Hello,

I'm curious why or how English lost its second person pronouns like thee, thou, and ye. Are there particular historical reasons or is it just a linguistic fluke?

Thanks!

Mushtaq

I wonder too, especially as "usted" and "vous" are still used in Spanish and French.

I was never quite sure when to "tu" and when to "usted" - its probably one of those things that makes a foreigner look quite rude in Spain.

Perhaps we lost them because we just weren't polite enough to want to keep them? Perhaps it was just that we had too many words?

Apparently Quakers still use the term "thee" as in the example:
Perhaps thee has noticed the point in our Friends Journal on February 15 - Friend 1964.

Does anyone know if the term is still used?

>>Perhaps thee has noticed the point in our Friends Journal on February 15 - Friend 1964<<

I thought that was 'thou' as in
I, me, my, mine
thou, thee, thy, thine
he, him, his, his

etcetera. Or have I just been misled by 'me' and 'thee' sounding similar?

As for the Quakers, I also think they still use 'thou' and 'thee', but don't know any to ask!

Hail to thee, Jo and Bridget, from a 'quakerly' paulb whose wife is a Quaker. Certainly in Australia, the form 'thee' is not used in normal conversation but crops up occasionally in a more lighthearted sense. Incidentally one of the nice things about Quakers is that they do not use titles (Mr, Mrs etc); instead they use the whole name eg Dear John Smith. This applies to children as well, who will freely address adults by their full name. It sure beats the status thing!

You would say "Fare thee well" so the quotation fits in with that usage.

I tend to ignore Mr & Mrs (I'm a Ms.!!!) and prefer to use whole names - perhaps I should be a Quaker.

> I thought that was 'thou' as in
I, me, my, mine

arrrgggh! I listened to the "Let It Be" CD the other day and ever since I've had one of the songs stuck in my head (is there a word for that?), and now this.

All through the day I me mine, I me mine, I me mine.
All through the night I me mine, I me mine, I me mine.
I-me-me mine, I-me-me mine,
I-me-me mine, I-me-me mine.
All I can hear I me mine, I me mine, I me mine.
Everyone's saying it,
All through the day I me mine.
All through your life I me mine.


[apologies to all who end up with this stuck in their heads]

Isn't that what's known as a (not an) "haunting tune"? But that doesn't quite convey how annoying it can be... However, the German word for a song you can't get out of your head sure does: "Ohrwurm". Yuk.

I cannae say why we have lost the second person pronouns, when both the Latin languages and the Germanic have kept them. I'm curious and will nose around.
Meanwhile, "thou" is the nominative, equivalent to "I". "Thee" is the objective, equivalent to "me". "Fare thee well" would be parsed: {May it} fare {to} thee well.
And as for the Ohrwurm, I'd rather have a bookworm.

>>I was never quite sure when to "tu" and when to "usted"<<

When I was learning French at school, I was taught that "tu" was the familiar form of address - to a friend, peer, or sometimes to one who was perceived as "inferior" (a servant, a student, etc.)

"Vous" would be the opposite - to one's superior.

I suppose the same rule would apply to Spanish.

Correct, David. And the same goes for "Sie" (the polite form of address in German) and "Du" (the familiar form, and cognate to the lost-but-not-forgotten "thou" in English).

When in doubt, we native English speakers should always go for the polite form of address - better to be smiled at while addressing a child as "usted" than to be frowned upon while addressing a grandmotherly type as "tu."

If I may bring up German again, where the use of the dual system of second person pronouns is alive and well: the inferior/superior distinction ("du" and "Sie", respectively) aptly sums up how it works. However, some of the fine points of the game are rather interesting. My favorite example: when hikers reach a certain altitude (I've forgotten how high, but pretty high up), everyone is permitted, even expected to address each other with the familiar "du" form of address!

one of the translations given for 'ohrwurm' is 'ear candy', another is 'mindworm'...
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=ear+candy

I like the expression "ear candy" ("mind candy" is even better), but it seems to refer only to music that is easy and pleasant to listen to, but not music you can't get out of your head. So "Ohrwurm", ugly as it sounds, is probably too positive in its connotations to fit the gap of the word you were looking for to denote the state in which a tune won't stop playing in your head. Oh well.

I'll give you the fuller quote about the Quaker "thee" and you can decide for yourselves.

... It is also used as nominative case (a use unaccounted for) by Quakers (Perhaps thee has noticed the point in our Friends journal ...)

So he acknowledges that the usage is unusual. I would be suprised if the quotation were a mistake. There were, presumably, other examples.

Perhaps Paulb can enlighten us.

Finally talked to a friend (not Friend) of mine who grew up
in a Quaker family here in the States. She said her
great-aunts, who I'm guessing must have been born in the
early part of the century, did not use thee, etc.
She and I both thought that perhaps some of the more strict
groups might still use these terms.

I've only heard 'thee' used in a lighthearted sense, and I don't think I've ever seen it written in [Australian] Quaker publications. It may still be use in the more evangelical Quaker communities in America and, possibly (although I doubt it) in Africa.

Tsuwm--
>>and ever since I've had one of the songs stuck in my head (is there a word for that?) <<

Yes, it's a form of obsession, or obsessive thinking:
perseverance of thought. (That's per-SEV-er-ance, not
per-se-VER-ance).

