Campaign for the revival of thou!

[Hegel]

I am quite seriously attempting to revive the middle english pronoun thou. After all it is quite usefull. It allows you to quite specifically refer to a single person in the second person, instead of the plural you. It fell out of use as it came to become a derogatory term.

The forms are:
thou when the subject (similar to he)
thee as the object (similar to him)
thy as the possesive (similar to his) in front of a consonant
thine as the possesive (again similar to his) in front of a vowel

Well? What do thee think? Do thou think that this revival is worth it? Not?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Hegel
Do thou think that this revival is worth it? Not?

"Dost thou." :D

[ceptimus]

Thy doesn't know what thas talkin abowt. Folk roun these parts still spake like that anyroad. Thy cosn't bring back wot's not gone in't first place.

[ceptimus]

Originally posted by Sundog


"Dost thou." :D I thought, "Doest thou?"

[Mercutio]

Look at my username, thou clod--I never stopped using them!:p

[The Mad Linguist]

Th'art fighting a losing battle ere, sithee.

[Lord Emsworth]

Darf ich ihnen das 'Du' anbieten?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by ceptimus
Thy doesn't know what thas talkin abowt. Folk roun these parts still spake like that anyroad. Thy cosn't bring back wot's not gone in't first place.

Tha's bloody not wrong theer me awld cock sparrer!

[Soapy Sam]

Is that an alum, coal,iron ore, lead, tin, zinc, copper or fluorspar mine?
And what's tha daein in't, thee?

[BillyTK]

Cowus it's a bloody coal mine, thi daft ap'orth! ;) :D

It's a Buffy the Vampire Slayer reference.

[DrMatt]

I'd like to put in a pitch for ASL, which has nominative, genitive, or reflexive; singular and plural; but neither formal/informal nor gender on its pronouns. Gender is retained on "boy", "girl", "brother", "sister", "mother", and "father", and occasionally in places where a foreign word (e.g. a word of English like "hers") is being translated word-by-word rather than context-by-context.

Alas, there is no standard writing system for ASL, so its natives mostly use broken English in e-mail.

[ceptimus]

I also like the scottish 'yon' (as in yonder) which I understand to indicate distance.

So a scot could stand on a hill, with two other hills in sight, one near, one far, and refer to this hill, that hill and yon hill and, if we knew the code, we would know which hill he was talking about, without him having to point.

Just surfed to find evidence for the above, and discovered that there are four different demonstratives - so speaking about groups of boys a scot could refer to them as (at increasing distance):

thir lads, thae lads, thon lads, yon lads.

Here's the site where I found that. (http://www.electricscotland.com/tourist/sh_gram.htm)

[lofgoernost]

I also like the scottish 'yon' (as in yonder) which I understand to indicate distance.

cpetimus

Tony Curtis-speak:

Yonder lies da kingdom of me fader.

[Rat]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth
Darf ich ihnen das 'Du' anbieten?
Doch ja!

[DrMatt]

Prithee how doest Thou propose to revive me, and when?

[NoZed Avenger]

No need. We've got it covered with "you" and "y'all" now.

We just need to get y'all educated on the proper pronunciation and usage.

N/A

[JAR]

Originally posted by ceptimus
Thy doesn't know what thas talkin abowt. Folk roun these parts still spake like that anyroad. Thy cosn't bring back wot's not gone in't first place.
What dialect of English are you speaking?

My guess is Yorkshire. It kind of sounds similar to the English of the people in "The Secret Garden."

[azidhak]

I'm holier than thou!:p

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
No need. We've got it covered with "you" and "y'all" now.

We just need to get y'all educated on the proper pronunciation and usage.

N/A

Don't you mean "y'all" and "all y'all"? *ducks*

Anyway, I used to frequent some fantasy roleplay channels on Irc and, in my experience, most people are simply not able to use thou correctly. Now, a revival of "whence" and "whither" in comman usage, that I might support.

[Charlie in Dayton]

Originally posted by Hegel
I am quite seriously attempting to revive the middle english pronoun thou. After all it is quite usefull. It allows you to quite specifically refer to a single person in the second person, instead of the plural you. It fell out of use as it came to become a derogatory term.

The forms are:
thou when the subject (similar to he)
thee as the object (similar to him)
thy as the possesive (similar to his) in front of a consonant
thine as the possesive (again similar to his) in front of a vowel

Well? What do thee think? Do thou think that this revival is worth it? Not?

F*ck thou.

[Rat]

F**k thee, I think you mean. I see people can indeed not use it correctly.

I do myself still use whence, thence, and hence. It's not that rare, but it's becoming rare to hear them used properly. I think people would look at me a bit funny if I said whither, hither, or thither. People already find it pretentious if I use whom, though why the disdain for the who/whom distinction, but not the he/him one, I don't know.

Of course we cannot, in English, differentiate between different levels of 'we' or 'us' as they can in come languages, such as 'yumi' and 'mipela' in the fantastic tok-pisin of PNG.

Cheers,
Rat.

[kittynh]

What are you, a Quaker?

[Charlie in Dayton]

Originally posted by ratcomp1974
F**k thee, I think you mean. I see people can indeed not use it correctly...
Cheers,Rat.

...and the horse thou rode in on...

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Charlie in Dayton


...and the horse thou rode in on...

...Being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow thy head clean off, thou hast got to ask theeself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, doest thee, punk?

[Some Friggin Guy]

Go and commiteth the act of intercourse with thine self.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


...Being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow thy head clean off, thou hast got to ask theeself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, doest thee, punk?

In tyke:

Si this .44 Magnum, reet, as being t'powerfullest 'andgun int world, an' would tek thi 'ed clean off thi shoulders like, thi's gotta ask thi'sen a question: dust a feel lucky? Well, dust tha, thi great steamin' pile o' wazzock droppings?

:D

[tim]

Bloody 'ell, he opened a reet can 'o worms, din't ee?

[Prospero]

So, would anyone consider it odd that I find myself encountering the word, and its various forms, somewhat frequently in conversation? I'll admit, my friends are particularly fond of word games and linguistic manipulation, but I thought it was at least somewhat commonplace if for no other reason than jesting.

