h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>> Of course politeness and courtesy are not the same as etiquette... <<

Would it be presumptuous of me, Madam, to inquire further how you might define this distinction?

Off the top of my head I'd say courtesy was an attitude, perhaps a philosophy and way of life, based upon the realisation and belief that consideration of others is the best policy - (honesty being but a small though essential part of courtesy). A foundation of courtesy leads to an unconscious self governing of behaviour that includes honesty, generosity, empathy, selflessness, etc.

Politeness seems to be but one of the behaviours resulting from a natural courtesy. Unhappily, because of it's association with courtesy, certain aspects of politeness can become a calculated observance of accepted formalities. This can lead to insincerity and cynicism, in greetings such as "Have a nice day" or, "My name is Roger and I will be your server tonight. May I recommend the fish..." The standard forms of accepted politeness can be abused when they are used in a way designed to elicit otherwise unwarranted trust - as in "Dear Sir, We are happy to inform you of your winning number in this week's Nigerian Lottery. Please be so kind as to send us all your personal data and a blood sample via pre-paid..."

And, etiquette, for me, was always an educated form of hyper-politeness that bordered on pretention. A fashion driven kind of 'good manners' that many find objectionable because of a seemingly overbearing fussiness about it all and the fact that such trivial details as a choice of forks can lead to a re-calculation of one's social worth. The rules of etiquette are enforced by peer pressure at an elitist level. They keep one bound to formal conventions irrespective of one's true feelings - all very upper crust and unfamiliar to me except as a series books on the subject which usually included instructions on fish forks and their deployment or who not to invite to a wedding.

Online 'netiquette' of which I only became aware after joining h2g2 seems to be like a set of democratically (tribally) agreed upon 'house rules' (for group intereaction by multiple anonymous users) that sometimes get bogged down in specifics while trying to simply remind everyone that courtesy is still the best policy in real life and cyberspace.

Your thoughts, if you will Madam, will be appreciated. I believe it is important to continue distinguishing between behaviours that are reluctantly observed in a self serving way (to give the appearance of adherance to a set of rules) and the genuine behaviour that can be manifested by even the most uneducated ruffian whose life is guided by a genuine sense of courtesy and consideration toward others.


~jwf~

Aha, something to get the proverbial teeth into...

Courtesy is an attitude, that says "You, Sir or Madam, being hitherto unknown to me, I shall treat as I would like you to treat me". It's what ones parents teach - "say thank you to the woman, dear" and "don't call him by his first name until he invites you" (something that means that I get annoyed when I phone a company, and the person I'm talking to says "Can I ask what your name would be, please?" (a New Zealandism - my name would be the same whether she was asking or not - )- I give my full name and the poor phone-answerer first-names me as she has been instructed to do. I always think, but never say, "I didn't say you could call me D----"... and I call people Mr or Ms Theirname, until they invite me to do otherwise, which I suppose is a bit old-fashioned.

Politeness is the out-working of courtesy. One is polite "How are you today?" because one has a courteous attitude.

Etiquette is unnecessary fussiness about forks and such. (That's how I see it, but other people might define it differently.)

I thought your name was V----

(Only teasing. Let's not rake that over again)

I see your points (both of you) - but I think that, in reality, courtesy and politeness are often intertwined. Would it not, often, be regarded as 'discourteous' to diverge from the expected, polite forms? (ie to break out of the expexted hierarchy). For example, when the call centre operative addresses you by your first name, do you not perceive their (scripted) presumption as discourtesy?

I have to say that I am a terrible inverted snob. I go the other way. I often feel mildly uncomfortable when I am addressed as 'Mr Bonobo' or 'Sir'. My discomfort is greatest with medical personnel. Even those with whom I have a long term therapeutic relationship sometimes feel compelled to address me formally. On the other hand - when I phone the garage I use (Shuggie's Motor Repairs (Ibrox)inc.), they call me by my first name. It makes me feel included and I trust them on that basis. (and rightly so - I've stumbled upon that rare thing - an honest mechanic!)

and I believe that I have addressed you as Mr Bonobo on one occasion in order to elicit that vague discomfort.

I like the Americanism of ma'am.

It is used alot here.

Whereas in Britain is seems that it is not used half as much except perhaps reserved for the more Upper class, the Queen and Juliet Bravo.

If say you were in Tescos, an employee would be more likely to call you 'Miss' or 'Madam' if it seems you have aged gracefully past the 'Miss' and have a few lively kids in tow.

'Madam' is also considered multi-taskin' in that it can also be an insult of behavior of perhaps a small girl child or an observation of a haughty womans character if she is snobby beyond her means.

Or a woman who runs a house of ill repute

Then of course there are other types of Madams...

Simu-postin

Dame is rather an interesting term too.

There's nothing like one!

title then...

Having asked the question and then lost sleep over it, I am now compelled to bore you all with these definitive definitions.

