Disney CMs calling guests " Friends"?

[MickeyLuv'r]

The loss of singular “thou” isn’t the issue here, though; “you” still makes sense when spoken to groups (“All of you follow me”). The problem is that pronouns aren’t usually used as forms of address by themselves and can sound quite abrupt when they are. “Please wait there, you” would sound impolite whether said to an individual or a group.

"Would you please move back behind the yellow line?"

 

[LittleBuford]

"Would you please move back behind the yellow line?"

I think that sounds fine though (to me) still less polite than the same instruction said after some form of address (whether singular or plural).

 

[Goofyernmost]

And as I just posted - “guys is never appropriate in a professional setting” and of course it’s not gender neutral either.

In the instance I just mentioned it was 100% tone and attitude though.

True, but it has also been used as a non-gender specific for a very long time. If anyone thinks that the plural "guys" means male, well they have been living under a rock for a very long time. Guy, is gender specific, but when used as a plural, it just means grouping. But that would sound stupid, like OK, grouping, follow me!

We cannot officially change the English language individually just because we would like too. The crux of the discussion to me is not the words themselves but the use of them in a grammatically incorrect manner. For that to work, everyone from everywhere would have to be using that word in that manner. Otherwise, it just becomes confusing because they don't mean the same things geographically.

I know a lot of this concern on my part is because of my use of the language for 74 years now, but I do recognize that consistent usage of any word in a uniform manner will change the meaning and thus the official definition. But until it becomes the norm and it sounds right, it is just wrong. To illustrate, not that it is unusual right now to receive texts from political organizations, however, yesterday I got one with the heading "Friend! We haven't seen a contribution from you recently!" Friend! Really? Not only am I not a friend but I also have never contributed to them at all, ever. Friend, you say? I don't think so, wording it like I owe it to you won't get you one either.

 

[UNCgolf]

By its original definition, it is the effigy of a specific person and shouldn’t be used except to describe him. Language doesn’t work that way; idiom trumps etymology. Idiomatically, “guys” has come by many to be used in addressing mixed groups, or even groups of women. You don’t have to take my word for it (see definition 1b):

Definition of GUY

man, fellow; person —used in plural to refer to the members of a group regardless of sex; individual, creature… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

I never knew the generic term guy originated from Guy Fawkes. That's fascinating, and makes perfect sense.

 

[Goofyernmost]

"Would you please move back behind the yellow line?"

And that is were the southern y'all comes in handy.

 

[LittleBuford]

To illustrate, not that it is unusual right now to receive texts from political organizations, however, yesterday I got one with the heading "Friend! We haven't seen a contribution from you recently!" Friend! Really? Not only am I not a friend but I also have never contributed to them at all, ever. Friend, you say? I don't think so, wording it like I owe it to you won't get you one either.

I respect the fact that you personally don’t like this usage, but it’s inaccurate to keep suggesting that it is in some way novel or contrary to proper or established practice:

https://iowaculture.gov/sites/default/files/primary-sources/pdfs/history-education-pss-party-washington-source.pdf

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Security doesn’t seem to care at all - sir! You guys! Guys! This was a problem before covid and it hasn’t gotten better at wdw. WDW security makes my hometown TSA look downright friendly.

 

[MickeyLuv'r]

We cannot officially change the English language individually just because we would like too.

That is not quite true. The trick is you just have to convince others to follow your lead. There are many examples of a single person successfully adding a word to the language, like "truthiness," or consider the impact Facebook has had on the words like and friend. In other cases, the origin of a word is traced to a small group of people, like names for dance styles.

Noah Webster had a big influence on how words are spelled in North America. Also consider the addition of technology and science. Samuel Johnson, Robert Cawdrey Milton and Shakespeare all had significant influence.

France has the Académie Française established in 1635 by Cardinal Richelieu. They try to set the standards for French, including the official dictionary.


WDW and politicians BOTH want our money! Both have a long history of sweet-talking us to get it.

 

[MisterPenguin]

I should add that I do acknowledge that “guys” is regarded as gendered by some and is therefore best avoided in favour or alternatives that are unambiguously inclusive.

 

[MickeyLuv'r]

Security doesn’t seem to care at all - sir! You guys! Guys! This was a problem before covid and it hasn’t gotten better at wdw. WDW security makes my hometown TSA look downright friendly.

But why are you drawing so much negative attention from the security team?

That is perhaps the real question.

These days they usually just wave most people through the scanner, except for a general announcement to take our umbrellas out of our bags and to keep walking.

 

[MickeyLuv'r]

I never knew the generic term guy originated from Guy Fawkes. That's fascinating, and makes perfect sense.

Huh.
The name Guy comes from Norman French and is more or less the English form of the name Guido. Guy (in the 1600's) was not used to mean person, as it is now, but rather a grotesque effigy, and that morphed into a poorly dressed person, and that morphed into fellow, and that morphed into non-gendered usage. Except before that it was used as a nautical term that came down through the old French word for guide. But also the name Guido meant leader. https://www.etymonline.com/word/guy

The article below is a detailed explanation of the evolution of the word guy. It also explains why - ahem- this is related to the word you. Fascinating....

The Surprising Origins of the Phrase 'You Guys'

You guys, what’s going on? How come we routinely say “guys” or “you guys” when talking to a group of two or more?

time.com

I kinda like 'yinz' though!