> I was never quite sure when to "tu" and when to "usted" - its probably one of those things that makes a foreigner look quite rude in Spain.

It’s so hard for me using the same “you” with a friend or with a stranger!.
We use “tu” with friends, family or young people, and when we want to slight a stranger. We even have the word “tutear” that is using “tu” with somebody. And we can say with dignity: “How do you (usted) dare ‘tutearme’?”.
One sad experience that almost every Spaniard have to undergo in his life is when for first time a stranger young person address you using “usted”. You think “How a boy like me is using ‘usted’ when talking to me?. Or, maybe, I’m no longer a boy?”.


Juan Maria.

>>One sad experience that almost every Spaniard have to undergo in his life is when for first time a stranger young person address you using “usted”. You think “How a boy like me is using ‘usted’ when talking to me?. Or, maybe, I’m no longer a boy?”. <<

Juanmaria, I can sympathise! Somehow, somewhen, between visits to France, I graduated from being addressed by strangers as Mademoiselle to being Madame! Made me feel like I'd aged ten years, gone grey and put on forty pounds...

It didn't help that I had aged (some, but not ten) years, gone (a little, round the temples) grey and put on (some, not forty) pounds!

In Italy we no longer use "voi" (= vous, you plural) as a polite form; it is just used now in the South, and it is archaic.
It seems strange enough, but the polite form, even addressing to an important man, is "Lei" (=She)!
Ciao
Emanuela

>>It seems strange enough, but the polite form, even addressing to an important man, is "Lei" (=She)!<<
Whoa, that IS strange, E! (hope lei don't mind me shortening your name--let me know if lei do.)
How'd that happen, do lei know?

Honestly, you don't know when you're well off. Just the choice between tu and usted. If only life were that simple here. There are about a dozen possibilities in Indonesian. After three pages of discussing the issue, my grammar book concludes "The above discussion of pronouns and pronoun substitutes is far from exhaustive. Many other forms occur,...".

What I do like, and I wish English had, is two forms of we. Indonesian has kita and kami . Kita is we, including you. Kami is we, not including you. So if I say, for example, "kita will meet my mother at the airport", you're coming to the airport. If I say "kami will meet my mother at the airport", you're not coming.

Bingley

>>...first time a stranger young person address you using “usted”...<<

The Afrikaans have a similar custom: the word "Oom" means "Uncle", and "Tannie" means "Aunt". Younger people use it as a mark of respect, regardless of the relationship to whomever is being addressed. I was nineteen when I was first called "Oom". I didn't get over it until years later when my first nephew was born, and I felt I had earned the title!

Wish I knew a way to "mark-up" those words to convey the sounds!

When I was a child we always used to call our parents' friends Auntie Pam or Uncle Godfrey or whatever their names were.

Bingley

>What I do like, and I wish English had, is two forms of we. Indonesian has kita and kami. Kita is we, including you. Kami is we, not including you.

Hey oom -or are you a tannie?- those words are wonderful!. I would like having them in Spanish too, this “Kami” is the ultimate word-weapon, left on the wrong hands might spread havoc!.


Juan Maria.

<we always used to call our parents' friends Auntie Pam or Uncle Godfrey or whatever their names were.>

Yeah, that was my experience too. I had so many honorary aunts and uncles that I was well into my teens before I managed to sort out who was what.

Is this a common convention? I suspect so. Are there any interesting similar usages in places other than Indonesia and Oz? (I am afraid I have lost track of your familial origins, Bingley, although I think I read something somewhere here.)

Kindest rgds,
rhapsody lute, aka lusy

Amongst the many Indonesian forms of address, which can also be used instead of pronouns, are om and tante , taken from the Dutch words for uncle and aunt. They can be used for any older or socially superior person you feel close to as well as your biological uncle and aunt. Some friends of mine, for example, call their boss tante .

I've lived in Indonesia for a long time, but I'm from the South East of England.

Bingley

>>I had so many honorary aunts and uncles that I was well into my teens before I managed to sort out who was what. <<

Me, too, rhapsody lute, aka lusy. The practise was common in Rhodesia (can't get used to calling my native land Zimbabwe), and it still applies in South Africa, amongst both English and Afrikaans speakers.

I dislike the custom and encourage my children's friends to call me David. My nephews/nieces call me "Uncle David" only when they want to annoy me!

Is there a collective/descriptive noun for nieces/nephews?

<is there a collective/descriptive noun for nieces/nephews?>

Lipton's wonderful collection of collective nouns "An exaltation of larks" doesn't seem to include nieces/nephews but does have:

a descent of relatives

an expectation of heirs

an ingratitude of children

a caper of kids

a leer of boys

a giggle of girls

and [off topic?] a mutter of mother-in-laws.

Incidentally, David108, do your older friends ever refer to you as DavidCVIII?

>>Incidentally, David108, do your older friends ever refer to you as DavidCVIII? <<

Thanks, paulb, for the best laugh of the day!

The answer is no, but those of my childrens' peers who have earned the right to do so, refer to me as one of the "wrinklies". I'm about ready for that face-lift, now, thank you!

