3 ms·

Isn't the bible example kind of a counterpoint? God says thou but you also say it back. You tutoie god in french too and I assume other languages with this dist

Isn't the bible example kind of a counterpoint? God says thou but you also say it back. You tutoie god in french too and I assume other languages with this distinction. Which is a good example of how this system doesn't only convey status but also intimacy.

082349872349872 4y ago
very good point! I was just looking at KJV and it is indeed "why hast thou forsaken". (one might argue that there is much in the NT that argues against maintaining hierarchical relationships, but that's probably for a different thread...) Erratum: change "NB" to "Counter Example" above. PS. Re-listening to Lady Marmalade, and while normally « voulez vous baiser ...» would be even more unlikely than « passez le joint, s'il vous plaît », maybe in the context of a paid transaction, addressing a john, the V form would indeed have been used?
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  I'm not at all a biblical scholar or anything but iirc there are two reasons one historical one theological. The hebrew and aramaic of the old testament had the distinction between singular and plural second person pronouns but without the hierarchy/formality distinction. Later languages did have that, so translating into them using the singular also gave the connotation of familiarity that eventually became accepted. And then, in the gospels christ instructs his followers to pray to god intimately, when he gives them the lord's prayer. It's giving explicit permission to address god as a personal relation: you can call THE LORD daddy now. In that context it makes sense to use the informal/intimate form, basically reconciling what was probably the earlier usage anyway. It's unclear to me if pre-christian jews would have considered themselves to have this level of intimacy with god. Actually it's unclear to me whether contemporary jews or muslims do for that matter. In french it's a pretty subtle social practice to know which to use in any given situation. There are a lot of situations where it's pretty obvious or firm but others where it's flexible or depends on specifics of context. It's also a moving target since social norms like this are always changing.
  - 082349872349872 4y ago
    Yeah, I've read descriptions of parties where they say the tone was such that V was used to request that people not bogart the spliffs, but I'm pretty sure that was meant as an illustrative joke. We got a reply email from a boutique hotel that said "btw we use the T form with our guests" and were (a) surprised (that it was not the V default) at first, then (b) concluded it would make sense that they'd send a warning to people who would otherwise cancel if they'd only learned it upon checkin. Also, don't forget there's a wide conservative-progressive spread within both judaism and the muslim world, so I would not be surprised if the pronouns used in prayer turned out to differ and could be used as shibboleth. (One project on my backburner is to collect music videos that are faithful to the beliefs of various points, all along these spectra)
    - 082349872349872 4y ago
      Hebrew as you mentioned doesn't have a T-V distinction, and neither does arabic. There appears to be some use of the 3rd person/titles in jewish prayer to contrast to the normal 2nd person, and islamic prayer does likewise (even though apparently "business arabic" has added the possibility of a marked 2nd person). So IIUC all the Abrahamic religions originally used an unmarked 2nd person, and have opted to translate this as the familiar-T in languages which do make the distinction. Lagniappe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4j55NKXeMk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4j55NKXeMk the Shamil Niggun, an orthodox jewish tune, whose denotation is the lament of a sunni muslim Caucasian Imam captured by orthodox christian Russian forces, and whose connotation is the ephemeral "captivity" of the soul in the body. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imam_Shamil#Musical_composition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imam_Shamil#Musical_compositio...
- jacquesm 4y ago
  > voulez vous baiser That's not what they sing.
  - 082349872349872 4y ago
    French is L2 for me, so I might have under- or over-translated it. I believe they're supposed[0] to be singing "wilt u met me vrijen?" and have translated to my local dialect. (TIL why DE:der Freier == EN-US:john) [0] the song was actually broadcastable on US radio in 1974, so some minor infidelities may have been committed.
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      It's 'coucher', not 'baiser'.
      - 082349872349872 4y ago
        as sung in 1974, on that side of the Atlantic, yes. in my 2022 dialect, on this side, no.
        jacquesm 4y ago
        Well, I don't have access to your 2022 dialect and you were quoting the lyrics.
        082349872349872 4y ago
        Neem me niet kwalijk, sorry!

