nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (09/03/85)
>> Actually English *does* have a second person plural: it's "you." > > Historically, yes. But presently, "you" functions primarily as >2nd person singular. As does "vous" in French, "Sie" in German, "Vuy" in Russian, etc. What my arguement is that English has lost the second person "friendly" in "Thou", and that we always use the "formal" "you". Perhaps the English speaking world would be more relaxed with the friendly "thou"? Nah.... -- James C. Armstrong, Jnr. {ihnp4,cbosgd,akgua}!abnji!nyssa Maybe they'll want one of your women to experiment on, perhaps I shall take this one to them! -who said it, what story? (Get the reply to me by Thursday!)
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (09/04/85)
In article <845@abnji.UUCP> nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) writes: >>> Actually English *does* have a second person plural: it's "you." >> >> Historically, yes. But presently, "you" functions primarily as >>2nd person singular. > . . . > >What my arguement is that English has lost the second person >"friendly" in "Thou", and that we always use the "formal" "you". > >-- >James C. Armstrong, Jnr. {ihnp4,cbosgd,akgua}!abnji!nyssa "You" is plural, not formal, and "thou" is singular, not familiar. (Historically speaking, of course.) I don't believe English ever had a "familiar" second person pronoun, just singular and plural. (The second person plural was often used to indicate respect, and may have been considered idiomatically the second person singular formal.) In any event, the true second person singular gradually dropped out of the language, leaving us with only one second person pronoun, used for singular and plural, formal and familiar - a truly deplorable situation. Except, of course, in the South, where "you" is the second person singular, and "y'all" is second person plural :-) .
michaelm@bcsaic.UUCP (michael b maxwell) (09/06/85)
>> Actually English *does* have a second person plural: it's "you." > > Historically, yes. But presently, "you" functions primarily as >2nd person singular. You contradict yourselves. -- Mike Maxwell When you're up to your neck in alligators, it's hard to remember that your initial objective was to drain the swamp.
michael@ihnss.UUCP (M. J. Morgan) (09/07/85)
Charli Phillips writes: > "You" is plural, not formal, and "thou" is singular, not familiar. > (Historically speaking, of course.) I don't believe English ever had > a "familiar" second person pronoun, just singular and plural. (The > second person plural was often used to indicate respect, and may have > been considered idiomatically the second person singular formal.) In > any event, the true second person singular gradually dropped out of > the language, leaving us with only one second person pronoun, used for > singular and plural, formal and familiar - a truly deplorable situation. "You" takes the third person plural verb conjugation, but that does not mean that it is a third person or necessarily plural pronoun. It is the "formal" second person pronoun in English, singular and plural. "Thou" used to serve as the "familiar" singular second person pronoun, with "ye" as the corresponding plural. The German Sie, du, and ihr parallel the English you, thou, and ye in both conjugation and meaning. German has retained all three words, however, while "thou" and "ye" have for the most part disappeared from English. "Thou" and its other cases (objective - thee, possessive - thy and thine, reflexive - thyself) still linger on in some areas, such as poetry and biblical writings ("... thy kingdom come, thy will be done ...."). "Ye" underwent a transformation from nominative plural to nominative singular and later to accusative, singular and plural, and can still be found in some dialectal speech ("What have ye here? I'll get ye for that"). French uses "vous" for the formal second person, singular and plural, and for the familiar second person plural and conjugates verbs with vous in the second person plural; "tu" is the French familiar second person singular pronoun, taking a second person singular verb conjugation. As in English, Spanish is losing some of its formality. It has four words for the second person, "tu," "vosotros," "usted," and "ustedes," one each for the familiar second person, singular and plural, and the formal second person, singular and plural. The "familiar" pronouns take second person verb conjugations, and the "formal" pronouns (usted and ustedes) take third person verb conjugations. "Vosotros" has pretty much disappeared from the language in Latin America, with "ustedes" being used exclusively for the second person plural. I have also talked to people complaining of a tendency of younger people towards using "usted" exclusively for the second person singular. As an interesting aside, note that the first person plural and familiar second person plural pronouns rhyme in all the above languages: we and ye, wir and ihr, nous and vous, and nosotros and vosotros. Mike Morgan ihnp4!ihnss!michael
rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (09/10/85)
In article <2609@ihnss.UUCP> michael@ihnss.UUCP (M. J. Morgan) writes: >"You" takes the third person plural verb conjugation, How did you ascertain that the verb form is THIRD PERSON plural. It seems to me that English has seven forms for all verbs, except 'be', which has eleven. See chart below. There is no form that could be described as plural specifically for the third person. In the table below, I have given all the forms of English verbs as distinguishable by morphology (form) (as opposed to function). That is, if one form is used for two separate functions, it is listed only once. verb form 'be' ALL other verbs "irregular" "regular" (e.g. 'do') (e.g. 'walk') present "I" am do walk present "thou" art doest walkest present other singulars is does walks present plural are always same as present "I" form subjunctive "thou" beest? always same as present "thou" past "thou" wast didst walkedst past other singulars was did walked past plural were always same as other past singulars form present participle being doing walking past participle been done walked every other form be always same as present "I" form (all other subjunctives, infinitive, etc.) -- Rob Bernardo, San Ramon, CA (415) 823-2417 {ihnp4|dual|qantel}!ptsfa!rob
todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones) (09/11/85)
> >> Actually English *does* have a second person plural: it's "you." > > > > Historically, yes. But presently, "you" functions primarily as > >2nd person singular. > You contradict yourselves. How about "Y'all," y'all? -todd jones
suze@terak.UUCP (Suzanne Barnett) (09/11/85)
> >> Actually English *does* have a second person plural: it's "you." > > > > Historically, yes. But presently, "you" functions primarily as > >2nd person singular. As any good southerner knows, the plural of "you" is "ya'll" (contraction of "you all"). -- Suzanne Barnett uucp: ...{decvax,ihnp4,noao,savax,seismo}!terak!suze phone: (602) 998-4800 us mail: CalComp/Sanders Display Products Division (Formerly Terak Corporation) 14151 N 76th street, Scottsdale, AZ 85260
fred@mot.UUCP (Fred Christiansen) (09/11/85)
re "formal" vs "friendly" "you": as you said, in French "vous" is
plural and/or polite/formal, whilst "tu" is singular/familiar.
some interesting observations:
- in prayers, Protestants seem to refer to God as "tu", whilst
Catholics as "vous".
