Reasoning Behind T Loss in English and Dutch

In this paper I will be investigating and comparing the loss of the 2nd person informal singular, or T, in English and Dutch, and the subsequent shift of the 2nd person plural/formal to the T position. First I will examine the sociopolitical scene in 18th century England, which is when T was last used with regularity. Secondly I will define the T/V distinction so that the remainder of my paper will be better understood. Thirdly I will propose my hypothesis as to the specific reasons behind this loss. Then I intend to examine the 16th century scene for Middle Dutch to Modern Dutch. While Dutch lost T several centuries before English, I believe that there must be similar social reasons for T-loss, and these reasons must be unique, as no other Indo-European languages have lost T. The fifth section will compare the two sociopolitical scenes and examine them for obvious and subtle correlations and also address competing theories as to T-loss, while the final section will conclude my results.

T/V distinction and definition

The T/V distinction is named for the Latin tu and vos which are the 2nd person singular and plural pronouns. What it refers to is not the actual distinction between singular and plural, but the use of the plural form as a formal singular. So, V is used for the second person singular in cases of necessary formality, and replaces T. Latin did not make the distinction between formal and informal uses – they had other labels formality similar to Modern English’s use of sir, ma’am, or miss. Almost all European languages make the T/V distinction, for example French speakers call their friends by tu but their teachers and other persons in positions of authority by vous – the 2nd person plural.

The distinction is not just made in Romance languages, as languages like Russian also makes this distinction between tui and vui. The usage of vos as a formal singular comes from the Roman Emperors in the 4th century AD to signal the connection between ruler and people, so addressing the ruler was addressing the populace of the nation (Brown & Gilman, 1960). Anecdotally we can apply this reasoning to the English royal “we” that is stereotypically used for Old English kings and queens. It is important to note that T is usually used to speak to God as opposed to the formal V. English’s T/V are thou and you , although only you survives today. These two also had multiple forms based on case, as Old and Middle English were case based systems. This is worth mentioning because even though Modern English lacks case, some dialects of English use different the old accusative form ye instead of nominative you(George J., 1983). In Dutch the T/V distinction is slightly more complex, however is still relevant. The middle Dutch du, which is this language’s T, was lost in transition to Modern Dutch, but Modern Dutch still retains a T, however it is completely unrelated morpheme U, dissimilar to the 2nd person plural jij. Jij also is used as a T, but it varies dialectically, and for the purposes of this paper I will be using U as the standard. The reformation of a T in Dutch after initial loss is not something that will be left unanswered, although the reasonings behind this are less important to the general study of T-loss in general. For this study du is of higher importance, although references to U will be necessary to elaborate certain points.