Yes/No and Yea/Nay used to mean different things too: "Is this correct?" could be answered "Yea, it is correct" whereas "Is this not a mistake?" could be answered "Yes, it is correct" (which you can also parse by taking the 'not' literally).
"Courts martial" and "secretaries general" are examples where the original noun-first word order remains.
European Portuguese, like many (most?) Romance languages, has the informal/formal second person split. Brazilian Portuguese has dropped the informal second person (tu) and uses only the formal second person (você).
Now, because “thou” is archaic, it sounds overly stiff, and most English speakers assume it was the formal second person, but it was actually the informal form. So both Brazilian Portuguese and English underwent the same process and chose the same way.
It did made me go through many topics, like dual, exclusive/inclusive group person.
Still in a corner of my head, there is the idea to introduce some more pronouns to handle more subtilty about which first person we are expressing about[2]. The ego is not the present attention, nor they are that thing intertwined with the rest of the world without which nothing exists.
[1] https://fr.wikiversity.org/wiki/Recherche:Sur_l%E2%80%99exte...
[2] The project does provide an homogenized extended set of pronouns with 6 more than the two regular ones found in any primary school book. And completing all cases for all nouns is the biggest chunk that need to be completed, though it’s already done by now for the most frequent paradigms.
Is that significant? I have no idea. Is there a language with special case for exactly 2 with another case for a “few” and with yet another for “a lot”? Interesting to compare different cultures.
Somehow that just doesn't land the same.
(To clarify this was in Hokkien, not Anglo-Saxon).
“They” and “their” for my whole lifetime were plurals. Now we’ve pretty much lost the mere clarity of knowing if the pronoun means 1 person or more than 1 person. Was watching “Adolescence” and the police mentioned “they” in regards to the victim of a crime. I was mistakenly under the impression that there weee multiple victims for much of the episode.
I’m very clearly slow to adapt to the new definitions.
"Git should get a room!"
Another fun thing is that calling someone you don't know "thou" used to be an intentional insult ("you're not worthy of being called 'you'"), something that might be missed by a modern reader of Shakespeare or other EME texts.
“modern British English slang, a git (/ɡɪt/) is a term of insult used to describe someone—usually a man—who is considered stupid, incompetent, annoying, unpleasant, or silly.“.
And “ Git is a popular open-source software for version control created by Linus Torvalds. Torvalds jokingly named it "git" after the slang term, later defining it as "the stupid content tracker".”
The system used for small numbers is probably a broad extension of an earlier dual number for nouns, i.e. something like a plural but just for two things. For (some) male nouns, the nominative dual ending was the same as the genitive singular, which was then extended to all other nouns even when this correspondence didn't hold, and from just 2 things to 3 and 4 as well. Nowadays the dual has been completely forgotten for nouns, and the only interpretation of the rule is that it's a genitive singular.
Russian distinguishes paucal (few) from plural (many). It’s not super common but there are some other languages that do it.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingvaeonic_nasal_spirant_law
I find myself wrong all the time, and I'm glad for the lesson!
So you'd expect to see languages from western Europe to south Asia that either have the dual concept, or have an attested ancestor that did.
"n̥-s-ero-" is sort of < "not" next-is-plural "mine" >.
So, plural-(invert mine). Or roughly close to "we".
"n̥-h-ero-" is sort of < "not" next-is-inclusive-plural "mine" >.
So, plural-(group (invert mine)). Or roughly close to "us".
But both are pretty close to the same meaning. High German maintained a lot of PIE, and is very close in a lot of ways. Though... Welsh is closer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_(pronoun)
So maybe we should bring back it, or ignore Chaucer as an authority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_and_no#The_Early_English_f...
Yes contradicts the negative question. So "Is this not a mistake?" should be contradicted with "yes, it is a mistake" or affirmed with "no, it is not a mistake".
