# Folks/ guys / fellows



## Kirill V.

_Folks/ guys / fellows _.. (anything else?)
Can these be "met" anywhere, or are they perhaps region/US/Britain specific?
For example, in the English literature I came across nice _folks _living near London, but never heard of any _guys_ living there. On the other hand, they tend to say _guys_ in the New York area, for example. 

I think my question is: which of the above words can be used most universally? E.g. if you were telling somebody about you having made friends with a nice gentleman in Moscow, would you refer to him as a "nice folk", or rather "nice guy", or "nice fellow", or else? Thank you!


----------



## rhitagawr

_Guys_ as a form of address to men and women and _guy_ in the sense of _man_ are now common in BE as well as AE. 
I personally would be surprised to hear _folks_ in the sense of _people_ in BE. This sounds much more AE to me. (However, the English counties of Suffolk and Norfolk are named after the south folk and the north folk.) I'd say that _folks_ in the sense of _parents_ is now (virtually) obsolete in BE (I can't speak for AE). But I may be wrong. It sounds middle/upper-class. _Folks_ is nearly always plural. So although your neighbours may be _nice_ _folks_, the man next door is a _nice man _and not a _nice folk_. However, in some northern BE dialects, _folk_ can mean people: _Some folk like beer and some folk like wine_.
_Fellow_ refers to a man. _You fellows _sounds rather quaint to me personally. _I say! Fellow!_ sounds upper-class (if people still say it these days anyway). _Fellow_ is also an academic title - a _Fellow of Brasenose College_. Or it can denote a senior member of a learned society - a _Fellow of The British Computer Society_. _Fellow_ can mean a _companion_. It is normally used adjectivally in this sense - _Guy Fawkes and his fellow conspirators_. It can also be used in the sense of _I could find my right-hand glove but I couldn't find its fellow_. This usage is rare and some people would probably regard it as quaint.
_Chap_ and _bloke_ mean _man_. The latter is particularly colloquial - slang, even. _Bloke_ cannot be used as a form of address. So you can say _Are you chaps/fellows/blokes/folks coming?_ and you can say _Listen, chaps/fellows/folks_, but you can't say _Listen, blokes!_


----------



## Keith Bradford

Often the trouble is sexual ().  For most older British people, *guy*, like _fellow _and _bloke_, is irreconcilably masculine. Even younger people rarely if ever use _guy _when talking about a single woman, though I have heard the plural (American) usage applied by more cosmopolitan British speakers to an all-woman group.

*Folk *(which is always a plural; _folks _exists too) is more widely acceptable for male, female or mixed groups.

The formal equivalent of all these is *person *(plural _people_), but this is another word which can't be used to address a single individual.  However, _Are you people coming?_ is fine.


----------



## Kirill V.

Dear rhitagawr,

Thank you for your taking time and providing such a useful answer! 
So I understand a Russian chap and a lady from Britain - these nice guys! - can meet some nice folks from the US, one of whom is a College Fellow.


----------



## Keith Bradford

Perfectly!
... ... ... ...


----------



## Kirill V.

And many thanks to Mr. Bradford, too!
(I saw your response only after I had already posted my previous message - hopefully I put tenses right


----------



## Cenzontle

I can speak only for AE, not BE.  I don't think "bloke" was ever used in AE.  I heard "chap" in the speech of people born in the late 19th century; I think of "fellow" as typical of the speech of those born in the early 20th century.  When younger people say "fellow" I think they are being over-formal, as in a job interview.  I most often hear "guy" (singular, male) from those born in the mid-to-late 20th century.  Some born in the late 20th century might say "dude", but this seems self-consciously "hip" to me.  
The lack of different singular and plural forms of "you" in standard English is a problem; it's such a serious problem that many speakers overcome the maleness of "guy"—in the plural only—to say "you guys" to a group of people including all males, all females, or a mixture.  This is definitely informal language, not for a job interview, but even highly educated people have friends and talk informally with them, and can say "you guys" to an all-female group.  I do.
About "folks", I agree with Keith, that it's (virtually) "always" a plural (unless it's an adjective for "art" or "music").
As a substitute for "people", it often carries an emotional connotation, usually positive.
So, for example, if a big, impersonal, environment-damaging corporation is trying to sound benevolent, it will say 
"This product is brought to you by the folks at XYZ Corp."