[DrMatt]

But I am quite alive already, and under ordinary circumstances I only accept mouth-to-mouth from ladies...

[Wuglife]

I want to see this happen.

[theprestige]

Original Poster, whyfore seekest thou to revive "thou"?

[SpitfireIX]

I want to see this happen.


Wherefore didst thou feel the need to resurrect an eight-year-old thread?

[SpitfireIX]

Original Poster, whyfore seekest thou to revive "thou"?


Erm, the OP hasn't posted here since a couple of years before either of us joined.

[bruto]

Original Poster, whyfore seekest thou to revive "thou"?Wherefore dost thou shun the correct word and inflict upon us this neologism, sir?

Back to the subject, I think English has somehow managed pretty well despite its all purpose form of address, just as some languages work well without articles, and others with unconjugated verbs. We can always get more specific when we have to. You, sir. Yes, you there, with the stars in your eyes.

[Morrigan]

Holy necromancy, Batman. :newlol
...Being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow thy head clean off, thou hast got to ask theeself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, doest thee, punk?
I LOLed, though.

[TimCallahan]

The use of the second person singular reminds me of a story a fellow student told me when I was in college in the mid-sixties. She had learned fluent German and was visiting a night club for singles in West Berlin. The gimmick at this club was that each table had a number and a phone. If you were interested in someone at, say, table 7, you dialed 7 and chatted that person up. My friend made the mistake of calling those who dialed her up, du, which, as the second person singular, was technically correct. However, du apparently has connotations of intimacy. Thus zwei (sp.?) the second person plural pronoun was used for both second person singular and plural in casual speech. After a while of referring to all the guys who called her as du, she found herself a very popular girl.

Perhaps "thou" also carried connotations of intimacy and, after a while, dropped out of common usage.

[crimresearch]

What are you, a Quaker?
Quaker with a time machine...

[SpitfireIX]

The use of the second person singular reminds me of a story a fellow student told me when I was in college in the mid-sixties. She had learned fluent German and was visiting a night club for singles in West Berlin. The gimmick at this club was that each table had a number and a phone. If you were interested in someone at, say, table 7, you dialed 7 and chatted that person up. My friend made the mistake of calling those who dialed her up, du, which, as the second person singular, was technically correct. However, du apparently has connotations of intimacy. Thus zwei (sp.?) the second person plural pronoun was used for both second person singular and plural in casual speech. After a while of referring to all the guys who called her as du, she found herself a very popular girl.


Disclaimer: I'm not fluent in German, but I can read simple things, and my vocabulary is probably sufficient to order a meal, book a hotel room, or ask directions to the train station. Plus I know all sorts of German military terms. :D

The word du is in fact equivalent to thou, and does connote intimacy, though not necessarily sexual intimacy. One generally uses du only with family members, close friends, pets, God, and inferiors. Students generally use du with each other, according to one of my teachers. The informal second-person plural is ihr, and I've never heard of its being used as a singular, though again I'm not fluent. I presume the word you're looking for is Sie. BTW, zwei is the word for two.

Sie (pronounced like the first syllable of zebra, and always capitalized), is the formal second-person subject pronoun, both singular and plural. This can sometimes lead to confusion because sie (never capitalized except at the beginning of a sentence) is also the word for she, and the word for they. Further complicating matters, Sie, whether used as a singular or plural, always takes third-person plural verb conjugations, rather than the second-person singular or plural of du or ihr, respectively.

Back in first-year German, we'd conjugate the verb sein (to be) as follows:

ich bin (I am) | wir sind (we are)
du bist (you (singular informal) are) | ihr seid (you (plural informal) are)
er, sie, est ist (he, she, it is) | sie und Sie sind (they and you (singular or plural formal) are)

Perhaps "thou" also carried connotations of intimacy and, after a while, dropped out of common usage.


Again, it was formerly used exactly like du. Today it survives mainly in old songs, hymns, and prayers, and the works of William Shakespeare. The Wikipedia article on thou is instructive:

Originally, thou was simply the singular counterpart to the plural pronoun ye, derived from an ancient Indo-European root. Following a process found in other Indo-European languages, thou was later used to express intimacy, familiarity or even disrespect, while another pronoun, you, the oblique/objective form of ye, was used for formal circumstances (see T–V distinction). In the 17th century, thou fell into disuse in the standard language but persisted, sometimes in altered form, in regional dialects of England and Scotland, as well as in the language of such religious groups as the Society of Friends. Early English translations of the Bible used thou and never you as the singular second-person pronoun, with the double effect of rescuing thou from complete obscurity and also imbuing it with an air of religious solemnity that is antithetical to its former sense of familiarity or disrespect. The use of the pronoun was also common in poetry. [notes omitted]


I initially fell into the trap of assuming that thou was a formal usage, but then a friend of mine who was a linguistics major corrected my misconception, explaining that "Prayers were written using thou because you were supposed to have an intimate relationship with God."

[Cleon]

I am quite seriously attempting to revive the middle english pronoun thou.

I am quite seriously envious of the sheer amount of spare time you must enjoy.


After all it is quite usefull.

If it was really useful, people would still be using it.


It allows you to quite specifically refer to a single person in the second person, instead of the plural you.

And this is useful? Somehow we manage to communicate who we're talking to just fine.

[ddt]

Disclaimer: I'm not fluent in German, but I can read simple things, and my vocabulary is probably sufficient to order a meal, book a hotel room, or ask directions to the train station. Plus I know all sorts of German military terms. :D

The word du is in fact equivalent to thou, and does connote intimacy, though not necessarily sexual intimacy. One generally uses du only with family members, close friends, pets, God, and inferiors. Students generally use du with each other, according to one of my teachers. The informal second-person plural is ihr, and I've never heard of its being used as a singular, though again I'm not fluent. I presume the word you're looking for is Sie. BTW, zwei is the word for two.

