# Different words, different social levels



## Artrella

Hi People!  I want to know if in your respective languages there are words that are used according to the speaker's social level.
For instance, in Spanish we use "habitación" "dormitorio" when the style is more related to high social level, and "pieza" kind of less "high-society".
The same thing happens with the use of the article "la Silvia" "el Hugo", this is commonly heard in lower classes.  There is an exception to this when we refer to a celebrity "la Giménez".  
I've heard somewhere that in Spain, some regions of that country use this article but it is not considered sub-standard.
I also read in my German book "Ich bin der Inge", this is informal but not considered sub-standard.

Does this happen in other languages?
Thank you


----------



## JLanguage

Artrella said:
			
		

> Hi People! I want to know if in your respective languages there are words that are used according to the speaker's social level.
> For instance, in Spanish we use "habitación" "dormitorio" when the style is more related to high social level, and "pieza" kind of less "high-society".
> The same thing happens with the use of the article "la Silvia" "el Hugo", this is commonly heard in lower classes. There is an exception to this when we refer to a celebrity "la Giménez".
> I've heard somewhere that in Spain, some regions of that country use this article but it is not considered sub-standard.
> I also read in my German book "Ich bin der Inge", this is informal but not considered sub-standard.
> 
> Does this happen in other languages?
> Thank you


 
I don't know about specific words in American English, but there are definitely slangs and accents usually associated with different classes. The well-educated and middle/upper-class also tends to use more high-falutin classy  vocabulary.


----------



## Agnès E.

Bonjour Artrella 

In French, we use to say, for a house :
"un pavillon" for a little and not particularly luxurious house with tiny garden
"une villa" for a bigger house with a proper nice garden

"une situation" for a top executive job (prestigious and good for socializing in your "villa" in Nice...)
"un emploi" for a more average job (enables you to pay your bills, your "pavillon" and to educate your children)


----------



## ceirun

Hi Art. In the UK, I think one of the typical examples would be to do with the names of mealtimes:

If you are working-class:

Midday meal = dinner
Early evening meal = tea
Nighttime meal = supper

For the middle classes:

Midday meal = lunch
Evening meal = dinner
??? = supper

Maybe other people will have different opinions about this, though.


----------



## garryknight

The first example I thought of was that what the more educated British would call a napkin tends to get called a serviette by working-class people. And in the old days a middle-class person would use the toilet while the working classes went to the lavatory, but this seems to have levelled out and we all now use the toilet (although one at a time, usually).

There is still quite a class divide in the UK and it's still driven by differences in education and professional expectations. But it's not as bad as it was painted in an article in last Sunday's _El País Semanal_, the author of which seems to very much have it in for us Brits, almost to the point of xenophobia.


----------



## Narda

I believe that there will always be different ways to express ourselves and definitely it will be determined by the level of education, it happens in all countries, regardless of what they speak.  Normally people with more resources have access to a better education, although I must say that I have met many wealthy people with a very poor education and a lousy way to express themselves.  My own, humble experience.


----------



## Artrella

*I thank you all for your replies*.  If anyone else is aware of words that have the same meaning but are used by different social levels I will appreciate you write them here.


----------



## Agnès E.

Hello Artrella, 
Some new ideas in French :
For the word "some food" : "du manger" (low level language) and "de la nourriture" (high level).
For the word "car" : "une auto" (low level language) and "une voiture" (high level).


----------



## zebedee

Agnes E. said:
			
		

> Hello Artrella,
> Some new ideas in French :
> For the word "car" : "une auto" (low level language) and "une voiture" (high level).



What about "une bagnole" (spelling?) I seem to remember that meant car too?


----------



## Agnès E.

zebedee said:
			
		

> What about "une bagnole" (spelling?) I seem to remember that meant car too?



Yes Zebedee, it does, but just with a colloquial/slang use. It is not linked to "social level" vocabulary.
And... your spelling was right, bravo!


----------



## garryknight

Agnes E. said:
			
		

> For the word "some food" : "du manger" (low level language) and "de la nourriture" (high level).


This has me wondering if there's any difference in perceived social level between Spanish speakers who say 'dar de comer' and those who say 'alimentar'.


----------



## timpeac

Artrella said:
			
		

> The same thing happens with the use of the article "la Silvia" "el Hugo", this is commonly heard in lower classes. There is an exception to this when we refer to a celebrity "la Giménez".
> I've heard somewhere that in Spain, some regions of that country use this article but it is not considered sub-standard.
> I also read in my German book "Ich bin der Inge", this is informal but not considered sub-standard.
> 
> Does this happen in other languages?
> Thank you


 
The (UK) English equivalent of this is "our". "Our Rachel said that...." In isolation this would probably suggest she is a member of your family, but it can be anyone you know well and are affectionate to. This is mainly a Northern thing than a southern thing.


----------



## ceirun

timpeac said:
			
		

> The (UK) English equivalent of this is "our". "Our Rachel said that...." In isolation this would probably suggest she is a member of your family, but it can be anyone you know well and are affectionate to. This is mainly a Northern thing than a southern thing.


Another example being "our kid", which usually refers to the youngest sibling in the family.


----------



## Artrella

So, this use of "our So and So" is used by people of lower social status in opposition to just "So and So" or is it only a regionalism?
I'm interested as well in nouns used  according to social level.  

Any Italians here or Germans who can add to this "study" I'm carrying out??

Thanks for your help people!!!


----------



## timpeac

Artrella said:
			
		

> So, this use of "our So and So" is used by people of lower social status in opposition to just "So and So" or is it only a regionalism?
> I'm interested as well in nouns used according to social level.
> 
> Any Italians here or Germans who can add to this "study" I'm carrying out??
> 
> Thanks for your help people!!!


 
I think "our so-and-so" is used in lower status speech (if by that you mean the opposite of "posh"). However, it is regional in that I don't think anyone uses it (posh or not) in the south of England.


----------



## Agnès E.

Another thing coming back to my mind (Artrella, this thread is most interesting  )

for possessive form (Artrella's book) = Le livre à Artrella (low level language) and Le livre d'Artrella (high level language)


----------



## Artrella

timpeac said:
			
		

> I think "our so-and-so" is used in lower status speech (if by that you mean the opposite of "posh"). However, it is regional in that I don't think anyone uses it (posh or not) in the south of England.



Wow! This is new to me! Can you provide me with the "higher status speech's" version of the "so-and-so"?
*Thanks Tim*, for your help.  I am trying to collect the most possible words that denote the level of the group who uses them.


*Agnes*, you are great!! You've already gave me a lot of examples, thanks!!


----------



## Silvia

Italians might use the definite article before a proper noun, but it is not proper Italian, it's just a regionalism used especially in the North.

