English used to have dual pronouns (what the article is a about), proper accusatives and genitives (she/her/hers, who/whom and the apostrophe-s genitive are survivors), formal/informal 2nd person pronouns (you / thou) and quite a few other things that come up when you learn French or Latin.
Yes/No and Yea/Nay used to mean different things too: "Is this correct?" could be answered "Yea, it is correct" whereas "Is this not a mistake?" could be answered "Yes, it is correct" (which you can also parse by taking the 'not' literally).
"Courts martial" and "secretaries general" are examples where the original noun-first word order remains.
The formal/informal second person thing is fascinating to me as a Portuguese speaker.
European Portuguese, like many (most?) Romance languages, has the informal/formal second person split. Brazilian Portuguese has dropped the informal second person (tu) and uses only the formal second person (você).
Now, because “thou” is archaic, it sounds overly stiff, and most English speakers assume it was the formal second person, but it was actually the informal form. So both Brazilian Portuguese and English underwent the same process and chose the same way.
In English particularly, people associate "thou" with the King James Bible and similar Christian texts ("Our Father, thou art in Heaven…") and might reasonably assume that if "thou" was used to address the literal God, it must have been the formal pronoun – but the familial, informal one was used exactly because of the "father" association! (OTOH there certainly are languages with a tu/vous distinction where children were expected to "vous" their own parents – not sure how much of a thing it is these days).
Another fun thing is that calling someone you don't know "thou" used to be an intentional insult ("you're not worthy of being called 'you'"), something that might be missed by a modern reader of Shakespeare or other EME texts.
> (OTOH there certainly are languages with a tu/vous distinction where children were expected to "vous" their own parents – not sure how much of a thing it is these days).
It's interesting that in Viennese German (my German is terrible but I do at least try) it seems like the informal form is the default, in a shop I get asked "Braucht du hilfe?" rather than the formal "Kann ich Ihnen helfen?".
Maybe this is what they mean when they say people in Vienna are rude, but coming from Scotland using informal language even in fairly serious settings just seems comfortable and normal.
This can also change with the times —as in, within living memory.
My grandma used the formal address when reminiscing about going to the bakery when she was young but in the present she would use the familiar form and even the clerks would use a fake formal at best if they were feeling particularly grateful for having a job that day.
It depends a lot on where you were brought up, and the language you were exposed to. My first association would be a very Yorkshire, “Thou knowest,” rather than the king james.
Also, "você" is actually not originally a proper formal second person. Grammatically, "você" is a third person singular. It comes from "Vossa Mercê" (something like "Your Mercy" or "Your Grace"), shortened to "vossemeçê", to "você". The origin, and still today a common gramatical construction in Portuguese in any formal or semi-formal register, is to use a periphrase in the third person to increase politeness. I guess in English it also exists, but only on the most fully formal contexts ("Does that right honourable gentleman agree...").
And likewise the Romanian “dumneavoastră” evolved into… nothing, that’s still the polite form of “you” in Romanian. Interestingly though, it can be used in both the singular and plural, and takes verbs conjugated exactly the same way for both forms (i.e. the second person plural).
Note that Romanian also has a second person singular formal pronoun, "dumneata", though it's use today is very rare and isn't actually considered polite. This is probably since Romanian, like most Romance languages, often omits the subject in phrases, so the real politeness marker ends up being just the use of second person plural verb forms to refer to a singular speaker ("mă puteți ajuta" is far more common instead of "dumneavoastră mă puteți ajuta" without the omitted subject, while the informal version is the singular "mă poți ajuta", which "dumneata mă poți ajuta" would also require - all of these phrases meaning "can [you] help me").
The origin for both is more "your lordship" ("domnia ta/voastră") than "your mercy", as well.
Early Quakers rejected using different 2nd person pronouns for different people since it violated their principle of egalitarianism so they called everyone thee/thou (and got into trouble for it as you might expect).
There's a wonderful story about William Penn (yes, the William Penn who founded Pennsylvania and after whom it was named) nearly getting into trouble for his Quaker beliefs, except that King Charles II graciously forgave him. The story made it into a biography of Charles's mistress Eleanor "Nell" Gwyn, and can be read here: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Story_of_Nell_Gwyn/Chapte...
