# Formality



## Artrella

Hi People!

You know that in English we don't have a formal way of "you".  You can be formal/informal with the same pronoun.
This does not happen in Spanish, Italian, French or German, where we have different pronouns for formal/informal way of addressing to someone.

Why do you think English does not have this differentiation?  Some time ago I was asking in some other thread about the capitalised "I".  It seems that English stands out in connection to pronouns.

Is there any other language that has no such differentiation? Could you think of a reason why this differentiation is/ isn't important?

I will appreciate your opinions.

Thank you!


Sabemos que en inglés no tenemos una pronombre formal para "you".  Podemos ser formales o informales con el mismo pronombre.
Esto no pasa en español, italiano, francés o alemán, donde tenemos diferentes pronombres para dirigirnos hacia una persona formal/informalmente.
Por qué creen que en inglés no existe tal diferenciación? 
Hace un tiempo preguntaba lo mismo en otro hilo acerca del "I" con mayúscula.  Parece que el inglés se destaca en relación a los pronombres.
Hay algún otro lenguage que no haga tal diferenciación?  Pueden pensar en alguna razón por la cual esta diferenciación sea o no sea importante?

Agradeceré sus opiniones.

Gracias!


----------



## Philippa

Hi Art!
I think there used to be a less formal 'tu' form in English - this is why you get thee and thou in old writing like hymns. Why it was that form that fell out of use, I have no idea.
Here's an old hymn we sing at church.
And it's Irish  It's got a great tune and the more I sing it the more I work out what it means!!  

Be thou my vision, O Lord of my heart
Naught be all else to me save that thou art
Thou my best thought by day or by night
Waking or sleeping thy presence my light.
Be thou my wisdom, thou my true word
I ever with thee, thou with me, Lord
Thou my great Father, I thy true Son
Thou in me dwelling, and I with thee one.
​
The rest is here:
http://www.ireland-information.com/irishmusic/slanebethoumyvision.shtml
Abrazos
Philippa


----------



## VenusEnvy

Artrella said:
			
		

> You know that in English *we * don't have  . . .



Side-note: I think it's cute how you say "we", as if to include yourself in the category of English-speakers.


----------



## garryknight

I believe that some small populations in the USA (the Amish?) still use 'thee' and 'thou'. And a generation or two ago they were still used in Yorkshire, and maybe they still are. Remember Compo in Last of the Summer Wine?


----------



## Monkling

Artrella said:
			
		

> I know I will never be an English or a German or an Italian speaker


You're not an English speaker? Could have fooled me.

I wonder if, initially, formal & casual words were to differeniate between the upper class & the common working people. If that's the case, that would probably be why the Americans dropped. (Just a theory - I'm good at making stuff up.)


----------



## Wordsmyth

Artrella said:
			
		

> Hi People!
> 
> You know that in English we don't have a formal way of "you".  You can be formal/informal with the same pronoun.
> This does not happen in Spanish, Italian, French or German, where we have different pronouns for formal/informal way of addressing to someone. [...]
> 
> Could you think of a reason why this differentiation is/ isn't important?  [...]



Personally I'd prefer not to see it in any language. I often hear French acquaintances say that "vous" (in contrast with "tu") enables you to keep a certain distance from people until you know them well, so you don't risk over-familiarity -- Huh??  I don't want to distance myself from people.

It also poses a problem in situations like this forum: the ambience is friendly and informal, my instinct is to use 'tu' whenever I post in French, but conventionally I should be using 'vous' to people I've never met and with whom I've maybe never even exchanged posts. Long live the 'single you'.

Now I'll sit back and wait for all the counter-arguments!  

W


----------



## Wordsmyth

Monkling said:
			
		

> [...] I wonder if, initially, formal & casual words were to differeniate between the upper class & the common working people. If that's the case, that would probably be why the Americans dropped. (Just a theory - I'm good at making stuff up.)


Hi Monkling,

Interesting theory, but ....

It was dropped in Britain around 1700, before AmE started to influence BrE, and indeed at a time when class distinction was still rife in Britain.

I'm also tempted to think that, if your idea were right, the distinction would have been maintained a lot longer in the US -- at least in the South, if you follow my thinking.

Signed: Fellow-maker-up-of-theories-to-see-what-people-think

W


----------



## Wordsmyth

garryknight said:
			
		

> I believe that some small populations in the USA (the Amish?) still use 'thee' and 'thou'. And a generation or two ago they were still used in Yorkshire, and maybe they still are. Remember Compo in Last of the Summer Wine?



Yeah, garry, and I've heard "tha" (thou) from Yorkshire lads a lot younger than Compo -- and in the West Country they still say "thees got" (contraction of thou hast, confusion of thee/thou) for 'you have'; and "thee bist" for 'you are' (compare with German).

From alt-usage-english.org:

_You may have been told that "thou" and "thee" were for familiar use, and "you" and "ye" were formal. This was not true originally, but it was true for about two centuries, roughly 1450-1650,  including Shakespeare's time. The previously plural "you" was used in the singular to signify politeness and respect, which left "thou" and "thee" for all the other singular uses, ranging from endearing intimacy to bitter rudeness. Eventually, the politer "you" drove out nearly all uses of "thee" and "thou"; they survived mostly in poetry and religion.

