peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (04/18/84)
I have to disagree that titles are unimportant. I think that they are quite important, in at least a couple of ways. 1st, a name is a very personal thing. Isn't it just simple respect to follow someone's wishes on how they wish to be named? To not follow their wishes is to show a lack of respect, or insensitivity. Or worse. Titles are used to indicate social status-- often to indicate a level within a hierarchy (Father X, Bishop X, Archbishop X, ...). If someone is happy to be strongly identified with a particular group of people or social status, that's fine-- they can use the appropriate title to enforce the association. Calling someone Father Jones doesn't make him more of a priest, but it makes it an important part of his identity. But to use an unwanted title is to mess with someone's identity-- possibly a conscious or unconscious attempt at coercion to conform to the stereotypes of a particular class or social status or to denigrate someone by associating them with a negative image (racial slurs, for example). The "liberty" in life, liberty, etc. surely includes the freedom to define one's own identity, and to create a new title if necessary to express that identity (language is, after all, meant to serve us, not vice-versa). To slap a title on someone without their consent is to infringe on their liberty, in no small way (apart from being just plain rude). peter rowley
lmc@denelcor.UUCP (Lyle McElhaney) (04/19/84)
With regard to the personal-titles argument going on,
I reproduce the following:
Moving parts in rubbing contact require lubrication to avoid excessive
wear. Honorifics and politeness provide lubrication where people rub
together. Often the very young, the untraveled, the naive, the
unsophisticated deplore these formalities as "empty", "meaningless", or
"dishonest", and scorn to use them. No matter how "pure" their
motives, they thereby throw sand into machinery that does not work too
well at best.
-- Lazarus Long
My opinion, too.
--
Lyle McElhaney
(hao,brl-bmd,nbires,csu-cs,scgvaxd)!denelcor!lmcjbf@ccieng5.UUCP (Jens Bernhard Fiederer) (04/19/84)
>The "liberty" in life, liberty, etc. surely includes the freedom to define >one's own identity, and to create a new title if necessary to express that >identity (language is, after all, meant to serve us, not vice-versa). To >slap a title on someone without their consent is to infringe on their >liberty, in no small way (apart from being just plain rude). I have always been surprised by those who define 'liberty' as the freedom to have OTHER PEOPLE BEHAVE IN THE WAY ONE PREFERS. No, calling anybody anything does not 'infringe on their liberty'. It may, however, be rude, in which case the person(s) offended are at liberty to complain/explain/and/ or/be rude in return. Grey Mouser -- "Some people are eccentric, but I am just plain odd" Reachable as ....allegra![rayssd,rlgvax]!ccieng5!jbf
pc@hplabsb.UUCP (Patricia Collins) (04/20/84)
The social machine grinds wearily, wearing out parts which do not fit together well. The lubricant may protect some of the gears, enabling them to turn faster, while other gears (not receiving comparable consideration) are worn down all the more quickly by the superficial solution. Tagging people with labels (Ms, Dr, Gentleman, ...) may make some people more comfortable, so by all means if you want to make those people feel better, label them. For others, the label is more like sand than a lubricant: it irritates and wears them down. Patricia Collins hplabs
karl@osu-dbs.UUCP (Karl Kleinpaste) (04/20/84)
----------
L With regard to the personal-titles argument going on,
Y I reproduce the following:
L
E Moving parts in rubbing contact require lubrication to avoid excessive
wear. Honorifics and politeness provide lubrication where people rub
M together. Often the very young, the untraveled, the naive, the
C unsophisticated deplore these formalities as "empty", "meaningless", or
E "dishonest", and scorn to use them. No matter how "pure" their
L motives, they thereby throw sand into machinery that does not work too
H well at best.
A
N -- Lazarus Long
E
Y My opinion, too.
----------
(Side comment for those not recognizing the reference: Lazarus Long is
the main character in Robert Heinlein's *Time Enough for Love*.)
No argument, really. As I said, I will honor another person's request for
title usage. However, when an honorific (I think I like that term for it)
which generally denotes considerable respect is used, it should not be
immediately assumed that it is being used in a denigrating manner just be-
cause the word itself is out of fashion. For those not considering that
"m'lady" denotes respect, remember that it was a term commonly used by
those of "lower social station" in reference to those "above themselves,"
e.g., a butler referring to the lady of the house, certainly a respectful
reference.
Some time I may just have to write a semi-flame on my feelings about the
term "lady" in general, and the respect due that fine term...
--
"Confusion will be my epitaph." -- King Crimson, 1969
Karl Kleinpaste @ Bell Labs, Columbus
accessible as osu-dbs!karl, but *much* better as {cbosgd,rlgvax,ihnp4}!cbrma!kkmartillo@ihuxt.UUCP (Yehoyaqim Shemtob Martillo) (04/22/84)
I am sorry for ever having used Milady in my reply to Ken Perlow.
Milady is a continental European form of address for women of aristocratic
background. It is derived from English but is not really an English word.
--
Yehoyaqim Shemtob Martillo
(I don't care what you think about my signature)