 

[Clamman73]

Didn't know how sensitive people were around here.

I'm loathe to inform you all what First Order operatives call you on RotR.

Perfect

 

[Goofyernmost]

I respect the fact that you personally don’t like this usage, but it’s inaccurate to keep suggesting that it is in some way novel or contrary to proper or established practice:

No, it is incorrect to think that it is a commonly used way of greeting. It's all in the context, not in the word itself. I wish you could understand that. Just because a few think it is OK does not make it the proper way of doing things. Besides it has been repeatedly said, by people presumably on site that it isn't being used that way anyway. So there really is no need to continue to discuss it.

 

[Goofyernmost]

That is not quite true. The trick is you just have to convince others to follow your lead. There are many examples of a single person successfully adding a word to the language, like "truthiness," or consider the impact Facebook has had on the words like and friend. In other cases, the origin of a word is traced to a small group of people, like names for dance styles.

Noah Webster had a big influence on how words are spelled in North America. Also consider the addition of technology and science. Samuel Johnson, Robert Cawdrey Milton and Shakespeare all had significant influence.

France has the Académie Française established in 1635 by Cardinal Richelieu. They try to set the standards for French, including the official dictionary.


WDW and politicians BOTH want our money! Both have a long history of sweet-talking us to get it.

Having to convince others, in sufficient quantities, to follow means that an individual or just a few individuals cannot in and of themselves officially change the language. The numbers have to be sufficient to make it common. Over time it becomes part of the language. Do you have any idea how long it took for the word "ain't" to find it's way into a dictionary.

Believe me, Noah Webster didn't write that book by himself. It was a study done among many intellectuals that settled on the proper usage for the language.

If either one, WDW or politicians, calling me "Friend" in such a stark manner they will neither get my money nor my friendship.

 

[LittleBuford]

No, it is incorrect to think that it is a commonly used way of greeting. It's all in the context, not in the word itself. I wish you could understand that. Just because a few think it is OK does not make it the proper way of doing things. Besides it has been repeatedly said, by people presumably on site that it isn't being used that way anyway. So there really is no need to continue to discuss it.

I didn’t say it was commonly used; I said its use isn’t improper or nonstandard. Anyway, it’s clear no example I offer will soften your thinking on this, so I won’t bother you again on this matter.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Do you have any idea how long it took for the word "ain't" to find it's way into a dictionary.

That's because of the ascendancy of the prescriptivists of the previous centuries who were wrongly "guarding" "correct usage" based on stupid rules, mostly from applying the grammar of Latin -- a completely different language -- to English.

But in the modern era, in which a word search of most of English literature in the past several centuries is at everyone's fingertips, the descriptivists are winning. They simply have to do the word search to show that Shakespeare and the King James Bible, and Yeats, and Churchill, and journalists all used the the supposedly "wrong grammar." It turns out the "wrong grammar" was already common, and thus, by definition of what a living language is, the actual correct grammar.

In other words (pun intended), words like "ain't" are getting into dictionaries very quickly. All you need to do is read the yearly newspaper articles of "new words being added to the dictionary" to see how quickly neologisms and grammatical variants enter dictionaries and style guides.

 

[LittleBuford]

That's because of the ascendancy of the prescriptivists of the previous centuries who were wrongly "guarding" "correct usage" based on stupid rules, mostly from applying the grammar of Latin -- a completely different language -- to English.

But in the modern era, in which a word search of most of English literature in the past several centuries is at everyone's fingertips, the descriptivists are winning. They simply have to do the word search to show that Shakespeare and the King James Bible, and Yeats, and Churchill, and journalists all used the the supposedly "wrong grammar." It turns out the "wrong grammar" was already common, and thus, by definition of what a living language is, the actual correct grammar.

In other words (pun intended), words like "ain't" are getting into dictionaries very quickly. All you need to do is read the yearly newspaper articles of "new words being added to the dictionary" to see how quickly neologisms and grammatical variants enter dictionaries and style guides.

"Ain't" was a poorly chosen example anyway, because it's nothing more than a variant spelling of "an't", which was considered a perfectly standard contraction of "am not" back in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and widely employed into the nineteenth. In other words, "ain't" represents a formerly acceptable usage that has come to be stigmatised, not the other way around.

The now standard (but technically ungrammatical) "aren't I" is ultimately derived from this same contraction ("an't I").

 

["El Gran Magnifico"]

I look on the bright side. At least they’re not calling us “Mouseketeers”

 

[LittleBuford]

I look on the bright side. At least they’re not calling us “Mouseketeers”

I would love that!

 

[LittleBuford]

In the past week or so, I’ve been misgendered twice, first by someone at a supermarket checkout and then by a security guard. Neither my face nor body is womanly, but I’m short and petite and wear a bright jacket, plus I had my mask on both times. Both people called me “miss” before taking a closer look at my face (or what they could see of it), at which point they realised their mistake. The checkout guy awkwardly said “Oh!”, while the security guard apologised and referred to me as “sir” thereafter. Before anyone mischaracterises my post, I was not outraged or offended, nor do I think what happened was an especially big deal. That said, it was embarrassing for me as well as for them, all the more so because of the gender dynamics involved (they both presented as straight men, while I read as a gay man). Minimising the use of gendered forms of address would help reduce the frequency of such unfortunate interactions. I can’t see what the downsides might be.