Courtesy (or consideration) is a personal quality and functions like love. It is either an inherent character trait or an attitude learned from experience and manifests itself in many ways at many levels.

Politeness (aka 'good manners') is a set of rules or laws. Either written or unspoken (and varying from culture to culture) 'good manners' are set out as social rules and includes laws prohibiting the most violent anti-social acts - all the Thou shalt nots, etc.
It also includes rules governing much less definable acts of 'offensive' behaviour such as hurting someone's feelings or not remembering an anniversary. And it also includes all the rules of diplomacy (protocols) whether between nations or individuals.

Etiquette seems to be entirely made up of protocols. A bastardised form of bargaining for status and position. It comes from the world of military hiearchy. Overly concerned with status, protocols are rules governing details beyond the basic laws of life. Perhaps because the upper classes generally command the military and influence international diplomacy they have established forms of behaviour and rules of decorum that supposedly have symbolic significance or are designed to distract from the meaner realities of life. (Don't point fish forks indoors.) Because the leisure classes have more time to worry about such things the rules of etiquette have taken on a life of their own designed to show rank and class. They are now generally much despised by those with less time to waste on maintaining a seemingly unjustified social pecking order.

Because 'etiquette' seems removed from the common reality and its rules tend to rather perversely reverse the natural social order, it seems unustifiable to anyone with a truly pragmatic sense of reality. Most etiquette is from the age of Imperialism and gunboat diplomacy and has become the object of contempt and scorn among the common people. The difficulty is that the unruly mob, who quite rightly find etiquette overbearing, will often go too far and wrongly assume that all forms of rule and law must therefore be equally contemptible. Obviously this is not so, because as we have seen, the rules and laws of politeness, based upon legal and religious foundations for organising peace order and good government, are still essential and valid.

Conclusion: Finding courtesy and consideration in your heart is more important than memorising all the rules of good manners and etiquette. Any rule or protocol that does not directly impact the way we live our daily lives is probably merely etiquette.

But then I suppose courtesy demands that we respect even those for whom etiquette is so important, so long as they aren't otherwise hurting anyone but themselves with their incestuous role playing.


~jwf~

So...relating this back to linguistics...

That's a good summary, jwf..

On the subject of first-naming... it's a matter of what I was brought up to believe was courteous. The call centre worker uses my first name because s/he has been told to do so, and if I were in her position, it would make me very uncomfortable to have to do so. But I don't fault the worker, I fault her boss who has learned from some management/business seminar that customers like that.

When I worked for what was known as 'Social Welfare' (Benefits and Pensions' in the 1980s, we were required to first-name anyone who rang or visited about their benefit, while insisting they call us Mrs K---- or whatever applied. I got in to a power of trouble for refusing to be what was to me, discourteous. A guy came in one day, and was found wandering around the back offices, looking for Betty K---, because when I had given him my first name when he asked, he had misheard it. Betty was very cross, as was my supervisor, who insisted this would not have happened if I had obeyed their protocol and insisted he use my surname.
The thing is, it would have! Betty and I had the same surname, although we were in different sections (and not related in any way.) That the man chose to come in and see me (against the rules) had nothing to do with my "familiarity".
Now, the same department has a different policy. Staff use their first names and still first-name "clients". Oh tempora, oh mores! (sp?)

>> So...relating this back to linguistics... <<


Damn you sir I'll start my own British English spin-off thread and call it Semantics. It'll be about everything but.
And yet, between the lions there'll be tongue or my name is not Pepe LaPeux.
I'll be back in the morning to post a link and pick up my things.

~jwf~

>> That the man chose to come in and see me (against the rules) had nothing to do with my "familiarity". <<

Now there's something you don't often hear women saying these days.
What ever happened to temptresses?

~jwf~

Ah, my temptressing days are all over, sadly...

I'll just drop some more trivia on you because, well, I like this sort of stuff.

Words that are similar in English and Swedish:


mother = mor
father = far
daughter = dotter
son = son
sister = syster
brother = bror
glad = glad
god = gud
good = god
better = bättre
are = är (this one at least has come to English through the Normans)
hopeless = hopplös
rich = rik
king = kung
church = kyrka
house = hus
rose = ros
day = dag
night = natt
morning = morgon
man = man
cat = katt
mouse/mice = mus/möss
heart = hjärtä
nose = näsa
mouth = mun
hand = hand
to say = säga
to think = tänka
to sit = sitta
to live = leva
to lie = ljuga
to eat = äta
to drink = dricka
to mean = mena

There's some sort of pronunciation guide here A1149392 .

I'm not exactly sure of any of the spellings here - but a commonly-used Scots word for 'dust' is 'storr'.

And in Swedish:
Stoersucker = vacuum cleaner.

And Finns have most probably borrowed it from there:

pölynimuri = dust sucker (sounds so in English!)

Ah, Aïna - that would explain why it is that when I have heard people conversing in Swedish, it teases me, as I feel I am constantly on the verge of understanding them.