Talk:Mr.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I actually do not have strong feelings about this one way or t'other, but we must be consistent. If this is (or was) to be a Brit-Eng article using 'spelt' e.g., why is it at 'Mr.' and why does the opening line state 'Mr.' (or Mr) and then go on to say that a full stop is not usually used in Brit-Eng? Quill 20:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
OK - good point. Let's start splitting a few hairs...(!) The "preferred usage" argument does indeed propel us towards making it "Mr" rather than "Mr." (and note that it is spelt with no full stop in the disambig page at MR!) - but I don't feel strongly enough about that to go through the rigmarole of proposing a change of title for the article. I would say that any of the four combinations (Mr/spelt, Mr./spelt, Mr/spelled, Mr./spelled) is perfectly acceptable in British English, although only the last reflects American usage. I'd have no problem, in fact, with any of them. But what I do object to is American-English speakers "correcting" things needlessly just because they think it's wrong, when it isn't. Hugh2414 21:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well, you're preaching to the converted; I'm forever asking people not to do that--'correct things needlessly', I mean. I humbly point out that there are British English speakers (and we really do have to have a better way of saying that someday) here who do that too. In my experience, I must hasten to say, it is usually almost always out of ignorance rather than malice. Psst--you could always just "move" the article and duck when the fireworks start;) hee hee hee.... Quill 05:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I do not think it is acceptable in any polite society to use an honorific "Mr" when referring to onself - some people do so, of course, but generally they are not quite - well, perhaps we should not judge, but they do mark themselves out, and not in a good way.
- You're right, it isn't, people do, and it's classless. This is mentioned in the article. Quill 02:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Just a quite interesting fact: On the list of members of the House of Commons some wish to appear with Mr and some without. Should the probability of choosing to be address with Mr. or without be mentioned? --KapitanSpaltnagel 23:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- It sounds like this should be mentioned. I don't know enough to add it in, so if you do, BE BOLD; probably in the Professional titles section? Quill 02:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Mister and Master
The last section, about Mister not having a non-married equivalent is problematic, as the title 'Master' does exist. While it is somewhat out of date, or at least not often used, I do not consider myself 'Mister' until married. Thus, as an alternative to the issue of feminism and 'Mrs/Ms/Miss' men are broken down into 'Mister/Master'. Any ideas how this can be resolved? Nick Kerr 22:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- This section is not problematic at all. Post-renaissance, the title "Master" became the title for youngsters. This has nothing to do with its being out of date. The use of Mister/Master has only been a function of age and expertise, as opposed to Mistress/Mrs/Miss, where Mrs and Miss have been since their inceptions functions of marital status (with a couple of exceptions). The section is therefore correct as written and does not require resolution.
- If you are male and over the age of majority in your society, you are correctly titled Mr or Mr., regardless of whether or not you are married.
- Quill 02:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- This last statement is a bit misleading as it excludes the possibility of someone having a higher rank incompatible with the title and ignores the recent tendency to end one's "Masterhood" at a vague, but usually earlier, age -- generally high-school students are addressed as "Mr." (though whether this is correct could be questioned) though elementary school students would almost certainly not be. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Moved reference
- Douglas Sutherland, in The English Gentleman, holds that the prefix Mister is only used with those that a gentleman wishes to keep at arm's length, like Government officials.
In what context is D Sutherland's quote used? Sounds like he was being satirical--misplaced here; in any case it does not belong in an introduction. Quill 02:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Better pronunciation guide
I'd like some more phonetic guides to "Messrs". The entry states its pronounced "messers", which isn't all that clear. --Navstar 20:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Japanese: Sang
I'm not sure how that got in there, but there isn't any Japanese word "sang." It's impossible to pronounce an -ng sound in Japanese. Likely, this was a reference to "san" which is a respectful title added to last names (e.g. Nakamura-san, Koizumi-san), but this has no gender reference, and can be used with both male and female names.
- can't speak for whoever put that in there, but probably this is due to the fact that the syllabic n in the honorific "san" sounds very similar to "ng" to many english speakers. English actually contains this phoneme as well, but only before a g sound, making it difficult to hear the difference.
[edit] Court of England and Wales
If the judge is entitled to be called "Sir So-and-So" but not "Lord," how is he called? --Daniel C. Boyer 17:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- All High Court judges are knighted or created dames on appointment, but in court they are called Mr Justice or Mrs Justice. In personal correspondance they are entitled to be called Sir Joe Bloggs or Dame Jane Bloggs. Appeal court judges are called Lord Justice or Lady Justice, even though most of them are not made Lords. Both High Court and Appeal Court judges are addressed directly in court as My Lord or My Lady, irrespective of whether they are a Lord (or Lady) or not. JonoP 13:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I had a vague awareness of this custom, thus my confusion. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merging Messrs.
I propose that Messrs. should be merged into this article, Mr.. This is because Messrs. is far too short for any reasonable article, the information contained could be easily incorporated into the Mr. article, either by including it in the text or adding another heading, e.g. "Pluralisation". Furthermore, there is little potential for expansion for the existing Messrs. article - if anything its use is dwindling. --Christopher 09:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Agree 100%. Merge away. Snalwibma 11:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree as well. There's nothing wothwhile in the other article worth keeping in a seperate article. Tim (Xevious) 16:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I concur with my colleages, Messrs. Snalwibma and Xevious. Merge the other article into this one. Jacob1207 08:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
