Talk:T–V distinction/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Turkish

As far as I can see there is no citation. I think we should mention that in the very formal form "sizler"(double plural you) is only used in conjugation and not directly addressing a singular person. If the word "sizler" itself is used, that means there are more than one person being addressed.

95.0.8.213 (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

German Internet Language Use

In the Internet, german users tend to use "du" as standard and use it formal and informal! The use of "Sie" is very unusaly for "internet" german! So the part of the internet is not true! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.6.19.244 (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

majestic plural

In the example Was geruhen Euer (not: Seine) Majestät zu befehlen? ("What does [but plural] Your Majesty condescend to order?") the article fails to identify "geruhen" as a plural form of the verb, hence gives the impression that a mix of singular verbs and plural pronouns were acceptable or even correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:6781:A00:D43E:B3F0:4A05:2381 (talk) 07:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on T–V distinction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.snjezana-kordic.de/Summary_Worter.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20140429191953/http://ask.fm/justlikethat3/answer/110875416461 to http://ask.fm/justlikethat3/answer/110875416461

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Non-standard Dutch pronouns

There seems to be disagreement over whether to include gij and ge in the list of Dutch pronouns in the table – edits over this are seen here: [1] [2] [3]

User:Steinbach says they "are indeed common in Flanders, but not universally accepted as standard Dutch"[4], and we have a source for gij being used, assuming I'm reading the source correctly, here. I'm accordingly unsure why they're being removed from the list. There's also a claim here that they're used in Brabant.

I'm assuming from this that there's consensus they're used. Do we have an established consensus to only include standard pronouns? I don't know of such a consensus but haven't treated this area of Wikipedia much. If these pronouns are frequently / widely used, I'd expect them to be in the list (with a note for where they're used), and further information could be given in the Dutch section elsewhere on the page. (If we do have such a consensus, is there some source showing that this isn't standard use?) Throne3d (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

"It was reported..." by whom?

Section 1.5, titled "Changes in progress", opens with the following unsourced statement:"It was reported in 2012 that use of the French vous and the Spanish usted are in decline in social media." But my question is (or rather, my questions are): it was reported... by whom? Who reported that? Without a clear citation, we have no context. --Fandelasketchup (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

We seem to now have a source (on the page) for the French side of things: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19499771. Throne3d (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Y'all

"Unlike earlier thou, it was used primarily for plural address, and in some dialects for singular address as well." Exactly what dialect uses "y'all" as singular? The closest I've ever encountered this (aside from people who don't normally use it using it incorrectly in a mocking manner) is the situation where the speaker is addressing a single person but is actually referring to a larger group the addressed person is standing in for. For example: "how's things over t' y'all's house?" where the speaker is referring to (and asking about) the listener's entire family. --Khajidha (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Sexism in the Welsh section

"...those born before 1945 would, in their youth, use chi with a girl of about the same age." — "Those" seems to mean only boys/young men here. How would girls/young women have used the pronoun? Should "with a girl" be replaced by "with a romantic interest," to cover all genders and configurations thereof? 2601:191:8400:92B0:CCD9:F143:9E70:7AFA (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Article's length

The detail in the description of each language is so overwhelming to the extent that it's almost the entire focus of the article (not to mention very undersourced). Specific examples should be given, but the focus should be on the main topic (T-V distinction) and not how it's specifically realized in every language (you could link to the language's main article instead. I propose that the 'In specific languages' should be dramatically reduced and have it focus on language families, not individual languages. For example, the sections could be: Indo-European (Germanic, Romance, Slavic, other), Finno-Ugric, Indic, Semetic, and Asian language. I put Asian language in its category because we'd have to have a subsection for each language otherwise (which goes against the point of consolidating information.) Additionally, I don't think constructed languages should be mentioned at all, since Wikipedia's language articles always focuses on natural languages.

Long story short: Consolidate the information into language families, let the details be discussed in the respective language's main articles. Thoughts?--Megaman en m (talk) 11:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I would agree that the article is (at 201Kb) far too long; it's straightforward enough to navigate (so I disagree with the rationale in multiple issues template) but it takes an age to load as it is, and the tables are difficult to edit.

