Zompist Bboard Again

I don't think I've ever used ma'am in any context. Sir is commonly used in schools here when addressing teachers, but the feminine is Miss.

In the situation Linguoboy describes I'd use "Excuse me" or "Hello".

I have never used sir or ma'am to address anyone, not even once. They always came off to me as something belonging to a by-gone era or, as mentioned, something said by people with a particularly strict upbringing.

For teachers, the norm when I was growing up was to address them, or refer to them in general, with Mr./Miss/Mrs. <last name>; many of my teachers I never even knew their first names.

With respect to the school thing, I also experienced that, with the exception that Montessori teachers generally used "Ms. (Firstname)"; I assume a male one would be "Mr. (Firstname)", but I never actually encountered one. Young children may also address their parents friends or coworkers (usually those who aren't very close family friends) in this way.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 9:47 amWould anyone use sir/ma'am to strangers in public settings?

Yes.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 9:47 am - Do some kids really grow up adressing their father as 'sir?'

yes - I've met one or two people who said they did, but it's rare enough that it comes up

- Would anyone use sir/ma'am to strangers in public settings? As in 'excuse me, sir/ma'am' while getting off the bus, or at a supermarket checkout?

yes, esp. to get attention (if somebody dropped something, say) - I don't know what else one would use in that situation

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 7:41 pmyes, esp. to get attention (if somebody dropped something, say) - I don't know what else one would use in that situation

Just '(um/uh), excuse me'

Is it appropriate to capitalize both words in the phrase "Good Luck!"?

No. You might see it written that way on, say, a poster or banner, where it's being emphasized, but in ordinary writing I'd expect ordinary sentence capitalization: "Good luck!"

Ok, thank you.

Which statement is better English?

a) "When people ask me whose side I'm on, my first instinct is usually to respond with 'Not yours!'"

or

b) "When people ask me whose side I'm on, my first instinct is usually to answer 'Not yours!'"

Both sound fine to me. I have a slight preference for (b), since it’s slightly more concise. But you can make (a) more concise as well if you use direct speech:

a′) "When people ask me whose side I'm on, my first instinct is usually to respond, 'Not yours!'"

I'm with bradrn on this one.

I don't have much preference, but would probably instinctually cast it closer to, "When asked whose side I'm on, my first instinct is to say, 'Not yours.'"

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Sat May 29, 2021 12:20 pm I don't have much preference, but would probably instinctually cast it closer to, "When asked whose side I'm on, my first instinct is to say, 'Not yours.'"

+1

There’s nothing wrong with the original version, I just try to be as pithy as possible with statements like this.

I have no such desire for pithiness, but I do have an overwhelmingly strong preference for the words "say", "ask", and "answer" when speaking of direct speech, probably at least somewhat from not liking said-bookisms.

I noticed when watching Midsomer tonight that many of the characters had phonetic final devoicing - not phonemic final fortis/lenis neutralization but simple devoicing of final consonants. I have also noticed this in a variety of cases with English-speakers from a variety of places. Yet, as I have commented on before, this is not typically described when characterizing English. Is this some massive oversight in the analysis of English or what? Are people characterizing English blinded by strictly phonemic descriptions of English w.r.t. what seems to be a commonplace phonetic phenomenon in English?

I read somewhere that the phonetic cues of phonemically voiced final consonants in English are not really phonetic voicing. One important cue is the duration of the preceding vowel. It is longer for phonemically voiced consonants than for phonemically voiceless consonants.

I certainly have allophonically long vowels before voiced codas (typically /b d g dz dʒ ð z ʒ v m n ŋ/, and for the vowels that can directly precede them without interceding schwa /l r/), but I don't think I fully devoice any of the stops terminally, though I think there's partial devoicing of voiced consonants generally in my speech (they don't feel as "voiced" as French or Japanese consonants do, but I may be overthinking it a bit).

Right, additionally, for some speakers of English at least, voicing is more of an aspiration contrast. (Englishes spoken in countries that have other major languages with "real" voicing might be substantially different.)

I have come to the conclusion that the marginal nature of English obstruent voicing per se except intervocalically combined with the marking of coda fortis obstruents with shortened vowels and (pre)glottalization (and all other cases with lengthened vowels) is a pan-English phenomenon, and while I transcribe it in my own transcriptions while many other people do not, it is not limited at all to my English whatsoever but rather the impression that it is is due to other people's transcriptions not marking it.