Sie (pronounced like the first syllable of zebra, and always capitalized), is the formal second-person subject pronoun, both singular and plural. This can sometimes lead to confusion because sie (never capitalized except at the beginning of a sentence) is also the word for she, and the word for they. Further complicating matters, Sie, whether used as a singular or plural, always takes third-person plural verb conjugations, rather than the second-person singular or plural of du or ihr, respectively.
Yes. German isn't my native language either, but I've lived there a few years. I was a PhD student in Holland with a German professor. Halfway, he decided to switch to a German university and offered me a job there too and I moved with him. (Both in Holland and in Germany, being a PhD student is normally a job at university). One of the first days I asked him if I could address him with Du, which he said yes to - and I later found out that this was highly unusual. :o It's usual that colleagues say Sie to each other, even after years of working together, and when one offers the Du it's the one higher in rank doing so. The atmosphere at the university was definitely more relaxed: all research and teaching staff below professorial level addressed each other with Du and by first name. However, with professors that was definitely out.

I have heard "Ihr" used for singular - in period films as an address to royals and high nobility - but never in real life. I also doubt this "medieval" usage is historical.

Oh, and of course "du" and "thou" are cognates, i.e., they descend from the same Indo-European word.

[bruto]

In other languages as well, the distinction remains. French has "tu" and "vous," for example. Again, the singular is familiar and informal, if not necessarily intimate, but what it connotes depends on context. If you "tutoyer" a stranger at a bar, it's probably unbecomingly straightforward, whereas if you do it to your boss, it's disrespectful.

I think this last part is why the Quakers stuck with the English version of this, believing that one should not accord honorifics or gestures of respect to anyone more than one does to God or anyone else. If you don't doff your hat to your brother, then you don't doff it for the King. If you pray with "thee" then everyone is a thee. As it happens, common usage took care of itself, by making all address equally formal except for the antiquated forms of prayer, making "thee" sound more formal rather than less, and making modern Quaker adherents of "plain speech" appear to be cultivating distinction rather than shunning it.

[SpitfireIX]

Just noticed a typo in my verb conjugation. :o Rather than bother a mod I'll just reprint it. Correction is bolded.

ich bin (I am) | wir sind (we are)
du bist (you (singular informal) are) | ihr seid (you (plural informal) are)
er, sie, es ist (he, she, it is) | sie und Sie sind (they and you (singular or plural formal) are)

[SpitfireIX]

In other languages as well, the distinction remains. French has "tu" and "vous," for example. Again, the singular is familiar and informal, if not necessarily intimate, but what it connotes depends on context. If you "tutoyer" a stranger at a bar, it's probably unbecomingly straightforward, whereas if you do it to your boss, it's disrespectful.


Yes. Once I said to a close friend of mine, "Hand me that, s'il te plait." He responded, "What??" I said, "If. You. Please." (literally, "if it pleases you") "You don't use vous with someone with whom you're on a first-name basis, which you and I would be even if we were French."

Humorous side note: He and I both have French surnames, and we both have ancestors who were run out of France for being (gasp!) Protestants. So he and I always lead the anti-France chorus whenever possible. :D

[TimCallahan]

Thank you, Spitfire IX and ddt, for these clarifications. They seem to back up my hypothesis for the decline of "thou" in everyday speech in English; though I'm not certain as to why it continues, as du, in German. So, ddt, what is the structure of the second person singular v. plural in Dutch?

[ddt]

Thank you, Spitfire IX and ddt, for these clarifications. They seem to back up my hypothesis for the decline of "thou" in everyday speech in English; though I'm not certain as to why it continues, as du, in German.
That's an interesting question, more of a sociological nature. Moreso if you compare the developments in English, German and Dutch. There seems to have been felt a need for a polite or formal form to address strangers or higher-placed persons. In German, the original familiar form "Du" was retained. In English, "Thou" disappeared nearly completely, and the formerly polite form became the only form of address. In Dutch, "Du" disappeared completely, and subsequently the formerly polite address became the familiar address and a new polite address was introduced.


So, ddt, what is the structure of the second person singular v. plural in Dutch?
Dutch has 6 different pronouns for the second person, not counting "du" which only still exists in some dialects but not in Standard Dutch. :D Okay, two of those are just unstressed variants of others. Keep also in mind that the Dutch language area consists of two countries that have been culturally separated in the last part of the 16th Century. Since the 19th Century, there has been a conscious policy to have one standard language, but there are still noticeable differences between what is Standard Dutch Dutch and what is Standard Flemish Dutch. :p

In the Middle Ages, "du" was the single, singular form. The plural form was "gij" in Flanders, and "jij" as dialect variant in Holland. Both have an unstressed variant, "ge" resp. "je". At the end of the Middle Ages, "gij"/"jij" was increasingly used as a polite form in the singular.

By the time that the Dutch Republic commissioned its Bible translation (Statenvertaling, 1626-1635), "du" was so far on its way out that a majority of the committee decided to use "gij" to address God - peculiarly in the Flemish dialectical form. In the Netherlands, that's the only place where "gij" still survives. In Flanders, it is still a general-purpose second person pronoun. It also still retains the peculiarities of the original Germanic second person plural conjugation of verbs.

So with "du" out and only "gij" or "jij", there were two problems: (a) no distinction between singular and plural forms; (b) no distinction between polite and familiar forms.

Problem (a) was solved by using "je-lui" = "you people" (compare English y'all) as plural, which morphed into "jullie".

Problem (b) was solved by the introduction in the 18th Century, of "u" as a new polite form. "u" had always been the object case of "gij". Some say people just started using it in the subject case. Others think it evolved from the address "Uwe Edelheid" (= "Your Nobility"), which got abbreviated to U.E. and hence to simply "U". Until 30 years ago, it was also customary to write "U" with a capital.

So there you have them, all six. Summarizing:
jij, je: singular familiar form
jullie: plural familiar form
gij, ge: general-purpose in Flanders, exclusively for God in the Netherlands
u: polite form, both singular and plural

And in table form, with the verb "zijn" = "to be":
1|ik ben|wij zijn
2|jij/je bent (but: ben jij/je)|jullie zijn
2|u bent (or: u is)|u bent (or: u is)
2|gij/ge zijt|gij/ge zijt
3|hij/zij/ze/het is|zij/ze zijn
Using the highly irregular verb "zijn", which uses three different stems in its conjugation of the present, handsomely highlights the origin of "gij" as a plural, and the likely origin of "u" as a third person singular construct.

