# FR: "tu" en s'adressant à plusieurs personnes



## calembourde

Hello,

As you all know, 'vous' is the plural of 'tu' but it is also used for a single person as a sign of respect. Ever since I found out about this distinction, I wondered if you could get even more familiar than 'tu', and _tutoyer_ a group of people, as a sign of really great familiarity (or great disrespect ). I never really thought it would be likely, but recently I heard a DJ at a festival say 'tu' several times. As far as I know there was no single person in the audience or on stage that he was talking to, he seemed to be addressing everyone. But at other times he used 'vous'.

So... is it possible, in an extremely informal situation, to say 'tu' to a group of people?


----------



## tilt

No, it wouldnt' make sense saying tu to a group.
I think the DJ you mentioned said _tu _to make each one in the audience feeling as if the message was especially said for themselves.


----------



## DearPrudence

I would say like Titl.
But let's note that the comedian Frank Dubosc keeps on using the expression "pour toi, public" , but it has a comical effect, precisely because at first, it's quite "shocking", I mean, we've (at least I) never heard that before.

Anyway, even with friends, I would never say "tu" to address several of them  (& I wonder if you could physically do it, that would sound far too strange!) I think they would all be puzzled & think: "But who is she talking to?!!" (she should stop drinking too much tea, not good for her mental health!!  )


----------



## calembourde

Merci à toi deux.  Now I think about it, I think that Les Fatals Picards do the same thing in their song 'Public', though I'm not sure because I haven't listened to it enough times to decipher all the lyrics.

I think I'll go have some tea.


----------



## Nanon

DearPrudence said:


> But let's note that the comedian Frank Dubosc keeps on using the expression "pour toi, public" , but it has a comical effect, precisely because at first, it's quite "shocking", I mean, we've (at least I) never heard that before.



It reminds me of Pierre Desproges saying "mon public chéri, mon amour" and then blowing a kiss to the audience...
Some more tea?


----------



## ChiMike

Cet usage de "tu" pour un groupe bien défini ne date pas de hier, ni en français ni en anglais (sauf qu'en anglais les formes du singulier ont disparu de la langue -- sauf, parmi certains, pour parler à Dieu -- et avec elles, la possibilité de souligner par l'emploi des pronoms qu'on parle du groupe entier et non pas des individus):

L'Exode 33:5:
For the LORD had said unto Moses, Say unto the children of Israel, Ye are a stiffnecked people: I will come up into the midst of thee in a moment, and consume thee: therefore now put off thy ornaments from thee, that I may know what to do unto thee.  (KJV, 1611)

Alors Yahvé dit à Moïse : « Dis aux Israélites : Vous êtes un peuple à la nuque raide, si je montais au milieu de toi, ne fût-ce qu'un moment, je t'exterminerais. Et maintenant, dépouille-toi de tes parures, que je sache comment te traiter. » (Bible de Jérusalem)
 
Mais aussi:
Car l'Eternel avait dit à Moïse : dis aux enfants d'Israël : vous êtes un peuple de col roide; je monterai en un moment au milieu de toi, et je te consumerai. Maintenant donc ôte tes ornements de dessus toi, et je saurai ce que je te ferai. (Traduction Martin, 1744)


----------



## itka

ChiMike said:


> et avec elles, la possibilité de souligner par l'emploi des pronoms qu'on parle du groupe entier et non pas des individus)



En français, je ne crois pas qu'on puisse dire que cela se voit par l'emploi des pronoms... C'est plutôt l'usage d'un nom collectif qui produit cet effet, les pronoms ne font que reprendre cette indication : les mots _public_, _peuple_, _France, Jeunesse, _par exemple, étant des mots singuliers, tout naturellement, le pronom qui les remplace est au singulier aussi.

"Ils n'en finissent pas *tes* artistes prophètes
De dire qu'il est temps que le malheur succombe
Ma* France*"
_Ma France (Jean Ferrat)

_*Jeunesse*, ne te sens-*tu* pas capable de penser par toi-même ? Tout d’abord, *tu* devrais te cultiver un peu plus en *t*’intéressant à des faits historiques. *...
*_Lettres ouvertes à la jeunesse de mon pays_
Dès qu'on emploie un nom pluriel, le pronom est aussi au pluriel _:
"mes amis", "mes Frères", etc...

