Title vs honorific
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
The Wikipedia article on honorifics states that
Some honorifics act as complete replacements for a name, as "Sir" or "Ma'am", or "Your Honor"
I had initially thought that titles generally needed a name appended onto the end (Mr Smith, Mrs Jones, Dr Williams) and that honorific was used for a term of address (e.g. Ma'am, Sir (when used to address a teacher, not when used to specify a male who has been knighted!)), but it seems I was obviously wrong!
Is there a word to specifically denote those words / terms which I thought were honorifics (i.e. Ma'am, Sir, Your Honour)?
honorifics
asked Apr 5 '16 at 0:41
ChrisW
1094
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
The Wikipedia article on honorifics states that
Some honorifics act as complete replacements for a name, as "Sir" or "Ma'am", or "Your Honor"
I had initially thought that titles generally needed a name appended onto the end (Mr Smith, Mrs Jones, Dr Williams) and that honorific was used for a term of address (e.g. Ma'am, Sir (when used to address a teacher, not when used to specify a male who has been knighted!)), but it seems I was obviously wrong!
Is there a word to specifically denote those words / terms which I thought were honorifics (i.e. Ma'am, Sir, Your Honour)?
honorifics
asked Apr 5 '16 at 0:41
ChrisW
1094
1
In the introduction to that article, you will see the link to style, wherein it is noted that honorific is an alternative term, both referring to an official or legally recognized title. Perhaps the article at Honorific needs to be moved to Honorific title.
– choster
Apr 5 '16 at 0:54
T. C. Harris seems at least largely correct. This is an old Question, in no way helped by Wikipedians allowing that author to get away with defining those terms as “honorific” as though that were a noun. It’s not and they aren’t and there ain’t no such critter. “An honorific style of address” would be one thing, the “style of address” being what mattered. “An honorific” is an adjective without a noun. On titles and formal styles of address read, eg, Debrett’s Correct Form or Burke’s Peerage or just an office version of Webster’s Dictionary… and please note their length!
– Robbie Goodwin
Jun 5 at 22:00
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
The Wikipedia article on honorifics states that
Some honorifics act as complete replacements for a name, as "Sir" or "Ma'am", or "Your Honor"
I had initially thought that titles generally needed a name appended onto the end (Mr Smith, Mrs Jones, Dr Williams) and that honorific was used for a term of address (e.g. Ma'am, Sir (when used to address a teacher, not when used to specify a male who has been knighted!)), but it seems I was obviously wrong!
Is there a word to specifically denote those words / terms which I thought were honorifics (i.e. Ma'am, Sir, Your Honour)?
honorifics
asked Apr 5 '16 at 0:41
ChrisW
1094
The Wikipedia article on honorifics states that
Some honorifics act as complete replacements for a name, as "Sir" or "Ma'am", or "Your Honor"
I had initially thought that titles generally needed a name appended onto the end (Mr Smith, Mrs Jones, Dr Williams) and that honorific was used for a term of address (e.g. Ma'am, Sir (when used to address a teacher, not when used to specify a male who has been knighted!)), but it seems I was obviously wrong!
Is there a word to specifically denote those words / terms which I thought were honorifics (i.e. Ma'am, Sir, Your Honour)?
honorifics
honorifics
asked Apr 5 '16 at 0:41
ChrisW
1094
asked Apr 5 '16 at 0:41
ChrisW
1094
edited Oct 3 at 16:50
asked Apr 5 '16 at 0:41
ChrisW
1094
asked Apr 5 '16 at 0:41
ChrisW
1094
asked Apr 5 '16 at 0:41
ChrisW
1094
1094
1
In the introduction to that article, you will see the link to style, wherein it is noted that honorific is an alternative term, both referring to an official or legally recognized title. Perhaps the article at Honorific needs to be moved to Honorific title.