It looks like, in my country, distinguished people have a French "r" and sometimes they can't spell "s" properly, I really have no idea of how that began and when, but I thought it was worth mentioning, since some people who can pronounce both, started to pronounce them that way, in order to sound noble or upper class or who knows.

Also, once upon a time (now it's about to disappear), you could sound more distinguished pronouncing a "u" in place of the simple diphthong "io" (ex. giuoco instead of gioco). That comes from educated Italian, though now it's oldfashioned, Mr Berlusconi can talk like that, he's such a wanna-be at times.

About words, I'm not sure some of them are qualified to be pronounced by upper classes only. Often if you put some French and some Latin here and there, you can show off enough to come across as educated and upper class.


----------



## weird

Artrella said:
			
		

> Hi People!  I want to know if in your respective languages there are words that are used according to the speaker's social level.
> For instance, in Spanish we use "habitación" "dormitorio" when the style is more related to high social level, and "pieza" kind of less "high-society".
> The same thing happens with the use of the article "la Silvia" "el Hugo", this is commonly heard in lower classes.  There is an exception to this when we refer to a celebrity "la Giménez".
> I've heard somewhere that in Spain, some regions of that country use this article but it is not considered sub-standard.
> I also read in my German book "Ich bin der Inge", this is informal but not considered sub-standard.
> 
> Does this happen in other languages?
> Thank you



Hola a todos 

En español suenan muy incultas algunas frases en las que se utiliza el verbo “echar”

•	Me voy a echar un rato (Voy a dormir la siesta) 
•	Mi madre nos echa de comer a las dos (Mi madre sirve la comida a las dos)
•	Echo media hora en ir al trabajo (Tardo media hora en ir al trabajo)

Verbos como:

•	Trincar (Robar)
•	Soplar (Beber)
•	Jalar (Comer mucho)
•	Chingar (practicar el coito)


En Andalucía, es muy habitual pero denota poca cultura decir:

Po (en lugar de pues)  y  Mu (en lugar de muy).  ¡Po mú bien!  

Decir:  Mi Eduardo no me come nada.  (Mi hijo Eduardo no come)


Y también:   Me se ha caído el libro (en lugar de “se me ha caído el libro”)

Sobre esto último nos enseñaron una regla en el colegio, que me ha servido toda la vida. 

Antes del MEs viene la Semana


En Cataluña es corriente decir:  La Mary Carmen. Creo que es una traducción del catalán donde es admitido aunque al resto nos suena fatal.

Saludos.-


----------



## Artrella

> *Agnes*, you are great!! You've already gave me a lot of examples, thanks!!!




OHHH please!! Allow me to post this "empty post"... I made a terrible mistake ... it is not You've already gave   me....   You've already *given*  


Now it is correct... I don't like making mistakes...aarrrggghhhh


----------



## vbede772

Some examples from American English (really just my observations):

Who/Whom: Only the upper-middle or upper class seems to know when to use whom. Not really a great example of word differences, just proper usage.

John/Can/Toilet/various vulgarities vs Bathroom: The first examples are used almost exclusively by the lower middle class or social classes below. Bathroom seems most natural for me, and I believe is the predominant word for those of the middle classes and higher.

Now that I think about it, there probably is a lot less of this class word difference in the US than in say the UK, or Latin America, where class differences are historically more ingrained/important in the culture.

In fact, much humor in the US is directed at "high" sounding words. No one I know ever would refer to their car as an automobile. It sounds pretentious, and Americans are in general very sensitive to anyone coming off as pretentious. They are derided and the subject of much humor and disgust.

I myself prefer plain speech, by which I mean Anglo-Saxon root words in favor of Latin derivatives. It is not necessarily a conscious choice either. I do a lot of listening to conversations and like sometimes to count the number of "foreign" derived words people use. It is truly astonishing how rare "foreign" derived words are used in day to day conversation. I wonder if this is an American English thing, or if it is general practice in other English speaking countries.


----------



## Artrella

vbede772 said:
			
		

> Some examples from American English (really just my observations):
> 
> Who/Whom: Only the upper-middle or upper class seems to know when to use whom. Not really a great example of word differences, just proper usage.
> 
> John/Can/Toilet/various vulgarities vs Bathroom: The first examples are used almost exclusively by the lower middle class or social classes below. Bathroom seems most natural for me, and I believe is the predominant word for those of the middle classes and higher.
> 
> Now that I think about it, there probably is a lot less of this class word difference in the US than in say the UK, or Latin America, where class differences are historically more ingrained/important in the culture.
> 
> In fact, much humor in the US is directed at "high" sounding words. No one I know ever would refer to their car as an automobile. It sounds pretentious, and Americans are in general very sensitive to anyone coming off as pretentious. They are derided and the subject of much humor and disgust.
> 
> I myself prefer plain speech, by which I mean Anglo-Saxon root words in favor of Latin derivatives. It is not necessarily a conscious choice either. I do a lot of listening to conversations and like sometimes to count the number of "foreign" derived words people use. It is truly astonishing how rare "foreign" derived words are used in day to day conversation. I wonder if this is an American English thing, or if it is general practice in other English speaking countries.




Thank you vbede for your contribution!  I agree with you as regards "who/whom".  However "John vs toilet" seems more to be a case of informal vs formal.  
What I want to know is if in languages other than Spanish there is a differentiation in the usage of non-colloquial words (such as "John, Can" etc)
in connection to social status.

Again my example:  you have 3 words to describe a room (or a bedroom in some cases) * habitación- cuarto -pieza*.  The first two words are mostly used by higher levels.  The third one by common people, ordinary people.

Is there any word that follows this pattern in English?


----------



## vbede772

I can't think of any outstanding examples. My feeble brain has come up with:

Couch, sofa, settee. I'm not sure if these are EXACTLY the same item in strict English, but I could use any of them to describe the same multi-person, upholstered place to sit. Also, the difference in who uses what word may not be social, but regional.


----------



## Artrella

vbede772 said:
			
		

> I can't think of any outstanding examples. My feeble brain has come up with:
> 
> Couch, sofa, settee. I'm not sure if these are EXACTLY the same item in strict English, but I could use any of them to describe the same multi-person, upholstered place to sit. Also, the difference in who uses what word may not be social, but regional.




Yes, I was asking this, because I cannot think of examples in English, that's why I resorted to native English speakers.

Thank you anyway, vbede, you are helping me with this info, because it seems that in English it does not happen the same as in Spanish!


----------



## garryknight

I thought of the "who/whom" example earlier but I didn't post it because I don't think of it so much as an issue of class as one of education. There's obviously some overlap, but many people that might be considered 'working class' know how and when to use "whom" and many of the so-called 'upper classes' don't. But the very least-educated always say "who", the slightly better-educated get it wrong and say things like "I don't know whom it was that did it", the well-educated get it right both ways, and the erudite know that "whom" is _passé_ and always say "who", thereby agreeing with the least-educated.

