Grammar: On Direct Address

One of the great disadvantages of our progressive class structure is that we often find ourselves without a term by which we can politely address someone of different standing, age, and/or gender, of whose name or official designation we are ignorant. For instance, how does a young man properly get the attention of a young woman in a polite fashion, without insinuating that he seeks glory on the fields of sexual conquest? "Hey you" is certainly rude. "Assface" has recently fallen out of fashion. "My dear" is condescending and possibly creepy. "Buttertits" has met with only mixed success thus far. Other, more stratified, cultures do not suffer from this problem. There is nothing overtly sexual about a Texan addressing a young woman as "darlin'" - rather, that a Texan woman is a possible target for a man's crossbow shaft of virile potestas is taken for granted in their culture. Some more progressive women might take offence at the use of the term, but that offence, at least, is not presumed - it's something the addresser learns after the fact.

We certainly do have terms for men, though there are some difficulties. "Buddy" or "my friend" most definitely are acceptable forms of address for men of the same age and standing, though the latter term has a whiff of Birkenstock sandals about it. "Sir" can work for those considerably older than you, though some people do not like to be addressed as "sir," seeing it as too formal, or as a painful reminder of their Imperial Russian past; a delicate thing, then. What is to be done about this?

Toward a remedy, I propose a new set of totally arbitrary terms for direct address. They are to be understood to be polite but straightforward; they do not invite conversation, rather they merely grab the attention of the addressee for temporary purposes, in cases where the addresser is unaware of a better term by which they can initiate dialogue with the addressee, or in cases where it's unnecessary to know their name (as with a whorehouse client to the valet). What is needed is a universal grammar by which one can differentiate age, standing, and gender in an easy-to-understand way. As long as the addresser correctly identifies the nature of his or her addressee, there should be no difficulty in composing terms on the fly.

What would such a grammar look like? Any term employed would be relative; that is, for any given speaker, it can be assumed that they are talking to one of three people: someone of the same standing, someone of lower standing, or someone of higher standing. Then, the gender of the addressee would have to be taken into consideration. Further, the age would have to be differentiated. Components could be dropped if context makes the intended target clear enough. An addressing term, then, would ideally take the form

(gender)(standing)(age)

Gender terms*:

Male = andro(aner)-
Female = gyno(gyne)-

*The term in parentheses is used if the latter two components are omitted

Standing terms:

Higher-than-addresser= -ameino-
Equal-to-addresser = (no term is employed)
Lower-than-addresser = -cheiron-

Age terms:

Older-than-addresser= -geronta
Equal-to-addresser= (no term is employed)
Younger-than-addresser= -paida

So there you have it. Next time you need to shove past an old male member of Parliament on the bus, you just say (allowing for vowel elision), "Pardon me andrameinogeronta, but I need to get past. Well, fuck you too."