Interestingly in Australia the term "youse" is used as the 2nd person plural pronoun (although admittedly not by "educated" Australians, who frown on it)

>>in Australia the term "youse" is used as the 2nd person plural pronoun<<
It is used that way plus the singular, if I listened to the
people on TV right, in parts of the northeastern U.S., too.
Maybe Brooklyn, or Chicago--one of them thar places! This may be a stereotype I picked up from TV, but I think it was
used by mafiosos.

back on the subject of losing old fashioned pronouns. . .Is it possible that they were taken away in colonial rebellion against Britain? Often the colonies discarded old world customs because they were rebelling, and perhaps this is one?

I'm interested that nobody past the first post in this thread mentioned the long-lamented 'ye'. Back in Middle English, the second person singular was (nominative, objective, genitive, possessive):

thou, thee, thy/thine*, thine

* similar to a/an which persists today

and the plural forms were:

ye, you, your, yours

(The sounds have changed a bit too, so I'm simplifying a bit.) Some time around King James, 'you' began its great levelling of the second person when it took over the nominative plural, changing that form to

you, you, your, yours

This was also the correct form for addressing a singular person who was your social superior, as in most of the other western European languages. In English, though, the use of 'thou/thee' fell completely out of favour for no apparent reason.

Amusingly, in modern usage, 'you' used generically means, almost invariably, the singular form. Think about it; if you're addressing a group, would you say, 'Do you want to go to the rink?' When I do it, I usually wind up saying, 'Do you guys want...' or 'Do you all want...' Or is this just a Canadianism?

Also somewhere along the way the use of 'mine' before a vowel, instead of 'my', fell out of favour. Why did it happen? It just did. Languages mutate, just like genes do. There doesn't have to be a reason, and usually there isn't.

--
Trevor Green
"Military justice is to justice what military music is to music."

<we always used to call our parents' friends Auntie Pam or Uncle Godfrey or whatever their names were.>

Me too. It took me years to work out the real ones from the imaginary ones. The imaginary ones were always so much more fun. I've explained that to my children as they are sadly lacking in the aunt and uncle department. Fortunately my friends ahve been very happy to fill in the gaps (especially at Christmas and birthdays) but I think the practice of calling them uncles and aunts had fallen out of favour. I think we should have a new term for honoured family friend. We have a good collection of god-parents and have added quite a few honorary godparents to the list (it gets a bit tricky explaining the range of religions and un-religions involved), perhaps Aunt and Uncles would have been simpler.

I like a caper of kids. One of my inventions is:

a vandalism of toddlers (especially when I had to tidy up the house after them)

>>you, you, your, yours

This was also the correct form for addressing a singular person who was your social superior, as in most of the other western European languages. In English, though, the use of 'thou/thee' fell completely out of favour for no apparent reason.<<

A possible reason would be that the English reputation for politeness is founded in fact? English speakers were so polite that they addressed everyone as a superior and the familiar 2nd person singular disappeared!

>>the long-lamented 'ye'<< is alive and kicking in Ireland. At least the west.

>>'you' used generically means, almost invariably, the singular form. Think about it; if you're addressing a group, would you say, 'Do you want to go to the rink?' When I do it, I usually wind up saying, 'Do you guys want...' or 'Do you all want...' Or is this just a Canadianism?<<

I'd say a North Americanism. Sorry, mrdeath, but I'd ask the question just as you first pose it. As for 'you guys', it took me a very long time to get used to being called a guy - where I grew up a guy was definitely male!

...Ah, the joys of an international language!

>>where I grew up a guy was definitely male!<<
Same here, Bridget!! I am not, never have been, and never
WILL BE male!!
This drives me crazy! If I'm in a group and somebody says,
"You guys", I have to be feeling extraordinarily kindly disposed towards the speaker in order to respond at all.

so which equivalent for 'guys' do you prefer? gals? dolls?? I'm sorry, but this reaction always amuses me because the alternatives are so few. I've found that most of my colleagues at work, when presented with a choice, opt for 'guys' over 'chicks'.

>>so which equivalent for 'guys' do you prefer? gals? dolls?? I'm sorry, but this reaction always amuses me because the alternatives are so few. I've found that most of my colleagues at work, when presented with a choice, opt for 'guys' over 'chicks'.<<

Ok, Tsuwm, you asked for it!!
Down here, thank you very much, you-all covers it nicely!
But, since you-all don't say that up there, I DO happen to
have some alternatives, as a matter of fact, ALL of which
are VASTLY preferable to calling females "guys"!!! OH!!!!
How are you ladies doing today? Would you fine ladies like
some lunch? If they all had some similarity, say they're
all in the secretarial pool, you can even say "types", as
in, Would you wonderful secretarial types give me some ideas? People and folks work well, too: People, let's
adjourn. I've enjoyed meeting with you fine people. It's good to see you folks again. You fun folks really liven
up the place. Even "female types" can work, if it's in the
proper context. Do you female types think adding a restroom would help? Even, facetiously probably, "you
persons of the opposite sex" would be better than "guys"!
OOH! THIS even makes me want to recommend that you use the term "you superior females"!!

okay, just three(3) quick points:
1. "guys" can be found in both M-WCD and AHD in the sense of "persons", although it is listed as "informal" -- what does this mean? it means that usage is widespread and has been for some years.
2. "ladies" is the counterpart for "gentlemen"; this only works well for formal occasions.
3. "you people" sounds too much like a drill sargeant in a good mood.
4. your other suggestions sound very forced, when what we're wanting is very informal.

oops, that was four(4) things. so tsu-me.

