15 ms·
As someone coming from a culture with T-V distinction [1], I always wished we dropped one of the branches like English did in the past. The informal T vs forma
by snidane 3y ago
As someone coming from a culture with T-V distinction [1], I always wished we dropped one of the branches like English did in the past.
The informal T vs formal V causes confusion in conversation with semi-strangers. Eg. At work you never really know which way to speak to someone at a watercooler. If you choose the informal T you make them your equal. Ehich might be perceived as insulting to them, since they might want to keep a perception of superiority to you for eg. being older, more tenured, etc. Often you'd rather choose not to even engage in a conversation and just keep your thoughts to yourself. Better than ending up in a inferior position when choosing the safe V, or risking insulting someone when using the informal T form.
This felt to me like one of the reasons why English became the dominant language for business over time. Together with simplified morphology (you only need to learn the plural by adding 's' at the end, vs. 5+ other tenses of each word) it just ended up being much easier to pick up and less risky to engage in conversations and therefore higher chances of adoption by non-speakers.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%E2%80%93V_distinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%E2%80%93V_distinction
- mytailorisrich 3y agoEnglish became the dominant business language for reasons unrelated to the English language itself but because of the relative power of the people who spoke the language.
- softfalcon 3y agoYeah, I feel like people forget about that whole British Imperialism thing too easily. We all speak English because at one point the English practically owned the entire planet.
- junofan 3y agoThe competition was very aggressive, escalating into several Anglo-Dutch wars. The VOC absolutely outcompeted the EIC most of the time. How do you explain the staying power of English given that “imperialism” is the more appropriate context, not “British Imperialism”?
- dragonwriter 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_colonial_empire#/media/File:DutchEmpire15.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_colonial_empire#/media/F... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire#/media/File:The_British_Empire_5.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire#/media/File:The...
- Aicy 3y agoThe Dutch and Portuguese outcompeted the British, until they didn't. In the 19th and early 20th century the British owned the seas, a post 1945 another English speaking country has - the United States.
- F3nd0 3y agoCompare English with Esperanto, which, in spite of being much easier to learn than English, still hasn't become anywhere near as widespread (at least in terms of number of speakers). Ironically the one biggest thing which presents an ideological advantage for Esperanto is that it's native to no nation, so all the people who speak it are closer to being equals in that regard; yet it is the imperialism and a large number of native speakers which has helped to make English so prevalent. So just being technically and morally superior doesn't win you adoption by a long shot, even if you try. And it may be of note for this post that the original author of Esperanto was very conscious of this whole formal/informal issue, which is why he opted to introduce only the plural second person pronoun into practice.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- rep_lodsb 3y agoEsperanto may not be native to any nation, but as far as I'm aware, it's heavily influenced by Latin and various European languages. Not saying that this is it's main problem, and other constructed languages like Lojban are probably even less relevant despite trying to be more "culturally neutral".
- F3nd0 3y agoYes, you are entirely correct. Making a language that’s fully ‘culturally neutral’ is likely impossible, but even so, Esperanto could have done much better in this regard (and as far as I know, some other constructed languages do much better in this regard). Even then, it's a very big jump from ‘people in some countries already know this and don’t need to learn at all’ to ‘people in some countries will have an easier time learning since they’ll recognise a lot of the words’; making this jump would already be a great improvement upon the status quo. Out of the languages which make the jump, Esperanto is by far the most widely spoken and otherwise used in practice.
- batch12 3y agoEnglish is neither morally superior nor morally inferior to Esperanto.
- 8372049 3y agoThat's not universally true. In my country, German was the widely accepted and taught second language until WW2. Since then it's been English.
- actionfromafar 3y agoWell one empire (sort of empire) defeated another, so it’s related.
- 8372049 3y agoThe reason German(y) was widely unpopular after WW2 wasn't primarily because they lost. ETA: They lost WW1 too, but German remained our #1 foreign language.
- dragonwriter 3y agoOTOH, the reason those feelings were free to be expressed...
- Aicy 3y agoThe relative power of German speakers (Germany) dropped massively after WW2 compared to English speakers (USA).
- OJFord 3y ago
- nitwit005 3y agoIt is a bit more complex than that. My father (American) learned German because his mother considered it "the language of science". That attitude is mostly gone.
- skissane 3y ago> It is a bit more complex than that. My father (American) learned German because his mother considered it "the language of science". That attitude is mostly gone. When my dad did his chemistry degrees (a bachelors and a masters by research) in the late 1960s / early 1970s (Australia), they made him do a unit on how to read German, because that is the language of a lot of the older chemistry literature. I don’t think they care anywhere near as much about German in chemistry nowadays, although (from what I understand) learning to read German is still an expectation for some humanities PhDs (such as Egyptology)
- sib 3y agoWhen I studied computer science (which, at my university in the United States was still a part of the mathematics faculty), we were required to study one of German, French, or Russian, as those were historical languages of math. Seems a bit quaint now - but at least it got me to learn German and even spend six months studying at the University of Heidelberg.
