# "Polite" use of the 2nd person plural



## Scholiast

Good evening everyone

This question has been prompted by something raised in another WR Forum and my (perhaps premature) response to it





> Classical Latin Formal/Informal Second Person Singular/Plura



Is there, please, an authoritative source or explanation for the emergence not only in the Romance languages, but also in the Germanic, for the "Höflichkeitsform" and the "royal 'we'", that is, the plural used for singular in address to, or responses from, a monarch?


----------



## LilianaB

Hello Mr. Scholiast: I do not know if there is any explanation, there might be, but the second person plural to address people in a polite way is present in Lithuanian and earlier Baltic languages. It is not present in Polish, only in some dialects considered not standard Polish, and it is present in Russian. I think the reason it is not present in Polish is the influence of French. Polish aristocracy was once fascinated with French and this is where the Madame-Monsieur form comes from.


----------



## berndf

You could start by reading this thread.


----------



## Scholiast

Thanks Berndf (#3).

This certainly does much of the business for the "majestic/royal" "we". I remain curious however about the penetration of this usage to the widespread linguistic distinction between "familiar" and "polite" forms of the second person, and wonder if my conjecture (in the Latin WR Forum referred to above) was at least roughly correct.


----------



## berndf

In my understanding, the formal _vous _evolved out of the majestic plural as it was originally a form used to address members of the nobility only.


----------



## Scholiast

Thank you once again, Berndf (#5 here) - you are a mine of wonderful information.

May I however quote myself here (for perhaps I did not express myself sufficiently clearly)? In an incomplete answer to another Poster's question in the Latin forum, I wrote:



> in the late Roman Empire, petitioners at the imperial or papal courts of  Rome, Milan or Byzantium would often have to address themselves, in  person or in writing, to the presiding cabinet or judiciary of the  reigning monarch. They were of course, literally, plural. He, the  monarch, in turn, or his chancellery staff, would reply "We...", rather  as an individual today, writing on behalf of the company he or she  represents, might write "We have received your letter of ........"



Is this roughly right?


----------



## berndf

As I said, I thinks it's the other way round: The majestic "we" existed first.


----------



## Ben Jamin

LilianaB said:


> Hello Mr. Scholiast: I do not know if there is any explanation, there might be, but the second person plural to address people in a polite way is present in Lithuanian and earlier Baltic languages. It is not present in Polish, only in some dialects considered not standard Polish, and it is present in Russian. *I think the reason it is not present in Polish is the influence of French*. Polish aristocracy was once fascinated with French and this is where the Madame-Monsieur form comes from.


This is a strange assumption, as French uses exactly the form "vous" which is second person plural.


----------



## merquiades

I always learned that in the Romance language, the you plural (vos, vous, voi) came to be the you singular polite form in oposition to informal (tu) when it became practice to accord more importance (respect... power) to nobles... by according them literally the "value" of more than one commoner. They were worth more... Sorry, can't think of a more politically correct way to say that... They could also answer with the royal we (nos) giving themselves this same distinction.  This was the origin in all romance languages but then of course it developed differently after that depending on the social environment, the country, the language, throughout the different centuries til now... French remains closer to the original romance distinction (tu/vous). Spanish evolution is so complicated (split between vos singular and plural, loss of formal meaning after invention of new forms, elimination in some areas, partial retention in others...) so much so I won't go into detail. 

I'm not sure how early this "phenomenon" started.  I learnt it didn't exist in Classical Latin, but the examples Scholiast/Berndf show that may not have been/ probably was not the case.

I suspect this may have played a role in the English you as well. Plural and polite, then displacing thou. 

As stated Russian vy (sorry no Cyrillic) seems similar since it means both you plural, and you singular polite.  I'm not sure of the origin or if this is French influenced.

Berndf can confirm this, but German (at least the type I studied) uses Sie (they and you singular polite are the same).  Spechen sie Deutsch?  Do they/ you polite singular speak German?  That has to have a very different etymology.


----------



## berndf

merquiades said:


> Berndf can confirm this, but German (at least the type I studied) uses Sie (they and you singular polite are the same).  Spechen sie Deutsch?  Do they/ you polite singular speak German?  That has to have a very different etymology.