Several groups continue to use these pronouns today as part of their daily speech (although with different grammar), including residents of Yorkshire, Cumbria, the East Midlands, and some rural areas of Western England.  _ 

W


----------



## Agnès E.

Bonjour Wordsmyth 



> Several groups continue to use these pronouns today as part of their daily speech (although with different grammar), including residents of Yorkshire, Cumbria, the East Midlands, and some rural areas of Western England.



This come to support the idea that there is probably nothing snobish in it, after all...


----------



## Artrella

Wordsmyth said:
			
		

> It also poses a problem in situations like this forum: the ambience is friendly and informal, my instinct is to use 'tu' whenever I post in French, but conventionally I should be using 'vous' to people I've never met and with whom I've maybe never even exchanged posts. Long live the 'single you'.
> 
> Now I'll sit back and wait for all the counter-arguments!
> 
> W




Oh W!! I'm sorry I have to post the ... first counter-argument ??? You have been so nice with your words to me.. but this is this and that was that...
I don't like the single "you" because I feel I am addressing in an informal way to everybody.  You know? When I talk to my teachers at school, one of them in particular, Mr Jaegger -who besides being my English Literature teacher is the Headmaster  - I feel that I'm not considering his hierarchy when speaking English.  Then when I talk to him in Spanish I address to him by using our "Usted".  When this happens I feel strange, I feel as I am talking to a different person, he has a different "value" now, when I say "Usted profesor". It is as if at that moment he is the headmaster and before that, in the class,  just a classmate ( not when we sit our exams !!)  I don't know... it is a sensation... when I speak with someone in English all the time, and then for the first time we speak in Spanish, it is as if in that moment the person is someone else.  Crazy, isn't it?


----------



## garryknight

Artrella said:
			
		

> Crazy, isn't it?


Not crazy at all. Imagine a young woman who works behind a shop counter all day, speaks to her boss before leaving, thanks her childminder when she picks up her little boy, then talks to him about the day he's had. Four different modes of speech used in four different roles she plays. The only difference is that the 'you' or 'tu' and 'usted' formalise the process and make it more obvious when you're switching roles.


----------



## Whodunit

Artrella said:
			
		

> Is there any other language that has no such differentiation?
> 
> Hay algún otro lenguage que no haga tal diferenciación?



I know that Arabic has 'أنت (anta)' for a masculine and 'أنت (anti)' for a feminine address. Both of them can be used as an informal and formal address, e.g.:

هل تتكلم بالعربية؟
(hal tatakallamu bil-'arabiyya?)

Do you speak Arabic?
Parlez-vous/Parle-tu arabe?
Sprechen Sie/Sprichst du Arabisch?
¿Hablas/Habla usted español?


----------



## Artrella

garryknight said:
			
		

> The only difference is that the 'you' or 'tu' and 'usted' formalise the process and make it more obvious when you're switching roles.




Yes!! You are right we have _morphological markers _ (usted and tú) for formality and informality, which we don't have in English.  
Can we see this in English? How do you do then, without these morphological markers?  If I meet someone for the first time they won't know if I'm being fml or infl.... mmm


----------



## te gato

Artrella said:
			
		

> Oh W!! I'm sorry I have to post the ... first counter-argument ??? You have been so nice with your words to me.. but this is this and that was that...
> I don't like the single "you" because I feel I am addressing in an informal way to everybody. You know? When I talk to my teachers at school, one of them in particular, Mr Jaegger -who besides being my English Literature teacher is the Headmaster  - I feel that I'm not considering his hierarchy when speaking English. Then when I talk to him in Spanish I address to him by using our "Usted". When this happens I feel strange, I feel as I am talking to a different person, he has a different "value" now, when I say "Usted profesor". It is as if at that moment he is the headmaster and before that, in the class, just a classmate ( not when we sit our exams !!) I don't know... it is a sensation... when I speak with someone in English all the time, and then for the first time we speak in Spanish, it is as if in that moment the person is someone else. Crazy, isn't it?


Art GF;
We would not use 'you' in formal ways..or in respectful ways either..
That is where Mr. ...Mrs. ...Ms. .. Sir..Madam..(not the one that runs a house)..comes in..Or when talking about University teachers..it is..'Professor' Smith...Judges..is ALWAYS 'Your Honor'...and so on...

te gato


----------



## garryknight

Artrella said:
			
		

> How do you do then, without these morphological markers?


I either tug my forelock (inferior) or look down my nose (superior).


----------



## Monkling

Wordsmyth said:
			
		

> Interesting theory, but ....
> 
> It was dropped in Britain around 1700, before AmE started to influence BrE, and indeed at a time when class distinction was still rife in Britain.
> 
> I'm also tempted to think that, if your idea were right, the distinction would have been maintained a lot longer in the US -- at least in the South, if you follow my thinking.


Ah, I will have to invent a better theory.


----------



## Artrella

te gato said:
			
		

> Art GF;
> We would not use 'you' in formal ways..or in respectful ways either..
> That is where Mr. ...Mrs. ...Ms. .. Sir..Madam..(not the one that runs a house)..comes in..Or when talking about University teachers..it is..'Professor' Smith...Judges..is ALWAYS 'Your Honor'...and so on...
> 
> te gato




Yes KGF, but you say "Professor Smith, what do *you* think of this theory?"

In Spanish we say "Profesor Smith, qué piensa *usted* de esta teoría?"
We don't say "Profesor Smith, qué piensa*s tú * de esta teoría?"

In Spanish we use "usted" conjugated in the 3rd person singular which shows certain distance you don't have when you address somebody using the "tú".