It's further confusing because we have the idiom of suggesting things politely in a tentative manner such as isn't this a mistake? which has lost its sense of negativity and has come to mean "this is a mistake, I think," as opposed to being parsed literally to mean "this is not-a-mistake, I think".
Interestingly, to say one-handed you'd say "leath-lámh", where _leath_ means half, so half the <thing that's usually one of a pair>.
I’m surprised how much I’m enjoying it. And I can’t believe I have 195 episodes left.
Same number of syllables.
Maybe “Song of just us two”
Like it’s common to hear “You two better stay out of trouble”
Or “it was us two in the apartment alone…”
Or “them two are pretty good together ”
I think the better Torvalds quote was when he said "I name all my projects after myself"
It's interesting that in Viennese German (my German is terrible but I do at least try) it seems like the informal form is the default, in a shop I get asked "Braucht du hilfe?" rather than the formal "Kann ich Ihnen helfen?".
Maybe this is what they mean when they say people in Vienna are rude, but coming from Scotland using informal language even in fairly serious settings just seems comfortable and normal.
Modern "Are you happy now?" is said with sarcastic tone, to spoil happiness. Would be archaically "Are you not happy?" As if to dare contradiction. It's loaded, unlike when saying sympathetically "Are you unhappy?"
Others:
"Are you not entertained?" "Are you not the very same Smith that dwelt at Haversham?" "Prick me, do I not bleed?"
But commonly: "Are you not a Christian?" most likely seems direct, but said in a formal sense, "rhetorically", an exhortation to act like one.
I fear that a modern colloquial rendering would disappoint yet further:
our besties tune"From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic", Ringe.
And the simpler "Lexikon der indogermanischen Partikeln und Pronominalstämme", Dunkel.
Both use "n̥-s-ero-", though in the more traditional /ˈun.se.rɑz/ form.
But if you think about it seems normal... "we went to the city" is not really mean.
"Our secret song"
"Our shared song" is looser, though context helps.
"They're playing our song" still captures the timeless feeling. But is wrong for the poem.
Edit: Check out the Proto-Germanic personal pronouns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Proto-Germanic_person...
I have no idea how to say that idiomatically in German, but it struck me that those are both “true” friends.
Another 100+ years, and this'll be some solid grammar.
"W'all" would be nice to have. I guess it's not a thing because it sounds too much like the things that separate rooms.
I do prefer "y'all", though. I think it's the best one we've got, of the options ("yous" being another big one, and ew, gross)
I also love the nuance of "y'all" and "all y'all".
I struggled with this when I was a school teacher. English lacks a good way to clarify you are addressing a group vs one person, which comes up a lot in a classroom. “Class, you…” is clunky, “You guys…” has obvious issues, and y’all or any other contraction is generally considered bad grammar. I generally went with y’all. Kids would laugh about it, but that seemed to help get their attention.
I grew up in Houston saying all that in the 80s
12 hours ago
Sophie Hardach

Getty Images
Tales of love and adventure from 1,000 years ago reveal a dazzling range of now-extinct English pronouns. They capture something unique about how people once thought about "two-ness". But why did they die out in the first place?
Which word would you use to refer to yourself? "I", presumably, in the singular. And how about you and a group of people? "We", of course, in the plural.
But how about you and one other person?
In modern English, there is no word for that. You would probably just use "we" or "the two of us".
But more than 1,000 years ago, you would have said: "wit".
This term, once also used affectionately to describe the closeness between two people, is one of many personal pronouns that have been lost or transformed amid huge social and political change over the centuries. The English language has become simplified – but at times this has left gaps, creating confusion.
"Wit" means "we two" in Old English, a Germanic language spoken in England until about the 12th Century, which evolved into the English we speak today. Now completely lost, "wit" was part of an extinct group of pronouns used for exactly two people: the dual form, which also includes "uncer" or "unker" ("our" for two people) and "git" ("you two"). That dual form vanished from the English language around the 13th Century. (You can hear how some of these were pronounced in the short clips later in this article.)
