alt.languages.englishPrev. Next
Re: Meaning of "folks" http://groups.google.com
eromlignod (eromlignod@aol.com) 2004/06/18 09:44

Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: eromlignod@aol.com (eromlignod)
Newsgroups: alt.languages.english
Subject: Re: Meaning of "folks"
Date: 18 Jun 2004 08:44:10 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <5778ec55.0406180744.78c1989@posting.google.com>
References: <BCC658EA.457F9%gnarlodiousNULL@VOID.invalid.yahoo.com> <BCD2F381.207D3%d2283@hotmail.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.248.193.222
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1087573450 28292 127.0.0.1 (18 Jun 2004 15:44:10 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:44:10 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.languages.english:368

Not in America it isn't.  Here, "folks" in its plural form has no
connotation regarding the nature or social status of the "folks" being
referred to.  It is strictly generic and is synonymous with "people".
It is used throughout the country in this manner, but particularly in
rural and southern areas.  President Bush is a Texan and would be
likely to choose "folks" over "people".

Folk in its singular form, used as an *adjective*, is completely
different.  Then it specifically refers to things related to common
people, like "folk art" or "folk hero".

Its plural, noun form is, and has always been, general in meaning.

Don

Danny <d2283@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<BCD2F381.207D3%d2283@hotmail.com>...
> I agree that the use of the rather pleasant word "folks" is clearly changing
> whether we like it or not.
>
> When Bush described the 9/11 terrorists as "folks" it seemed an
> extraordinary choice of terminology. But we live in extraordinary times, it
> seems.
>
> Colin
> London, UK

Follow-ups:12345678
Next Prev. Article List         Favorite