# Classical Latin Formal/Informal Second Person Singular/Plura



## Sicilianu

Hello,

      To give you a little background, I am an American with an interest in language. I have a minor in Italian from college, and I have a great fascination with romance languages. Over my school break, I plan on creating a bit of a comparison between various romance languages. I decided to start first with the verb to be. I am curious if Classical Latin (one of the languages on my list to describe and compare) has a second person formal/informal, Singular/Plural. Could someone enlighten me on the subject?

Thanks for your time.


----------



## Scholiast

salve Sicilianu!

You have come to the right place (or one of the right places), but I am by no means the only, and I would think not the best, authority, to answer your question fully. This might make a theme for another forum ("Etymology....").

_Classical_ Latin, the Latin of Caesar and Cicero, does not recognise a distinct "polite" plural form, in the same way that French _vous_ or Italian _voi_ or _lei_ are distinguished these days from _tu_/_te_/_ti_. (Incidentally, German also has a "Höflichkeitsform", i.e. "polite" plural, and it has always puzzled me, both in English and in German, that the intimate, rather than the "polite", form is used in addressing God - "Our Father, who _art_ in heaven, hallowed be _thy_ name, _thy_ kingdom come...&c.).

My understanding is, however, that 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 ........"

There are bound to be exacter explanations of the origins in Romance tongues, but this was your "Starter for Ten".


----------



## terredepomme

> it has always puzzled me, both in English and in German, that the intimate, rather than the "polite", form is used in addressing God - "Our Father, who _art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come...&c.)._


Most Romance languages use "tu" as well.


----------



## Calabrone_

you have a look here,it is on italian,it could be a beginning on classical latin plurals,maiestatis sociativus and so on.
http://www.atuttascuola.it/alissa/latino/la_persona_verbale.htm

ps: Nuatri (sic.) it is another of "these plurals".


----------



## Scholiast

Thank you, Calabrone, for this link (#4).

Thanks to my Latin, I can read academic Italian too.

But I have still some problems with this. Miss Peron writes, for example:

Esempio Cic. Catil. 3 8  10: Cicerone arringando la folla dice più volte nos consules o nobis consulibus,  intende far risaltare la propria auctoritas e il proprio ruolo istituzionale che  lo separano dalla massa, dunque è un pluralis maiestatis

No: Cicero was at pains here to try to generalise the (alleged) threat to the state._ nos consules _(_nobis consulibus_): his wish, above all, to get the rest of the Senate on side.

"We" therefore (_nos_, _nobis_) is a rhetorical _captatio_, designed for Cicero's addressees in the senatorial court.

And the uses of first-plural verbs in poetry, why, that is a completely new question.


----------



## Sicilianu

What about other Latin pronouns? I know ego and tu, but what about the other persons, singular and plural?


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings once more.



> What about other Latin pronouns? I know ego and tu, but what about the other persons, singular and plural?



I'm not quite sure what you are asking here. If you mean "Is the 'royal' plural used when referring to the emperor/ruler in the third person?", the answer is 'no'.

In any case, because the persons of verbs in Latin are indicated by their conjugated forms (with startlingly little ambiguity, though the present active infinitive in most verbs is identical with the 2nd. pers. sing. passive imperative), the pronouns are only used (in the nominative) for emphasis ("_ille_ dicit xyz; sed _ego_ opinor pqr", "_He_ says... but in _my_ opinion...".

In poetry singulars and plurals are often interchangeable, _metri gratia_, and in some elevated prose too, rather as one might write in English "The Roman soldier was usually armed with two spears, a sword and a dagger".


----------



## Outsider

Sicilianu said:


> To give you a little background, I am an American with an interest in language. I have a minor in Italian from college, and I have a great fascination with romance languages. Over my school break, I plan on creating a bit of a comparison between various romance languages. I decided to start first with the verb to be. I am curious if Classical Latin (one of the languages on my list to describe and compare) has a second person formal/informal, Singular/Plural. Could someone enlighten me on the subject?


Basically, classical Latin did not make such a distinction. But at some point (I don't know when) emperors started to speak of themselves in the plural (_nos_, royal "we"), and to be addressed in the plural (_vos_). This custom then seems to have spread to all the nobility, and eventually to everyboday else. But by then it was the Middle Ages.


----------

