couldn't be offensive sometimes?
"you guys"
You can aim it at my audience in this way whatever the weather and anytime.
Cheers.
Cheers.
It's informal and is used primarily in North America, although not 'offensive' as such.
One thing about "you guys" is that in at least most North American English dialects in which such is used, despite the literal etymologically-based meaning of such, the actual meaning is purely genderless in nature. For example, despite the use of the word "guys", one can actually use "you guys" with groups of people which are comprised of, say, only women. Furthermore, even though I've heard some non-native English speakers claim that it is, I've never actually heard any native English speakers, in particular those whose dialects natively include "you guys", claim that it is at all sexist or like.
"You guys" is one of several ways of expressing a plural "you" in English (since the true singular, thou, is not normally used today). "You guys" means plural you, and other forms of you mean you singular. Some people use it when it's important to emphasize a plural you.
Other ways of doing this include the "you all" or "y'all" of some speakers in the southern U.S., and the "youse" of speakers in a few other areas.
I'm sure British and Australian English probably have similar needs filled in similar ways, but I'm not sure what expressions they use.
A few very tiny enclaves of English speakers still use the true singular "thou," but not always in the way it has historically been used (as a simple singular, and not a marker of something else).
Other ways of doing this include the "you all" or "y'all" of some speakers in the southern U.S., and the "youse" of speakers in a few other areas.
I'm sure British and Australian English probably have similar needs filled in similar ways, but I'm not sure what expressions they use.
A few very tiny enclaves of English speakers still use the true singular "thou," but not always in the way it has historically been used (as a simple singular, and not a marker of something else).
Speaking as a female, yes, I find it very offensive to be called a "guy". If you are speaking to a group that includes women, please show some manners and refer to the group as "ladies and gentlemen" or even just "folks".
I wonder how men would feel if the country started referring to all males and females as "ladies".
I wonder how men would feel if the country started referring to all males and females as "ladies".
<<Speaking as a female, yes, I find it very offensive to be called a "guy". If you are speaking to a group that includes women, please show some manners and refer to the group as "ladies and gentlemen" or even just "folks".>>
The problem with your alternatives, in my dialect at least, is that they have the wrong tone: 'ladies and gentlemen' is too formal, and 'folks' sounds like you're trying to be rustic. The best alternative, if you're really concerned about using 'you guys' is simply 'you'. There are few situations in which the ambiguity would cause a problem, and English has gotten by fairly well without this distinction for 300 or so years.
As Travis explained above, 'you guys' is essentially just a plural pronoun in many North American varieties; the fact that 'guys' generally refers to males doesn't really matter. It's in the same league as 'his-tory' and 'e-man-cipate' in terms of sexism. Do those words offend you too?
The problem with your alternatives, in my dialect at least, is that they have the wrong tone: 'ladies and gentlemen' is too formal, and 'folks' sounds like you're trying to be rustic. The best alternative, if you're really concerned about using 'you guys' is simply 'you'. There are few situations in which the ambiguity would cause a problem, and English has gotten by fairly well without this distinction for 300 or so years.
As Travis explained above, 'you guys' is essentially just a plural pronoun in many North American varieties; the fact that 'guys' generally refers to males doesn't really matter. It's in the same league as 'his-tory' and 'e-man-cipate' in terms of sexism. Do those words offend you too?
<<The best alternative, if you're really concerned about using 'you guys' is simply 'you'. There are few situations in which the ambiguity would cause a problem, and English has gotten by fairly well without this distinction for 300 or so years.>>
I remember a time when I addressed this one group of people as "you" and they were wondering which one of them I was talking about.
I remember a time when I addressed this one group of people as "you" and they were wondering which one of them I was talking about.
>>The problem with your alternatives, in my dialect at least, is that they have the wrong tone: 'ladies and gentlemen' is too formal, and 'folks' sounds like you're trying to be rustic.<<
Such is most definitely true in the dialect here as well.
