or organisation that publishes a list of customer standards is, by definition, admitting that it may not be able to acheive those standards with its present structure and manpower levels! Alright I'm being facetious, but as emphasis moves from the core business of a company to the bottom line of the balance sheet, standards of customer service are usually the first things to slip. > In some older books I noticed that people > address each other (even friends) by their last name. Yes, that certainly used to happen, and still does among some older people. I think it had its roots in the English Public Schools (which, for the benefit of non-UKians, are a complete misnomer as they are actually exclusive private schools). In practice I think it was restricted (a) to members of the Upper and Middle classes talking to their inferiors or equals of the same gender, (b) to the same group of people talking to their servants or tradesmen, (c) to a much wider group of people when speaking about third parties, especially writers, musicians, artists, scientists, historic figures, footballers etc etc. -- Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk Old mathematicians never die. They simply count for less. >> In some older books I noticed that people >> address each other (even friends) by their last name. > Yes, that certainly used to happen, and still does among some older > people. I think it had its roots in the English Public Schools (which, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of people when speaking about third parties, especially writers, > musicians, artists, scientists, historic figures, footballers etc etc. Must agree to disagree on that one. As I said in another post, I used to do it at work and so did most of my colleagues. We were all professional engineers, and to the best of my knowledge there were no ex-public school amongst us. >Yes, that certainly used to happen, and still does among some older >people. I think it had its roots in the English Public Schools (which, >for the benefit of non-UKians, are a complete misnomer as they are >actually exclusive private schools). It may also have had some roots in the army - two world wars and many years of National Service, during which men of equal rank would have only ever used each other's surnames. > In practice I think it was >restricted (a) to members of the Upper and Middle classes talking to >their inferiors or equals of the same gender, When it was equals, it would be males only, I would have thought. When used by females to/of females (which I have only ever come across in literature) it seemed to be a clear indication of aping the male form and therefore lesbianism! (Females would of course refer to inferior males that way, as in "Of course I'm not shagging Mellors"). > (b) to the same group of >people talking to their servants or tradesmen, (c) to a much wider group >of people when speaking about third parties, especially writers, >musicians, artists, scientists, historic figures, footballers etc etc. Although Prime Ministers were regularly referred to by their surnames alone in the press, when That Woman arrived it threw the papers into confusion - they were at first very unhappy about referring to her as Thatcher with no Mrs. By and large, I would sum it up as: (1) Males speaking to and about equals (2) Either sex speaking to a social inferior, servant or tradesman (3) Either sex speaking about notable public figures, as in your (c). SignatureMolly Mockford I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be! (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) > When it was equals, it would be males only, I would have thought. When > used by females to/of females (which I have only ever come across in > literature) it seemed to be a clear indication of aping the male form > and therefore lesbianism! From my reading I'd say it was common usage in girls' public schools (in England - Molly was IIRC educated in Scotland) and among female academics once they'd managed to fight their way in to Oxbridge. I grew up in a context of teachers (my father was one), in which people referred to one another by their surnames alone, irrespective of gender. We had two particularly close female friends of the family who were each known to my brother and I during our childhood as Auntie <surname>. -- Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk Old teachers never die, they simply lose their class. >> When it was equals, it would be males only, I would have thought. >When [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >England - Molly was IIRC educated in Scotland) and among female >academics once they'd managed to fight their way in to Oxbridge. I did indeed go to a private school in Scotland (we tend not to call then public schools there), and there was no surname business. The teachers and other staff were all "Miss whatever" and the girls were all addressed by their first names by everyone. The only Scottish schools I can think of where surnames for pupils (and possibly between staff) would have been the norm would be boys' boarding schools. I don't know anything about English girls' schools, although I read a lot of books about them - Dorothea Moore, a kind of Angela Brazil type author, was a friend of my grandmother's, so I had her entire oeuvre. "A Plucky Schoolgirl" was the archetype - the heroine saves the school from fire one night and hits the winning six in an inter-school cricket match the next day! SignatureMolly Mockford I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be! (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) > The only Scottish schools I > can think of where surnames for pupils (and possibly between staff) > would have been the norm would be boys' boarding schools. I went to a boys boarding school (though in England rather than Scotland) and I can say: - Teaching staff were always known as Mr. / Mrs. <surname>. The forename was never used. - Ancillary staff were known as Mr. / Ma <surname> E.g. the sewing mistress was an Italian lady known as Ma Piperno - Other boys were known as <surname> only. Most of the boys I was at school with never told me their forename, and I never told them mine. ------------ GC <snip> > We had two particularly close female friends of the family who were each > known to my brother and I during our childhood as Auntie <surname>. Auntie Wainwright? <g> | We had two particularly close female friends of the family who were each | known to my brother and I during our childhood as Auntie <surname>. We had several Aunties and Uncles when we were kids, besides the *real* aunties and uncles. This was an indication that they were to be trusted. Dave F > Yes, that certainly used to happen, and still does among some older > people. I think it had its roots in the English Public Schools (which, > for the benefit of non-UKians, are a complete misnomer as they are > actually exclusive private schools). Doesn't this naming convention date back to the time when schools were run by the church? It is a long time ago, but this was something our English teacher was particular keen on (to use the word 'public' school). But I have the impression that more and more people use the word 'private' school and even refer to state schools as 'public' school. Is this something they do because they think I wouldn't understand as a foreigner, or is this a new fashion? > In practice I think it was > restricted (a) to members of the Upper and Middle classes talking to > their inferiors or equals of the same gender, (b) to the same group of > people talking to their servants or tradesmen, (c) to a much wider group > of people when speaking about third parties, especially writers, > musicians, artists, scientists, historic figures, footballers etc etc. Thank you, Gunter Signaturehttp://www.kuhnle.co.uk ICQ: 250623065 > > Yes, that certainly used to happen, and still does among some older > > people. I think it had its roots in the English Public Schools (which, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > school. Is this something they do because they think I wouldn't > understand as a foreigner, or is this a new fashion? It differs between the UK and the US. I can only speak for the UK, but my understanding has always been that a state school you can attend without fee; a private school you have to pay fees to; and a public school is a private school of some elevated status (there may be a formal definition, but I don't know it). Cheers, Tony SignatureTony Mountifield Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org > It differs between the UK and the US. I can only speak for the UK, but > my understanding has always been that a state school you can attend > without fee; a private school you have to pay fees to; and a public > school is a private school of some elevated status (there may be a > formal definition, but I don't know it). I think the definition usually taken of "Public School" is one whose Headteacher is a member of either the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference or of the Girls Schools Association. -- Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk Old teachers never die, they simply lose their class. >>> Yes, that certainly used to happen, and still does among some older >>> people. I think it had its roots in the English Public Schools [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > school is a private school of some elevated status (there may be a > formal definition, but I don't know it). A public school is open to applications from the whole country (public). A state school is only open to applications from the local area. m. > a public school is a private school of some elevated status Why do you call them "public" schools if they are actually private? ^___^ SignatureEnrico C ~ No native speaker enrico.c@spamcop.net spake thus: > > a public school is a private school of some elevated status > > Why do you call them "public" schools if they are actually private? Because when they were so named, a couple of hundred years ago (although many are far older), they were the only schools open to everybody (although you had to have the money or a bursary). "private" now means "not run by the state", but there were no schools run by the state when the Public Schools started. SignatureDavid ===== >enrico.c@spamcop.net spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >"private" now means "not run by the state", but there were no schools >run by the state when the Public Schools started. And, of course, many public schools were intended to be for the public when they started - charitable foundations for the children of the poor. My village was owned and built by a C17th charity that actually funded a leading public school. SignaturePhil C. > enrico.c@spamcop.net spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "private" now means "not run by the state", but there were no schools > run by the state when the Public Schools started. To add a little detail to what David's written, the early public schools, mainly monastic foundations, were so called because anybody could send their sons (girls' school came much later) to them if they could afford the fees. This was to distinguish them from private education which a wealthy man would arrange for his sons (or, less often, his daughters) at home by employing one or more tutors. As for the term which is used to distinguish non-state schools, within the teaching profession in the UK the phrase used is "independent schools". In my experience (22 years teaching and a further 13 as a Trade Union official visiting schools of all kinds), while the best independent schools are really extremely good, particularly for academic high-fliers, at the other end of the scale some independent schools are much worse than the worst in the State sector, "educational bucket-shops", as my ex-boss once called them. -- Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk Old teachers never die, they simply lose their class. >In my experience (22 years teaching and a further 13 as a Trade Union >official visiting schools of all kinds), while the best independent >schools are really extremely good, particularly for academic >high-fliers, at the other end of the scale some independent schools are >much worse than the worst in the State sector, "educational >bucket-shops", as my ex-boss once called them. There always seemed to me to be a principle that the the worse and more minor the private school the more lurid the uniform. I can't say I've done a scientific study of it though. SignaturePhil C. > Doesn't this naming convention date back to the time when schools were > run by the church? It is a long time ago, but this was something our [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > school. Is this something they do because they think I wouldn't > understand as a foreigner, or is this a new fashion? In the USA "public school" refers to a state run school, and I guess as in so many other areas of life the USA usage is increasingly becoming the norm. In Britain, however, "public school" is still always taken to mean a school which is not run by the state and which charges fees. The word used for a school which is part of the government funded education system is "state school". I try to encourage the usage "county school" or "borough school" to remind people that schools are officially run by local government, not national government, but I think that's a lost cause, and anyway the role of local government in running schools has been diminished by successive national governments in recent years. As other have suggested, the term "public school" meant "a school open to any member of the public who is willing to pay for it" (and possibly pass entrance exams), and made sense at a time when it was contrasted with more private forms of education such as those attached to the Church (before the reformation) or private tutors used by the aristocracy. Now, while it has stuck, it is a source of confusion as it means just the opposite of what "public school" means in the USA. Matthew Huntbach > The word used > for a school which is part of the government funded education system is > "state school". I try to encourage the usage "county school" or > "borough school" to remind people that schools are officially run by > local government, not national government, but I think that's a lost > cause, Under the 1944 Education Act, and until recently, "County School" did have a precise meaning about the status of the school - one funded and controlled totally by a Local Education Authority, and paradoxically the title was the same whether the LEA was a County, a County Borough, a City or a Borough. This was in contradisctinction not only from Independent Schools which were nothing to do with the LEA but also from "Voluntary Aided" and "Voluntary Controlled" schools which were the technical terms for different