Response to point 1: I know this.
Points 2, 3, and 4: The intent of any words can be indicated by the speaker's non-verbal communication. I have said every one of these with such things as a smile and
a conspiratorial twinkle in my eye, and have yet to be
rebuffed or misunderstood.
I agree that if any speaker is not comfortable with the language he or she is using, it is quite likely to
sound stiff and forced.
FYI--I am not about the fact that your office staff,
or anyone, uses the term guys when talking to females. I
am angry because you are amused at the situation. I can
even, in a way, see why you are amused, but I don't have to
like it! No hard feelings here. I still love (usually!)
reading your posts.

>>so which equivalent for 'guys' do you prefer? gals? dolls?? I'm sorry, but this reaction always amuses me because the alternatives are so few. I've found that most of my colleagues at work, when presented with a choice, opt for 'guys' over 'chicks'<<

Back to my original point - why is an alternative for 'guys' necessary? What is wrong with plain old 'you'? Works for the British, the Aussies, the Kiwis and as far as I know every English-as-a-foreign-language textbook.

As for 'guys' over 'chicks', I thikn you were stacking the odds by offering your colleagues only these two choices. Have you tried them on Jackie's suggestions to see what they think, or did you dislike those too much to ask? Personally, I'd rather have 'people' or 'folks' if I have to have anything at all.

The problem with the words you mention is:

dolls - this refers to plastic things with straw blonde hair and unfeasibly small waists - some of us don't want to be Barbie (I know it wasn't what Damon Runyon intended).

chicks - may have been fine in its day but far too fluffy - sounds like a word for arm fluff, which is what a chick was.

We've had a re-surgence of "girls" here, it seems to have been re-claimed to a certain extent and we have "girls' nights out" and "boys' nights out" without feeling we are all twelve.

I always notice in America that people use names so much more - we would rarely say in conversation "Well Walt, what do you think about the latest figures". We'd more likely say "What do you think about the latest figures". Sometimes I wish we used names more as I am so bad at them and it takes me ages to learn people's names.

That might be why we are quite happy to use impersonal words like "you" and "anyone". I'd be more likely to say "does anyone want to come for a drink?" which unintentionally avoids the need to differentiate between the sexes.

So in the end it's a bit of a non-issue for me. I'd prefer not to be called anything, except perhaps my name.

>>> >>in Australia the term "youse" is used as the 2nd person plural pronoun<<
It is used that way plus the singular, if I listened to the
people on TV right, in parts of the northeastern U.S., too.
Maybe Brooklyn, or Chicago--one of them thar places! This may be a stereotype I picked up from
TV, but I think it was
used by mafiosos.

>>the long-lamented 'ye'<< is alive and kicking in Ireland. At least the west.


Apologies people - I've come back to this forum as it is well and truly ending.

I hate to be one to break the news but 'youse' is most definitely an Irish term. Australia, Chicago and Brooklyn all contain Irish communities and 'youse' is commonly heard on Irish streets as an alternative for the plural 'you'. Not many Italian (Sicilian) mafioso types on this sceptered isle!

Bridget is spot on. 'Ye' is used as the singular 'you' in the west of Ireland and in Dublin by migrants from those parts. I went to school on the west coast for two years and it took me aback when I heard it for the first time in conversation. I really thought they were joking. It was like listening to a Dicken's novel. I never use (sic) it myself but I have been known to say 'youse' in my youth. Here aswell it is frowned upon as uneducated and common but very much part of the dialect.

jmh suggests the use "anyone" and i'd like to add "everyone" as in "what's everyone doing tonight?"
this comes back in a way to emanuela's italian point about "lei" the "she" for the formal "you". "voi", the plural "you" was also acceptable until some time in the past, i believe, but was changed after the second world war. (please correct me if i'm wrong, emanuela!) "lei" is a superbly indirect way of addressing the speaker and seems to have some parallels in highly formal english as in "your honour" or "what would her majesty like for tea?" which assumes a third person present since addressing the individual directly would be brash.
in this way "would anyone like to go out for a beer?" is an indirect way of addressing the people present through an anonymous group which is understood by everyone present to be the actual group. am i reading too much into it?
one other point. thou seems to me to be used today only with a deliberately clumsy attempt to match an old fashioned verb to it, usually in creating an 11th commandment: "thou shalt not take mine beer from the fridge unless thoust payest first". not a bad commandment when you think about it...

Indonesian can also refer to the person being addressed indirectly. One way is just to use the person's name or name and title: "(Pak) Candi ke mana besok?" = "Where are you going tomorrow?" (literally " (Mr.) Candi to where tomorrow"). Or you can use some sort of relationship term "Kami telah menerima surat Ibu" = "We have received your letter" (literally "We have received mother's letter" (where the woman in question is not the writer's or the recipient's mother)). There are other ways but these are the most common.

Bingley

I recall my new wife's having problems of when to use "vous" and "tu" while learning French in francophone Burkina Faso. The French teacher told her not to worry about learning the "tu" form. "It is better," she said,"to call the dog 'vous' than the President 'tu.'" She still struggles with the difference but has learned the "tu" form better with my French children and grandchildren.