[gumboot]

Thank you, Spitfire IX and ddt, for these clarifications. They seem to back up my hypothesis for the decline of "thou" in everyday speech in English; though I'm not certain as to why it continues, as du, in German.



One of the theories behind English dropping the informal address is that 16th C England had a much more fluid middle class than most of Europe, where a person could rise quite high by their own efforts.

In most of Europe class structures were quite rigid, and thus everyone had a pretty good idea who was equal or superior (where you should use formal modes of address) and who was inferior (where you can use the informal mode of address).

In contrast, an Englishman of the middle class could quite readily have no idea if they were addressing a superior, an equal, or an inferior. To avoid causing offense to someone, the wisest course of action was to address everyone by the formal mode "you".

[crimresearch]

One of the theories behind English dropping the informal address is that 16th C England had a much more fluid middle class than most of Europe, where a person could rise quite high by their own efforts.

In most of Europe class structures were quite rigid, and thus everyone had a pretty good idea who was equal or superior (where you should use formal modes of address) and who was inferior (where you can use the informal mode of address).

In contrast, an Englishman of the middle class could quite readily have no idea if they were addressing a superior, an equal, or an inferior. To avoid causing offense to someone, the wisest course of action was to address everyone by the formal mode "you".
Or followed the Quaker egalitarian simplicity of plain speech 'thee' and get beat up a lot.
:wink:

[SpitfireIX]

And in table form, with the verb "zijn" = "to be":
1|ik ben|wij zijn
2|jij/je bent (but: ben jij/je)|jullie zijn
2|u bent (or: u is)|u bent (or: u is)
2|gij/ge zijt|gij/ge zijt
3|hij/zij/ze/het is|zij/ze zijn
Using the highly irregular verb "zijn", which uses three different stems in its conjugation of the present, handsomely highlights the origin of "gij" as a plural, and the likely origin of "u" as a third person singular construct.


Yikes! And I thought German was tough. :eye-poppi

[Howie Felterbush]

In tyke:

Si this .44 Magnum, reet, as being t'powerfullest 'andgun int world, an' would tek thi 'ed clean off thi shoulders like, thi's gotta ask thi'sen a question: dust a feel lucky? Well, dust tha, thi great steamin' pile o' wazzock droppings?

:D

Jump to 1:17

0Y27MfF-n_Y

[ddt]

Yikes! And I thought German was tough. :eye-poppi
:D
Well, this happens to be the most difficult part of Dutch grammar. For the rest, it's much simpler than German. Disregarding some Flemish peculiarities:
- only two genders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_in_Dutch_grammar) (common and neuter) for nouns;
- no declension of nouns (genitive still exists but in practice only in fixed expressions)
- so no need to learn which preposition goes with which case
- plural of a noun is simply -en or -s (you just have to learn which one)
- virtually no declension of adjectives (only stem or stem+e)
- verb has no more a subjunctive (still exists in fixed expressions like "long live the Queen")
- no weird rules about umlauts suddenly appearing in verb conjugations or noun declensions

And if you already know German, you'll recognize lots of cognates, especially when you know the rules of the High German Consonant Shift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_German_consonant_shift).

Of course, you'd also have to learn those wonderful Dutch sounds like "g" (more or less like Scottish "loch") and "ui (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_phonology)". :p

[dudalb]

What are you, a Quaker?

Or someone who hangs out at Rennasiance Faires?

[Lucian]

What, no one wants to revive the first and second person dual forms?

[SpitfireIX]

:D
Well, this happens to be the most difficult part of Dutch grammar. For the rest, it's much simpler than German. Disregarding some Flemish peculiarities:
- only two genders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_in_Dutch_grammar) (common and neuter) for nouns;
- no declension of nouns (genitive still exists but in practice only in fixed expressions)
- so no need to learn which preposition goes with which case
- plural of a noun is simply -en or -s (you just have to learn which one)
- virtually no declension of adjectives (only stem or stem+e)
- verb has no more a subjunctive (still exists in fixed expressions like "long live the Queen")
- no weird rules about umlauts suddenly appearing in verb conjugations or noun declensions

And if you already know German, you'll recognize lots of cognates, especially when you know the rules of the High German Consonant Shift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_German_consonant_shift).

Of course, you'd also have to learn those wonderful Dutch sounds like "g" (more or less like Scottish "loch") and "ui (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_phonology)". :p


A couple of years ago my mother said to me, "I got you a book on sailing ships at a garage sale. It's in German." I examined the book and replied, "Erm, Mom, this is Dutch." :D I haven't made a serious attempt to try to read it yet (though I was able to determine that it's actually a guide to preserved historic ships in the Netherlands), but I could pick out a lot of cognates, as you note.

Also, I've been working on a naval-miniatures scenario covering a hypothetical version of the Battle of the Java Sea, and I'm planning to include a guide to pronouncing the names of the Dutch ships and officers.

I've decided that rather than just a dry pronunciation guide, or phonetic spellings, I'm going to include some Dutch names and words that are known to most educated Americans, and that still have something resembling the correct vowel sounds:

aa|Transvaal
ee|Beethoven
oo|Roosevelt
uy|Stuyvesant

I'm going to point out, though, that the "v" sound in all of these has been anglicized, and that in Dutch the sound is closer to English "f". And yes, I know the "uy" in Stuyvesant has been somewhat anglcized also (that's equivalent to the dreaded "ui" of which you speak, isn't it?).

If I feel like torturing the players I'm going to include the Johan van Oldenbarnevelt so I can watch them choke on the pronunciation, even though it's not that tough if you practice it a few times. :D

[whatthebutlersaw]

I'll see your distinction between formal and informal pronouns with the Swedish du/ni and raise you third person address.

Swedish differentiates between informal singular "du", informal plural "ni" (yes, like the knights say) and the formal singular which is pronounced the same as the informal plural but capitalized in writing: "Ni".

