Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sphinx.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar
From: mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: "Guys" is to "<?>" as ...
Message-ID: <1126@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 13-Sep-85 01:44:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: sphinx.1126
Posted: Fri Sep 13 01:44:42 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Sep-85 05:39:30 EDT
References: <391@scirtp.UUCP>
Organization: U Chicago -- Linguistics Dept
Lines: 23

All right, Todd, no flames, but really .... `gals' ?!
Conceivably it would have the charming 'fifties flavor you mention if the
two terms are used together: Okay, guys-and-gals, listen up because...
But by itself, it just won't wash.  I'm not even trying to make an
argument about whether or not it's reasonable for people to take offense
at it, just posting the social observation that surely it *will* give
offense.

The problem with `gal' is that it entered General American as a
re-standardized version of a regional pronunciation of `girl'.
I'm not positive of that as history, but in any case that's the way many
people have it in their mental lexicons.  So it's tantamount to `girl',
and you know the problems with *that*.

To address the original question: no, drat it, there doesn't seem to be
a good word for young women who are actually too young to really be
called women; nor for the other use of `guys', an any-age casual bonhommie.

[P.S.  Todd, I miss your little face-drawing.]
-- 

            -- Mitch Marks @ UChicago 
               ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar