| Author |
Message |
FB
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 8:22 am
Post subject: Re: 2nd person pronouns (Was: Re: Gotten) |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 22:52:54 +0100, Enrico C wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | In Italian we use the third-person feminin singular (Lei) as polite second
person singular (tu). The second-person plural (Voi) was also used as
polite singular you (tu) in the past [and in some parts of Italy it still
is], while the third-person plural (Loro) was used as polite second-person
plural (voi).
|
"Loro" ("they", once only "them" or a strong form of "they") is still used
as the polite pronoun to address more than one person; chiefly in very
formal occasions, and by people who love etiquette or take delight in
bewildering his interlocutors.
Bye, FB
--
Nasalization is just a part of life.
(Joey DoWop Dee on it.cultura.linguistica.inglese)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Phil C.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 6:49 pm
Post subject: Re: 2nd person pronouns (Was: Re: Gotten) |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 02:41:26 GMT, FB <fam.balducciNOSPAM@tin.it>
wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 22:52:54 +0100, Enrico C wrote:
[...]
In Italian we use the third-person feminin singular (Lei) as polite second
person singular (tu). The second-person plural (Voi) was also used as
polite singular you (tu) in the past [and in some parts of Italy it still
is], while the third-person plural (Loro) was used as polite second-person
plural (voi).
"Loro" ("they", once only "them" or a strong form of "they") is still used
as the polite pronoun to address more than one person; chiefly in very
formal occasions, and by people who love etiquette or take delight in
bewildering his interlocutors.
|
And by Cilla Black?
--
Phil C. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Cunningham
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 7:43 pm
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:52:50 +0000, Matthew Huntbach
<mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> said:
[...]
| Quote: | But under what circumstances does the use of "got" rather than
"gotten" create a problem?
|
In American English, "I've got" means "I possess", while
"I've gotten" means "I have obtained". Where English
English rejects "gotten", speakers lack that way to make the
distinction.
I've read in this thread that "gotten" has begun to be used
in English English. I suspect that even among those who are
beginning to use "gotten", the distinction I've mentioned
above doesn't exist there. Is that true?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Clarke
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 9:40 pm
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
On Friday 17 December 2004 23:33 Mike Stevens wrote:
| Quote: | Um. Anglo Saxon had separate letters for the two different kinds of "th"
sound (as in "this" and "thick"). They were thorn and eth. A manuscript
thorn could be mistaked for a legter "y", and often was when certain
Anglo-Saxon letters were droppeing out of use (hence "Ye Olde" which is
actally a mistreading of "The Olde" written with an eth.)
|
I've never understood this, what did a legter "y" look like? I can
understand thorn and eth being mixed up, it's only a dot difference.
Also, I thought that thorn (and eth) dropped out of use as printing presses
from Europe didn't have these characters.
--
Dave Clarke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Cunningham
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 10:54 pm
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 12:43:40 GMT, Bob Cunningham
<exw6sxq@earthlink.net> said:
| Quote: | On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:52:50 +0000, Matthew Huntbach
mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> said:
[...]
But under what circumstances does the use of "got" rather than
"gotten" create a problem?
In American English, "I've got" means "I possess", while
"I've gotten" means "I have obtained". Where English
English rejects "gotten", speakers lack that way to make the
distinction.
I've read in this thread that "gotten" has begun to be used
in English English. I suspect that even among those who are
beginning to use "gotten", the distinction I've mentioned
above doesn't exist there. Is that true?
|
I could have added that in American English "I've got to"
means "I'm obliged to", while "I've gotten to" means I've
been enabled to.
Again, I'm curious to know if these distinctions are
observed by the English English people who we're told are
beginning to use "gotten".
I think I've come across the phrase "I had got to" in one of
Agatha Christie's books, with the apparent meaning "I had
found it necessary to". So far as I know, that usage
doesn't exist in American English. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Mountifield
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 12:43 am
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
In article <32h0vdF3m8bjtU3@individual.net>,
einde. ocallaghan <"einde. ocallaghan"@planet-interkom.de> wrote:
| Quote: | Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:12:49 +0000 (UTC), "Fred" <Fred@somewhere.abc> wrote:
On the subject of distinguishing second person singular and plural. My
native Scouse can offer the rather intuitive (and dare I say extremely
attractive) alternative of "youse" for the plural form.
Imported from Ireland I believe.
Another plural I've come across in Ireland is "ye".
|
I think in archaic English (e.g. KJV), "ye" is subjective case and
"you" is objective case, for 2nd person plural.
