Informal English usage and possible translation issues

[Comfy.n]

In Brazilian Portuguese we have this colloquial word "Caras", that can be used to address a group of male individuals, although it's not unusual for it to be used also as a vocative referring to women, as well. (I'm sure Issybird wouldn't feel comfortable with this, lol)

The primary meaning of the word "cara", however, is "face" as in "facebook". There's also a celebrities/gossip magazine named Caras.

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

In some languages (Estonian, Russian, presumably others) the singular you and the plural you are two different words also. It's considered polite to use the plural you with strangers, although this custom is starting to disappear with younger generations.

Hindi has a strictly singular 2nd person तू (that conjugates as singular), a mixed 2nd तुम (can refer to 1 person or more) and a plural 2nd person, आप, which conjugates as plural but is also used to address a single person formally or as a mark of respect. So a group of peers or friends would be addressed with तुम, a group of strangers or social superiors with आप.

[haertig]

Everywhere I have lived, a group has been called "guys". By both men and women, or by boys and girls, or by ladies and gentlemen, or by males and females. I evidently have to say all these because someone will be offended being called a woman, and another will be offended being call a gentleman, so you really can't win no matter what words you choose to use. Now we have even more words vying for a seat at the table with the different genders being presented.

So I just do what everybody I know (both XX's and XY's) does - we just use the word "guys" because it offends the least amount of people. Occasionally "y'all". I have never seen anybody offended by either of these, until now. Quite honestly, I would not really know what to do with someone who claimed offense at "guys", because that's what everyone says here.

If I do meet someone like this, I will probably just ask them their name if I don't already know it. For example, let's use "Mary". Then I'd say things like "Come on guys and Mary, let's get moving." There's really not much else you can do. Any group term that Mary might suggest would probably be at least uncomfortable and awkward to others, if not downright offensive. So there is no good way to handle a group that includes that one person who doesn't use normal, common and accepted language. No way you can win with a person that has that chip on their shoulder. So I just use words that the vast majority uses, and that one person just has to be a little offended I guess. I'm not going to offend 99% of the people I know by using "they/them" or "people" or anything else that sounds weird or condescending, just so I can please that one person who prefers the unusual term.

If I happen to be in a group of mixed XX's and XY's and somebody says, "OK girls, let's go" - I'm just gonna go with them to where ever we're going. No offense taken. No offense intended. It's just a word. Trying to come up with that perfect all-inclusive word for the group just makes everything sound awkward and stupid, and feels so contrived and virtue-signaling.

For me, it's majority rule. So "guys" wins. If that offends, well, ... "sorry guys!"

[Quoth]

Starting a post with 'Guys' is hardly objectionable at all, unlike starting it with 'Men'.

[hildea]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Are there any languages with a word with the same usage, and translation mechanisms (dictionary, software, other) that would map that word to "men"?

I tested with Google translate, English to Norwegian:

• "Come on guys" --> "Kom igjen folkens" (= folks or people, gender neutral)
• "All the guys" --> "Alle gutta" (= boys or men, definitively gendered)

As someone with English as a second language, my immediate impression is that "guys" is gendered. If someone used "guys" about a group I was part of, I'd assume I was included, but I'd be mildly (very mildly) annoyed. (And if someone said "Come on, guys and Hilde" I'd be much more annoyed )

Originally Posted by Sirtel

In some languages (Estonian, Russian, presumably others) the singular you and the plural you are two different words also. It's considered polite to use the plural you with strangers, although this custom is starting to disappear with younger generations.

Originally Posted by Quoth

Perhaps also German and French?

Yes, German and French, as well as Spanish, Italian, and the Scandinavian languages all have different words for singular and plural you. I've always thought that English is the exception. Does anyone know of other languages that don't have separate words for the two?

"Thou" used to be singular "you". And then "you" also became a formal version of "thou", and later English-speaking people started to use the formal form for everybody. (And then I went down a rabbit hole of internet search, and found https://ludwig.guru/blog/you-vs-thou...ic-revolution/ and https://www.merriam-webster.com/word...top-using-thou, and learned that people have been passionate about pronouns before, to the extent of beating up people who used them "wrongly".)

When thinking about it, I also realize that Norwegian and German uses they as the polite form, not you. So it's like:

• Canst thou tell me the way to the post office? (Informal)
• Can They tell me they way to the post office? (Formal, Norwegian and German)
• Can You tell me the way to the post office? (Formal, Swedish and French)

Although in Norway, the formal form is almost never used. I've heard it in real life exactly once, in the 1980s.