It is a relatively recent (late 18th century) "democratic" (i.e. class independent) replacement for earlier formals styles where "Ihr" was used for the nobility and also higher-than-yourself ranking commoners and the formal "er/sie" (he/she) was used for lower-than-yourself ranking commoners.


----------



## Ben Jamin

In Polish two parallel forms of polite address were used:
The third person singular used to address nobility and the king: ‘wasza miłość’ (your grace), and the second person plural used to address higher ranking persons in all social classes (burgers, peasants, clergy): ‘wy’ (you/vous/Ihr), or ‘wy, panie’ (you, my lord).
The first form was used from the XVI to beginning of the XIX century, the second probably from late middle ages until the second half of the XIX century. It has still been preserved in some traditional rural communities among dialect speakers until the second half of the XX century. The ‘wy’ form was also used as an address form among members of the Communist Party and state officials until 1989. It has also been used as a standard address form in the military forces, and as a rather condescending form of addressing subordinates at work, specially by bosses who were members of the CP.
In the middle of the XIX century the two forms (3rd person -‘wasza miłość’ and second plural – ‘wy panie') merged into a third form: third person singular ‘pan’. Initially the pronoun used in address in dependent cases (i.e. non nominative) was ‘on’ (he) or ‘ona’ (she), but later the word ‘pan’ got a double meaning: as an address form (lord/monsieur/herr) and as a “pronoun”. 
Examples:
Used in nominative: What are you doing? ‘Co Pan robi’
Used in other cases: 
I’d like to ask you, sir. ‘Chciałbym *go* zapytać.’ (XIX century) (Quisiera preguntar*le*,Usted)
                                 ‘Chciałbym Pana zapytać’ (XX century)
The vocative form was changed from second person singular ‘Panie' to a periphrastic form ‘proszę Pana’ (Je vous pris, Monsieur).


----------



## LilianaB

I still believe the Pan/Pani came from French Madame/Monsieur. Where else could it come from. Polish aristocracy was really fascinated with French at one point. They mostly spoke French instead of Polish. By the way, how do you say Chcialbym Pana zapytac in the 21st century. My Polish stopped in the 20th century.


----------



## Ben Jamin

LilianaB said:


> I still believe the Pan/Pani came from French Madame/Monsieur. Where else could it come from. Polish aristocracy was really fascinated with French at one point. They mostly spoke French instead of Polish.



So you discard my explanation? Have you got any sources for that? How can you, by the way, explain the phonetical transformation from 'monsieur' to 'pan'?



> By the way, how do you say Chcialbym Pana zapytac in the 21st century. My Polish stopped in the 20th century.


Mostly still the same as before, but 'Pan' is getting out of use, 'ty' is used more and more.


----------



## LilianaB

I think the terms were translated from French, or possibly from German. I am not a Slavist, and I did not do any investigation related to those terms. This is my impression. So, do you claim, Ben Jamin that the form Pan came from the way peasantry addressed the nobility: Jasnie Pan, jasnie Pani. Where did Pan and Pani come from?


----------



## Ben Jamin

LilianaB said:


> I think the terms were translated from French, or possibly from German. I am not a Slavist, and I did not do any investigation related to those terms. This is my impression.


Sorry, I am not convinced and disagree. You have only your 'feeling' as an argument.


----------



## berndf

LilianaB said:


> I still believe the Pan/Pani came from French Madame/Monsieur. Where else could it come from.


Well, Ben Jamin explained it quite in detail "where else it could come from". _Pan_ in the sense of _lord, master_ is attested as of the  14th century and exists in other West Slavic languages as well (Czech,  Slovak, Sorbian). There is no evidence of it being a French or German loan.


----------



## merquiades

Hello.
So in Polish for formal "you", you literally say "sir, madam" in third person?:
If "Madam" is going into town today, could "madam" drop me near "her" office?
Can I serve "sir" "his" cake?
Do "sir" and "madam" speak any French?
Like that?

If that's the case it's close to the Spanish formal "usted"> "vuestra merced" = your mercy/ grace conjugated in third person.
In French nothing similar to this exists.


----------



## LilianaB

Yes, this is exactly how educated people  speak Polish, and in the 20th century most people used this form, in fact.
I do not think_ his_ before the cake would be used any more, maybe in the 20s of the last century. Later it would be only _Can I serve Sir the cake_. For Madam and Sir there is a collective pronoun _Panstwo_.