Excellency will do.

Just a thought while we're on the subject of the expansion of you , how do people feel about the expanding use of they/them/their as an indefinite 3rd person singular pronoun, e.g., Each student should check their work carefully and correct their own mistakes.

Bingley

>how do people feel about the expanding use of they/them/their as an indefinite 3rd person singular pronoun

I certainly use this form in writing. I have written some "how to" books and avoid at all costs using his/her. I feel very comfortable with your example - "Each student should check their work carefully and correct their own mistakes". Some people would accuse it of being impersonal but I think that it is neutral and the rest of the writing can carry the responsibilty for sounding friendly.

Yes, a perennial. One obvious solution (and my science students like cut and dried solutions), is to use plurals - not of course always the meaning one wishes to convey. But there is a move among grammarians/linguists in Australia to simply accept that their/they are third person singular non-gender specific pronouns. I'm sure that it will come. My aging Macquarie Dictionary (the Oz OED) says that it is 'usually considered to be bad usage', BUT I think that I've read that the Macquarie editors are thinking of accepting what is (arguably) inevitable. Does any-one have any info on this?

i believe "their" is listed as singular in the oxford dictionary these days. i did read that it should be avoided in formal writing but it's okay in conversation somewhere (which sounded odd at the time). i'm for it. it sounds fine. but everyone should follow their own feelings maybe.

okay, I'm going to play devil's advocate (even though I'm an adiabolist) and ask the obvious question:

what makes distorting the meaning of 'they' by making it singular better than distorting the meaning of 'his' by making it neutral?

e.g., everyone should follow his own feelings vs. everyone should follow their own feelings (or, in the first case, as discussed elsewhere, the speaker/author can use her personal pronoun).

tsuwm
HA!
there is no greater stretch in terms of stretches.
it's just that when one group becomes the default neutral then the other group becomes the default unrecognised.
plural just happens to cover everyone and is thus fairer.

>>okay, I'm going to play devil's advocate (even though I'm an adiabolist) and ask the obvious question:

what makes distorting the meaning of 'they' by making it singular better than distorting the meaning of 'his' by making it neutral?<<

First, 'play'fully--what do you mean, play devil's advocate??

Serious, now--Tsuwm, you have just caused me to go thru a
thinking process that led to an embarrassing realization.
I have always been taught to object to using their as a
singular. But I have always accepted his as a neutral, because that was already in place (in use) when I was in
school. Seemed just fine to me, that's the way things were.

But your post made me realize (again) that the world did not begin with my birth! I imagine that when his first crept into use as a singular, there were probably rantings against this, just as in my school days there were rantings against using their as a singular, and...just as I now rant against using 'guys' to address females!

...and the language goes on...

Well, if we're now allowed to use they as singular then the ACT is wrong. In my past year of schooling we've gone over a large bit of grammar, including much concerning the ACT and SAT. I've been told that if you're going to use singular in a sentence, such as Bingley's example, it should be written as "Each student should check his or her work carefully and correct their own mistakes." I think it sounds a little awkward myself, but yes, we're supposed to use "his or her" rather than "their." Now, we can use just "his" or just "her", but it's considered politically correct to alternate. Of course, we can also use "one" as in "One should be careful about what one is saying."

>the ACT is wrong

Sounds fine by me. Pillars of education need to be kept in their place as followers not leaders! By the way what is ACT?

That wasn't meant to be as rude as it sounded - I went to UCL which you may not have heard of either.

I do find the idea of alternating his/her supremely silly. Its only the kind of idea that only an academic could come up with as a solution. Do people use him/her alternately in normal speech - hardly. I occasionally use "one" and always sound as if I've stepped off the ark. Whole sections of the community may well have never heard the term "one"!

A message for your tutors - get real! It might lose you a few marks but then surely education is about formulating arguments not just lamely accepting an arbitrary ruling. You can tell that I'm a child of the sixties, just wasn't made for conforming!

Footnote: I've now looked up the ACT. It looks like it is a college entrance examination. In which case I can see that an exam which is open to a wide range of people tends to lag current thinking, otherwise they would never be able to set a standard. I always found this to be a problem of school-level English language. It was always taught as if there were absolute rules. The better student was often marked down for failing to conform to the average. There is an earlier discussion of times when we felt that teachers had misunderstood our contributions. The simple answer is stick to mathematics. 1=1, 2=2,

>>i believe "their" is listed as singular in the oxford dictionary these days. i did read that it should be avoided in formal writing but it's okay in conversation somewhere (which sounded odd at the time).<<

My Oxford Dictionary is too old to check this out, but I think I've heard the same story that the 'authorities' are starting to accept this usage.

As for 'it should be avoided in formal writing but it's okay in conversation', this is how language evolves. Speech is living and 'realtime' - writing of its very nature is slower and lags behind. So an innovation or evolution is accepted orally first and in writing later.

I suspect the web may be changing this balance - you only need to look at what is acceptable punctuation / grammar in email / discussion board versus traditional standards for writing letters to see how the pressure on writing to be 'realtime' too is changing it.

Your lack of capitals is a case in point. No problem whatsoever to me on this board, but if you'd put it in a formal letter (or even a formal email) I'd probably react differently. Formal communication is more considered and polished and its rules just change much more slowly.

