ye (pron.)
Old English ge, nominative plural of 2nd person pronoun þu (see thou); cognate with Old Frisian ji, Old Saxon gi, Middle Dutch ghi, Dutch gij. Cognate with Lithuanian jūs, Sanskrit yuyam, Avestan yuzem, Greek hymeis.
Altered, by influence of we, from an earlier form that was similar to Gothic jus "you (plural)" (see you). The -r- in Old Norse er, German ihr probably is likewise from influence of their respective 1st person plural pronouns (Old Norse ver, German wir).
you (pron.)
Old English eow, dative and accusative plural of þu (see thou), objective case of ge, "ye" (see ye), from Proto-Germanic *juz-, *iwwiz (source also of Old Norse yor, Old Saxon iu, Old Frisian iuwe, Middle Dutch, Dutch u, Old High German iu, iuwih, German euch), from PIE *yu, second person (plural) pronoun.
Pronunciation of you and the nominative form ye gradually merged from 14c.; the distinction between them passed out of general usage by 1600. Widespread use of French in England after 12c. gave English you the same association as French vous, and it began to drive out singular nominative thou, originally as a sign of respect (similar to the "royal we") when addressing superiors, then equals and strangers, and ultimately (by c. 1575) becoming the general form of address. Through 13c. English also retained a dual pronoun ink "you two; your two selves; each other."
https://www.etymonline.com/word/thou?ref=etymonline_crossreferenceI think we should bring "ye" back into use for the use of referring to nobody in particular, the proverbial "you". same for "thou" and "þu" when referring to a singular rather than a plural. also, I thought the OE word for we (2) was wit
First Person Sg Dual Pl Nom ic, I wit, we two wē, we Gen mīn uncer ūser, ūre1 Dat mē unc ūs Acc mec, mē uncit, unc ūsic, ūs Second Person thou you two you Nom ðū git gē Gen ðin incer ēower Dat ðē inc ēow Acc ðec, ðē incit, inc ēowic, ēow Third Person Masc. Neut. Fem. All Genders Nom hē, he hit, it hēo, hīe, she hēo, hīe, they Gen his his hire hira Dat him him hire him, heom Acc hine hit hēo, hīe hēo, hīe
thou (pron.)
2nd nominative singular personal pronoun, Old English þu, from Proto-Germanic *thu (source also of Old Frisian thu, Middle Dutch and Middle Low German du, Old High German and German du, Old Norse þu, Gothic þu), from PIE *tu-, second person singular pronoun (source also of Latin tu, Irish tu, Welsh ti, Greek su, Lithuanian tu, Old Church Slavonic ty, Sanskrit twa-m).
Superseded in Middle English by plural form you (from a different root), but retained in certain dialects (e.g. early Quakers). The plural at first was used in addressing superior individuals, later also (to err on the side of propriety) strangers, and ultimately all equals. By c. 1450 the use of thou to address inferiors gave it a tinge of insult unless addressed by parents to children, or intimates to one another. Hence the verb meaning "to use 'thou' to a person" (mid-15c.).
Avaunt, caitiff, dost thou thou me! I am come of good kin, I tell thee!
["Hickscorner," c. 1530]
A brief history of the second person pronoun in English can be found here.
THEE and THOU
The pronoun of the second person in English grammar used to break down like this:
Nominative singular: THOU
Nominative plural: YE
Objective singular: THEE
Objective plural: YOU
In the Middle Ages, people began to use plural forms in all cases, at first as a sign of respect to superiors, then as a courtesy to equals. By the 1600s, the singular forms had come to represent familiarity and lack of status, and fell from use except in the case of a few dialects, notably in the industrial north of England. People in Lancashire north of the Rossendale Forest and Yorkshire used to be well known for their use of the singular second person pronouns tha (nom.) and thee (acc.). For religious reasons, the Quakers also retained the familiar forms, though generally in such a way that thee was used in all cases, along with the third person of the verb (thee has where grammar would dictate thou hast), and they brought it to America, where it was current in entire neighborhoods of Philadelphia till the 1890s and in some farms in the hinterland for perhaps another generation after that.
So what began as a clear distinction based on number turned into a distinction based on formality and social status.