----------



## Ben Jamin

merquiades said:


> Hello.
> So in Polish for formal "you", you literally say "sir, madam" in third person?:
> If "Madam" is going into town today, could "madam" drop me near "her" office?
> Can I serve "sir" "his" cake?
> Do "sir" and "madam" speak any French?
> Like that?
> 
> If that's the case it's close to the Spanish formal "usted"> "vuestra merced" = your mercy/ grace conjugated in third person.
> In French nothing similar to this exists.



Yes, you have interpreted it very exactly. The only langauges that use similar system that I know are: Spanish (Usted), Italian (Lei) and Portuguese (O Senhor). As far as I know Italian switched to 3rd person in the XIX century. I listen often to opera arias  and read librettos (for example those written by Lorenzo da Ponte) and there is only secons person (voi) address used. The Portuguese system is actually most similar.


----------



## Scholiast

Dear Sirs and Ladies

I must just complicate matters [but what fun this is]:

Anglo-Saxon distinguishes clearly between what in Shakespeare and the King James Bible stand as "Thou/thee" from "Ye/you". Modern standard English does not. But when we pray to God, he is "Thou".

How is it then that English has resorted in common parlance to the "polite" plural form of address ("you"), so evident in the languages to which others in the Forum have eloquently referred, while in more recent Spanish, French and German, maybe Italian too, one must resort to "tu"/"du" in the second singular to even quite unrelated people?


----------



## berndf

Ben Jamin said:


> Yes, you have interpreted it very exactly. The only langauges that use similar system that I know are: Spanish (Usted), Italian (Lei) and Portuguese (O Senhor). As far as I know Italian switched to 3rd person in the XIX century. I listen often to opera arias  and read librettos (for example those written by Lorenzo da Ponte) and there is only secons person (voi) address used. The Portuguese system is actually most similar.


As far as I know, Italian _Lei_ and _voi_ still stood side by side in the 19. century with _voi_ being more formal and used mainly to address members of the nobility and very high ranking commoners. _Lei_ became _the_ standard only under Mussolini.


----------



## berndf

Scholiast said:


> How is it then that English has resorted in common parlance to the "polite" plural form of address ("you"), so evident in the languages to which others in the Forum have eloquently referred, while in more recent Spanish, French and German, maybe Italian too, one must resort to "tu"/"du" in the second singular to even quite unrelated people?


I don't quite understand. Why and when "must" one resort to "tu"/"du"? In some contexts, "vous"/"Sie" sound rather over-polite and wouldn't be appropriate (e.g. in a football club) but I can't see a "must" anywhere.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Scholiast said:


> Dear Sirs and Ladies
> 
> I must just complicate matters [but what fun this is]:
> 
> Anglo-Saxon distinguishes clearly between what in Shakespeare and the King James Bible stand as "Thou/thee" from "Ye/you". Modern standard English does not. But when we pray to God, he is "Thou".
> 
> How is it then that English has resorted in common parlance to the "polite" plural form of address ("you"), so evident in the languages to which others in the Forum have eloquently referred, while in more recent Spanish, French and German, maybe Italian too, one must resort to "tu"/"du" in the second singular to even quite unrelated people?


You maybe mean that English has disposed with the possibility of differentiating the address forms into formal and informal (this has also happened in the South American hispanophone countries that employ 'voseo'.)


----------



## merquiades

Ben Jamin said:


> You maybe mean that English has disposed with the possibility of differentiating the address forms into formal and informal (this has also happened in the South American hispanophone countries that employ 'voseo'.)


Hi Ben Jamin. They do distinguish. It's just that "vos" has mixed with "tú" and is now informal, and contrasts with the "usted" formal.

An example:
You say to your friend that you are sick and you want him to give you an aspirin.
Vos le decís a vuestro amigo que estáis enfermo y que queréis que os dé (a vos) una aspirina.  Vos form, originally formal but no longer said anywhere
Tú le dices a tu amigo que estás enfermo y que quieres que te dé (a ti) una aspirina.   Tú form (informal)

Vos le decís a tu amigo que estás enfermo y que querés que te dé (a vos) una aspirina.  South American voseo (informal)
...contrasts with...
Usted le dice a tu amigo que está enfermo y que quiere que le dé (a usted) una aspirina.  Usted formal


----------



## koniecswiata

This seems to be a pretty pan-European cultural concept: formal vs. informal address.  It has nothing really relevant to do with language grouping--whether or not a language is a Romance or Slavic or language X type.  
The two paradigms seem to be use of 2nd person plural for formal address (in Russian, French, some Italian, and the source of English "you") or the 3rd person paradigm (in Italian, German, Polish, Spanish, Portuguese).  As can be seen it, in this cultural usage French clusters with Russian, and Spanish with Polish.  Nothing to do with the etymological groupings of these languages.


