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

131–140 of 441 posts

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

#131

Post by 082349872349872 »

NewsyHacker wrote: post #130
lnxg33k1 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I saw that, but I'd say if that makes sense, that they're attributing the introduction of "Voi" within the roman era and not in the medieval times, right? The second one instead attributes it to "Roma Cesarea", to be fair, it is not the encyclopaedia that attributes it to "Roma Cesarea" but the article that influenced Mussolini quoted on the article on the encyclopaedia, so they're probably only quoting, but I d…

Historians today tend to trace the ultimate fall of the Roman Empire to the multiple crises of the third century, even if the name of the empire limped on for a couple of centuries more. So AD 293 is quite a late date, on the threshold to a new era. From the viewpoint of modern historians, it is hard to understand how Italian Fascism could have seen anything that late as worth being proud of and emulating.

It's much easier to understand if one doesn't assume that Fascism ever cared about academic truth.

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

#132

Post by [deleted] »

Aaronmacaron wrote: post #128
netsharc wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

German also has the 2 levels, but addressing the police with the informal you might get you into trouble. There's a great clip (not sure if it's a sketch show or a 360p mobile phone recording) of a guy peeking out of his apartment door and seeing a lot of coos, and he says to one of them, "Piss off, you (informal) asshole!." . The cop says "excuse me?", and the guy responds with, "Ah, sorry, you (formal) asshole!". T…

asshole is a very euphemistic translation

[deleted]

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

#133

Post by stavros »

hilbert42 wrote: post #59

Afterthought: the post below illustrates the paucity of modern English in that nowadays in modern English no distinction is made between the second and third person 'you' whereas in other languages such as German it still is. __ I've mentioned on HN previously when discussing languages that when my father was learning German his old textbook had the English thee, thou, and thine/thy as the second person for the Germa…

In contrast, in Spanish, they generally say "tu" rather than "usted", eg in restaurants, shops, etc. "Usted" is reserved for the more polite interactions, older people, etc.

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

#134

Post by tom_ »

yawaramin wrote: post #18

'Thou' is also used in English prayers ('Thy kingdom come, thy will be done'), as a mark of a personal closeness to God.

"You" would be ambiguous anyway, and might imply that you are addressing more than one, contravening the first commandment.

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

#135

Post by lnxg33k1 »

082349872349872 wrote: post #131
NewsyHacker wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Historians today tend to trace the ultimate fall of the Roman Empire to the multiple crises of the third century, even if the name of the empire limped on for a couple of centuries more. So AD 293 is quite a late date, on the threshold to a new era. From the viewpoint of modern historians, it is hard to understand how Italian Fascism could have seen anything that late as worth being proud of and emulating.

It's much easier to understand if one doesn't assume that Fascism ever cared about academic truth.

Probably you're right, they just needed something widely known to make people feel some sort of national identity/united/proud and control them better

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

#136

Post by pvg »

biztos wrote: post #82
hilbert42 wrote: post #59

Afterthought: the post below illustrates the paucity of modern English in that nowadays in modern English no distinction is made between the second and third person 'you' whereas in other languages such as German it still is. __ I've mentioned on HN previously when discussing languages that when my father was learning German his old textbook had the English thee, thou, and thine/thy as the second person for the Germa…

> it is reserved for the closest of relationships such as family, lovers etc. You use du for your friends, your classmates, people your own age up through about college, and anyone you think you are or should be on informal terms with. Such as shop workers (sometimes), bartenders (usually), waiters (depending on location), random people in the street (in places like Berlin, if they're not senior citizens), and anyone…

I'll second just about all of this, the one bit of colour I can add - years ago I had a summer job in a German-speaking (auto) shop where a majority of the workers, including some of the management were immigrants with a fairly wide range of German proficiency but everyone had picked up the onsite du/Sie conventions (along with some others like shaking hands at the beginning of the shift). It's, like you're saying, as much a cultural convention with contextual intricacies as it is a grammatical feature of the language.

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

#137

Post by ffgjgf1 »

NewsyHacker wrote: post #76
mewpmewp2 wrote: post #68

I'm from a country where there is a different version and I hate it because it makes me overthink every time about which one is appropriate to use now with people I don't know. Maybe I should completely ditch it, and use the informal one with everyone new, just with the hopes of building immediate rapport. I must not be the only one to hate it, and surely those people who would mind me using the informal one are not…

If negotiating the tu / vous distinction takes major mental effort, are you on the spectrum? Difficulty with understanding social cues and (these distinctions are also about creating distance) other people’s space is a typical trait of autism. These linguistic innovations wouldn't spread – and often quickly, within a couple of generations – if the neurotypical masses found them burdensome. I'm in a country with this…

> If negotiating the tu/vous distinction takes major mental effort, are you on the spectrum

For me it’s the fact that these days it’s very inconsistent. The “rules” were pretty clear 20-30+ years ago. Now it’s a bit of a mess and there is a lot of overlap.

> Saying people like myself aren't worth your time sounds like sour grapes

I mean.. you’re somebody who just claimed that a random person is autistic because he doesn’t conform with some social norm you find to be somehow extremely important (specifically) in your environment. So it might not be such a bad heuristic.

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

#138

Post by scotty79 »

It's weird how plural form is seen as polite.

Maybe it was because if you were meeting unknown person you might verbally assume they are a part of some group. Either to put them at ease so they know they are not perceived as lonely prey or to safeguard yourself by communicating that you are aware and prepared that more of them might be hiding in the bushes.

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

#140

Post by ffgjgf1 »

NewsyHacker wrote: post #130
lnxg33k1 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I saw that, but I'd say if that makes sense, that they're attributing the introduction of "Voi" within the roman era and not in the medieval times, right? The second one instead attributes it to "Roma Cesarea", to be fair, it is not the encyclopaedia that attributes it to "Roma Cesarea" but the article that influenced Mussolini quoted on the article on the encyclopaedia, so they're probably only quoting, but I d…

Historians today tend to trace the ultimate fall of the Roman Empire to the multiple crises of the third century, even if the name of the empire limped on for a couple of centuries more. So AD 293 is quite a late date, on the threshold to a new era. From the viewpoint of modern historians, it is hard to understand how Italian Fascism could have seen anything that late as worth being proud of and emulating.

> trace the ultimate fall of the Roman Empire to

Or the plague and the subsequent Arab invasions. The empire was rebounded several times from near collapse after the 300s

Post reply on HN