levels of joint control by the LEA and a voluntary body (usually but not always a Church). Then there were Direct Grant Schools - prestigious State Schools funded directly by the national Government and independent of LEAs. Things have changed since then, mostly since the 1989 Education Reform Act. (Incidentally when this was sill before Parliament as a Bill, it was called the Great Education Reform Bill, shortened by its critics to "the Gerbil"). Already before that date, the Direct Grant schools had been abolished and had to choose between the other possible legal statuses. The Gerbil re-introduced something rather similar as "Grant Maintained Schools". A subsequent change of Government led to them having another change of name - to "Foundation Schools" and a renewed link with the LEAs, not unlike that of the Voluntary Aided schools. At the same time, for reasons I've never understood, the name "County Schools" was replaced by "Community Schools". > and anyway the role of local government in running schools has > been diminished by successive national governments in recent years. Sadly that's true, and has worked in two different ways. The Gerbil brought in Local Management of Schools which gave the Governors of each individual school more power and the LEA less in the running of the school, allocating its budget, hiring & firing staff and so on. There are different views about how good a thing this was - my own view is that it's basically a good idea that has been badly implemented. In the opposite direction, the Gerbil also put much tighter controls on the curriculum than had previously existed, through the means of the National Curriculum with Ofsted as the enforcement agency. Of course the National Curriculum is a moving target with successive waves of politicians and bureaucrats playing with it on the principle that any change at all *must* be an improvement. Then when the Government didn't like the way some Governing Bodies were allocating their budgets, they changed the routeing of some of the funding. Instead of giving LEAs a block grant which they used to support the budgets they gave schools for the Governors to control, some of the funding is now reserved by the Government for particular projects and given directly to schools. Sorry for the rant, but I was on the receiving end of this and other nonsense for many years and feel quite strongly about it. -- Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk Old teachers never die, they simply lose their class. > "Matthew Huntbach" <mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote in message >> and anyway the role of local government in running schools has >> been diminished by successive national governments in recent years. > Sadly that's true, and has worked in two different ways. The Gerbil > brought in Local Management of Schools which gave the Governors of each > individual school more power and the LEA less in the running of the > school, allocating its budget, hiring & firing staff and so on. There > are different views about how good a thing this was - my own view is > that it's basically a good idea that has been badly implemented. It sounds a good idea, but as my wife has found out, having been chair of the board of governors of a local primary school for the past five years (due to no-one else having the combinations of being competent and willing to do it) in practice it means forcing hard professional management work onto people without paying them for it. It used to be the case that the governing body was just a sounding board, something easily done to feel part of the community, but now they're expected to do things which if done by a paid worker would attract heavy executive salaries. > Sorry for the rant, but I was on the receiving end of this and other > nonsense for many years and feel quite strongly about it. Ditto (though in a slightly different capacity, and in the present tense). At least as a borough councillor I get an allowance for the work I do, my wife seems to do approximately the same hours of work I do as a councillor in her role as chair of board of governors, but gets nothing financially for it. Matthew Huntbach >> In some older books I noticed that people >> address each other (even friends) by their last name. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >of people when speaking about third parties, especially writers, >musicians, artists, scientists, historic figures, footballers etc etc. At my single-sex state grammar school, 1960s, we used surnames or nicknames for each other. First names were never used. To use them would have been considered babyish or soppy. At my wife's school, the teachers called the boys by their surnames and the girls by their first names. Grammar schools were notorious for trying to ape public schools. I remember my father being proud that he was the last person in his office to call his junior by his surname. But then that was my father for you. SignaturePhil C. >> As I said in my earlier reply, politeness doesn't cost anything and you >> really can't go wrong if you follow the conventions. I used to write >> numerous quite detailed and technical letters when I was working (now >> retired) and I was always of the opinion that my first name is for *me* >> to give to others as an invitation to them to use. I don't subscribe to >> modern idiom of everybody using first names for everything! > When did this start in Britain? In some older books I noticed that people > address each other (even friends) by their last name. This indicates how you shouldn't rely on old books or old style guides in using English. Fashions and usages can change remarkably quickly. I'm just about old enough to remember when schoolboys would address each other by their surnames, but that seems to have long gone now. I wonder if primary school children even know each others surnames now. Whenever I've been inside primary schools recently, material displayed in the classrooms seems only to use first names. I'm still put on edge by people who address me by my first name in a business or professional context, but that's becoming increasingly the norm now. It's meant to be more friendly, but my reaction is always "here's someone tying to create a false sense of friendship that doesn't yet exist, probably because he wants to get something out of me". Usage here, however, is changing so fast, that there are plenty of contexts where just ten and certainly twenty years ago, use of title and surname would have been absolutely standard, but now appears stilted or over formal. In my work as a university lecturer, I find many students address me from the start by my first name, which would never have happened when I was a student. In general, I find it's stuydents who have come through the British school system who do this, while students from other countries tend to be more formal. I think there's a good reason to keep a certain formality between student and lecturers, particularly since I will need to sit in judgement on them and award them marks or possibly fail them, but other members of staff seem to encourage this informality and think it helps create a friendly atmosphere. It seems that German society has maintained a formality in addressing each other that British society has lost. Maybe it's to do with your having a language which maintains a polite and informal second person, or maybe it's something particularly German. The over-use of titles by Germans, e.g. the use of her husband's title when addressing a woman, has sometimes been thought humorous by Brits, even in those days when we were more formal about titles ourselves. My advice is that you keep on doing what makes you feel comfortable. But, since your English is so good, you might want to drop something into your written communication that reminds people you are German. Then people will think not "Oh, isn't this person being so stiff and formal" but "Oh, he's German, and they tend to be a little more formal than us". >> In much the same way, 'Mr.' is a polite salutation that you afford to >> others. It rankles when I see people, sadly usually tradesmen, styling >> themselves as 'Mr. John Smith'. Conversely, a woman who signs a letter >> as just 'Ann Smith' must expect to be addressed as 'Ms.' or 'Miss'. My >> wife always included her correct title (Mrs) in brackets after her >> signature. > Isn't this sometimes necessary to give the other person the opportunity > to use the appropriate form? It's often difficult to guess from the name > whether someone is male or female, especially with foreign names (I've > been addressed more than once as Mrs or Ms). Yes. I deal with admissions for my university department, and many of my students are of non-European origin. I still maintain the formality (I note that quite a lot of university staff don't) of replying to students when writing by title and surname, but I get a great many communications which are just unfamiliar Asian first name plus surname, so I have no idea which title to use. Matthew Huntbach >> When did this start in Britain? In some older books I noticed that people >> address each other (even friends) by their last name. > This indicates how you shouldn't rely on old books or old style guides > in using English. Fashions and usages can change remarkably quickly. I know - but it seems to me one way to try to understand the language and the underlying culture. > In my work as a university lecturer, I find many students address me from > the start by my first name, which would never have happened when I was [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > but other members of staff seem to encourage this informality and think > it helps create a friendly atmosphere. When I was at university, students normally addressed lectures (and other staff) by last name & title, unless they were working in the lab or doing a Master or PhD. > It seems that German society has maintained a formality in addressing > each other that British society has lost. Maybe it's to do with your > having a language which maintains a polite and informal second person, > or maybe it's something particularly German. This may well be as it is quite similar (or even more extreme) in French. But I always had (and still have) the impression, that the English language is a very polite language (if a language can be called polite). > The over-use of titles by Germans, e.g. the use of her husband's title > when addressing a woman, has sometimes been thought humorous by Brits, > even in those days when we were more formal about titles ourselves. This seems to be something very typical, especially in Southern Germany and Austria. In Austria, people are normally addressed as 'Herr Doktor' if there's no other title available. > My advice is that you keep on doing what makes you feel comfortable. > But, since your English is so good, you might want to drop something into > your written communication that reminds people you are German. Then > people will think not "Oh, isn't this person being so stiff and formal" > but "Oh, he's German, and they tend to be a little more formal than us". Thank you - this is a good iead and I will try to do this; after having dropped my objective of learning good English, I think this is the best way. Best wishes, Gunter Signaturehttp://www.kuhnle.co.uk ICQ: 250623065 >>> When did this start in Britain? In some older books I noticed that people >>> address each other (even friends) by their last name. >> This indicates how you shouldn't rely on old books or old style guides >> in using English. Fashions and usages can change remarkably quickly. ... >> It seems that German society has maintained a formality in addressing >> each other that British society has lost. Maybe it's to do with your >> having a language which maintains a polite and informal second person, >> or maybe it's something particularly German. > This may well be as it is quite similar (or even more extreme) in > French. But I always had (and still have) the impression, that the > English language is a very polite language (if a language can be called > polite). OK, but why do you have this impression? Is it because your mental image of Britain is removed from reality? It seems that many people from outside our country have a mental image of it based on how it was several decades ago, and based on supposing it to be largely inhabited by the sort of person who in reality forms only a small proportion of the population at its wealthiest end. Or are there structures in the English language itself which seem "polite" to you? Does perhaps the lack of the polite/informal second person singular forms in English unlike German and French make it seem we are being polite to each other all the time? Matthew Huntbach > >>> When did this start in Britain? In some older books I noticed that people > >>> address each other (even friends) by their last name. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > person who in reality forms only a small proportion of the population at > its wealthiest end. From an Italian point of view... Partly it's because one always says "please" amd "thank you" in English. In Italian we don't always, and I know it sounds very rude but you usually get them from the intonation of voice (not so much the "thank you" though, which is much more used than "please"). I do get funny looks when eating out in Italy, as I keep saying thank you to the waiters every time they approach our table to bring something or check everything is ok. Also little things like "Pardon me!" after sneezing, "Excuse me" when you walk past someone (in Italy we'd just shove them out of the way or step on their toes) and the likes. > Or are there structures in the English language itself which seem > "polite" to you? Does perhaps the lack of the polite/informal second > person singular forms in English unlike German and French make it > seem we are being polite to each other all the time? Again, from an Italian point of view, no. In Italian we have a third person singular (feminine, but it applies to both gender, so in this case it's a neutral, I suppose), "Lei", which is formal. The second person plural "Voi" is antiquated and not used much any more, other than in regional exceptions and some bureocratic writings. The second person singular "tu", is informal. I remember having serious difficulties when I started studying English at primary scool, when I just could not bring myself to address teacher as "you". I kept wanting to say "She" and it took me months to get used to it. E >> This may well be as it is quite similar (or even more extreme) in >> French. But I always had (and still have) the impression, that the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > person who in reality forms only a small proportion of the population at > its wealthiest end. This may be a reason, but I think Elisabetta pointed out another reason. In English, you use pharses like 'Thank you', 'Please' or 'Sorry' very often, IMHO more often than e.g. in German. I've also noticed that people rarely tell you directly to do something, but put it in a question 'Could you ...'