I have a friend who is a lawyer with a top UK firm. She has never learned to type, she has always had a secretary and a dictating machine. I suspect she hasn't actually "written" anything for years.

I am hugely amused by her e-mails which are truly - awful. they are full of typos, careless spelling, dubious grammar and random abbreviations. She would never send out a business letter looking like that.

I think that is where a lot of the tolerance is coming from on the internet. A lot of very clever people are out there trying to communicate but they can't actually ... type. Their tolerance level has a trickle down effect and us lesser mortals get away with more in their slipstream.

I've always thought of a (non-business) e-mail as "written down talking" not a letter. I suppose that is why the rate of change is increasing. We throw together a quick e-mail, rather than writing a considered letter. Aplogies for those of you who manage to post e-mails in perfect prose!

<there is no greater stretch in terms of stretches>

Would that be the preponderant pandiculation?

jmh>I do find the idea of alternating his/her supremely silly.

I agree wholeheartedly with this, and I will throw in "his or her" and the artificial concepts (like jhe) which have been suggested over the years. But I also prefer me using 'his' and you using 'her' as opposed to 'their' as a singualar -- it just "sounds" better to these Old Ears. Each to his own, I guess.

heavens above! such big words. you're going to lose me with the old pandiculation thing i'm afraid.
language usually changes for a reason and "his" sounds crazy no matter who taught it to us at school. "his or her" is too much trouble in most speech and even writing (because we love to read a smooth sentence) so "their" sounds the best alternative. some words don't sound right at first and some do get discarded as it becomes obvious we were trying to hard. i think "their" is becoming accepted.
i had a teacher at school who adamantly taught us "his" and this grand old gentleman also objected to "okay" telling us we shouldn't use it if we don't know what it means. i looked it up and it didn't help me use the word at all. the fact is "okay" fits a slot perfectly. all this taught me was that rules don't count for ****!
on the toeic and toefl tests there is often a question about group pronouns as in "the team lost their/its way", well, either sounds okay to me but the real answer is "its" because "team" is techically singular. but if you think without grammar rules "their" refers to the people within the team.
how does everyone feel about "Ms"? i never use it, not because i don't like the idea but because it's too much trouble to even pronounce the zzzz sound. i'm not in the mainstream here so i don't know how things are in the real world with that one. i'd be interested to hear...
i also have no reason to use super polite english so i've never had "their" tested in a formal situation.
my old teacher tried to keep the status quo in the face of an unrelenting laziness. i think changing it in the face of the same laziness won't help either. ten years or so might tell which way we go!

Well, I certainly feel humbled... I thought that his (or her, as the case may be) sounded better -- but now I'm informed it "sounds crazy"... no matter where I learned it.
I guess I better get an adjustment on my hearing aids.

tsuwm
SORRY!!!!!!
let me rephrase that....
it sounds wrong (to me) when some of the hises are hers.
but i understand perfectly anyone who feels "their" is pushing thngs too much. that was meant to be my point.

>it sounds wrong (to me) when some of the hises are hers.

sure, and this touches on the fairness issue which came up here earlier and also on the "one of the guys" thread. I'm going to start a new thread....

>>it sounds wrong (to me) when some of the hises are hers.<<

Oh, william, how funny that sounds! I've never seen a plural of the word 'his' before! My lookup offered alternatives from hisses to hives! That was pretty good,
Friend! I even understood what you meant, and that kinda
worries me! But I'm wondering: how many of the hises belong to her?

> how does everyone feel about "Ms"? <

A couple of current threads can be tied together for this. One thread remarked that a word was a "skin of thought" which conveys underlying ideas. Another was the role of language in adapting to cultural attitudes and behaviours from the "political correctness" strand.

I think the evolution of the past use of "Mister" and "Miss" can guide us in it's future use. (Historians please feel free to confirm alter or refute this )It could be argued that Mister has evolved to a more generic adult male title and is no longer an indication of social status. (It could be argued that the advent of the industrial revolution altered the "status quo" so to speak.) As the importance of defining class/occupation in a title has changed, so has the word.

Miss has become a generic unmarried female title, and no longer has it's place in marking the eldest female and consequestly the most eligible to be married. Perhaps this happened as such a marker was no longer considered so important that it was everpresent in a title.

I would argue that a female's marital status is now no longer such an imperative piece of information to convey that it needs to be in a title (and thus on your telephone bill, listserves, etc.), and consequestly, can be shed also.

Perhaps Mrs. could be the generic female term. or Ms. or something else. To take it a step further, are we really conveying much information in our titles anyway? It strikes me that apart from the married/unmarried female thing it's only purpose is to lend a polite form of address by not using a person's first name.

The whole caper could be dispensed with by simply considering it polite to address people by their given names.

This has the added benefit of giving people the choice to pick their own title, like Supreme Ultimate, for example

What do youse think?

> The whole caper could be dispensed with by simply considering it polite to address people by their given names.

I agree. I always use whole names, omitting the Mr/Mrs/Whatever. It is common pravtice in the field that I work in and I have never received a complaint.

