the way i see it, “folks” can refer to a more traditional group of people, most likely rural, and you wouldn’t call nobles or people of other high status “folks”.
but also i doubt people think it is problematic; it’s just a quirk of the English language that “chat” emerged basically out of nowhere with the closest analogue being “audience”.
the way i see it, “folks” can refer to a more traditional group of people, most likely rural, and you wouldn’t call nobles or people of other high status “folks”.
But you’d call nobles or high status people “chat”?
Wait “folks” has a status implication? IS NO WORD SIMPLY UNPROBLEMATIC!? IS NOTHING SACRED FROM THIS LINGUISTIC HELL
the way i see it, “folks” can refer to a more traditional group of people, most likely rural, and you wouldn’t call nobles or people of other high status “folks”.
but also i doubt people think it is problematic; it’s just a quirk of the English language that “chat” emerged basically out of nowhere with the closest analogue being “audience”.
But you’d call nobles or high status people “chat”?
i’d call them “pricks” but you do you