_Le tutoiement d'un groupe de personnes est toujours très solennel (mais, par dérision, cet emploi peut parfois être comique) et il s'agit toujours d'un groupe très important de personnes.


----------



## calembourde

Wow  I guess God can say whatever He wants. Thanks for the information.


----------



## HistofEng

ChiMike said:


> et avec elles, la possibilité de souligner par l'emploi des pronoms qu'on parle du groupe entier et non pas des individus):


 
Pas complètement, je dirais. Si on se trouve dans une situation informelle, je crois que l'on peut bien dire "you guys" pour souligner qu'on est en train de parler au groupe et pas une personne. Je crois aussi qu'il y à beaucoup beaucoup de gens qui font cette distinction tout le temps dans leurs vies quotidiennes (moi y compris). Je pense à la situation d'un membre d'une famille qui essaye d'expédier les autres membres de sa famille, en laissant la maison. On dirait "You guys are ready, right?" et probablement jamais "you're ready, right?"

Qu'en pensent les 'natives'?

(corrigez mon français)


----------



## calembourde

I don't know whether 'you guys' counts as a pronoun. However, some dialects have 'youse' for the plural (even though 'you' used to be the plural anyway.) Others have 'y'all' though I'm not sure whether that counts as one word or two.


----------



## tilt

I would like to agree with Itka, about the solemnity implied by saying _tu _to a group, and thus exactly the contrary of what Calembourde asked originally (_is it possible, in an extremely informal situation, to say 'tu' to a group of people?_) None of the examples given in this thread match with the will of being over familiar with the individuals inside this group, even with Dubosc's one. Beyond the possible comic effect, these _tu_'s are making people forgetting their individuality and feeling like a part of a whole.The speech is not aimed to each person, but to the group itself. I'd say it sets a distance rather than a proximity.


----------



## ChiMike

calembourde said:


> I don't know whether 'you guys' counts as a pronoun. However, some dialects have 'youse' for the plural (even though 'you' used to be the plural anyway.) Others have 'y'all' though I'm not sure whether that counts as one word or two.


 
You are quite correct that both "you guys" (even when women are part of the group), y'all, all of you, and, although it is still considered substandard by many, "you'se" (youz) are all commonly used when speaking to a group, and "all of you" and "you all" (y'all) are used even for large groups, like the audience at the Grand Ole Opry in Nashville.

I think it is also quite common (in my version of English much more common, but that is a limited version ) to say:
"Is everybody ready?" "Is everyone ready?"
and the jazz band leader Ted Lewis (http://www.redhotjazz.com/tedlewis.html)
always said to the audience from the stage: "Is Everybody Happy?" and some people still say it.

But, of course, after identifying the group, no one then goes on to use these expressions each time they want to say: "you" or "your". And, unlike the translators of the King James Version of the Bible (or Shakespeare), after having identified the group, no one would think of using "thou" "thee" "thy, thine". They are dead. Most people don't even know which form is the subject pronoun and which the object pronoun, let alone the 2nd person singular verb forms that go with them.

The difference can be seen clearly in this version of Exodus 33:5 from the Revised American Standard Version of the Bible:

For the LORD had said to Moses, "Say to the sons of Israel, `You are an obstinate people; should I go up in your midst for one moment, I would destroy you. Now therefore, put off your ornaments from you, that I may know what I shall do with you.' "

This is what I meant when I wrote that it is no longer possible to emphasize through the pronouns that it is the entire group, as a group and not as the individual members, that is being addressed. In this particular passage, the idea of the shared responsibility of the entire people for the fate of all members is blurred. "I would destroy you" is not so clearly: "all of you" (the entire people: thee; toi). 

I do think that in informal speech, a parent, teacher, or police officer on the street addressing a group would say, at the end: "I don't know what I'm going to do with the lot of you (US: the whole bunch of you)(or: all of you), to indicate that, if there is going to be punishment, it is going to be collective punishment for "mob" action ("you're all in this together!""we're all in the same boat"). And having come to a decision, he would probably say: "I'm going to lock you *all* up! So prepare yourselves!" (a pronoun where the distinction between singular and plural can still be made: and the singular would not be chosen in this case. )


----------



## Musical Chairs

Why is it that in signs or directions, sometimes they use the "tu" form and not the "vous" form?

