Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Did English ever have a formal version of "you"? (2011)

english.stackexchange.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 441 posts

Re: Did English ever have a formal version of "you"? (2011)

#281

Post by throwaway2037 »

8372049 wrote: post #218
softfalcon wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I feel like people forget about that whole British Imperialism thing too easily. We all speak English because at one point the English practically owned the entire planet.

That's not universally true. In my country, German was the widely accepted and taught second language until WW2. Since then it's been English.

It would help if we knew which country. Was this due to (1) pre-WW2 German language mostly useful for trade with Germany, or (2) a significant minority of ethnic Germans, who probably returned to Germany (E/W) after WW2? My guess: #2.

Re: Did English ever have a formal version of "you"? (2011)

#282

Post by jjtheblunt »

dahart wrote: post #36
jjtheblunt wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eth is the character you’re thinking if, not thorn. Eth has voice on and thorn voice off.

This says it really was thorn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ye_olde#History Ð/ð (eth) certainly is the voiced th in Old English and modern Icelandic. I’m not sure why thorn was being used for ‘the’.

Mispelling or incomplete font set for printing press possibly?

Note modern English collapsed the distinction into simpler orthography, “th” for both eth and thorn, so simplicity in spelling certainly happens.

Re: Did English ever have a formal version of "you"? (2011)

#283

Post by leereeves »

abtinf wrote: post #272
emodendroket wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This felt to me like one of the reasons why English became the dominant language for business over time. I don't think that has much to do with it. I think it has more to do with the dominant political and economic position of the United States. French served a similar role in the past despite having all the features you describe.

America was an economic backwater until the 1900s. France was, and to a greatly diminished extent still is, a global power. French has T-V distinction. French has arbitrary noun gendering. The noun gendering alone makes it significantly easier to embarrass yourself speaking French than English.

The dominance of America really started after WWII, but before that the British Empire spread the English language around the world.

If France had won the Seven Years War or the Napoleonic Wars, French would probably still be the global lingua franca, because people didn't choose which language to learn, they learned the language of whichever colonial power controlled their lands.

Re: Did English ever have a formal version of "you"? (2011)

#284

Post by freddie_mercury »

abtinf wrote: post #272
emodendroket wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This felt to me like one of the reasons why English became the dominant language for business over time. I don't think that has much to do with it. I think it has more to do with the dominant political and economic position of the United States. French served a similar role in the past despite having all the features you describe.

America was an economic backwater until the 1900s. France was, and to a greatly diminished extent still is, a global power. French has T-V distinction. French has arbitrary noun gendering. The noun gendering alone makes it significantly easier to embarrass yourself speaking French than English.

> America was an economic backwater until the 1900s.

The US was the largest economy in the world by 1890.

It should be obvious that it wasn't an economic backwater even before that.

By 1850 it bigger than Russia, Italy, Spain, Germany, or France.

The US stopped being an economy backwater sometime in the early 1800s. Well over a century earlier than your claim.

Re: Did English ever have a formal version of "you"? (2011)

#285

Post by meepmorp »

Daub wrote: post #251

'Thou' was used to refer to someone of a lower social rank and also to indicate intimacy or familiarity. AFAIK 'thee' was used in a similar way. In some parts of the UK, thou is still used. Certainly I have been addressed in this way in the past.

Thou and thee are the same pronouns in different cases - like I/me, she/her, we/us, they/them. Thou seest me, I see thee.

Re: Did English ever have a formal version of "you"? (2011)

#286

Post by ghayes »

snidane wrote: post #109

As someone coming from a culture with T-V distinction [1], I always wished we dropped one of the branches like English did in the past. The informal T vs formal V causes confusion in conversation with semi-strangers. Eg. At work you never really know which way to speak to someone at a watercooler. If you choose the informal T you make them your equal. Ehich might be perceived as insulting to them, since they might wa…

I’m in a comical situation that me and my Mexican father-in-law mutually refer to each other as usted despite the fact we’d both be better off switching to informal, except for the fact that neither of us want to offend the other by being so casual.

Re: Did English ever have a formal version of "you"? (2011)

#287

Post by nerdponx »

abtinf wrote: post #272
emodendroket wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This felt to me like one of the reasons why English became the dominant language for business over time. I don't think that has much to do with it. I think it has more to do with the dominant political and economic position of the United States. French served a similar role in the past despite having all the features you describe.

America was an economic backwater until the 1900s. France was, and to a greatly diminished extent still is, a global power. French has T-V distinction. French has arbitrary noun gendering. The noun gendering alone makes it significantly easier to embarrass yourself speaking French than English.

> America was an economic backwater until the 1900s.

That seems like a stretch.

My understanding is that plantation cash crops grown in the South like Cotton were a major export in the early-mid 19th Century.

And then of course Standard Oil was incorporated in 1870.

Maybe the effect of American industrialization didn't have a big effect internationally until the ~1890s and onward, but I'd hardly say the USA was a backwater throughout the industrial revolution.

Re: Did English ever have a formal version of "you"? (2011)

#288

Post by jack2312 »

snidane wrote: post #109

As someone coming from a culture with T-V distinction [1], I always wished we dropped one of the branches like English did in the past. The informal T vs formal V causes confusion in conversation with semi-strangers. Eg. At work you never really know which way to speak to someone at a watercooler. If you choose the informal T you make them your equal. Ehich might be perceived as insulting to them, since they might wa…

Huh, having learned Spanish as a non-native speaker, I was taught that the two forms had more to do with the closeness of the relationship than they did with some sort of social rank or superiority.

For example, a family member who you would address as "sir" (at least in the Southern U.S.), maybe a parent or grandparent, might be taken aback if you addressed them with the formal "usted" in Spanish, because it didn't imply respect, but that you didn't consider the person close. Another example would be prayer, where God is definitely superior to us, but you would address Him with the less formal "tu", because the love He has for us makes that a close and personal relationship. (I'm not even sure that the word "formal" is the right one to use here, as like I say, it's not quite the same as in English.)

You could also have a business conversation where you'd use "usted" without necessarily implying respect, because "tu" sounds out of place for a distant relationship like that. (I.e. using "tu" wouldn't be disrespectful, so much as it would just be weird or akward.)

Am I misunderstanding the usage of the two forms, or could someone enlighten me a bit more on the subject? Is the dynamic similar in other T-V languages, or is it used more to denote social status/tiers?

Re: Did English ever have a formal version of "you"? (2011)

#290

Post by 8372049 »

actionfromafar wrote: post #231
8372049 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not universally true. In my country, German was the widely accepted and taught second language until WW2. Since then it's been English.

Well one empire (sort of empire) defeated another, so it’s related.

The reason German(y) was widely unpopular after WW2 wasn't primarily because they lost.

ETA: They lost WW1 too, but German remained our #1 foreign language.

Post reply on HN