| Author |
Message |
Nick Worley
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 12:24 pm
Post subject: "serviette" vs "napkin" |
|
|
I've just read a book called "Watching the English: The Hidden Rules of
English Behaviour" by Kate Fox. It's sort of popular anthropology/social
science, looking at the peculiar tribe of people known as "the English", and
trying to identify specifically English characteristics. It's an interesting
& very funny read, with a lot of focus (unsurprisingly) on humour and class
(among many other things). (Her take on humour is a very interesting one.
Namely that the English are socially inept and that humour is our coping
mechanism for social interaction, which we find awkward/acutely
embarrassing. Humour is our default coping mode).
In one section, she lists certain words that if used by someone would
identify them as a member of a specific class. One of these words is
"serviette". She claims that using the word "serviette" would automatically
"flag" the user as working class to anyone listening who wasn't working
class. This took me completely aback, since I've always used the word
"serviette" to refer to the paper variety, and the word "napkin" to refer to
the cloth variety. (It would sound very pretentious IMO asking for more
"napkins" in Mackey D's if the serviettes had run out. Equally I wouldn't
ask for a "serviette" if eating in a restaurant that uses cloth napkins if
there wasn't one on the table).
Does anyone else make this paper/cloth distinction and use "serviette" for
the former, and "napkin" for the latter or do you *always* use one term and
never the other?
For me "serviette" and "napkin" have always been two different terms for two
different things, not class-identifying synonyms (in England at least) for
the same thing.
What do people think about this?
I'm also interested to know if this class distinction between
serviette/napkin exists in other English-speaking countries.
Regards
Nick |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 12:30 pm
Post subject: Re: "serviette" vs "napkin" |
|
|
Nick Worley wrote:
[ ... ]
| Quote: | For me "serviette" and "napkin" have always been two different terms for two
different things, not class-identifying synonyms (in England at least) for
the same thing.
What do people think about this?
I'm also interested to know if this class distinction between
serviette/napkin exists in other English-speaking countries.
|
I can't comment on the situation in the UK. In the US, at least in my
experience, "serviette" marks the speaker as British; we don't use
it. We differentiate between paper napkins and cloth napkins as I
have just done, with different two-word terms. The single word
"napkin" can indicate either or both; context often clarifies.
("Sanitary napkin" is something altogether different.)
--
Bob Lieblich
With just a skosh of insomnia tonight |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JPG
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 2:02 pm
Post subject: Re: "serviette" vs "napkin" |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:24:54 +0100, "Nick Worley" <spam@cornedbeef.com> wrote:
| Quote: | I've just read a book called "Watching the English: The Hidden Rules of
English Behaviour" by Kate Fox. It's sort of popular anthropology/social
science, looking at the peculiar tribe of people known as "the English", and
trying to identify specifically English characteristics. It's an interesting
& very funny read, with a lot of focus (unsurprisingly) on humour and class
(among many other things). (Her take on humour is a very interesting one.
Namely that the English are socially inept and that humour is our coping
mechanism for social interaction, which we find awkward/acutely
embarrassing. Humour is our default coping mode).
In one section, she lists certain words that if used by someone would
identify them as a member of a specific class. One of these words is
"serviette". She claims that using the word "serviette" would automatically
"flag" the user as working class to anyone listening who wasn't working
class. This took me completely aback, since I've always used the word
"serviette" to refer to the paper variety, and the word "napkin" to refer to
the cloth variety. (It would sound very pretentious IMO asking for more
"napkins" in Mackey D's if the serviettes had run out. Equally I wouldn't
ask for a "serviette" if eating in a restaurant that uses cloth napkins if
there wasn't one on the table).
Does anyone else make this paper/cloth distinction and use "serviette" for
the former, and "napkin" for the latter or do you *always* use one term and
never the other?
For me "serviette" and "napkin" have always been two different terms for two
different things, not class-identifying synonyms (in England at least) for
the same thing.
What do people think about this?
I'm also interested to know if this class distinction between
serviette/napkin exists in other English-speaking countries.
Regards
Nick
|
'Serviette' seems to be unknown in the US, but it is used in Canada (Ottawa)
possibly because of the French influence.
It would indicate that Americans are less French-influenced, but 'CV vs 'resumé'
seems to show the opposite, and oddly, the Ottawans also use 'CV' rather than
'resumé'.
