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)
The whole force of the "Non U" controversy was that it concentrated on the small differences - mainly separating the upper class from the upper middle or middle class. "Pardon" and "What" are good examples - the upper class said "What", the middle class said "Pardon" and the working class said "What", just like the upper class. The table is right, I think, because the U words were upper class and the non U words were not: it does not matter that the U words were often working class as well. Chelseaboy 10:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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)
The distinction is about class, not formality. Although the article doesn't go into it much, much of what explains the pattern that you are noticing is that the middle class aspire to move up. They (mistakenly) associate formality with the upper class and over time modify their vocabulary to match their aspirations. The upper class doesn't worry about such pretensions, and is able to continue using "courser" vocabulary, which in English tends to be of Anglo-Saxon origin. The lower classes, not aspiring to be upper class also tend to have held onto AS vocabulary. This phenomenon is discussed at length in Paul Fussell's book, Class.Craig Butz (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2007 (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)
I assumed the whole table came from Ross's original study.Craig Butz (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Napkin/Serviette is actually rather interesting. In parts of Canada, and I only have my dictionary as a source for this, "serviette" is considered the proper word. Apparently the word "napkin" has become tainted due to its connection with the fine products of the Kotex Corporation. --Charlene 05:35, 23 June 2007 (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*.

I hope it's not being messed with, as it's a summary of the 1950's research. Anyone have the original to check and mend?Craig Butz (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Craig, I can't find a transcription of the original Ross paper, but the gist of it is included in Noblesse Oblige of which I have a copy and is easily acquired. The article as it stands today is true to form. However, it is concerned with 'British' English - I dare say the Americans, like every society, have hidden class indicators altogether different.Nick Michael (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

Who are all these vulgar people who really think "pardon" is correct? It just sounds so... horribly middle class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.68.31 (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

---Trivia" Poem--- The poem at the bottom of the article is by John Betjeman and is definitely copyvio. Rhinoracer 13:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Out it goes then...! Nick Michael 15:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lavatory, Lav, Toilet, Loo

129.67.116.113 changed the table so that "Lavatory" was listed as non-U. This (and I am sorry if I offend 129.67.116.113's sensibilities - or class aspirations) is manifestly wrong, and I have reverted his/her edit. The following small selection of sites will no doubt bear me out:

http://davidaslindsay.blogspot.com/2007/03/non-u-bend.html

http://clivedavis.blogs.com/clive/2007/04/u_nonu_useful.html

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,808510,00.html?iid=chix-sphere

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20070417/ai_n19013407

Nick Michael 16:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Does Mitford's original glossary bear this out? Since that's what the table is a summary of, it really is all that matters, regardless of what the blogosphere (or 129.67.116.113) says. Craig Butz (talk) 07:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting point Craig. Is the article about Mitford's original (1956) list of U/non-U words and expressions? Or is it concerned with what she was writing about - the use of linguistic indicators to designate class? If it is about the former, then it could be reduced to a few lines. But if the latter, broader sense is indicated, then reams could be written! The expression 'U' and 'non-U' were (and maybe still are - I have lived outside England for too long to know) commonly used and understood by all those concerned with such things - and they certainly went beyond Mitford's little essay. The list of phrases in the article is by no means the full list given by Mitford, who also dwells on pronunciation as a class-indicator (she writes: I even know undisputed U-speakers who pronounce girl 'gurl', which twenty years ago would have been unthinkable). Mitford's essay is a snapshot of the class indicators in the 1950's, but such indicators have certainly evolved and increased since then. Anyway, the lavatory/toilet indicator does indeed figure in Mitford's work (on p. 32), so you can rest assured there.Nick Michael (talk) 21:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] many inverted

Many of these look inverted. "What?" for the upper class instead of pardon? Jam instead of preserve? Have vandals being switching things around here? If not what are the sources for these examples? David D. (Talk) 23:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Many of them come from the Mitford book. The best rule of thumb is that if a word/phrase sounds upscale it's actually pretentious and if it looks plain and blunt it's something the British upperclass would actually say. The thinking behind it is that the upperclass and lower-class don't care what anyone thinks of them, so they say what they like, but the middle-class is full of Hyacinth Buckets striving to impress each other, so they use a fancy word where a simple one would suffice.
As for "how do you do," that is always preferable to "pleased to meet you." You don't yet know whether you are pleased to meet the person, so saying that you are sounds insincere or overeager. The usual answer to "how do you do" is to repeat the same phrase back to the first speaker. Ariadne55 (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
If this is the case the article could do a better job of explaining the rationale. What you wrote above is far more clear than the article itself. I never got a sense of this being a social climber phenomenon. David D. (Talk) 01:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


yeah, i'll second that... they're all scrambled. someone fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.232.225 (talk) 02:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing inverted, and all are correct (as of this writing). Ariadne55 has provided an excellent explanation of the phenomenon (above), and I heartily endorse David D.'s call for clarity in the article. If I get time I'll think about incorporating Ariadne55's comments into the article, since s/he's no longer active. Nick Michael (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why fish knives etc are Non-U

Silver (as in those sets one ate - pronounced et - with) made before the late 19th century did not include them (or cake forks - though they could have had these smaller forks for fruit, possibly bought separately with the grape scissors etc) as they hadn't been invented. So anyone who used fish knives would be showing that they hadn't inherited the silver and so would be classed as nouveau riche and not acceptably aristocratic. See particularly the effect the Industrial Revolution had on class and money in the UK (and later, WWI especially - Mitford's era). As for language, if one wanted to really split class, then whereas drawing-room is upper and lounge is aspirational-middle, the rest of us proles call it the sitting room. I come from prime bottom-feeding working-class stock and we used to tease our middle-class cousins as coming from 'Pardonia' as we thought it so pretentious to be asked 'Pardon?' if they misheard us. And yet despite that, I could never - from earliest childhood - bring myself to say 'toilet' instead of lav/lavatory, or 'couch' or say 'Please to meet you.' Funny that, innit? Anyone who wants more discourses on UK class indicators than they could shake a silver spoon at, is welcome to ask. Plutonium27 (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The more I read this old explanation the more I doubt it. To me, it just doesn't 'smell' right. If it were so, then it would be/would have been non-U to have modern crockery - and as far as I know (as a third generation nouveau whose parents were frightfully careful about such things) such is not the case. Likewise for anything else 'inheritable': houses (stately homes), furniture, glass, pictures, you name it. Yet the possession of modern houses/furniture/glass/art does not usually provoke smirks and suppressed giggles all round. It's well, fishy. I wonder if the real reason isn't that fish knives & forks are somehow dainty and finicky, qualities the U-classes have always loathed. Do you think Elizabethan hooray Henrys sniggered at people who used forks in the Jacobean period when they first came in? It's a delightful thought... Nick Michael (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)