As for "sofa", "settee", and "couch", it's possible that there are some physical differences between them, but I doubt it. It's like "lounge", "drawing room", and "living room". People who have a "lounge" put a "sofa" in it. My "couch" is in my "living room". I've known people who have a "settee" in the "drawing room". The "sofa" people use "serviettes", but not usually at home, only in a restaurant - at home, they use kitchen towels. The "couch" people use "napkins" (with their couch potatoes?) and might keep a few at home. The "settee" people probably have a fresh supply of "napkins" and "serviettes" delivered weekly with their d'oilys.

One other difference I've noticed, that's also to do with education rather than class (but you can make your own mind up on this one), is the use of reflexive pronouns. People who have missed out on (or forgotten) their education, when trying to cover up this fact, always seem to substitute "yourself" for "you", "myself" for "me", and so on. I remember the scene in Big Brother when Craig confronted Nasty Nick and said something like, "I've got a bone to pick with yourself". (I might be misremembering the actual words, but it was exactly this kind of misuse.) In fact, this kind of construction clearly isn't at all reflexive, and I wonder what name it ought to have.

But I seem to have opened a whole can of worms here with the question of whether any particular usage of language can be said to be class-related, education-related, or both. Now the can's open, why not let's go fishing?


----------



## Artrella

garryknight said:
			
		

> I remember the scene in Big Brother when Craig confronted Nasty Nick and said something like, "I've got a bone to pick with yourself". (I might be misremembering the actual words, but it was exactly this kind of misuse.) In fact, this kind of construction clearly isn't at all reflexive, and I wonder what name it ought to have.
> 
> But I seem to have opened a whole can of worms here with the question of whether any particular usage of language can be said to be class-related, education-related, or both. Now the can's open, why not let's go fishing?




Garry, what does that phrase mean? Of course it is not reflexive.  Why do you need a name for it? Isn't it ungrammatical?  

*
The can of worms*>> It is related.  That's why I opened this thread.  If you take a child who goes to school but is poor, you will notice that in two different situations he has the same vocabulary :  a restricted one.  He will use the same range of words in a colloquial talk and in a more formal conversation. 
A child who goes to school but is not poor has two kinds of vocabulary: the restricted one and the wide vocabulary.  And he applies them according to the situation.

So vocabulary is social-economical related.


----------



## garryknight

Artrella said:
			
		

> Garry, what does that phrase mean? Of course it is not reflexive.  Why do you need a name for it? Isn't it ungrammatical?



It certainly is ungrammatical. But why shouldn't we have a name for it? We have names for many features of "ungrammar". For example, the malapropism.



			
				Artrella said:
			
		

> So vocabulary is social-economical related.


And is 'class' social-economical related? Or is it related to education? Or upbringing and manners? (And are the last two part of 'social' for you?) Or how close you are to the Royal Court (or what's left of it these days)? There are a lot of worms in that can.

Basically, what I'm saying is that if your definition of class is wide enough then you should get plenty of examples of words that differ 'across the social divide'. Which is what you want, of course.


----------



## Artrella

garryknight said:
			
		

> It certainly is ungrammatical. But why shouldn't we have a name for it? We have names for many features of "ungrammar". For example, the malapropism.
> 
> 
> And is 'class' social-economical related? Or is it related to education? Or upbringing and manners? (And are the last two part of 'social' for you?) Or how close you are to the Royal Court (or what's left of it these days)? There are a lot of worms in that can.
> 
> Basically, what I'm saying is that if your definition of class is wide enough then you should get plenty of examples of words that differ 'across the social divide'. Which is what you want, of course.




Garry, yes, maybe we should have a name for that.  This of course clashes with nowaday's Grammar tendency ( for instance Chomsky) >> avoid labelling.

Then about social-status, yes maybe I am "mixing the worms in that can".
What I meant is that although you are a millionaire and I am a millionarie, certain habits you acquired from the craddle (this is what Bourdieu calls "habitus") and I didn't because my craddle was "poorer" than yours,  show in the way you speak.

For instance a man like Maradona who was extremely poor in his childhood but now has a lot of money, he says "pieza" (bedroom) whereas a person whose family is traditionally rich, he will say "habitación" or "cuarto" (bedroom)

 I hope I've been clear...


----------



## garryknight

You've been perfectly clear. And your Maradona example shows that old and new notions of what constitutes 'class' (and scientific, and not-so-scientific notions) cut across each other. It was all so much simpler when it was just the King, the merchants, and the rabble (sigh!). Anyway, I hope you get lots more examples.


----------



## vbede772

LOL at the couch, sofa, settee analysis, Garry  I think this is about as close as we get in English to a class difference, but it is a pretty weak one. I know I have used couch and sofa interchangebly. I never use settee, that seems to be the preserve of the rich, and is rather rare--at least over here. Lounge or drawing room would be unmistakebly upper class here--the overwhelming majority of poor, working class, or middle class would use living room.

My favorite people to listen to for grammatical errors and improper word usages  are the semi-educated. My boss is one of these. He mixes up phrases and words that sound like something he is trying to say, but it comes out absurd. It is quite clear he was poorly educated as a youth, but did go to university and this is what has completely confused this man. (He went to university on an athletic scholarship---surprise  ) At least a street thug never tries to pretend to not be a street thug and make a fool of himself. "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than open one's mouth and remove all doubt."--(lot's of confusion on the origin of this quote)

In general, a rich person will be better educated than a poor person...in general. Sure, there are woefully ignorant rich people, and well educated poor people, but I'm sure there is a rising trend of education consummate with a rise in income. 

Anyway, back on topic....

I'm interested on theories of why this would develop in a given culture--different words for the same things reflecting class origin. Is it indicative of a culture where the elite are almost completely out of touch with the masses? I would think this would be the case. What cultures really take this to extremes? I think much of South and Central American cultures would be considered--at least historically--such examples.  Perhaps this was the case in Czarist Russia? China before the revolution? 

How prevalent is this in Spanish? Is it the same in Spain as in Chile, or Ecuador etc?


----------



## te gato

Hey Art GF;

I do not realy think that I can do three words..but I can do two.. 