To confuse things even more, all words remain in the language but the formal singular was dropped from use, quite deliberately by example set by Bror Rexed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bror_Rexed)in the 60s. Further confused by the fact that his first name, Bror, literally means "Brother", causing a semi-pun as people became informal with each other. He would encourage his employees to address him by "du" and first name. "Call me 'du' or Bror", which made people assume they were supposed to be like brothers with him and anyone else they go informal with. Further confused by the fact that the word for paternal uncle and referring to an older man when describing him to a child, is the same word. I.e Swedish children were supposed to refer to all older males as "uncle" ("farbror").

As if that wasn't enough, the address the du-reform replaced was not the formal "Ni", which was considered a rude form of address, indicating that you couldn't be arsed to figure out the status of the person you are talking to. For most of modern history - until the du-reform - the polite form of address was in third person and by title, if the title was a honorific or impressive in some way. (What was considered impressive was sometimes a judgement call. Depending on the speaker, an engineer might be impressive enough to be referred to by title, while a shop assistant probably wasn't, unless you yourself are a dogsbody. Think Danny Kaye in The Inspector General for the kind of world we're moving in.)

Ex1: "Would mother like some more milk in mother's tea?"
Ex2: "If the professor would like to follow me into the office."
Ex3: "Is the engineer planning to see the game on Sunday?"

If the person didn't have a title that was considered enough of a honorific, you'd resort to using their name, usually dealing with domestics or employees:
Ex1: "Maria will be so kind as to wake me at 7 tomorrow, I aim to take some exercise."
Ex2: "If Pettersson sees Lundqvist later today, please tell him to pick me up at Maxime."


- Or if you aren't even that intimate, a simple third person pronoun. The latter was sometimes used with the intention of being unpleasant - but not rude - but it was also possible to be perfectly polite using it:
Ex1: "She must be joking." (Meaning: "You must be joking.")
Ex2: "He must understand that I can't let him in if his name isn't on the list!" (Meaning: "You must understand that I can't let you in if your name isn't on the list.")
Ex3: "Would the Mrs like to see that in blue?"

If you wanted to be really rude, you actually referred to the person as "Ni", which kind of implied that not only were you too unimportant for me to bother with finding out your status, you obviously had quite an inflated sense of self as well, so that I would - ironically - refer to you as I woud a royal. Yeah, it was a mess but everyone understood the unwritten rules.

All of this was considered perfectly normal until Bror Rexed got sick of it and decided that from now on, everyone should be "du" and on first name basis. ("Du" was really so informal that it was mainly used between siblings, close in age and young lovers. Even married couples would often refer to each other in third person and first names. In some marriages, even with status tilted so strongly that the wife would use her husband's last name at all times, sometimes even his title, while he would refer to her as "She". - Which could be minimizing, albeit loving, as in "Lilla Hon"/"Little Her" but just as well, simply dismissive.)

These days, there's a movement to get more formal again as a sign of respect - particuarly among young professionals in various service industries. Unfortunately, they are under the impression that the polite address is by using "Ni", which leads to young people gravely offending older people who fought for a hard won right to be "du" with anyone and to certainly not have to be "Ni" to anyone. The only people remembering a time before all "du" all the time, remember it as "Ni" being deliberately rude.

Or as the writer Jan Guillou expressed it: "Du är inte Ni med mig." ("I am not 'You' to thee.")

And don't get me started on their attempts at giving a more arcaic impression by mis-using the now out of usage plural verb conjugations - in singular.

To explain that to an English speaker, it would be the similar to pronouncing þorn as y in an attempt to sound Elizabethan.

[Wuglife]

If it was really useful, people would still be using it.

That doesn't make any sense at all. There are many useful things people don't use much, and many things that aren't very useful that people use anyway.

And this is useful? Somehow we manage to communicate who we're talking to just fine.

Yes, but bringing back "thou" would add charm to English and a way to express intimacy or friendliness with the mere use of a pronoun, just like in pretty much every other IE language.

Some Spanish-speaking countries have abandoned "tu" (thou) altogether, like Costa Rica, and just address everyone as "usted" (your mercy), but I don't like that very much.

[Lucian]

That doesn't make any sense at all. There are many useful things people don't use much, and many things that aren't very useful that people use anyway.



Yes, but bringing back "thou" would add charm to English and a way to express intimacy or friendliness with the mere use of a pronoun, just like in pretty much every other IE language.

Some Spanish-speaking countries have abandoned "tu" (thou) altogether, like Costa Rica, and just address everyone as "usted" (your mercy), but I don't like that very much.

If you want to be really traditional, we should reinstate "thou" and get rid of singular (polite) "you," which is a newfangled usage introduced after the Norman Conquest.

[Wuglife]

If you want to be really traditional, we should reinstate "thou" and get rid of singular (polite) "you," which is a newfangled usage introduced after the Norman Conquest.

But I wouldn't want to lose "you" either, for a more formal singular second-person. Having "you" is what makes "thou" special, like "tu" and "vous" in French or "du" and "sie" in German, or "tu" and "ap" in Hindi.

I want to have it all, like all the cool languages up the street have. ;)

[elipse]

I only read the first couple posts, so if this has been addressed, I apologize.

"You" was never plural. It was formal. It was English's version of "usted". "Thou" was our "tu" form.

So really, we're all just being super, super polite to each other.

In case anyone cares, the conjucation goes like this:
I go
you go
thou goest
he/she/it goes
or, a irregular one:
I am
you are
thou art
he/she/it is

Oh, and "ye" was plural.

[Cactus Wren]

Ex1: "She must be joking." (Meaning: "You must be joking.")
Ex2: "He must understand that I can't let him in if his name isn't on the list!" (Meaning: "You must understand that I can't let you in if your name isn't on the list.")
Ex3: "Would the Mrs like to see that in blue?"

"Sir is obviously alive, otherwise I would not be able to serve sir."



ETA: Who here knows the correct usage of "shall"? Demonstrate without reference to a drowning person.

[elipse]

Isn't "shall" the "will" form of "should?"

I don't actually know this for a fact, but

coulda woulda shoulda

can will shall

I just always assumed it was that...

[Cleon]

That doesn't make any sense at all. There are many useful things people don't use much, and many things that aren't very useful that people use anyway.