. Even though this may sound perfectly normal to a native speaker, it sounds rather polite to me. However, I may have been influenced from my first couple of years here. I was member of a research group whose leader was very keen on good English and who did not accept any bad language, especially not in the presence of us foreigners (to protect us from getting into the bad habit of using foul language). > Or are there structures in the English language itself which seem > "polite" to you? I think this is probably the reason. As to some people the the German language seems to sound harsh and very formal. > Does perhaps the lack of the polite/informal second person singular > forms in English unlike German and French make it seem we are being > polite to each other all the time? This could be a reason; as there is no way to show politeness by using the second form plural[1], it is necessary to do this by using proper language. IMHO, you use a different kind of language (eg in a letter) depending on whether you use a formal or an informal 'you'. Gunter [1] I've been once told that 'you' is actually 2nd person plural and 'thou' is 2nd person plural and would be the same as 'Du' or 'tu'; is this in any way true? Signaturehttp://www.kuhnle.co.uk ICQ: 250623065 >[1] I've been once told that 'you' is actually 2nd person plural and >'thou' is 2nd person plural and would be the same as 'Du' or 'tu'; is >this in any way true? Assuming that you mean "'thou' is 2nd person singular", the answer is yes. However, 'thou' is not in general use, and is classified as archaic. It is used in some religious contexts when praying to God. God is addressed as Thou. This usage is a traditional survival. Thou, along with 'thee', 'thy' and 'thine' may still be in use in some dialects. From the New Oxford Dictionary of English: <quote> 'thou' pronoun [second person singular] archaic or dialect form of 'you', as the singular subject of a verb: thou art fair, o my beloved. Compare with 'thee'. -ORIGIN Old English thu, of Germanic origin; related to German du, from an Indo-European root shared by Latin tu. -USAGE: In modern English, the personal pronoun 'you' (together with the possessives 'your' and 'yours') covers a number of uses: it is both singular and plural, both objective and subjective, and both formal and familiar. This has not always been the case. In Old English and Middle English some of these different functions of you were supplied by different words. Thus, 'thou' was at one time the singular subjective case ("thou art a beast"), while 'thee' was the singular objective case ("he cares not for thee"). In addition, the form 'thy' (modern equivalent 'your') was the singular possessive determiner and 'thine' (modern equivalent 'yours') the singular possessive pronoun, both corresponding to 'thee'. The forms 'you' and 'ye', on the other hand, were at one time reserved for plural uses. By the 19th century these forms were universal in standard English for both singular and plural, polite and familiar. In present day use, 'thou', 'thee', 'thy', and 'thine' survive in some traditional dialects but otherwise are found only in archaic contexts. </quote> <quote> 'thee' pronoun [second person singular] archaic or dialect form of 'you', as the singular object of a verb or preposition: "we beseech thee O lord". Compare with 'thou'. -ORIGIN Old English th[1], accusative and dative case of th[1] 'thou'. -USAGE: The word thee is still used in some traditional dialects (e.g. in northern England) and among certain religious groups, but in standard English it is restricted to archaic contexts. </quote> [1] The Old English representations have not survived the cut and paste from the dictionary. SignaturePeter Duncanson UK (posting from u.c.l.e) >>[1] I've been once told that 'you' is actually 2nd person plural and >>'thou' is 2nd person plural and would be the same as 'Du' or 'tu'; is >>this in any way true? > Assuming that you mean "'thou' is 2nd person singular", the answer is yes. > > However, 'thou' is not in general use, and is classified as archaic. [...] Thanks - but do you know why the 'thou' etc disappeared? Gunter Signaturehttp://www.kuhnle.co.uk ICQ: 250623065 >>>[1] I've been once told that 'you' is actually 2nd person plural and >>>'thou' is 2nd person plural and would be the same as 'Du' or 'tu'; is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Thanks - but do you know why the 'thou' etc disappeared? No. I don't know the history or reasons for the disappearnce of 'thou'. Perhaps someone else can help. SignaturePeter Duncanson UK (posting from u.c.l.e) >>>>[1] I've been once told that 'you' is actually 2nd person plural and >>>>'thou' is 2nd person plural and would be the same as 'Du' or 'tu'; is [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > No. I don't know the history or reasons for the disappearnce of 'thou'. > Perhaps someone else can help. Looking at literature the mid-17th century seems to have been a major changing point in the usage of "you" and "thou". Perhaps it had something to do with the social changes associated with cutting off the king's head. Regards, Einde O'Callaghan >>Thanks - but do you know why the 'thou' etc disappeared? > No. I don't know the history or reasons for the disappearnce of 'thou'. > Perhaps someone else can help. Although it's something that's argued about, there is some evidence that it really was because of excessive politeness. That is, English had the usage of other European languages where the second person plural form became used when adressing singular people politely. But there were more and more circumstances in which it became considered correct to use the polite plural form, until the point was reached when it became universal. The survival of "thee" and "thou" in Yorkshire is considered part of the Yorkshireman's bluntness, so perhaps the urge to be polite was more strongly resisted there than elsewhere. Matthew Huntbach >>> This may well be as it is quite similar (or even more extreme) in >>> French. But I always had (and still have) the impression, that the >>> English language is a very polite language (if a language can be called >>> polite). >> OK, but why do you have this impression? Is it because your mental image >> of Britain is removed from reality? > This may be a reason, but I think Elisabetta pointed out another reason. > In English, you use pharses like 'Thank you', 'Please' or 'Sorry' very > often, IMHO more often than e.g. in German. I'm not sure this is actually directly an issue of the language. It would be perfectly possible to speak grammatically correct English but never say "please" and "thank you". > I've also noticed that > people rarely tell you directly to do something, but put it in a > question 'Could you ...'. Even though this may sound perfectly normal to > a native speaker, it sounds rather polite to me. OK, that's a reasonable point. I might say "Open the window!" to my nearest and dearest, but to anyone else it would be "Could you open the window?". As you say, it's something that comes so natural to native speakers that one hardly thinks about it. However, the point I was making was that a language which actually has different pronouns to use depending on whether you're being polite of familiar with people is surely far more polite than English which lacks this differentiation. I guess it's just a matter of what you're used to. > However, I may have been influenced from my first couple of years here. > I was member of a research group whose leader was very keen on good > English and who did not accept any bad language, especially not in the > presence of us foreigners (to protect us from getting into the bad habit > of using foul language). Probably a good idea. Although the "taboo" words have lost a lot of their shock value through more common usage these days, and there are some people who habitually pepper their conversations with them, they're still words one would not use in a polite or formal context. Don't other language have similar taboo words, usually conneted with sexual or excretory functions? >> Does perhaps the lack of the polite/informal second person singular >> forms in English unlike German and French make it seem we are being [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 'thou' is 2nd person plural and would be the same as 'Du' or 'tu'; is > this in any way true? Yes. In fact you can see that by the similarity between "thou" and "du" and "tu". It seems that English followed the road of other European languages in adopting what was originally the second person plural as a form to be used when addressing a single person politely, but took it further, eventually leading to the point where *everyone* had to be addressed in the plural. I wondered if you were aware of this and that is why you thought of English as "polite". "Thou" or related second person singular forms survives in some dialects of English. Until recently, it was also widely used in religious and poetical language - when it is you will see it is only ever used to address the singular. Modern tastes in religion and literature, however, are to use modern language. There is (at least) one case where the second person singular survives in legal language. I believe it is still the case that in any marriage ceremony in England the words "I thee wed" must be used, and it is the pronunciation of those words that count as the legal point of marriage. Matthew Huntbach >> This may be a reason, but I think Elisabetta pointed out another reason. >> In English, you use pharses like 'Thank you', 'Please' or 'Sorry' very >> often, IMHO more often than e.g. in German. > I'm not sure this is actually directly an issue of the language. > It would be perfectly possible to speak grammatically correct English > but never say "please" and "thank you". But would it still be proper English? I think that there is more to speaking a language than just the vocabulary and grammar. The way the language is commonly used is equally important (and probably the most difficult to learn). >> However, I may have been influenced from my first couple of years here. >> I was member of a research group whose leader was very keen on good [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > are some people who habitually pepper their conversations with them, > they're still words one would not use in a polite or formal context. I still don't see the point in doing this. What is the advantage? > Don't other language have similar taboo words, usually conneted with > sexual or excretory functions? There are taboo words, but IMHO they are not as taboo as here. I'm always surprised when I hear a (BBC) radio presenter apologising for bad language - people would use much worse words than f*** or c*** in German without apologising, even during day-time. These 'taboo' words are something weird for a foreigner as there is no cultural background telling that these words are really bad. I *know* what I must not say, but I wouldn't really feel bad doing it (whereas I witnessed several native speakers who had problems using really foul language in the presence of others). But my time in the said group made me very conscious of this kind of language, so I think my language shouldn't be too bad. >> [1] I've been once told that 'you' is actually 2nd person plural and >> 'thou' is 2nd person plural and would be the same as 'Du' or 'tu'; is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > had to be addressed in the plural. I wondered if you were aware of > this and that is why you thought of English as "polite". I think I learned this when I was already living here, so it can't be the reason; I liked the English language before. > "Thou" or related second person singular forms survives in some > dialects of English. In which dialects? Gunter Signaturehttp://www.kuhnle.co.uk ICQ: 250623065 > These 'taboo' words are something weird for a foreigner as there is no > cultural background telling that these words are really bad. I *know* [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > me very conscious of this kind of language, so I think my language > shouldn't be too bad. It's terribly subjective and culture-dependent. I remember a particularly interesting conversation in a pub many years ago. It must have taken place at least 20 years ago, as I was drinking with my father-in-law, and he's been dead that long. One of the old chaps in the pub (probably nearing 80) was talking about his youth when he'd spent some years in Australia. At one point he said (in his North Wiltshire accent) "That be a terrible place, that Australy. Down there they calls one another a bastard as easy as you and I calls one another a bugger." In his part of the country, "bugger" is used as much as a term of endearment as anything else. If a child falls over, "Poor little bugger" is likely to be the bystanders' comment. > > "Thou" or related second person singular forms survives in some > > dialects of English. > > In which dialects? Mainly northern ones. -- Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk "I'm not an old fart, and I'm not an old bore, Or a grumpy old b*gg*r like Evelyn Waugh" (Christopher Matthew) >>> This may be a reason, but I think Elisabetta pointed out another reason. >>> In English, you use pharses like 'Thank you', 'Please' or 'Sorry' very >>> often, IMHO more often than e.g. in German. >> I'm not sure this is actually directly an issue of the language. >> It would be perfectly possible to speak grammatically correct English >> but never say "please" and "thank you". > But would it still be proper English? I think that there is more to > speaking a language than just the vocabulary and grammar. The way the > language is commonly used is equally important (and probably the most > difficult to learn). I don't speak German, but I can manage a little French, so I'll assume for the sake of argument that the same applies in both. When I'm speaking French, I don't notice that I'm saying "S'il vous plait" and "Merci" any less than I say "Please" and "Thank you" in English. It may be that I do so more often than a native French speaker would, and therefore appear excessively polite, but it's not something I was aware of until you brought it up. However, I can't speak French without being aware of the "tu/vous" issue, so it seems to me this is far more central to the French language, and so the fact that French has this special polite form which you have to use in many circumstances suggests to me that it is a more polite language than English. >>> However, I may have been influenced from my first couple of years here. >>> I was member of a research group whose leader