But the remedy isn't to "dramatically reduce" the 'In specific languages' section (it would seem this has happened already), it is to divide the current page into logically separate articles. The easiest way to do that would be to split the ISL section out into a stand-alone list page (which it basically is already) and leave summaries (which can, if you can make it work, take the form of language family sections) here. Once we have a [[T-V distinction in specific languages page, it may be appropriate to further split off and summarize some of the longer sections as well ([[T-V distinction in Dutch/German/French/Hungarian/Basque suggest themselves) but that's a discussion for that page, I think. IMO. Moonraker12 (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

You're right, I haven't considered that. In that case, we'd give the current "in specific languages" section its own page. That would still be too big, so we'd further divide the Germanic, Romance and Balto-Slavic into their own articles.

My plan is to copy-paste the current list into its own article and do a summary of some of the bigger languages on this page; we'd then do the same for the T–V distinction in specific languages article, or however it'll end up being called. Does this sound good?--Megaman en m (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Megaman: OK, if you are happy to do that, then I'd say go ahead (or I can do it if you prefer) As for a title, if [[T–V distinction in specific languages isn't suitable (I can see it probably isn't inclusive enough) maybe [[T–V distinction in the world's languages, or [[T–V distinction across the world, or, what you will... As for the format, all I'd say on that is that there's an advantage in using different arrangements on different pages, so as to point up various aspects of a situation; on subdividing it further, there may also be a case for articles on T-V in individual languages, with main article links from those pages (such as [[French personal pronouns#The second person, or [[Slovene language#T–V distinction. But, whatever you think... Moonraker12 (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to do it if you want, the size of the task intimidates me. I'll only try to do it myself if nobody more capable is willing to.--Megaman en m (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Megaman: It turns out that splitting this section was proposed in February (with this edit) though there wasn't any discussion posted. So as the issue has been raised again, and there has been no objection over the last four months, I'd say we can go ahead right now with it. So I have. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

PS: That page is still too long, so any ideas on what to do with it are welcome... Moonraker12 (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Sylheti

There is a huge error in the Sylheti section of the table. I have no clue how to fix this; would someone please be a kind fellow and help fix it? Thanks. Victionarier (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

In Italian it is the 3rd person singular, which in the 20th century has almost entirely replaced the 2nd person plural

The article does not seem to acknowledge, at least for the Italian language, the use of the 3rd person singular, which in the 20th century has almost entirely replaced the 2nd person plural. A few non-exhaustive examples:

"You are" (singular, informal) --> "Tu sei" (2nd singular)

"You are" (singular, formal before 20th century) --> "Voi siete" (2nd plural) or "Lei è" / "Ella è" (3rd singular)

"You are" (singular, formal since 20th century) --> almost exclusively "Lei è" (3rd singular)

"You are" (plural, informal) --> "Voi siete" (2nd plural)

"You are" (plural, formal before 20th century) --> "Loro sono" / "Essi sono" / "Esse sono" (3rd plural)

This of course applies to personal pronouns in accusative and dative forms:

"I see you" (singular, informal) --> "Ti vedo" (2nd singular)

"I see you" (singular, formal before 20th century) --> "Vi vedo" (2nd plural) or "La vedo" (3rd singular)

"I see you" (singular, formal since 20th century) --> almost exclusively "La vedo" (3rd singular)

"I promise you" (singular, informal) --> "Ti giuro" (2nd singular)

"I promise you" (singular, formal before 20th century) --> "Vi giuro" (2nd plural) or "Le giuro" (3rd singular)

"I promise you" (singular, formal since 20th century) --> almost exclusively "Le giuro" (3rd singular)

And it applies to possessive adjectives and pronouns:

"Your" (informal, singular for "of you") --> "Il tuo", "La tua", "I tuoi", "Le tue" (2nd singular)

"Your" (informal, singular for "of you", before 20th century) --> "Il vostro", "La vostra", "I vostri", "Le vostre" (2nd plural), or "Il suo", "La sua", "I suoi", "Le sue" (3rd singular)

"Your" (informal, singular for "of you", since 20th century) --> almost exclusively "Il suo", "La sua", "I suoi", "Le sue" (3rd singular)

"Your" (informal, plural for "of you") --> "Il vostro", "La vostra", "I vostri", "Le vostre" (2nd plural)

"Your" (formal, plural for "of you", before 20th century) --> "Il loro", "La loro", "I loro", "Le loro" (3rd plural)

The use of the 3rd person singular comes from the simplification of more complex forms such as "La Vostra Signoria" and "Vostra Eccellenza" (or other titles).