Dine--Upper class
Eat---My class

Boutique--upper
Store--my class

Burglarized--Upper
Robbed--My Class

I will rack my brain for more..
te gato


----------



## suzzzenn

Hi Art, 

I think a lot of vocabulary is marked for class. The typical usage of a very poor person and a wealthy one would be different enough that one could identify socio-economic class from looking at a transcript of their speech. There was one study I read this semester where a poor Hispanic New Yorker claimed she identified someone as middle class by the vocabulary used. The middle class speaker had use words like chronically, congestion, efficient, delay, and cruel! I wouldn't have considered any of those words restricted to one class, but they were pointed to as identifers. In this study, a researcher had asked New Yorkers of different classes to talk about the subway and traffic in NY (a topic that everybody has a lot to say about). The tape was played for various people to see how well people could identify race, class, and ethnicity, (there was more to it than that). The study was done by Bonnie Urciuoli and published in her book, Exposing Prejudice: Puerto Rican Experiences of Language, Race, and Class. 

Rather than there being a strict set of words that belong to one class or another, there are somewhat overlapping sets of vocabulary. For example, I know an wealthy elderly woman who uses the word handbag (instead of purse), foyer (instead of entryway), livid (instead of mad), denim (instead of jeans), tennis shoes (instead of sneakers), parlor (instead of living room), dressing gown (instead of robe), marvelous (instead of great), and  child (instead of kid). I could probably come up with more! I don't think this is exactly what you are looking for. However, if, using your experiment, you took her out of her elegant home and set her up in a poor neighborhood, her language would make her stand out like a sore thumb.

I know you don't want slang or grammar differences, but I am sure we could all come up with a lot of those. 
Interesting question, 
Susan


----------



## Artrella

suzzzenn said:
			
		

> Hi Art,
> I know you don't want slang or grammar differences, but I am sure we could all come up with a lot of those.
> Interesting question,
> Susan



Bingo!!!  You hit the nail on the head *Susan*!!!  



*tg Y-GF*:  Thank you!!


----------



## garryknight

vbede772 said:
			
		

> Lounge or drawing room would be unmistakebly upper class here


Really? Over here, everyone and his dog calls it a 'lounge'. (Well, the dogs bark it...). Although I get the impression that many seem to think that it's the term the 'people of substance' would use. We did another thread some time ago about what names people give to their meals. And it's usually the people who have 'dinner' at 1pm and 'tea' at about 6pm that have it in the 'lounge' (or the kitchen), while those who have 'lunch' around 1 and 'dinner' around 8 or so, have theirs in the 'dining room' and watch TV in the 'living room'. They do use the term 'lounge', though, but it refers to a particular type of bar in a pub.

I guess what's going on here in reality is that we're all sorting ourselves into 'snobs' and 'non-snobs'.  



			
				te gato said:
			
		

> Burglarized--Upper


I don't think 'burglarized' is upper-class, I think it was invented by the average US policeman. We use 'burgled' over here, and I'm sure that's what appears in Websters, too. If it happens in the street in broad daylight, would you have been 'robberized'? 



			
				suzzzenn said:
			
		

> I know an wealthy elderly woman who uses the word handbag (instead of purse), foyer (instead of entryway), livid (instead of mad), denim (instead of jeans), tennis shoes (instead of sneakers), parlor (instead of living room), dressing gown (instead of robe), marvelous (instead of great), and child (instead of kid).


Maybe she'd spent some time in the UK. Over here a purse is a small container in which you keep your change, credit cards, and keys, and you carry it around in a handbag. We also say 'foyer', 'tennis shoes', 'dressing gown', and 'marvellous' (although we say it with two Ls). Most people over here also over-use the word 'kid', referring not only to children but to young adults, and a great deal of the time it's used in a pejorative sense. People who are aware of this are more likely to use the words 'child' and 'children'.


----------



## te gato

garryknight said:
			
		

> I guess what's going on here in reality is that we're all sorting ourselves into 'snobs' and 'non-snobs'.
> 
> I don't think 'burglarized' is upper-class, I think it was invented by the average US policeman. We use 'burgled' over here, and I'm sure that's what appears in Websters, too. If it happens in the street in broad daylight, would you have been 'robberized'?


HELP!!! garyknight..I have just been robberized!!!!..or was that rubberized.. 

and wouldn't you know it!!!...
over there...at the same time you were on your settee in your parlor and you got burgled...
I was over here on my couch, in my living room and I was robbed... 

te gato


----------



## gaer

vbede772 said:
			
		

> Some examples from American English (really just my observations):
> 
> Who/Whom: Only the upper-middle or upper class seems to know when to use whom. Not really a great example of word differences, just proper usage.


In my experience, many well-educated people choose not to use "whom" at all, but it's a decision. What gives away people who do not understand English is USING "whom", when it is incorrect.

An example: I asked "whom" was responsible". (It should be "who".)

Another give away is "between my wife and I". It's the same thing. People are brainwashed into thinking that "I" is always correct.

I can't think of nouns that are used differently according to level of education. There are also words that show specialized knowledge. Almost all the people I know use "classical music" to describe several centuries of music. Musicians realize that it is pointless to correct this. 

Gaer


----------



## mjscott

It is best to be clear with toilets, commodes and such. Even laterally (as opposed to vertically), cross-cultural differences in language shortcuts can lead to misunderstandings, as in the following story:



My friend is a rather old-fashioned lady, always quite delicate and elegant, especially in her language. She and her husband were planning a week's vacation in Arizona; so she wrote to a travel trailer court and asked for a reservation. 

She wanted to make sure the campground was fully equipped, but didn't quite know how to ask about the "toilet" facilities. She just couldn't bring herself to write the word "toilet" in her letter. After much deliberation, she finally came up with the old-fashioned term "bathroom commode". So, she started all over again and referred to the bathroom commode merely as the B.C. "Does the campground have its own B.C."? is what she actually wrote. 

Well, the court manager, Herman, wasn't old-fashioned at all and when he got the letter, he just couldn't figure out what the woman was talking about. That B.C. business really had him stumped. 



After worrying about it for awhile, he showed the letter to several campers, but they couldn't imagine what the lady meant either. So, he finally came to the conclusion that the lady must be asking about the location of the Baptist Church. He sat down and wrote the following reply: _Dear Madam:_ 


_I regret the delay in answering your letter, but now take pleasure of informing you that a B.C. is located 9 miles north of the campground and is capable of seating 250 people at one time. I admit, it is quite a distance away if you are in the habit of going regularly, but no doubt you will be pleased to know that a great number of people take their lunches along and make a day of it. They usually arrive early and stay late._ 

_The last time my wife and I went was 6 years ago and it was so crowded we had to stand up the whole time we were there. It may interest you to know that right now there is a supper planned to raise money to buy more seats. They are going to hold it in the basement of the B.C. I would like to say it pains me very much not to be able to go more regularly, but it is surely no lack of desire on my part. As we grow older, it seems to be more of an effort, particularly in cold weather._ 

_If you decide to come down to our campground, perhaps I could go with you the first time you go, sit with you, and introduce you to all the other folks._ 

_Remember, this is a friendly community._ _Sincerely,_ 
_Herman_

​


----------



## timpeac

garryknight said:
			
		

> One other difference I've noticed, that's also to do with education rather than class (but you can make your own mind up on this one), is the use of reflexive pronouns. People who have missed out on (or forgotten) their education, when trying to cover up this fact, always seem to substitute "yourself" for "you", "myself" for "me", and so on. I remember the scene in Big Brother when Craig confronted Nasty Nick and said something like, "I've got a bone to pick with yourself". (I might be misremembering the actual words, but it was exactly this kind of misuse.) In fact, this kind of construction clearly isn't at all reflexive, and I wonder what name it ought to have.