was very keen on good >>> English and who did not accept any bad language, especially not in the >>> presence of us foreigners (to protect us from getting into the bad habit >>> of using foul language). >> Probably a good idea. Although the "taboo" words have lost a lot of >> their shock value through more common usage these days, and there >> are some people who habitually pepper their conversations with them, >> they're still words one would not use in a polite or formal context. > I still don't see the point in doing this. What is the advantage? I work as a university lecturer, and many of the students I teach have come from overseas and speak English as a second language. I've often seen these students using inappropriate colloquialisms in what is meant to be formal written English. The reason is they haven't had enough experience to realise that these forms that they have heard spoken just don't look right when put in a piece of formal documentation. For example, they may have heard "gonna" used to form the future tense in spoken English or in pop song lyrics, and from that may assume it is the standard way to form the future tense. So occasionally I see it used in their exam scripts and project documentation. It looks bad an unprofessional, and would certainly hold them back if they were to do that when in employment. Exactly the same might apply to the "four letter" taboo words. Someone who hears them used casually in normal conversation, which in many contexts isn't uncommon in England, might go on to use them in contexts where it would be considered rude or unprofessional. >> Don't other language have similar taboo words, usually conneted with >> sexual or excretory functions? > There are taboo words, but IMHO they are not as taboo as here. I'm > always surprised when I hear a (BBC) radio presenter apologising for bad > language - people would use much worse words than f*** or c*** in German > without apologising, even during day-time. English, unlike German, has developed a vocabulary of Latin-derived words, which often parallel existing Germanic-derived words. In some cases the Latin derived word is the one used in formal contexts. I guess that as German did not develop this parallel vocabulary, the Germanic derived word remains used throughout. > These 'taboo' words are something weird for a foreigner as there is no > cultural background telling that these words are really bad. I *know* [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > me very conscious of this kind of language, so I think my language > shouldn't be too bad. The idea of regarding these words as completely unpronounceable is now regarded as somewhat old-fashioned. There was once a time when men might use them in conversation between themselves but regard it as bad to use them in a woman's presence. That no longer seems to be the case. >> "Thou" or related second person singular forms survives in some >> dialects of English. > In which dialects? Yorkshire in particular is known as a place where "thee", "thou" and "thy" (all sometimes pronounced or written "tha") survive in the everyday speech of ordinary people, and in some other northern parts. It also survived in some south-west dialects such as Somerset, although these have largely died out. Matthew Huntbach > > > In which dialects? > Yorkshire in particular is known as a place where "thee", "thou" and > "thy" (all sometimes pronounced or written "tha") survive in the > everyday speech of ordinary people, and in some other northern parts. > It also survived in some south-west dialects such as Somerset, > although these have largely died out. And as a clue for when to use 'thou': "Thee tha me when Ah tha thee." Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/yds/5sb-0.htm The Yorkshire Dialect Society: Summer Bulletin >> > In which dialects? >> Yorkshire in particular is known as a place where "thee", "thou" and >> "thy" (all sometimes pronounced or written "tha") survive in the >> everyday speech of ordinary people, > And as a clue for when to use 'thou': "Thee tha me when Ah tha thee." An excellent indication that Yorkshire retains the same usage of second person singular only when being familiar as does French and German. Matthew Huntbach Matthew Huntbach spake thus: > > >> > In which dialects? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > An excellent indication that Yorkshire retains the same usage of > second person singular only when being familiar as does French and German. Yorkshire school children used to cheek new teachers without their knowledge by addressing them as "thou". SignatureDavid ===== > Yorkshire in particular is known as a place where "thee", "thou" and > "thy" (all sometimes pronounced or written "tha") survive in the everyday > speech of ordinary people, and in some other northern parts. See: http://www.yorksj.ac.uk/dialect/21texts.htm for a modern example -------------- GC | > Yorkshire in particular is known as a place where "thee", "thou" and | > "thy" (all sometimes pronounced or written "tha") survive in the everyday [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] | | for a modern example Sorry to disillusion you, but as a Tyke Born and Bred, and living between Bradford and Halifax, we no longer speak like that :-((((( I can understand it though. > | > Yorkshire in particular is known as a place where "thee", "thou" > | > and "thy" (all sometimes pronounced or written "tha") survive in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > | > | for a modern example > Sorry to disillusion you, but as a Tyke Born and Bred, and living > between Bradford and Halifax, we no longer speak like that :-((((( I > can understand it though. You might not, Dave, but there's still a lot as does. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/yds/ The Yorkshire Dialect Society - information, publications and forthcoming events > > | > Yorkshire in particular is known as a place where "thee", "thou" > > | > and "thy" (all sometimes pronounced or written "tha") survive in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > You might not, Dave, but there's still a lot as does. <Gosh! Is that typically Yorkshire talk? What would be the correct English for "there's still a lot as does."? (some still do it/speak like that?) What puzzles me is the surprising sole use of grammatical (not lexical) words to say something and convey a meaning of sort - still/as/a lot of/ does. Patrick (no native English speaker) Signature"I don't need time. What I need is a deadline." - Duke Ellington websites: http://www.erp.oissel.onac.org/anglais/ - http://perso.wanadoo.fr/patrick.lecordier/ >>>>> Yorkshire in particular is known as a place where "thee", "thou" >>>>> and "thy" (all sometimes pronounced or written "tha") survive in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > lexical) words to say something and convey a meaning of sort - > still/as/a lot of/ does. Patrick (no native English speaker) I don't know about "correct English", but the non-dialect form would be "there's still a lot who do." "A meaning of sorts" is more idiomatic. SignatureJohn Briggs > >>>>> Yorkshire in particular is known as a place where "thee", "thou" > >>>>> and "thy" (all sometimes pronounced or written "tha") survive in [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > "A meaning of sorts" is more idiomatic. <<David and you have just made me understand why there's nowt wrang wi' "still a lot as does." It is perfect dialectally correct English. My use of the adjective "correct" was indeed confusing. What I meant (as you made me guess) was "non-dialectal version". Thanks for the lesson. Rgds Patrick :-) Signature"I don't need time. What I need is a deadline." - Duke Ellington websites: http://www.erp.oissel.onac.org/anglais/ - http://perso.wanadoo.fr/patrick.lecordier/ John Briggs at <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> says in <lUK%b.2150$1h7.15307@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>: >> [. . .] What would be the correct English for "there's still a lot as does."? >> (some still do it/speak like that?) What puzzles me is the surprising sole [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I don't know about "correct English", but the non-dialect form would be > "there's still a lot who do." In a plural context universal standard English, even in the USA, is "there are a lot". As distinct from the singular-context "there is a lot" or "there's a lot", as in "there's a lot of misunderstanding", the plural-context "there is a lot" or "there's a lot" started as nonstandard UKlish or USlish and was soon embraced with fervor by a large minority of the world's great unwashed---probably because the contracted "there's a lot" was easier to say than "there're a lot" and because showbiz sloppiness attached a kind of glamour to the habit. > [. . .]. -- Quentin Burward > John Briggs at <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> says in > <lUK%b.2150$1h7.15307@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>: > >> [. . .] What would be the correct English for "there's still a lot > >> as does."? (some still do it/speak like that?) What puzzles me is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I don't know about "correct English", but the non-dialect form > > would be "there's still a lot who do." > In a plural context universal standard English, even in the USA, is > "there are a lot". > As distinct from the singular-context "there is a lot" or "there's a > lot", as in "there's a lot of misunderstanding", the plural-context [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > lot" was easier to say than "there're a lot" and because showbiz > sloppiness attached a kind of glamour to the habit. Rubbish! "A lot" is entirely singular. On the other hand, if you were talking of "there's many..." you would be more or less right. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/photo/0z06-0.htm Mist over Ladybower, seen from the Yorkshire border David at <david@dacha.freeuk.com> says in <4c87874742david@dacha.freeuk.com>: >> John Briggs at <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> says in >> <lUK%b.2150$1h7.15307@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Rubbish! "A lot" is entirely singular. So much for UK kulcha as represented by you, David. A lot of people rush in where angels fear to tread. Any centuries-old language is much bigger than both of us. Universal (= international) English is something that we can analyse and describe, but we can't afford to deny the existence of any part of it. It may have grow'd like Topsy, but it's _there_. Between my pairs of @@@@ rows, below, are four of the pieces of homework for English 101 that you could easily have done _before_ sending that singularly hasty message beginning with "Rubbish". -------------------------- After the headword "lot" in my copy of the 1978 printing of the second (1965) edition of Fowler's _Modern English Usage_: @@@@@@@@@ _A lot of people say so_, _Lots of paper is wanted_, etc. @@@@@@@@@ David, would you say "A lot of people says so"? I hate to have to ask whether English is your native language, but _is_ English your native language? -------------------------- On a page at <http://faculty.washington.edu/marynell/grammar/agreement.html>: @@@@@@@@@ [. . .] when _a lot of_ is used before a plural subject, the verb is plural; when _lots of_ is used before a singular subject, the verb is singular. @@@@@@@@@ -------------------------- On a page headed "Subject-verb agreement" at <http://www.stark.kent.edu/writing/svagreement.htm>, which is part of a group of pages headed "The Writing Center" in the website of the Stark campus of Kent State University in Ohio: @@@@@@@@@ Another source of confusion in determining the number of the noun is *the phrasal quantifier*. Phrases such as _a lot_, _a great many_, and _a large number_ usually signal a plural subject, not a singular as the determiner _a_ might suggest. Ex. A lot of classes were canceled. A great many friends are expected to attend. A large number of people were gathered outside. @@@@@@@@@ -------------------------- In _The American Heritage Book of English Usage_, subtitled _A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English_, © 1996, at <http://www.bartleby.com/64/C003/0200.html>---but you'll have to put up with Bartleby's usual tedious USlish (discarded UKlish) commas, and its usual inability to choose between the USA's sidestream "like" and the world's mainstream "such as" (among the many tricks we can use when introducing examples): @@@@@@@@@ The common expression _a lot of_ is a whole lot more complicated than you might think. It belongs to a class of words that include _deal_ (in _a great deal of_), _plenty_, and _load_. In phrases such as _a lot of strawberries_, the word _lot_ is not really a head noun analogous to the word _bowl_ in _a bowl of strawberries_. Rather, expressions like _a lot of_, _a whole lot of_, and _a great deal of_ are best thought of as complex modifiers analogous to words like _many_, _much_, or _several_. _Lot_ and _plenty_ can occur with noncount nouns like _furniture_ and with plural count nouns like _chairs_. The verb agrees in number with the noun in the _of_ phrase. Thus, when followed by a singular noun, _a lot of_ takes a singular verb: _A lot of pizza was left on the table._ But when followed by a plural noun, it takes a plural verb: _A lot of the strawberries were ripe._ @@@@@@@@@ In the half hour that I've allocated to research for this little exercise I've found no UK website that even _mentions_ the question of whether "a lot of" takes a plural verb when the noun or pronoun following the "of" is plural, but if you insist on a UK authority then you surely won't cry foul at Fowler. The newsgroup <alt.usage.english> sometimes has a bit on "a lot of", so I also invite you to read the threads headed "A Better Expression" (which includes an utterly relevant message from the longtime and mainly reliable <a.u.e> contributor Robert Lieblich) and "An X of Y [WAS: Dan Quayle rides again]", both of which ran in 2003. > On the other hand, if you were talking of "there's many..." you would be more > or less right. I assume that you're trying to say I would be more or less right if I was advocating "there are many". But why only "more or less"? The truth is that I would be _totally_ right. And do you mean more "less" than "more"? Or do you mean more "more" than "less"? David, I don't mind someone calmly correcting me when I betray a gap in my knowledge of the English language, but that's the third failed attempt of yours to score a point against me---all in the one month and in the one newsgroup. What are you trying to prove? That the earnest ESL usenetter Patrick Lecordier doesn't deserve a useful discussion in response to the earnest question that he's posed to a newsgroup called <uk.culture.language.english>? Or are