----------



## Kirill V.

Many thanks!!
So I understand"
chap" and "bloke" are BE, 
"guy/guys" - universal AE/BE, 
"fellow" one wouldn't typically use when addressing a friend, 
and "folks" can be used when addressing a group, either that of real friends, or one you'd like to sound particularly friendly with


----------



## JustKate

A clarification: guy/guys is universal in AmE except that you'd shouldn't refer to a female as "guy." A group of any make up (males, females or a mix of the two) can generally be referred to as "guy*s*." There are still some women who disapprove of this, but as long as it's an informal setting, hardly anybody would take offense, though.


----------



## Cenzontle

Let me add that "guys" to include females is only in the phrase "you guys".
If someone told me "three guys" or "one of the guys who live downstairs" were coming to visit,
I would be very surprised if any of them turned out to be female.


----------



## JustKate

Good point, Cenzontle.


----------



## Cenzontle

And one more thought about "folks":  It's often applied to people toward the low end of wealth, power, and formal education.
The adjective "folksy" could occasionally be useful on these language forums because it describes a style of language that is
friendly, informal, and unpretentious.


----------



## sdgraham

JustKate said:


> A clarification: guy/guys is universal in AmE except that you'd shouldn't refer to a female as "guy." A group of any make up (males, females or a mix of the two) can generally be referred to as "guy*s*." There are still some women who disapprove of this, but as long as it's an informal setting, hardly anybody would take offense, though.



I have received a number of private messages from women members of this forum who feel insulted when they are included in 'guys,' but don't want to appear argumentative or some other pejorative adjective.

As such, I don't use it and I advise others not to do so as well. 

A little sensitivity will cost you nothing.


----------



## dreamlike

rhitagawr said:


> I personally would be surprised to hear _folks_ in the sense of _people_ in BE. This sounds much more AE to me.


There is this one saying that reading this thread made me remember -- 'There's nowt so queer as folk' -- which appears to have originated in the UK and seems to be an exclusively BrE thing. I think it's rather the speakers of American English that would be suprised to hear 'There's nowt so queer as folks'


----------



## aasheq

Twenty years ago nobody in this country said "folks" or "guys", and even now lots of people would say that they sound American. When I was a child, a guy was a stuffed effigy of Guy Faulks.


----------



## Keith Bradford

aasheq said:


> Twenty years ago nobody in this country said "folks" ...



Not true, I've used _folk(s)_ all my life.  But you're right about _guy(s)_.


----------



## aasheq

"Folk" yes, but "folks" ?


----------



## sdgraham

"Folks" is perfectly normal American English.

Back when they showed cartoons between feature films in theaters, one of the major cartoon companies was Looney Tunes.

At the end of the cartoon, emblazoned on the screen was "That's all, folks."

See: http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/350000.html (which is a UK site, incidentally)


----------



## RM1(SS)

rhitagawr said:


> I'd say that _folks_ in the sense of _parents_ is now (virtually) obsolete in BE (I can't speak for AE).



Still quite common, as far as I kn_ow._


----------



## Mary R Carter

"Guys" is used when talking to or about a group of people, male or female as in, "Hey you guys! Where are you going?" But do you think it is OK to address a group that includes some ladies in that way? Is it better to use "folks" in place of "guys"?

Thank you, teachers.


----------



## BLUEGLAZE

Guys is better. Men only or a mixed group but nowadays you may hear a woman addressing a group of only women say 'guys' because it is such a neat easy word.


----------



## Mary R Carter

Thank you, sir. 
I don't take PC seriously, but is it politically correct English or not, for example, if there is any feminist in this group. Will she be offended? 

My apology if this question is off topic or irrelevant. But I honestly don't know about this. Thank you, teacher(s).


----------



## PaulQ

And don't say "guys" to me. I don't know you and I am quite old. You have no idea how irritating some people find "guys"... 

Quite seriously, do be careful how you use it. If you are selling something and speaking to a customer or if you are addressing a relatively formal meeting, do not use "guys".


----------



## AutumnOwl

Perhaps "Hey all!" could be an alternative.


----------



## BLUEGLAZE

In a formal address to a mixed group, I would never use the word 'guys'. I might use 'folks' if it were less than formal.


----------



## sdgraham

AutumnOwl said:


> Perhaps "Hey all!" could be an alternative.


I detest "hey" as a greeting.

I was raised with the aphorism "hay is for horses."


----------



## Loob

Mary R Carter said:


> ... Is it better to use "folks" in place of "guys"?...


My recommendation is to use *neither*, Mary.

There are previous threads - I'll see if I can find them.

