3 ms·

That's interesting info. There's a view that I lightly hold, and I'd welcome to hear others' perspectives on it: I find myself a bit salty regarding social no

That's interesting info. There's a view that I lightly hold, and I'd welcome to hear others' perspectives on it: I find myself a bit salty regarding social norms regarding honorifics. Maybe because my first instinct is that it caters to pretensions and is anti-egalitarian (in a certain sense). To me it feels similar to when people insist on using special, quirky names for various groups of animals, e.g. a "murder" of crows. Some see it as fun, but to me that fun is tainted by some persons being snobbish. I.e., they prefer a version of English whose complexity allows them to be condescending regarding it's "proper" diction. Any reasons I should feel otherwise? (This is an earnest question. I'm sure my view needs more balance.)

iaabtpbtpnn 5y ago
Academia is all about prestige. You gotta let them have it, it's the main thing they care about. But you're right about names for groups of animals, called "terms of venery", were originally intended to mark a speaker as educated enough (in hunting traditions) to know the words, not for serious communication about animals.
- OJFord 5y ago
  > Academia is all about prestige. You gotta let them have it, it's the main thing they care about. That couldn't be further from my experience, I almost always emailed 'Dr Blah', because it just seemed correct to me, but they'd sign off 'Tom' (or whatever).