>>The best alternative, if you're really concerned about using 'you guys' is simply 'you'. There are few situations in which the ambiguity would cause a problem, and English has gotten by fairly well without this distinction for 300 or so years.<<
Well, this depends here, as "you" (but not "your" or "yours") seems to have largely shifted into being purely singular, and thus may be potentially confusing (as usually groups of people are addressed in everyday speech with "you guys", and consequently "you" has been limited to addressing single individuals). In more formal speech where one would probably not use "you guys", it would be very likely that one would use "you all" (despite the slight difference in meaning) rather than just "you" unless it could be discerned from context that one was addressing an entire group and not an individual.
>>As Travis explained above, 'you guys' is essentially just a plural pronoun in many North American varieties; the fact that 'guys' generally refers to males doesn't really matter. It's in the same league as 'his-tory' and 'e-man-cipate' in terms of sexism. Do those words offend you too? <<
Also most definitely agreed - etymology does not necessarily coincide with the actual meanings and connotations of any given word.
Such is most definitely true in the dialect here as well.
>>The best alternative, if you're really concerned about using 'you guys' is simply 'you'. There are few situations in which the ambiguity would cause a problem, and English has gotten by fairly well without this distinction for 300 or so years.<<
Well, this depends here, as "you" (but not "your" or "yours") seems to have largely shifted into being purely singular, and thus may be potentially confusing (as usually groups of people are addressed in everyday speech with "you guys", and consequently "you" has been limited to addressing single individuals). In more formal speech where one would probably not use "you guys", it would be very likely that one would use "you all" (despite the slight difference in meaning) rather than just "you" unless it could be discerned from context that one was addressing an entire group and not an individual.
>>As Travis explained above, 'you guys' is essentially just a plural pronoun in many North American varieties; the fact that 'guys' generally refers to males doesn't really matter. It's in the same league as 'his-tory' and 'e-man-cipate' in terms of sexism. Do those words offend you too? <<
Also most definitely agreed - etymology does not necessarily coincide with the actual meanings and connotations of any given word.
>><<The best alternative, if you're really concerned about using 'you guys' is simply 'you'. There are few situations in which the ambiguity would cause a problem, and English has gotten by fairly well without this distinction for 300 or so years.>>
I remember a time when I addressed this one group of people as "you" and they were wondering which one of them I was talking about.<<
I can very easily imagining this happening here as well if one were to address a group with "you" in everyday speech.
I remember a time when I addressed this one group of people as "you" and they were wondering which one of them I was talking about.<<
I can very easily imagining this happening here as well if one were to address a group with "you" in everyday speech.
I suppose I was being a little too general. I should have said something like this: "In most situations, the ambiguity would not cause a problem, and those in which it does can usually be resolved by other alternatives, such as 'you all', 'you lot' (UK only?) for plural, or addressing someone by name for singular."
I have a distinction between "you guys" and "you all":
"you guys have to do it"
"you all have to do it"
In the last sentence, it's being emphasized that every single one of you has to do it. Similar to this distinction is with "we" and "we all":
"we have to do it"
"we all have to do it"
"you guys have to do it"
"you all have to do it"
In the last sentence, it's being emphasized that every single one of you has to do it. Similar to this distinction is with "we" and "we all":
"we have to do it"
"we all have to do it"
>>I have a distinction between "you guys" and "you all":
"you guys have to do it"
"you all have to do it"
In the last sentence, it's being emphasized that every single one of you has to do it. Similar to this distinction is with "we" and "we all":
"we have to do it"
"we all have to do it" <<
I myself have this distinction as well, which is why "you all" is not exactly equivalent to "you guys" fo rme, even though it can still stand in for it in many cases in formal speech.
"you guys have to do it"
"you all have to do it"
In the last sentence, it's being emphasized that every single one of you has to do it. Similar to this distinction is with "we" and "we all":
"we have to do it"
"we all have to do it" <<
I myself have this distinction as well, which is why "you all" is not exactly equivalent to "you guys" fo rme, even though it can still stand in for it in many cases in formal speech.