you trying to punish me for annoying you in a previous life? -- Quentin Burward > David at <david@dacha.freeuk.com> says in > <4c87874742david@dacha.freeuk.com>: > >> John Briggs at <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> says in > >> <lUK%b.2150$1h7.15307@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > > > Rubbish! "A lot" is entirely singular. > So much for UK kulcha as represented by you, David. A lot of people > rush in where angels fear to tread. Any centuries-old language is > much bigger than both of us. Universal (= international) English is > something that we can analyse and describe, but we can't afford to > deny the existence of any part of it. It may have grow'd like Topsy, > but it's _there_. Universal=international? New one on me. > Between my pairs of @@@@ rows, below, are four of the pieces of > homework for English 101 that you could easily have done _before_ > sending that singularly hasty message beginning with "Rubbish". Not really; I've much better things on which to waste /my/ time. > -------------------------- > After the headword "lot" in my copy of the 1978 printing of the > second (1965) edition of Fowler's _Modern English Usage_: > @@@@@@@@@ _A lot of people say so_, _Lots of paper is wanted_, etc. > @@@@@@@@@ > David, would you say "A lot of people says so"? I hate to have to ask > whether English is your native language, but _is_ English your native > language? Do you really hate it, Quentin, old love? You seem to be positively drooling as you type that! > -------------------------- > On a page at > <http://faculty.washington.edu/marynell/grammar/agreement.html>: > @@@@@@@@@ [. . .] when _a lot of_ is used before a plural subject, > the verb is plural; when _lots of_ is used before a singular subject, > the verb is singular. @@@@@@@@@ > -------------------------- > On a page headed "Subject-verb agreement" at > <http://www.stark.kent.edu/writing/svagreement.htm>, which is part of > a group of pages headed "The Writing Center" in the website of the > Stark campus of Kent State University in Ohio: > @@@@@@@@@ Another source of confusion in determining the number of > the noun is *the phrasal quantifier*. Phrases such as _a lot_, _a > great many_, and _a large number_ usually signal a plural subject, > not a singular as the determiner _a_ might suggest. Ex. A lot of > classes were canceled. A great many friends are expected to attend. A > large number of people were gathered outside. @@@@@@@@@ > -------------------------- > In _The American Heritage Book of English Usage_, subtitled _A > Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English_, © 1996, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > sidestream "like" and the world's mainstream "such as" (among the > many tricks we can use when introducing examples): > @@@@@@@@@ The common expression _a lot of_ is a whole lot more > complicated than you might think. It belongs to a class of words that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > plural noun, it takes a plural verb: _A lot of the strawberries were > ripe._ @@@@@@@@@ > In the half hour that I've allocated to research for this little > exercise I've found no UK website that even _mentions_ the question > of whether "a lot of" takes a plural verb when the noun or pronoun > following the "of" is plural, but if you insist on a UK authority > then you surely won't cry foul at Fowler. Ooh, a pun! Should you really be taking God's name in vain like that? > The newsgroup <alt.usage.english> sometimes has a bit on "a lot of", > so I also invite you to read the threads headed "A Better Expression" > (which includes an utterly relevant message from the longtime and > mainly reliable <a.u.e> contributor Robert Lieblich) and "An X of Y > [WAS: Dan Quayle rides again]", both of which ran in 2003. End of that bit, is it? Right, if you'll stop beating the trees to see what nuts drop off and take a look at the wood, you'll notice that what I said ("A lot" is entirely singular.) is perfectly true in grammatical terms: without a semantic context, there is no way in which you can determine whether "there _is_ a lot of..." or "there _are_ a lot of..." is correct. The usage of such terms as "a lot" is entirely idiomatic and often at odds with the grammar. Much of our language (and, I suppose of other tongues) utilises words and phrases in ways which are inconsistent, ungrammatical, and often of entirely different meaning to the same words used in other contexts. Sometimes, when you attempt to determine the meaning from the individual words, you are left quite bemused, wondering how on earth we ever manage to communicate at all. At all? Try sorting out the meaning of that. Or of adverbs such as "an'all" (and all), "as well", or "also" (all so). Anyway, back to the point. "There is a lot of <whatever>" is grammatically correct, whether the <whatever> is singular, plural or uncountable; "there are a lot of <plural whatever>" is strictly grammatically incorrect but idiomatically good English entirely for semantic reasons. And I don't need to go collecting nuts to be able to tell that wood from the trees. > > On the other hand, if you were talking of "there's many..." you > > would be more or less right. > I assume that you're trying to say I would be more or less right if I > was advocating "there are many". But why only "more or less"? The > truth is that I would be _totally_ right. As they say, there's many a slip.... > And do you mean more "less" > than "more"? Or do you mean more "more" than "less"? Ah, you're a quantity man, are you? I'm a quality man, myself. > David, I don't mind someone calmly correcting me when I betray a gap > in my knowledge of the English language, but that's the third failed > attempt of yours to score a point against me---all in the one month > and in the one newsgroup. Is it? That sounds very much as though /you're/ keeping close tally on all the points that have been scored, old love. I simply have no idea how many replies I've made to you, nor what my current score is; nor do I care because I simply don't regard writing to this newsgroup as an attempt to score points over another; I write merely to give my understanding where I think I can contribute, to introduce a little levity with which I hope to amuse others - for this life is too short to be entirely serious -, and, I must admit, snipe at the odd goose. > What are you trying to prove? That the earnest ESL usenetter Patrick > Lecordier doesn't deserve a useful discussion in response to the > earnest question that he's posed to a newsgroup called > <uk.culture.language.english>? Of course he does: that's why I rubbished your simplistic reasoning. > Or are you trying to punish me for annoying you in a previous life? So, you admit it, do you? Right, Quentin, you're for it now, me lad! Just you wait till the life after next! Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/photo/0y08-0.htm Devil's Arrow at Boroughbridge > As distinct from the singular-context "there is a lot" or "there's a lot", > as in "there's a lot of misunderstanding", the plural-context "there is a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > than "there're a lot" and because showbiz sloppiness attached a kind of > glamour to the habit. Ahhh. How quickly we move from surmisal, through folk history and onwards, in to the depths of myth. You made this whole thing up, didn't you? ------- GC Gwilym Calon at <gwilymc@prowebnet.co.uk> says in <c1ojro$1m0e8s$1@ID-218213.news.uni-berlin.de>: >> As distinct from the singular-context "there is a lot" or "there's a lot", as >> in "there's a lot of misunderstanding", the plural-context "there is a lot" [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You made this whole thing up, didn't you? What makes you ask? I invite you to read the replies that I've made in the last few minutes to David <david@dacha.freeuk.com> and Mike Stevens <mike.fc2@which.net>. -- Quentin Burward > John Briggs at <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> says in > <lUK%b.2150$1h7.15307@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > In a plural context universal standard English, even in the USA, is "there > are a lot". I wouldn't have said that usage was universal (in the plural context to which you refer). I think the two usages co-exist (at least in the UK). -- Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II web site www.mike-stevens.co.yk Old grammarians never die, they simply parse away. Mike Stevens at <mike.fc2@which.net> says in <c1pqfs$1l3e9a$1@ID-170573.news.uni-berlin.de>: >> John Briggs at <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> says in >> <lUK%b.2150$1h7.15307@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I wouldn't have said that usage was universal (in the plural context to > which you refer). I think the two usages co-exist (at least in the UK). I was trusting that you would read my "universal" as meaning "international", which boils down to "agreed by the main stream on both sides of the pond". Of _course_ the two usages coexist. I haven't implied that they don't. The point is that one usage is mainstream (= standard) and the other usage is sidestream (= nonstandard)---just as "between you and me" is mainstream and "between you and I" is sidestream. -- Quentin Burward (You snipped the attributions to me and to Dave F.) > > > | > Yorkshire in particular is known as a place where "thee", > > > | > "thou" and "thy" (all sometimes pronounced or written "tha") [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > > > You might not, Dave, but there's still a lot as does. > <Gosh! Is that typically Yorkshire talk? No. > What would be the correct > English for "there's still a lot as does."? "There's still a lot as does." Nowt wrang wi' that. > (some still do it/speak > like that?) What puzzles me is the surprising sole use of grammatical > (not lexical) words to say something and convey a meaning of sort - > still/as/a lot of/ does. > Patrick (no native English speaker) Obviously. :-) Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/free/ Free Software: !Stark - The Obey file repository > | > Yorkshire in particular is known as a place where "thee", "thou" and > | > "thy" (all sometimes pronounced or written "tha") survive in the everyday > | > speech of ordinary people, and in some other northern parts. > | See: > | http://www.yorksj.ac.uk/dialect/21texts.htm > | > | for a modern example > Sorry to disillusion you, but as a Tyke Born and Bred, and living between > Bradford and Halifax, we no longer speak like that :-((((( > I can understand it though. Yes, it's a contrived example. If one is trying to illustrate modern usage of ordinary people, it is not useful to quote a wedding speech deliberately written in "dialect". The likelihood ia that, for effect, the person writing it would play up forms, use forms which are already archaic, and in other ways exaggerate. I am sure that with a little research one could find links which contain genuine transcripts of ordinary people speaking in a way they find natural, which nevertheless illustrate the dialect form we're discussing. Matthew Huntbach | > | > Yorkshire in particular is known as a place where "thee", "thou" and | > | > "thy" (all sometimes pronounced or written "tha") survive in the everyday [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] | people speaking in a way they find natural, which nevertheless illustrate | the dialect form we're discussing. Customers, Asian Bradfordians and Southerners get one version of English/Yorkshire. The family gets another. The Yorkshire Dialect Society yet another. Davve F > > | > Yorkshire in particular is known as a place where "thee", > > | > "thou" and "thy" (all sometimes pronounced or written "tha") [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > between Bradford and Halifax, we no longer speak like that :-((((( > > I can understand it though. > Yes, it's a contrived example. If one is trying to illustrate modern > usage of ordinary people, it is not useful to quote a wedding speech [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > transcripts of ordinary people speaking in a way they find natural, > which nevertheless illustrate the dialect form we're discussing. It's a poem. You might just as well say: If one is trying to illustrate modern usage of ordinary people, it is not useful to quote a wedding speech deliberately written in "verse". And as for "dialect": it isn't really what you'd call a good illustration of WR dialect but only of a WR accented version of standard modern English. I.e. there are no words in it that are specific to the region. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/zodiac/6vir-0.htm Virgo (August 24th - September 23rd) Images, Associations, Qualities, Careers, Health [Sorry for the delay in replying!] >> But would it still be proper English? I think that there is more to >> speaking a language than just the vocabulary and grammar. The way the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > appear excessively polite, but it's not something I was aware of until > you brought it up. I assume so. The French have very polite or even obedient endings on their formal letters (as the German 'Mit vorzueglicher Hochachtung' [with special regards] or the English 'Obedient Servant', which seem to have almost disappeared as endings) - but I don't think that the French notice this in any special way. It is probably a form of politeness which is embedded in the language in a way which normally only non-native speakers realise. > However, I can't speak French without being aware > of the "tu/vous" issue, so it seems to me this is far more central to > the French language, and so the fact that French has this special polite > form which you have to use in many circumstances suggests to me that it > is a more polite language than English. It is - IMHO - a different way to be polite and to show your respect for another person. In some ways, it is an easier way than in English. You address someone with 'vous' or 'Sie', and everyone realises your relationship to this person. In English, you seem to use different wordings to show your respect for someone. This is - especially for a foreigner - much more difficult to learn. When the Hutton report with all the evidence was published, I was very surprised how many people in the government were on a first name basis. But there was still a significant difference in the way the emails were written, eg within the government and between No 10 and the BBC. If I was to translate this, I may have considered to interpret them slightly by introducing the 'Sie' in the letters between the BBC and the government, whereas I would have kept the 'Du' in the intra-governmental communication. >>> Probably a good idea. Although the "taboo" words have lost a lot of >>> their shock value through more common usage these days, and