Talk:U and non-U English

Untitled discussion

the Table doesnt look correct specially not for 1950s - what? for Upper Class and pardon? for non - Napkin vs. Serviette ...

Is the table correct? Speaking as an American, I would have said bike, sick, and rich were the lower-class words, of the options given. 7 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)

The table is correct for 1950s Britain, which is where the debate was set. Some word usage has changed since: cycle as a noun is little used. It would have been U to consider ill as simply the adverbial form of bad, and wealthy as overly emphatic about money. --Gareth Hughes 7 July 2005 19:08 (UTC)

So, what's with Betjeman's fish-knives? Is it non-U to possess them, or just to call them that? (And, if so, what did my 1950s social betters call them?) –Hajor 7 July 2005 19:29 (UTC)

The poem is about a housewife attempting to be correct and proper. To this end, she insists on fish-knives. No matter how practical these implements may be, possessing sets of fish-knives, cake-forks or melon-spoons would be considered to be slightly posh. --Gareth Hughes 7 July 2005 19:41 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. So it is owning them that's being parodied, not the nomenclature (thankfully -- for the life of me I couldn't think of a synonym for "fish-knife"). And the cake forks crop up later in the poem, of course. Ta. –Hajor 7 July 2005 19:49 (UTC)

In addition additional cutlery wasn't introduced until the late 19th Century, so to own such items would suggest purchase rather than inheritence. Y control 10:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

As I grew up in the 70s, I remember that my mum had a set of cake-forks that she was very proud of. If we had guests to dinner, cake was served with a 'Please use the cake-forks'... Oh, to be upwardly mobile! --Gareth Hughes 8 July 2005 10:48 (UTC)

Oh dear, she thought she had to tell them. Fancy American silverware sets, with "special" implements for special uses were invented after the Civil War, when manners among the nouveaux-riches got very genteel indeed. Oysterforks? Everywhere but Boston and Philadelphia, Americans were taught to shift their fork from left to right before stuffing it in their face. Very laughed-at in Anglo Boston and I think high Philadelphia too. --Wetman 8 July 2005 16:18 (UTC)

The table does look correct, albeit with a decidedly British tint. Words such as "bike", "sick", and "rich" may seem non-Upper in their simplicity, but it is the self-confidence of the Uppers that lets them use such simple words. Non-Upper speakers, on the other hand, feel as if they must inflate their language with multisyllabic or Latinate words in their best attempt to imitate the more sophisticated Upper speakers.--Plainsong 17:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Agree. The same applies in writing, where good writers use the correct word for the job, especially if it's also the simplest. Those with a chip on their shoulder and something to prove feel they have to use the most obscure words and complicated structures that they can, and end up both sounding ridiculous and, all too often, not saying what they were trying to say in the first place. This is the root cause of a lot of incomprehensible middle-manager-speak. PeteVerdon 18:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The whole idea is originally British. Yes, it can be appied to US English, but that would be a secondary application of the term. Gareth Hughes 20:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd say there is a problem with the table: Some expressions appear to be middle-class only, while the table labels them as universally 'Non-U', which is definitely an error in a case such as 'pardon' vs. 'what'. I'd propose leaving the table data intact but adapting the description/labels to make it correct. (Not changing anything mysself as I'm by no means an authority on the subject, so maybe I'm just wrong.) -- Anon 05:31, 24 August 2006 (CEST)

The whole force of the "Non U" controversy was that it concentrated on the small differences - mainly separating the upper class from the upper middle or middle class. "Pardon" and "What" are good examples - the upper class said "What", the middle class said "Pardon" and the working class said "What", just like the upper class. The table is right, I think, because the U words were upper class and the non U words were not: it does not matter that the U words were often working class as well. Chelseaboy 10:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Just dropping in to say this is a great page, thanks all. Sills bend 10:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

With Wikipedians "adjusting" the table to suit their POV, I'll just be removing the reference that links it to Nancy Mitford's list, then... --Wetman 12:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Wetman I was just modifying the table to reflect the paper by Alan Ross, and the reference material that I posessed on it, I presume this conflicts slightly with Nancy Mitford's list. Sorry about that, I don't know if you wish to revert. Y control 13:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

leaving bike, sick and rich out of the way, there are still weird things in that table. as the extreme example it seems unlikely to me that "pardon" would be used by lower class and "what" by upper class. similarly i'd expect "mental","preserve","serviette" to be U class too, just because they are the more sophisticated variant of the two. and... well... ok i promised not to comment on wealthy/rich.