----------



## te gato

Artrella said:
			
		

> Yes KGF, but you say "Professor Smith, what do *you* think of this theory?"
> 
> In Spanish we say "Profesor Smith, qué piensa *usted* de esta teoría?"
> We don't say "Profesor Smith, qué piensa*s tú *de esta teoría?"
> 
> In Spanish we use "usted" conjugated in the 3rd person singular which shows certain distance you don't have when you address somebody using the "tú".


So yes Art GF;
*You *are so correct...
You in English has no..ummm...respectful meaning...(that is a bad term..but I could not think of anything else)...
te gato


----------



## Benjy

te gato said:
			
		

> So yes Art GF;
> *You *are so correct...
> You in English has no..ummm...respectful meaning...(that is a bad term..but I could not think of anything else)...
> te gato



"thee"s and "thou"s when praying are considered respectful  but not really a relevant point as you would never do it in a conversation :s

"what thinkest thou mr x?"

"i think that thou art a pretentious git!"

doesnt really work eh?


----------



## Whodunit

Benjy said:
			
		

> "what thinkest thou mr x?"



That really looks like German:

Was denkst du Herr X? (informal)

subjunctive:

Was denkest du, Herr X? (informal)

In Old German:

Was gedenket Ihr, Mr. X? (doesn't wok either)


----------



## Leopold

Well, formality is not exclusively about pronouns. It's usually about the lexical choice.

I don't like the way you're doing it - No me gusta cómo lo estás haciendo
I don't like the fashion you are doing it - No me gusta su manera de hacerlo

I don't know if this is a proper example. But I hope it is clear enough. In Japanese the most difficult issue, they say, is to learn the different fomality levels. They can have several words for the same object (for example, "table"), and they will use term A in informal situations, term 2 in family, term 3 in formal speech (same age), term 4 in formal speech (the speaker in youger), etc.

I hope some forist will enlighten us on this matter.

Leo

PS: I don't think formality in meant to distance the speakers. I think it's more like diplomacy.


----------



## Artrella

Leopold said:
			
		

> Well, formality is not exclusively about pronouns. It's usually about the lexical choice.
> 
> I don't like the way you're doing it - No me gusta cómo lo estás haciendo
> I don't like the fashion you are doing it - No me gusta su manera de hacerlo
> 
> I don't know if this is a proper example. But I hope it is clear enough. In Japanese the most difficult issue, they say, is to learn the different fomality levels. They can have several words for the same object (for example, "table"), and they will use term A in informal situations, term 2 in family, term 3 in formal speech (same age), term 4 in formal speech (the speaker in youger), etc.
> 
> I hope some forist will enlighten us on this matter.
> 
> Leo
> 
> PS: I don't think formality in meant to distance the speakers. I think it's more like diplomacy.




Leo, you know? once I was talking to a Japanese classmate, and she told me that there are different levels or different kinds of alphabets according to the knowledge of Japanese you have (more or less, this is what I understood, I'm not certain this is like this).  She told me that a 10-year-old kid cannot read a newspaper for instance whereas his parents can.  And this is not related to the comprehension skills of the kid but he cannot read it because he does not know the alphabet that appears in the newspaper.

I would like, the same as you, that any forist could explain this to us.

Thank you Leo!

PS: What is diplomacy if not distance? I am only asking..trying to analise this.
Ideas??


----------



## Leopold

Someone I can't remember now said "diplomacy is the art of hiding one's intentions".

That's very true. But diplomacy is also adaptation to the given situations. Changes of registry and all.

About Japanese. They have three forms of writing: hiragana, kanji and katakana (I'm leaving out "romaji" for it is not a traditional Japanese writing).

Now, hiragana and katakana are syllabaries. These come from simplified ideogrammes and have no meaning by themselfs (generally, just like our letters).
Hiragana is used to write Japanese words and the morfological marks (verbal tense, genitive, etc). 
Kataka is exclusively used to foreign words.
Kanji are the ideogrammes.

Children, as far as I knowm learn the hiragana first. 
English: person -> romaji:hito - kanji:人 - hiragana:ひと (hi-to)

So, it's natural that they cannot read newspapers, since they're writting mainly in kanji. Although I don't think this has something to do with formality.

Regards,
Leo


----------



## Artrella

whodunit said:
			
		

> That really looks like German:



Yes, indeed Who!
Look at this excerpt from "Sonnet CXXXIII" by William Shakespeare.

...."Thou canst (= du kanst??) not then use rigor in my gaol:
      And yet thou wilt (= du willst??); for I, being pent in thee,
      Perforce am thine (=deine??), and tall that is in me."

Pronunciation of these words are the same as nowadays German.

Then we have "thy" "thee" >> different cases were morphologically marked as it happens with contemporary German >>  du, dich, dir...


----------



## Outsider

Artrella said:
			
		

> Leo, you know? once I was talking to a Japanese classmate, and she told me that there are different levels or different kinds of alphabets according to the knowledge of Japanese you have (more or less, this is what I understood, I'm not certain this is like this).  She told me that a 10-year-old kid cannot read a newspaper for instance whereas his parents can.  And this is not related to the comprehension skills of the kid but he cannot read it because he does not know the alphabet that appears in the newspaper.
> 
> I would like, the same as you, that any forist could explain this to us.


Japanese writing systems are not alphabets, but syllabaries and ideographic scripts. You can read about them at Omniglot and Ancient Scripts.