- mkoubaa 3y agoYes. But then the English language got a _lot_ of reps as the lingua franca of commerce and science.
- DoughnutHole 3y agoEnglish became the lingua franca of science because of the decline of German science following the world wars. English became the language of commerce due to the commercial dominance of first the British Empire and then the United States. So still not really due to some intrinsic merits of the language.
- amadeuspagel 3y agoThe anglos won the world wars due to the intrinsic merits of english, not only because war itself requires communication, but also because they were able to mobilize more resources, including the resources of a country full of recent immigrants, who had all already learned english.
- somethingsaid 3y agoBut English was dominant because the people who were dominant in those areas spoke English. It’s because of that previous dominance that the allies (you forgot the Soviet Union, China, the Netherlands, and France among others btw) were able to build on that dominance and succeed. Their success built into the post-war growth of English and the US, as they were undamaged and recovered quickly. So I would say that English is dominant because of the back to back successes of English speaking countries, not that their success is because of English.
- amadeuspagel 3y agoOh, I'm sorry for forgetting the Netherlands, among others.
- mkoubaa 3y agoI'm not saying it deserved to be. I'm saying it has been for a while, and has accumulated advantages over time given that privilege
- amadeuspagel 3y agoThe english people became powerful because english is such a good language.
- bombcar 3y agoThe wane of the British empire and the waxing of the American one coincides with them dropping the English measurements for metric. It's not coincidence, it's causal :D
- moffkalast 3y agoI would imagine it was more because of the island/shipbuilding supremacy thing.
- FromTheSteppe 3y agoIs speaking to someone formally considered ending up in an inferior position in all cultures? In Persian if someone expects to be spoken with formally, they have to speak formally themselves. So when you speak formally you're kinda bringing both parties up. You can even flirt by speaking formally.
- blowski 3y agoHow does the “flirting by speaking formally” work? “I say, does Madam visit this establishment frequently”.
- coldtea 3y agoYes, but imagine it not sounding funny like in the English case, because it's a normal feature of the language/culture...
- blowski 3y agoIs it because of cultural expectations in how men and women should address each other? Does the formal language get used for properly formal situations as well? Is there a whole set of specific terms for this? Sorry for all the questions. I just found it fascinating.
- coldtea 3y agoNot sure about the specifics for Iran in particular (the grandparent can answer), I've just heard about that from some friends hailing from there. But I could relate it, as it was a "chic" thing to do in my parts too back in the day (until around the 1970s), for upper class folks (using the polite forms of address, and so on). A good analogy in English terms might be the flirting with all the speaking formalities in period movies live "Room with a view" or "Pride and Prejudice".
- throwaway2037 3y ago
- whycome 3y agoQuebec French seems to be in the process of dropping the formal. It’s way less common there than metro/france French.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Joblo62 3y agoThis so untrue I had to make an account to reply to you. Quebec french is standardised by the OQLF (Office Québécois de la Langue Française) and the formal/informal distinction is as important in our french as it is in other cultures. The reason it might seem less common is because most conversations people have are informal. In formal settings, it is still expected of people to use "vous" rather than "tu". It is seen as polite and some people might even take offence to the informal being used when they do not know their interlocutor personally. I don't know where you got that from.
- Tommstein 3y agoI'm pretty sure they were talking about their impression of trends regarding how people actually talk, not how some literal language lawyers demand they speak. Whether they're actually correct or not, I have no idea and it's beside the point.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- whycome 3y agoWhich part is untrue? In spoken French, in cases of unfamiliarity it would be more common in France to use the formal “vous” than in a place like Montreal where you’ll see “tu” still used. When I say it “seems to be in the process” it’s because of how I’ve heard the language spoken. (Admittedly in Montreal and French Ontario and not other parts of Quebec). Popular French (from France!) YouTuber Loïc Suberville actually notes this difference in a video a couple weeks ago (jump to 1:25 ish). It’s something he noticed as a “metro French” speaker. And he’s made a career now out of looking at the absurdities of spoken language. (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PzNHyk2JAas&t=83s https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PzNHyk2JAas&t=83s) Yes there is an official “language board” but that’s aspirational and not a law. Language is a reflection of how people use it. I agree that in a formal conversation people will use “vous” (and we see similar splits of language in English “on the news” vs what people actually use), but there’s way less use of “vous” in Quebec for a lot of situations.
- andrepd 3y agoT-V culture is speaking for years in periphrases and passive tense to a semi-acquaintance when you're not sure which form to use and too much time has passed that it's now awkward to ask.