And now I'm reminded of the excellent fantasy novel "Goblin Empereror" by Katherine Addison/Sarah Monette, where there's informal I/thou, and formal we/you.

“I… we must speak with our cousin,” he said, the constructions of the formal first person awkward and unaccustomed. “Do you… that is, you must be tired. Let us summon a manservant to tend to your needs.”

[issybird]

Originally Posted by haertig

Quite honestly, I would not really know what to do with someone who claimed offense at "guys", because that's what everyone says here.

Everyone used to say all sorts of things that are unacceptable now. This isn't a good justification.

Then I'd say things like "Come on guys and Mary, let's get moving." There's really not much else you can do.

Uh, "Come on, let's get moving." Or "people." Or "everyone." Etc.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by issybird

Everyone used to say all sorts of things that are unacceptable now. This isn't a good justification.

And
Thy Thou Thee

Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you fret

C.f I and me as to why it was Ye at the start and You at the end, or old use of thee and thou for singular.


Thy (singular), Yours (plural)
See also They, Them, Theirs and She / Her and He / Him as well as hers and his.

What I don't know is how thy/thou/thee became you/ye. (singular) and you/youse (plural) particularly in parts of Ireland and Scotland.

Old English was developed by the Anglo Saxons by the 7th C. from their Western Germanic language. It displaced the Celtic Language in England (Angles Land), but not entirely in Wales, Scotland, Isle of Man and Cornwall. Irish started to be displaced by the Irish wanting better status by knowing English in 17th C.
Welsh (Anglo-Saxon) and Gaelic are actually non-Celtic (Celt = Keltoi) words for Foreigner.

The Normans (1066 and all that) changed the spelling and made it more French
Thus Cwen (Kween) became Queen.
Cyning (Kining) became King.

Pork, Duck, Mutton, Beef were added.

Dutch Prince William of Orange married King James's (different English & Scottish number) daughter Mary and invaded. Joint Monarchs from 1689, though technically only Mary should have been Monarch. Curiously not much Dutch was adopted. By then English was quite modern.

Gothic Literature was invented in 1764 by Horace Walpole and English was certainly modern then.
Before the OED https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary there was Samuel Johnson's Dictionary, which like Webster was prescriptive. Finished 1755. The earliest English dictionary was about 1604.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Dict...glish_Language

The OED aims to document, not prescribe. No-one is in charge of English.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by slm

When my daughter was home visiting from college a few years ago, she started addressing my wife and I as "you all".

She had never used that term before she went away to college so I asked about it.

At the time, she was the captain of the college swim team (all women) and she explained that when she spoke to the team, she had found that "guys", "girls" and "women" all resulted in pushback from one or more team members. "You-all" offended no one, apparently.

You All is a southern US term. It's usually shortened to Y'all.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by issybird

Everyone used to say all sorts of things that are unacceptable now. This isn't a good justification.

Uh, "Come on, let's get moving." Or "people." Or "everyone." Etc.

Like I said, "majority rules". I will speak in a manner that is common and normal in the area where I am.

"Everyone" can seem impersonal at times, depends on how you use it. "People" can also seem condescending, and it is definitely impersonal. Plus, neither is the norm around here. So I don't use either of those often, and your call for me to do so probably won't change that. I used to use "y'all" when I lived in Texas, because it is common and normal there. Although even in Texas, "guys" is still more common than "y'all". But "y'all" isn't common and normal here, so it's not my first choice while I am living here. I do use it on occasion though. Related ... when I was in college at Texas A&M, the greeting when you met someone was always "Howdy". Never "Hello", "Nice to meet you", or "How are you?" So I used "Howdy" exclusively then, and still do when greeting another Aggie. But I don't generally use it here, because people would probably look at me with puzzled expressions on their faces.

When it comes to mangling the English language - like when someone is singular but insists on being referred to in the plural - I just use their proper name instead. That is respectful and doesn't require the speaker to use awkward Yoda-like speaking patterns that are incorrect in English language structure.

I am OK with people speaking however they want. But it is not OK for someone to force their speaking patterns on others. I am for people using what is common, normal and accepted in the area where they currently happen to be. Sometimes people do not know what is common and normal in the area where they are. In that case, they should just speak the way they are used to. And everyone else should accept that, and not get on their high horse about it.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by hildea

As someone with English as a second language, my immediate impression is that "guys" is gendered. If someone used "guys" about a group I was part of, I'd assume I was included, but I'd be mildly (very mildly) annoyed. (And if someone said "Come on, guys and Hilde" I'd be much more annoyed )

This goes right to my point. Norwegians should not be annoyed with the way Americans speak when they are visiting America. Just like Americans should not be annoyed by the way Norwegians speak when they are visiting Norway. There ARE going to be differences. There ARE going to be instances where you might interpret something as offensive that was never meant to be offensive, and indeed is not offensive in the place where it was said.