 
I laughed all your original post, Garry, very well observed.  

I can't add much more to the content so I'll just try to answer your question.

You call words like "yourself" (in this usage) disjunctive (disjunctive pronoun). They are the "pointing" forms "who did it? *Him*!" or used after a preposition, "give it to *him*". In French this would be "moi, toi, lui" etc in Spanish "mí, tí él" etc.

So I think you are being a little unfair to poor Craig. I don't think he is using "yourself" to be reflexive in any way. My take on it is that he feels the normal disjunctive form of "you" which is also "you" (I've got a bone to pick with you) is not strong enough here (or is perhaps too direct) and so is using a longer form of the word. I'm not saying that this usage would be accepted as "standard" I'm just saying I don't think it was ever intended to have any reflexive meaning.

It is the same phenomenon with "me" in the pointing sense. "Who called the doctor? Me!" It would sound strange to say just "I" here, and of course in languages like French it has become impossible - "Qui parle français? Je!" would be ridiculous.

You hear the big brother usage a lot, such as "could I ask yourself to spend 5 minutes answering this questionnaire?" and although my descriptive head just sees it as a grammatical neologism adding an extra element of "politeness" or making it "less direct" I must admit my purist snobby heart does cringe when I hear it!!


----------



## garryknight

timpeac said:
			
		

> I think you are being a little unfair to poor Craig. I don't think he is using "yourself" to be reflexive in any way.
> ...
> "could I ask yourself to spend 5 minutes answering this questionnaire?"
> ...
> my purist snobby heart does cringe when I hear it!!


No, of course Craig wasn't using it to be reflexive. That's _why_ he was misusing it. And if someone ask me the above question, I wouldn't  understand them. At all.


----------



## gaer

mjscott said:
			
		

> It is best to be clear with toilets, commodes and such. Even laterally (as opposed to vertically), cross-cultural differences in language shortcuts can lead to misunderstandings, as in the following story:


Should we assmume that B.C. is Baptist Church? Or did I miss it?  

Gaer


----------



## mjscott

The woman was asking about a B.C.-- bathroom/commode.
The man who answered her question (she was too embarrassed to use the words directly) thought she was referring to the B.C.--the Baptist Church, and answered accordingly.

Cheers!


----------



## gaer

mjscott said:
			
		

> The woman was asking about a B.C.-- bathroom/commode.
> The man who answered her question (she was too embarrassed to use the words directly) thought she was referring to the B.C.--the Baptist Church, and answered accordingly.
> 
> Cheers!


OKAY! Do I get a prize?  

G


----------



## Artrella

So far, having read all these helpful posts of you, I cannot say that in English we have the same phenomenon (?) as we have in Spanish. The examples you have provided show a kind of misuse of certain words, or confusable situations, but apparently the use of different words such as my examples _(pieza, cuarto, habitación, dormitorio)_ does not occur... I think it may be due to the lack of a rich vocabulary compared to the Spanish one?


----------



## garryknight

Artrella said:
			
		

> I think it may be due to the lack of a rich vocabulary compared to the Spanish one?


Like any other language, English inherited a great deal of its vocabulary from invaders, and we were invaded by Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Romans, and almost everyone else apart from the Greeks (at least, until they opened up their restaurants in the 60s). And when our ancestors took our language over to North America and India, and a few other places, it picked up a few more thousand words. I think our vocabulary is doing all right, thank you! 

The 'misuse of certain words' in this thread was a bit of a sidetrack. It's not so much that our vocabulary is lacking, in my opinion, it's more that class division (at least in the UK) has been signalled in other ways: customs, manners and social graces (or the lack of them) as well as dress and the type of property one owns, especially in the form of land and buildings. As the wealth has spread so has the availability of the more expensive possessions, so people will look to differences in custom and education in order to prop up the social divide and thus keep 'the others' in their place.


----------



## Artrella

garryknight said:
			
		

> Like any other language, English inherited a great deal of its vocabulary from invaders, and we were invaded by Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Romans, and almost everyone else apart from the Greeks (at least, until they opened up their restaurants in the 60s). And when our ancestors took our language over to North America and India, and a few other places, it picked up a few more thousand words. I think our vocabulary is doing all right, thank you!
> 
> The 'misuse of certain words' in this thread was a bit of a sidetrack. It's not so much that our vocabulary is lacking, in my opinion, it's more that class division (at least in the UK) has been signalled in other ways: customs, manners and social graces (or the lack of them) as well as dress and the type of property one owns, especially in the form of land and buildings. As the wealth has spread so has the availability of the more expensive possessions, so people will look to differences in custom and education in order to prop up the social divide and thus keep 'the others' in their place.




Garry, I didn't mean to offend your language at all, in fact I love English!!
But I think we have more words to describe just a "bedroom" or "room".  I don't say that one language is better than the other, right?  I love any language, I like to compare and study them.

And what you said about social classed division according to parameters other than language, this is really useful to me, because now I can see the differences between languages.  Spanish seems to show these differences related to social level , which seems not to appear in English.

Thank you for your contributions!!  I'm understanding 
languages and cultures now.


----------



## garryknight

Artrella said:
			
		

> Garry, I didn't mean to offend your language at all, in fact I love English!!


I didn't think you meant anything offensive. Your love of English shows in your posts. In fact, you've said it several times before in posts that I've read.



			
				Artrella said:
			
		

> Spanish seems to show this differences _*['this difference' or 'these differences']*_ related to social level , which seems not to appear in English.


I wouldn't say that it doesn't appear at all in English, just perhaps not as much as in some other languages. And some of the posts in this thread show that there _are_ differences in English usage that are class-related. Or education-related. Or both. People will use any difference they can get hold of in order to be one-up on other people. It's just possible that we Brits excel at this. But we are getting better, honest!


----------



## leenico

When I was young & uneducated we stored unused items down the "cellar". Now since I've been to college I no longer store them down the "cellar," I store them in the "basement." Ha Ha.


