Did English ever have a formal version of “you”?

Question

From the top of my head, Danish "de" (practically never used), German "Sie", Chinese "您", French "vous", Spanish "usted" are a formal way of addressing someone, especially if one isn't familiar with the addressee. Did English ever have this? It sounds as though Proto-Indo-European might have had this (based on my 4 examples), but perhaps someone can enlighten me?

Answer 1

Yes it did, and the formal version was (drumroll, please....) you.

In Early Modern English, thou was the singular and you was the plural. Plural you came to be used as a polite form of address (similar to the French vous, which is also used for the plural), but over time this polite form became more and more common, eventually displacing the singular thou altogether.

This explains a peculiarity of traditional Quaker speech, which one often hears in films set in the early Americas. The Quakers opposed making any distinctions of rank, so they insisted on addressing everyone as thou, not as you. The irony is that today we perceive thou to be archaic and formal, while the original intent is to be more informal.

Update: we don't know if there was any politeness distinction in PIE. In any case, the distinctions that exist in the modern European languages are not inherited from PIE, since the oldest recorded IE languages (Latin, Greek, Sanskrit) did not have separate polite pronouns. The current European system apparently began with the late Roman Emperors and became widespread in the Middle Ages.

Non-IE languages often have more than two levels of distinctness. In Thai and Japanese (the only two languages about which I can speak with confidence), there are a variety of different pronouns that can be used depending on the exact nature of the social relations between the interlocutors, and the system often extends not just to the 2nd person pronoun but to the 1st and 3rd person pronouns as well.

Answer 2

Yes. As far as I know, you actually is the formal, originally plural version (ye/you/your) and thou was the informal version (thou/thee/thy/thine). Over time, thou became impolitely informal and is now no longer used, though interestingly enough nowadays it might even be perceived as more formal than you because it's archaic and survives almost exclusively in liturgical language.

Answer 3

It seems Middle English developed the distinction between formal (you) and informal (thou) versions: this distinction did not exist in Old English. The formal pronoun you was originally a plural form of thou; it can be seen in many languages that a plural form is seen as more polite, which is probably related to the Majestic Plural ("we, King blah blah, grant..."). German Sie comes from plural 3rd person sie; French vous comes from plural Latin 2nd person vos/vester.

Therefore current formal pronouns seem to be relatively modern, convergent developments. I have never heard of formal pronouns in PIE. In classical Latin and Greek, no real formal pronouns were in use either; in Japanese, on the other hand, there are said to be more complex forms of formal pronouns and other words.

Answer 4

Actually, somewhat contrary to the fine answer selected above, you was not originally the form that paired with the familiar singular thee. Rather, the nominative (and vocative) form was ye. The now-common you was originally used in objective forms alone, so accusative or dative.

For example, Wordsworth draws the nominative–dative distinction when he writes in Lyrical Ballads vii: “Yet ye are seven! — I pray you tell, Sweet Maid, how this may be.” A vocative example by Shakespeare can be found in Richard II III. ii. 84: “Looke not to the ground, Ye fauorites of a King.”

The OED explains of ‘ye’ how:

In the earliest periods of English ye was restricted to the nominative plural. In the 13th cent. it came to be used as a nominative singular = ‘thou’, first as a respectful form addressed to a superior. This use survives in modern dialects, especially (in the form ee) in interrog. and imperative formulæ (e.g. Dee = ‘do ye’), but also in objective uses = ‘thee’ (e.g. Oi tell ee). When you had usurped the place of ye as a nominative, ye came to be used (in the 15th cent.), vice versa, as an objective singular and plural (= ‘thee’ and ‘you’).

Now (in all uses) only dial., arch., or poet.; in ordinary use replaced by you pron.

Illustration of Forms:

a. OE ge, gie, gee, ME ȝie, (gie, ge), ME ( ME–17 Sc. printed ze) ȝe, ME ȝee, north. yhe, ME–15 north. ȝhe, ME–16 yee (ME jȝe, hye, ME iȝe, iye, (i)he, 16, 18 dial. yea), ME– ye.

b. In combination, proclitically or enclitically, with other words, as: †ȝet = ye it, yare = ye are, y’have; d’ee, dee = do ye, hark’ee, harkee. Now dial.

