1 From: Boris Kraut <krt@nurfuerspam.de>
\r
2 To: undisclosed-recipients: ;
\r
3 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 00:15:29 +0100
\r
4 Message-ID: <20140212001529.LxP7qi@busy.local>
\r
5 Reply-To: Boris Kraut <krt@nurfuerspam.de>
\r
6 Subject: [.plan] Re: Did English ever have a formal version of "you"?
\r
8 So kann man sich irren! Ich bin ja ein starker Verfechter des "Du" und lehne
\r
9 meine Begruendung an die hanseatische Tradition -- "Es gibt ueber dir keinen
\r
10 Herren und unter dir keinen Knecht." -- an, natuerlich ohne die in Hamburg
\r
11 oft meist implizite Ausnahme von "Gott". Als sprachliches Beispiel fuehrte
\r
12 ich oft das Englische an, doch das ist so wohl nicht richtig [0]:
\r
14 > Yes it did, and the formal version was (drumroll, please....) you.
\r
16 > In Early Modern English, thou was the singular and you was the plural.
\r
17 > Plural you came to be used as a polite form of address (similar to the
\r
18 > French vous, which is also used for the plural), but over time this
\r
19 > polite form became more and more common, eventually displacing the
\r
20 > singular thou altogether.
\r
22 > This explains a peculiarity of traditional Quaker speech, which one
\r
23 > often hears in films set in the early Americas. The Quakers opposed
\r
24 > making any distinctions of rank, so they insisted on addressing
\r
25 > everyone as thou, not as you. The irony is that today we perceive
\r
26 > thou to be archaic and formal, while the original intent is to be
\r
29 Vielleicht sollte ich mir dann auch mal das english thou angewoehnen ;).
\r
32 [0] http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/9780/did-english-ever-have-a-formal-version-of-you
\r
projects / krt-msg / blob