Upper-class usage is consistently frank, direct and terse. The elaborations and genteel euphemisms are middle class.--22:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The upper classes don't have to be "sophisticated". There's no mistaking who they are, and it doesn't particularly matter what anyone else thinks. In this way they're much like the lower classes. The middle classes, however, are subject to all these peculiar affectations. Non-U terminology is one manifestation of their insecurity; another is their attitude to swearing. Upper and lower swear with abundance; the middle regard it as shocking and unacceptable. --DrPizza 13:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Heartily agree. See "The Fucking Fulfords" for example. PeteVerdon 18:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The non-U words such as serviette, pardon and toilet derive from the French, and the upper classes associate them historically with the Napoleonic War when anything French was considered very tacky indeed.

They are still, definitely, non-U. Nic 09:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

One of the things the article fails to mention is that this is still an important device used regularly by the upper middle class, in England at least. My wife is constantly irritated by my 5 year old daughter's usage of the word toilet which is preferred usage among said daughter's teaching staff (all non-public school teachers in Britain are trotskyists). Nic 09:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• The bottom two Non-U and U examples in the table seem to be flipped around. "Rich" is a much more common term in casual contexts than "wealthy", and "Pardon?" is much more formal than "What?". -Silence 16:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The distinction is about class, not formality. Although the article doesn't go into it much, much of what explains the pattern that you are noticing is that the middle class aspire to move up. They (mistakenly) associate formality with the upper class and over time modify their vocabulary to match their aspirations. The upper class doesn't worry about such pretensions, and is able to continue using "courser" vocabulary, which in English tends to be of Anglo-Saxon origin. The lower classes, not aspiring to be upper class also tend to have held onto AS vocabulary. This phenomenon is discussed at length in Paul Fussell's book, Class.Craig Butz (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, whats the deal with Jam/Preserve and Table-Napkin/Serviette? And why aren't there any sources for any of this information? Andre (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I assumed the whole table came from Ross's original study.Craig Butz (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Napkin/Serviette is actually rather interesting. In parts of Canada, and I only have my dictionary as a source for this, "serviette" is considered the proper word. Apparently the word "napkin" has become tainted due to its connection with the fine products of the Kotex Corporation. --Charlene 05:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Really? As a Canadian, I would use napkin exclusively - serviette sounds like a pretentious person attempting, and failing, to sound sophisticated. Incidentally, Wikipedia's Canadian English page has this entry: "Serviette, especially in Eastern Canada, for a paper table napkin."99.247.228.104 (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The current table doesn't look right to me. I think people have been editing the list according to what sounds "posher" to themselves but this is incorrect. The whole point of the U and non-U distinctions was to detect who was a social climber who didn't really belong and used what they thought were genteel words. *Serviette* is definitely the non-U choice, and I think so is *pardon*.

I hope it's not being messed with, as it's a summary of the 1950's research. Anyone have the original to check and mend?Craig Butz (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Craig, I can't find a transcription of the original Ross paper, but the gist of it is included in Noblesse Oblige of which I have a copy and is easily acquired. The article as it stands today is true to form. However, it is concerned with 'British' English - I dare say the Americans, like every society, have hidden class indicators altogether different.Nick Michael (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreeing with the above comments. One need merely read Kate Fox's 'Watching the English' to realise that 'serviette' is the non-U choice, as is 'pardon'. Alternatively one could compare the difference between the speech at an Oxford High Table and the servery staff.

The non-U of dinner clothes was Tux. Toilet is U; Loo would be better: Lavatory and the very exquisite mealy-mouthed Lav are non-U. Dame Edna is non-U, don't you see? That's the joke of Dame Edna. People are "correcting" this list who've never met an upper-class person in their suburban lives. I'll just take it off my Watchlist and you can all fool about with it to suit yourselves. --Wetman 22:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Tux is American and is not mentioned by ASC Ross. Toilet is non-U against U lavatory or nowadays loo.Dame Edna is indeed non-U. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Who are all these vulgar people who really think "pardon" is correct? It just sounds so... horribly middle class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.68.31 (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

---Trivia" Poem--- The poem at the bottom of the article is by John Betjeman and is definitely copyvio. Rhinoracer 13:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Out it goes then...! Nick Michael 15:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Lavatory, Lav, Toilet, Loo