The interesting thing about formal modes of address in European languages is that they are fairly recent developments, and yet they can be found in languages as diverse as Spanish and German. English, as usual, is the odd one out.


----------



## Artrella

Leopold said:
			
		

> . Although I don't think this has something to do with formality.
> 
> Regards,
> Leo



No, me neither.  Just something that came to my mind, and wanted to share with someone who could enlighten us.


----------



## Whodunit

Artrella said:
			
		

> Yes, indeed Who!
> Look at this excerpt from "Sonnet CXXXIII" by William Shakespeare.
> 
> ...."Thou canst (= du kanst    kannst) not then use rigor in my gaol:
> And yet thou wilt (= du willst   ); for I, being pent in thee,
> Perforce am thine (=deine   ), and tall that is in me."
> 
> Pronunciation of these words are the same as nowadays German.
> 
> Then we have "thy" "thee" >> different cases were morphologically marked as it happens with contemporary German >>  du, dich, dir...



The pronunciation is not the same:
wilt/canst = willst/kannst   
thou/thee = du   
thy = dein(e)   

But look at your word "indeed" that is still used in nowadays English:

in-deed = in-der-Tat

Odd, isn't it?


----------



## Artrella

Outsider said:
			
		

> Japanese writing systems are not alphabets, but syllabaries and ideographic scripts. You can read about them at Omniglot and Ancient Scripts.
> 
> The interesting thing about formal modes of address in European languages is that they are fairly recent developments, and yet they can be found in languages as diverse as Spanish and German. English, as usual, is the odd one out.




Yes, Outsider I know that you don't have "alphabets" in Japanese... I should have written that word between inverted commas, but as you said they are called "ideograms".  Well, there are levels of "ideograms" according to the knowledge of the language you have.  Which really struck me, because in Spanish, English, German, Italian, Portuguese, when you have learnt the alphabet you can read whatever you want, of course the skills for reading comprehension will develop as your knowledge of the language improves.




> The interesting thing about formal modes of address in European languages is that they are fairly recent developments, and yet they can be found in languages as diverse as Spanish and German. English, as usual, is the odd one out.



Outsider I cannot understand this part, could you explain why you say "formality" is a fairly recent development?  And yes, I agree with you, English keeps standing out.


----------



## Outsider

Artrella said:
			
		

> Outsider I cannot understand this part, could you explain why you say "formality" is a fairly recent development?  And yes, I agree with you, English keeps standing out.


Well, to be honest I don't know how it was with German. However, in ancient Latin, there were no formal pronouns. You either called a person _tu_ or a group _vos_. Then, I think the gods started to be called _vos_, and then emperors, and then the nobility, and by the Middle Ages _vos_ had become a polite way of talking to anyone, as it still is in French today (_vous_).

English pronouns went through a very similar semantic transformation, apparently. Initially, there was "thou" for one person and "you" for more than one person. With time, though, "you" became a polite form of addressing one person, too. The parallel evolution is curious.

Of course, the Southern Romance languages, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese, went through even more changes. The third person singular also became a formal way of addressing one person (_usted, lei, você_), centuries later. And that's how we got where we are now.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Agnes E. said:
			
		

> Bonjour Wordsmyth
> 
> 
> 
> Several groups continue to use these pronouns today as part of their daily speech (although with different grammar), including residents of Yorkshire, Cumbria, the East Midlands, and some rural areas of Western England.
> 
> 
> 
> This come to support the idea that there is probably nothing snobbish in it, after all...
Click to expand...

En effet, Agnès

Your comment supports what we're seeing throughout this thread: It's not a question of class or snobbism, but one of formality/familiarity/politeness/convention

W


----------



## Artrella

Outsider said:
			
		

> Well, to be honest I don't know how it was with German. However, in ancient Latin, there were no formal pronouns. You either called a person _tu_ or a group _vos_. Then, I think the gods started to be called _vos_, and then emperors, and then the nobility, and by the Middle Ages _vos_ had become a polite way of talking to anyone, as it still is in French today (_vous_).
> 
> English pronouns went through a very similar semantic transformation, apparently. Initially, there was "thou" for one person and "you" for more than one person. With time, though, "you" became a polite form of addressing one person, too. The parallel evolution is curious.
> 
> Of course, the Southern Romance languages, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese, went through even more changes. The third person singular also became a formal way of addressing one person (_usted, lei, você_), centuries later. And that's how we got where we are now.




Thank you for explaining this O, it is really interesting the study of the development of languages throughout time and places.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Artrella said:
			
		

> Oh W!! I'm sorry I have to post the ... first counter-argument ??? You have been so nice with your words to me.. but this is this and that was that...
> I don't like the single "you" because I feel I am addressing in an informal way to everybody.  You know? When I talk to my teachers at school, one of them in particular, Mr Jaegger -who besides being my English Literature teacher is the Headmaster  - I feel that I'm not considering his hierarchy when speaking English.  Then when I talk to him in Spanish I address to him by using our "Usted".  When this happens I feel strange, I feel as I am talking to a different person, he has a different "value" now, [...]


Art, no apology needed for counter-argument -- I was looking for them! .  In fact I over-simplified. There are of course cases where one wants to keep a distance (even I do!). In English we do it in different ways (see my reply to your post #16 in a minute), and we apply them according to the way we feel case-by-case, rather than because it's a rule or convention.

What bothers me about vous/tu, Usted/tú, etc, is the times when both sides want to remove that distance/formality, but feel uncomfortable because they'd be breaking convention/protocol (age, status, hierarchy, how long you've known s.o. etc) -- This has happened a lot to me. I think it's even stronger in French than in Spanish.

