While “hello” and “hi” are both common English greetings and are often used interchangeably, there are subtle differences in their formality and origin.

Difference between “Hello” and “Hi”:

• Formality: “Hello” is generally considered more formal than “hi.” It’s often used in situations where you don’t know the person well, in business settings, or when answering the phone. “Hi” is more informal and is typically used among friends, family, and acquaintances.
• Context: While both can be used in most casual situations, using “hello” in a very informal setting might sound slightly stiff, and using “hi” in a very formal setting might seem too casual. However, in modern English, the lines have blurred, and both are widely accepted in various contexts.
• Tone: “Hello” can sometimes sound more serious or be used to get someone’s attention more emphatically. “Hi” generally carries a friendlier, more relaxed tone.
• Telephone Greetings: Traditionally, “hello” is the standard way to answer the telephone. While “hi” is also used, “hello” is more conventional.

Etymology of “Hello”:

• The first written record of “hello” as a greeting dates back to 1826.
• It is believed to be an alteration of earlier words like “hallo,” “hollo,” “holla,” “halloo,” and “hullo,” which were used as shouts to gain attention or to hail someone.
• These earlier forms might have originated from the Old High German words “halâ” or “holâ,” emphatic imperatives of “halôn” or “holôn,” meaning “to fetch,” especially used when hailing a ferryman.
• Another possible influence is the Middle French “holà” (from “ho!” – ahoy! and “la” – there!), meaning “whoa there!” or “stop!”
• The rise in popularity of “hello” as a common greeting is often linked to the invention of the telephone in the late 19th century. Thomas Edison is credited with popularizing “hullo” (a variant of hello) as a telephone greeting, suggesting it as a clear way to be heard over the line, in contrast to Alexander Graham Bell’s preference for “ahoy.”

Etymology of “Hi”:

• “Hi” is recorded much earlier than “hello,” with its first recorded use as a greeting in American English in 1862.
• It is believed to have developed from the Middle English word “hy” (similar to “hey” and “ha”), which was used as an exclamation to call attention as early as the late 15th century.
• These short, easy-to-say terms likely evolved into the friendly greeting we use today.

In summary, while “hello” is generally more formal and has etymological roots in words used to call out or hail someone, “hi” is more informal and developed from earlier exclamations used to attract attention. However, in contemporary English, they are often used interchangeably, with context and personal preference playing a significant role.

 

Q. If these greetings only started being used in the 1800s, what did people say before that to greet each other?

A. If you’re referring to the 19th century as the origin of “hello” and “hi” as common greetings, then people used a variety of other salutations before their widespread adoption. Here are some examples of what people commonly used:

Formal Greetings:

• Good day/Good morrow/Good evening/Good night: These were standard greetings based on the time of day and were used across different social classes.
• How do you do?: This was a more formal inquiry about someone’s well-being, often used upon first meeting. It sometimes evolved into the more casual “Howdy,” especially in American English.
• I wish you a good day: Similar to “Good day,” this was a polite and formal way to greet someone.
• Pray, good sir/madam: This more elaborate greeting was used in more formal settings or when addressing someone of higher social standing.

Informal Greetings and Exclamations:

• Hail/Well met: These older terms were used to greet someone, with “hail” also having connotations of wishing good health.
• Holla/Hallo/Hullo: These were used more as exclamations to call attention or express surprise rather than a primary greeting, although they are etymologically linked to “hello.”
• Hey: While “hi” is considered to have evolved from “hey,” “hey” itself was used as an informal way to get someone’s attention.
• Ahoy: This nautical term was notably favored by Alexander Graham Bell as a telephone greeting.
• Greetings and salutations: A more elaborate and sometimes theatrical greeting.

Gestures:

Greetings were not always just verbal. Gestures played a significant role:

• Bowing and Curtsying: These were essential elements of formal greetings, indicating respect and social standing. Men would bow (often with a hat tip), and women would curtsy. The depth of the bow or curtsy indicated the level of respect.
• Handshakes: While the handshake has ancient roots, its rise as a common greeting, particularly among the middle class, became more prominent in the 18th and 19th centuries. It was seen as more egalitarian than bowing.
• Hat Tipping: For men, tipping or removing their hat was a common gesture of acknowledgment and greeting.

Regional Variations:

It’s important to remember that greetings varied by region and social class. What was common in rural England might have differed from greetings used in urban America, for example.

The rise of “hello” in the late 19th century, particularly with the advent of the telephone, gradually led to its widespread adoption as a primary greeting, eventually overshadowing many of these older forms in everyday use. “Hi” followed later, becoming a more informal counterpart.

 

Q. Could you give me an example of how a conversation in the 1700s might have sounded compared to how people talk today?

A. Here are two dialogue examples, one set in the 1700s and one modern, illustrating how greetings and general conversation have evolved:

Dialogue Example 1: 1750s English Countryside

Characters:

• Mr. Thomas Ashton: A gentleman farmer.
• Mrs. Eliza Finch: A neighbor’s wife.

(Setting: Mr. Ashton is tending his garden when Mrs. Finch approaches.)

