"Decay" in aspects of English grammar

[MrPedantic]

The change is sociolological/psychological as much as linguistic, but I feel that we have lost more in the area of 'language as a useful sign of relationships' than we have gained in 'language as a pretence that we are all equal'.

And yet the non-use of "thou" significantly predates any "pretence that we are all equal".

You could even say that the pronoun fell into disuse at the very time its distinctions might have seemed most useful (C17/C18: the beginnings of empire and the establishment of the "middle classes").

MrP

[5jj]

And yet the non-use of "thou" significantly predates any "pretence that we are all equal".

You could even say that the pronoun fell into disuse at the very time its distinctions might have seemed most useful (C17/C18: the beginnings of empire and the establishment of the "middle classes").

So?

Consistency isn't everything!

[MrPedantic]

When I worked in Germany in the 1960s and 1970s, the ritual(s) of moving from the equivalent of 'you' to that of 'thou', and from the equivalent of 'Mr X' to 'Jed' were important. When I returned to England in 1975, I missed the former;

Now that you mention it, I don't recall any texts in English where a "you > thou" ritual occurs (of the kind that appears in the Tolstoy passage, for instance). There isn't an equivalent of "tutoyer" in English, either.

It also seems to me that the business of suggesting that "thou" forms should be used would be exactly the kind of situation that most English people would prefer to avoid.

There is a possibility that the 2nd person singular died of embarrassment.

[birdeen's call]

In my language, in which there is a clear distinction between "tutoyering" and not, situations occur in which people cringe because they have no idea which form to use, especially nowadays, when the addressee's expectations are often impossible to guess. Some people still cultivate the tradition of Brüdershafttrinken but many do not. A young person may feel offended when addressed as "pan" or "pani" (sir, madam) but it may be the other way around too.

[Frank Antonson]

I find myself returning to the idea that one has to have become completely fluent in a language that retains in its grammatical structure the nuances of the 2nd person situation to understand what has been lost with its reduction in English. How can someone who has only ever spoken English understand that there are these other grades of relationship?

The matter of WHY? remains unanswered. Could the answer improbably lie in the imperialistic history of English? When you try to think about what would make English different, certainly the fact that it was the language of an empire comes to mind.

[NikkiBarber]

Historically I can't think of a satisfactory reason for why "thou" disappeared. I agree with the posters who have said that the class distinction was still of great importance when the "loss" occurred. Maybe social development has nothing to do with it? I believe in equality - politically I am all the way to the left - and I still prefer to address strangers with the more polite plural pronoun. To me it is like "please," "thank you," and "yes, mam." It has nothing to do with someone's social superiority/inferiority, it is simply a matter of being polite.
In a way it is odd that we still use the plural pronoun to address strangers in Danish while we at the same time call teachers by their first names. I have no good explanation for that either, but didn't someone just say that consistency isn't everything?
If Shakespeare wasn't able to be consistent with his use of thou/you then
it seems likely that the average speaker was even more confused about the distinctions. It might just be a random accident that made "you" more popular than "thou?"

[Frank Antonson]

Well, I LOVE the input from you various posters.

I don't know if we will be able to come to any satisfactory conclusion here.

Frankly, I have drunk enough beer tonight that I don't know if what I am about to say will even make sense, but here goes...

Could it be that the very success of English as a language of empire, or as a language "invaded" by so many influences (from Old Norse through Anglo-French to Hindi), has required that its grammar become more simple? If that were (be [ note the confusion over subjunctive]) true, it could follow that languages with less vast vocabularies and hegemonies might retain a private realm lost to the only-English speakers.

English, by that measure, might be a casualty. I am not the first to suspect that this may be the case -- as was the case with Latin.

[MrPedantic]

I find myself returning to the idea that one has to have become completely fluent in a language that retains in its grammatical structure the nuances of the 2nd person situation to understand what has been lost with its reduction in English. How can someone who has only ever spoken English understand that there are these other grades of relationship?

That may be the case; but then again, other languages can be charmingly delusive, even for those who have acquired some fluency.

Even if a Russian or Italian 2nd person singular can provide an English speaker with unaccustomed nuances and pleasures, that doesn't mean that his experience corresponds to the experiences of a native Russian or Italian speaker.

Similarly, though a Russian or Italian speaker may feel a loss, when speaking English, that may simply be because they're not attuned to the ways in which English speakers compensate for the absence of the verb form.

MrP

[MrPedantic]

In my language, in which there is a clear distinction between "tutoyering" and not, situations occur in which people cringe because they have no idea which form to use, especially nowadays, when the addressee's expectations are often impossible to guess. Some people still cultivate the tradition of Brüdershafttrinken but many do not. A young person may feel offended when addressed as "pan" or "pani" (sir, madam) but it may be the other way around too.

That's very interesting. My tentative speculation would be that the "tutoyer" distinction requires a certain kind of cultural structure to maintain itself.

[birdeen's call]

That's very interesting. My tentative speculation would be that the "tutoyer" distinction requires a certain kind of cultural structure to maintain itself.

The structure exists, I may have exaggerated the problems. In most situations it's obvious which form to use. Actually, I think this is what causes the trouble. We have in mind the idea that there is always the right form to use and when it happens that we don't know which one it is we feel very bad about it.

The structure is changing too. The strive for juvenility demonstrates itself in various ways, one of them being addressing other people, and expecting to be addressed, as "you".