The upside is the warm feeling I get when the other person finally throws off inhibition and feels it's become OK to use 'tu' -- it's like getting a birthday present  

Ultimately I guess the question of single or double you (not W! ) is yet another case of preferring what you're used to.

But tell me, Art, if I post to you in this forum in Spanish -- unlikely, given my abysmal level of Spanish -- should I (i.e. would you prefer that I) use tú or Usted? ... and why? We've never met, we don't know our relative social standing, age, etc, *but* I believe we've established a certain 'forum-familiarity' that would make it very strange (to me) to use Usted -- possibly even restricting what and how I'd write.

Same question to Agnès: 'tu' ou 'vous' dans ce forum?

I'll stop there -- to avoid verbal diarrhoea (a thing I probably wouldn't say to a 'vous/Usted person'   )

W


----------



## Outsider

Wordsmyth said:
			
		

> But tell me, Art, if I post to you in this forum in Spanish -- unlikely, given my abysmal level of Spanish -- should I (i.e. would you prefer that I) use tú or Usted? ... and why?


Don't forget _vos_.


----------



## Outsider

Artrella said:
			
		

> [...] it is really interesting the study of the development of languages throughout time and places.


It certainly is.


----------



## Artrella

Wordsmyth said:
			
		

> what you're used to.
> 
> But tell me, Art, if I post to you in this forum in Spanish -- unlikely, given my abysmal level of Spanish -- should I (i.e. would you prefer that I) use tú or Usted? ... and why? We've never met, we don't know our relative social standing, age, etc, *but* I believe we've established a certain 'forum-familiarity' that would make it very strange (to me) to use Usted -- possibly even restricting what and how I'd write.
> W




Hi W!  You know?  I already feel as if you have been addressing to me with "vos (tú)",  because the "you" for me is like "vos/tú".  Don't ask me why.. I think it is for the reason you stated previously... certain familiarity and they way each person writes their posts.  If the person shows distance in their post... well I should use "usted"... and well, here I've reached a conclusion that seems to be contradictory now with my original question, now I see the different treatment, formal/informal, using the poor single "you".  This difference comes from context, not from a different pronoun.  The use of smilies, certain words, this "...", this "!!", they show informality.  So to be coherent with all those "informality markers", if I were you I'd use the "vos"with Artrella.  
Have I made myself clear?


----------



## Wordsmyth

Artrella said:
			
		

> Yes!! You are right we have _morphological markers _ (usted and tú) for formality and informality, which we don't have in English.
> Can we see this in English? How do you do then, without these morphological markers?  If I meet someone for the first time they won't know if I'm being fml or infl.... mmm


Art, we do have markers in English : sometimes style of language: "How do you do" vs "Pleased to meet you' vs "Hi"; sometimes even body language and facial expression (and forelocks & noses, garry  ); but probably the closest equivalent to Usted/tú is the use of Mr/Mrs/Miss X vs using first name.

When I was at school, and also at Uni, some (admittedly a minority) of teachers preferred to use first names -- and that we use their first names. Looking back, they were the teachers with whom we had the best communication, best motivation, and from whom we learnt the most -- proof that you don't always need to emphasise 'hierarchy' to achieve respect.

If that situation arose in Spanish, could you have the combination of 'first name + Usted'? (a sort of middle ground of informality/formality?)

W


----------



## Artrella

Wordsmyth said:
			
		

> Art, we do have markers in English : sometimes style of language: "How do you do" vs "Pleased to meet you' vs "Hi"; sometimes even body language and facial expression (and forelocks & noses, garry  ); but probably the closest equivalent to Usted/tú is the use of Mr/Mrs/Miss X vs using first name.



W, I know you have those markers, what I mean is that in English there are no such markers in pronouns.  We have those markers you refer to as well.
When we meet someone for the first time and we assume the situation requires to be formal, we say "Encantada de conocerlo/la", if this person is "young" as we are (  ) we say "Hola, cómo estás?".  Then gestures, well I think they are always informal.




> When I was at school, and also at Uni, some (admittedly a minority) of teachers preferred to use first names -- and that we use their first names. Looking back, they were the teachers with whom we had the best communication, best motivation, and from whom we learnt the most -- proof that you don't always need to emphasise 'hierarchy' to achieve respect.



Me too, in University some teachers wanted to be addressed as "Mr. X" and "usted"  some others by their first name and "vos".



> If that situation arose in Spanish, could you have the combination of 'first name + Usted'? (a sort of middle ground of informality/formality?)



In Argentina this happens (and as far as I am concerned, it is the same in Spain and in Spanish speaking countries - in fact you can see it in Latinamerican soap operas).  We can address to our neighbour saying " Hola Antonio, cómo está?" In Costa Rica, for instance, a friend of mine told me that the trend nowadays, among young people at university, is to say "usted">>  Eg: "Hola Juan, cómo está usted? Qué le parece si esta tarde estudiamos juntos para el examen?"


----------



## Whodunit

Artrella said:
			
		

> W, I know you have those markers, what I mean is that in English there are no such markers in pronouns.  We have those markers you refer to as well.
> When we meet someone for the first time and we assume the situation requires to be formal, we say "Encantada de conocerlo/la", if this person is "young" as we are (  ) we say "Hola, cómo estás?".  Then gestures, well I think they are always informal.