Briefly, William Penn refused to take his hat off in the presence of King Charles, due to his Quaker beliefs in egalitarianism. This would have gotten him into very serious trouble for lèse-majesté, except that the king took his own hat off. "Friend Charles," said Penn (who had apparently never heard of the saying that when you're in a hole you should stop digging), "why dost thou not keep on thy hat?" And King Charles II replied, "'Tis the custom of this place that only one person should be covered at a time." Of course, normally it was the king who would keep his crown on. But after Charles said that, nobody in the court could bring a charge of lèse-majesté against William Penn for the incident.
I thought courts martial and secretaries general (and Knights Templar/Hospitaller, et al) were Anglo-Norman/French borrowings. Do you have any examples of native English phrases following that pattern?
A relative presided over a couple of court martials (1) in the past. Modern usage has largely disconnected it from the past, grammatically (if that is even a thing, except to the true minutaephile)!
they don't fit, because 'yes' was not supposed to be used in the context of 'yes it is a mistake', yea was. Having two words helped stop that ambiguity.
Yes contradicts the negative question. So "Is this not a mistake?" should be contradicted with "yes, it is a mistake" or affirmed with "no, it is not a mistake".
It's further confusing because we have the idiom of suggesting things politely in a tentative manner such as isn't this a mistake? which has lost its sense of negativity and has come to mean "this is a mistake, I think," as opposed to being parsed literally to mean "this is not-a-mistake, I think".
> English had a four-form system, comprising the words yea, nay, yes, and no. Yes contradicts a negatively formulated question, No affirms it; Yea affirms a positively formulated question, Nay contradicts it.
> Will they not go? — Yes, they will.
> Will they not go? — No, they will not.
> Will they go? — Yea, they will.
> Will they go? — Nay, they will not.
So, this has obviously simplified. But what I find interesting is that English speakers from the Philippines or from a Russian background chose differently (where SME is standard modern English, and PRE is Philippine/"Russian" English):
Will they not go? — SME: Yes, they will. PRE: No, they will. [Not sure about that one.]
Will they not go? — SME: No, they will not. PRE: Yes, they will not. [I hear this all the time from non-native English speakers.]
Will they go? — SME/PRE: Yes, they will.
Will they go? — SME/PRE: No, they will not.
ETA from Wikipedia :-)
> In December 1993, a witness in a court in Stirlingshire, Scotland, answered "aye" to confirm he was the person summoned, but was told by a sheriff judge that he must answer either yes or no, or else be held in contempt of court. When asked if he understood, he replied "aye" again, and was imprisoned for 90 minutes for contempt of court. On his release he said, "I genuinely thought I was answering him."
I'm trying to parse the extra "not" in archaic holdovers vs plain modern English. It seems to carry a subtext.
Modern "Are you happy now?" is said with sarcastic tone, to spoil happiness. Would be archaically "Are you not happy?" As if to dare contradiction. It's loaded, unlike when saying sympathetically "Are you unhappy?"
Others:
"Are you not entertained?"
"Are you not the very same Smith that dwelt at Haversham?"
"Prick me, do I not bleed?"
But commonly:
"Are you not a Christian?" most likely seems direct, but said in a formal sense, "rhetorically", an exhortation to act like one.
And we’ve literally born witness to yet another step in the trend of diluting our corpus of pronouns. The trend is very clearly from more articulate to less.
“They” and “their” for my whole lifetime were plurals. Now we’ve pretty much lost the mere clarity of knowing if the pronoun means 1 person or more than 1 person. Was watching “Adolescence” and the police mentioned “they” in regards to the victim of a crime. I was mistakenly under the impression that there weee multiple victims for much of the episode.
I’m very clearly slow to adapt to the new definitions.
The article points out that Chaucer used "they" to refer to singular unknown person, so the usage is very old. It seems more respectful than assuming they are male.
I find myself wrong all the time, and I'm glad for the lesson!
But not with continuity, not popularly over that whole time span.