1 a. The pronoun used (as the plural of 2nd singular thou pron.) in addressing a number of persons (or, rhetorically, of things), in the nominative (or vocative).

†2 b. In apposition to self (ye self, ye selven = yourselves): see self pron. 2. Obs.

1 c. In apposition to and preceding a n. (or adj. used absol.) in the vocative.

2 a. Used instead of thou in addressing a single person (originally as a mark of respect or deference, later generally: cf. thou n., you pron.).

2 b. In apposition to and preceding a n. in the vocative.

3 a. Used as objective (accusative or dative) instead of you (in plural or singular sense).

†3 b. Used redundantly (‘ethical dative’). Obs.

In contrast, here’s its note about you:

Originally the accusative and dative plural of the second personal pronoun: see thou n. for the declension of the 2nd person pronoun in Old English and Middle English. Between 1300 and 1400 it began to be used also for the nominative ye pron which it had replaced in general use by about 1600. During the 14th century it also appears as a substitute for the singular obj. thee n. and nominative thou n., being originally used in token of respect in addressing a superior, but later also to an equal, and ultimately generally: compare thou pron. 1. Thus you is now the general pronoun of the second person, nominative or objective, singular or plural.

The historical forms given for you are:

Forms: OE–ME eow, (OE ieow, iow ME ȝeau, heou, heow, how, ȝehw) ME eou, ȝeu, ȝew, ME ou, hou, ȝu, ME iou, æu, ew, heu, eo, oeu, howe, ȝeow, ȝuw, ov, ME ow, owe, ȝiu, ME eu, yu, (15 Sc.) ȝou, ME iow, ȝue, ȝuu, ȝouȝ, yuu, youu, yhow, ME ȝowe, ȝhow, ȝo, (15–16 Sc.) ȝow, ME–16 yow, ME ȝoue, ȝewe, ȝhu, yowe, yoow, yw, yo, yewe, Sc. yhu, yhw, ME–15 youe, 15 iow, 16 yew, ME– you, (18 dial. and vulgar yah, yer, also yez pron.).

Whereas the historical forms given for thou are:

OE–ME ðu, OE–ME þu, (ME tu, tou, -te), ME (þe, þeou), ðhu, ME þou, ME–15 thu, (ME þouȝ), ME þow, ( -tow), ME–15 thow, ME, 15 (18 dial.) th-, th’, (ME thowe), ME– thou. (Mod. dial. thau, thaw, thah, tha; theau, theow, thoo, thu; tau, taw, ta, tay; teau, teaw, teu, too, tou, tow; doo, dou, du, etc.: see Eng. Dial. Dict.)

There’s a lot more than that there if you check out the OED entries for ye, thou, and you.

---

Postscript

It looks like Georgia doesn’t like ȝ (U+021D LATIN SMALL LETTER YOGH) very much.

Hm, I don’t imagine there’s any way to get the font’s small capitals? That would certainly be useful.

Answer 5

Just to clarify since I see it alluded to but not clearly said, you was, originally, the objective plural.

As said, originally, there was no "polite" form. Thou (thu, þu) was the singular subjective/nominative and ye was plural subjective/nominative. After the Norman-French Takeover, some began to try to graft the T-V distinction onto the English pronouns. This led to a lot of confusion and resentment. After it was all said and done, both thou and ye were dropped in favor of you serving as both the sing. and pl. as well as subj. and obj. forms.

Genesis 19:8 KJV is a good byspel to see the subj./obj. forms (Lot speaking to a crowd):

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you (obj pl), bring them out unto you (obj pl), and do ye (subj pl) to them as is good in your (poss pl) eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Personally, I'm very glad that the "polite" form didn't take hold in English. I find it to be a pain when speaking other tongues. Many have informally solved the plural problem with y'all or youse or even you guys.