129.67.116.113 changed the table so that "Lavatory" was listed as non-U. This (and I am sorry if I offend 129.67.116.113's sensibilities - or class aspirations) is manifestly wrong, and I have reverted his/her edit. The following small selection of sites will no doubt bear me out:

http://davidaslindsay.blogspot.com/2007/03/non-u-bend.html

http://clivedavis.blogs.com/clive/2007/04/u_nonu_useful.html

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,808510,00.html?iid=chix-sphere

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20070417/ai_n19013407

Nick Michael 16:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Does Mitford's original glossary bear this out? Since that's what the table is a summary of, it really is all that matters, regardless of what the blogosphere (or 129.67.116.113) says. Craig Butz (talk) 07:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting point Craig. Is the article about Mitford's original (1956) list of U/non-U words and expressions? Or is it concerned with what she was writing about - the use of linguistic indicators to designate class? If it is about the former, then it could be reduced to a few lines. But if the latter, broader sense is indicated, then reams could be written! The expression 'U' and 'non-U' were (and maybe still are - I have lived outside England for too long to know) commonly used and understood by all those concerned with such things - and they certainly went beyond Mitford's little essay. The list of phrases in the article is by no means the full list given by Mitford, who also dwells on pronunciation as a class-indicator (she writes: I even know undisputed U-speakers who pronounce girl 'gurl', which twenty years ago would have been unthinkable). Mitford's essay is a snapshot of the class indicators in the 1950's, but such indicators have certainly evolved and increased since then. Anyway, the lavatory/toilet indicator does indeed figure in Mitford's work (on p. 32), so you can rest assured there.Nick Michael (talk) 21:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The lavatory/toilet thing is about age as much as class. The article is correct, since it is based on a British discussion of the 1950s, to say that "lavatory" is U and "toilet" non U. However, British people under 40 are not likely to say "lavatory" now, however upper class. The same goes for "scent" as against "perfume". "Scent" was the plain word, used by upper and working classes in the 1950s, but it has now been completely taken over by "perfume" (which is what the manufacturers always use for their product, which may have made a difference) and no-one of any class, except the very old, is likely to say "scent" these days. Chelseaboy (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The article apparently refers to British English (without saying so!) I thought that in the U.S. one talks about a "bathroom", because the Amercans are embarrassed to use "explicit language". Which is confusing for non-native speakers like myself, in particular if a house is said to have "one and a half bathroom" (which means - sorry! - a loo and a genuine bathroom with a bath). Rbakels (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

While I grew up in a 1960s working-class American home (specifically, a Cajun one), and we called it either the "lavatory," the "pot-chambre" (French for "chamber pot"), the "caban" (Cajun slang for "outhouse"), the "commode" (a Southernism), or the "toilet" (James Thurber's "thing for the thing contained"). Calling it the "bathroom" only started happening after the homogenization of American English by radio and television. I did notice in the article that many "non-U" terms also happened to be middle-class Americanisms from the Midwest.

Can any of our British friends say whether the "U"/"non-U" dichotomy predated the influx of GIs staging for Normandy and the US Eighth Air Force? loupgarous (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

There's a story about American literary researcher Roger Lancelyn Green sitting with C.S. Lewis at Lewis's home. After a discussion of Lewis's work and literary influences, Green asked Lewis if he could "use the bathroom." Lewis raised an eyebrow, but said nothing, walked down the hallway, and came back with a stack of towels. loupgarous (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

many inverted

Many of these look inverted. "What?" for the upper class instead of pardon? Jam instead of preserve? Have vandals being switching things around here? If not what are the sources for these examples? David D. (Talk) 23:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Many of them come from the Mitford book. The best rule of thumb is that if a word/phrase sounds upscale it's actually pretentious and if it looks plain and blunt it's something the British upperclass would actually say. The thinking behind it is that the upperclass and lower-class don't care what anyone thinks of them, so they say what they like, but the middle-class is full of Hyacinth Buckets striving to impress each other, so they use a fancy word where a simple one would suffice.