It's a useful distinction, paper vs cloth, but then again other useful things
seem to have been abandoned by the Americans, such as 'fortnight' (two weeks).
I'm sure there are some AmE usages which are "better" than BrE, but I can't
think of any, other than the odd hybrid programme/program distinction used in
the UK. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mUs1Ka
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 2:22 pm
Post subject: Re: "serviette" vs "napkin" |
|
|
Robert Lieblich wrote:
| Quote: | Nick Worley wrote:
[ ... ]
For me "serviette" and "napkin" have always been two different terms
for two different things, not class-identifying synonyms (in England
at least) for the same thing.
What do people think about this?
I'm also interested to know if this class distinction between
serviette/napkin exists in other English-speaking countries.
I can't comment on the situation in the UK. In the US, at least in my
experience, "serviette" marks the speaker as British; we don't use
it. We differentiate between paper napkins and cloth napkins as I
have just done, with different two-word terms. The single word
"napkin" can indicate either or both; context often clarifies.
("Sanitary napkin" is something altogether different.)
Bob Lieblich
With just a skosh of insomnia tonight
|
Have a nap, Bobkin.
--
Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 3:12 pm
Post subject: Re: "serviette" vs "napkin" |
|
|
On 21 Jul 2005, JPG wrote
-snip-
| Quote: | I'm sure there are some AmE usages which are "better" than BrE,
but I can't think of any, other than the odd hybrid
programme/program distinction used in the UK.
|
I can give you one: I've found that the term "happenstance" has almost
entirely fallen out of use in the UK.
It's rather fun to use it here, especially by dropping it into a
conversation with those who are convinced that those dreadful Americans
butcher the language. Such types tend to be quite dismayed to discover
that such a charming and useful term is in common use there but not
here.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canada for 30 years; S England since 1982.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Picton
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 4:41 pm
Post subject: Re: "serviette" vs "napkin" |
|
|
Nick Worley wrote:
| Quote: | I've just read a book called "Watching the English: The Hidden Rules of
English Behaviour" by Kate Fox. It's sort of popular anthropology/social
science, looking at the peculiar tribe of people known as "the English", and
trying to identify specifically English characteristics. It's an interesting
& very funny read, with a lot of focus (unsurprisingly) on humour and class
(among many other things). (Her take on humour is a very interesting one.
Namely that the English are socially inept and that humour is our coping
mechanism for social interaction, which we find awkward/acutely
embarrassing. Humour is our default coping mode).
In one section, she lists certain words that if used by someone would
identify them as a member of a specific class. One of these words is
"serviette". She claims that using the word "serviette" would automatically
"flag" the user as working class to anyone listening who wasn't working
class.
|
In my view the class distinction is at a different level. Most Brits
(i.e. working class and middle class) say "serviette" whereas upper
class people prefer "napkin".
| Quote: | This took me completely aback, since I've always used the word
"serviette" to refer to the paper variety, and the word "napkin" to refer to
the cloth variety.
Does anyone else make this paper/cloth distinction and use "serviette" for
the former, and "napkin" for the latter or do you *always* use one term and
never the other?
|
I always say "serviette." To my Brit ear, "napkin" sounds American. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Dean
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 6:16 pm
Post subject: Re: "serviette" vs "napkin" |
|
|
Nick Worley wrote:
| Quote: | I've just read a book called "Watching the English: The Hidden Rules
of English Behaviour" by Kate Fox.
In one section, she lists certain words that if used by someone would
identify them as a member of a specific class. One of these words is
"serviette". She claims that using the word "serviette" would
automatically "flag" the user as working class to anyone listening
who wasn't working class.
|
This one has been around for ever. I'm pretty sure Nancy Mitford made
reference in her U / Non-U categorisation.
The short answer is that damn few care these days about distinguishing
one class from another and those that do have their own esoteric ways.
Serviette / napkin may well be one for some people, although IIRC Nancy
simply thought that "serviette" was non-U and marked the user down as
ineligible for the upper class so s/he might as readily be middle as
working class.
The shorter answer is - it's a load of useless tosh.
