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

171–180 of 441 posts

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

#171

Post by hilbert42 »

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…

"English no distinction is made between the second and third person 'you'."

Duh! I ought to read what I write before posing. Obviously what I said is garbage, what I meant was '...in modern English no distinction is made between the second person singular and plural forms in that both use the pronoun'you.'

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

#172

Post by netsharc »

Aaronmacaron wrote: post #167
derriz wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you explain. I'd guess "Arschloch"? The translation of "bad language" is very tricky. English is my mother tongue but I live in a German (sort-of, it's complicated) speaking country. I've learned that "scheisse" is not a very good translation for the English word "sh*t". It seems to me that the English word is much stronger/more offensive than the common German translation at least where I'm from. German "schei…

The word in question is "wichser". The dictionary says it means "motherfucker". In my perception wichser is one of the strongest insults in german. https://youtu.be/S1ZnpYEsUNs?si=nGr-2MgtBMR16dgl

Damn, my memory of the video is totally wrong...

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

#173

Post by peyton »

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.

The competition was very aggressive, escalating into several Anglo-Dutch wars. The VOC absolutely outcompeted the EIC most of the time. How do you explain the staying power of English given that “imperialism” is the more appropriate context, not “British Imperialism”?

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

#174

Post by [deleted] »

whycome wrote: post #165
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…

Quebec French seems to be in the process of dropping the formal. It’s way less common there than metro/france French.

[deleted]

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

#175

Post by hilbert42 »

pvg wrote: post #136
biztos wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, a…

Right, see my reply to biztos.

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

#176

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

derriz wrote: post #145
Aaronmacaron wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

asshole is a very euphemistic translation

Could you explain. I'd guess "Arschloch"? The translation of "bad language" is very tricky. English is my mother tongue but I live in a German (sort-of, it's complicated) speaking country. I've learned that "scheisse" is not a very good translation for the English word "sh*t". It seems to me that the English word is much stronger/more offensive than the common German translation at least where I'm from. German "schei…

Words change roles, and shit is a very good contemporary example. Among my children's generation (mid-20s to mid-30s) it is now just as much as stand-in for "stuff" as it is an expression of anger or insult. "Where am I going to put all this shit?" does still carry a hint of a negative tone (directed towards the stuff), but barely any.

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

#177

Post by mtlmtlmtlmtl »

bdw5204 wrote: post #153
denton-scratch wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. We think of "thee" and "thou" as being formal, because nowadays they are mainly found in religious texts. But they used to be informal, used when addressing friends and children. As the top answer explains, "thee" and "thou" eventually came to be considered rude.

It isn't so much that they're mainly found in religious texts as that the most common English translation of the Bible is still the King James Version which is over 400 years old and "thou" was still part of the English language back then. The other other English text most people are familiar with that is older than the KJV would be the works of Shakespeare which arguably need to be translated to modern English at th…

To be fair though, Beowulf in its original form would be incomprehensible even to well read native English speakers. Old English and Modern English are so different that they're no longer mutually intelligible even. Same goes for a lot of languages if you compare them to themselves a millennium apart. Or if their common ancestor was milennia ago.

E.g Icelandic and Faroese aren't really mutually intelligible with Norwegian today, despite both being evolved directly from Old Norwegian, because both places were originally settled by Norwegian vikings.

Shakepeare is essentially just very old school, yet still Modern English. This still feels within the realm of understanding of current day native speakers equipped with a good dictionary.

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

#178

Post by ogogmad »

panarky wrote: post #97
flappyeagle wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because there are many still-popular and important literary works like those of Shakespeare and the King James Bible which benefit from understanding the distinction.

For most of my life I've quietly despised the people in the church of my youth for switching to thee/thou/thy in public prayers. I always thought this was grandstanding performance of piety, or cargo cult mumbo jumbo, or both. It just seemed so silly to think that God only understands archaic English. Now it turns out these people I despised were only being respectful, and trying to use the formal forms? However, sin…

In ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek, there was no T/V distinction, so their equivalent of "thou" was never considered informal. Some Early Modern translators of the bible tried to preserve the thou/you distinction as it existed in ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek, while deliberately ignoring how it worked in the languages they were translating into. This then influenced the language of prayer.

Another pattern is that religious language tends to be archaic. For example, Jews pray in ancient Hebrew, Muslims in classical Arabic, some Catholics in classical Latin, and so on. I don't know whether this is done to create a sense of awe and mystery, or because religions try to appear unchanging.

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

#179

Post by brational »

stavros wrote: post #133
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.

Totally depends on country.

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

#180

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

EGreg wrote: post #33
Caligatio wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like this must be fading because I lived in North Yorkshire for almost 5 years and never heard a thee/thou used. On the other hand, English dialects are hyper localized so there might be villages where it is normal.

Go to Amish country!

You're more likely thinking of Quakers. At least those still a part of the mid-Atlantic tradition historically use "thou" to avoid power distinctions. Not many still do this in daily speech, but it's not absolutely lost, and is sometimes used for emphasis in a conversation in which matters of power and equality are lurking.
Post reply on HN