If it's something we're all accustomed to and comfortable with, why even mention that it was being used in the distant past? The article is trying to simultaneously argue "try this new term they, it's easy, everybody's saying it now, it's modern, you'll love it" and "this term is not at all strange and new, you're silly if you feel uncomfortable with it because it has always been used." It's trying to have it both ways in its wrangling.
Do people also casually use it to refer to humans, or is it just me?
In my experience, everyone who complains about the use of the singular "they" uses it themselves all the time when they're not thinking about it.
The reason why there's any debate at all about the singular they is not because it's new and strange. It's because beginning in the mid-18th century, influential grammar textbooks started discouraging its use and advocating "he" in its place. Many generations of kids have grown up being told in school that the singular "they" is wrong, but despite that, it has remained a very standard part of spoken English.
Really, are you sure singular they was in widespread intemperate use, like today, prior to these influential Victorian grammarians?
OK, but they were influential, so they influenced the 1850s and subsequent decades, making this usage currently new and strange, because for a century or more people used he instead. Why deny that? To persuade them with the implication "we never got accustomed to saying he, turns out you didn't ever speak this way, it was just an illusion"?
I'm not sure what matters in persuading people to speak differently, but saying that a term is being revived, rather than being a complete neologism, is ... admittedly a little bit persuasive, but it doesn't much help with the glaring issue that it's still a major change from what we're used to: and there are additional valid complaints, firstly that it removes information, and secondly that it's used less sparingly than it was in the past. It's now commonly written, in formal texts where clarity matters.
This was for clarity in the phrasing of legislation.
I've picked up a rumor that this 1652 book encouraged the use of he in gender neutral contexts: https://archive.org/details/bim_early-english-books-1641-170... but I can't find where. It might just be an exaggeration based on the part where it says "The Maſculine is more worthy than the Feminine, and the Feminine is more worthy than the Neuter." But there's no doubt that the 17th century, never mind the 19th, was stuffed with sexist bastards in influential positions. So what's the use in pointing at the past, or even at the present, to say that some of the time they used they? Fundamentally you still have to argue for why, or why not.
plenty of people prefer to go by "it", so i'm not sure this is the slam dunk you seem to think it is. no one is claiming chaucer as an authority; we're claiming you don't seem to know enough to be worth listening to in a debate about the usage of pronouns.
"They" has always (in our lifetimes) been used to refer to a singular person of unknown gender. For example "someone left their coat here. They must be cold"
I get what you're saying, but I found myself naturally doing this when talking about gender ambiguous animals or hypothetical people just because it made more sense. Nobody taught me this. Same with using "one" instead of "you", which I've never heard anyone do outside of ridiculing royalty.
My biggest side project is about grammatical gender in French, published as a research project on wikiversity[1].
It did made me go through many topics, like dual, exclusive/inclusive group person.
Still in a corner of my head, there is the idea to introduce some more pronouns to handle more subtilty about which first person we are expressing about[2]. The ego is not the present attention, nor they are that thing intertwined with the rest of the world without which nothing exists.
[2] The project does provide an homogenized extended set of pronouns with 6 more than the two regular ones found in any primary school book. And completing all cases for all nouns is the biggest chunk that need to be completed, though it’s already done by now for the most frequent paradigms.
I found this article quite interesting, and couldn't help but feel there's something that's emotionally lost when we got rid of the dual-forms. The example from Wulf and Eadwacer where "uncer giedd" was translated to "the song of the two of us".
Boy that unc/uncer looks tantalisingly close to modern German uns/unser. Wiktionary seems to have it descending from a different PIE root, n̥s vs n̥h -- I'm not at all familiar with PIE though.
Slovene still has the grammatical dual and we still have (and use) pronouns that could literally be translated as "we two" (midva/midve) and "you two" (vidva/vidve) and so on. I've been told it used to be the same in most other Slavic languages.
Also sad is the fact that “you” is now used for “thee” and “thou” and such. The older variants could distinguish between “you” plural and “you” singular
If "wit" meant two people, I wondered if halfwit could be related. Turns out it isn't. "Wit" the pronoun and "wit" the noun referring to mental ability are unrelated homonyms, and halfwit comes from the latter.
Interesting that in English we had special pronoun for plurals of exactly 2, but in Russian for instance they have special case declensions for plurals less than 5.