It is the trying to push your way of interpreting, or your way of speaking, onto others who meant zero offense by what they said that will get you into a self-induced tizzy. ( "Your" is generic here, not meaning "Hilde" specifically, even though she is quoted above. ) Was the intent of their words to be offensive? No. So stop trying to force it to be offensive. When you try to do this, it puts you into a bad light, not the original speaker. ( Again, "you" and "your" are generic references here - it's sad that this has to be said explicitly - but if it isn't, people here will grab their cudgel and beat you with it. They'll probably beat you with their cudgel anyway. )

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by Comfy.n

In Brazilian Portuguese we have this colloquial word "Caras", that can be used to address a group of male individuals, although it's not unusual for it to be used also as a vocative referring to women, as well. (I'm sure Issybird wouldn't feel comfortable with this, lol)

The primary meaning of the word "cara", however, is "face" as in "facebook". There's also a celebrities/gossip magazine named Caras.

Thank you. I was going to reply that I am mainly interested in translation in the opposite direction, but I see that the image you attached does precisely that.

So there is at least one major language with a direct analog to "guy" with at least one source that translates that to "man" as more preferred than "guy". No doubt that some Brazilian Portuguese would object to "caras" just as much as some English speakers object to the use of "guys" to address a mixed gender group. But I think there is a consensus here that in current English usage "men" is significantly worse than "guys" in this context.

Nothing has been proved, but I am satisfied that the original gaffe was innocent enough and that the real problem is the failure of the OP to take the complaints to heart, and to instead double down, then go to patronizing demand to "Chill", then express surprise and annoyance that "Chill" didn't put and end to it like some magic spell.

What is really ironic is that part of the original diatribe against audiobooks and the people that listen to them had the phrase "words matter". Just as one small example, what was the total damage to society by children inferring that the title "mailman" means that women can't be mail carriers? Such assumptions harden over time partially contributing to attitudes held by those in power of professions taken to be the pinnacle of logic, reason, and facts that women can not possibly be qualified (or hired) to practice law, science, medicine, mathematics, etc.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by haertig

This goes right to my point. Norwegians should not be annoyed with the way Americans speak when they are visiting America. Just like Americans should not be annoyed by the way Norwegians speak when they are visiting Norway. There ARE going to be differences. There ARE going to be instances where you might interpret something as offensive that was never meant to be offensive, and indeed is not offensive in the place where it was said.

I might be wrong, but I think there is the possibility that you are making an incorrect assumption. I also don't know whether this is the context Hidea has in mind, but based on a number of TV shows and movies I have the impression that there are many Scandinavian family, business, and government settings involving multiple languages. For Scandinavian languages, each speaks their own language when the others are fluent enough to listen but possibly not comfortable to speak. If people from other countries are present English may well be used by everybody at the meeting. So it is quite possible for a meeting in Europe be taking place in English with no participants having English as a first language.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Nothing has been proved, but I am satisfied that the original gaffe was innocent enough and that the real problem is the failure of the OP to take the complaints to heart

I see that differently. What I see the real problem as, is a thread about print books vs. audio books was grabbed by the throat and drug into an argument about terminology describing men and women. Starting a sentence with "Men" may have seemed slightly unusual to many of us, but that does not mean it was intentionally offensive. But that is exactly what some tried to make it out as. Therein lies the problem IMHO. Regarding the O.P., it is perfectly natural to try and defend oneself after an attack out of the blue like that. And then we see attacks on top of the attacks for trying to put up a defense. Calling the attempt at defense "the problem".

When I said earlier that this was a fierce forum, this is the exact type of behavior that I was talking about. I swear, there must be some people sitting around here who read a post with the intention, "Is there some way I can present what was just said as a direct offense against myself?" With that type of thinking, they usually do indeed find a way.

[DiapDealer]

I still struggle with using "you guys" myself. But at least I'm at the point where I feel creepy whenever it does occasionally slip out.

I do try to hold myself to a higher standard than "everyone around me does it." As my mother used to say: "If everyone is jumping off a bridge, are you going to blindly follow?"

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by haertig

I swear, there must be some people sitting around here who read a post with the intention, "Is there some way I can present what was just said as a direct offense against myself?"

You've not even considered the possibility that what was posted was just plain offensive, with no thought necessary?

I can see how you might think this place is fierce if you believe everything you say could only be offensive if people were looking to be offended.