- the Society of Friends (as I recall) used to refer to each other
as "thou", the singular/familiar, yet that seems formal/archaic to us
today, a reversal of the original
--
<< Generic disclaimer >>
Fred Christiansen ("Canajun, eh?") @ Motorola Microsystems, Tempe, AZ
UUCP: {seismo!terak, trwrb!flkvax, utzoo!mnetor, ihnp4!btlunix}!mot!fred
ARPA: oakhill!mot!fred@ut-sally.ARPA AT&T: 602-438-3472gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett) (09/12/85)
On an related word, what have been your observations on the use
of 'guys' referring to a group of people (of unspecified
sex), as in 'you guys'?
I have a feeling it is more popular with younger people, as older
people tend to object to the use of 'guys' when a female is included,
but I'd like to hear what other people think.
[this discussion being redirected to net.nlang only].
--
Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,cbosgd,hplabs}!amdahl!gammikeb@inset.UUCP (Mike Banahan) (09/16/85)
My dictionary suggests that "Ye" is 2nd person plural (archaic). The form is still in common use in Yorkshire dialect in England, having corrupted to "tha", from "thee". The phrase "Wouldst tha like a cupp o' tea, love?" (approximate pronunciation indicated) would cause little surprise, even if addressed to a stranger in a cafe in certain parts of the county. The "st" ending in "wouldst" is often dropped. The Norse influence on the dialect is strong in these parts - but that's another story. -- Mike Banahan, Technical Director, The Instruction Set Ltd. mcvax!ukc!inset!mikeb
christer@kuling.UUCP (Christer Johansson) (09/18/85)
In article <864@ptsfa.UUCP> of Tue, 10-Sep-85 20:17:17 GMT rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) writes: >In the table below, I have given all the forms of English verbs >as distinguishable by morphology > >verb form 'be' ALL other verbs > "irregular" "regular" > (e.g. 'do') (e.g. 'walk') > >present other (i.e 3 person) singulars is does walks Shouldn't does and walks be doth and walkth? (As in the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away) -- Snail Mail: Christer Johansson Net Mail: {seismo,mcvax}!enea!kuling!christer Sernandersv. 9:136 S-752 63 Uppsala Phone: Int. +46 - 18 46 31 54 SWEDEN Nat. 018 - 46 31 54
jsq@im4u.UUCP (John Quarterman) (09/20/85)
In article <2609@ihnss.UUCP> michael@ihnss.UUCP (M. J. Morgan) writes: >As in English, Spanish is losing some of its formality. It has four words >for the second person, "tu," "vosotros," "usted," and "ustedes," one each >for the familiar second person, singular and plural, and the formal second >person, singular and plural. The "familiar" pronouns take second person >verb conjugations, and the "formal" pronouns (usted and ustedes) take third >person verb conjugations. "Vosotros" has pretty much disappeared from the >language in Latin America, with "ustedes" being used exclusively for the >second person plural. I have also talked to people complaining of a tendency >of younger people towards using "usted" exclusively for the second person >singular. Curiously enough, usted and usteds are not the original Spanish formal second person pronouns. Usted is a contraction of vuestra merced ("your mercy" or "your grace") which originated as a form of address in the Spanish court around the sixteenth century and spread. Ustedes is just the obvious plural of usted. This explains why usted and ustedes take third person verb conjugations. If I recall correctly, the original Spanish formal singular second person pronoun was vos, with vosotros as the plural for both formal and familiar (like nos and nosotros). Vosotros partly remains, as you mention, as the familiar second person plural. Vos is very archaic and is only used nowadays to address the deity. This is from memory of a book about the development of Spanish which I read ten years ago, so don't be surprised if it isn't entirely accurate. Note the similarity of Spanish tu and vos to French tu and vous, or to English thou and you, for that matter. And the amusing almost-parallel of vuestra merced -> usted with you all -> y'all. -- John Quarterman, UUCP: {ihnp4,seismo,harvard,gatech}!ut-sally!jsq ARPA Internet and CSNET: jsq@sally.UTEXAS.EDU, formerly jsq@ut-sally.ARPA
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (09/26/85)
In article <714@terak.UUCP> suze@terak.UUCP (Suzanne Barnett) writes: >> >> Actually English *does* have a second person plural: it's "you." >> > Historically, yes. But presently, "you" functions primarily as >> >2nd person singular. >As any good southerner knows, the plural of "you" is "ya'll" >(contraction of "you all"). At at RenFair whose name I will tactfully omit, the "king" replied to a GSTK with "And God save Thee'all." which prompted one of my compatriots to comment that the "king" was obviously from Southern England. Seriously, English, exhibiting its typical pronoun obnoxia, has a second person pronoun. Not plural. Not singular. Just second person. Just as it has a non-person, a female, and a male/neuter singular pronoun. Perverse. English. Charley Wingate