- jmac01 3y agoIs it culturally English speaking to think this just sounds like social anxiety rather than an expected norm? If someone thought they were superior than me and expected a particular greeting or whatever, I'd tell them where to shove it lol We are all equal.
- ozim 3y agoYeah until you have mortgage to pay, kids and asshole on receiving end can influence your job security then it quickly turns out who is „more equal”.
- Longhanks 3y agoThis is very ignorant towards many cultures and such behavior would be actively harming your career in most places I've got to know. You're lucky to be in a place where your lack of empathy towards local etiquette does not result in more peer pressure, for better or for worse. We are not equal.
- the_omegist 3y agoNo idea why you are being downvoted. I think people in some circles and some places hold strongly to their newly crafted dogmas. No one is equal to no one. I do not see how this can be taken badly at all : absence of equality does not equate to lack of intrinsic merit. As to the main topic : I think some degree of deference to some people, represented by some specific words, is a good thing, as long as it does not fall into some Byzantine rules that make communication less efficient.
- willsmith72 3y agoIn english workplaces there's still a "heirarchy" it's just not expressed with that one specific word. If you'd phrase an email differently to a high-level exec vs your coworker, you've experienced it. Same with dressing differently to meet a new client vs an old friendly one. Both cases where you'd probably use the formal and informal depending on who you're talking to.
- yongjik 3y ago
- cmrdporcupine 3y agoThing is, it's not like the semantics and tone of formal speaking or speaking with deference is missing in English. It just doesn't take the form of special pronouns or conjugations, etc. Native speakers at least are capable of picking up on all sorts of nuance in word choice and tone Give it a couple hundred years, all the subtle or not-so-subtle nuances will standardize and settle into grammar constructs.
- emodendroket 3y ago> This felt to me like one of the reasons why English became the dominant language for business over time. I don't think that has much to do with it. I think it has more to do with the dominant political and economic position of the United States. French served a similar role in the past despite having all the features you describe.
- abtinf 3y agoAmerica was an economic backwater until the 1900s. France was, and to a greatly diminished extent still is, a global power. French has T-V distinction. French has arbitrary noun gendering. The noun gendering alone makes it significantly easier to embarrass yourself speaking French than English.
- emodendroket 3y agoThere are not that many words distinguished only by gender and I don’t think the number of those where it would really be an embarrassing blunder is that great. All languages offer pitfalls like this anyway.
- tuetuopay 3y ago(French here) It’s not really about words distinguished by gender, but misgendering a word will sound very weird to French people. So much so you’ll be labeled as foreign immediately. As crazy as it may seem, but misgendering objects sounds worse than misgendering people (in a purely linguistic way).
- emodendroket 3y agoI mean, of course, but sounding obviously foreign isn't so bad if your meaning can be understood and you haven't accidentally said something with a wildly different meaning than intended.
- mark38848 3y ago
- ghayes 3y agoI’m in a comical situation that me and my Mexican father-in-law mutually refer to each other as usted despite the fact we’d both be better off switching to informal, except for the fact that neither of us want to offend the other by being so casual.
- jack2312 3y agoHuh, having learned Spanish as a non-native speaker, I was taught that the two forms had more to do with the closeness of the relationship than they did with some sort of social rank or superiority. For example, a family member who you would address as "sir" (at least in the Southern U.S.), maybe a parent or grandparent, might be taken aback if you addressed them with the formal "usted" in Spanish, because it didn't imply respect, but that you didn't consider the person close. Another example would be prayer, where God is definitely superior to us, but you would address Him with the less formal "tu", because the love He has for us makes that a close and personal relationship. (I'm not even sure that the word "formal" is the right one to use here, as like I say, it's not quite the same as in English.) You could also have a business conversation where you'd use "usted" without necessarily implying respect, because "tu" sounds out of place for a distant relationship like that. (I.e. using "tu" wouldn't be disrespectful, so much as it would just be weird or akward.) Am I misunderstanding the usage of the two forms, or could someone enlighten me a bit more on the subject? Is the dynamic similar in other T-V languages, or is it used more to denote social status/tiers?
- moffkalast 3y agoNot sure about Spanish, but in Slavic/Germanic languages it's as OP says, the plural form tends to show more respect for e.g. talking to a stranger, especially an older one. Students typically address teachers this way and teachers don't do it in return, until university where students are considered old enough and it's typically done mutually. People of the same age that know each other almost always just use singular form. There are actually three forms if we're completely exact: singular 2nd person, plural 2nd person, and plural 3rd person. German uses the first and last, Slavic languages have all three but the third is very dated and practically unused by now.
- mijamo 3y agoIt is not that easy and depends a lot on context. I know people who use "usted" to their grandparents (who use "tu" in returns), but at the same time you have lots of shops where they will say "tu" to their customers (particularly clothing, not so much for restaurants). Depends a lot of the country/region and even family.
