I am not referring to professional relationships. Indeed, to take one example, barristers are required to address one another by surname only. I accept too that when a person has died and passed into history courtesy titles are superfluous, and it is normal to refer to him as "Mozart", "Napoleon" or "Shakespeare". I am referring to the habit which has insidiously crept into journalism over recent years of referring to all and sundry by surname only without any form of courtesy title. It sounds so discourteous, especially when a callow young newscaster is referring in this dismissive way to a distinguished older person, perhaps a noted academic, or a public figure such as a president.
2007-12-28 07:08:56 · 18 answers · asked by Doethineb 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Etiquette
Matty, did you really address your teachers by surname only? I find that incredible.
2007-12-28 07:24:10 · update #1
mcq316 Thank you for putting me right. Napoléon was indeed the forename of General Bonaparte.
2007-12-28 07:48:17 · update #2
In a formal situation it is polite to refer to a person as Mrs. Surname or Mr. Surname. When one has been introduced and given a first name by ones new acquaintance it is deemed appropriate to use that.
In other situations such as at school where there is a definite master/mistress pupil relationship, teachers are refered to as Sir or Madam and they refer to pupils only by their last names...for example "You Smith, take your hands out of your pockets or I will have you thrashed to within one inch of your life ! Now, bring me my tea and piping hot buns, you puerile, godforsaken excuse for a child...and don`t forget the butter ! Unsalted ! My health has been damaged enough just talking to you...what did I say ?" "Unsalted Sir !" "Correct now run along before I have you whipped in front of the entire upper sixth."
At school one also refers to ones peers by surname only, older boys as `Sir` and younger boys by some vile phrase based on the mockery of one of their dirty little habits or physical afflictions, for example " You boy ! Yes you ! You crossed eyed, limping, snot eating, cowardly, wanker, have you finished my homework yet ? Or am I to take that you are making yet another formal request for further deep scarring of your already grossly disfigured face ?"
Girls were refered to as Miss `first name` if one had been informed of it, otherwise one never went close to them, out of fear on the main, bloody scary things those girls. All that hockey and lacrosse I expect.
This continues throughout one`s life and career until one attains the post of Prime Minister.
2007-12-28 19:12:00 · answer #1 · answered by Robert Abuse 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In the context you cite specifically - a newscast - I think the person should be addressed as Professor So-and-So, President So-and-So, etc. the first time to show courtesy and respect, but after that, it becomes repetitive and superfluous. Streamlining it to So-and-So on subsequent mentions is reasonable to me.
2007-12-28 07:29:21 · answer #2 · answered by kcbranaghsgirl 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually, Napoleon was his first name. That said, if a person has a title(Dr., Reverend, Senator, etc.), they should be addressed with that title. Absent that, Mr. or Ms. should be used. It is a matter of respect.
2007-12-28 07:43:47 · answer #3 · answered by mcq316 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is rude to refer to people by their surname only. It shows a total lack of respect. Even my dog is addressed by his first name.
2014-08-10 05:59:03 · answer #4 · answered by Conor Maguire 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In general I don't do this or know anyone that does (I'm the U.S. if that makes a difference) but in high school everybody called our band directors (both men) by their last names, Parker and Counsel. I really don't know why. That's the only time I've ever really seen that done regularly.
2007-12-28 08:17:59 · answer #5 · answered by Kiwi 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it extremely is particularly derogatory, confident. you may desire to because of no skill promptly handle a instructor by utilizing their surname in basic terms. whilst scholars are speaking among themselves, a sprint slack is permissible IMO, yet I accept as true with you that utilizing the courtesy identify is lots greater respectful. keep on. it would rub off.
2016-10-09 07:56:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
sometimes i find that a person's surname befits their character more than their first name... sometimes i find their surname is all that is known or remembered.... sometimes it is plain to see that a person, in using the surname exclusively, intends to be rude... however, in your example of the young journalist, i think maybe they have not yet had the chance to discover the beauty of reverence (and by that, i mean paying due respect). ignorance is not usually intentional.
2007-12-28 09:54:54 · answer #7 · answered by fractal 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, I don't take offense to it, but there are only certain people that do refer to me by last name. It transfered from in the workplace to socializing out of the workplace. Same with my husband-he hated his last name growing up and hated to be called by it while playing sports. But, as he grew into adulthood, he began to embrace it. So it doesn't bother me either-but only for certain peopel that are allowed to call me by last name.
2007-12-28 07:15:38 · answer #8 · answered by Sharon F 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think there is a certain honor to be attached to being famous (or infamous as it be) enough as to where simply stating a surname clearly identifies the person.
2007-12-28 07:19:02 · answer #9 · answered by Susie D 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think it's rude just "old school". At school we all called each other by our surname teachers and pupils alike. I felt no problem with it.
2007-12-28 07:18:50 · answer #10 · answered by matty 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