Hemingway's abuse of language in For Whom the Bell Tolls always drove me. He uses you in place of tu and thou as usted .
Do you have an example? That seems like a howler that surely his editor would have caught if he didn't.
Did English ever have a formal version of “you”?
21–30 of 200 posts
Re: Did English ever have a formal version of “you”?
#22I'm having trouble finding a reference, but it's my understanding that the Dissenter (later Quaker) habit of referring to everyone as 'thou' regardless of rank is precisely what lead to 'you' becoming universal. If one wasn't a Dissenter, one surely didn't want to be mistaken for such.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T–V_distinction has some extensive discussion.
The version I heard is roughly that, though I recall a professor blaming it on Cromwell's commonwealth rather than the Quakers (after the commonwealth fell thee/thou went completely out of favor.)
Re: Did English ever have a formal version of “you”?
#23We're very happy with y'all here in Texas.
[deleted]
Re: Did English ever have a formal version of “you”?
#24I'm having trouble finding a reference, but it's my understanding that the Dissenter (later Quaker) habit of referring to everyone as 'thou' regardless of rank is precisely what lead to 'you' becoming universal. If one wasn't a Dissenter, one surely didn't want to be mistaken for such.
There's a certain point in historical linguistics where plausibility becomes the main explanation. Usually when asking, "Why did everyone adopt this particular pattern?" Narrowing down a Patient Zero for the "and that's how my mom said it" effect is basically impossible even today, nevermind via combing through records.
Re: Did English ever have a formal version of “you”?
#25Nice to see English on here. I’m one of the more active users there (Jon Purdy) and it’s a great resource. :)
ha yea I was on english[dot]stackexchange this morning reading through that thread, and I come home and it's at the top of HN
Re: Did English ever have a formal version of “you”?
#26We're very happy with y'all here in Texas.
It confused me when I asked a native Texan something about what I should do next and she responded with "y'all could [foo]". But there's only one of me? I suppose that technically I am the 'all' of the 'you' that is being addressed?
Re: Did English ever have a formal version of “you”?
#27[deleted]
Re: Did English ever have a formal version of “you”?
#28Second person used to be:
Singular----|----Plural
Thou Ye, You
Thee You
Thine Yours
Thy Your
By the way, the "Ye" is not related to the "Ye" in store signs that say "Ye Olde...". Y was sometimes used by typographers instead of the Old English letter Þ(Thorn), which makes a "Th" sound, so those store signs should be pronounced as "The Old..."
The usage of "You" instead of "Thou" began in the 14th century. It was originally used in token of respect when addressing a superior, and eventually began to be used when addressing equals.
EDIT: Removed part about "you all", because some things I said were wrong and others I will have to look up.
Re: Did English ever have a formal version of “you”?
#29We're very happy with y'all here in Texas.
It confused me when I asked a native Texan something about what I should do next and she responded with "y'all could [foo]". But there's only one of me? I suppose that technically I am the 'all' of the 'you' that is being addressed?
In some regional vernaculars, "y'all" is singular and "all y'all" is plural.
Re: Did English ever have a formal version of “you”?
#30Second person used to be: Singular----|----Plural Thou Ye, You Thee You Thine Yours Thy Your Which correspond to the nominative, objective, and possessive cases accordingly. By the way, the "Ye" is not related to the "Ye" in store signs that say "Ye Olde...". Y was sometimes used by typographers instead of the Old English letter Þ(Thorn), which makes a "Th" sound, so those store signs should be pronounced as " The Ol…
According to Merriam-Webster, "you all" is very clearly related to "y'all" [1][2]