there [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > bad an unprofessional, and would certainly hold them back if they > were to do that when in employment. The easiest way to avoid this kind of language would probably be to try to keep a good standard during normal spoken language as well. I noticed that most English people are very tolerant regarding their language. I've never been corrected for my English (apart from my old boss) which makes it of course difficult to improve and correct my language. On one hand, this is very encouraging for everyone new to the country and language, especially as I had the impression that no one considers you as stupid for not speaking English fluently or making grammatical mistakes (as it is the case in many other countries), but on the other hand it makes it more difficult to learn the language. > Exactly the same might apply to the "four letter" taboo words. > Someone who hears them used casually in normal conversation, which > in many contexts isn't uncommon in England, might go on to use them in > contexts where it would be considered rude or unprofessional. Unfortunately, I have the impression that they start moving into professional language as well. I had (professional) conversations with people from the US using more than one kind of four letter words on a regular basis. >> There are taboo words, but IMHO they are not as taboo as here. I'm >> always surprised when I hear a (BBC) radio presenter apologising for bad [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I guess that as German did not develop this parallel vocabulary, the > Germanic derived word remains used throughout. But is this an explanation for the 'obsession' the English (or British) have with proper language? Every (German) visitor considers it quite strange that films get a rating for 'foul language'. Or could it be that the reason is that the kind of language used says more about the person here than in Germany? A film like 'Gosford Park' wouldn't really work in a German translation as the meaning of the accents - even if translated in similar German accents - would never work. >> In which dialects? > Yorkshire in particular is known as a place where "thee", "thou" and > "thy" (all sometimes pronounced or written "tha") survive in the everyday > speech of ordinary people, and in some other northern parts. It also > survived in some south-west dialects such as Somerset, although these > have largely died out. Living in Yorkshire, I have to open my ears! Gunter Signaturehttp://www.kuhnle.co.uk ICQ: 250623065 > > [1] I've been once told that 'you' is actually 2nd person plural and > > 'thou' is 2nd person plural and would be the same as 'Du' or 'tu'; is [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > in England the words "I thee wed" must be used, and it is the > pronunciation of those words that count as the legal point of marriage. It's an interesting reflection that when "thou/thee/thy" fell out of use as the familiar form of address, and everyone was called "you", the one person who (with some modern exceptions, as Matthew says) was still addressed by the familiar rather than the polite form was God. -- Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II Web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk No man is an island. So is Man. > It's an interesting reflection that when "thou/thee/thy" fell out of > use as the familiar form of address, and everyone was called "you", > the one person who (with some modern exceptions, as Matthew says) was > still addressed by the familiar rather than the polite form was God. Isn't that a very good example of superstition? Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/ada/09-0.htm ...the few remaining haddocks were indistinguishable from halibut. >> It's an interesting reflection that when "thou/thee/thy" fell out of >> use as the familiar form of address, and everyone was called "you", >> the one person who (with some modern exceptions, as Matthew says) was >> still addressed by the familiar rather than the polite form was God. > Isn't that a very good example of superstition? No. It's just a linguistic convention. I don't think it was ever considered somehow bad or unlucky to address God in the second person plural, it was just not done as the convention. So far as I am aware, in languages like French where the familiar/polite<->singular/plural division in the second person applies, God is addressed in the familiar second person singular, and not the polite second person plural. An additional factor may come from the King James Bible, which was until recently the standard Bible used in England. In order to translate accurately from the Latin (where there doesn't seem to have been a polite usage of the second person plural to address singular people), the "thou/thee/thy" form was always used when the Latin had the second person singular - this was done even though at the time of the translation the second person singular form was already dropping out of common usage at least in south-eastern English. So as time went on, people's familiarity with "thou/thee/thy" would have been largely through seeing it in Biblical texts. Thus grew the notion that it was a special form of language to be used for religious purposes. Matthew Huntbach >>> It's an interesting reflection that when "thou/thee/thy" fell out of >>> use as the familiar form of address, and everyone was called "you", [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >seeing it in Biblical texts. Thus grew the notion that it was a special >form of language to be used for religious purposes. Yes. The Christian Bible records Jesus instructing his disciples how to pray. The King James Bible has this in English as: <quote Matthew chapter 6> [9] After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. [10] Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. [11] Give us this day our daily bread. [12] And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. [13] And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. </quote> For some Christians whose Christianity is based on the King James Bible the use of "thou/thee/thy" is close to being a Godly requirement. SignaturePeter Duncanson UK (posting from u.c.l.e) > <quote Matthew chapter 6> > [9] After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. > </quote> My understanding is that the last part of verse 13 "For thine ..." is not properly part of the Bible, and that is why it does not occur in the Roman Catholic Pater Noster. However, the form with the use of "thy" is so engrained in English usage that it is used in the modern English Roman Catholic mass, even though God is addressed as "you" everywhere else in the mass. E.g. in the Agnus Dei following, it's "Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world" (the older form was "Lamb of God who takest away the sins of the world" which is a very sneaky form of the second person singular). However, RCs use "Our father who art ..." (not the more archaic "which art") and "trespasses" rather than "debts", and while "For thine is ..." *does* now appear in the mass as a sort of ecumenical gesture, it is separated from "Deliver us from evil" by some text spoken by the priest alone. Matthew Huntbach > in the mass. E.g. in the Agnus Dei following, it's "Lamb of God, you > take away the sins of the world" (the older form was "Lamb of God who > takest away the sins of the world" which is a very sneaky form of the > second person singular). Wasn't the older form "Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi"; in which surely "tollis" is "taketh", not "takest"? Anyway, it just shows that the RCs really buggered the Mass up, by pandering to those who wanted translation into the vernacular: took away all the mystery. SignatureBrian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk "We can no longer stand apart from Europe if we would. Yet we are untrained to mix with our neighbours, or even talk to them". George Macaulay Trevelyan, 1919 >> in the mass. E.g. in the Agnus Dei following, it's "Lamb of God, you >> take away the sins of the world" (the older form was "Lamb of God who [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Wasn't the older form "Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi"; in which > surely "tollis" is "taketh", not "takest"? It depends: give is the forms of "take" and let us decide. SignatureJohn Briggs >> in the mass. E.g. in the Agnus Dei following, it's "Lamb of God, you >> take away the sins of the world" (the older form was "Lamb of God who [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > pandering to those who wanted translation into the vernacular: took > away all the mystery. Actually, it shows (IMO) their lack of understanding of liturgical form. One of the standard forms of prayer is "O <title of God>, who <description of an attribute relevant to the petition>, <Petition i.e. asking for something>", {optional ending} "for <further attribute>". So to translate "qui" as "you" rather than "who" makes nonsense of the structure as well as being a mistranslation. IMO the great masterpieces of this classical Collect form are among Cranmer's translations from the Latin in the Anglican liturgy. Look, for example, at the Collect for Christmas Day. -- Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II Web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk No man is an island. So is Man. >>> in the mass. E.g. in the Agnus Dei following, it's "Lamb of God, you >>> take away the sins of the world" (the older form was "Lamb of God who [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > to translate "qui" as "you" rather than "who" makes nonsense of the > structure as well as being a mistranslation. I suppose they thought that "you who" sounded ridiculous and jumped the wrong way :-) SignatureJohn Briggs >>> in the mass. E.g. in the Agnus Dei following, it's "Lamb of God, you >>> take away the sins of the world" (the older form was "Lamb of God who >>> takest away the sins of the world" which is a very sneaky form of the >>> second person singular). >> Wasn't the older form "Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi"; in which >> surely "tollis" is "taketh", not "takest"? >> >> Anyway, it just shows that the RCs really buggered the Mass up, by >> pandering to those who wanted translation into the vernacular: took >> away all the mystery. > Actually, it shows (IMO) their lack of understanding of liturgical form. > One of the standard forms of prayer is "O <title of God>, who > <description of an attribute relevant to the petition>, <Petition i.e. > asking for something>", {optional ending} "for <further attribute>". So > to translate "qui" as "you" rather than "who" makes nonsense of the > structure as well as being a mistranslation. I still think (remember "amo amas amat"?) that "tollis" is second person singular - a "t" ending would be used for third person singular. If I am right, than translating it "Lamb of God, who takes away ..." loses the "you" which is there in the Latin ending. It's still there in "who takest" in the "-est" ending. A more accurate translation into modern English might be "Lamb of God, you who take away ..." but that sounds horrible. Matthew Huntbach >> in the mass. E.g. in the Agnus Dei following, it's "Lamb of God, you >> take away the sins of the world" (the older form was "Lamb of God who >> takest away the sins of the world" which is a very sneaky form of the >> second person singular). > Wasn't the older form "Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi"; in which > surely "tollis" is "taketh", not "takest"? My Latin is very shaky, but no, I think "tollis" is second person singular, third person singular would be something like "tollit". Matthew Huntbach >>> in the mass. E.g. in the Agnus Dei following, it's "Lamb of God, you >>> take away the sins of the world" (the older form was "Lamb of God who [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > My Latin is very shaky, but no, I think "tollis" is second person > singular, third person singular would be something like "tollit". It's not the Latin which is in question here, but the English! Which was why I asked for clarification of the forms of "take". (Can you say "Thou who takest"?) SignatureJohn Briggs >>>> in the mass. E.g. in the Agnus Dei following, it's "Lamb of God, >>>> you take away the sins of the world" (the older form was "Lamb of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > was why I asked for clarification of the forms of "take". (Can you > say "Thou who takest"?) I can't remember whether I've ever seen that exact phrase, but there's a well-known hymn which provides a close analogy : "O thou who camest from above the fire celestial to impart, kindle a flame of sacred love on the mean altar of my heart." That's Charles Wesley in the middle-18th Century. -- Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk Don't you just hate rhetorical questions? >> <quote Matthew chapter 6> >> [9] After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > properly part of the Bible, and that is why it does not occur in the > Roman Catholic Pater Noster. To say that the Doxology is "not properly part of the Bible" is contentious, to say the least. In fact, the Lord's Prayer occurs twice in each of Morning and Evening Prayer, so the opportunity was taken in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer of using both versions, with and without the Doxology! SignatureJohn Briggs >To say that the Doxology is "not properly part of the Bible" is contentious, >to say the least. In fact, the Lord's Prayer occurs twice in each of >Morning and Evening Prayer, so the opportunity was taken in the 1662 Book of >Common Prayer of using both versions, with and without the Doxology! The Book of Common Prayer is not in any way part of the Bible. SignatureMolly Mockford I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be! (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) >> To say that the Doxology is "not properly part of the Bible" is >> contentious, to say the least. In fact, the Lord's Prayer occurs twice [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The Book of Common Prayer is not in any way part of the Bible. Did I say it was? See Matthew 6, 9-13. The doxology is not there in the Vulgate, nor in Tyndale's 1526 translation. It is, however, included in his 1534 translation, and in subsequent Protestant translations of the Bible. For some reason, the services of Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer in the 1549 and 1552 Book of Common Prayer include the Lord's Prayer twice - without the doxology. This is changed in the 1662 BCP - the first occurrence is with the doxology, the second without. SignatureJohn Briggs >>> To say that the Doxology is "not properly part of the Bible" is >>> contentious, to say the least. In fact, the