Yeah I’m not understanding your argument either. Are you arguing that “you” is not a second person singular in Modern English? It sounds like you are but then you also are using it currently so I’m confused.
If you shit in a bucket, that doesn’t make the bucket a toilet seat. If you use a stone to hammer in a nail, it doesn’t become a hammer. It’s still a rock, and eveyone would refer to it as a rock.
Hell, you could use a nail-gun as a hammer. And thus kt would be “a tool to help nails go in”, but it wouldn’t be a hammer, per se.
“You” is not a second person singular despite being used as one.
the plural forms, ye and you, began to also be used for singular: typically for addressing rulers, superiors, equals, inferiors, parents, younger persons, and significant others.
“Plural forms.” “Used as.”
What’s so hard to understand about this I don’t get it.
Okay so your argument is basically that language never changes and never evolves? Because it wasn’t a second person singular 300 years ago it can’t be one today? All right. That seems silly but you do you.
By what perverted fucking reading do you get that from?
I’m not the one who makes up the definitions of academic linguistics.
Because it wasn’t a second person singular 300 years ago it can’t be one today?
Really? That’s the best you can come up with? A shitty strawman?
Just because you USE Y as X doesn’t mean Y becomes X. Is that so hard to comprehend? English STILL, TO THIS DAY, has a second person singular which is in use.
If we were having this conversation 500 years in the futures where the second person plural is something like (ewww) “y’all” exclusively and there wasn’t anyone using “thou” and the language had changed to treating “you” as the second person singular, THEN we could maybe consider your strawman.
But we aren’t, it hasn’t, and “thou” is still used. Wait a second… Feels line we’ve been over that fact…
The word thou (/ðaʊ/) is a second-person singular pronoun in English. It is now largely archaic, having been replaced in most contexts by the word you, although it remains in use in parts of Northern England and in Scots (/ðu:/ dhoo).
Do you have a hard time understanding those two sentences? Do you know what “largely” means when attached to a word like “archaic”? Do you know what “remains in use” means?
Hey if the proper grammar is to say “he is going” but “you are going”, would you mind explaining why you’d use the plural form of the verb with the second person singular? Hmm?
You will just never be able to admit being wrong about this. It’s a shame, because it will limit your potential very badly.
For the life of me I can’t understand you why you keep linking the same Wikipedia page to a word nobody is talking about. You’re continually making the argument that the word you is not a second person singular while still using the word you as a second person singular. Thou art utterly absurd. I’m going to block you now.
same Wikipedia page to a word nobody is talking about.
Because if you read it and weren’t an uneducated moron it would show give the history of the second person plural in English, you dipshit.
What is so hard to understand about this sentence:
It is now largely archaic, having been replaced in most contexts by the word you, although it remains in use in parts of Northern England and in Scots (/ðu:/ dhoo
What is so hard to understand about this sentence?
The practice of matching singular and plural forms with informal and formal connotations is called the T–V distinction and in English is largely due to the influence of French.
Oh wait right, you’re an uneducated (and definitely monolinguistic) dipshit, I can see how you wouldn’t have the slightest idea of what that’s about.
Yeah I’m not understanding your argument either. Are you arguing that “you” is not a second person singular in Modern English? It sounds like you are but then you also are using it currently so I’m confused.
It’s not. And this really isn’t complex.
If you shit in a bucket, that doesn’t make the bucket a toilet seat. If you use a stone to hammer in a nail, it doesn’t become a hammer. It’s still a rock, and eveyone would refer to it as a rock.
Hell, you could use a nail-gun as a hammer. And thus kt would be “a tool to help nails go in”, but it wouldn’t be a hammer, per se.
“You” is not a second person singular despite being used as one.
This really isn’t complex, you guys.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou
“Plural forms.” “Used as.”
What’s so hard to understand about this I don’t get it.
Okay so your argument is basically that language never changes and never evolves? Because it wasn’t a second person singular 300 years ago it can’t be one today? All right. That seems silly but you do you.
By what perverted fucking reading do you get that from?
I’m not the one who makes up the definitions of academic linguistics.
Really? That’s the best you can come up with? A shitty strawman?
Just because you USE Y as X doesn’t mean Y becomes X. Is that so hard to comprehend? English STILL, TO THIS DAY, has a second person singular which is in use.
If we were having this conversation 500 years in the futures where the second person plural is something like (ewww) “y’all” exclusively and there wasn’t anyone using “thou” and the language had changed to treating “you” as the second person singular, THEN we could maybe consider your strawman.
But we aren’t, it hasn’t, and “thou” is still used. Wait a second… Feels line we’ve been over that fact…
OH YEAH
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou
Do you have a hard time understanding those two sentences? Do you know what “largely” means when attached to a word like “archaic”? Do you know what “remains in use” means?
Hey if the proper grammar is to say “he is going” but “you are going”, would you mind explaining why you’d use the plural form of the verb with the second person singular? Hmm?
You will just never be able to admit being wrong about this. It’s a shame, because it will limit your potential very badly.
For the life of me I can’t understand you why you keep linking the same Wikipedia page to a word nobody is talking about. You’re continually making the argument that the word you is not a second person singular while still using the word you as a second person singular. Thou art utterly absurd. I’m going to block you now.
Because if you read it and weren’t an uneducated moron it would show give the history of the second person plural in English, you dipshit.
What is so hard to understand about this sentence:
What is so hard to understand about this sentence?
Oh wait right, you’re an uneducated (and definitely monolinguistic) dipshit, I can see how you wouldn’t have the slightest idea of what that’s about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T–V_distinction
Just because you can use a large screwdriver to hammer in a nail does not make it a fucking hammer.
So because you’re ignorant of the basics of linguistics, perhaps you should keep your ignorant mouth shut?
Do you say “you is” or “you are”?
You is joking, surely.
If you actually spoke other languages or listened in any linguistics class you’ve ever had, you might be able to understand. But you aren’t.