Cheers
Tony
--
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Mountifield
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 12:46 am
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
In article <32h8mrF3hs3chU1@individual.net>,
Mike Stevens <michael.stevens@which.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Which makes it interesting that the one person who continued to be addressed
as "thou" (and still is in some circles) was God.
|
Similarly in German, God is addressed as "Du".
Not so surprising, when a fundamental part of the Christian faith is
to know God as a friend.
Cheers
Tony
--
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
einde. ocallaghan
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 4:25 am
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
Dave Clarke wrote:
| Quote: | On Friday 17 December 2004 23:33 Mike Stevens wrote:
snip
I've never understood this, what did a legter "y" look like? I can
understand thorn and eth being mixed up, it's only a dot difference.
Are you sure? My memory is that they look quite different. |
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mUs1Ka
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 5:23 am
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
einde. ocallaghan" <"einde. ocallaghan wrote:
| Quote: | Dave Clarke wrote:
On Friday 17 December 2004 23:33 Mike Stevens wrote:
snip
I've never understood this, what did a legter "y" look like? I can
understand thorn and eth being mixed up, it's only a dot difference.
Are you sure? My memory is that they look quite different.
Indeed. |
http://briem.ismennt.is/2/2.1a/2.1.1.thorn.and.eth.htm
--
Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Clarke
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 8:17 am
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
On Saturday 18 December 2004 22:23 mUs1Ka wrote:
| Quote: | einde. ocallaghan" <"einde. ocallaghan wrote:
Dave Clarke wrote:
On Friday 17 December 2004 23:33 Mike Stevens wrote:
snip
I've never understood this, what did a legter "y" look like? I can
understand thorn and eth being mixed up, it's only a dot difference.
Are you sure? My memory is that they look quite different.
Indeed.
http://briem.ismennt.is/2/2.1a/2.1.1.thorn.and.eth.htm
|
Sorry, I was expecting the runic eth, which is thorn: þ (Unicode 16A6 or
00FE) with a dot in the circle (Unicode 16A7), as opposed to ð (Unicode
00F0), which I didn't know the name of.
See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rune> For runic characters.
I still don't know what a "y" legter is, even if it is supposed to be a "y"
ligature. Is it the i j ligature (Unicode 0133)?
The thorn and eth characters above above may not be displayed correctly for
everybody.
All Unicode values are hex, for the lower case character.
--
Dave Clarke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mUs1Ka
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 3:52 pm
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
Dave Clarke wrote:
| Quote: |
I still don't know what a "y" legter is, even if it is supposed to be
a "y" ligature. Is it the i j ligature (Unicode 0133)?
That, I am sure, was just a typo for "letter". |
--
Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 9:12 pm
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
mUs1Ka wrote:
| Quote: | Dave Clarke wrote:
I still don't know what a "y" legter is, even if it is supposed to be
a "y" ligature. Is it the i j ligature (Unicode 0133)?
That, I am sure, was just a typo for "letter".
|
It is best not to mention the Yogh, often confused with the Ezh.
--
John Briggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Clarke
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:15 pm
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
On Sunday 19 December 2004 08:52 mUs1Ka wrote:
| Quote: | Dave Clarke wrote:
I still don't know what a "y" legter is, even if it is supposed to be
a "y" ligature. Is it the i j ligature (Unicode 0133)?
That, I am sure, was just a typo for "letter".
|
Ah, yes, of course. Now I am confused. Mike Stevens said:
| Quote: | A manuscript thorn could be mistaked for a legter "y"
|
How could thorn 'þ' be mistaken for 'y'. Being mistaken for 'p' I can
believe. Or did a 'manuscript thorn' look different?
--
Dave Clarke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Molly Mockford
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:39 pm
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
At 14:12:21 on Sun, 19 Dec 2004, John Briggs <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com>
wrote in <9%fxd.876$gj2.491@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>:
| Quote: | It is best not to mention the Yogh, often confused with the Ezh.
|
Have you been reading H.P. Lovecraft again?
--
Molly Mockford
I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that
lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be!
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 11:16 pm
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
Molly Mockford wrote:
| Quote: | At 14:12:21 on Sun, 19 Dec 2004, John Briggs
john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in
9%fxd.876$gj2.491@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>:
It is best not to mention the Yogh, often confused with the Ezh.
Have you been reading H.P. Lovecraft again?
|
Well, they are both characters, but not in a Lovecraft story 
--
John Briggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in