--
John Dean
Oxford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don Phillipson
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 6:28 pm
Post subject: Re: "serviette" vs "napkin" |
|
|
"Nick Worley" <spam@cornedbeef.com> wrote in message
news:3k8tdcFso1liU1@individual.net...
| Quote: | I've just read a book called "Watching the English: The Hidden Rules of
English Behaviour" by Kate Fox. It's sort of popular anthropology/social
science, looking at the peculiar tribe of people known as "the English" .
.. .
In one section, she lists certain words that if used by someone would
identify them as a member of a specific class. One of these words is
"serviette". She claims that using the word "serviette" would
automatically
"flag" the user as working class to anyone listening who wasn't working
class. This took me completely aback, since I've always used the word
|
Apparently this recent book does not credit its sources, but
this goes back to approx. 1960, when popular author Nancy
Mitford took up a scholarly work on language usage to
define English U-speak i.e. upper-class English. Most of its
practical distinctions (toilet vs. lavatory) indicate differences
of social class (not specific class) within the ambitious
middle classes (not working class.) John Betjeman wrote
a funny poem about this beginning IIRR "Send for the fish
knives, Norman. . ." because fish-knives were a notorious
Victorian invention as a class indicator (totally unneeded
for any practical reason.)
This is old stuff, still relevant within England (not Scotland,
not the USA.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick Worley
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:44 am
Post subject: Re: "serviette" vs "napkin" |
|
|
"Don Phillipson" <d.phillipson@ttrryytteell.com> wrote in message
news:DlNDe.8707$EP2.38097@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
| Quote: | Apparently this recent book does not credit its sources, but
this goes back to approx. 1960, when popular author Nancy
Mitford took up a scholarly work on language usage to
define English U-speak i.e. upper-class English.
|
The book does credit its sources, often in the text itself, and where it
doesn't in-text it does in its list of references at the back, where (among
others) Nancy Mitford's "Noblesse Oblige" from 1956 is credited.
| Quote: | Most of its
practical distinctions (toilet vs. lavatory) indicate differences
of social class (not specific class) within the ambitious
middle classes (not working class.)
|
What do you mean by "social class" here (as opposed to "specific class")?
Regards
Nick |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick Worley
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 2:00 am
Post subject: Re: "serviette" vs "napkin" |
|
|
"John Dean" <john-dean@frag.lineone.net> wrote in message
news:dbo3i0$90r$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
| Quote: | The short answer is that damn few care these days about distinguishing
one class from another and those that do have their own esoteric ways.
|
Personally I think there are still plenty of people who *do* still care
about distinguishing one class from another, although I agree that those who
do have their own esoteric (a.k.a. (IMO) totally
out-dated/ridiculous/superior) ways.
| Quote: | [snip]
The shorter answer is - it's a load of useless tosh.
|
I couldn't agree more. It's just a means of feeling superior to someone else
IMO.
Regards
Nick |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick Worley
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 2:02 am
Post subject: Re: "serviette" vs "napkin" |
|
|
"Nick Worley" <spam@cornedbeef.com> wrote in message
news:3kac7sFt4h7kU1@individual.net...
| Quote: | "Don Phillipson" <d.phillipson@ttrryytteell.com> wrote in message
news:DlNDe.8707$EP2.38097@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
Apparently this recent book does not credit its sources, but
this goes back to approx. 1960, when popular author Nancy
Mitford took up a scholarly work on language usage to
define English U-speak i.e. upper-class English.
The book does credit its sources, often in the text itself, and where it
doesn't in-text it does in its list of references at the back, where
(among others) Nancy Mitford's "Noblesse Oblige" from 1956 is credited.
Most of its
practical distinctions (toilet vs. lavatory) indicate differences
of social class (not specific class) within the ambitious
middle classes (not working class.)
What do you mean by "social class" here (as opposed to "specific class")?
Regards
Nick
|
To repeat myself, what I'm mainly interested in is the following:
Does anyone else make this paper/cloth distinction and use "serviette" for
the former, and "napkin" for the latter, or do you *always* use one term and
never the other? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alan Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 2:37 am
Post subject: Re: "serviette" vs "napkin" |
|
|
"Don Phillipson" <d.phillipson@ttrryytteell.com> wrote in message
news:DlNDe.8707$EP2.38097@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
[...]
| Quote: | ....this [discussion of the social implications of "serviette"
and "napkin"]
goes back to approx. 1960, when popular author Nancy
Mitford took up a scholarly work on language usage to
define English U-speak i.e. upper-class English.