"There's a whole history in the [personal] pronouns", including the impact of Viking and Norman invasions on the English language alongside shifting norms and customs that have changed how we talk, says Tom Birkett, a professor of Old English and Old Norse at University College Cork in Ireland.
Many Old English pronouns are still in use, says Birkett. Our oldest English personal pronouns include "he" and "it", as well as "we", "us", "our", "me" and "mine", Birkett says. They have made it through more than 1,000 years of history and upheaval, almost intact.
"'He' definitely is a very old English form, and also 'hit', which lost the 'h' and became 'it'," Birkett says. The Old English "Ic" has also been resilient, losing only one letter, to become the modern English "I".
But other pronouns were cast off – such as the once-common dual form. "It's fairly widespread in Old English texts. Particularly in poetry, we get the use of 'wit' and 'unc' for 'us two, the two of us'," says Birkett.
To illustrate the poetic power of the dual, Birkett gives the example of a love poem, known as Wulf and Eadwacer, that is over 1,000 years old. In the poem, a woman yearns for her lover, Wulf, who is separated from her because he was rejected by her clan. The last line reads, in a modern English translation:
"One can easily split what was never united,
In the Old English original, the words for "the song of the two of us" are "uncer giedd" – meaning "our song", but just for two people.
"The dual pronoun is used in that poem, and I think it's quite an intimate use, because it's all about 'We two together against the world'," says Birkett. "Certainly in poetry, it has that use of creating an intimate connection between two people."
In the Beowulf, the dual makes a dramatic appearance: two warriors swim in the sea holding swords, "to defend the two of us against whales" ("wit unc wið hronfixas werian" in the original). Thought to be written in the 8th Century, Beowulf is the earliest European epic written in the vernacular – the language commonly spoken – rather than a high culture, or literary language.
The dual form survived the transition from Old English to Middle English, after the Norman conquest in 1066, but then disappeared. "That's a whole category of pronouns that's just been lost," says Birkett. According to him, one of the last times the dual appears is in "Havelok the Dane", a text by an unknown author from around 1300:
"Roberd! Willam! Hware ar ye? Gripeth eþer unker a god tre, and late we nouth þise doges fle."
("Robert! William! Where are [you all]? Both of you two grab a good staff, and let's not allow this dog to flee!")
The dual form still exists in some languages, such as Arabic. But why did such a poetic pronoun go extinct in English? It seems especially strange when popular culture still celebrates that sense of a special two-ness today and the prevalence of "just the two of us" pervades song and literature.
Generally speaking, "language tends towards simplicity", Birkett says. Given that the broad, plural "we" can also be used for two people, there may simply not have been a strong enough reason to make the extra effort of keeping the dual form alive, in his view.
He points out that many other Old English pronouns have, in fact, not survived to the modern day either – replaced by words from foreign languages or more useful alternatives.
"She", for example, is younger than "he", and seems to be an amalgamation of two Old English female pronouns, Birkett says – "heo" and "seo". "[These] probably combined over time, to make 'she'," he says.
Another commonly used modern pronoun, "they" – along with "them" and "their" – is actually not Old English at all, according to Birkett. It arrived with Old Norse, a Scandinavian language spoken by the Vikings who invaded and settled in England from the 800s onwards. "They" then spread and replaced the Old English "hie".
The foreign "they" may have become popular for practical reasons, Birkett suggests: the native "hie" was potentially confusing as it could mean "they" but also, "her" – whereas "they" was distinct and therefore clearer.
Later, "they" was also occasionally used in the singular, as it is today when used as a gender-neutral pronoun, Birkett says. The singular "they" appears, for example, in the 14th-Century text "William and the Werewolf", as well as in "The Pardoner's Prologue", by Geoffrey Chaucer, written around the same time.
"Chaucer was using 'they' as a singular back in the 14h Century," says Birkett. "It's a very, very old usage, and very useful when you don't know the person, [and don't want to refer] to them as 'he' or 'she'."