----------



## libertad y justicia

> I think it may be due to the lack of a rich vocabulary compared to the Spanish one?



How unlogical is this declaration?


----------



## cuchuflete

This source discusses a declines in obvious class distinctions based on speech. [BE]
http://www.putlearningfirst.com/language/04change/process.html


----------



## Artrella

libertad y justicia said:
			
		

> How unlogical is this declaration?



You tell me Libertad!  

I meant that having 4 words for the same thing allows a language to be used to a tool for showing differentiation in classes.


----------



## garryknight

leenico said:
			
		

> I no longer store them down the "cellar," I store them in the "basement."


A cellar and a basement aren't the same thing, though. A cellar is a storage area which is below a living space and which is usually undecorated and unfurnished (or at least relatively so). A basement is a living area that is below ground level. Of course, a cellar can be converted to a living area.



			
				libertad y justicia said:
			
		

> How unlogical is this declaration?


The word "Illogical" would be grammatically correct here.



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> This source discusses a declines in obvious class distinctions based on speech.


Interesting, thanks.



			
				Artrella said:
			
		

> I meant that having 4 words for the same thing allows a language to be used to a tool for showing differentiation in classes.


You mean like "lounge", "living room", "sitting room", and "drawing room"?


----------



## Artrella

garryknight said:
			
		

> You mean like "lounge", "living room", "sitting room", and "drawing room"?




Yes!!!! Yes!!! Yes!!!  Now tell me... do you use them intechangeably?? Is one of these words more frequently used according to social level??


----------



## garryknight

Artrella said:
			
		

> Yes!!!! Yes!!! Yes!!! Now tell me... do you use them intechangeably?? Is one of these words more frequently used according to social level??



Well, it's difficult to answer this. If I try and rank them according to what I perceive to be their social level, someone else will tell me I'm wrong. And while people use them to generally mean the same thing, there are differences. In the old days a "gente gorda" would have a living room, a drawing room (known back then as a "withdrawing room") and possibly a sitting room (or, at least, a library) all in the same house. But the sitting room (or maybe the living room) was more often known in those days as a "parlour" (the "talking room", as you can tell from the root of the name). The drawing room was always used after dinner, usually by the men, and usually for smoking and drinking brandy or whatever, while the ladies withdrew to the parlour. Guests would have been received in the parlour or in the library. There are probably people who still live like that.

But, for the rest of us, our houses are likely to have one or two "reception" rooms, one of which is usually the dining room and the other is given the name "lounge", "living room", "sitting room", "drawing room", or even "parlour". And which name is used depends on who it is that's using it, which part of the country they come from, their level of education (in the sense of both "formación" and "educación"), their income, the social level that they perceive themselves to occupy, and whatever name their parents used for that particular room.

So, you see, it's complicated.

As I said earlier I have a living room; but if people call it a "sitting room" it wouldn't sound odd to me. I wouldn't call it a "drawing room" as that would sound a little pretentious, and "parlour" would sound very pretentious to me. On the other hand, a "lounge" is what they have in a pub, along with a "saloon", although it seems that most people have a "lounge" in their house. As this is all relative to my particular way of thinking, in order to help you make sense of it you'd probably need to know that my parents were "white collar working class", that is, they worked in offices rather than in factories, shops, and so on. If they had been born a generation later they would have been "upwardly mobile" moving into middle class. I was lucky enough to be born a generation later and went from working in offices (temp, clerk, bookkeeper, accountant) to self-employed (computer programmer, psychotherapist, sometime writer) but don't consider myself either "working class" or "middle class" (and obviously not "upper class"), although most demographics would probably put me in the middle bracket.

Does any of this help?


----------



## Artrella

garryknight said:
			
		

> Well, it's difficult to answer this. If I try and rank them according to what I perceive to be their social level, someone else will tell me I'm wrong. And while people use them to generally mean the same thing, there are differences. In the old days a "gente gorda" would have a living room, a drawing room (known back then as a "withdrawing room") and possibly a sitting room (or, at least, a library) all in the same house. But the sitting room (or maybe the living room) was more often known in those days as a "parlour" (the "talking room", as you can tell from the root of the name). The drawing room was always used after dinner, usually by the men, and usually for smoking and drinking brandy or whatever, while the ladies withdrew to the parlour. Guests would have been received in the parlour or in the library. There are probably people who still live like that.
> 
> But, for the rest of us, our houses are likely to have one or two "reception" rooms, one of which is usually the dining room and the other is given the name "lounge", "living room", "sitting room", "drawing room", or even "parlour". And which name is used depends on who it is that's using it, which part of the country they come from, their level of education (in the sense of both "formación" and "educación"), their income, the social level that they perceive themselves to occupy, and whatever name their parents used for that particular room.
> 
> So, you see, it's complicated.
> 
> As I said earlier I have a living room; but if people call it a "sitting room" it wouldn't sound odd to me. I wouldn't call it a "drawing room" as that would sound a little pretentious, and "parlour" would sound very pretentious to me. On the other hand, a "lounge" is what they have in a pub, along with a "saloon", although it seems that most people have a "lounge" in their house. As this is all relative to my particular way of thinking, in order to help you make sense of it you'd probably need to know that my parents were "white collar working class", that is, they worked in offices rather than in factories, shops, and so on. If they had been born a generation later they would have been "upwardly mobile" moving into middle class. I was lucky enough to be born a generation later and went from working in offices (temp, clerk, bookkeeper, accountant) to self-employed (computer programmer, psychotherapist, sometime writer) but don't consider myself either "working class" or "middle class" (and obviously not "upper class"), although most demographics would probably put me in the middle bracket.
> 
> Does any of this help?



Well, first of all what "a gente gorda" is??
Then, it helps because it appears that you don't differentiate words according to social level.
Here in Argentina, if you say "la Silvia" instead of "Silvia" (without the article)
you are probably a low social class person.
If you say "voy a mi habitación" instead of "voy a mi pieza" you are a higher social class person probably.

Vocabulary here, changes according to social status.

Thanks Garry!


----------



## garryknight

Artrella said:
			
		

> Well, first of all what "a gente gorda" is??


My dictionary defines it as "well-to-do people, rich people". But it marks it as local to Spain. Perhaps you have another term in Argentina - "gente bien", maybe, or "gente de pelo"?


----------



## Artrella

garryknight said:
			
		

> My dictionary defines it as "well-to-do people, rich people". But it marks it as local to Spain. Perhaps you have another term in Argentina - "gente bien", maybe, or "gente de pelo"?





Gente bien... and the pronunciation of "bien" like in French...


