Did English ever have a formal version of "you"? (2011) • Hacker News Board

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

#381

Post by okeuro49 » Mon, Dec 25, 2023, 3:49 PM UTC

oblio wrote: post #369

adhesive_wombat wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The adjective order one is really interesting to explain: the adjectives in "good small old red wooden English book" have to come in that order or it sounds very peculiar. Other European languages may have this to, but explaining it to people who speak unrelated languages usual results in a wail of "but why?!" Many English speakers don't themselves realise it - in the UK, at least, we are not carefully taught English…

> Other European languages may have this to, but explaining it to people who speak unrelated languages usual results in a wail of "but why?!" They do, and just like in your other example, they internalize it, they just don't realize they do it automatically because it "sounds good". > Most grammatical understanding comes when (if!) you study a foreign language and then you find out that "find out" is a thing called a…

> Does the average English speaker really not know about the term "phrasal verb"? :-)

Yes.

Furthermore, I didn't know the English word for it, despite being a native speaker, but do know the German "Verben mit Präpositional-Ergänzung", from having learnt German.

Speakers of English as a foreign language will know more about English grammar than English native speakers.

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

#382

Post by dazc » Mon, Dec 25, 2023, 3:56 PM UTC

FergusArgyll wrote: post #368

adhesive_wombat wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The adjective order one is really interesting to explain: the adjectives in "good small old red wooden English book" have to come in that order or it sounds very peculiar. Other European languages may have this to, but explaining it to people who speak unrelated languages usual results in a wail of "but why?!" Many English speakers don't themselves realise it - in the UK, at least, we are not carefully taught English…

Steven Pinker's book on irregular verbs has a great example of this. little kids often mess up on irregular verbs ("I eated supper") because they (subconsciously?) learn the grammar, they aren't memorizing the past tense of every word

The beauty of English being that everyone understands what the kid meant.

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

#383

Post by ricardobayes » Mon, Dec 25, 2023, 4:06 PM UTC

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 Central Europe at the turn of the 20th century it was the norm for husband and wife to talk to each other in the formal "V" form.

Today that would be completely unimaginable.

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

#384

Post by rand1239 » Mon, Dec 25, 2023, 4:24 PM UTC

There is no you. It's just an illusion in consciousness. Disagree?

Try to find and locate the you in the next 5 mins.

There are only sensations, images, thoughts and sound which rises and go in consciousness. No you.

Unless a thought comes and says thats you. But it's again just a thought.

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

#385

Post by rightbyte » Mon, Dec 25, 2023, 4:28 PM UTC

bxparks wrote: post #65

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…

Wait, wat? I always thought that "y'all" was a contraction of "you all", so meant the "plural you" instead of the "singular you".

There is always a slide.

"You" implicitly means "thou and thine underlings" when used in singular. Which makes in polite.

"y'all" will probably share the same fate in English.

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

#386

Post by WirelessGigabit » Mon, Dec 25, 2023, 4:41 PM UTC

elric wrote: post #330

WirelessGigabit wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

First of all, thanks for reminding me about ge/gij. I am born in Flanders, raised in Flemish, and lived there for 28 years and I forgot about that.

When I was growing up people did not address me with je/jij. My mom was a teacher. Ge/gij all the time.

And if you want to be polite you would switch to u/u.

And I get the same vibes as you do. But since ge/gij is not suitable for formal communication I insist on using u/u. This also increases the barrier to use any kind of infantile cosy language.

'Wees gerust' just irks me.

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

#387

Post by WirelessGigabit » Mon, Dec 25, 2023, 4:44 PM UTC

toolslive wrote: post #352

WirelessGigabit wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Education has been trying to kill the "ge/gij" form for decades by ignoring its existence. In Flanders, they are not really succeeding. Everybody still uses it in spoken form. However, the number of people knowing how to conjugate it properly in written form is decreasing. "Gij hadt" fe, is correct but rarely encountered .

"Gij loopt". Base + t. That's how I learned it.

Do you know why education is trying to do this? I find that as it infiltrates business communication that it encourages a language that sounds like we're friends. We're not. I'm a person. You're a company who is overcharging me for basic things like internet. No need for informal cosy language.

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

#388

Post by Sytten » Mon, Dec 25, 2023, 4:44 PM UTC

whycome wrote: post #220

Joblo62 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This so untrue I had to make an account to reply to you. Quebec french is standardised by the OQLF (Office Québécois de la Langue Française) and the formal/informal distinction is as important in our french as it is in other cultures. The reason it might seem less common is because most conversations people have are informal. In formal settings, it is still expected of people to use "vous" rather than "tu". It is see…

Which part is untrue? In spoken French, in cases of unfamiliarity it would be more common in France to use the formal “vous” than in a place like Montreal where you’ll see “tu” still used. When I say it “seems to be in the process” it’s because of how I’ve heard the language spoken. (Admittedly in Montreal and French Ontario and not other parts of Quebec). Popular French (from France!) YouTuber Loïc Suberville actual…

The part where you say we are dropping it. It is very much alive and just as confusing as ever for settings that are on the fence. I positively hate it. I can't count the number of times where I heard (roughly): Can I continue speaking with you using "tu"?

When I was in high school (10y ago) we were forced to use "vous" when speaking to an adult.

That is why OP said your statement was false.

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

#389

Post by tonfa » Mon, Dec 25, 2023, 4:44 PM UTC

jmac01 wrote: post #223

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…

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.

Good luck trying that with cops in France (who condescendingly will "tu" you while expecting "vous" in return)

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

#390

Post by kemayo » Mon, Dec 25, 2023, 4:51 PM UTC

lupusreal wrote: post #379

McBeige wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If I assumed any woman wearing pants and a tshirt wants to be called a man, I'd offend them more often than not. Guessing somebody is transgender because they aren't conforming to gendered fashion conventions is an extremely bad idea.

The parent wasn't just talking about the top-level of their clothes, though, but about overall presentation. There's generally a lot more cultural signifiers embedded that you can cue off of than just "pants or skirt?" after all. Haircuts (highly gendered even at similar lengths), subtleties of makeup and jewelry, the cut of the aforementioned t-shirt and pants, body language, etc. (And there's still room to get it wrong, of course. But fortunately people who're living in the gray areas are generally aware they're doing so.)

Explaining all the details of how to distinguish e.g. a butch lesbian from a trans man to someone from a different cultural tradition is, of course, an incredible pain.