As for "how do you do," that is always preferable to "pleased to meet you." You don't yet know whether you are pleased to meet the person, so saying that you are sounds insincere or overeager. The usual answer to "how do you do" is to repeat the same phrase back to the first speaker. Ariadne55 (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If this is the case the article could do a better job of explaining the rationale. What you wrote above is far more clear than the article itself. I never got a sense of this being a social climber phenomenon. David D. (Talk) 01:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

yeah, i'll second that... they're all scrambled. someone fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.232.225 (talk) 02:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing inverted, and all are correct (as of this writing). Ariadne55 has provided an excellent explanation of the phenomenon (above), and I heartily endorse David D.'s call for clarity in the article. If I get time I'll think about incorporating Ariadne55's comments into the article, since s/he's no longer active. Nick Michael (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Has someone switched around the headings on the table? 'Sofa', 'napkin', 'loo' and 'pudding' are all very much U, at least in my Oxford college, and in Kate Fox's book 'Watching the English'. I don't normally comment on wiki but I needed to link to this article for a blog post and it really leapt out at me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skepticlawyer (talk • contribs) 12:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The book was based solely on the usage among a rather small South-of-England social elite during the 1950s... AnonMoos (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur with David D and SkepticLawyer above - list is still scrambled. 'Pardon' is definitely U (witness NYT article of today (16 November 2010) in which Kate Middleton is accused of using "unaristocratic words like 'toilet or 'pardon' in front of the Queen" - and subsequent confusion on English blogs and message boards, where native speakers in the language's native home are baffled!) I'm also unsure about 'false teeth', 'jam', and 'rich', but accept that in the 1950s those might have been inverted. My linguistically disciplinarian mother having been raised as a deb, I highly doubt that 'pardon' was any different then. (I'd suggest if anyone differs they provide their source if possible!)88.97.48.113 (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Definitely not scrambled as of this writing. "Pardon" is without a shadow of doubt non-U (vide Mitford, Fox and a host of others) - but I think the above editor may have the terms "U" and "non-U" confused, since s/he seems to concur that Mrs Middleton's vocabulary was "unaristocratic". There is still confusion in the title of the article: is it about the subject of Nancy Mitford's 1956 publication Noblesse Oblige, or is it about defining social levels through vocabulary? The terms "U" and "non-U" are still current to describe the complex system of social shibboleths - not only oral but in many other domains: wearing a clip-on bow tie, for example, or possessing a set of flying ducks to hang on the wall! Nick Michael (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Nick, if you shot the ducks yourself, they're FINE to hang on the wall. At least here in the States. It's only if you bought the things at an estate sale, along with a moth-eaten deer head (think Basil Fawlty's moose head) someone else bagged that you're the American equivalent of "non-U." I have no idea at all how that works in the Sceptr'd Isle, but I assume the same contempt for a non-sportsman hanging hunting trophies applies. loupgarous (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Why fish knives etc are Non-U

Silver (as in those sets one ate - pronounced et - with) made before the late 19th century did not include them (or cake forks - though they could have had these smaller forks for fruit, possibly bought separately with the grape scissors etc) as they hadn't been invented. So anyone who used fish knives would be showing that they hadn't inherited the silver and so would be classed as nouveau riche and not acceptably aristocratic. See particularly the effect the Industrial Revolution had on class and money in the UK (and later, WWI especially - Mitford's era). As for language, if one wanted to really split class, then whereas drawing-room is upper and lounge is aspirational-middle, the rest of us proles call it the sitting room. I come from prime bottom-feeding working-class stock and we used to tease our middle-class cousins as coming from 'Pardonia' as we thought it so pretentious to be asked 'Pardon?' if they misheard us. And yet despite that, I could never - from earliest childhood - bring myself to say 'toilet' instead of lav/lavatory, or 'couch' or say 'Please to meet you.' Funny that, innit? Anyone who wants more discourses on UK class indicators than they could shake a silver spoon at, is welcome to ask. Plutonium27 (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The more I read this old explanation the more I doubt it. To me, it just doesn't 'smell' right. If it were so, then it would be/would have been non-U to have modern crockery - and as far as I know (as a third generation nouveau whose parents were frightfully careful about such things) such is not the case. Likewise for anything else 'inheritable': houses (stately homes), furniture, glass, pictures, you name it. Yet the possession of modern houses/furniture/glass/art does not usually provoke smirks and suppressed giggles all round. It's well, fishy. I wonder if the real reason isn't that fish knives & forks are somehow dainty and finicky, qualities the U-classes have always loathed. Do you think Elizabethan hooray Henrys sniggered at people who used forks in the Jacobean period when they first came in? It's a delightful thought... Nick Michael (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"the possession of modern houses/furniture/glass/art does not usually provoke smirks and suppressed giggles all round." Nick, did you never come across Michael Jopling's put-down of the self-made Michael Heseltine, that he was a man who "had to buy all his own furniture"? Zythophile (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

