However, that Castilian "usted" happens to be derived from historical "vuestra merced" is irrelevant to the topic at hand in the first place, which is how the second person singular informal was *lost* in most English dialects. Secondly, we were speaking about English here, and not Castilian, so considering the content of the rest of the post mentioning such, I would be inclined to regard such as somehow being a weak attempt to try to claim that you, Brennus, are better read than myself. Of course, whether you are better read than myself or not is completely irrelevant to whether what you have said previously holds any water on linguistic grounds in the first place, and even if you have, that does not mean that you argument here is any bit more valid.
Why did formal and informal forms of address leave English?
Previous page Pages: 1 2
<<Er, uh-hum, not to be unkind but you, Travis, are not well-read.>>
Since when did it become a contest to see who was "best-read?" Such a comment would be absurd as it is but especially someone in position of moderator should not be commenting on someone's real or perceived "read" status and try to pass it off as a serious answer to a post. It's perfectly fine to disagree with someone but to be credible one would need to back up the claims with information/sources (specifically those that are relevant, not just anything or any random comment). It's certainly not fine to attack a poster's supposed "well-read" status, which is irrelevant and uncalled for.
Unacceptable.
As this is not the topic of the thread, I will not comment on Brennus' status as "well-read" on linguistics topics.
<<Before discussing linguistics or language topics on a web site, why don't you open up some books about the subject and actually read?>>
This unnecessarily condescending comment is doubly outrageous considering the source.
Let's return to the topic at hand, please.
Since when did it become a contest to see who was "best-read?" Such a comment would be absurd as it is but especially someone in position of moderator should not be commenting on someone's real or perceived "read" status and try to pass it off as a serious answer to a post. It's perfectly fine to disagree with someone but to be credible one would need to back up the claims with information/sources (specifically those that are relevant, not just anything or any random comment). It's certainly not fine to attack a poster's supposed "well-read" status, which is irrelevant and uncalled for.
Unacceptable.
As this is not the topic of the thread, I will not comment on Brennus' status as "well-read" on linguistics topics.
<<Before discussing linguistics or language topics on a web site, why don't you open up some books about the subject and actually read?>>
This unnecessarily condescending comment is doubly outrageous considering the source.
Let's return to the topic at hand, please.
2 Adam:
Russians don't need to combat your navy. England is a conquered land. It's only matter of time until it turns into islamic state.
back to the topic:
When I was on a visit in Newcastle upon Tyne, I identified some vowel shifts in the Geordie accent in comparison to BBC English. For example if a Geordie pronounces "mouth" it sounds like "mooth".
So a Geordie would pronounce Thou canst as thoo canst which is very similar to German du kanst. Or Thou hast would sound like thoo hast like du hast in German.
I presume the Geordie pronunciation of thou was the original pronunciation from which German du and English thou derived later. Can anybody confirm my hypothesis?
Russians don't need to combat your navy. England is a conquered land. It's only matter of time until it turns into islamic state.
back to the topic:
When I was on a visit in Newcastle upon Tyne, I identified some vowel shifts in the Geordie accent in comparison to BBC English. For example if a Geordie pronounces "mouth" it sounds like "mooth".
So a Geordie would pronounce Thou canst as thoo canst which is very similar to German du kanst. Or Thou hast would sound like thoo hast like du hast in German.
I presume the Geordie pronunciation of thou was the original pronunciation from which German du and English thou derived later. Can anybody confirm my hypothesis?
<<I presume the Geordie pronunciation of thou was the original pronunciation from which German du and English thou derived later. Can anybody confirm my hypothesis?>>
English "thou" and German "du" are both descended from Proto-Germanic *thu /Tu/, which in turn is descended from Proto Indo-European *tu /tu/, which has cognates in many other modern Indo-European languages.
Also, the above post by "Kirk" (the one from Fri Jan 06, 2006 2:03 pm GMT) was not by me.
English "thou" and German "du" are both descended from Proto-Germanic *thu /Tu/, which in turn is descended from Proto Indo-European *tu /tu/, which has cognates in many other modern Indo-European languages.
Also, the above post by "Kirk" (the one from Fri Jan 06, 2006 2:03 pm GMT) was not by me.
Brennus is not entirely wrong. At least, there are some who attribute the lost at least partially to a growing middle class in England. Others say it was a fear of offending anyone by "thouing" them, as related by Travis.
See:
http://www.quaker.org/thee%2Dthou.html
See:
http://www.quaker.org/thee%2Dthou.html
A few churches still insist on the use of thou/thee in prayer. I have started attending one of these, so it is a live issue for me as the local church elders wish me to change my practice.
As I understand it, the forms corresponding to "thou" are used to address God in French, German, and Gaelic. My suspicion is that this came about because there were translations of parts of the Bible into at least some European languages (e.g. Anglo-Saxon) *before* the use of you/vous forms became popular in singular usage. Later Bible translations (e.g. 17th century ones like the KJV) continued to use the strictly singular form to translate singular forms and the plural form to translate plural forms. However I need more comprehensive information on this.
I suspect that only when people became less religious and had less knowledge of the KJV Bible and other similar literature, did the idea of addressing God as "You" come in. Can anyone describe how the shift to addressing God as "You" occurred? Why has it not occurred in French/German/Gaelic? Presumably because the "thou" form has not died out from general usage in other contexts.
Some time ago I did a page on this at http://www.thou.org.uk
Peter
As I understand it, the forms corresponding to "thou" are used to address God in French, German, and Gaelic. My suspicion is that this came about because there were translations of parts of the Bible into at least some European languages (e.g. Anglo-Saxon) *before* the use of you/vous forms became popular in singular usage. Later Bible translations (e.g. 17th century ones like the KJV) continued to use the strictly singular form to translate singular forms and the plural form to translate plural forms. However I need more comprehensive information on this.
I suspect that only when people became less religious and had less knowledge of the KJV Bible and other similar literature, did the idea of addressing God as "You" come in. Can anyone describe how the shift to addressing God as "You" occurred? Why has it not occurred in French/German/Gaelic? Presumably because the "thou" form has not died out from general usage in other contexts.
Some time ago I did a page on this at http://www.thou.org.uk
Peter
Previous page Pages: 1 2