Deficiencies in the English language.

[minionofmidas]

"You" already is plural. The English second person singular is "thou". If you're not using it the deficiency is yours, not the English language's.

     Though "thou" was dropped because it was considered offensive, so really it is the deficiency of everyone else.

Clearly, if everyone else is so far above you that it would be offensive for you to admit he is just one person, then the deficiency is yours, not everyone else's.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

For example: thou bist from away.

Standard English is "thou art".

Thou art from abroad, surely? Am fairly sure that 'from away' was never exactly 'standard' English, alas. Or the slightly more hostile sounding 'from off'.

[minionofmidas]

For example: thou bist from away.

Standard English is "thou art".

Thou art from abroad, surely? Am fairly sure that 'from away' was never exactly 'standard' English, alas. Or the slightly more hostile sounding 'from off'.

I am aware. I was merely pointing out that thy usage of "bist" instead of "art" is also non-standard.

Though "abroad" and "away" is basically the same word, anyroads.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Though "abroad" and "away" is basically the same word, anyroads.

Which is probably why 'off' sounds more hostile in that context.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While we're nitpicking pronouns, it'd be nice to have two forms of we. One to include the person you're addressing and one that does not include him.

Some languages make that useful distinction.  The Indo-European languages largely do not. (Some of the Indian Indo-European languages have acquired them via contact with language families such as Dravidian that do have that distinction.)

As a general rule languages that have a dual number do not have clusivity marked in the first person plural and vice versa.  This makes sense as the dual can serve as a de facto first person inclusive.  However, there are languages such as Hawaiian that have both features, but they often lack other distinctions.

[Associate Justice PiT]

"You" already is plural. The English second person singular is "thou". If you're not using it the deficiency is yours, not the English language's.

     Though "thou" was dropped because it was considered offensive, so really it is the deficiency of everyone else.

Clearly, if everyone else is so far above you that it would be offensive for you to admit he is just one person, then the deficiency is yours, not everyone else's.

     But you are ultimately expected to refer to your equals as multiple people. Today, even a small child is not just one person.

[minionofmidas]

Ah, but then why art thou not referring to thyself as "we"?

[ilikeverin]

While we're nitpicking pronouns, it'd be nice to have two forms of we. One to include the person you're addressing and one that does not include him.

Some languages make that useful distinction.  The Indo-European languages largely do not. (Some of the Indian Indo-European languages have acquired them via contact with language families such as Dravidian that do have that distinction.)

As a general rule languages that have a dual number do not have clusivity marked in the first person plural and vice versa.  This makes sense as the dual can serve as a de facto first person inclusive.  However, there are languages such as Hawaiian that have both features, but they often lack other distinctions.

I don't really see that, but they don't provide numbers there (the best I can do is this), so *shrug*.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Ah, but then why art thou not referring to thyself as "we"?

     Because I don't care. I only call other people "you" so as to not provoke violent raging. SF is a rough town, thou seest.

[tpfkaw]

Ah, but then why art thou not referring to thyself as "we"?

If you were addressing the Queen, you would refer to her as "you" and "yourself."  "Thou" was the familiar form, used for friends, relatives, or social inferiors, while "you" was formal.

[minionofmidas]

Ah, but then why art thou not referring to thyself as "we"?

If you were addressing the Queen, you would refer to her as "you" and "yourself."  "Thou" was the familiar form, used for friends, relatives, or social inferiors, while "you" was formal.

Thank be thine, Captain Obvious!

(Though even that is merely the medieval state of play. Go back even further, and Old High German and I believe Old English texts don't have a honorific form.)

[Antarctic]

A lot is made of the fact that English has a much larger vocabulary than other European languages so how come when someone introduces me to their brother-in-law I have no idea of their relationship to that person.

Is he their wife's brother?
Is he their sister's husband?

The term seems to be acceptable for either but it is confusing......do other languages have separate words?

[Platypus]

"wife's brother" is actually somewhat easier to say than "brother-in-law", which maybe should be reserved for your sister's husband...but then you have different names for your relationship. You'd be his brother-in-law, he'd be your wife's brother...whatever, doesn't matter.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I always get confused when the issue of 'removed' emerges.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

British people don't say "to" after "Agrees"

[ilikeverin]

A lot is made of the fact that English has a much larger vocabulary than other European languages so how come when someone introduces me to their brother-in-law I have no idea of their relationship to that person.

Is he their wife's brother?
Is he their sister's husband?

The term seems to be acceptable for either but it is confusing......do other languages have separate words?

Yep.

That reminds me: we have no word for "nieces and nephews", like "children" or "parents".