Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Second person/polite pronouns (fuit Re: Another Ozymandias)

From:Kalle Bergman <seppu_kong@...>
Date:Wednesday, July 26, 2006, 16:13
> FWIW the use of singular > _ni_ has bcome in vogue in later years among younger > people who want to affect social distance or > 'uppity'.
This is a pet peeve of mine as well :). My reasons are more political, though; it has always been very satisfying to my socialist heart that swedish has such an egalitarian pronoun-system :) (as if – for instance – english was any different :p). I really think most kids are sincerely doing it to be polite, however. They just don't get that many older people will be annoyed rather than flattered. /Kalle B --- Benct Philip Jonsson <bpjonsson@...> skrev:
> Sally Caves skrev: > > Great question, Benct! > > > > Since Teonaht does not distinguish number in its > verbs (except the > > copula, which is rarely used), I guess it can't > answer most of your > > questions. > > A language may distinguish number, and person, > in its pronouns without distinguishing number/person > in its verbs. In fact it is quite common. To go > only to my front yard (ha, I love standing set > phrases on their head!) Swedish has lost all person > and number distinction in verbs (using the erstwhile > third person singular throughout), but preserved its > personal pronouns. I wonder if the opposite -- > number/person distinctions in the verb but not in > pronouns -- even exists. Our familiar Indo-European > languages of course use the same form of the verb > for all genders even in the third person singular, > unlike many languages from other families. > > > But there are honorific and non honorific forms > of the > > second person, that I have unimaginatively labeled > "familiar" and "formal." > > Schlabels schmabels. I think that "familiar" vs. > "honorific" > are the popular terms now, while "formal" was > popular in an > earlier, more formal period. Whatever label you use > you > still have to know what you mean by it!(*) > > > Fy/fel/fyry/fyryi (Subject, object, emphasized > Agent and Experiencer) > > > > This is non-honorific. You are addressing a peer, > a friend, a child, a > > family member, or you are speaking down to > someone. > > > > Sy/sed/syry/syryi > > > > Honorific. You are addressing someone you don't > know, a superior, you > > are being polite to a customer, etc. > > Some languages of course have a whole different set > of > vocabulary to be used in formal/honorific > situations, > including how you refer to yourself in the presence > of > a 'honorable' person -- yes, the language changes in > the > presence of such a person, even if s/he is not an > inter- > locutor, and often even when talking *about* them in > their absence! The Sohlob languages (my conlang > family) > actually tends to this side of the scale. I guess > things may get more and more complicated if I would > write/translate texts involving such distinctions. > > > Another form of the honorific in Teonaht is to > address the person by his > > title, constantly: Does the Sir/Madam wish to > examine another coat? > > May I interest the Sir/Madam in an accompanying > belt? etc. Have I > > offended the Sir/Madam? > > Swedish, until some forty years ago, did that, but > went > one step further, using not only Sir/Madam, but the > persons occupational title as a word of address. > I for instance would have been adressed as > Kandidaten > (i.e. the academic Candidate degree9 for most of > my life. In fact _min Herre/Herrn_ or _Frun_ was > used > only with people so lowly as to not have any > occupational > tiles, although servants would address their > employers > with these titles, and _Frun_ of course was the > correct > address for a housewife, so there were > proportionally > more women addressed _Frun_ than there were men > adressed > _Herrn_ -- once you knew their occupation that is. > > One interresting aspect of this is that when the > system > eventually was abolished people started using the > familiar > second person singular pronoun _du_ to everyone. > There > had been some use of the second person plural _ni_ > with singular reference on the French model, but > this > had been associated with people who didn't wish to > draw attention to their 'lowly' occupation, yet be > formal towards one another, and so this usage was > frowned upon by practitioners of the occupational > title addressing system. FWIW the use of singular > _ni_ has bcome in vogue in later years among younger > people who want to affect social distance or > 'uppity'. I and many with me frown on it as being > stuck-up rather than polite. I usually answer such > address in the first person plural, and AFAIK none > of these pompous brats has understood what I was > doing. Of course they don't know about the > _pluralis majestatis_ any more than they know about > the real stylistic value of the "V-forms" in > Swedish. > > This said I have a real hard time not to perceive > the use of polite forms in other languages as > pompous... > > -- > > /BP 8^)> > -- > Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se > > Solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant! > > (Tacitus) > > I'm afraid the current situation in the Eastern > Mediterranean forces me to reinstate this > signature... >