317 comments, and nobody pointing out that the comments on the accepted answer has a comment by the Peter Shor.
Did English ever have a formal version of "you"? (2011)
331–340 of 441 posts
Re: Did English ever have a formal version of "you"? (2011)
#332Earlier 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.
English was a widespread language of trade long before America was a big deal because of British shipping.
Yes, but so were other contenders like French and German which have not retained such a prominent role.
Re: Did English ever have a formal version of "you"? (2011)
#333Second person pronouns are so fascinating! Not only is "you" the formal, polite plural form, but calling someone "thou" was also seen as so informal as to be rude (in verb form, to "thou" someone). This has a modern equivalent in the term "tutoyer" in French. https://www.etymonline.com/word/thou An interesting counterpoint is the usage in Japanese of sarcastically polite forms like お前 and 貴様, where you use a pronoun…
Interestingly the formality ladder flips at the very top of the hierarchy. Kings and popes must be addressed diffusely with plurals and layered references to official status (“Your Imperial Majesty”), but the Christian God above them is a “thou” in every European language. (Useless trivia bit… Apparently Emperor Charles V invented the styling of “His Majesty”. Before him, kings and emperors were addressed as highness…
> Kings and popes must be addressed diffusely with plurals
So I guess "the royal 'We'" falls under "believing your own marketing".
Re: Did English ever have a formal version of "you"? (2011)
#334Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the Netherlands, it is very regional whether or not you use the polite form. In the capital region, it is not used, and use is a signifier you are from the countryside, if your accent wasn't enough. There are courses on how to get rid of your accent (or rather, get one of the capital region), and ceasing the employ of the polite form is featured.
I’m surprised to read this, inasmuch as when I briefly lived in Rotterdam (if “capital region” comprises it, too) some years ago, my local acquaintances coached me in where to use the formal, and where to use the informal, and the distinction seemed very much alive.
A Rotterdammer using the polite form is the Dutch equivalent of angels flying out of ones bumhole: I've never seen it.
Joking aside: theres the school version of pioitesse, and the actual version.
Re: Did English ever have a formal version of "you"? (2011)
#335'Thou' is also used in English prayers ('Thy kingdom come, thy will be done'), as a mark of a personal closeness to God.
That's really more due to the influence of the King James Version than anything else. For example, ESV uses you: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206%3A5... In French, however, God is always referred to with the informal tu, which surprises second language learners. But it makes sense when you realize that using plural for formal came about well after the Hebrew Bible, and because it was to implic…
Good insight that I hadn't thought of. To flesh that out, the KJV translators used thou as singular and ye as plural consistently to render the second person singular-plural distinctions found in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The translators never intended a usage of thou in the KJV to imply informality, only that the original language used the second person singular. That would naturally carry over into prayers and hymns that don't come from the KJV Bible. However, common people at the time who couldn't know the translators' chosen convention might have then read closeness into the pronoun used to address God, which wouldn't be a bad thing theologically.
Re: Did English ever have a formal version of "you"? (2011)
#336Earlier 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 noun gendering alone makes it significantly easier to embarrass yourself speaking French than English.
English has more than enough of ways to easily embarrass yourself without the need for arbitrary noun gendering.
Re: Did English ever have a formal version of "you"? (2011)
#337Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spanish has lots of funky history in its second person pronouns that vary regionally. After Argentina's recent election I've been consuming lots of content from there, and it sometimes surprises me how frequently they use vos in things that would seem to call for politeness. Vos itself was formal address in Spain in the time of Cervantes IIRC, it is also the origin of vuestro merced ( usted )
> After Argentina's recent election I've been consuming lots of content from there, and it sometimes surprises me how frequently they use vos in things that would seem to call for politeness. Vos itself was formal address in Spain in the time of Cervantes IIRC, it is also the origin of vuestro merced (usted) vos is not really formal in Argentinian Spanish, although it does share an etymologocal root with vuestro merc…
Vos is informal, Usted is formal. That's it. We don't use "Tu" AFAIK.
Re: Did English ever have a formal version of "you"? (2011)
#338The more complex a language is the easier is to express complex ideas.
Imagine a language with just two words. Can you think or say anything in it? Sure, but it isn't going to be easy.
Re: Did English ever have a formal version of "you"? (2011)
#339There must be some links between French and English where in French, the formal version is "vous" which sounds like "you" and the informal is "toi" which maybe sounded like "thou" in the past. (The 'th' has no equivalent in French)
That's because they're very closely related languages. English is a mix of Anglo-Saxon and Norman French, after the Norman invasion of England in the 11th century. Norman French is how the Norse diaspora in Normandy mixed their Germanic tongue with the local dialects of Latin. And the Romance and Germanic languages are both pretty closely related branches of Indo-European, which is also a pretty narrow language famil…
There's no need to explain French tu by looking at Germanic languages. It descends pretty uneventfully from Latin tū. However, French and Latin tu are cousins of German du and English thou.
Re: Did English ever have a formal version of "you"? (2011)
#340Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the Netherlands, it is very regional whether or not you use the polite form. In the capital region, it is not used, and use is a signifier you are from the countryside, if your accent wasn't enough. There are courses on how to get rid of your accent (or rather, get one of the capital region), and ceasing the employ of the polite form is featured.
Thats funny because in Austria it’s the other way around. People in Vienna are used to being overpolite and will use the formal “Sie” abundantly, whereas on the countryside everyone is always almost “Du”. There is the saying: “Am Land sind alle per Du”.
It isn't difficult to see why. Vienna was an imperial capital, the Netherlands 'capital region' was ruled by (wealthy) capitalists. One group would be focused on courtesy, the other on efficiency, wouldn't they?
Naturally, both are ultimately evolved into appearance, not substance (because of courae this difference isnt substantial).