Art, what about '¿Qué tal?' Is it more informal? Or more formal? I think "¿Cómo estás?" is a little moere formal than ¿Qué tal?, isn't it?


----------



## Artrella

whodunit said:
			
		

> Art, what about '¿Qué tal?' Is it more informal? Or more formal? I think "¿Cómo estás?" is a little moere formal than ¿Qué tal?, isn't it?




Who, both are informal.  In fact you can join them like this:

"Hola Who, qué tal? cómo estás?"
"Hola Who, qué tal tu familia?"

Maybe "Cómo estás?" is less informal than "qué tal?" because it is a whole question, whereas "qué tal" would be the same as "wie geht's?".  I think "Cómo estás" would be compared to "Wie geht es dir?" and the other to "Wie geht's".  What do you think of this comparison?  Is it like this in German?


----------



## Whodunit

Artrella said:
			
		

> Who, both are informal.  In fact you can join them like this:
> 
> "Hola Who, qué tal? cómo estás?"
> "Hola Who, qué tal tu familia?"
> 
> Maybe "Cómo estás?" is less informal than "qué tal?" because it is a whole question, whereas "qué tal" would be the same as "wie geht's?".  I think "Cómo estás" would be compared to "Wie geht es dir?" and the other to "Wie geht's".  What do you think of this comparison?  Is it like this in German?



Hm, you may be right, Art.

"Hallo Art, wie geht's?"
"Hallo Art, wie geht es dir?"

Of course, the first one is less formal and that is because it's used more often...


----------



## Artrella

whodunit said:
			
		

> Hm, you may be right, Art.
> 
> "Hallo Art, wie geht's?"
> "Hallo Art, wie geht es dir?"
> 
> Of course, the first one is less informal and that is because it's used more often...




Who, the first one is less *IN*formal? or less Formal?


----------



## Whodunit

Artrella said:
			
		

> Who, the first one is less *IN*formal   ? or less Formal   ?



Already changed. I hate meioses!


----------



## Wordsmyth

Artrella said:
			
		

> Hi W [...] [...] if I were you I'd use the "vos"with Artrella.
> Have I made myself clear?


OK, ¿Cómo estás, Art? Gracias for making me comfortable. Mind you, things are getting really complicated in my head now (or in my soul? ) : I know 'vos' (= tú) is common in some parts of LatAm (see *  below), but I'd feel I was saying French 'vous', so to me 'vos' still feels formal. Whereas 'tú' = French 'tu', so OK ... But I guess I can adapt in time. 

Another thing with 'vos': pronounced in Spanish Spanish, it sounds like 'boss', so there's the hierarchy thing again!! . Seriously, d'you think 'vos' is a contraction of 'vosotros' (plural)? If so, it's another example of sing/plur/informal/formal "you"s getting swapped around.

* From a travellers' language guide: _In Costa Rica it isn't uncommon {meiosis for whodunit ! } for family members to call each other Ud. - whereas this is not the norm for most Spanish speaking countries. In Argentina they practically do away with tú and usted altogether - using the word vos for "you" most of the time. They do use usted occasionally, but vos is the dominant word for "you" in Argentina and Uruguay. But cross over into Chile and vos is rarely used!_ 

By the way, Art -- and I think this may be the first time I've presumed to 'correct' your English    -- be careful with the expression "Have I made myself clear?" : perfectly good English, but mostly used when reprimanding or giving forceful orders. If you want to avoid that nuance, better to say "Was that clear?" or "I hope that was clear".

So, Art, hoping I explained all that clearly  , ... hasta pronto

W


----------



## garryknight

Wordsmyth said:
			
		

> Seriously, d'you think 'vos' is a contraction of 'vosotros' (plural)?


Isn't it more likely to be the other way round? 'Vos' = 'you'. 'Vosotros' = 'you others'.


----------



## Artrella

Taking advantage of the fact we have so many people from different countries here in WR, I would more people to explain what happens in their respective languages.  Would you like to participate in this thread?
Thank you!!!


----------



## JJchang

In spoken Chinese we have the difference between tu and vous, ni3 and nin2, but there is no change in verb agreement or whatsoever. We rarely say nin2, unless to the older people or to some professional people we are not familiar with. It will sound absolutely dorky if you use this with your friends or school mates.

In written Chinese, especially letters, there are many many many different ways to address someone. A very formal way is to say "surname+title+name".  If you want to mention about some people is very respected but is passed away already, use a space before the surname, e.g. "    Chiang ex-president Kai-Shek sir". There are many other writing etiquettes,  but it's not easy to explain the reason why we do that...


----------



## Artrella

JJchang said:
			
		

> In spoken Chinese we have the difference between tu and vous, ni3 and nin2, but there is no change in verb agreement or whatsoever. We rarely say nin2, unless to the older people or to some professional people we are not familiar with. It will sound absolutely dorky if you use this with your friends or school mates.
> 
> In written Chinese, especially letters, there are many many many different ways to address someone. A very formal way is to say "surname+title+name".  If you want to mention about some people is very respected but is passed away already, use a space before the surname, e.g. "    Chiang ex-president Kai-Shek sir". There are many other writing etiquettes,  but it's not easy to explain the reason why we do that...




Thank you JJchang!! This is completely new to me, and it's really interesting... I don't know anything about Chinese language or culture, so this is very very helpful ... Gracias!!!