Languages like Japanese and (especially) Indonesian have a variety of words for "you" depending on the social status of the speaker and addressee(s). "It's a nightmare trying to determine which form to use so that you won't offend anyone," an online friend once told me.
Otto Jespersen, in "Philosophy of Grammar" (1924), briefly traced the reason that the plural came to mean the formal in the second person pronoun in Indo-European languages. "When a person speaks of himself as "we" instead of "I" it may in some cases be due to a modest reluctance to obtrude his own person on his hearers or readers; he hides his own opinion or action behind that of others. But the practice may even more frequently be due to a sense of superiority, as in the 'plural of majesty.' This was particularly influential in the case of the Roman emperors who spoke of themselves as nos and required to be addressed as vos. This in course of time led to the French way of addressing all superiors (and later through courtesy all equals, especially strangers) with the plural pronoun vous. In the Middle Ages this fashion spread to many countries."
Jespersen gives several instances of the "plural of social inequality" from Italian, Danish and Russian, along with illustrations of the grammatical irregularities that often result, and concludes, "Politeness and servility are not always free from a comic tinge."
An author from 1653 wrote that the use of "thou" was generally contemptuous, or "familiar caressing," and that custom required the plural "you" when addressing one person.
In English, the shift can be illustrated by the persistence of the Quakers in using thee when speaking to one person, which began as a provocative and deliberate flouting of custom in the name of social equality and ended up being a mere peculiarity of speech, not recognized as anti-social by themselves or by non-Quakers.
"God is no respecter of persons" was one of the Quakers' favorite lines from the Bible. In their own apologies, their speech peculiarity was lumped with other social causes. Robert Proud, in his "History of Pennsylvania in North America" (1797), wrote of, "Their disuse of vain compliments, and flattering titles, bowing, kneeling, and uncovering the head to mankind; and their using the singular language, thou and thee, to a single person, in discourse, according to the true form of speech, though so contrary to the general practice of people in common; believing all tokens of adoration and worship belong to God only; and that plain, but civil language, and true speeches are most becoming to professors and followers of truth."
William Penn hinted that that early Quakers found this deliberate flouting of linguistic convention a useful way to provoke their enemies: "They also used the plain language of thou and thee to a single person, whatsoever was his degree among men. And, indeed, the wisdom of God, was much seen, in bringing forth this people, in so plain an appearance: for it was a close and distinguishing test upon the spirits of those, they came among; shewing their insides, and what predominated, notwithstanding their high and great profession of religion. This among the rest, sounded so harsh to many of them, that they took very great offence at it; forgetting the language they use to God, in their prayers, and the common stile of the scriptures; and that it is an absolute and essential propriety of speech." ("Rise and Progress of the Quakers," 1694)
By the early 1800s, however, the use was no longer felt as disrespectful, merely quaint.
In the King James Version, God is addressed in the familiar -- "Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done," etc. Someone said this is to emphasize that the God of the Bible is not an unapproachable ruler but a God who has a relationship with his people. I don't know, but many modern people only encounter thee and thou in biblical speech, and, since people seem to think of God as mighty and remote, they probably hear thee as a marker of servility and respect. Thus the once-too-familiar pronoun now has the reputation of being servile.
In the Quaker communities it had the same effect, I think. They were a serious, weighty sect, usually well-off, always from the oldest families. Their gravity commanded respect, and non-Quakers in 19th century Pennsylvania almost always seem to have used "thee" when addressing them.
The awkwardness of not having a true singular "you" has led some languages and dialect to invent one. According to a posting on a listserv that I subscribe to, The Dutch plural, jij, was used as polite singular until by the 16th century the true singular, du, was a literary rarity. But then jij itself began to be felt as too intimate or condescending for a "plural of social inequality," and it was replaced by Uwe Edelheid, meaning "Your Nobility," later shortened to U E and then U, and recently in spelling lowercased to u. Meanwhile, a new familiar plural jullie has appeared, and a dialect singular form, gij, has got into standard Dutch as dialectal/biblical/poetic.
In the American South, there is a real grammatical difference between "you" (singular) and "y'all" (plural). Other regions of the nation ridicule this as redneck ignorance, but it compensates well for the loss of the distinction between the singular and plural second person pronouns. It is accepted even among the most educated and literate Southerners.
We Southerners don't care what ye Yanks think anyways. y'all suck.
No comments:
Post a Comment