Is that significant? I have no idea. Is there a language with special case for exactly 2 with another case for a “few” and with yet another for “a lot”? Interesting to compare different cultures.
147 comments
Yes/No and Yea/Nay used to mean different things too: "Is this correct?" could be answered "Yea, it is correct" whereas "Is this not a mistake?" could be answered "Yes, it is correct" (which you can also parse by taking the 'not' literally).
"Courts martial" and "secretaries general" are examples where the original noun-first word order remains.
European Portuguese, like many (most?) Romance languages, has the informal/formal second person split. Brazilian Portuguese has dropped the informal second person (tu) and uses only the formal second person (você).
Now, because “thou” is archaic, it sounds overly stiff, and most English speakers assume it was the formal second person, but it was actually the informal form. So both Brazilian Portuguese and English underwent the same process and chose the same way.
Another fun thing is that calling someone you don't know "thou" used to be an intentional insult ("you're not worthy of being called 'you'"), something that might be missed by a modern reader of Shakespeare or other EME texts.
> (OTOH there certainly are languages with a tu/vous distinction where children were expected to "vous" their own parents – not sure how much of a thing it is these days).
It's interesting that in Viennese German (my German is terrible but I do at least try) it seems like the informal form is the default, in a shop I get asked "Braucht du hilfe?" rather than the formal "Kann ich Ihnen helfen?".
Maybe this is what they mean when they say people in Vienna are rude, but coming from Scotland using informal language even in fairly serious settings just seems comfortable and normal.
My grandma used the formal address when reminiscing about going to the bakery when she was young but in the present she would use the familiar form and even the clerks would use a fake formal at best if they were feeling particularly grateful for having a job that day.
The origin for both is more "your lordship" ("domnia ta/voastră") than "your mercy", as well.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/16/opinion/sunday/pronouns-q...
Briefly, William Penn refused to take his hat off in the presence of King Charles, due to his Quaker beliefs in egalitarianism. This would have gotten him into very serious trouble for lèse-majesté, except that the king took his own hat off. "Friend Charles," said Penn (who had apparently never heard of the saying that when you're in a hole you should stop digging), "why dost thou not keep on thy hat?" And King Charles II replied, "'Tis the custom of this place that only one person should be covered at a time." Of course, normally it was the king who would keep his crown on. But after Charles said that, nobody in the court could bring a charge of lèse-majesté against William Penn for the incident.
(1) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/court-martial-res...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_and_no#The_Early_English_f...
Yes contradicts the negative question. So "Is this not a mistake?" should be contradicted with "yes, it is a mistake" or affirmed with "no, it is not a mistake".
It's further confusing because we have the idiom of suggesting things politely in a tentative manner such as isn't this a mistake? which has lost its sense of negativity and has come to mean "this is a mistake, I think," as opposed to being parsed literally to mean "this is not-a-mistake, I think".
From Wikipedia:
> English had a four-form system, comprising the words yea, nay, yes, and no. Yes contradicts a negatively formulated question, No affirms it; Yea affirms a positively formulated question, Nay contradicts it.
> Will they not go? — Yes, they will.
> Will they not go? — No, they will not.
> Will they go? — Yea, they will.
> Will they go? — Nay, they will not.
So, this has obviously simplified. But what I find interesting is that English speakers from the Philippines or from a Russian background chose differently (where SME is standard modern English, and PRE is Philippine/"Russian" English):
Will they not go? — SME: Yes, they will. PRE: No, they will. [Not sure about that one.]
Will they not go? — SME: No, they will not. PRE: Yes, they will not. [I hear this all the time from non-native English speakers.]
Will they go? — SME/PRE: Yes, they will.
Will they go? — SME/PRE: No, they will not.
ETA from Wikipedia :-)
> In December 1993, a witness in a court in Stirlingshire, Scotland, answered "aye" to confirm he was the person summoned, but was told by a sheriff judge that he must answer either yes or no, or else be held in contempt of court. When asked if he understood, he replied "aye" again, and was imprisoned for 90 minutes for contempt of court. On his release he said, "I genuinely thought I was answering him."
