Current Events > Who the hell decided that being called by our last name was "polite"

(+) Yeah! (+)

How does that even make sense? I usually make people I trust meet my family. I see no logical reasons as to why it's "polite".

I have never heard of it being a politeness thing. If anything I see it as more formal.

it is polite because it isn't as personal as a given name. that's why it is "polite" in general settings; intimate names are for those close to us. It less polite for someone that doesn't know you well to use an intimate name compared to the more general name.

The mr/miss/mrs is a title standing in for the given name which a person either doesn't know or doesn't feel familiar enough to use with you.

that's my opinion at least.

Mister Anderson.

When it involves using a person's title: Mr, Mrs, Dr, Professor, etc, it's more formal.

Odd, I was under the impression that going by last names was just something they do in japanese society and first names are only for friends and first names without any honorific were for really close friends and lovers. In western society I've never been called by my last name only my first and even then only the shorten version of it.

Title plus last name is more polite because it is more indirect. You are not presuming that you are close enough to use their "real" name.

Meanwhile, my wife hates casually using just last name (no title) for close friends. She thinks it sounds prep school, especially for women.

Hey Davis.
Hi jones.

tremain07 posted...

Odd, I was under the impression that going by last names was just something they do in japanese society and first names are only for friends and first names without any honorific were for really close friends and lovers. In western society I've never been called by my last name only my first and even then only the shorten version of it.

I was technically told that in school, but pretty much everyone hated that except from some sport players for some reasons

tankboy posted...

Title plus last name is more polite because it is more indirect. You are not presuming that you are close enough to use their "real" name.

Meanwhile, my wife hates casually using just last name (no title) for close friends. She thinks it sounds prep school, especially for women.

I mean. The last name is also the "real name", a family name. It seems more intrusive to me

Scardude posted...

Mister Anderson.

Welcome back.

We... missed you.

On topic, there was a very lengthy period from 5th grade until I graduated from undergrad where, outside of family, I was always [last name].

epik_fail1 posted...

I mean. The last name is also the "real name", a family name. It seems more intrusive to me

You are thinking of the modern implications of knowing somebody's full name. The tradition in question is much older, from when everybody knew everybody anyway, at least by reputation, and using a family name was a way to be more indirect or general, creating the perception of distance. Especially if we think about back when surnames were mostly either careers or lineage descriptors.

When I was a kid, someone called you by family name for your family's reputation and they called you by first name for your reputation. It could be an insult, a compliment, or both.

FolkenRawr posted...

I have never heard of it being a politeness thing. If anything I see it as more formal.

Politeness and formality and closely linked, so it makes sense. It is being overfamiliar that can be considered disrespectful.

Politeness and formality are not the same thing. Formality is about enforcing hierarchies.