For example, in the Paris metros it says "ne mets pas tes mains" between the doors or something.


----------



## Subtitling girl

About the Paris metro thing, that's meant for young children, not as a group but individually.


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

Musical Chairs said:


> Why is it that in signs or directions, sometimes they use the "tu" form and not the "vous" form?
> 
> For example, in the Paris metros it says "ne mets pas tes mains" between the doors or something.


The little rabbit is teaching children how to behave to avoid to have their hands pintch by the automatic doors. « Tu » is used for talking to children in that case. 

 Edit: t'avais pas vue Subtitling girl, mais on est d'accord.


----------



## crossreference

Inexplicably, for some English speakers in the South, "y'all" (you all) is used when referring to an individual, e.g., 
"Did y'all get the letter I sent?"
I don't know that this has an equivalent in translation?


----------



## Maître Capello

Having lived in Pittsburgh PA I can tell you people there say “yinz”, e.g., “See yinz later.” But I'm pretty sure this is for a group, not an individual.


----------



## Chike

"y'all" is *always* plural.  The sentence you quote, crossreference, would not make sense if it was about a person who lives alone (although if the receiver of the letter does not live alone, then even if the letter was meant only for that person, it wouldn't be weird - the household received the letter).


----------



## Bléros

I think in the Bible, they're using 'thee', because 'a people' is singular. This occurs in Latin too, because 'populus' is singular, and the corresponding second person pronoun would be 'tū'.


----------



## crossreference

Chike -
Y'all is not always plural and is used in the rural South, often when speaking to an individual. E.g., "Where did y'all get that shirt... Wallmart?"
I realize this is dialect, and somewhat counter-intuitive to outsiders, but trust me, is alive and well here in Kentucky !


----------



## Maître Capello

crossreference said:


> Chike -
> Y'all is not always plural and is used in the rural South, often when speaking to an individual. E.g., "Where did y'all get that shirt... Wallmart?"
> I realize this is dialect, and somewhat counter-intuitive to outsiders, but trust me, is alive and well here in Kentucky !


Sure… But it being used doesn't mean it's correct, does it?


----------



## timpeac

Maître Capello said:


> Sure… But it being used doesn't mean it's correct, does it?


Depends what you mean by "correct". Apparently it's correct if you wish to sound as much like a native from Kentucky as possible.


----------



## calembourde

crossreference said:


> Chike -
> Y'all is not always plural and is used in the rural South, often when speaking to an individual. E.g., "Where did y'all get that shirt... Wallmart?"
> I realize this is dialect, and somewhat counter-intuitive to outsiders, but trust me, is alive and well here in Kentucky !


If you're from there, then I won't take any dictionary as having more authority about how it is used. But Maître Capello's comment about it not being correct made me check in a dictionary to find out whether it considered "y'all" to ever be strictly correct, and I noticed this:



> Southerners do not, as is sometimes believed, use _you-all_ or _y'all_ for both singular and plural _you._ A single person may only be addressed as _you-all_ if the speaker implies in the reference other persons not present: _Did you-all _[you and others]_ have dinner yet?_


----------



## Maître Capello

On the other hand Merriam-Webster's dictionary reads:


> _chiefly Southern_ *: YOU* -- *usually* used in addressing two or more persons
> (red emphasis mine)


----------



## Chike

The explanation calembourde found expresses my own intuitions and I feel confident I'm right *at least* about "y'all" as it is used in AAE (African American English) but if crossreference or anyone else here finds *themselves* often using it contrary to this rule without other people ever looking at them weird, then I guess perhaps it could be different for white Southern dialects....


----------



## crossreference

Maître C.,
If "correct" was a criteria for expression here, they'd probably have to shut down the whole state.
(J'exagère.)
Malgré les incorrections incessantes plus ou moins partout, on arrive quand même à se comprendre... pour la plupart. Pour les "étrangers", c'est sans doute un cauchemar !


----------