True enough Zythophile: the lesser-known comeback from Heseltine was supposedly '(Alan) Clark is the kind of man whose father had to buy his own castle'. Nick Michael (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The list

I don't have access to the sources or I'd do it myself, but I'm a bit concerned about the list. The above discussions give the impression of it being a combination of Ross/Mitford/original research, so I think either each entry should be appropriately referenced, or the list removed. Miremare 10:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, The List contains no citations or references, nearly five years after the above comment. I agree it ought to be removed unless it can be made useful with citations.37.188.82.157 (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Quoted from the article: "The English author Nancy Mitford was alerted and immediately took up the usage in an essay, “The English Aristocracy”, which Stephen Spender published in his magazine Encounter in 1954. Mitford provided a glossary of terms used by the upper classes (some appear in the table at right)," and there are several citations to the work of Nancy Mitford in the reflist. Does the quoted passage together with the list not constitute an in-line citation? Perhaps not as well footnoted as possible, but... if I were still actively editing articles here, I'd go into the reflist and find the proper source for the list, working from the description in the quoted passage. loupgarous (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

For what my opinion's worth...

There seems to be rather a lot of uncertainty about this and for what it's worth I thought I'd voice my opinion, though the debate seems to have died down somewhat. To deal with the controversial ones:

U: Napkin, Non-U: Serviette U: Lavatory or Loo, Non-U: Toilet U: What?, Non-U: Pardon?

These are definitely correct, although I can understand why some people think that they aren't. 'Serviette' does indeed sound rather dainty and French; likewise 'toilet', while 'lavatory' suffers from having far too many syllables for a thing of which one ought not to speak; and millions of British children were certainly brought up to believe that is was more polite to say 'Pardon?'. However, all this is definitely Non-U.

Something to bear in mind is that this is all rather old-fashioned and what seems correct today was not necessarily correct for the upper class when this debate was going on. 'Ice' and 'looking-glass' are definitely too out-dated for most of us to use without feeling a little self-conscious. 'Schoolmaster' is certainly preferable to 'teacher', and I use it myself from time to time, and have heard it used very recently at an up-market prep school, but where I went to school only the older masters were still referring to themselves as masters. 'Schoolmaster' may fall into the same category as 'drawing room': if a house simply isn't grand enough to have a drawing room, call it the sitting room.

Most of these terms are rather nuanced and interestingly have aroused less controversy than the main indicators of class. I should have expected that everybody would know that 'toilet' was Non-U, but apparently there are those who think quite the opposite to be true, perhaps because they were taught emphatically that 'lavatory' was vulgar. Yet 'writing-paper' vs 'note-paper' excites no controversy.

Finally, there is some confusion about what is meant by 'Non-U', though this has been corrected to some extent. Somebody suggested that we should compare the usage among Oxford dons and college servants. I think that would be quite wrong. Better to compare usage among undergraduates, who represent a less stark social contrast. 'U' terminology is used, let it not be forgotten, by people who are able to use 'middle-class' in its pejorative sense.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Many of the people here in the talk page who don't understand the "U/non-U" controversy and think the List is "inverted" don't seem to have great reading skills. This is beginning to be the besetting sin of some politically-motivated wikipedia editors on both ends of the Marxist-Rightist polarization. Many editors who revert changes, "protect" articles from revisions they don't like, and say they're "sending the issue back to the talk page" neither can nor will read simple English sentences that conflict with their preconceptions, so the 'consensus' never occurs.

The article states clearly that "U" terms were most often used by the upper and working classes in England, and that "non-U" terms were allegedly used by the aspiring middle-class to self-certify their aspirations. So (according to Mitford, et al), some of the terms or constructions chosen by the authors of the 1950s articles would be more elaborate, perhaps less Anglo-Saxon, than their "U" equivalents.

Mitford and Ross have only proven, though, that "'U' terminology is simply "not 'non-U' terminology," from what I can tell. No underlying, unifying theme that is true of the entire list exists, just individual cases in which pretentiousness can be deduced (not proven) by a sufficiently-motivated writer. Just as happens in today's news media, someone invented a powerful meme and a largely meaningless controversy resulted. Which, again, is what the article says. loupgarous (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Envelope

Would anybody like to open a discussion about the correct pronunciation of 'envelope'?--Oxonian2006 (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh you are a tease Oxonian! Well, since it's a French word, I pronounce it on-velope. There is no logic in this (apart from the fact I live in a French-speaking country), and I admit to pronouncing economic as ee-conomic, whereas its French roots would favour eck-onomic. But as far as I know the pronunciation of envelope is not a U/non-U shibboleth. I'd be interested to hear from anyone who disagrees.