----------



## Outsider

T-V distinction



> It can often be quite confusing for an English speaker learning a language with a T-V distinction to correctly assimilate the rules surrounding when to call someone with the formal or the informal pronoun. Students are often advised to err on the side of caution, the formal; however, in the wrong situation this risks sounding snobby or at least riotously funny. English speakers may be helped by reminding themselves that the difference is comparable to using first name or last name when speaking to someone; however the boundaries between formal and informal language differ from language to language, and most languages use formal speech more frequently, and/or in different circumstances, than English. And in some circumstances it is not unusual to call other people by first name and the respectful form or the reverse, e.g. German shop employees often use these constructs if a customer is present.



Formality in Japanese.


----------



## Artrella

Outsider said:
			
		

> T-V distinction
> 
> 
> 
> Formality in Japanese.




Wow!! Outsider these links are *good*!!  I like them!! Thank you for sharing them with us.  And you are not interested in linguistics...?


----------



## Outsider

I found that link by accident, while searching for something else. I had never heard the expression "T-V distinction" before.


----------



## Wordsmyth

I know Art's looking for different languages, and JJ & Outsider have kicked off well, but I can't resist coming briefly back to the French T-V. Something happened to me yesterday that adds a new dimension to the T-V topic:

I was walking in the street in the French town where I live, when a guy asked me if I had a cigarette: he said "Excusez-moi, t'as pas une cigarette?" Thinking of this thread, I asked him why he used the vous-form, then the tu-form in the same sentence; (actually I didn't put it quite so academically, but ...). To my surprise, he didn't reply "Uh???", but explained that first he showed respect, then switched into the informal to appeal to my sense of 'camaraderie' (comradeship)!

See, this T-V thing can get really complex!!  

W


----------



## Outsider

Wordsmyth said:
			
		

> I was walking in the street in the French town where I live, when a guy asked me if I had a cigarette: he said "Excusez-moi, t'as pas une cigarette?"


Of course! First, he treats you with politeness because you're a stranger, then with familiarity because he wants to appeal to your sense of comradery.  

He and you probably had similar ages, right?


----------



## Artrella

Outsider said:
			
		

> Of course! First, he treats you with politeness because you're a stranger, then with familiarity because he wants to appeal to your sense of comradery.
> 
> He and you probably had similar ages, right?




The same happens here, when you first approach a person you are not sure about his attitude towards you, so you treat them formally, then if you see the person is your age or shows some kind of friendliness, then you begin treating them in an informal way.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Outsider said:
			
		

> Of course! First, he treats you with politeness because you're a stranger, then with familiarity because he wants to appeal to your sense of comradery.
> 
> He and you probably had similar ages, right?





			
				Artrella said:
			
		

> The same happens here, when you first approach a person you are not sure about his attitude towards you, so you treat them formally, then if you see the person is your age or shows some kind of friendliness, then you begin treating them in an informal way.


Similar ages? : I really don't remember. I just don't notice people's age. I'd remember if he was a child, or a radically infirm old person, but he was neither, so for me it's a non-issue ... probably one of the reasons for my not feeling much need for T-V distinction.

But this is interesting: I see an Argentino-Portuguese (or Luso-Argentinian?) viewpoint of 'no surprise' at such a rapid transition from V to T (about 2 seconds!). Whereas in France it's usually a much longer process.

So -- and I guess we knew it already -- the T-V thing is variable from one country/language/culture/milieu to another. The consequence, in my particular professional environment (which is very multinational/-lingual/-cultural) is an almost universal use of 'tu', regardless of age, hierarchy, etc ... Now I wonder (going back to earlier posts) if that's how the English language lost T-V (or T-Y!) : maybe it was all just too much hassle, and too risky, and gradually simplicity won the day!

W


----------



## Outsider

Wordsmyth said:
			
		

> But this is interesting: I see an Argentino-Portuguese (or Luso-Argentinian?) viewpoint of 'no surprise' at such a rapid transition from V to T (about 2 seconds!). Whereas in France it's usually a much longer process.


Hmm, as far as I'm concerned, you're reading too much into my post. Seriously, I'd regard such a sudden switch from formality to informality as quite unusual and "incorrect". If I didn't know better, I'd even guess the man was simply distracted, and, when you asked why he'd used both forms of address with you, he just came up with an excuse, so as not to seem rude.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Outsider said:
			
		

> Hmm, as far as I'm concerned, you're reading too much into my post. [...]


Yeah, Outsider, you're right. I tend to do that ... but it's a good way of keeping threads going and provoking new thoughts and angles!   

W


----------



## Outsider

Following that train of thought... 



			
				Wordsmyth said:
			
		

> So -- and I guess we knew it already -- the T-V thing is variable from one country/language/culture/milieu to another.


It certainly is. I've noticed that Spaniards treat each other by "tú" much more frequently than we do.  

By the way, contemporary English may not have formality embedded into its grammar, but there are still all sorts of professional titles that you have to know when to use: Dr., Professor, Sir, Mr. President...


----------



## Artrella

Outsider said:
			
		

> I've noticed that Spaniards treat each other by "tú" much more frequently than we do.



Can you explain this fact Outsider? I have no idea of Portuguese, and I'd like to know just a bit of each language.  

If there is anyone who speaks a language other than those ones which have been so far discussed here, please give us your contribution.... I will be really grateful!!

Thank you!


----------



## Outsider

Artrella, it's difficult to explain, but I just have this impression that Spaniards are usually more informal than the Portuguese amongst themselves.
Where did I get it from? I've never travelled much across Spain, so I think it must have been from Spanish films and interviews to Spaniards.