EDIT: thread now merged with an earlier discussion.​


----------



## PaulQ

To me, "guys" will always have that air of the insincere, "trendy" friendship that the speaker has been erroneously told will allow you to get someone on your side - it doesn't.

"Hello/good morning/afternoon/evening everyone" is just fine.


----------



## JustKate

Mary, this topic has come up many times, and opinions do differ. So I've merged your thread with one of the earlier threads on this topic. I hope you find the answers useful, but if you have additional questions on this topic, you're free to ask them here.

JustKate
English Only moderator


----------



## Andygc

PaulQ said:


> And don't say "guys" to me.


Or me 

And even my sig is on topic.

But as I may change it in future:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a guy in the pushchair. It's not just women who don't like being called "guys" by strangers.


----------



## Mary R Carter

Thanks, JustKate and everyone. You have been really kind. 
Thanks for your help.


----------



## Florentia52

Mary R Carter said:


> (I)f there is any feminist in this group. Will she be offended?



As you will have seen in this thread, many women feel "guys" is not gender-neutral. Anyone who says "Hey, guys" to a group I am part of might as well be saying "Hey, men," except for the fact that I know some people (especially guys) don't see it that way.


----------



## JustKate

Florentia52 said:


> As you will have seen in this thread, many women feel "guys" is not gender-neutral. Anyone who says "Hey, guys" to a group I am part of might as well be saying "Hey, men," except for the fact that I know some people (especially guys) don't see it that way.


Just to provide a contrast, it wouldn't bother me at all to be part of a group addressed as "guys." I am in fact sometimes guilty of this myself, but I know it bothers other people, so I try to control myself. I don't always succeed, though.


----------



## jokaec

Some acquaintances are friend's friends or colleagues including men and women. When I talk to them, which one is most polite and common in AmE? For instance, "Where do you "fellows" or "folks" or "guys" want to go for this weekend?


----------



## Loob

Jokaec, what conclusion did you reach about your post 34 question after reading the thread?


----------



## pickarooney

I think the only people allowed use "folks" in Ireland are barmen who are throwing people out at closing time ("All right folks, have youse no homes to go to?").
"Lads" is used increasingly for groups of men and women.
Fellows (fellas) only refers to men really. Often used to mean boyfriend.
"Guys" is used by young people, and still sounds a little American.
"Blokes" is used by young people, and still sounds a little British.


----------



## JulianStuart

pickarooney said:


> I think the only people allowed use "folks" in Ireland are barmen who are throwing people out at closing time ("All right folks, have youse no homes to go to?").
> "Lads" is used increasingly for groups of men and women.
> Fellows (fellas) only refers to men really. Often used to mean boyfriend.
> "Guys" is used by young people, and still sounds a little American.
> "Blokes" is used by young people, and still sounds a little British.


Interesting So you suggest that "lads" in BE is now more general, like "guys" in AE?


----------



## PaulQ

pickarooney said:


> "Lads" is used increasingly for groups of men and women.


I'm too old for practical experience that would give authority on what is current here, but I would expect "He went off with a group of lads *and ladettes* to find another nightclub."


----------



## london calling

I am not a guy,  I am female!  An irritating habit to my mind,  to call women guys....


----------



## pickarooney

JulianStuart said:


> Interesting So you suggest that "lads" in BE is now more general, like "guys" in AE?


I couldn't speak for BE although I don't think they use it the same way. I think 'lad' itself has a more specific connotation in modern BE.


----------



## jokaec

Loob said:


> Jokaec, what conclusion did you reach about your post 34 question after reading the thread?


Thank you all.
So my conclusion is that "fellows" is probably most polite in AmE. "Folks" is too formal and old fashioned. "Guys" is too casual and informal. Am I right?


----------



## pob14

jokaec said:


> Thank you all.
> So my conclusion is that "fellows" is probably most polite in AmE. "Folks" is too formal and old fashioned. "Guys" is too casual and informal. Am I right?


"Fellows" is for males only in AE (on the rare occasion when it is used), just as in BE.


----------



## Myridon

jokaec said:


> in AmE "Where do you "fellows" or "folks" or "guys" want to go for this weekend?


For me:
Where do you fellows want to go? Punting on the Thames! Pip, pip, Cheerio and all that rot!  (In other words, almost never unless you're trying to sound fake-Jeeves-and-Wooster British.)
Where do you folks want to go?  A bit rural, folksy, regional perhaps.
Where do you guys want to go? Informal and familiar, probably better if there are no really old people.
Where do you want to go?  (Simple and to the point if it's clear that you're addressing the group.)
Then there are the various regional plurals of you.