BTW, an envelope was, until well into the 19th century, a non-U object, U people folding and sealing their letters without the use of a container (I can't find a source for this illuminating information I'm afraid, but I have come across an anecdote of a French aristocrat receiving a letter in an envelope, and saying: Does [the sender] hate me so much that he sends me his saliva?). Nick Michael (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It's the same general issue as the British pronunciation of "lieutenant" as "left-tenant," isn't it? A class-independent idiosyncratic usage. And in both cases, general American usage is the (vaguely in the case of "lieutenant") French pronunciations of both words (and of "economic" as "eck-o-nom-ic").

Also, I can't ever recall many news announcers here in the States (or economists, for that matter - except for my macroeconomics instructor at Louisiana Tech) pronouncing "economic" "ee-con-o-mic" or "economist" "ee-con-o-mist." :-)

Interestingly, however, in American English, the derivative verb "envelop" (meaning roughly, "to invaginate" or "to surround") is pronounced "en-vel-op". loupgarous (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

U and non-U

I think that people are mixing things up sick in non-u and ill in U. The page contradicts itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SK 1993 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. And you have no references.

• "Don't Say It". page 64 - Ill. See Sick.
• page 103 - Sick. Sick and ill are to some extent interchanged by the non-U. Certainly in the non-U I was very ill on the boat, where the U say sick. He's sick for which the U say He's ill, may originally have been American. But the compounds of sick (sick-room, sick-list) in which sick does mean 'ill' are normal. Sick joke has been overworked. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Mitford's (or rather, Professor Ross's) original reference to these words reads:

Ill: 'I was ill on the boat' is non-U against U sick (page 43 of the Hamish Hamilton 1979 reprint)

I don't think the words are mentioned again in the book, but I believe the reference is specifically to the idea of vomiting, rather than general bad health - in which case both are euphemisms. This brings up the noun-form of 'sick', and I would hazard that to say I slipped in a pool of sick is non-U: the U would say a pool of vomit, surely, avoiding any nicety. As far as general bad-health is concerned, well, sick seems to be the older word, used far more frequently than ill from the C16 to C19 (c.f: Sick-bed). Not that this makes it U-er, but nowadays ill seems to have taken over in both U and non-U usage: He's very sick sounds rather old-fashioned to my ears (born of middle parents with upper-middle aspirations).Nick Michael (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• As I have always understood it "U" people are never sick or unwell. Once in a lifetime, they may admit to a "chill" after which any self respecting "U" person is expected to promptly die (preferably quietly), be put into a coffin and be buried in the churchyard. A well born person never suffers from an ailment (bravely endured) passes gently away, is placed into a silken casket or interred in the cemetery. Giano (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's very own (non-U) dilemma!

It occurred to me some interested in this very important subject may feel moved (no pun intended) to coment here [1]. Giano (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

George Bernard Shaw

I know nothing about the subject, but does GBS have any relevance? Phil_burnstein (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Pygmalion was written long before Professor Ross's essay and the former is more concerned with pronounciation than vocabulary. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Why can't we add to it?

Per this edit [2], I think it would be rather fun to add to it, sending up and confusing "rather grand" people is always amusing. Ms Mitford does not have a monopoly on the subject, even her own sister likes to take the pee out of it too. Giano (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I brought this subject up before (see Lavatory, Lav, Toilet, Loo above). Should the article deal with Nancy Mitford's definitions (or maybe Alan Ross's), or should it deal with general class-shibboleths in England? The former is straightforward enough, but the latter has the potential for a lot of editing and conflict. However, it is obvious that one objective should not be to tease those whom Giano calls "rather grand" people - shame on you Giano for such un-Wikipedian - not to mention uncharitable thoughts! Nick Michael (talk) 07:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, I'm sure. Sorry, ever so. Giano (talk) 09:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Lav/Toilet Redux

This is an interesting article and discussion. I agree that user Ariadne55 provided a concise and logical explanation for the items in the table. Profanity is another characteristic of upper and lower class speech. Interestingly, none of the wiki pages dealing with curse words/foul language or profanity touched on this issue.

I do have a question on the Lav/Toilet item. A good part of this may be due to the fact that I am from the US. However, my parents are Icelandic and I travel to Europe at least twice a year...so I've been exposed to a variety of usages.