Generally speaking, if something is useful, it's used; if something else is found to be more useful, it gets used more while the original is used less. More often than not, this results in the original being used not at all.

This is why the vast majority of people, when they have the opportunity, drive cars rather than ride horses. Horses are useful; cars are more useful.


Yes, but bringing back "thou" would add charm to EnglishMeh. Not really.


and a way to express intimacy or friendliness with the mere use of a pronoun, just like in pretty much every other IE language.But again, though...So what? What's lacking by us not using it? We don't have any issues with expressing ourselves.

When we do lack a word for a concept that we find useful, we either steal it from another language that does have it ("kindergarten", "angst," "tornado"), or make it up on the fly ("telephone," "television," "computer," etc).


Some Spanish-speaking countries have abandoned "tu" (thou) altogether, like Costa Rica, and just address everyone as "usted" (your mercy), but I don't like that very much.Can you name a single time in history when a language changed due to aesthetics? For that matter, can you point to any time when people changed the way they spoke a language because people campaigned for it*?

(* Language revival & preservation efforts don't count. Someone changing the language they speak is one thing, changing the way they speak their native tongue is another.)

[elipse]

Can you name a single time in history when a language changed due to aesthetics? For that matter, can you point to any time when people changed the way they spoke a language because people campaigned for it*?

(* Language revival & preservation efforts don't count. Someone changing the language they speak is one thing, changing the way they speak their native tongue is another.)

Didn't Italian do just that at some point? I vaguely recall something to that effect (that the Italian govt essentially took a bunch of different dialects, picked, chose, and essentially decided based on what sounded nicest, and called that Italian) when I took Italian some 15 years ago, but I'm too lazy to verify.

[dudalb]

Wow, this thread make me want to watch "Friendly Persuasion" again.....

[Cleon]

Didn't Italian do just that at some point? I vaguely recall something to that effect (that the Italian govt essentially took a bunch of different dialects, picked, chose, and essentially decided based on what sounded nicest, and called that Italian) when I took Italian some 15 years ago, but I'm too lazy to verify.

From the story I heard, it had more to do with unifying people under Napoleon and forcing them to communicate with each other; the result was that the various dialects blended into each other, creating a common Italian language.

I could be wrong; I don't recall where I heard this, or whether it's accurate. Wikipedia backs up my memory on this, but something about it still smells urban legendy to me.

[Wuglife]

Can you name a single time in history when a language changed due to aesthetics? For that matter, can you point to any time when people changed the way they spoke a language because people campaigned for it*?

Absolutely.

"Slowly, edition by edition, Webster changed the spelling of words, making them "Americanized." He chose s over c in words like defense, he changed the re to er in words like center, and he dropped one of the Ls in traveler. At first he kept the u in words like colour or favour but dropped it in later editions. He also changed "tongue" to "tung"—an innovation that never caught on."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster

This guy left a permanent mark on American English in many ways. He spearheaded the movement to alter the spellings used in English to the current spellings common in America; changes in spellings are matters of aesthetics.

People have changed the way they speak a language all the time. There are so many examples of this i couldn't even begin to list them all.

Newfoundland politicians affect a less regional pronunciation when they're not in Newfoundland.

The use of "vos" (you) instead of "tu" (thou) is an important distinction between many Spanish-speaking countries. Bolivia is a country where many, many speakers say "vos", but because "tu" is considered more "proper" (perhaps because it's more common internationally), the newscasters use "tu" and it's becoming more and more common.

[Wuglife]

Generally speaking, if something is useful, it's used; if something else is found to be more useful, it gets used more while the original is used less. More often than not, this results in the original being used not at all.

I'm not sure that this is always true, and I think how "useful" something is has a subjective aspect to it.

Some Spanish-speakers informally address people as "tu", others as "vos", and in some countries, such as El Salvador, there are ~three~ ways of addressing someone; tu, vos, and usted (your mercy); the last being much more formal, and addresses the subject in the third person.

Some countries quit using "tu" (Argentians almost never use it), others quit using "vos" (Spaniards), and some kept both. I think all of these forms can be "useful", but whether people used them or not at one point led to them being favored or rendered archaic.

The best way to increase the use of "thou" would be to just start using it. If you would prefer a world without "thou", don't use it, I suppose. Perhaps even tell people not to use it (because, we all know that telling people not to do something is the best way to stop 'em from doing it :p)

Another benefit to using English's second-person-informal pronoun (because in truth, it is not "dead"; we all know what it means and some dialects still use it to this day) is that it would strengthen our link to our history, and make obvious how much we share with the other indo-European languages, almost all of which kept their form of "thou". German, Spanish, Italian, French, Hindi, and Portuguese all use their form of "thou"; I see no reason why we shouldn't use ours.

[Wuglife]

Also, the entire phenomenon of the euphemism is an example of consciously altering one's speech, and at times this is accomplished by "campaigning" in a virtually literal sense.

[Cleon]

Absolutely.

"Slowly, edition by edition, Webster changed the spelling of words, making them "Americanized." He chose s over c in words like defense, he changed the re to er in words like center, and he dropped one of the Ls in traveler. At first he kept the u in words like colour or favour but dropped it in later editions. He also changed "tongue" to "tung"—an innovation that never caught on."


Creating standards for spelling != altering how people speak a language. The way we write and the way we speak are two different things.


People have changed the way they speak a language all the time. There are so many examples of this i couldn't even begin to list them all.

Newfoundland politicians affect a less regional pronunciation when they're not in Newfoundland.


And I speak with a slight southern accent, or not, depending on who I'm talking to and where. It's unconscious. And not remotely the same thing as "reviving" an archaic word into common usage again.


The use of "vos" (you) instead of "tu" (thou) is an important distinction between many Spanish-speaking countries. Bolivia is a country where many, many speakers say "vos", but because "tu" is considered more "proper" (perhaps because it's more common internationally), the newscasters use "tu" and it's becoming more and more common.


I'm aware of this. But the important distinction in Spanish-speaking countries isn't particularly relevant for the English-speaking world.

[Wuglife]

Creating standards for spelling != altering how people speak a language. The way we write and the way we speak are two different things.