– choster
Apr 5 '16 at 0:54
T. C. Harris seems at least largely correct. This is an old Question, in no way helped by Wikipedians allowing that author to get away with defining those terms as “honorific” as though that were a noun. It’s not and they aren’t and there ain’t no such critter. “An honorific style of address” would be one thing, the “style of address” being what mattered. “An honorific” is an adjective without a noun. On titles and formal styles of address read, eg, Debrett’s Correct Form or Burke’s Peerage or just an office version of Webster’s Dictionary… and please note their length!
– Robbie Goodwin
Jun 5 at 22:00
add a comment |
1
In the introduction to that article, you will see the link to style, wherein it is noted that honorific is an alternative term, both referring to an official or legally recognized title. Perhaps the article at Honorific needs to be moved to Honorific title.
– choster
Apr 5 '16 at 0:54
T. C. Harris seems at least largely correct. This is an old Question, in no way helped by Wikipedians allowing that author to get away with defining those terms as “honorific” as though that were a noun. It’s not and they aren’t and there ain’t no such critter. “An honorific style of address” would be one thing, the “style of address” being what mattered. “An honorific” is an adjective without a noun. On titles and formal styles of address read, eg, Debrett’s Correct Form or Burke’s Peerage or just an office version of Webster’s Dictionary… and please note their length!
– Robbie Goodwin
Jun 5 at 22:00
1
1
In the introduction to that article, you will see the link to style, wherein it is noted that honorific is an alternative term, both referring to an official or legally recognized title. Perhaps the article at Honorific needs to be moved to Honorific title.
– choster
Apr 5 '16 at 0:54
In the introduction to that article, you will see the link to style, wherein it is noted that honorific is an alternative term, both referring to an official or legally recognized title. Perhaps the article at Honorific needs to be moved to Honorific title.
– choster
Apr 5 '16 at 0:54
T. C. Harris seems at least largely correct. This is an old Question, in no way helped by Wikipedians allowing that author to get away with defining those terms as “honorific” as though that were a noun. It’s not and they aren’t and there ain’t no such critter. “An honorific style of address” would be one thing, the “style of address” being what mattered. “An honorific” is an adjective without a noun. On titles and formal styles of address read, eg, Debrett’s Correct Form or Burke’s Peerage or just an office version of Webster’s Dictionary… and please note their length!
– Robbie Goodwin
Jun 5 at 22:00
T. C. Harris seems at least largely correct. This is an old Question, in no way helped by Wikipedians allowing that author to get away with defining those terms as “honorific” as though that were a noun. It’s not and they aren’t and there ain’t no such critter. “An honorific style of address” would be one thing, the “style of address” being what mattered. “An honorific” is an adjective without a noun. On titles and formal styles of address read, eg, Debrett’s Correct Form or Burke’s Peerage or just an office version of Webster’s Dictionary… and please note their length!
– Robbie Goodwin
Jun 5 at 22:00
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
The question asks: Is there a word specifically to denote those words/terms which had been thought to be honorifics (i.e. Ma'am, Sir, Your Honour)?
Yes, there is a word specifically to denote those words/terms, and that word is none other than: Honorific
edited Oct 3 at 16:26
Azor Ahai
3,87821434
answered Jun 5 at 1:01
T. C. Harris
473
1
If there is no real question here (and I agree), there should be no 'answers', merely close-votes.
– Edwin Ashworth
Jun 5 at 10:57
If there were no real answer here (and you agree), then it would be an 'answer' for which there should be no comments only 'comments' or close-votes? That's a question now, isn't it, and this is merely a rhetorical question, or not.
– T. C. Harris
Jun 5 at 19:26
So, where there be no "real" question in the OP (and you agree so, in order, for example, to meet that apparent, parenthetic qualification in your comment, @Edwin), then there will always & forever be 'answers' or at least an 'answer' or some sort of 'answer' as there cannot ever be a real answer when there is no real question; -Merely close-voting should seem rather close-minded (would you agree, for instance, that rhetorical questions are not real questions & require no question-mark). This is conversation: Mayn't (rhetorical or no) non-questions receive responses nonetheless. You agree not?
– T. C. Harris
Jun 5 at 19:35
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
The question asks: Is there a word specifically to denote those words/terms which had been thought to be honorifics (i.e. Ma'am, Sir, Your Honour)?
