Why hasn't "tú" disappeared in Romance languages like "thou" did in English?

Well, I'm concerned with usage and not etymology. To me, vos vs. usted is still a T-V distinction. Of note, it's called a T-V distinction regardless of whether the V-form is etymologically a second-person plural as in English and French, a third-person pronoun as in Italian and German, or a separate construction as in Spanish and Portuguese.

...In contrast, the T-V distinction is exclusive to pronouns, and is not eroding due to any sound shift. There has to be some separate sociological explanation for why English got rid of the T-form.

-Fair enough, the only usage I've seen of the terminology in literature (not that much) deals explicitly with the PIE roots of those pronouns more than actual use.

-If we're going the sociological route for an explanation, which is certainly possible, I'd wonder if the Renaissance left any sort of mark there. I'm not sure how it would in any explicit way, but it seems to sync up with the 16th. Century slide away from "thou-ing" in living speech, more as an inference than anything.
 
Compared to German and the Scandinavian languages, you're right. However, nobody seems to have mentioned that neither Dutch nor Afrikaans make any real T-V distinction either, possibly due to a longer and enduring French influence compared to many other languages as well, but I'm not certain either way. The point is, it's not just a uniquely English feature, just a noticeable one.

I suggest you use "Jij" where one should use "U", don't be surprised to get frustrated with us, we WILL make your faux pas known and make you feel hurt, even if we don't outwardly attack you.

There's a big difference between "Tutoyeren" and "Vousvoyeren", and even if linguisticly it may not be a 'real T-V distinction', socially that is another matter entirely. Afrikaans may be different matter I grant you that, but, please remember, in Afrikaans an absolute shit ton of grammar has been thron overboard:

Ek loop
Hy loop
Wy loop

vs.

Ik loop
Hij loopt
Wij lopen



ftp://ftp.puk.ac.za/outgoing/Library/2014-08-28/Praktiese Grammatika van die Afrikaanse Taal.pdf

grammar of Afrikaans, page 95:

it still talks of "Jy" and "U", herein "Jy" is still on the books, with "Jy" being the one to use when one knows eachother well, and "U" once again, just as in Dutch being the polite form.

singular:
Ek werk; het gewerk; sal werk
Jy/U werk; het gewerk; sal werk
Hy/Sy/Dit werk; het gewerk; sal werk

plural:
Ons werk, het gewerk, sal werk
Julle werk; het gewerk; sal werk
Hulle werk; het gewerk; sal werk


versus

Ik werk, heb gewekt, zal werken
Jij/U werkt, heb gewerkt, zal/zult werken
Hij/Zij/Het werkt, heeft gewerkt, zal werken

Wij werken, hebben gewerkt, zullen werken
Jullie werken, hebben gewerkt, zullen werken
Zij werken, hebben gewerkt, zullen werken
 
Last edited:
Tu is also used in Romanian as second person singular pronoun, with voi as plural. But formally 'voi' and his forms are used only when addressing high nobility, so it's not used as such outside sarcasm. The formal way to address a person is dumneavoastra, an distortion of Domnia Voastra (Your Lordship). Kind of like going from 'My Lord' to 'Milord'.
Thing is, most languages use a different form of address for formal and informal, and the dropping of the informal 'thou' from the english is stranger than not doing it.
I worked with some sticks-in-the-mud who felt somewhat slighted about this when talking in english, but since I already thought they had a much too inflated sense of their own importance ;), that doesn't say that much.
 
1) I suggest you use "Jij" where one should use "U", don't be surprised to get frustrated with us, we WILL make your faux pas known and make you feel hurt, even if we don't outwardly attack you.

2) There's a big difference between "Tutoyeren" and "Vousvoyeren", and even if linguisticly it may not be a 'real T-V distinction', socially that is another matter entirely. Afrikaans may be different matter I grant you that, but, please remember, in Afrikaans an absolute shit ton of grammar has been thron overboard:

[SNIP]

1) Never had a chance to even get that far myself, the Dutch I met are pretty obstinate about practicing their English while I'm trying to practice Dutch :p. Then again, it wouldn't be the first time I've made that error (e.g. asking a Spanish speaker I never met before to not "tutear" me, purely out of lack of familiarity with tu conjugations since I just don't use the pronoun normally by default).

2) Well, again I was speaking primarily from an etymological standpoint and not really a social one. As for Afrikaans, that was sort of my point, that it's a not-moribund language more grammatically streamlined than English, thus the argument that English is alone in lacking a "T" pronoun could be argued from a certain standpoint, even if only technically and not practically.
 
One of my favorite podcasts is the History of English; I highly recommend it. The narrator suggests that a large part of the cause of the dropping kf thou inEnglish was the growth of London as the the city of England, with many strangers mingling of various classes, and people using the more respectful 'you' mkre often until it simply became common prectice.

I'm not sure if I necessarily agree with that, it sounds too cute to be accurate. To me, it seems simply to be in line with the overall simplification of the language overall after the Norse and Norman influences on English: the dropping of grammatical gender is a huge departure from Indo-European norms. Even where it remains (promouns), it is still vastly simplified from Anglo-Saxon English.
 
the dropping of grammatical gender is a huge departure from Indo-European norms.

It was dropped in Persian as well, however, and I think some modern Indian languages too. Many languages have reduced it to an essentially animate/inanimate distinction (which also may exist alongside gender distinction, like it is the case in Russian).
 
Interestingly early Indo-European probably had an animate/inanimate distinction instead of a three gender distinction.
 
It was dropped in Persian as well, however, and I think some modern Indian languages too. Many languages have reduced it to an essentially animate/inanimate distinction (which also may exist alongside gender distinction, like it is the case in Russian).

Which modern Indo-European languages have an animate/inanimate distinction? Of note, Dutch and the mainland North Germanic languages have a common vs. neuter distinction, with all nouns referring to people using the common gender, but inanimate nouns are split between common and neuter, and foreign learners must memorize the gender of each noun, just as in languages with a masculine vs. feminine distinction.
 
Which modern Indo-European languages have an animate/inanimate distinction? Of note, Dutch and the mainland North Germanic languages have a common vs. neuter distinction, with all nouns referring to people using the common gender, but inanimate nouns are split between common and neuter, and foreign learners must memorize the gender of each noun, just as in languages with a masculine vs. feminine distinction.

I was interpreting the "common/neuter" distinction as readable as "animate/inanimate" although you are right that it is more complicated than that. However, Bengali seems to work along animate/inanimate lines, although the modern Indic gender systems are not very clear to me (Hindi/Urdu has a binary M/F system, that much I get).
 
Top