Historically, many complex combinations were possible. For example it occurred that a priest would use the 2nd person plural to speak to a commoner, and the commoner would reply using the 3rd person singular: a glorious example of this is the dialogue between Renzo and Don Abbondio in the second chapter of The Betrothed (Manzoni novel) (where one of the topic is the intrinsic violence of the language, and how the language can be used by those in power to oppress commoners).

Ignisāra (talk) 10:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Merge

There is a longer, and more classically encyclopaedic, article at T–V distinction in the world's languages, which it would make good sense to merge this rather partial article into. I propose a redirect. Perry Pat Etic Poleaxe (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet 74.73.230.173 (talk) 04:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Issues with 'History of use in individual languages'

We've got a bit of a mix in this section. The English and French subsections to cover evolution through history, and the Scandinavian subsection does a little, but the German and Hindi/Urdu are just usage. One option would be to make a new section called 'Usage in the world's languages' (or something like that), with a link to the 'T-V distinction in the world's languages' and then these sections on selected languages. StartledFish (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Missing section on Academic development of T-V distinction

There's a section missing on academic discussion and debate after Brown and Gilman (1960), although I'm not sure where best it would go. It could go after the first paragraph of History and Usage, or as a new section at the end.

There's a good summary in this review paper: https://benjamins.com/catalog/prag.26.4.05for/fulltext/prag.26.4.05for.pdf

"The status of the single second-person pronoun you in English is however controversial. For Cook (2014) the single second-person pronoun you epitomises neutrality (N) in address, hence the need for a tripartite N-V-T framework of analysis. Similarly, Clyne et al. maintain that you is a default neutral pronoun that “fulfils the functions of both T and V without being the equivalent of either.” (2009: 38). Wierzbicka, on the other hand, claims that “[t]he English you keeps everybody at a distance” (2003: 47), though not to the same extent as V pronouns in other languages."

Also, this only covers English. StartledFish (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Splitting academic analysis from language usage

The first part of the main text had a mix of the origin of academic analysis - Brown and Gilman - with the history of usage in language. It was rather muddled, so have now split these. This now gives us a good section for further discussion of how linguistic scholars have used and evolved the original T-V framework since 1960. But this section does need to be expanded.

Queries:

• I haven't named the other linguistic scholars, but can add these in if useful.
• The new reference to the debates about the English you is a review paper. I can also add the references to the original research on these debates if useful.

StartledFish (talk) 11:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Most European parents cannot oblige their children to use V.

This needs clarification. I think "are increasingly disinclined to ask V address of their children" is true of most European parents. But the text says "cannot" which strikes me as very odd. Of course parents can oblige their children to do this as well as a lot of other things, since your parents control your shelter and sustenance, and we can all think of people who impose such demands on their children even in cultures where parent-child is usually T both ways. So what does "cannot" mean here? There are laws that intervene? It feels strained or stilted to demand V from children (e.g. V for parent becomes associated with rurality or zealous religionism)? This unease becomes so universal it acquires the character of a syntactic law? 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:D418:FE13:DC3:828A (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Brown and Gilman argue that modern usage no longer supports these definitions.

Are B and G referring to specific languages here? It cannot be English, where T/V has disappeared. The "no safe choice" problem as T can be construed as condescending, overly familiar, or intimate, while V can express proper deference, but also cold distancing (and rejection of intimacy) is still very much with us, for instance in Dutch (although the millennial generation appears to have ditched V wholesale, just to get out of this thorny thicket). 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:D418:FE13:DC3:828A (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Singular in KJV

There is an anomaly in the KJV use of singular pronouns to convey a sense of personal relations to the Dwity. In the Original Hebrew of the Tanackh (roughly Christian Old Testament), the most common theonym is Elohim (Hebrew: אֱלֹהִים, romanized: ʾĔlōhīm: [(ʔ)eloˈ(h)im]), the plural of אֱלוֹהַּ‎ , although it takes singular pronouns when used as a theonym. Is that TMI for the article? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Elohim has what seems to be a plural ending, but takes singular verb agreement. It's not a 2nd-person pronoun, so I'm not sure how such a Hebrew anomaly is relevant to this article... AnonMoos (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)