----------



## LV4-26

In Atrella's examples in her first post, I think she made it clear that "habitacion", "dormitorio" and "pieza" all referred exactly to the same thing. So far, we've had very few such examples in other languages. For instance, Agnes explained that a "pavillon" wasn't exactly the same thing as a "villa".
My feeling is that, as time goes by, everybody tends to use the same vocabulary (at least in France but it appears to be the same in anglophone countries). And here I see the influence of media. Many people watch television and use the language which is spoken on TV.

But we did have such differences before. I'll take an example which has already been mentionned in other languages : toilets.
In France, everybody says "les toilettes" nowadays. But, when I was young you could find a lot people (most often less educated) who said "les cabinets" or "les waters".

Now if I take such a simple word as "oui". 
The ordinary people (like me) used to say "*oui*" and the elite felt that "oui" was too short and said "*absolument*".
Then they switched to "*tout à fait*" some fifteen years ago. But this time, everybody followed and now, everybody says "tout à fait".
If somebody tells me something and I just answer "oui", you can bet he/she will ask me "don't you agree ?" 
The only excpetion are the youngsters who use "c'est clair", instead.
As for myself, I try to stick to "oui" (résistance! résistance!)


----------



## garryknight

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> The ordinary people (like me) used to say "*oui*" and the elite felt that "oui" was too short and said "*absolument*".


This reminds me of the mid '80s in Southern England when yuppies (young, upwardly-mobile people) were springing up everywhere. Not one of them was content to just say "yes". Every single one of them always, on every occasion, no matter what the question was, would say "oh, absolutely!". And they always said it in exactly the same way, with exactly the same inflection. It was what I used to call "keeping up with the Cloneses".


----------



## leenico

> A cellar and a basement aren't the same thing, though. A cellar is a storage area which is below a living space and which is usually undecorated and unfurnished (or at least relatively so). A basement is a living area that is below ground level. Of course, a cellar can be converted to a living area.


Not true Garry. All basements are not living areas. There are many unfinished basements. Normally when you purchase a new home the basement is unfinished & unfit for living purposes. When I was a kid all below ground spaces in a home were considered cellars. Today a cellar is usually a part of a basement normally used for the storage of wine.  

http://www.poconopropertyshowcase.com/special/pag85.php


----------



## Artrella

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> In Atrella's examples in her first post, I think she made it clear that "habitacion", "dormitorio" and "pieza" all referred exactly to the same thing. So far, we've had very few such examples in other languages. For instance, Agnes explained that a "pavillon" wasn't exactly the same thing as a "villa".
> My feeling is that, as time goes by, everybody tends to use the same vocabulary (at least in France but it appears to be the same in anglophone countries). And here I see the influence of media. Many people watch television and use the language which is spoken on TV.
> 
> But we did have such differences before. I'll take an example which has already been mentionned in other languages : toilets.
> In France, everybody says "les toilettes" nowadays. But, when I was young you could find a lot people (most often less educated) who said "les cabinets" or "les waters".
> 
> Now if I take such a simple word as "oui".
> The ordinary people (like me) used to say "*oui*" and the elite felt that "oui" was too short and said "*absolument*".
> Then they switched to "*tout à fait*" some fifteen years ago. But this time, everybody followed and now, everybody says "tout à fait".
> If somebody tells me something and I just answer "oui", you can bet he/she will ask me "don't you agree ?"
> The only excpetion are the youngsters who use "c'est clair", instead.
> As for myself, I try to stick to "oui" (résistance! résistance!)




Great!! This is what I meant!! "oui" vs "absolument"...this is a clear example, though you say this is not longer in use...good to know.
Merci, LV4-26.


----------



## asm

There is no doubt that differences among classes (SES for socioeconomic Status) do exist.

In Mexico we used to have a joke with this:
cesped y pasto
pelo y cabello
automovil y coche
(a very despective one, that I always hated: sirvienta, criada, muchacha were used to express "maid", but the bad one was "gata" to refer to girls who work like maids. , this one was used by higher status (obviously with no education and respect)
Escuela - colegio (private in general) poor people never use colegio in Mexico.


All these are "oficial" words, I cannot mention slang, which uses a lot of different patterns.




			
				Artrella said:
			
		

> Hi People! I want to know if in your respective languages there are words that are used according to the speaker's social level.
> For instance, in Spanish we use "habitación" "dormitorio" when the style is more related to high social level, and "pieza" kind of less "high-society".
> The same thing happens with the use of the article "la Silvia" "el Hugo", this is commonly heard in lower classes. There is an exception to this when we refer to a celebrity "la Giménez".
> I've heard somewhere that in Spain, some regions of that country use this article but it is not considered sub-standard.
> I also read in my German book "Ich bin der Inge", this is informal but not considered sub-standard.
> 
> Does this happen in other languages?
> Thank you


----------



## Artrella

asm said:
			
		

> There is no doubt that differences among classes (SES for socioeconomic Status) do exist.
> 
> In Mexico we used to have a joke with this:
> cesped y pasto
> pelo y cabello
> automovil y coche
> (a very despective one, that I always hated: sirvienta, criada, muchacha were used to express "maid", but the bad one was "gata" to refer to girls who work like maids. , this one was used by higher status (obviously with no education and respect)
> Escuela - colegio (private in general) poor people never use colegio in Mexico.
> 
> 
> All these are "oficial" words, I cannot mention slang, which uses a lot of different patterns.




Well, finally a Latinamerican like me!! ASM, yes, you seem to be like us!  I like your post, it is really useful and helpful to me... Gracias Amigo!


----------



## cuchuflete

In this neck of the woods, pronunciation and diction are better indicators of social differences than vocabulary.  The latter varies according to age and education more than economic differences.

In this region/area= upper
around here=middle
in this neck of the woods=lower

around here=middle
'round heyuh=lower
'raun heh=lower variant


----------



## Auryn

I was given a crash course in the British class system when I worked as an au pair for two different London families. In the first family (wealthy but nouveau riche) I was asked to 'hoover' the 'lounge' and clean the 'toilet'. In the second family (upper middle-class) I was asked to 'vacuum' the 'sitting-room' and clean the 'loo'. It was confusing at first, I can tell you


----------



## Artrella

Auryn said:
			
		

> I was given a crash course in the British class system when I worked as an au pair for two different London families. In the first family (wealthy but nouveau riche) I was asked to 'hoover' the 'lounge' and clean the 'toilet'. In the second family (upper middle-class) I was asked to 'vacuum' the 'sitting-room' and clean the 'loo'. It was confusing at first, I can tell you





Oh! This shows what I was asking!  So in English words do differ according to social level... interesting...


----------



## Artrella

I remember someone (American) saying some time ago that the word "reckon" in the US is used by some special people from the country... and that common people don't use this word that is currently used in Great Britain.  Could this be an example of what I am asking?