Yes, there is a word specifically to denote those words/terms, and that word is none other than: Honorific
edited Oct 3 at 16:26
Azor Ahai
3,87821434
answered Jun 5 at 1:01
T. C. Harris
473
1
If there is no real question here (and I agree), there should be no 'answers', merely close-votes.
– Edwin Ashworth
Jun 5 at 10:57
If there were no real answer here (and you agree), then it would be an 'answer' for which there should be no comments only 'comments' or close-votes? That's a question now, isn't it, and this is merely a rhetorical question, or not.
– T. C. Harris
Jun 5 at 19:26
So, where there be no "real" question in the OP (and you agree so, in order, for example, to meet that apparent, parenthetic qualification in your comment, @Edwin), then there will always & forever be 'answers' or at least an 'answer' or some sort of 'answer' as there cannot ever be a real answer when there is no real question; -Merely close-voting should seem rather close-minded (would you agree, for instance, that rhetorical questions are not real questions & require no question-mark). This is conversation: Mayn't (rhetorical or no) non-questions receive responses nonetheless. You agree not?
– T. C. Harris
Jun 5 at 19:35
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
The question asks: Is there a word specifically to denote those words/terms which had been thought to be honorifics (i.e. Ma'am, Sir, Your Honour)?
Yes, there is a word specifically to denote those words/terms, and that word is none other than: Honorific
edited Oct 3 at 16:26
Azor Ahai
3,87821434
answered Jun 5 at 1:01
T. C. Harris
473
1
If there is no real question here (and I agree), there should be no 'answers', merely close-votes.
– Edwin Ashworth
Jun 5 at 10:57
If there were no real answer here (and you agree), then it would be an 'answer' for which there should be no comments only 'comments' or close-votes? That's a question now, isn't it, and this is merely a rhetorical question, or not.
– T. C. Harris
Jun 5 at 19:26
So, where there be no "real" question in the OP (and you agree so, in order, for example, to meet that apparent, parenthetic qualification in your comment, @Edwin), then there will always & forever be 'answers' or at least an 'answer' or some sort of 'answer' as there cannot ever be a real answer when there is no real question; -Merely close-voting should seem rather close-minded (would you agree, for instance, that rhetorical questions are not real questions & require no question-mark). This is conversation: Mayn't (rhetorical or no) non-questions receive responses nonetheless. You agree not?
– T. C. Harris
Jun 5 at 19:35
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
The question asks: Is there a word specifically to denote those words/terms which had been thought to be honorifics (i.e. Ma'am, Sir, Your Honour)?
Yes, there is a word specifically to denote those words/terms, and that word is none other than: Honorific
edited Oct 3 at 16:26
Azor Ahai
3,87821434
answered Jun 5 at 1:01
T. C. Harris
473
The question asks: Is there a word specifically to denote those words/terms which had been thought to be honorifics (i.e. Ma'am, Sir, Your Honour)?
Yes, there is a word specifically to denote those words/terms, and that word is none other than: Honorific
edited Oct 3 at 16:26
Azor Ahai
3,87821434
answered Jun 5 at 1:01
T. C. Harris
473
edited Oct 3 at 16:26
Azor Ahai
3,87821434
edited Oct 3 at 16:26
Azor Ahai
3,87821434
edited Oct 3 at 16:26
Azor Ahai
3,87821434
3,87821434
answered Jun 5 at 1:01
T. C. Harris
473
answered Jun 5 at 1:01
T. C. Harris
473
answered Jun 5 at 1:01
T. C. Harris
473
473
1
If there is no real question here (and I agree), there should be no 'answers', merely close-votes.
– Edwin Ashworth
Jun 5 at 10:57
If there were no real answer here (and you agree), then it would be an 'answer' for which there should be no comments only 'comments' or close-votes? That's a question now, isn't it, and this is merely a rhetorical question, or not.