You said when a language changed due to asthetics. Writing is one of the primary ways in which we use language. Speaking is only part of it.

American English has altered pronunciations too. We generally pronounce all but the last vowel in "literature". I only say it this way because most people whom I grew up around with said it this way.

American English even uses words that are "archaic" in England, like "fall": http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fall

This word ceased to be used in England centuries ago. I suppose it fell out of favor in England because people stopped using it (circular reasoning? perhaps :boggled:)

[Cleon]

Some Spanish-speakers informally address people as "tu", others as "vos", and in some countries, such as El Salvador, there are ~three~ ways of addressing someone; tu, vos, and usted (your mercy); the last being much more formal, and addresses the subject in the third person.


I'm aware of this, as my Spanish is pretty good. But again, that's Spanish. We're talking about English. Spanish has the distinction between "Usted" and "tu" even beyond the words themselves; verbs are conjugated differently, depending on whether you're talking to a "tu" or an "Usted."

This doesn't apply to English. The distinction in formality is completely absent from our language.


The best way to increase the use of "thou" would be to just start using it.

On this I have no disagreement. However, I rather suspect if you were to go around using "thou" and "thee" in most areas, people would start avoiding you rather than using it themselves.


If you would prefer a world without "thou", don't use it, I suppose.


It's not a matter of preference. We already have a world without "thou."

It's a question of should it be changed (no good reason to), and how to go about it (not easily). Language is not determined by intellectuals writing dictionaries, but by people using it.


Another benefit to using English's second-person-informal pronoun (because in truth, it is not "dead"; we all know what it means

No, language geeks* know what it means. Most people know that it means "you," they don't know that's it's "second-person-informal" you. Hell, most of the time you'd have to explain what "second-person-informal" means.

* I use the term affectionately.


and some dialects still use it to this day) is that it would strengthen our link to our history,

No offense, but I'm going to put the "link to history" in the same category as "adding charm."

I see no reason why we shouldn't use ours.

Go for it, then. Nobody's stopping you.

I find it interesting that of none of the people advocating for "thou" are actually using it.

[Cleon]

You said "use" our language.

No, the question you were responding to was:

Can you point to any time when people changed the way they spoke a language because people campaigned for it?


Spelling is different. We are trained to write according to certain styles. Acquiring language is a completely different animal.

Outside of diplomatic endeavors, nobody grabs a style manual before beginning a conversation.


American English has altered pronunciations too.

Sure, but again, regional variations are not what we're talking about. Nobody "campaigned" for Americans to pronounce "literature" differently. There's no act of Parliament dictating that people say "she-jool" instead of "ske-jool."

[Wuglife]

Spanish has the distinction between "Usted" and "tu" even beyond the words themselves; verbs are conjugated differently, depending on whether you're talking to a "tu" or an "Usted."

This doesn't apply to English. The distinction in formality is completely absent from our language.

In most dialects, sure. In dialects of English that still use "thou", it is generally conjugated. "Thou hast" (or "tha' has'", perhaps), rather than "You have", for example.

Even in some Spanish-speaking countries, they use "vos" as a pronoun but conjugate the verbs in the "tu" form, or use "tu" as the pronoun but conjugate in the vos form. It isn't set in stone what you have to do.

On this I have no disagreement. However, I rather suspect if you were to go around using "thou" and "thee" in most areas, people would start avoiding you rather than using it themselves.

I can't imagine why.

Language is not determined by intellectuals writing dictionaries, but by people using it.

Both of these have an effect on language. The vernacular might have the upper hand, but the more formal aspects of language totally have a hand to play. I grew up in part of the country where "he doesn't go" is considered affected, and all but the most educated people say, "he don't go". I say "he doesn't" because I consciously adopted this since my teacher said it was "correct".

No, language geeks* know what it means. Most people know that it means "you,"

That's good enough.

they don't know that's it's "second-person-informal" you. Hell, most of the time you'd have to explain what "second-person-informal" means.

If someone doesn't know what "informal" means, what a "pronoun" is, or what the "second-person" is, I weep for the state of their education.

I find it interesting that of none of the people advocating for "thou" are actually using it.

It's an informal pronoun, politely used with people whom one knows. But perhaps I will thou more often, to get the ball rolling. :) Thanks for the suggestion.

[Wuglife]

Sure, but again, regional variations are not what we're talking about. Nobody "campaigned" for Americans to pronounce "literature" differently. There's no act of Parliament dictating that people say "she-jool" instead of "ske-jool."

And there need be no act of parliament to dictate people should thou. They will if they wish, and won't if they don't. "Campaign" is surely used in a less-than-literal style here.

[Lucian]

I'm not sure that this is always true, and I think how "useful" something is has a subjective aspect to it.

Some Spanish-speakers informally address people as "tu", others as "vos", and in some countries, such as El Salvador, there are ~three~ ways of addressing someone; tu, vos, and usted (your mercy); the last being much more formal, and addresses the subject in the third person.

Some countries quit using "tu" (Argentians almost never use it), others quit using "vos" (Spaniards), and some kept both. I think all of these forms can be "useful", but whether people used them or not at one point led to them being favored or rendered archaic.

The best way to increase the use of "thou" would be to just start using it. If you would prefer a world without "thou", don't use it, I suppose. Perhaps even tell people not to use it (because, we all know that telling people not to do something is the best way to stop 'em from doing it :p)

Another benefit to using English's second-person-informal pronoun (because in truth, it is not "dead"; we all know what it means and some dialects still use it to this day) is that it would strengthen our link to our history, and make obvious how much we share with the other indo-European languages, almost all of which kept their form of "thou". German, Spanish, Italian, French, Hindi, and Portuguese all use their form of "thou"; I see no reason why we shouldn't use ours.
You again appeal to history and to other Indo-European languages, so I will again point out that English, Old Norse, Old High German, Gothic and, I suspect, most if not all the Germanic languages began life without a distinction between formal and informal "you." All of the Germanic languages did at one time have first and second person dual forms. That said, I'll let git* (you and Cleon) get on with incer discussion.

*This is not uncivil: "git" is the Old English second person nominative dual pronoun.

