Talk:U and non-U English

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the Table doesnt look correct specially not for 1950s - what? for Upper Class and pardon? for non - Napkin vs. Serviette ...

Is the table correct? Speaking as an American, I would have said bike, sick, and rich were the lower-class words, of the options given. 7 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)

The table is correct for 1950s Britain, which is where the debate was set. Some word usage has changed since: cycle as a noun is little used. It would have been U to consider ill as simply the adverbial form of bad, and wealthy as overly emphatic about money. --Gareth Hughes 7 July 2005 19:08 (UTC)

So, what's with Betjeman's fish-knives? Is it non-U to possess them, or just to call them that? (And, if so, what did my 1950s social betters call them?) –Hajor 7 July 2005 19:29 (UTC)

The poem is about a housewife attempting to be correct and proper. To this end, she insists on fish-knives. No matter how practical these implements may be, possessing sets of fish-knives, cake-forks or melon-spoons would be considered to be slightly posh. --Gareth Hughes 7 July 2005 19:41 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. So it is owning them that's being parodied, not the nomenclature (thankfully -- for the life of me I couldn't think of a synonym for "fish-knife"). And the cake forks crop up later in the poem, of course. Ta. –Hajor 7 July 2005 19:49 (UTC)

In addition additional cutlery wasn't introduced until the late 19th Century, so to own such items would suggest purchase rather than inheritence. Y control 10:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

As I grew up in the 70s, I remember that my mum had a set of cake-forks that she was very proud of. If we had guests to dinner, cake was served with a 'Please use the cake-forks'... Oh, to be upwardly mobile! --Gareth Hughes 8 July 2005 10:48 (UTC)

Oh dear, she thought she had to tell them. Fancy American silverware sets, with "special" implements for special uses were invented after the Civil War, when manners among the nouveaux-riches got very genteel indeed. Oysterforks? Everywhere but Boston and Philadelphia, Americans were taught to shift their fork from left to right before stuffing it in their face. Very laughed-at in Anglo Boston and I think high Philadelphia too. --Wetman 8 July 2005 16:18 (UTC)

The table does look correct, albeit with a decidedly British tint. Words such as "bike", "sick", and "rich" may seem non-Upper in their simplicity, but it is the self-confidence of the Uppers that lets them use such simple words. Non-Upper speakers, on the other hand, feel as if they must inflate their language with multisyllabic or Latinate words in their best attempt to imitate the more sophisticated Upper speakers.--Plainsong 17:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Agree. The same applies in writing, where good writers use the correct word for the job, especially if it's also the simplest. Those with a chip on their shoulder and something to prove feel they have to use the most obscure words and complicated structures that they can, and end up both sounding ridiculous and, all too often, not saying what they were trying to say in the first place. This is the root cause of a lot of incomprehensible middle-manager-speak. PeteVerdon 18:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The whole idea is originally British. Yes, it can be appied to US English, but that would be a secondary application of the term. Gareth Hughes 20:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd say there is a problem with the table: Some expressions appear to be middle-class only, while the table labels them as universally 'Non-U', which is definitely an error in a case such as 'pardon' vs. 'what'. I'd propose leaving the table data intact but adapting the description/labels to make it correct. (Not changing anything mysself as I'm by no means an authority on the subject, so maybe I'm just wrong.) -- Anon 05:31, 24 August 2006 (CEST)

Just dropping in to say this is a great page, thanks all. Sills bend 10:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

With Wikipedians "adjusting" the table to suit their POV, I'll just be removing the reference that links it to Nancy Mitford's list, then... --Wetman 12:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Wetman I was just modifying the table to reflect the paper by Alan Ross, and the reference material that I posessed on it, I presume this conflicts slightly with Nancy Mitford's list. Sorry about that, I don't know if you wish to revert. Y control 13:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

leaving bike, sick and rich out of the way, there are still weird things in that table. as the extreme example it seems unlikely to me that "pardon" would be used by lower class and "what" by upper class. similarly i'd expect "mental","preserve","serviette" to be U class too, just because they are the more sophisticated variant of the two. and... well... ok i promised not to comment on wealthy/rich.

Upper-class usage is consistently frank, direct and terse. The elaborations and genteel euphemisms are middle class.--22:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The upper classes don't have to be "sophisticated". There's no mistaking who they are, and it doesn't particularly matter what anyone else thinks. In this way they're much like the lower classes. The middle classes, however, are subject to all these peculiar affectations. Non-U terminology is one manifestation of their insecurity; another is their attitude to swearing. Upper and lower swear with abundance; the middle regard it as shocking and unacceptable. --DrPizza 13:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Heartily agree. See "The Fucking Fulfords" for example. PeteVerdon 18:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The non-U words such as serviette, pardon and toilet derive from the French, and the upper classes associate them historically with the Napoleonic War when anything French was considered very tacky indeed.

They are still, definitely, non-U. Nic 09:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

One of the things the article fails to mention is that this is still an important device used regularly by the upper middle class, in England at least. My wife is constantly irritated by my 5 year old daughter's usage of the word toilet which is preferred usage among said daughter's teaching staff (all non-public school teachers in Britain are trotskyists). Nic 09:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• The bottom two Non-U and U examples in the table seem to be flipped around. "Rich" is a much more common term in casual contexts than "wealthy", and "Pardon?" is much more formal than "What?". -Silence 16:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, whats the deal with Jam/Preserve and Table-Napkin/Serviette? And why aren't there any sources for any of this information? Andre (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The current table doesn't look right to me. I think people have been editing the list according to what sounds "posher" to themselves but this is incorrect. The whole point of the U and non-U distinctions was to detect who was a social climber who didn't really belong and used what they thought were genteel words. *Serviette* is definitely the non-U choice, and I think so is *pardon*.

Agreeing with the above comments. One need merely read Kate Fox's 'Watching the English' to realise that 'serviette' is the non-U choice, as is 'pardon'. Alternatively one could compare the difference between the speech at an Oxford High Table and the servery staff.

The non-U of dinner clothes was Tux. Toilet is U; Loo would be better: Lavatory and the very exquisite mealy-mouthed Lav are non-U. Dame Edna is non-U, don't you see? That's the joke of Dame Edna. People are "correcting" this list who've never met an upper-class person in their suburban lives. I'll just take it off my Watchlist and you can all fool about with it to suit yourselves. --Wetman 22:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)