----------



## cuchuflete

Artrella said:
			
		

> Oh! This shows what I was asking!  So in English words do differ according to social level... interesting...



http://forum.wordreference.com/showpost.php?p=172910&postcount=4
http://forum.wordreference.com/showpost.php?p=172910&postcount=5

Some of the first posts in this thread established that.


----------



## garryknight

leenico said:
			
		

> All basements are not living areas.


Logically, I'd have to disagree with you since some basements _are_ living areas. But I'll assume that you mean "Not all basements are living areas". 
I agree with you that many of them are unfinished. What I meant was that at the time a house is built, the design purpose of the basement is to function as a living area, whereas the design purpose of a cellar is to function as a storage area. It's similar to the difference between an attic and a loft: the first is intended as a living area, the second is for storage.



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> In this neck of the woods, pronunciation and diction are better indicators of social differences than vocabulary.


Ayup!



			
				Artrella said:
			
		

> I remember someone (American) saying some time ago that the word "reckon" in the US is used by some special people from the country... and that common people don't use this word that is currently used in Great Britain. Could this be an example of what I am asking?


"Reckon" used to be used in GB in the sense of "consider", as in "Do you reckon he's coming to the party tonight?", but it isn't used so much these days. A more educated person might say "Is he considering coming to the party tonight?", but it's far more likely that anyone from any social stratum would say "Do you think he's coming...?". And the word "reckon" is hardly ever used in its original sense of "to calculate", these days.

Another word that's used as a verb in the US is "to figure": "Is he figuring on coming to the party tonight?", or the ubiquitous phrase "Go figure!". In the UK, "figure" is used almost exclusively as a noun, from what I can make out, although "Go figure!" is becoming alarmingly more popular, in popular speech as well as on the Net.

The words "reckon" and "figure", when used to mean "consider" or "think", might be considered by strict grammarians to be ill-educated in use, but the language continues to change daily. People from all walks of life are influenced by the language usage of others and maybe the world gets a little more democratic because of this.


----------



## Artrella

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> http://forum.wordreference.com/showpost.php?p=172910&postcount=4
> http://forum.wordreference.com/showpost.php?p=172910&postcount=5
> 
> Some of the first posts in this thread established that.



Thank you Cuchu for the reminder, so these two links you provided me with and the one I mentioned, prove that English speakers use different words according to the social level.


I've found the "reckon" discussion, I'm quoting what Chaucer said



> Hey, and I say "Hey!" because I want to counter the huge impression of "reckon" as backwoods or country or bumpkin in connotation, and so limited to quaint use by the sophisticated or educated, or to those less than. It is not. Many people of all stations and walks of life have it in their vocabulary. I use it as much as I use, for example, "well, considering", and I am not a country bumpkin or rural. But where I live now (and it is not the Southwest) people use it.
> 
> So if those Americans laughed, I do not give them the benefit of the doubt, they were being ignorant, as ignorant as they would be if they had laughed at anyone using "reckon" here.
> 
> Americans are not known for their linguistical breadth or powers even in their own language. The two students were ambassadors of the idiot sort.



http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=4710&highlight=reckon


----------



## cuchuflete

According to your post #65, you had proof.  I was just wondering what was so remarkable about #64, as it provided just one more example of what was stated clearly at the beginning of the discussion.  

Whether one, or three, or three hundred examples, constitute proof, is entirely up to you to decide.


----------



## leenico

> Logically, I'd have to disagree with you since some basements are living areas. But I'll assume that you mean "Not all basements are living areas".
> I agree with you that many of them are unfinished.


I believe that is what I have said.



> What I meant was that at the time a house is built, the design purpose of the basement is to function as a living area, whereas the design purpose of a cellar is to function as a storage area. It's similar to the difference between an attic and a loft: the first is intended as a living area, the second is for storage.


I beg to disagree w/ you again garry. Many people use their basements simply as storage areas. In my area I would guess that more than 50% of the homes have unfinished basements. Mine is unfinished & used as storage. I have a washer, dryer & a shower down there, but the walls are unfinished (no sheet rock.) I did paint the walls w/ waterproofing though. I have no need for a finished basement because I have an ample recreation room above ground to serve the purpose. My living & dining room is used only to entertain guests.


----------



## garryknight

leenico said:
			
		

> garryknight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the design purpose of the basement is to function as a living area
> 
> 
> 
> I beg to disagree w/ you again garry. Many people use their basements simply as storage areas.
Click to expand...

But you're not really disagreeing with what I said, which related to the design function, not what it's actually used for. You could flood it and use it for a swimming pool, but that wouldn't alter the fact that the design function of a basement is as a living area. Anyway, maybe we could agree instead that the purpose of a basement is to be used for whatever it's used for.


----------



## cuchuflete

There has been a shift in the use of the words cellar and basement in this small corner of the world.  Houses like mine, built hundrends of years ago, had cellars.  There was no design intent other than holding up the house, with possible storage of root crops, and cisterns for rainwater build into the hearth supports.  

Today they are called basements.  Some remain unfinished.  Others are panelled and provided with such amenities as electricity. New houses all have basements, whether designed for storage or living.  The word cellar is only used to refer to unfinished areas, typically with ceilings so low that one cannot stand up straight, in old houses.

I'm not sure whether this supports one of you or the other.  In any case, that's how those words are used today in this coastal village.

A loft is a storage area or an elevated sleeping area, usually for children.  I have no idea whether that usage has made its way into any dictionary.  It's the way local people use the word.

Saludos,
Cuchu


----------



## Phryne

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> In this neck of the woods, pronunciation and diction are better indicators of social differences than vocabulary. The latter varies according to age and education more than economic differences.
> 
> In this region/area= upper
> around here=middle
> in this neck of the woods=lower
> 
> around here=middle
> 'round heyuh=lower
> 'raun heh=lower variant



Further to this message, not only you can find words that “sort of” reflect your social class in the US (or any other country as a matter of fact), but there are words that show where you come from (South, Midwest, West, Boston, New York, East L.A., etc), and words that belong to specific communities regardless of social classes (African Americans, Latino, etc.), and others that represent your age group, group where you belong (or want to be part of), etc, etc. Anyway, social classes here are far more expanded than just "lower" and "upper", not to mention sometimes people use them interchangeably depending on the message to covey or the environment where they're at. For example, my very suburban middle class hubby claims to be "livid" (what te gato considers to be "upper" class) and other times, among his "buddies", he might say that "Julie ain't coming".

saludos


----------



## Hakro

Agnès E. said:
			
		

> For the word "car" : "une auto" (low level language) and "une voiture" (high level).


 Funny: In Finnish "auto" is used generally but "vaunu" (=voiture) is used only by (elderly) taxi drivers, especially Mercedes drivers.


----------