Mrs. Finch: Good morrow to you, Mr. Ashton. A fine day for the tending of one’s land, is it not?

Mr. Ashton: Good morrow, Mrs. Finch. Indeed, the sun shines kindly upon us this day. Pray, how fares your good husband, Master Finch?

Mrs. Finch: He is well, sir, thank you for your kind inquiry. He has gone to market in Taunton this morn. And how do your own crops prosper, Mr. Ashton? The beans looked fair the last time I passed by.

Mr. Ashton: They do reasonably well, thank the heavens. We have had sufficient rain of late. And your poultry? Are they laying well?

Mrs. Finch: Aye, tolerably so. Though the fox has been seen about the woods, which causes some unease. I must take greater care of them.

Mr. Ashton: A vexing creature, the fox. I have lost a few chickens myself in seasons past. I trust you will keep a watchful eye.

Mrs. Finch: Indeed, I shall. Well, sir, I must be on my way. I have errands to run before the heat of the day sets in.

Mr. Ashton: Very good, Mrs. Finch. I bid you a good day.

Mrs. Finch: And you as well, Mr. Ashton. Farewell.

(Mrs. Finch departs.)

Dialogue Example 2: Modern Day Somerville, Massachusetts (2025)

Characters:

• Alex: A software engineer.
• Maria: A graphic designer.

(Setting: Alex is watering his plants on his porch when Maria walks by on the sidewalk.)

Maria: Hey Alex! Nice day, huh?

Alex: Oh, hey Maria! Yeah, totally. Perfect for hanging outside. How’s it going?

Maria: Pretty good, just heading to grab a coffee. How are your tomatoes doing this year? I saw you had some seedlings a while back.

Alex: They’re actually doing pretty well! Finally starting to get some little green ones. How’s that new design project you were working on?

Maria: It’s coming along. A few client revisions, you know how it is. But overall, I’m pretty happy with it.

Alex: Yeah, I hear you. Revisions are part of the fun, right? Anyway, I should probably finish watering these guys.

Maria: Cool, well, I should get going. Catch you later!

Alex: Alright, see ya!

(Maria continues down the sidewalk.)

Key Differences Illustrated:

• Greetings: The 1700s dialogue uses more formal and time-specific greetings like “Good morrow.” The modern dialogue uses the informal “Hey.”
• Formality of Language: The 1700s dialogue employs more formal language (“Pray,” “how fares your good husband,” “tolerably so,” “vexing creature,” “bid you a good day”). The modern dialogue is much more casual with contractions (“huh,” “you know,” “I’m,” “it’s”), simpler sentence structures, and slang (“totally,” “cool,” “see ya”).
• Topics of Conversation: While both involve neighborly inquiries, the 1700s conversation touches on more traditional concerns like crop prosperity and livestock safety. The modern conversation includes work (“design project,” “client revisions”) and more casual personal updates (“grabbing coffee”).
• Inquiries about Well-being: In the 1700s, inquiries about health were more formal (“Pray, how fares your good husband?”). In the modern dialogue, it’s a quick and casual “How’s it going?”
• Departures: The 1700s farewell is more formal (“I bid you a good day,” “Farewell”). The modern farewell is brief and informal (“Catch you later,” “See ya”).

These examples highlight the significant shift in the way people communicate in everyday interactions over the centuries, reflecting changes in social norms, language evolution, and the pace of life.

 

Q. It seems like people back then were really formal—not sure I’d call them polite exactly, but definitely not very open or intimate. It’s like they were always holding something back, especially in the way they greeted each other. Maybe I’m just biased from living in a different era… but honestly, they come off a bit strange and socially awkward. 😜

A. Your perception definitely captures a significant aspect of social interactions in the past, particularly in the 1700s and earlier, and your feeling that they might seem “weird and awkward” from a modern perspective is understandable. Here’s a breakdown of why that impression might be accurate:

Factors Contributing to Perceived Formality and Lack of Intimacy:

• Social Hierarchy and Status: Society was far more rigidly structured by birth, wealth, and social standing. Greetings and interactions were heavily influenced by these hierarchies. The way you addressed someone of higher rank was vastly different from how you spoke to a social equal or someone below you. This necessitated a level of formality to maintain social order and show proper deference.
• Emphasis on Propriety and Reputation: Maintaining a good reputation was paramount, especially for the upper and middle classes. Any perceived breach of etiquette could have severe social consequences. This led to a more guarded and formal approach in public interactions.
• Fear of Scandal and Gossip: In smaller, more tightly knit communities, personal information and indiscretions could spread rapidly and damage one’s social standing. This fostered a degree of caution in what was shared and how one presented oneself.
• Different Communication Norms: Directness, which is often valued in modern communication, might have been considered impolite or even aggressive in the past. Indirectness, circumlocution, and adherence to specific forms of address were considered signs of good breeding and respect.
• Limited Privacy: While it might seem counterintuitive, the lack of modern concepts of privacy (in terms of personal space and information control) could paradoxically lead to more guarded interactions in public. People were constantly aware of being observed and judged.
• Emotional Restraint: Open displays of strong emotion were often discouraged, particularly in public. A more reserved and stoic demeanor was often seen as a sign of strength and control.
• Evolution of Language: As we’ve seen with the greetings, language itself was more elaborate and formal. This naturally contributed to a less intimate feel in conversations.