[...] |
Has anyone ever seen a copy of the "scholarly work" to which Nancy Mitford
refers? Does it exist, or is the whole thing a joke by her and her friends?
By the way, in answer to Nick Worley, yes, I do make the distinction - sort
of: the cloth thing is always a "napkin", the paper thing is, as one word,
always a "serviette", but I sometimes say a "paper napkin". As for the fish
knives, I understand that in U households fish is eaten with a fork with an
edge suitable for dividing the soft flesh - no knife. So to acquire special
fish knives is a middle-class give-away, rather like having to buy one's
furniture. Somewhere in the attic is a velvet-lined box containing six
silver fish knives and forks, doubtless horribly tarnished. I suppose they
were a wedding present to my mother, but I don't think they were ever used,
though we were never a U household (respectable working class made
moderately good, actually).
One point no one seems to have made yet is that an AmE diaper is a BrE nappy
or napkin, which out of any context just means a small cloth. I seem to
remember that Gertrude wipes Hamlet's sweaty brow with a napkin.
Alan Jones |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:31 am
Post subject: Re: "serviette" vs "napkin" |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
| Quote: |
On 21 Jul 2005, JPG wrote
-snip-
I'm sure there are some AmE usages which are "better" than BrE,
but I can't think of any, other than the odd hybrid
programme/program distinction used in the UK.
I can give you one: I've found that the term "happenstance" has almost
entirely fallen out of use in the UK.
|
"Happenstance" must be carefully distinguished from the pose of
standing on one leg with the calf of the other parallel to the ground
-- generally referred to as the "hoppin' stance." I think that's
another American term that hasn't made it across the Pond.
| Quote: | It's rather fun to use it here, especially by dropping it into a
conversation with those who are convinced that those dreadful Americans
butcher the language. Such types tend to be quite dismayed to discover
that such a charming and useful term is in common use there but not
here.
|
Sorta like when they hear "gotten"?
--
Bob Lieblich
Mad for the hoppin' stance |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:34 am
Post subject: Re: "serviette" vs "napkin" |
|
|
Nick Worley wrote:
| Quote: |
"John Dean" <john-dean@frag.lineone.net> wrote in message
news:dbo3i0$90r$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
The short answer is that damn few care these days about distinguishing
one class from another and those that do have their own esoteric ways.
Personally I think there are still plenty of people who *do* still care
about distinguishing one class from another, although I agree that those who
do have their own esoteric (a.k.a. (IMO) totally
out-dated/ridiculous/superior) ways.
[snip]
The shorter answer is - it's a load of useless tosh.
I couldn't agree more. It's just a means of feeling superior to someone else
IMO.
|
Hey, we takes our feelings of superiority where we finds 'em.
'Course, serviette isn't in my active vocabulary. I wouldn't know it
at all were it not for all that British stuff I read. So I have to
show off my superiority in other ways. Right now, however, I'm not
doing so good in that department. I seem to have lost all my
superiority. Perhaps it drowned in Lake Superiority.
--
Bob Lieblich
What AM I going on about? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Dean
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:48 am
Post subject: Re: "serviette" vs "napkin" |
|
|
Robert Lieblich wrote:
| Quote: | Nick Worley wrote:
"John Dean" <john-dean@frag.lineone.net> wrote in message
news:dbo3i0$90r$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
The short answer is that damn few care these days about
distinguishing one class from another and those that do have their
own esoteric ways.
Personally I think there are still plenty of people who *do* still
care about distinguishing one class from another, although I agree
that those who do have their own esoteric (a.k.a. (IMO) totally
out-dated/ridiculous/superior) ways.
[snip]
The shorter answer is - it's a load of useless tosh.
I couldn't agree more. It's just a means of feeling superior to
someone else IMO.
Hey, we takes our feelings of superiority where we finds 'em.
'Course, serviette isn't in my active vocabulary. I wouldn't know it
at all were it not for all that British stuff I read. So I have to
show off my superiority in other ways. Right now, however, I'm not
doing so good in that department. I seem to have lost all my
superiority. Perhaps it drowned in Lake Superiority.
|
I have an Erie feeling you might be right. Huron to a winner there.
--
John Dean
Oxford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in