![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hrjTitles, Forms of Address, and Courtesy Among and Between Classes
To conclude my essay on Alpennian language and names, I’ll cover some issues of pragmatics and socio-linguistics. (You can take the girl out of academia, but you’ll never take academia out of the girl.)
I’ve created what is probably a very oversimplified system of honorifics and forms of address, but since I deploy them liberally to indicate nuances of relationships between characters (on a level that is probably under the radar for most readers) I felt it was important to have a clear structure. So here goes.
Everyone, no matter at what level of society, has an honorific prefixed to their name (given name or surname) on formal occasions and when respect is being shown. As Margerit notes, “Even the scullery maid is Mefro Lutild on Sundays.” These honorifics are marked for gender and for class, but not for marital status.
Working-class Mefro (f) and Mefroi (m) (derived from the word for “my” plus the derivation of an old germanic root “fraujo/frauja” that originally meant “lord/lady”)
Middle-class Maisetra (f) and Maistir (m) (from Latin Magistra/Magister)
Upper-class Mesnera (f) and Mesner (m) (from the word for “my” plus the Alpennian derivation of the Latin root “senior” which also gave use French “signeur” and Spanish “señor(a)”).
The linguistic gender distinctions in the latter two pairs are something of an anomaly, possibly driven by a deliberate conservatism due to awareness of the Latin roots. The gender distinction in mefroi/mefro is native to Alpennian and is seen similarly (and for the same root) in the nouns burfroi/burfro indicating a person of the middle class (i.e., “bourgeois”).
There is some flexibility in formality in whether the honorific is used with the given name or surname. One of your own servants might be Mefro(i) [given name] except for those with special status like the housekeeper or butler. But generally if you want to show respect (and especially for a stranger) you’d use it with the surname. A child might be Maisetra/Maistir [given name] but for an adult you’d always use the surname (hence Margerit takes note of who continues to addresses her as Maisetra Margerit rather than Maisetra Sovitre). I can imagine that there might be contexts in the upper class where someone might address a child as “Mesner(a) [given name]”, but in general there would be more of a polarization between someone familiar enough to use the given name alone or not familiar and so using the more formal version with the surname.
For the even smaller set of noblemen or noblewomen with a title, they might be addressed by the full title (Baron Saveze) or by honorific+surname (Mesner Lumbeirt), but in general if being referred to in the third person it will be with the title. Another titled individual, especially one with a close relationship or if there’s a hint of less-than-complete respect may address someone just by title (Saveze). Similarly at all levels, a familiar or not entirely respectful relationship may be reflected by addressing someone by surname alone without an honorific. So, for example, when Charul Pertinek (a noble) addresses Margerit’s uncle simply as “Fulpi”, it’s to put him in his place, not as a sign of friendship.
When referring to someone in the third person when they aren’t present, the level of formality used will generally reflect the relationship between the speakers, not the relationship of the speaker to the person being referred to. So members of the upper class who are on a first-name basis with each other will habitually refer to others not present by plain surname or title in conversation, but if speaking of the same person to someone of a lower class, or someone of their own class who isn’t a close friend, will always use a formal version.
There is the usual overlap between a “friendly familiar” address and the familiarity of address that is either an expression of social dominance or an outright insult. Use of a given name is the ultimate indication of familiarity for both of these. It’s extremely rare for someone to refer to a person of higher status by given name, and even rarer to do it in direct address. Pay close attention to the circumstances under which Barbara uses “Margerit” rather than “Maisetra Sovitre” even in the privacy of her thoughts, much less in speaking to others. And the occasions when she directly addresses Margerit by her given name (up to the point when they become lovers) are always very marked circumstances of intense emotion. (And a giveaway of how she feels about Margerit.) This is part of the status imbalance between the two of them because Barbara has no known surname for most of the story and her social status is highly ambiguous. So she is always addressed and referred to simply as “Barbara” which, in any other circumstance, would be disrespectful.
Conversely, Barbara always makes a point of referring to Estefen Chazillen as “Estefen”, even after he has the title, as a mark of her scornful opinion of him. (Never to his face because there’s no context when they’re speaking directly.) There are a few other key “tells” involving the use of given names. At one point when LeFevre is talking to Barbara and refers to the old baron as “Marziel” it’s a hint that their long friendship and partnership had eroded the barriers of class and of the employer/employee relationship significantly -- though he never would have addressed him that way in person when he was alive. For that matter, pay attention to the one occasion in the entirety of Daughter of Mystery when someone refers to LeFevre by his given name. It’s a major give-away of something that is otherwise only very subtly indicated. (And, to some extent, I did that as a bit of an “Easter Egg” for those who picked up on the subtleties.)
Overall, the rules of address and reference are a major but covert tool that I used for establishing and reflecting relationships between people and for indicating attitudes. Because of the nuanced way I was using them for these purposes, I had to start with some fairly simple and rigid structures to play off, otherwise the readers would have no hope of picking up on when the variations were meaningful. The rules and how they’re bent and broken aren’t meant to be something that jumps out at the reader, but rather as something that might be noticed as an afterthought and that subtly shaped the reading experience.
To conclude my essay on Alpennian language and names, I’ll cover some issues of pragmatics and socio-linguistics. (You can take the girl out of academia, but you’ll never take academia out of the girl.)
I’ve created what is probably a very oversimplified system of honorifics and forms of address, but since I deploy them liberally to indicate nuances of relationships between characters (on a level that is probably under the radar for most readers) I felt it was important to have a clear structure. So here goes.