If I am asked for a title I say Ms. I have been a Ms. since I was 13 or 14, I suppose. I decided I didn't want to be a Miss any longer. I retained my original name on marriage, as did many of my friends. I am the final member of a large family. I thought I might as well let the name die with me, rather than discarding it on marriage.

ms seems fine for writing, and if we're all happy - i certainly am - to give up titles when being addressed in person, then it may work out fine. i sometimes get addressed as mr. in shops and it feels really strange.

>>i sometimes get addressed as mr. in shops and it feels really strange.<<

Good heavens, william, aren't you one??

technically, yes!
i guess my face is older than my heart. inside i'm still a child!

>>The whole caper could be dispensed with by simply considering it polite to address people by their given names.<<

Yes, I do this a lot, and I prefer to be called Bridget rather than anything else. (And I bet I'm older than you, William, but that Mr / Mrs / Ms / Miss in shops is still disturbing to me too.)

If people ask I say I'm Ms - I'm not a Mrs as I've never been married, but after years in a live-in relationship, Miss seems equally inappropriate.

I'm actually Bridget Holland and my partner is Steve Doughty. I get called Mrs Holland, Mrs Doughty, Ms Holland, Miss Holland and so on. I answer to anything as long as it's clear that it's me who is meant and as long as it's not too rude.

I don't care what surname is used - as I look at it I can use my father's or my partner's. I don't feel either is particularly mine.

The one form of address I really objected to was a boss of mine (Japanese) who used to call me 'O-ne-chan'. This is literally 'Sister' and is used as a term of address for an unknown young female. (Much as I imagine 'Miss' on its own was used in earlier times. Or as in 'O-ne-chan, would you make some coffee.' But putting feminism aside...)

...what drove me mad about this was that the guy knew my name and couldn't be bothered to use it. There were four young women in the office who could have been meant by 'O-ne-chan' and he just saw us as interchangeable. My identity was irrelevant, let alone my marital status!

I stopped answering until he started addressing me by name.

>When I was learning French at school, I was taught that "tu" was the familiar form of address - to a friend, peer, or sometimes to one who was perceived as "inferior" (a servant, a student, etc.)

Other languages have similar constructions. In Russian, if I remember correctly from almost 40 years ago, the informal and formal can be found in endings on verbs themselves. Thus, if you were greeting someone you knew well you would say something that sounded similar to strawstvee, but strawstveetye if it was a casual acquaintance, superior, etc.

Of course it may be that this word wasn't a verb, but I seem to remember it translated to "how are you" or some such.

>>Miss has become a generic unmarried female title, and no longer has it's place in marking the eldest female and consequestly the most eligible to be married. <<

I always thought that Miss was applied to all unmarried females, not just the eldest.

The distinction was that 'Miss X' with no given name defaulted to the eldest, so if you wanted to talk about a younger sister, you had to include that sister's given name. So for example, I would be Miss Holland and my younger sister would be Miss Jane Holland, but we would both be Miss.

If actually in conversation with Jane, though, someone would surely have addressed her to her face as 'Miss Holland', since at that point it would have been quite clear which particular Miss Holland that person (they? he/she? see how I avoid having to make a decision!!!) meant?

Also, did the rule about adding a given name if you wanted to indicate anyone other than the eldest also apply to Mr? I have the impression it did, but wouldn't like to bet on it.

A friend who is rathter pround to be a "Miss" visited friends in France recently, having just celebrated her 50th birthday. She was most upset to be called Madame rather than Mademoiselle. Apparently once an unmarried woman reaches a certain age she is called Madame out of respect, whether or not she is married. The impression she was given was - we've waited all this time for you to get married, so now we've given up on you and given you the title anyway!

I don't know if she got the wrong end of the stick - I'm sure there are experts out there - but she was quite taken aback.

>A friend who is rathter pround to be a "Miss" visited friends in France recently, having just celebrated her 50th birthday. She was most upset to be called Madame rather than Mademoiselle. Apparently once an unmarried woman reaches a certain age she is called Madame out of respect, whether or not she is married. <

Yes, this is how it works. But if your friend got to 50 before it happened to her, she's doing pretty well.
I was called Madame at the age of 17 - just because I had someone else's 4 year-old child with me! And even without a child in tow, I've been called Madame for the last year or two, although I'm only 33.

>It strikes me that apart from the married/unmarried female thing it's only purpose is to lend a polite form of address by not using a person's first name.

The whole caper could be dispensed with by simply considering it polite to address people by their given names.<

From your stories, it seems as if there is more offense and confusion generated from the use of Mrs/Miss/Ms than there would be in dispensing with them. Here's to the scrapheap! (and less boxes to fill in on forms)

I've always found it somewhat strange that there are three formal addresses for the female, but only one for the male. It seems perfectly logical that those three should be reduced to one and I would say that Ms. would be the most appropriate due to the fact that it's the same length as Mr. and, tying into the PC thread, it doesn't contain Mr, as does Mrs.

>I've always found it somewhat strange that there are three formal addresses for the female, but only one for the male.

I think until fairly recently Master was used in the same way as Miss. I didn't have a brother but I always remember being told to address birthday cards to my neigbour's son as "Master John Smith". The main difference was that one became Mister at some point, independently of marriage.

