Wow! What wonderful feedback on this topic! Thanks a bundle on it.
In reading through the posts, I came to realize something about my own language...we DO make a distinction between the formal and the familiar, but it is more implied than directed (we have no formal form, in other words.) Trux's point on the use of slang with a familiar person is very well taken, and explained things to me extremely well.
I remember when I was first teaching at a university. A student came into our office "bullpen" (I was a teaching fellow at the time, not a prof.) looking for another teacher. He proceeded to refer to me as "Bucko", "Big guy" (I happen to be portly, BTW), "Dude", and other addresses which I considered to be beyond rude. By the time he walked out I was ready to slam his disrespectful head into a wall. Oh, how I would have LOVED to have had him in one of my classes!
heh heh
People using US English (and it may be the same for UK English now) only use the familiar form of address ("you") for both singular and plural (although in Texas, "y'all" is an acceptable form of informal 2nd person plural.
) I think our distinction between familiar and formal comes more in how we treat the overall person rather than just language, although our language does bear into this. For example, were I meeting with a prospective boss on an interview, I would treat him/her in the most formal setting that I could. I would refer to him/her as Mr./Ms. (last name) and then refer indirectly to him/her rather than directly (avoiding the use of "you" as much as possible.) I of course would never do this with a friend or a family member; pet names of course are acceptable as are informal manners of speech and address. So ours would be more implied rather than explicit such as the European languages use.
I guess it's something I never thought much about. It confounded me in school to learn these two methods of address, and have teachers hounding us on "NEVER use the informal address!!" and implying that one had to treat everyone as if they were an object. REALLY made me want to go visit those cultures, NOT!
Now, of course, I see that it's just a different way of doing what we do as well. I fully appreciate that, and wish it had been demonstrated to me in such a manner as those of you who have posted here have done in just a few posts. That simple!
In answer to Melusine's excellent post: I did imagine that things had changed from the harshness of the 19th century. I just didn't know to what degree they had changed. Do understand that in our culture, when we are taught a foreign tongue, we are subjected to the absolute, most rigorous, "nobility" form of the language and never get to learn the informal mode of conversational speech. Therefore, I can sit and read Cervantes' or Quevedo's works in Spanish without much problem, but I have extreme difficulty following conversation between two Hispanic people in their more informal mode of talking. I hope this is changing in schools now, and that they are emphasizing the more informal modes of speech as well as the proper forms.
Thank you all very much for this wonderful feedback. Moraine, yours was VERY well appreciated and extremely well expressed as well. Reeka, Cloudy, I appreciate your viewpoints too from the US point of view. I also find it fascinating about Lifetime's point of the 4 methods of address in Chinese. That would be something interesting to learn more about!
Cheers,