----------



## Ben Jamin

koniecswiata said:


> This seems to be a pretty pan-European cultural concept: formal vs. informal address.  It has nothing really relevant to do with language grouping--whether or not a language is a Romance or Slavic or language X type.
> The two paradigms seem to be use of 2nd person plural for formal address (in Russian, French, some Italian, and the source of English "you") or the 3rd person paradigm (in Italian, German, Polish, Spanish, Portuguese).  As can be seen it, in this cultural usage French clusters with Russian, and Spanish with Polish.  Nothing to do with the etymological groupings of these languages.



Well, among the languages you have mentioned German stands apart (together with Danish* and Norwegian*) using the 3rd person plural, not singular. Swedish* and Finnish* have also second person plural as the polite form.
*In these languages the polite form is getting out of use. In Norwegian and Swedish practically obsolete since late 1980-s.


----------



## Scholiast

Dear everyone



berndf said:


> I don't quite understand. Why and when "must" one resort to "tu"/"du"? In some contexts, "vous"/"Sie" sound rather over-polite and wouldn't be appropriate (e.g. in a football club) but I can't see a "must" anywhere.



This was in berndf's #22.

Probably I put my original question inaccurately and I must apologise therefor.

In modern French, Italian and most especially German, I detect a trend towards the use of the familiar or intimate "tu"/"Du" even in conversation or discourse with relative strangers, not least here in the WR Forums.

In English, however, things went the other way, already in the 16th-17th centuries, in that "Thou"/"Thee"/"Thy"/"Thine" were replaced in all common usage by "Ye"/"You"/"Your"/"Yours", that is, the "höfliche Form".

There must be a socio-linguistic explanation for this - and if there is, I'd love to know it.


----------



## merquiades

There is a trend in every language I know of to use the informal forms more often especially since the 1960's, some languages faster than others.  it is obvious to me that Spaniards use tú much faster and more oftenthan the French use tu, though the trend is the same.  I think it has to do with falling hierarchies, different work habits, new lifestyles and just a modern trend towards informality: first names basis, everything traditional considered archaic and undesirable etc. It also makes things simpler.
But writing in a forum is not quite the same as meeting someone in real life.  I think a lot of the people might address each other formally if they were to see each other in person.  I remember reading in some thread people saying they use informal forms here because they follow what others are doing.


----------



## LilianaB

I do not know if the change is connected to hierarchy change. Poland was a socialist or perhaps even a communist country according to some and the form Pan/Pani survived. I think what sounds great in some languages, like the informal or unified addressing of people in English, sounds terrible in Polish, for example. If you skip the Pan /Pani in Polish the language simply sounds rude. I do not think people should transfer customs accepted in one language to another before they have been fully accepted in that language.


----------



## berndf

Scholiast said:


> In modern French, Italian and most especially German, I detect a trend towards the use of the familiar or intimate "tu"/"Du" even in conversation or discourse with relative strangers, not least here in the WR Forums.
> 
> In English, however, things went the other way, already in the 16th-17th centuries, in that "Thou"/"Thee"/"Thy"/"Thine" were replaced in all common usage by "Ye"/"You"/"Your"/"Yours", that is, the "höfliche Form".
> 
> There must be a socio-linguistic explanation for this - and if there is, I'd love to know it.


I agree with Merquiades. The development started in the 1960s. The people how took to the streets in 1968 in Paris, Berlin and elsewhere are in their 60s and 70s now. Those people never accepted_ vous/Sie_. People with an academic background naturally tend towards _tu/du_. In the world of business, American influence where people working together practically always use first names has reinforced this tendency.


----------



## Ben Jamin

berndf said:


> I agree with Merquiades. The development started in the 1960s. The people how took to the streets in 1968 in Paris, Berlin and elsewhere are in their 60s and 70s now. Those people never accepted_ vous/Sie_. People with an academic background naturally tend towards _tu/du_. In the world of business, American influence where people working together practically always use first names has reinforced this tendency.



