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

291–300 of 441 posts

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

#291

Post by solidsnack9000 »

emodendroket wrote: post #264
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…

> 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.

English was a widespread language of trade long before America was a big deal because of British shipping.

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

#292

Post by dragonwriter »

8372049 wrote: post #290
actionfromafar wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

OTOH, the reason those feelings were free to be expressed...

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

#293

Post by BalinKing »

yongjik wrote: post #247
FromTheSteppe wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is speaking to someone formally considered ending up in an inferior position in all cultures? In Persian if someone expects to be spoken with formally, they have to speak formally themselves. So when you speak formally you're kinda bringing both parties up. You can even flirt by speaking formally.

In Korean there are four commonly used forms, which map into the combination of (formal vs informal) x (polite vs not-so-polite). (That's a simple picture and the reality is a lot messier... but let's not get into that.) E.g., Formal polite: military, business email, public announcement Formal non-polite: textbooks, novels Informal polite: kids' books, between coworkers, between customer and clerk Informal non-polite…

This sounds very similar to my (very amateur) understanding of how Japanese works as well.

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

#294

Post by wkat4242 »

I thought "you" was the formal version and "thou" was informal. Didn't read the article though. No time right now but I'll do so later.

I'm happy more languages drop this formal stuff though. In Dutch it's also pretty uncommon now to say "U". And I like it.

In fact it used to be much worse, when I was young every agenda came with a whole page of formal verbiage for people of different roles (like ministers, judges and other officials). I don't think anyone uses that stuff anymore.

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

#295

Post by nitwit005 »

softfalcon wrote: post #151
mytailorisrich wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

English became the dominant business language for reasons unrelated to the English language itself but because of the relative power of the people who spoke the language.

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.

It is a bit more complex than that. My father (American) learned German because his mother considered it "the language of science". That attitude is mostly gone.

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

#296

Post by WirelessGigabit »

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…

In Flanders, Belgium there is a slow adoption of T.

But what is weird is that the V is used in BOTH contexts. The T is used in the Netherlands but slowly more and more people in Flanders are adopting the T version in written language.

And it irks me. Companies sending you a letter addressing you with the T version, like we're friends.

I don't want to be addressed by V for reasons of respect. I don't want to be addressed with T for reasons of not wanting to be infantilized.

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

#297

Post by refurb »

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 in 1890. That would suggest it wasn't a backwater until at least the early 1800's.

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

#298

Post by rblatz »

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.

That’s true of many countries, including The US.
Post reply on HN