a lot of confusion on 4chan stems from the fact English "you" stands for both singular and plural use, both informal and formal, also there's no satisfactory synonym for it
worst language desu
>>982218
Then what do you suggest?
>>982225
why French of course
>>982239 gotta to kidding me.
You should stop baiting people.
oo
uu
I've been thinking this too. How many pointless arguments triggered by this simple confusement on an hourly basis is brutally stupid. Anglos easily argue as if they personally are the target when the poster meant they're not, this happpens so often it's easy to ignore though.
PS. There is a singular word in English for you. It's "Thou"
I always say you people when I mean a plural you but that's racist apparently.
Nice and simple desu
>>982338
thou is degrammaticalised by now
>tfw people confuse thou with thy
FFFFFFFUCK
>>982362
How often are you referring to minorities where that might be a concern? Normal people can work out the context of what you people refers to.
>>982338
"Thou" and "you" also used to be the informal and formal forms for the personal pronoun, respectively. But that connotation was lost completely.
I wish we just spoke Latin all the time
>>982338
>PS. There is a singular word in English for you. It's "Thou"
>>982477
>"Thou" and "you" also used to be the informal and formal forms for the personal pronoun, respectively. But that connotation was lost completely.
The connotation could be used to distance oneself from another etc. An example is, if you speak to your brother, to suddenly start referring to him as 'you' instead of 'thou' (commonly people referred to siblings as 'brother'/'sister').
I propose, what Swedish had, a "thou-reform."
But first some history/theory.
English, had as Swedish, as pointed out earlier, 'thou'/'du' and 'you'/'ni'.
Being polite to someone, example: "Your highness"/"ers höghet" meant that one must pluralise the word. It was inappropriate to refer to someone as 'thou' without being a close friend/lover. I think due to how rare the words are used that 'thou' slowly fell away from popular use, since things became more and more polite.
In any case, 1960, Sweden had a "du-reform" which basically removed titles like 'you' in common language and replaced it with 'du' and started using 'you' as plural. This is fairly recently and it has worked great. Swedes still refer to the royalty with pluralised pronouns.
And now I wish to propose another change as well. Commonly, not where I am from though, but on the internet at least, people use modalities to weaken commands and questions.
Examples:
"Could you pass the salt?" (literally a question about whether one is able to do it or not)
"May I taste the salt?" (literally a question about permissibility)
"I would like some salt." (a personal preference/opinion)
"Is there some salt?" (a question of existence)
I assume this can be expanded to all kind of modalities, including temporal, deontic, possibility, knowledge etc.
The problem here is this:
In English it is considered improper to say:
"Pass the salt."
Or "Pass the salt, please." (may be less improper but not as proper as changing it with a modality). Cont.
>>982509
Therefore I propose two changes:
One which allows for people to say 'thou' as a singular pronoun without being rude.
One which agrees that saying 'Pass the salt.' is not considered rude. Or at least, some kind of please-reform.
I don't really care about how Anglo-Americans speak in their respective countries. But I find it fucking ridiculous that Anglo-American manners should be the hegemony on the internet.
If anything we should develop two different English, one Anglo-American (including their silly nonsense) and one for the internet (which is more pragmatic and global).
So. Join the revolution and start using 'thou' and stop using these 'Is there a possibility that I may know the location of the salt?'
Why doesn't English have a language authority?
>>982540
Who's gonna enforce it?
More to the point, who cares?
>>982218
anon, most english speakers when using "You" in plural form state as such: you all, all of you, or y'all (that final one is a southern/urban thing) It is not that complex.
>>982218
>"yous"
>"you lot"
>"y'all"
>"you people"
>>982239
But the French language exists for the sake of giving pseudointellectuals a medium in which to write past each other. That would just be a different kind of awful.
>>982218
It is frustrating, but if I really need to draw the distinction I personally use thou, thy or thine, and ask if the interlocutor is speaking to me or to us.
I usually say 'You Jews'
>>982239
Je ne parle pas francais
>>982517
autism is the fire which fuels civilization anon
>>982517
I have a vision of a better language, and all you have is an internet meme.
>>982670
English is fucked beyond repair when it comes to these sorts of things. It's an easy enough language otherwise, just accept it
>>982540
Because language authorities are completely ineffective.
>>982677
Sweden did it, and so can the rest of the world.
>>982674
I don't think it's very pretty. It honestly is my least favorite European languages. German appeals to my linguistic aesthetic faculty more than French does. The Cyrillic alphabet, of adopted by the French, would make it a more tolerable tongue.
The French Revolution failed because of the cultural and tensile baggage of the language in which it was spoken.
>>982715
What a completely retarded post.
Many parts of the English-speaking world get around this. Ye, yous and y'all are all widely used in different places to denote a 2nd person plural pronoun.
>>982690
That's a terrible attitude. Sweden is a unique country in many ways that make it hard to believe that it would be easy to duplicate any of its successes elsewhere. This is on par with American plans for nation-building in Iraq.
The more I encounter Swedish nationalism, the more I find Sweden and Swedish culture deplorable. The bad shit I believed growing up about bli d haired, blue eyed people seems to be specifically true of Swedes.
>>982720
Not an argument
>>982754
What language?
>>982725
I am not a nationalist (I am an anarcho-syndicalist), yet I like Swedish culture. Neither do I think Swedes are blue eyed blondes.
Swedish culture isn't red villas next to a lake, Swedish culture is very complex and different, like any place. It is solitary solidarity, equality and freedom etc.
A reform doesn't need to be a government intervention followed with arms etc., just a huge consensus where we start using language in one way. If the idea of a reform catches on and grows big enough, people will start talking differently, and soon it will become a dialect.
I have not urged any government intervention nor any enforced reform, but rather a consensus to make the language clearer. As with how Protestantisms created churches and small communes, we too can realise we can change language.
I don't say "BAN THIS!", I simply say "Let's start using a different kind of language."
Maybe it need to be urged by government officials, with a reform, to reach great masses. But it shouldn't be enforced.
It isn't censor if we together decide how to use language. It is only censor if a government or authority figures hinder us to speak our opinion.
>>982239
>non-phonetic languages
>>982778
only Serbo-Croatian can be consideted fully phonetic, other languages just like to claim that to feel better
>>982765
TßH that's all beside the point. I see no reason to think k this is a good idea. I see no reason to think that an anarcho-syndalist seriously routing Swedish culture as a model of democracy knows what he's talking about.