Modern "Are you happy now?" is said with sarcastic tone, to spoil happiness. Would be archaically "Are you not happy?" As if to dare contradiction. It's loaded, unlike when saying sympathetically "Are you unhappy?"
Others:
"Are you not entertained?" "Are you not the very same Smith that dwelt at Haversham?" "Prick me, do I not bleed?"
But commonly: "Are you not a Christian?" most likely seems direct, but said in a formal sense, "rhetorically", an exhortation to act like one.
“They” and “their” for my whole lifetime were plurals. Now we’ve pretty much lost the mere clarity of knowing if the pronoun means 1 person or more than 1 person. Was watching “Adolescence” and the police mentioned “they” in regards to the victim of a crime. I was mistakenly under the impression that there weee multiple victims for much of the episode.
I’m very clearly slow to adapt to the new definitions.
I find myself wrong all the time, and I'm glad for the lesson!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_(pronoun)
So maybe we should bring back it, or ignore Chaucer as an authority.
Even people who complain about the singular "they" use it when they're not paying attention. It's a regular part of the English language.
If it's something we're all accustomed to and comfortable with, why even mention that it was being used in the distant past? The article is trying to simultaneously argue "try this new term they, it's easy, everybody's saying it now, it's modern, you'll love it" and "this term is not at all strange and new, you're silly if you feel uncomfortable with it because it has always been used." It's trying to have it both ways in its wrangling.
Do people also casually use it to refer to humans, or is it just me?
The reason why there's any debate at all about the singular they is not because it's new and strange. It's because beginning in the mid-18th century, influential grammar textbooks started discouraging its use and advocating "he" in its place. Many generations of kids have grown up being told in school that the singular "they" is wrong, but despite that, it has remained a very standard part of spoken English.
OK, but they were influential, so they influenced the 1850s and subsequent decades, making this usage currently new and strange, because for a century or more people used he instead. Why deny that? To persuade them with the implication "we never got accustomed to saying he, turns out you didn't ever speak this way, it was just an illusion"?
I'm not sure what matters in persuading people to speak differently, but saying that a term is being revived, rather than being a complete neologism, is ... admittedly a little bit persuasive, but it doesn't much help with the glaring issue that it's still a major change from what we're used to: and there are additional valid complaints, firstly that it removes information, and secondly that it's used less sparingly than it was in the past. It's now commonly written, in formal texts where clarity matters.
Ha, I see there was an 1850 act of parliament: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_Act_1850
This was for clarity in the phrasing of legislation.
I've picked up a rumor that this 1652 book encouraged the use of he in gender neutral contexts: https://archive.org/details/bim_early-english-books-1641-170... but I can't find where. It might just be an exaggeration based on the part where it says "The Maſculine is more worthy than the Feminine, and the Feminine is more worthy than the Neuter." But there's no doubt that the 17th century, never mind the 19th, was stuffed with sexist bastards in influential positions. So what's the use in pointing at the past, or even at the present, to say that some of the time they used they? Fundamentally you still have to argue for why, or why not.
"oh, what did they say?"
---
"the wait staff messed up my order"
"how did they do that?"
It did made me go through many topics, like dual, exclusive/inclusive group person.
Still in a corner of my head, there is the idea to introduce some more pronouns to handle more subtilty about which first person we are expressing about[2]. The ego is not the present attention, nor they are that thing intertwined with the rest of the world without which nothing exists.
[1] https://fr.wikiversity.org/wiki/Recherche:Sur_l%E2%80%99exte...
[2] The project does provide an homogenized extended set of pronouns with 6 more than the two regular ones found in any primary school book. And completing all cases for all nouns is the biggest chunk that need to be completed, though it’s already done by now for the most frequent paradigms.
Somehow that just doesn't land the same.
You two commit
You two push
Is that significant? I have no idea. Is there a language with special case for exactly 2 with another case for a “few” and with yet another for “a lot”? Interesting to compare different cultures.
git means You two.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_(slang)
/s I'm being silly, which is not entirely appropriate on this site. Maybe folks will let this one go because it's on point. If not, apologies.
(To clarify this was in Hokkien, not Anglo-Saxon).