An alternative address for a man was John Smith Esquire or Esq. but never Mr. John Smith Esq. and I remember being told that you couldn't be an Esquire until you were a householder. http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/netdict?esquire

I'm not sure how much Esquire is used these days, except as a title for a magazine.

Apparently both male and female American lawyers put Esq. after their names.

Bingley

>Apparently once an unmarried woman reaches a certain age she is called Madame out of respect, whether or not she is married. The impression she was given was - we've waited all this time for you to get married, so now we've given up on you and given you the title anyway!

Here in Spain is the same with señorita and señora but I’m remembering an anecdote of a friend of mine that what just the contrary of what you have told.
She, who is 50 unmarried but not single, was asked by a clerk: “Señora o señorita?” and she was offended by the question and answered “I’m of an age and got category enough to be called señora!”.
The problem lies on the necessity of some societies of marking women depending their marital status or age. It could be considered as a mark of availability señorita/mademoiselle if she is available or señora/madam if she has “owner”. Since men are always available such distinction isn’t necessary.
I’m puzzled by not finding a stronger movement against those kind of distinctions that seem to me completely derogatory.

>If I am asked for a title I say Ms. I have been a Ms. since I was 13 or 14, I suppose. I decided I didn't want to be a Miss any longer. I retained my original name on marriage, as did many of my friends. I am the final member of a large family. I thought I might as well let the name die with me, rather than discarding it on marriage.

Another thing I cannot understand is how in most countries women lose their names after marriage. Here not only they keep their names but we have a new law that give the parents the right to choose which name, mother’s or father’s, will be inherited by their children. If we have had this law twelve years ago I would have chosen my wife’s name for my sons.


Juan Maria.

In reply to:

---

If we have had this law twelve years ago I would have chosen my wife’s name for my sons.

---

Don't answer if you don't want to Juanmaria, but can we ask why?

Bingley

>I would have chosen my wife’s name for my sons.

Bennett Cerf told the story of the Jewish matron who turned up at a gala affair sporting a very large diamond brooch. A woman to whom she was introduced gushed to her, "Mrs. Lipschitz, I am so happy to meet you. And could you please tell me about that exquisite diamond."

Our heroine replied, "It's the famous Lipschitz diamond. It came down to me from my husband's mother, who got it from her husband's mother. It is beautiful, but it does carry the Lipschitz curse."

The other woman gasped. "And what is the Lipschitz curse?"

"Lipschitz."

>Don't answer if you don't want to Juanmaria, but can we ask why?

Of course!.
My wife’s name is Alfageme and it is of Arabic origin, there are only a few Alfageme in Spain and only a couple of them in my city (including my wife and my sister in law ).
I love my mother’s name -Alexandres- another uncommon one, it is not a Spanish name an its origins can be traced to several centuries ago when king Carlos III brought families from central Europe to colonize some areas of Spain. My mother has only a sister and when, being a kid, I understood that her name was doomed it seemed to me totally unfair. Maybe that is the reason I dislike so much the rules of name inheritance.


Juan Maria.

>>and when, being a kid, I understood that her name was doomed it seemed to me totally unfair. Maybe that is the reason I dislike so much the rules of name inheritance.


You are very sweet!

Whoa! That was my rite of post-age. Actually, the title fit quite a long time before it was officially bestowed.

So would you like to be called Mrs. Addict, Miss Addict or Ms. Addict?

>So would you like to be called Mrs. Addict, Miss Addict or Ms. Addict?

Or perhaps a simple "Highness" would do???

Ted glances ruefully at his "newbie" title

>>So would you like to be called Mrs. Addict, Miss Addict or Ms. Addict?

I will attempt a weak imitation of Ted and Tsu-nami-wum:

I was on vacation at the Grand Canyon, out in Arizona. I signed up for a trail ride down to the bottom, and who should I find in the party but those two? When we stopped for lunch, Ted began spreading sandwiches and handing them out. Tsuwm said, "Don't you know I have arachibutyrophobia?" Ted replied, "Here's one that's just jelly." And I said, "Oh, how I miss a dictionary."

arachibutyrophobia

Fear of peanut butter? God, if you had Fear of Flying to go with that you'd have REAL trouble with Plains! (Georgia, that is!)

As you know my wife is a recovering attorney. But before she started to recover, she lived in Baltimore, on the harbor, during the period when there was a great deal of construction. In fact, the construction at night kept her awake, and she finally filed a lawsuit to stop it. Of course it became known in legal circles as Port Noise Complaint. I knew you'd be waxing Roth if I mentioned Jong with mentioning him.

it's not just any old fear of peanut butter, but the fear of peanut butter sticking to the roof of your mouth!

and speaking of lawyers, God decided to take the devil to court and settle their differences once and for all. When Satan heard of this, he grinned and said, "And just where do you think you're going to find a lawyer?"

Replying to the original question on this thread first asked by musthaq in June, people may be interested to know the following. In the time of George Fox Quakers were real troublemakers. They refused to take oaths, serve in military forces or pay taxes to support the established church. The would not doff their hats or bow to any authorities or Lords of the Manor, being of the belief that each person in a community was of equal worth. So in using "thee" and "thou" they were showing how firmly they held to this principle. In the 17th century, "thou" was used when one was speaking to a person of a lower class and "you" when talking with equals or persons of superior rank. The terms thee and thou are sometimes used by Quakers today.