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

321–330 of 441 posts

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

#321

Post by vlz »

solidsnack9000 wrote: post #291
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.

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

Shipping sure, but also simply the fact that a good part of the worlds population were part of the British empire. Wikipedia has 23% of the world population at 1913.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire

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

#322

Post by euroderf »

pruetj wrote: post #72
verditelabs wrote: post #46

In my native Texan English, "y'all" can certainly act as a singular polite "you" (EDIT: though it is not terribly common). I often use "Howdy, how y'all doin?" as a polite greeting to people I don't know regardless of the number of people I am addressing, though switch to just "you" after making acquaintance. Funny enough, "howdy" is a contraction of the older "how do ye" and some people still consider it both a gree…

Interesting on the “y’all”. I’m a Texan and have never addressed a singular person as y’all. If I do address a person as y’all as in “How are y’all doing?”, it’s assumed I’m speaking of the family unit that person belongs to rather than the individual. While we Texans might find it polite or friendly, in the corporate world I’ve been told to avoid using it in emails.

I'm from the Northeast and once in a while I'll use "y'all" as an informal plural. It tends to bring a smile to the people being addressed. Perhaps it is understood as a reference to its use in the movies.

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

#323

Post by McBeige »

yongjik wrote: post #257
jmac01 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it culturally English speaking to think this just sounds like social anxiety rather than an expected norm? If someone thought they were superior than me and expected a particular greeting or whatever, I'd tell them where to shove it lol We are all equal.

If you take a complicated social issue and reduce it until it becomes a one-dimensional question, of course it sounds stupid. Imagine a foreigner learning English and asking "Why do I have to care if people are male or female? What a sexist language! Nobody cares about genitals in my culture!" And they start to refer to everybody as "he", regardless of, well, genitals. They won't come across as more enlightened, tran…

It's besides the point, but a slight correction: you wouldn't assume someone's preferred pronouns from details about their genitals (it'd be offensive to ask or try to check!), but from how they present them self - through gendered appearance or perhaps by just stating it.

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

#324

Post by euroderf »

hinkley wrote: post #45

For flowery speech we escalate to sentence fragments. Your Grace, Your Eminence, Madam President, Your Honor. Or honorifics in front of or around proper names, like Mister Rogers, Doctor House, Nurse Ratched (anarchic now, the doctors have one that PR campaign) or “General Granger, Sir”. There are some parliamentary ones that pretty much only show on in Congress and on CSPAN.

Let us not forget Grand Exalted Poobah.

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

#325

Post by euroderf »

hilbert42 wrote: post #163
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…

First, note my correction to the mistake in the above 'Afterthought'. Brain wasn't in gear. _ Thanks for the info. My German is far from perfect so I don't claim any authority on the matter. Most of my time in a German-speaking environment was in Austria (Wien) and that was now some years ago. Back when I was learning the language it was always stressed to me not to use du even with friends as it would be deemed as u…

What you say about "youse" - I find that "y'all" often fits the bill -- and/but with uncouthness upgraded to a hint of whimsy.

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

#326

Post by echaozh »

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…

If tenses are cases are what keeps languages from being global, you should all speak Chinese now, whose words don't change forms at all.

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

#327

Post by bradley13 »

In German, we have the formal "Sie" and the informal "du". The formal means of address is dying incredibly fast. It's been a huge change just in the past 10 years or so. I'm not a linguist, but I'm pretty sure this is due to the influence of English, which is everywhere.

Just as an example: as a gray-haired professor, I use "du" and my first name with my students. I may be an outlier in my generation, but that is entirely normal for younger colleagues. 10 years ago, that would have been...strange. 20 years ago, it was unheard of.

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

#328

Post by asveikau »

chimeracoder wrote: post #316
asveikau wrote: post #258

Earlier 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…

I know this. What I'm saying is I'm surprised at people using vos where usted seems kind of necessary to me. What I also said is that vos was formal 500 years ago, which is an unrelated observation.

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

#329

Post by boernard »

bradley13 wrote: post #327

In German, we have the formal "Sie" and the informal "du". The formal means of address is dying incredibly fast. It's been a huge change just in the past 10 years or so. I'm not a linguist, but I'm pretty sure this is due to the influence of English, which is everywhere. Just as an example: as a gray-haired professor, I use "du" and my first name with my students. I may be an outlier in my generation, but that is ent…

I think English definitely has it's influence but I think another big factor is the general idea that this hierarchic thinking just gets outdated and younger Germans strive to have a sense of equality.

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

#330

Post by elric »

WirelessGigabit wrote: post #296
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 addres…

Just to add to this:

The T form (jij/je) sounds infantile in Flemish because it is infantile. The real T form in Flemish is gij/ge. But it's somewhat archaic and some people look down on it, so it's rarely used in written conversation. In many cases, the jij/je-form is used when talking to children or used by children. Once they grow up a bit, they tend to use the gij/ge form for informal conversation, and jij/je for slightly more polite conversation.

It's a bit different in the Netherlands, where the archaic forms are more rare outside of Brabant, and where reality more closely matches the textbook T-forms.

Companies addressing me using the infantile form doesn't bother me. What I find much more annoying is companies trying to be cutesy, with random slang thrown in their communications It always gives me "How do you do, fellow kids"-vibes.

I only very rarely encounter anyone talking in the V-forms. It's more common in the written form.

Being a bit of a contrarian, I refuse to write in the jij/je T-form, and consistently stick to the archaic gij/ge.

TL;DR: Flemish has 2 T-forms and one V-form, but the newer T-form is sometimes a V-form. Languages are fun.

Post reply on HN