Lord's Prayer occurs twice [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Did I say it was? Your post strongly implied exactly that, unless one is to interpret the second sentence as a non sequitur. SignatureMolly Mockford I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be! (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) >>>> To say that the Doxology is "not properly part of the Bible" is >>>> contentious, to say the least. In fact, the Lord's Prayer occurs twice [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Your post strongly implied exactly that, unless one is to interpret the > second sentence as a non sequitur. And I expanded the point in my second post, so why did you snip that? SignatureJohn Briggs >>>>> To say that the Doxology is "not properly part of the Bible" is >>>>> contentious, to say the least. In fact, the Lord's Prayer occurs twice [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >And I expanded the point in my second post, so why did you snip that? In order to emphasise the effect of the two consecutive sentences in your original post. I'm not interested in any religious argument, I was just making a point about the use of English! SignatureMolly Mockford I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be! (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) >>>>>> To say that the Doxology is "not properly part of the Bible" is >>>>>> contentious, to say the least. In fact, the Lord's Prayer occurs [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I'm not interested in any religious argument, I was just making a point > about the use of English! There is nothing wrong with either sentence. SignatureJohn Briggs >>>>>>> To say that the Doxology is "not properly part of the Bible" is >>>>>>> contentious, to say the least. In fact, the Lord's Prayer occurs [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >There is nothing wrong with either sentence. Indeed, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with either of them. It is simply their juxtaposition which makes it appear that the second is evidence of the first. Forget it, I'm just being picky - but then, that's what this group's for! SignatureMolly Mockford I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be! (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) >> To say that the Doxology is "not properly part of the Bible" is >> contentious, to say the least. In fact, the Lord's Prayer occurs [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The Book of Common Prayer is not in any way part of the Bible. True. St Matthew's Gospels gives the Lord's Prayer with the doxology and St Luke's gives it without. So both forms are thoroughly Biblical. At any rate each of the 1549 and 1662 Prayer Books uses both forms with no consistent pattern that I could recognise. And the two Prayer Books aren't consistent with one another in when they choose to use which version. -- Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II Web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk No man is an island. So is Man. >>> To say that the Doxology is "not properly part of the Bible" is >>> contentious, to say the least. In fact, the Lord's Prayer occurs [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > aren't consistent with one another in when they choose to use which > version. See my next post. SignatureJohn Briggs >>> <quote Matthew chapter 6> >>> [13] And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For >>> thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. >> My understanding is that the last part of verse 13 "For thine ..." is not >> properly part of the Bible, and that is why it does not occur in the >> Roman Catholic Pater Noster. > To say that the Doxology is "not properly part of the Bible" is contentious, > to say the least. I'm no expert on this, but I think it's also contentious to say it is because it occurs in some early texts but not in others. I seem to recall modern translations tend not to have it, but to have an asterisk with a footnote "Some ancient texts add "For ...". Matthew Huntbach >>>> <quote Matthew chapter 6> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > modern translations tend not to have it, but to have an asterisk with > a footnote "Some ancient texts add "For ...". Only the Roman Catholic Church omit the doxology from the Lord's Prayer - the Church of England omit it half the time! :-) SignatureJohn Briggs > >>> It's an interesting reflection that when "thou/thee/thy" fell out > >>> of use as the familiar form of address, and everyone was called [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > > Yes. > The Christian Bible records Jesus instructing his disciples how to > pray. The King James Bible has this in English as: > <quote Matthew chapter 6> [9] After this manner therefore pray ye: > Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. [10] Thy [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and > the glory, for ever. Amen. </quote> > For some Christians whose Christianity is based on the King James > Bible the use of "thou/thee/thy" is close to being a Godly > requirement. Which is precisely my point about it being superstition. Nothing to do with "luck" but a hangover of older practice. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/joachim/14-0.htm "Note that one night too, the three blutwursts for Lohengrin's five very sick swans even got ate by nine. That's ten incidents!" >>> It's an interesting reflection that when "thou/thee/thy" fell out of >>> use as the familiar form of address, and everyone was called "you", [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Matthew Huntbach Umm, "to translate accurately from the Latin" wasn't the prime intention :-) SignatureJohn Briggs | >>> It's an interesting reflection that when "thou/thee/thy" fell out of | >>> use as the familiar form of address, and everyone was called "you", [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] | | Umm, "to translate accurately from the Latin" wasn't the prime intention :-) The originals were in Greek and Hebrew, Latin was a late interloper. Dave F > | > An additional factor may come from the King James Bible, which was until > | > recently the standard Bible used in England. In order to translate > | > accurately from the Latin (where there doesn't seem to have been a > | > polite usage of the second person plural to address singular people), > | > the "thou/thee/thy" form was always used when the Latin had the second > | > person singular > | Umm, "to translate accurately from the Latin" wasn't the prime intention :-) > The originals were in Greek and Hebrew, Latin was a late interloper. Yes, but (I am willing to be corrected here, but this is what I recall) the King James Bible was translated from the then standard (at least in western Europe) Latin Bible. Later translations came directly from the Greek. The New Testament was written in Greek, which was the lingua franca of the eastern Roman Empire at the time. While the language of Jesus and his disciples would have been Aramaic (Hebrew by then already used only liturgically) even semi-educated people would have spoken Greek, and Greek was the language of the Jewish diaspora across the Roman empire. Matthew Huntbach >>>> An additional factor may come from the King James Bible, which was >>>> until recently the standard Bible used in England. In order to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the King James Bible was translated from the then standard (at > least in western Europe) Latin Bible. No, no, no, no! Read "Bible, Translations of" in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and about William Tyndale, and why he was burnt at the stake. SignatureJohn Briggs >>>> It's an interesting reflection that when "thou/thee/thy" fell out >>>> of use as the familiar form of address, and everyone was called [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> Biblical texts. Thus grew the notion that it was a special form of >> language to be used for religious purposes. > Umm, "to translate accurately from the Latin" wasn't the prime > intention :-) Just so - they were translating from the Greek, from which the (Latin) Vulgate Bible had been translated some centuries earlier. Part of their motive was a feeling that the Vulgate may not have been a very good translation. Another part was a wish to get back to a pre-Roman Catholic source text. And there is a school of thought that says that in order to make the language sound dignified, the purposely made use of some linguistic forms that were already slightly archaic. -- Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II web site www.mike-stevens.co.yk Old grammarians never die, they simply parse away. >>>>> It's an interesting reflection that when "thou/thee/thy" fell out >>>>> of use as the familiar form of address, and everyone was called [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > make the language sound dignified, the purposely made use of some > linguistic forms that were already slightly archaic. Well, no - they (the revisers/translators of the King James Version) were essentially revising and correcting earlier translations (leaning mostly to the Bishops' Bible rather than the Geneva Bible), whilst retaining, as far as possible, language which, even then, had become 'traditional'. And (as I have posted elsewhere in this thread) all these translations derive to a greater or lesser extent from the work of Tyndale. (The New Testament is translated from the Greek, the Old Testament from the Hebrew - although the Greek Septuagint often preserves better readings.) SignatureJohn Briggs >> An additional factor may come from the King James Bible, which was until >> recently the standard Bible used in England. In order to translate [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> translation the second person singular form was already dropping out >> of common usage at least in south-eastern English. > Umm, "to translate accurately from the Latin" wasn't the prime intention :-) The evidence is that the translators really did want to be accurate on this point, and that is why they stuck to a form which was already becoming a little old-fashioned at the time. I think you will find that "thou/thee/thy" is used in the King James translation wherever second person singular is used in the Latin (Jerome?) they translated from. Matthew Huntbach >>> An additional factor may come from the King James Bible, which was until >>> recently the standard Bible used in England. In order to translate [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > "thou/thee/thy" is used in the King James translation wherever second > person singular is used in the Latin (Jerome?) they translated from. See separate reply. SignatureJohn Briggs > An additional factor may come from the King James Bible, which was until > recently the standard Bible used in England. In order to translate [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > seeing it in Biblical texts. Thus grew the notion that it was a special > form of language to be used for religious purposes. Do remember that all English translations are essentially copying Tyndale (including the Roman Catholic Rheims-Douai version that was ostensibly a direct translation from the Vulgate!) So the language of the King James Version was up to eighty (say, an average of forty) years out of date when it was published. SignatureJohn Briggs | Do remember that all English translations are essentially copying Tyndale | (including the Roman Catholic Rheims-Douai version that was ostensibly a | direct translation from the Vulgate!) So the language of the King James | Version was up to eighty (say, an average of forty) years out of date when | it was published. Utter and complete rubbish. Modern English translations go back to the Greek and Hebrew texts. Just read the introductions. Not sure about RC versions. Dave F >> Do remember that all English translations are essentially copying Tyndale >> (including the Roman Catholic Rheims-Douai version that was ostensibly a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Modern English translations go back to the Greek and Hebrew texts. Just > read the introductions. Not sure about RC versions. "Complete and utter rubbish" would be more idiomatic. But are you using "complete" in some sense with which I am unfamiliar? What precisely are you objecting to? Are you saying that the form of language used is totally uninfluenced by previous versions? SignatureJohn Briggs | >> Do remember that all English translations are essentially copying Tyndale | >> (including the Roman Catholic Rheims-Douai version that was ostensibly a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] | "complete" in some sense with which I am unfamiliar? What precisely are you | objecting to? | >> Do remember that all English translations are essentially copying Tyndale | Are you saying that the form of language used is totally | uninfluenced by previous versions? Yes! NIV, New English, Moffat, Good News, all translated from the Greek and Hebrew. >>>> Do remember that all English translations are essentially copying >>>> Tyndale (including the Roman Catholic Rheims-Douai version that was [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Yes! NIV, New English, Moffat, Good News, all translated from the Greek > and Hebrew. Look. We are talking about the English language. The NIV, in particular, seeks to retain the "traditional language". Other versions attempt to use "modern English" and I wasn't directly referring to them, but you overlook the extent to which Tyndale actually influence the English language. Even if he didn't actually invent it, he certainly popularised the form "The X of the Y" (e.g. "The Ark of the Covenant" rather than "The Covenant's Ark") which mirrored the Hebrew word order. Many popular expressions (e.g the powers that be) are his, as are words such as passover, scapegoat and peacemaker. SignatureJohn Briggs | >>>> Do remember that all English translations are essentially copying | >>>> Tyndale (including the Roman Catholic Rheims-Douai version that was [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] | | Look. We are talking about the English language. No we are discussing your statement | >>>> Do remember that all English translations are essentially copying | >>>> Tyndale Which is false. >>>>>> Do remember that all English translations are essentially copying >>>>>> Tyndale (including the Roman Catholic Rheims-Douai version that was [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > No we are discussing your statement Really? What is the name of the newsgroup, again? >>>>>> Do remember that all English translations are essentially copying >>>>>> Tyndale > > Which is false. You have taken it out of context - in context it was referring to all translations after Tyndale, up to and including