The dropping of titles (duzen, tutoyer, etc) does not go so deep as many people like to think. It is only ... a form, it does not change fundamentally the relations between people, contrary to belief of many. In ancient Rome a slave adressed the emperor with 'tu' (Ave Caesar Imperator, morituri *te* salutant), but the social gap was larger than between people in later generations addressing each other per 'voi' or 'Lei'. What is symptomatic, people switching langauges speaking with each other often change also the forms of address. I remember speaking with a French person in Norwegian and using the standard egalitarian 'du'. When we switched to French, we used 'vous'. Both was natural for us, the 'vous' form corresponding better to our degree of intimacy than to direct translation between languages. The fact that everybody says 'du' to each other means rather that the Norwegian 'du' covers both 'tu' and 'vous'. and not that everybody are buddies. I am actually not a buddy with my bosses, even if we use the "informal" 'du' to each other.


----------



## koniecswiata

This socio-cultural trend towards informality may only be a trend in how it is reflected in language.  The hierarchies might express themselves in other non-language ways--or maybe language ways too.  In American English, saying "you" might even be a bit formal as opposed to saying "hey dude".  Maybe the you then corresponds to Ud., vous, Sie, lei, pan/i and things like "hey dude" correspond to a VERY informal tú, tu, ty, du.  Just a bit of a paradigm shift.


----------



## berndf

Ben Jamin said:


> The dropping of titles (duzen, tutoyer, etc) does not go so deep as many people like to think. It is only ... a form, it does not change fundamentally the relations between people, contrary to belief of many. In ancient Rome a slave adressed the emperor with 'tu' (Ave Caesar Imperator, morituri *te* salutant), but the social gap was larger than between people in later generations addressing each other per 'voi' or 'Lei'. What is symptomatic, people switching langauges speaking with each other often change also the forms of address. I remember speaking with a French person in Norwegian and using the standard egalitarian 'du'. When we switched to French, we used 'vous'. Both was natural for us, the 'vous' form corresponding better to our degree of intimacy than to direct translation between languages. The fact that everybody says 'du' to each other means rather that the Norwegian 'du' covers both 'tu' and 'vous'. and not that everybody are buddies. I am actually not a buddy with my bosses, even if we use the "informal" 'du' to each other.


In this case we are talking about a short term developments within a language where shift of style definitely is a political and cultural statement. Of course, this may eventually lead to different meanings of forms. In a way, this is already happening. In many contexts where "Sie" formerly expressed respect it now expresses distance to a point where it sounds hostile. This was always so in German: if you start calling a friend "Sie" it means you terminate the friendship which is a hostile act. What is new is that there are more and more context where this connotation is invoked.


----------



## Ben Jamin

berndf said:


> In this case we are talking about a short term developments within a language where shift of style definitely is a political and cultural statement. Of course, this may eventually lead to different meanings of forms. In a way, this is already happening. In many contexts where "Sie" formerly expressed respect it now expresses distance to a point where it sounds hostile. This was always so in German: if you start calling a friend "Sie" it means you terminate the friendship which is a hostile act. What is new is that there are more and more context where this connotation is invoked.


Could you give some examples?

_"if you start calling a friend "Sie" it means you terminate the friendship which is a hostile act." 
_Wasn't it alway so in all languages that have the T-V distinction?


----------



## WestFevalia

berndf said:


> I agree with Merquiades. The development started in the 1960s. The people how took to the streets in 1968 in Paris, Berlin and elsewhere are in their 60s and 70s now. Those people never accepted_ vous/Sie_. People with an academic background naturally tend towards _tu/du_. In the world of business, American influence where people working together practically always use first names has reinforced this tendency.



If I remember rightly, _Lei _(3rd person of singular) appeared in Italian after the Spanish conquest (Spanish language uses the 3rd person). Before that, Italian used _voi_.

As for the plural of majesty, the oldest occurrence I found was in Sophocles' _Electra_, where Electra uses _we _while talking about herself.


----------



## Hulalessar

merquiades said:


> In French nothing similar to this exists.



Apart of course from "Votre Majesté", "Votre Altessee", "Votre Honneur" and the like - the first two requiring where appropriate the use of "elle" even when addressing males and the last "il" even when addressing females.


----------