082349872349872 4y ago

very good point! I was just looking at KJV and it is indeed "why hast thou forsaken". (one might argue that there is much in the NT that argues against maintaining hierarchical relationships, but that's probably for a different thread...) Erratum: change "NB" to "Counter Example" above. PS. Re-listening to Lady Marmalade, and while normally « voulez vous baiser ...» would be even more unlikely than « passez le joint, s'il vous plaît », maybe in the context of a paid transaction, addressing a john, the V form would indeed have been used?

giraffe_lady 4y ago
I'm not at all a biblical scholar or anything but iirc there are two reasons one historical one theological. The hebrew and aramaic of the old testament had the distinction between singular and plural second person pronouns but without the hierarchy/formality distinction. Later languages did have that, so translating into them using the singular also gave the connotation of familiarity that eventually became accepted. And then, in the gospels christ instructs his followers to pray to god intimately, when he gives them the lord's prayer. It's giving explicit permission to address god as a personal relation: you can call THE LORD daddy now. In that context it makes sense to use the informal/intimate form, basically reconciling what was probably the earlier usage anyway. It's unclear to me if pre-christian jews would have considered themselves to have this level of intimacy with god. Actually it's unclear to me whether contemporary jews or muslims do for that matter. In french it's a pretty subtle social practice to know which to use in any given situation. There are a lot of situations where it's pretty obvious or firm but others where it's flexible or depends on specifics of context. It's also a moving target since social norms like this are always changing.
- 082349872349872 4y ago
  Yeah, I've read descriptions of parties where they say the tone was such that V was used to request that people not bogart the spliffs, but I'm pretty sure that was meant as an illustrative joke. We got a reply email from a boutique hotel that said "btw we use the T form with our guests" and were (a) surprised (that it was not the V default) at first, then (b) concluded it would make sense that they'd send a warning to people who would otherwise cancel if they'd only learned it upon checkin. Also, don't forget there's a wide conservative-progressive spread within both judaism and the muslim world, so I would not be surprised if the pronouns used in prayer turned out to differ and could be used as shibboleth. (One project on my backburner is to collect music videos that are faithful to the beliefs of various points, all along these spectra)
  - 082349872349872 4y ago
    Hebrew as you mentioned doesn't have a T-V distinction, and neither does arabic. There appears to be some use of the 3rd person/titles in jewish prayer to contrast to the normal 2nd person, and islamic prayer does likewise (even though apparently "business arabic" has added the possibility of a marked 2nd person). So IIUC all the Abrahamic religions originally used an unmarked 2nd person, and have opted to translate this as the familiar-T in languages which do make the distinction. Lagniappe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4j55NKXeMk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4j55NKXeMk the Shamil Niggun, an orthodox jewish tune, whose denotation is the lament of a sunni muslim Caucasian Imam captured by orthodox christian Russian forces, and whose connotation is the ephemeral "captivity" of the soul in the body. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imam_Shamil#Musical_composition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imam_Shamil#Musical_compositio...
jacquesm 4y ago
> voulez vous baiser That's not what they sing.
- 082349872349872 4y ago
  French is L2 for me, so I might have under- or over-translated it. I believe they're supposed[0] to be singing "wilt u met me vrijen?" and have translated to my local dialect. (TIL why DE:der Freier == EN-US:john) [0] the song was actually broadcastable on US radio in 1974, so some minor infidelities may have been committed.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    It's 'coucher', not 'baiser'.
    - 082349872349872 4y ago
      as sung in 1974, on that side of the Atlantic, yes. in my 2022 dialect, on this side, no.
      - jacquesm 4y ago
        Well, I don't have access to your 2022 dialect and you were quoting the lyrics.
        082349872349872 4y ago
        Neem me niet kwalijk, sorry!