Everyone, no matter at what level of society, has an honorific prefixed to their name (given name or surname) on formal occasions and when respect is being shown. As Margerit notes, “Even the scullery maid is Mefro Lutild on Sundays.” These honorifics are marked for gender and for class, but not for marital status.
Working-class Mefro (f) and Mefroi (m) (derived from the word for “my” plus the derivation of an old germanic root “fraujo/frauja” that originally meant “lord/lady”)
Middle-class Maisetra (f) and Maistir (m) (from Latin Magistra/Magister)
Upper-class Mesnera (f) and Mesner (m) (from the word for “my” plus the Alpennian derivation of the Latin root “senior” which also gave use French “signeur” and Spanish “señor(a)”).
The linguistic gender distinctions in the latter two pairs are something of an anomaly, possibly driven by a deliberate conservatism due to awareness of the Latin roots. The gender distinction in mefroi/mefro is native to Alpennian and is seen similarly (and for the same root) in the nouns burfroi/burfro indicating a person of the middle class (i.e., “bourgeois”).
There is some flexibility in formality in whether the honorific is used with the given name or surname. One of your own servants might be Mefro(i) [given name] except for those with special status like the housekeeper or butler. But generally if you want to show respect (and especially for a stranger) you’d use it with the surname. A child might be Maisetra/Maistir [given name] but for an adult you’d always use the surname (hence Margerit takes note of who continues to addresses her as Maisetra Margerit rather than Maisetra Sovitre). I can imagine that there might be contexts in the upper class where someone might address a child as “Mesner(a) [given name]”, but in general there would be more of a polarization between someone familiar enough to use the given name alone or not familiar and so using the more formal version with the surname.
For the even smaller set of noblemen or noblewomen with a title, they might be addressed by the full title (Baron Saveze) or by honorific+surname (Mesner Lumbeirt), but in general if being referred to in the third person it will be with the title. Another titled individual, especially one with a close relationship or if there’s a hint of less-than-complete respect may address someone just by title (Saveze). Similarly at all levels, a familiar or not entirely respectful relationship may be reflected by addressing someone by surname alone without an honorific. So, for example, when Charul Pertinek (a noble) addresses Margerit’s uncle simply as “Fulpi”, it’s to put him in his place, not as a sign of friendship.
When referring to someone in the third person when they aren’t present, the level of formality used will generally reflect the relationship between the speakers, not the relationship of the speaker to the person being referred to. So members of the upper class who are on a first-name basis with each other will habitually refer to others not present by plain surname or title in conversation, but if speaking of the same person to someone of a lower class, or someone of their own class who isn’t a close friend, will always use a formal version.
There is the usual overlap between a “friendly familiar” address and the familiarity of address that is either an expression of social dominance or an outright insult. Use of a given name is the ultimate indication of familiarity for both of these. It’s extremely rare for someone to refer to a person of higher status by given name, and even rarer to do it in direct address. Pay close attention to the circumstances under which Barbara uses “Margerit” rather than “Maisetra Sovitre” even in the privacy of her thoughts, much less in speaking to others. And the occasions when she directly addresses Margerit by her given name (up to the point when they become lovers) are always very marked circumstances of intense emotion. (And a giveaway of how she feels about Margerit.) This is part of the status imbalance between the two of them because Barbara has no known surname for most of the story and her social status is highly ambiguous. So she is always addressed and referred to simply as “Barbara” which, in any other circumstance, would be disrespectful.
Conversely, Barbara always makes a point of referring to Estefen Chazillen as “Estefen”, even after he has the title, as a mark of her scornful opinion of him. (Never to his face because there’s no context when they’re speaking directly.) There are a few other key “tells” involving the use of given names. At one point when LeFevre is talking to Barbara and refers to the old baron as “Marziel” it’s a hint that their long friendship and partnership had eroded the barriers of class and of the employer/employee relationship significantly -- though he never would have addressed him that way in person when he was alive. For that matter, pay attention to the one occasion in the entirety of Daughter of Mystery when someone refers to LeFevre by his given name. It’s a major give-away of something that is otherwise only very subtly indicated. (And, to some extent, I did that as a bit of an “Easter Egg” for those who picked up on the subtleties.)
Overall, the rules of address and reference are a major but covert tool that I used for establishing and reflecting relationships between people and for indicating attitudes. Because of the nuanced way I was using them for these purposes, I had to start with some fairly simple and rigid structures to play off, otherwise the readers would have no hope of picking up on when the variations were meaningful. The rules and how they’re bent and broken aren’t meant to be something that jumps out at the reader, but rather as something that might be noticed as an afterthought and that subtly shaped the reading experience.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-06-10 10:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-10 10:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-10 10:58 pm (UTC)(Fantasy-with-lesbians-and-happy-endings has been a bit thin on the ground for me lately. *g*)
ETA: I feel that first sentence needs more exclamation marks.
no subject
Date: 2014-06-10 11:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-10 11:40 pm (UTC)I'm having a hard time not waving my hands around and making grabby motions and demanding next book NOW please - because that would be rude.
I would not like to be rude. *g*
no subject
Date: 2014-06-11 12:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-11 12:19 am (UTC)*is perfectly willing to be tainted*
no subject
Yes, caught that as well as the reverse (“I don’t care to have him thrust into the middle of my intrigues!”) http://l-stat.livejournal.net/img/spacer.gif?v=13339