----------



## Artrella

Outsider said:
			
		

> Artrella, it's difficult to explain, but I just have this impression that Spaniards are usually more informal than the Portuguese amongst themselves.
> Where did I get it from? I've never travelled much across Spain, so I think it must have been from Spanish films and interviews to Spaniards.





Ok, Outsider... when you elaborate a theory... don t forget to post it here...


----------



## Wordsmyth

Outsider said:
			
		

> Artrella, it's difficult to explain, but I just have this impression that Spaniards are usually more informal than the Portuguese amongst themselves.
> Where did I get it from? I've never travelled much across Spain, so I think it must have been from Spanish films and interviews to Spaniards.





			
				Artrella said:
			
		

> Ok, Outsider... when you elaborate a theory... don t forget to post it here...



I'll go with that, Outsider. I've generally found that  Spaniards use "tú" very frequently, whereas the Portuguese approach to T-V seems much more like the French. In fact, I'd say there are other Portuguese/French cultural (and language) similarities that aren't in common with Spanish.

As for why (the increasing use of "tú" in Spain), I don't know either, but maybe (?) it's for the same reason that I suggested for the disappearance of T-V in English (post #54) -- simplicity?

W


----------



## Hakro

During the latest 30 or 40 years the formal "you" (vous, usted...) has disappeared in Scandinavia nearly totally, first in Sweden, then in Finland (and, I suppose, also in Denmark and Norway). In my opinion it's a pity because you could express some special respect using "vouvoyer" (in English there isn't even a word fot it!).


----------



## DanTheMan

Korean has some interesting phenomenon in relation to different levels of formality. It has a couple of pronouns that you can never use on some people, no matter how close you are, but others would be ridiculous if you were close. For example the pronoun 너 (no) means you, but can only be used on someone younger than you who is the same age with whom you have a close relationship. You wouldn't even be able to use that on your older brother or sister or you'd be picking a fight with them. 

I've felt the same thing with Korean and English, where you speak to someone in English and it seems so informal, and then I switch to Korean and all of the sudden I am completely respectful to the person. It seems to be particularly acute in Korean, since even one year in age difference can change completely the way in which you speak to each other.

I don't know, however, why we don't differentiate in English anymore, which I believe was the original inquiry.


----------



## somody

That's....different.

In Hungarian, adding *-tok *or *-tek* to the end of the word usually makes it formal.  But I understand _DanTheMan_'s post, because in Hungarian, there are things _like_ that (not formality-wise, but other things) such as suffixes.

In Hungarian, counting everything, there are exactly 5070 forms every verb.  (http://garfield.chem.elte.hu/Turanyi/mige.html).  There are also many forms of nouns, because the noun changes with respect to the sentence.  To say "_in_", you add a suffix.  The suffix changes depending on what word it is.  Hungarian has no gender, but it's almost harder than French!  For example, _dinner_ is *vacsora*, but when you say _thanks for dinner, Louis_, it becomes *köszönöm Lajos a vacsorát* .  Very annoying.

Also, saying _my dad_ is *az én ap**ám*.  _Your dad_ is *a te ap**ád*!  lol


----------



## Giulia2213

Hello,
I'll make a brief synthesis which will summarize my opinion about the way we address to another person. 
Between brackets, it would be great if a moderator modifies the title in order to be clearer, because in my opinion, the title "Formality" doesn't reflect completely the topic. 

At least in Italian, the difference between the informal way (tu) and the formal way (Lei) is not so marked  ; same in Modern Greek with "sou" and "sas". I mean by not so marked that rules are not so clear. As example, speaking in a formal way should be the rule when we address to someone superior (older than you, or in a higher position than you are), someone you don't know or someone you want to mark some kind of respect. 
But, for example, with my Italian older friend (she is of my grandmother's generation), I address to her with the informal way (tu), after some long time I addressed her with the formal way. Another example, during a journey in a Cyclades island when I was 18 years old, I have been to the dispensary because I was sick, and the doctor spoke to me in the informal way. 
In both of these examples, the standard rule would have been to address in the formal way. 
I may deduct that using the formal or informal way to address someone else is not always a rigid rule. 

Another concrete example to understand my opinion. 
I was at hospital  in my country (in France) to have a minor surgery (a BAHA surgery for whom is interessed, but as we aren't on a medical forum, I won't go into details to explain myself) when I was 18 years old. One of the nurse (a male nurse) spoke to me with the formal way, but he spoke with a tone that let me the impression that I was like a child who'll be punished by someone who has an authority. Another female nurse (BTW, I hate using the word "female" for a human because it has a pejorative connotation in French) talked to me in the informal way, but I didn't have the bad impression to be a child who has been spoken from an authority. 
So my opinion is that kindness, courtesy, and respect, don't always depend on the person you use, it would be too simple.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Giulia's 'French nurses' story underlines a thought I often have about T-V distinction (combined with my belief that language is about communicating ideas, facts and feelings – and not about following rules that fly in the face of common sense) :

I believe T-V distinction should be used to show what degree of formality you *feel*, and not be hidebound by a set of artificial rules based on age, social status, professional hierarchy, how long you've known someone ...

OK, maybe I'm in a dreamworld! ... or maybe not, as these days I'm hearing more and more exceptions to convention (at least in French). 

So if we cross paths in the Français Seulement forum, Giulia, you'll understand if I _tutoie_ you.

Ws


----------

