Peter Metcalfe wrote:
>
> Morgan wrote:
>
> >English is infamous for having only one "you", same for plural and
> >singluar.
>
> From what I hear, the French were also going down that route with
> "tu" almost dying out in favour of "vous". Then came the Revolution
> and "tu" was revived as a symbol of Revolutionary Equality. But as
> a perfidious anglo-saxon, I can't quite see the logic.
I'm not sure the use of "tu" was disappearing among the lower illiterate masses. It's true even now the nobility are still infamous for using the "vous", even in family, in a perfectly consistent manner, for they never accepted the Revolutionary logic either. I even heard the usage would have some remote perfidious origin, but I have no confirmation.
In common French the use of "vous" notably marks a difference in hierarchy or a social barrier, whereas "tu" usually implies some form of equality (for example you usually address your colleagues as "tu" and your boss as "vous"). Of course "vous" is more generally a formal mark of distance but it would appear that it's the former that the revolutionists tried to suppress when they instituted the compulsory use of "tu" between people. The decree was so inapplicable and impossible that it was quickly cancelled. In fact it is usually not even mentioned in history programmes at school. (In matters of equalization, the guillotine is better remembered. Of course one of the most successful innovations, maybe one of the French's greatest prides, was also one of the most blatantly aimed at taking the piss out of the Anglo-saxons... Maybe that proves that all men are equally perfidious.)
Just for the sake of not being completely off-topic, some Revolutionary concepts and their impressive inapplicability somewhat remind me of Peter's Khorz decree of Moirades in Unspoken Word: Tarsh in Flames; I suppose it's another take at language engineering for a magical purpose.
Jerome
Powered by hypermail