Why Your Perception of “Weird and Awkward” Makes Sense:

From a modern perspective, where informality, directness, and the open sharing of personal experiences are often valued in close relationships, the more formal and reserved interactions of the past can indeed seem awkward. We are accustomed to a greater degree of emotional expressiveness and a blurring of social boundaries in casual conversation.

However, it’s important to avoid a purely judgmental view:

• Politeness in Context: While their interactions might seem less “intimate” by our standards, they often adhered to a strict code of politeness within their own social context. These formal exchanges were a way of showing respect and maintaining social harmony.
• Different Forms of Intimacy: Intimacy in the past might have been expressed differently, perhaps through shared experiences within families or close-knit communities, rather than the open verbal sharing we often prioritize today.
• Social Glue: These formal interactions served as a crucial social lubricant, helping people navigate complex social structures and maintain order.

In Conclusion:

Your feeling that past social interactions, particularly in formal settings, might seem less intimate, more guarded, and even “weird and awkward” by modern standards is valid. It reflects the significant evolution of social norms, communication styles, and values regarding privacy and emotional expression. While their forms of interaction might seem distant to us, they were often considered polite and necessary within their own historical and social context. Our modern emphasis on informality and directness is a product of our own time and cultural shifts.

 

Q. They’d probably be absolutely scandalized by how casually we behave in public today.

A. You are absolutely correct! People from the 1700s would likely be quite scandalized, bewildered, and possibly even disgusted by many aspects of our social behavior today. The contrast between the highly structured, formal society of that era and the relatively informal, individualistic, and often openly expressive nature of modern Western societies is stark.

Here are some specific areas where their sensibilities would likely be offended:

Dress and Appearance:

• Informal Clothing in Public: The casual attire we wear daily – jeans, t-shirts, shorts, athletic wear – would be seen as incredibly sloppy and disrespectful in public. Even for leisure, there were expectations of proper dress according to one’s social standing.
• Revealing Clothing: Low necklines on women were common in the 1700s for formal wear, but the amount of skin often displayed today, particularly in casual settings, would be considered highly immodest and potentially indicative of low moral character. For men, the lack of formal coats and breeches would seem equally inappropriate.
• Body Modifications: Tattoos and piercings, especially in visible locations, would likely be viewed as barbaric, associated with criminals or lower social classes, and a defacement of God’s creation.
• Unkempt Appearance: Not adhering to certain standards of grooming, such as unstyled hair or a lack of shaving for men in certain contexts, would be seen as a lack of self-respect and disrespect for others.

Communication and Language:

• Informal Language: The casual language we use, filled with slang, contractions, and less grammatically strict sentences, would sound crude and uneducated. The lack of formal address (“Mr./Mrs./Sir/Madam”) in many interactions would be seen as disrespectful.
• Directness and Openness: Our tendency to be direct and openly discuss personal matters, including emotions, relationships, and even bodily functions, would be considered vulgar and a breach of privacy.
• Public Displays of Affection: Even mild forms of PDA between unmarried couples would likely be frowned upon as indecent. More overt displays would be scandalous.
• Swearing and Vulgarity: The casual use of profanity in everyday conversation would be deeply offensive.

Social Interactions and Norms:

• Mixing of Social Classes: While social mobility existed to some extent, interactions between vastly different social classes were generally more formal and less frequent in casual settings. The relative ease with which people from different backgrounds mix today might be seen as disruptive to the natural social order.
• Gender Roles and Interactions: The more fluid gender roles and expectations of today, as well as the increased equality between men and women in many spheres, would likely be shocking. Women having careers, expressing independent opinions forcefully in public, or engaging in activities traditionally seen as male would be considered unseemly.
• Dating and Relationships: The concept of casual dating and the more open discussion of sexual relationships outside of marriage would be scandalous and morally reprehensible.
• Individualism vs. Community: The strong emphasis on individual rights and freedoms in modern society, sometimes at the expense of community norms and expectations, would likely be seen as selfish and potentially destabilizing to social order.
• Technology and its Impact: While they couldn’t fathom the technology itself, the way we are constantly connected through devices, often ignoring those physically present, would likely seem incredibly rude and isolating.

General Demeanor:

• Lack of Deference: The less overt displays of deference to elders or those in positions of authority might be seen as disrespectful and a sign of societal decay.
• Emotional Expressiveness: While emotional restraint wasn’t absolute, public displays of strong negative emotions (anger, frustration) were generally discouraged. Our more open expression of feelings might be seen as uncontrolled and unseemly.

In essence, the 1700s valued hierarchy, formality, restraint, and a strong sense of social propriety. Our modern world, with its emphasis on individualism, informality, openness, and relative social fluidity, represents a significant departure from those values. It’s safe to say that many aspects of our daily lives would indeed leave our 18th-century counterparts utterly scandalized. Your perception of their social interactions as potentially “weird and awkward” from our perspective is mirrored by how they would likely view many of our modern behaviors.