In referring to the lav/toilet, I would ask "Where is your bathroom?" in a polite setting and "Where is the head" in a daily setting. "Toilet" applies to the object itself and would be appropriate to use if one needed a plumber (i.e., "The toilet is broken").

If I were on the Continent, I might ask "Where is your WC?"

I take it that "bathroom" is not used in the UK when one needs to take a leak? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.252.152 (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No, we go to the toilet or the loo. I guess this stems from the fact that historically bathroom and toilet were separate rooms, that's even if they were rooms. When my father was growing up in a working-class area of the UK in the 1930s, the toilet was in an outhouse and you took a bath in a tin bathtub in front of the fire. – ukexpat (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course the american "bathroom" usage is ridiculous: oftentimes there is NO BATH at all, so ...? 69.116.86.131 :- ) (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

No sillier than "toilet" — there is usually no toile there at all. The truth is, there are only euphemisms for this ubiquitous apparatus! Nick Michael (talk) 14:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Joke

I have heard Nancy Mitford's sister, he Duchess of Devonshire say that the whole thing was just a joke perpetrated by her sister - most of the 'rules' she recorded were just pieces of whimsy. --John Price (talk) 08:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It was not Mitford but Ross. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the suggestion was that Mitford picked up on Ross's ideas and satirised them by inventing a absurd list of rules which was then taken seriously by the world at large. --86.128.192.97 (talk) 07:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC).

That is not what happened. She edited a book and included Ross's essay. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The article says that Mitford was alerted by Ross's article and 'immediately took up the usage in an essay, “The English Aristocracy” ' which included the famous glossary. --John Price (talk) 10:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The scholarly article came first... AnonMoos (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Mitfords essay was tongue-in-cheek but that doesn't mean it was just made up. She was gently poking fun at the differences between the upper class English and aspirational middle-class in speech by expressing them as a set of "rules". It may be that some of the uses which have now become obsolete such as looking-glass and chimney-piece were already loosing currency in "polite society" as that point but she included them anyway to exagerate her point for comic value. Generally euphemisms are viewed negatively in Britain. They show the speaker as rather a silly person at best and as attempting to establish themselves above other socially at worst. This is why euphemisms such as ill for sick (i.e. vomitting) and serviette for napkin are still not seen as good usage of language. The British disdain of euphemisms is very evident with regard to the lavatory (lavatory or loo being more correct but toilet also acceptable in most circumstances) where despite the strong influence America exerts on our language we hold fast against euphemisms such as bathroom and restroom.87.114.227.184 (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

"Debate"?

The second sentence begins, "The debate did not concern itself with the speech of the working classes," but nowhere is there any indication that a debate is involved - merely two styles of speech. Perhaps something like "This classification did not..." ? streapadair (talk)17:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Scotch / Scottish

In "The English Aristocracy", part of "Noblesse Oblige", it says "Scottish: Non-U for U Scotch". But Alan Ross says U English people say "Scotch" while Scots people say Scottish unless they are talking about whisky (ref "Don't Say It"). Kittybrewster ☎ 16:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"Scotch" was the traditional adjective and plural noun used in England for what are now usually "Scottish" and "Scots", and in some places the usage survives - e.g. scotch eggs. It was used for a period in Scotland itself in the ninteenth century but by the twentieth it was being rejected for a variety of reasons. So I guess by the 1950s it was precisely the sort of term where the non-U were trying to be all polite and "correct" whilst the U just carried on using the term they'd always been using. You see similar issues today with political correctness and euphemisms in management speak. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree absolutely with Timrollpickering. Scotch (adjective) goes into the interesting changes between the two terms. Incidentally, shouldn't this be in the list of words in the box? Nick Michael (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

"Improved English" Movement

Is anyone able to relate the U/non-U story, and English sociolects generally, to the 1930s "Improved English" movement? SquisherDa (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Or "Basic English"? loupgarous (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

UK/US English

It occurs to me - as a non-native speaker - that the article is about UK English. I know that many concepts have different names in US English. Has US English perhaps its own U/non-U dichotomy, or does the US enjoy the benefit of being a more "class-less" society than the UK? Rbakels (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

"Homogenized" might be a better way to put it. Electronics - radio, telephone, and television - have been the "flattening" force which has hammered American English into the Midwestern dialect most of us speak when on the phone or video conferencing, or speaking with strangers in general. While variations exist in both written and spoken English among Americans, they're regionalisms, not really class-related. Professional-class Americans speak Midwestern simply to be sure of being understood to Americans from other regions, or to express technical or legal concepts with an acceptable level of concision and accuracy. In that respect, Midwestern American English is thus closer to what the Chinese call the "Common Tongue" than to evidence of a class stratification.

