Revisiting this comment, it reminds me of French and similar languages, where the literal translation is "do you have hunger / thirst ?".
An example - are you guys hungry? - kyaa aap logon ko bhookh lagi hai? - [literal translation: do you people feel hunger?] source: I'm a native speaker. Using the literal translation of "are you people hungry?" - " kyaa aap log bhookhe hain?" - has different connotations [not used by natives in this context] and may not be as polite.
you are NOT completely ignoring the word 'people' because 'you' in english already conveys this!
Nobody's objecting to the Hindi, the point is it doesn't really teach 'the nuances of Hindi' - because to a native British or American English speaker 'you people' has a very different tone from तुम लोग to a native Hindi speaker (or presumably by extension 'you people' to a native Indian English speaker).
A better translation would capture that nuance by translating to something similar in tone, even though different words. I don't have a suggestion that isn't very regional though - things like 'y'all', 'you folks', 'you guys', 'you chaps', etc.
Ditto. Thanks for this valuable piece of socio-linguistic information. I am a New Yorker and the translation of āp log as "you people" sounds socio-linguistically off key. Since āp is supposed to show respect/formality, and around here, "you people" verges on impolite, if said to strangers, "you people" seems wrong. I think we avoid saying "you people" in more formal circumstances by saying "All of you" or even "you all". I think that in most of North America, people would say "you folks", but that would elicit smirks in NYC. I am beginning to hear "folks" replacing "people" a bit in the North East. I suppose it is an aspect of the homogenization of the American Language.
I think respect/formality formulas are not translatable into American English. I don't know about British English, but a linguistic trend in the US evolving over at least a century has been the gradual elimination of formal language. It is so easy in other languages to get a stranger's. Entirely natural to say "Señor" or Señora" for example, while in America we are stuck with "Mam" or "Sir" which sound old-fashioned and might even offend someone nowadays. I can only come up with the lame "Excuse Me" as though I had belched or something. I think The U.S. and India are sort of opposite kinds of societies, one has become so informal that we infamously substitute a friendly manner for formal manners; while the other has a very nuanced palette of terms to indicate familiarity, formality, respect, and their opposites.
""Mam" or "Sir" which sound old-fashioned"
The terms that show respect in Hindi and other languages have been around longer than sir and ma'am. So, while you deem one to sound old-fashioned (dismissing formalities and respectful expressions), you are praising the same of another language. Do you think the way we express these things in Hindi is more modern than the ways to do the same in English? I still use sir and ma'am. I was raised to be respectful. My children do the same. The only people who get offended by it are people we really should not allow to concern us, as they are the type to look to be offended. I will not let those type change my character, as their behavior is merely a reflection of their own character.
He means that it sounds old-fashioned in America, to Americans, not that Hindi 'equivalents' are more modern.
It's a bit of an American TV trope for example 'don't call me ma'am' (in some sassy offended tone). I also think it's strange (I'm British) but I do recognise what he's saying.
It's also (in my very limited experience of America) inverted sometimes, which I find really strange - apparent deference to a shopkeeper/cleaner/waiter/etc. as a customer for example. The closest thing to that in Britain I think would be among peers in sport, but that's not a modern development and perhaps even a little quaint.
It's ok, but probably best avoided by non-native speakers; it sounds like a regional US colloquialism to me (British), don't think I've ever heard anybody address 'you people' here.
Just 'you' alone, or we tend to use anybody/everybody (or anyone/everyone) more - 'is anybody thirsty?' is how I would say this. Whereas (at least certain regions) there they do address groups directly more, 'y'all thirsty?', etc.
In the southern US states, saying "you people" can be considered racist, but even in the northern states, it is not a polite way of addressing people. It has a negative connotation. The American English equivalent of addressing a group of people formally and respectfully would be: "Are all of you thirsty?" or if addressing a certain number of people: "Are the four of you thirsty?" Using "Are you all thirsty?" could be another option, but it sounds strange in my opinion. And addressing friends and those we are familiar with, we could say "Are you guys thirsty?" in the northern states and "Are y'all thirsty?" in the southern states. "Are you folks thirsty?" could be another option, but the word "folks" is used mainly by the older generations, in my experience. All of this to say, there should be more than one way to correctly translate this in English, especially since the sentence is meant to be conveyed in a respectful manner, which is not the case in the USA for the sentence "Are you people thirsty?"
'You people' is more formal, as per my understanding. Yes it sounds weird because we all speak informally. 'You guys' 'You all' popped in my head as well.
"You people" especially to Americans will have racial connotations (it's often a racist way white people refer to black people) and should be avoided. It should not be used here. Colloquially "you guys" or "you all(=ya'll)" would be acceptable, but the answer should use the standard English use of "you" in the plural id est "Are you(pl) thirsty?"
The problem here is that English has a different flavor all over the globe. It may sound loosely racist in the US (although I think it is a bit of a stretch), but that is not the case elsewhere I know of. Aren't we getting too politically correct by avoiding a very natural English expression.
But I agree that they should also accept the alternative you suggested, even the 'ya'll' :)
If you meet speakers of Indian English, they naturally address any group as "you people" or, if they are a member of the group, "we people." It's standard practice in their dialect of English, and shows the influence of Indic grammar.
It's better to get used to encountering the most prevalent forms used in Indian English than to insist on American or British English as the standard. What an irony it would be to engage in cultural imperialism in the name of political correctness.
Not sure if it's racist (I think that really depends on the context), but I (in the US) perceive "you people" as quite rude. A typical context is "What's wrong with you people?" -- and of course whether it's racist or not depends on who the "people" are. (I have in mind DMV employees or telephone customer-service agents.)
I agree and disagree!
I believe that "you people" is a pretty standard phrasing in American English. In the early 90s there was a politician who once used the phrase to address African-Americans in a way that was contextually demeaning. Geneally, I think it's acceptable, though a bit brusque -- and I would advise a student of English to avoid using it to address a group of African-Americans! However, it's probably the most natural translation for "aap log."
"You (pl)" would be accurate and acceptable.
"You all" may be less problematic, though I think that "you all" would only be used in a situation where the speaker wanted to emphasize that they are addressing the entirety of a group.
"Y'all" itself is more flexible, and I use it constantly, but it may be too informal to serve as a translation of "aap log."
"You guys" is also too informal. Further, it is insensitive to gender, and in some contexts comical.