----------



## pob14

Myridon said:


> Where do you want to go?


----------



## ewie

Myridon said:


> For me:
> Where do you fellows want to go? Punting on the Thames! Pip, pip, Cheerio and all that rot!  (In other words, almost never unless you're trying to sound fake-Jeeves-and-Wooster British.)


Exactly the same for me and, I suspect, for 98% of Britishpersons.  See Feller, fella, fellow


Myridon said:


> Where do you want to go?  (Simple and to the point if it's clear that you're addressing the group.)


 from me too.  You don't have to use any form of address other than _you_


----------



## Gatuna

I was redirected to continue my query in this thread.

If 'guys' is informal, then which formal (or more neutral) term would you use to call a bunch of young men and women, say, if you were a narrator in a TV show, talking about them in the *3rd person*? I mean, if the narrator is talking about a group of young people, male and female.

Not _to_ them, but _about_ them? I'd find it very informal of the narrator to say "_the guys are planning to visit_..."

I mostly use '_they_', but there are instances where using it would be a non-sequitur, where I need to make clear that I'm talking about the boys and girls.  If the narrator says it after a long bit of talking about something else, I find it a bit difficult to just say '_they_'. Like, after an extended clip showing images of the French countryside at midnight and talking about the fauna and plants you can find in there, and then he goes back to the guys and starts the scene with something like "_they are getting ready to leave this town_..."

What would be the most fluid/natural option to use?
"The kids"?
"These people"? (as a helpful member suggested)
"The group"?
"The youths"?

Thank you in advance.


----------



## Orble

In Australia we often use “guys” in a reasonably informal context to mean a group of both males and females these days. This is true whether “to” them or “about” them. There are a range of other possibilities too though.

For example,

In a workplace a mixed group of twenty five mid-level semi-professional employees of all ages is assembled chatting in a corridor waiting for a meeting. Their senior manager arrives and calls out,

Can I have your attention please *guys*! You can move into room seven now please. (_Perfectly natural and idiomatic, especially from people of about 40 and younger.)_

Can I have your attention please *everyone*! ...  _(just as idiomatic, especially from older people. It sounds a bit more formal than “guys” and for that reason may not be favoured by those in authority wanting to sound familiar with their staff.)
_
Can I have your attention please *folks*!_ (Almost as idiomatic as the others, but is a bit “folksy” as others have suggested.)_

Can I have your attention please *people*! ... (_much less commonly heard, sounds a bit “like a school teacher”)_​
Too senior managers from different States have met to discuss what their staff, of hundreds of people each, are doing in the lead up to Christmas,

My *guys* in Hobart are planning the usual Christmas lunches during late December.​
(All the other possiblities above apply too. The fact that it “about” them rather then “to” them does not seem significant to me.)​Thinking about a narrator in a TV show, I don’t really see a difference. For Australian  _MasterChef_ for example, I’d expect to hear from the narrator, “The contestants have had a gruelling first week. Some of the guys have been expecting...”. I am sure the presenter Gary Meehan, for example, who is originally British by his accent, often uses “guys” to address the group. George Calombaris, who is very Australian, almost exclusively uses “guys”.


----------



## DonnyB

Gatuna said:


> What would be the most fluid/natural option to use?
> "The kids"?
> "These people"? (as a helpful member suggested)
> "The group"?
> "The youths"?


I would only use "kids" if they were children, and "youths" (which in BE is often rather pejorative) is generally used for all-males.  There's an increasing tendency nowadays to use "guys" to refer to mixed groups, although some people do seem to take great exception to it if they're _included_ in the description.

In the context here of a TV programme where you need a third-person term I suspect "the group" is going to be the easiest one to use, especially if the same group of people is featured together all the way through the show.


----------



## Keith Bradford

In a restaurant in Stratford-upon-Avon last month, a waiter of 22 persistently referred to my wife and me (aged 70+) as "you guys".  He was very pleasant and didn't mean to be impolite, but he just didn't realise how much it grated until I mentioned it to him at the end of the meal.

In those circumstances, I don't see the need for any noun, when "you" will suffice.


----------



## Loob

DonnyB said:


> In the context here of a TV programme where you need a third-person term I suspect "the group" is going to be the easiest one to use, especially if the same group of people is featured together all the way through the show.


That was my reaction to Gatuna's question, too.


----------



## natkretep

And another vote from me for the more neutral _the group_.


----------