the King James Version, although ut obviously has wider application. No one would expect it to apply to Wycliffe or the Old English translations. SignatureJohn Briggs > Other versions attempt to use > "modern English" and I wasn't directly referring to them, but you overlook > the extent to which Tyndale actually influence the English language. Even > if he didn't actually invent it, he certainly popularised the form "The X of > the Y" (e.g. "The Ark of the Covenant" rather than "The Covenant's Ark") > which mirrored the Hebrew word order. Again, this may have been done in order to make the translation closer to the original. Matthew Huntbach > | Do remember that all English translations are essentially copying Tyndale > | (including the Roman Catholic Rheims-Douai version that was ostensibly a > | direct translation from the Vulgate!) So the language of the King James > | Version was up to eighty (say, an average of forty) years out of date when > | it was published. > Utter and complete rubbish. > Modern English translations go back to the Greek and Hebrew texts. Just > read the introductions. Not sure about RC versions. The translations of the Bible now recommended for use by English-speaking RCs are translations from the Greek. The King James Bible seems to have used forms that were becoming old fashioned at the time for a variety of reasons. One was, as I said, to guarantee accuracy of translation. Another was the influence of earlier translations. A third was simply because old fashioned usage sounds more solemn. Matthew Huntbach > I'm sure a lot of people who do subscribe to the modern idiom of first > names will consider my pov as rather old fashioned, but like I said, > politeness and good manners don't actually cost anything at all! I have always been attracted to (but haven't consistently used) the (very old) Quaker convention of always addressing people other than family members and close friends as <first name><surname>. -- Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk "Million-to-one chances come up nine times out of ten." (Terry Pratchett) SNiP > For people at the same academic level (and age), I'm happy to address > them by their first name. But I had some lecturers and professors at [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > some people still expect you to address the wife with the title of her > husband (Frau Dr ...). So I'm always a bit doubtful. I think most spouses might find the use of professional titles towards them unexpected. There's little wrong in doing so, I imagine you'd just come across as a polite German. > Sometimes they respond with a 'Dear $firstname' or '$firstname', and I > never know whether this is just a way to address more junior people, an > 'offer' (or request) to use a less formal way or doesn't have any > meaning at all. I imagine it's any one of them and without asking you're unlikely to know which. If it were me I'd be tempted to stick to the formal address until requested to be more informal, or ask indirectly such as apologising for possibly being too formal. Do you have a title and do you sign off with it? If so and you're addresing similar "ranks" I'd take their informality as an invitation to follow, maybe not for the top of the tree as it were. > Thank you for your help - I realise more and more how difficult it is to > learn a foreign language (it seemed easier to me when I arrived here). Quite, I have the same trouble with Rammstein lyrics. ;-} Bear in mind that English as a tongue doesn't belong to anyone, so you can do what you choose with it. cheers, >> It has become conventional in English emails not to use Dear (as in >> written letters), but to open with the addressee's first name. I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> think that anybody would be offended by your being more formal then >> them. > Within my workplace it is fine for me to follow this convention, but > it is different for me if I have to contact someone outside, especially > someone quite senior in industry or academia. Would you also address > someone outside your company in this way, or would you be more formal? IMO it's always better to err on the side of politeness and good manners. It doesn't actually cost anything. I'd always tend to go for a more formal style of address. 'Dear Mr......' or whatever their title might be. In closing 'Regards' seems to have become more or less standard use now, reflecting perhaps the perception that emails tend to be less formal than written letters. When you get a response, you can then judge the tone for future correspondence. If you happen to build up a rapport over a period, then certainly you can move to first name terms. IME that change just sort of comes about naturally. One could argue that there is an inherrent danger with emails in that they tend to isolate the sender and the recepient from the realities of life. They are so easy to send that it's quite possible to become somewhat 'addicted' to shooting off emails when a face-to-face word with a colleague or a telephone call to a client or customer is more appropriate! > In closing 'Regards' seems to have become more or less standard use > now, reflecting perhaps the perception that emails tend to be less > formal than written letters. Is "Regards" less formal than "Yours Sincerely"? SignatureEnrico C ~ No native speaker > Hallo, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > it safe to remain on the formal side? Or is it better to be less formal > as soon as the 'counterpart' starts to be less formal? If you consider the person you are writing to to be your senior, I would play safe at first and stick to convention (Dear Mr Smith, etc.) but it is indeed wise to match any informality they display. For anyone else I use "Hi" all the time, whether I know them or not. I can't think of any occasions where a correspondent has taken umbrage. Adrian >If you consider the person you are writing to to be your senior, I would >play safe at first and stick to convention (Dear Mr Smith, etc.) but it is >indeed wise to match any informality they display. > >For anyone else I use "Hi" all the time, whether I know them or not. I can't >think of any occasions where a correspondent has taken umbrage. However, it is perfectly usual (and acceptable in most cases) to have no salutation whatsoever, especially if it is not the first time that you have e-mailed that person. Also, bearing in mind that a lot of spammers start their e-mails with "Dear ...", some anti-spam software will treat it as a spam indicator. SignatureMolly Mockford I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be! (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) > However, it is perfectly usual (and acceptable in most cases) to have no > salutation whatsoever, especially if it is not the first time that you > have e-mailed that person. Also, bearing in mind that a lot of spammers > start their e-mails with "Dear ...", some anti-spam software will treat > it as a spam indicator. Even though I know that having no salutation or just the first name is perfectly usual, these emails (if they're some sort of 'first contact') sound a bit rude to me. But this does probably depend very much on the attitude, upbringing and cultural background of the sender and recipent, so I try to assume that no one sending me an email plans to be rude. I've never really understood why it is usual to omit things like an salutation or closing in an email, or write them in a quick and dirty style. When I started using email, I've been told to keep them short (especially if they were to go overseas) but still as friendly as possible. Now I've learned in a so called 'training' that one sentence emails are perfectly acceptable ... but this is a different question and a bit off topic here. Gunter Signaturehttp://www.kuhnle.co.uk ICQ: 250623065 > If you consider the person you are writing to to be your senior, I would > play safe at first and stick to convention (Dear Mr Smith, etc.) but it is > indeed wise to match any informality they display. That's what I thought - but I hope it wouldn't considered rude to be a bit slow in matching the informality. Btw, would you extend this informality to real life, or just to email contacts? Gunter Signaturehttp://www.kuhnle.co.uk ICQ: 250623065 > > If you consider the person you are writing to to be your senior, I would > > play safe at first and stick to convention (Dear Mr Smith, etc.) but it is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > bit slow in matching the informality. Btw, would you extend this > informality to real life, or just to email contacts? Thinking about it, I'm pretty sure I've always called my boss by his/her first name. Maybe others will disagree, but in the UK I think it's unusual for two adults to address each other as "Mr(s) X" or "sir/madam" if they know each other's first name. Adrian > > > If you consider the person you are writing to to be your senior, I would > > > play safe at first and stick to convention (Dear Mr Smith, etc.) but it [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > for two adults to address each other as "Mr(s) X" or "sir/madam" if they > know each other's first name. When I started teaching, back in the late 1960s, it would have been unthinkable to speak to our Headteacher as anything but "Mr Sumner" or Headmaster". Behind his back he was "the Old Man". Four years later, I changed schools and was quickly on first-name terms with my new Head. This continued over the years with his various successors. There was one, I remember, with whom I often disagreed (by this time I was in Senior Management). Most of the time I spoke to him by his first name. When I called him "Headmaster" (either in one-to-one conversation or in a staff meeting) he knew I was displeased with him. -- Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk Old teachers never die, they simply lose their class. In uk.culture.language.english on Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:09:02 -0000, }If you consider the person you are writing to to be your senior, I would }play safe at first and stick to convention (Dear Mr Smith, etc.) but it is }indeed wise to match any informality they display. } }For anyone else I use "Hi" all the time, whether I know them or not. I can't }think of any occasions where a correspondent has taken umbrage. I use Hi, for everybody. For those I know well I rarely bother with even Hi especially in replies where the Mailer has put in On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:49:27 -0000, Name Surname wrote: {R} gk-usenet@kuhnle.co.uk spake thus: > Hallo, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Thank you for your help, I've read through the discussion. I would add to my previous reply that you would be correct to use a formal approach when writing to somebody you don't know, no matter how senior; there is something slightly strange about addressing somebody more formally just because they are paid more than you. If they reply informally, you have a choice - you can match the informality, which is unlikely to cause offence, or you can continue with the formal address, which will not cause offence. If somebody addresses me formally more than twice, I am likely to add "Please call me David" as an explicit invitation. I expect everybody to call me David, unless they are trying to sell me something (in which case I would rather they didn't talk to me at all). SignatureDavid ===== > gk-usenet@kuhnle.co.uk spake thus: > > > Hallo, > > > > I always wonder what the appropriate way of addressing people in emails (snip) At work I usually don't bother with a salutation, but some of my friends and relations think that rather abrupt, so I often start with Hallo! and end with Regards, then first and last name or (more informally) Take care, then my first name. I would be happy to receive e-mails in this style from anyone, unless they were trying to sell me something or were from officialdom. In such cases I would expect them to call me Mrs. If they don't know I'm a Mrs then they probably have no business e-mailing me! To a great extent e-mails in England seem to be following the conventions of telephone conversations rather than letters, which many people don't write anymore. One more comment on the last-name only convention, in the eighteenth century in England it was the norm for wives to address husbands by surname (or Mr and surname) only, also nieces and nephews to address aunts and uncles by Uncle/Aunt + surname. People were pretty much only on first name terms if they'd known each other from childhood. See Jane Austen for examples. Regards, Helen. >One more comment on the last-name only convention, in the eighteenth century >in England it was the norm for wives to address husbands by surname (or Mr >and surname) only, also nieces and nephews to address aunts and uncles by >Uncle/Aunt + surname. People were pretty much only on first name terms if >they'd known each other from childhood. See Jane Austen for examples. A particularly interesting example is in Emma - Mr Knightley, who was 16 when Emma was born and knew her from babyhood, always calls her "Emma", while she always calls him "Mr Knightley"[1]. They actually discuss this during their engagement, and she says that she could not bring herself to call him "George", but will always call him "Mr Knightley". Her sister and his brother (married when the books starts), however, always address each other by their first names. [1] She did once, when a child, address him as "George" just to see what would happen but, since he made no objection, she never did it again. SignatureMolly Mockford I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be! (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) >A particularly interesting example is in Emma - Mr Knightley, who was >16 when Emma was born and knew her from babyhood, always calls her >"Emma", while she always calls him "Mr Knightley"[1]. <snip> >[1] She did once, when a child, address him as "George" just to see >what would happen but, since he made no objection, she never did it >again. Mr Knightley clearly knew the most effective way of dealing with trolling. :) SignatureJohn Hall "If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me." Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980) Hi Emailing is modern and informal, use Hi, or hello best wishes john ps for fun things in the English language look at www.dislexicon.com > Hallo, > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Gunter ... >ps for fun things in the English language look at www.dislexicon.com ... Cute. Don't forget something like this: Allot -- To assign a lot A lot -- Many of some things, or one piece of real estate Alot -- Not a nonce word, but a nonword I know: "Nonword" is a nonword. It's silly, but it's fun. SignatureMike Bandy |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.