[Ian]

**** thee, I think you mean. I see people can indeed not use it correctly.

I do myself still use whence, thence, and hence. It's not that rare, but it's becoming rare to hear them used properly. I think people would look at me a bit funny if I said whither, hither, or thither. People already find it pretentious if I use whom, though why the disdain for the who/whom distinction, but not the he/him one, I don't know.

Of course we cannot, in English, differentiate between different levels of 'we' or 'us' as they can in come languages, such as 'yumi' and 'mipela' in the fantastic tok-pisin of PNG.

Cheers,
Rat.


**** thee, as well as thy mount upon which thou didst hither!

Edited for Rule 10. Do not attempt to bypass the autocensor.

[ZirconBlue]

No, the question you were responding to was:

That's the second question you asked. The one immediately before it was:

Can you name a single time in history when a language changed due to aesthetics?

Which seems to be the question Wuglife was responding to.

[Wuglife]

Interestingly, "thou" or some form thereof is not even entirely gone yet. I might have mentioned that already, or perhaps someone else already did. "Thou" is still used by older people in Lancashire and a few other regions of northern England:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancashire_dialect_and_accent#Grammatical_and_phon ological_features

This seems to be dying out among the younger speakers, unfortunately.

Also, I realised yet another instance of a "useful" part of our language being stigmatised. And again, maybe I brought this up before, I forget. But it is...

"Y'all"

This is a perfectly comprehensible, useful way to distinguish between a single person and a group of people whom are being addressed. Yet it is widely mocked and stigmatised as incorrect. I can see no reason why; it is comprehensible, and has equivalents in many other languages related to English.

In some forms of American English, we have "Y'all" (you all), which is very much like "vosotros" (you others) in Castilian Spanish. I think it's ridiculous that we stigmatise this part of speech.

I've heard that in Ireland, "ye" serves the same purpose, and I think this is how it is in Newfoundland too among the older speakers.

The more and more I study other languages and the history of English, the more I feel that contemporary English moves closer to becoming a language cut to ribbons.

[AdMan]

Also, I realised yet another instance of a "useful" part of our language being stigmatised. And again, maybe I brought this up before, I forget. But it is...

"Y'all"

This is a perfectly comprehensible, useful way to distinguish between a single person and a group of people whom are being addressed.


I went to school in Texas, and I occasionally heard "y'all" being used to address one person. :D

[ZirconBlue]

I went to school in Texas, and I occasionally heard "y'all" being used to address one person. :D

Was it a really big person?

[Wuglife]

Was it a really big person?

:D

Worse still would be the redundant, but very common (where I'm from) "all y'all" to address a single person. I imagine that they certainly would have to be pretty big for that...

[Wuglife]

I encountered an interesting literary reference to this topic. Someone on another forum shared it



"Like it? It is more sweet to me than I can tell. Say `thou',
also, and I shall say your language is almost as beautiful as mine."

"Isn't `thou' a little sentimental?" asked Jo, privately thinking
it a lovely monosyllable.

"Sentimental? Yes. Thank Gott, we Germans believe in sentiment,
and keep ourselves young mit it. Your English `you' is so cold, say
`thou', heart's dearest, it means so much to me," pleaded Mr. Bhaer,
more like a romantic student than a grave professor.

-Little Women, by Louisa May Alcott

[xtifr]

I actually like and use "y'all" as an informal second-person plural, even though it's not part of my native dialect. If you wanted to revive "thou", it would be difficult, but not necessarily impossible. I think the simplest mechanism might be:

a) find a dialect where it still exists.
b) create a popular character (through TV or movie) who speaks a comprehensible version of that dialect, or better yet, a hybrid dialect.
c) give him amusing things to say that people will want to quote.
d) cross your fingers and hope.

[Wuglife]

I actually like and use "y'all" as an informal second-person plural, even though it's not part of my native dialect. If you wanted to revive "thou", it would be difficult, but not necessarily impossible. I think the simplest mechanism might be:

a) find a dialect where it still exists.
b) create a popular character (through TV or movie) who speaks a comprehensible version of that dialect, or better yet, a hybrid dialect.
c) give him amusing things to say that people will want to quote.
d) cross your fingers and hope.

That's a pretty cool idea.

I am from a part of the USA where "y'all" is very common. I didn't even understand there was anything regional about it until I was about ten or so.

Now I live up north, in "you guys" territory--I don't like "you guys" much. But, that's just my subjective opinion.

[SpitfireIX]

That's a pretty cool idea.

I am from a part of the USA where "y'all" is very common. I didn't even understand there was anything regional about it until I was about ten or so.

Now I live up north, in "you guys" territory--I don't like "you guys" much. But, that's just my subjective opinion.


I've lived in moderate-to-large cities in northern and central Indiana my entire life, and have an accent very close to that of the network news readers. I sometimes say "you all" (two distinct words) when addressing a group of adults, especially one that includes at least one woman. I try to avoid "you guys" or "guys" even if I'm addressing a group of men I know well. In fairness, this could be at least partly because someone named Guy has been at or near the top of my [Rule 10] list for nearly ten years now. :mad:

I'll sometimes use mock solemnity ("good evening, gentlemen") to avoid the unwanted construction, if "you all" doesn't seem appropriate. With groups of children I generally use either "boys," "girls," or "kids," as appropriate.

Finally, I often say "good night, all" when addressing at least three adults, but somehow "Good morning, everyone" seems more appropriate for a greeting before noon.

[Lamuella]

back when I lived in NC, we had three forms of the second person. Singular (you), close plural (y'all) and broad plural (all y'all).

[Yuri Nalyssus]

I don't like "you guys" much.
Well, mutual I'm sure...

stamps feet...

Yuri

[Hazel]

In my humble opinion, the problem with having two forms of 'you' - formal and informal - is trying to always use the right one in the right circumstances. I once had a young whippersnapper half my age tell me in her language - which uses formal and informal - that I had no right to use informal with her as I didn't know her well enough. I understand 'thou' and do not object to it but I'll stick with 'you'. Of course, as many have pointed out, there is the "you all" of my southern mother's tongue. Lots of fun there.