– T. C. Harris
Jun 5 at 19:26
So, where there be no "real" question in the OP (and you agree so, in order, for example, to meet that apparent, parenthetic qualification in your comment, @Edwin), then there will always & forever be 'answers' or at least an 'answer' or some sort of 'answer' as there cannot ever be a real answer when there is no real question; -Merely close-voting should seem rather close-minded (would you agree, for instance, that rhetorical questions are not real questions & require no question-mark). This is conversation: Mayn't (rhetorical or no) non-questions receive responses nonetheless. You agree not?
– T. C. Harris
Jun 5 at 19:35
add a comment |
1
If there is no real question here (and I agree), there should be no 'answers', merely close-votes.
– Edwin Ashworth
Jun 5 at 10:57
If there were no real answer here (and you agree), then it would be an 'answer' for which there should be no comments only 'comments' or close-votes? That's a question now, isn't it, and this is merely a rhetorical question, or not.
– T. C. Harris
Jun 5 at 19:26
So, where there be no "real" question in the OP (and you agree so, in order, for example, to meet that apparent, parenthetic qualification in your comment, @Edwin), then there will always & forever be 'answers' or at least an 'answer' or some sort of 'answer' as there cannot ever be a real answer when there is no real question; -Merely close-voting should seem rather close-minded (would you agree, for instance, that rhetorical questions are not real questions & require no question-mark). This is conversation: Mayn't (rhetorical or no) non-questions receive responses nonetheless. You agree not?
– T. C. Harris
Jun 5 at 19:35
1
1
If there is no real question here (and I agree), there should be no 'answers', merely close-votes.
– Edwin Ashworth
Jun 5 at 10:57
If there is no real question here (and I agree), there should be no 'answers', merely close-votes.
– Edwin Ashworth
Jun 5 at 10:57
If there were no real answer here (and you agree), then it would be an 'answer' for which there should be no comments only 'comments' or close-votes? That's a question now, isn't it, and this is merely a rhetorical question, or not.
– T. C. Harris
Jun 5 at 19:26
If there were no real answer here (and you agree), then it would be an 'answer' for which there should be no comments only 'comments' or close-votes? That's a question now, isn't it, and this is merely a rhetorical question, or not.
– T. C. Harris
Jun 5 at 19:26
So, where there be no "real" question in the OP (and you agree so, in order, for example, to meet that apparent, parenthetic qualification in your comment, @Edwin), then there will always & forever be 'answers' or at least an 'answer' or some sort of 'answer' as there cannot ever be a real answer when there is no real question; -Merely close-voting should seem rather close-minded (would you agree, for instance, that rhetorical questions are not real questions & require no question-mark). This is conversation: Mayn't (rhetorical or no) non-questions receive responses nonetheless. You agree not?
– T. C. Harris
Jun 5 at 19:35
So, where there be no "real" question in the OP (and you agree so, in order, for example, to meet that apparent, parenthetic qualification in your comment, @Edwin), then there will always & forever be 'answers' or at least an 'answer' or some sort of 'answer' as there cannot ever be a real answer when there is no real question; -Merely close-voting should seem rather close-minded (would you agree, for instance, that rhetorical questions are not real questions & require no question-mark). This is conversation: Mayn't (rhetorical or no) non-questions receive responses nonetheless. You agree not?
– T. C. Harris
Jun 5 at 19:35
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f317645%2ftitle-vs-honorific%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
In the introduction to that article, you will see the link to style, wherein it is noted that honorific is an alternative term, both referring to an official or legally recognized title. Perhaps the article at Honorific needs to be moved to Honorific title.
– choster
Apr 5 '16 at 0:54
T. C. Harris seems at least largely correct. This is an old Question, in no way helped by Wikipedians allowing that author to get away with defining those terms as “honorific” as though that were a noun. It’s not and they aren’t and there ain’t no such critter. “An honorific style of address” would be one thing, the “style of address” being what mattered. “An honorific” is an adjective without a noun. On titles and formal styles of address read, eg, Debrett’s Correct Form or Burke’s Peerage or just an office version of Webster’s Dictionary… and please note their length!
– Robbie Goodwin
Jun 5 at 22:00