# ego et tu - tu et ego



## Sprocedato

Hello everybody

I'de like to hear some opinions about the preferred order in classical Latin for the pronouns of first and second person, not necessarily in the nominative: _ego et tu_ vs _tu et ego_ and so on.

My concern started during the discussion "io e te" o "tu ed io" in the Italian forum.

In Italian there is little accord, but the first person is found slightly more often in first position. In Spanish and French it's most often in second position. It is thought, and even tought, that _ego_ in first position is a mark of selfishness.

I wonder if the habit of _ego _in first position is a heritage of Latin, that only in modern times has been questioned. After all, Greek and Latin grammarians established the order _ego_, _tu_, _is_ for the three persons of speech. But that's rather an arbitrary choice: Indian grammarians chose the opposite.

After a quick investigation I have found that _ego et tu_ is by far the preferred order in classical Latin, from Plautus (II BC) to the Vulgata (V AD). But maybe my choice of texts was unfortunate.


----------



## Cagey

Yes, in classical Latin, the convention is to begin with the first person (ego/nos). 

This is the opposite from the traditional convention in English, which puts "I" last: "you and I"; "you, she, and I".  (This convention is not so strictly followed these days.)


----------



## stregatta

Bravo Sprocedato,
maybe you have found the solution!
This is very exciting, like taking part in some kind of language investigation


----------



## Outsider

Was there an actual convention of putting _ego_ before _tu_ in classical Latin, or did people simply not care which came first?


----------



## Cagey

Outsider said:


> Was there an actual convention of putting _ego_ before _tu_ in classical Latin, or did people simply not care which came first?



There was an actual convention, which gives these statements a very strange tone at first from the point of view of those of us who follow the English convention.


----------



## Sprocedato

Thank you for your answers Cagey. Why a _convention _and not simply a _habit_? I'd call a convention the situation in English, whose speakers do care for the order and agree on one choice. But did Latins really care? How can we know?


----------



## Cagey

Sprocedato said:


> Thank you for your answers Cagey. Why a _convention _and not simply a _habit_? I'd call a convention the situation in English, whose speakers do care for the order and agree on one choice. But did Latins really care? How can we know?



We do not have writing that systematically lays out the grammar of Latin, and, as far as I know, we don't have anyone's comment on this particular subject.  We derive our ideas of Latin grammar from the practices of the authors we have.  The pattern of placing _ego_ first has been observed in the writings of authors like Cicero, who was considered then and now a master of Latin style, and in plays, which are intended to represent the spoken language.  

It should be remembered that Latin did not use pronouns as often as we do.  In most cases the person would be indicated by the verb form.  If they used the pronoun _ego_, it would either be for emphasis, or to make the persons explicit, as in a list.  This is likely to influence have influenced how _ego_ sounded to people when they heard it, along with other cultural differences.  In English, deferring _I_ to the end is supposed to be a sign of modesty, as I think someone has mentioned in this thread or in the Italian thread you linked to.


----------