- WirelessGigabit 3y agoIn Flanders, Belgium there is a slow adoption of T. But what is weird is that the V is used in BOTH contexts. The T is used in the Netherlands but slowly more and more people in Flanders are adopting the T version in written language. And it irks me. Companies sending you a letter addressing you with the T version, like we're friends. I don't want to be addressed by V for reasons of respect. I don't want to be addressed with T for reasons of not wanting to be infantilized.
- elric 3y agoJust to add to this: The T form (jij/je) sounds infantile in Flemish because it is infantile. The real T form in Flemish is gij/ge. But it's somewhat archaic and some people look down on it, so it's rarely used in written conversation. In many cases, the jij/je-form is used when talking to children or used by children. Once they grow up a bit, they tend to use the gij/ge form for informal conversation, and jij/je for slightly more polite conversation. It's a bit different in the Netherlands, where the archaic forms are more rare outside of Brabant, and where reality more closely matches the textbook T-forms. Companies addressing me using the infantile form doesn't bother me. What I find much more annoying is companies trying to be cutesy, with random slang thrown in their communications It always gives me "How do you do, fellow kids"-vibes. I only very rarely encounter anyone talking in the V-forms. It's more common in the written form. Being a bit of a contrarian, I refuse to write in the jij/je T-form, and consistently stick to the archaic gij/ge. TL;DR: Flemish has 2 T-forms and one V-form, but the newer T-form is sometimes a V-form. Languages are fun.
- WirelessGigabit 3y agoFirst of all, thanks for reminding me about ge/gij. I am born in Flanders, raised in Flemish, and lived there for 28 years and I forgot about that. When I was growing up people did not address me with je/jij. My mom was a teacher. Ge/gij all the time. And if you want to be polite you would switch to u/u. And I get the same vibes as you do. But since ge/gij is not suitable for formal communication I insist on using u/u. This also increases the barrier to use any kind of infantile cosy language. 'Wees gerust' just irks me.
- felipellrocha 3y agoFunny enough, i never noticed that english feature because PT-BR is similar, we only use Voce instead of Tu.
- echaozh 3y agoIf tenses are cases are what keeps languages from being global, you should all speak Chinese now, whose words don't change forms at all.
- moffkalast 3y agoYeah but doesn't the way you intone a word change the meaning entirely? With how heavy accents are the norm for English second speakers I would think this makes Chinese practically impossible to learn to pronounce. Also 90% of the world can read the latin alphabet already which is a good start when learning a new language. Years ago I made a small attempt to learn some Russian and Cyrillic was like smashing against a brick wall, I imagine it's 200x worse for Chinese since you have to learn 5000 new characters.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago> you should all speak Chinese now, whose words don't change forms at all There are some inflectional elements in Chinese. Speaking for Mandarin: - Verbs may be inflected into one of three aspects, with the suffixes 着 (progressive), 了 (perfective), or 过 (experiential). - Certain verbs may be inflected for possibility or impossibility, with the infix 得 (for possibility) or 不 (for impossibility). If the verb is not naturally part of the category that participates in this construction, the dummy particle 了 (which shares spelling, but not pronunciation, with the perfect suffix mentioned above) must be supplied, to convert it into that category. - Nouns may be inflected for plurality with the suffix 们. As I understand it, this is only really appropriate where the noun refers to a collection of people (broadly defined), but any such noun may receive the suffix.
- grishka 3y agoRussian is my native language and it does also have this distinction (ты/вы). For me, there's not really any issue with that, not so much that I would want to remove this distinction. It's very clear to me most of the time which pronoun to call someone. Yes, it depends on a lot of context, but I've been making these decisions every day for all my life so it's not that hard. In your example about work, I'd just always use "ты" without giving it a second thought, and wouldn't mind others using it to address me. Maybe it's just our culture that has a more lax attitude towards it, I don't know. The only case that I find kinda cringy is when people (rarely) call bartenders and waiters "ты". For me it's very clear that when a person you don't know serves you, it should be "вы". > This felt to me like one of the reasons why English became the dominant language for business over time. Probably not. English is messy when it comes to pronunciation and irregular verbs, not exactly the easiest language to learn.
- ricardobayes 3y agoIn Central Europe at the turn of the 20th century it was the norm for husband and wife to talk to each other in the formal "V" form. Today that would be completely unimaginable.
- alentred 3y agoI have a colleague who comes from a culture with a T-V distinction and lives in France where it also exists. But the line we would draw between "toi" and "vous" in French is quite different from his culture: he apparently has a more formal "framework" for T-V and he uses "vous" much more often than others would, so it often creates some distance. So, T-V distinction is also very cultural in a sense where the line between the two is.
- ironcurtain 3y ago[dead]