Getty Images
Two-ness is often portrayed as special, as in this European mid-12th Century scene (Credit: Getty Images)
In the centuries after the Norman conquest of England in 1066, our language underwent another profound change: we began using "you" to address one person, and also, many people.
Before, there had been different words for that. In Old English, "Þu" (later spelled "thou") was the word for "you (singular)". A different word, "ge", which has survived in some English-speaking regions as "ye", was used for "you (plural)". With the Norman conquest, another chapter of transformative multilingualism began in England, in particular, intense contact between English and French. The Norman French "vous" arrived in England, which is used to address both a group, and also, in a formal context, only one person. The native English plural was then also used as a mark of respect in the singular, when addressing just one person, Birkett says.
"It was natural to extend that [French 'vous'] to English and to use that plural 'you' form to talk to the king and to the aristocracy," he says. "And then it was used as a respectful term for people in senior positions, and then, eventually, for everybody."
In the process, "thou", "thee" and "thine" disappeared, replaced by the catch-all "you".
"So you've got the politics there, of Norman French and the aristocracy, and the influence of French on English, which of course has been extensive," Birkett says.
Today, some dialects of English spoken in Ireland and elsewhere still make distinction between the plural and singular you, he says. "In my area, in Munster in Ireland, 'ye' is very, very commonly used as a plural. People wouldn't tend to write it down as much, but in spoken English it's used a lot," he says. In Glasgow and west central Scotland, another version, "youse", is often used as the plural in the local dialect.
And people today also use spontaneous workarounds to clarify the plural in everyday life, such as "you all" and "you guys".
Despite these changes, Birkett says that compared to nouns and verbs, personal pronouns have remained quite stable and retain some grammatical features of Old English that have entirely disappeared from English nouns. For example, we still say "he", "his" or "him", depending on the case – whereas English nouns and adjectives, which in the past also changed depending on the case, no longer do.
In Old English, for instance, the word for "king" – "cyning" – changed depending on its role in a sentence: "Hē is cyning" is in the nominative case and means "he is king", whereas "mid Þæm cyninge" is in the dative case and means "with the king".
"[Personal pronouns] have tended to survive because they're the bedrock of language," says Birkett. "They're used every day, all the time, and they've certainly changed less than nouns or verbs in the [English] language. Pronouns have had that kind of staying power."
Is there any chance the extinct English dual pronouns might return one day, turning Bill Withers' "Just the Two of Us" into "Just Wit", and Taylor Swift's "Our Song" into "Uncer Song"? Based on Birkett's historical examples, a comeback seems unlikely: once the dual fell out of use, it did not reappear.
However, surely, the future of our pronouns is whatever we want it to be. Perhaps wit – you and me – could make a start, and sprinkle some lost pronouns into our conversations today?
--
If you liked this story, sign up for The Essential List newsletter – a handpicked selection of features, videos and can't-miss news, delivered to your inbox twice a week.
For more science, technology, environment and health stories from the BBC, follow us on Facebook and Instagram.
That's something those western southerners told me. I don't know if a linguist would agree, but that seems to be the understanding of some actual language users...
All I know is that there is a second boundary somewhere through TX, NM, and AZ, because I've never met a native Californian who would say "y'all" non ironically.
When southern people say y'all to one person, they're really addressing you and your family (even though you might be the only one there.) If I ask "how y'all doing?" I want to know how you and yours are doing.
I just want people to stop asking me how I'm doing if they don't care.
It took me an embarrassingly long time to figure out that "How's it going" is a greeting, not an interrogative, and I want that change undone forever.
Yes, this is a case where you aren't forced to use "you" ambiguously in that context.
No, because "you in the back" could refer to just one person in the back, instead of several.
If you meant to address one person, you'd have said that one person's name, instead of voluntarily introducing ambiguity to the situation. Context & body language also makes this obvious. If you meant one person, you'd be making eye contact with one person instead of a group of people, etc. Students also know if they're paying attention or not. "The back" is not a specific area.