As far as "class," it definitely exists in America, even though the Constitution of the United States explicitly forbids creation of anything like orders of nobility; there are special Orders established by Congress for recognition of outstanding civil or military service to the nation, such as the Military Order of the Purple Heart for those wounded while serving under fire in the military, or the Medal of Honor, awarded by Congress for acts of heroism far beyond the call of duty; most Medals of Honor are awarded posthumously owing to the degree of danger into which one has to place one's self to earn one.

There is also a Presidential Medal of Freedom and a Congressional Gold Medal, which have in common with military medals short of the Medal of Honor a relative lack of access to power or preference for employment in responsible work (the civilian medals are often awarded to people who are already perched on high rungs of the American class structure), so that they don't really constitute a "class."

To the extent America HAS a class structure, it's connected to the interface between politics and business. Scions of wealthy people inherit not just the money their parents have, but their access to decision-making jobs at high levels; the same is true for the children of politically-influential families. Caroline Bouvier Kennedy, as an example, has been the US Ambassador to Japan largely owing to the esteem in which her late father was held and the wealth of the Kennedy family, and was able to ask to be considered for appointment to the Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton and have her request considered seriously before she withdrew it, citing personal reasons. Both major political parties in the United States have their dynasties - the Kennedys in general, the Rockefellers and the Bushes. Generally, these are politico-economic dynasties in which the various family members active in politics enjoyed social and economic advantages which helped them achieve much on their own accord prior to running for high public office. loupgarous (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hogswallop. I can attest that (at least in my region) the only people who speak with that putrid Midwestern accent are those of the unlearned variety and/or those with inferiority complexes (somewhat comparable, mayhap, to the "non-U" listed on this page). Anyone with even an ounce of self worth speaks the dialect native to one's locale indiscriminately.

...My word! I just have never before heard such an audacious claim as the one that has been given by Mr./Ms. Vfrickey. "Everyone in the U.S. speaks in the Midwestern dialect". Even if we ignore the factual inaccuracy of that statement, there is an even more pressing matter here: Who is Vfrickey to speak on behalf of all citizens of the United States? The answer, of course, is that he/she is of no qualification to be doing such a thing.

In any case, let me assure you, Rbakels, that regional dialects are still alive and well within the United States (some are even growing more distinct these days!) In regard to class distinction... yes, one exists. But it is more superficial than anything else, and doesn't really have much to do with one's diction or word-stock. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Graveyard vs Cemetery

I hasd always believed that a cemetery was a place for graves that wasn't part of a church yard and that a Graveyard was. Dainamo (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a tendency by people to try to rationalise multiple names for something by distinguing the use and it's complicated by various commercial and marketing factors - I was once under the impression that "napkins" are the cloth things you get in homes and waitered restaurants and "serviettes" are the disposable paper things you get in fast food restaurants. Large standalone areas for burial, often secular or multi-faith, seem to have come about at the time of the industrial revolution when urbanisation and rising populations put space pressure on urban churches so the middle class link is obvious, whereas the upper classes were still being buried in the traditional place for their families at the churches on their rural estates. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

That sounds logical and sensible to me. The word certainly has a distinguished and ancient origin: [3]. But Mitford, writing in the 1950's definitely no-noed it. Perhaps she disapproved of the euphemism, for it appears to mean "to sleep, or rest". And we know that euphemisms are more often than not non-U. Although I doubt that Mitford was scholar enough to be aware of that. Nick Michael (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Non-U hosiery

Where should a discussion take place concerning the non-U use of long white hose (as compared with coloured) when used with a kilt (see numerous examples of photographs under dirk and kilt. And indeed short white socks with outdoor shoes which seems to be a curious Norwegian habit. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha Kitty, an unusual post from you! I can't answer your question because in spite of repeated requests (see above) it's still not clear to me whether this article should deal exclusively with the Ross/Mitford works, or a more general idea of "bad taste". I would have thought you could do a great job expanding Taste (sociology)#Bad taste. Nick Michael (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Ill vs. Sick

Why is "Ill in bed" different from "Ill on the boat"?.--24.62.109.225 (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)