Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:address with the formal pronoun. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:address with the formal pronoun, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:address with the formal pronoun in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:address with the formal pronoun you have here. The definition of the word Talk:address with the formal pronoun will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:address with the formal pronoun, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
The verb entry at you is a good place for this, and anyway already has more translations. No reason to keep this, so move whatever translations necessary over to you (verb) and delete.
It admittedly is complicated by the fact that "you" is both formal and informal in English now, but I don't think that is a reason not to use this attestable verb form as the translation hub instead of this wordy entry. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, that's a good point. Whatever we do, entries like vouvoyer and ustedear should link to the entry that houses all the translations. My inclination is to delete this entry and centralize the translations at you, though I'm open to hearing arguments for why we should have this translation hub instead. —Granger (talk·contribs) 14:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC) Struck vote – see below.Reply
Keep until someone shows that you as a verb has attesting quotations and is actually used. I checked M-W and AHD online and they did not have "you" in a verb sense. I am sorry if the use of you as a verb is very obvious to native speakers; to me, it is not. I checked youing,youed at the Google Books Ngram Viewer. and there "youed" is not found at all while Czech vykal, past tense of vykat, is easily and plentifully attested. A related RFM discussion is at Talk:address with the polite V-form, where Angr (now Mahagaja) says "I think English really doesn't have a word for this, even when talking about other languages". If it is true that you (verb) is attested and is obsolete, I doubt we are doing a service to the reader by using that as the translation hub. A relevant article is W:T–V distinction. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Dan Polansky makes a good point. I'm changing my vote to neutral on whether to centralize the translations here or at you. Since both entries have been taken to RFV, the outcome there may answer the question for us. One way or another, we should centralize the translations in one place and make sure entries like ustedear point to it. —Granger (talk·contribs) 15:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Given the attestation requirement, one solution could be to move the entry to address with the V-form or use the V-form, whichever is easier to attest. I added some quotations to V-form and T-form to show V-form and T-form are attested in the first place. One of the quotations them has "to use the T-form" and "address their parents with the V-form", but we would need more quotations showing combinations with verbs. Now as before, I find you (verb) to be unsatisfactory as the translation hub. Now, "address with the V-form" may not be particularly common either, but at least the non-native reader can see something strange is going on, which they would not see if the normal-looking English you appeared on the definition line of e.g. German siezen; currently, German siezen definition line does not link to you. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
We can perfectly gloss the various foreign terms with "address with the V-form", "address using the formal pronoun", "use the V-form" or whatever will make it clear what is meant; we can write to "you" with quote marks to indicate that the verb is not in common use (compare Frenchdéconner, sense 3), so that "the non-native reader can see something strange is going on". And we can do all that without having an actual entry at a weird-ass title, by centralizing the translations at you. I really don't understand the compulsion to create an entry that nobody is going to look for directly. Perutramquecavernam12:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
By the way, I agree with the IP: the most probable scenario is that someone will look for a foreign language entry, and click on whatever link we've given there. Perutramquecavernam12:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Whether someone is going to look up a term like address with the V-form directly is not so important with translation hubs, as follows from the hub logic; as anon says above, "I would search for like vouvoyer and hope to find a link", and I, being a Czech speaker, would start at vykat. It seems improper to me to offer you as a translation in Czech vykat, but not so with address with the V-form; the definition line should have a most useful and functionally adequate translation, not one that is there artificially only so that a sum of parts entry can be deleted. Therefore, diff made vouvoyer worse, misleading the reader. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Dan Polansky: Upon reflection, I agree that you is not a good translation (nor a good translation hub), and have edited the entry.
I still don't think cluttering the mainspace with entries such as "address using the formal pronoun" or "address with the formal pronoun" is a good idea. What happened of the first THUB provision: "The attested English term has to be common; rare terms don't qualify"?
The basic problem is that this is a completely foreign concept to modern English: we lost our informal pronouns centuries ago, and they've become associated with archaic speech, so they feel vaguely formal. Besides, indicating relative status isn't necessarily done with pronouns- particles and verb endings are two methods that come to mind, not to mention a whole range of all types of synonyms that line up with one register or another. In some South American Indian languages it's a really big deal whether you experienced something personally or heard about it secondhand- there are a whole set of different grammatical forms based on that distinction. Or how about inclusive vs. exclusive first- and second-person pronouns?
Whether you put it in mainspace or somewhere else, a translation hub is more like an appendix or a footnote rather than an entry- it's not really English, though it claims to be, it violates the spelling-first organization of the dictionary as a whole, and being based on a concept rather than a specific term in a specific language makes it rather encyclopedic. Since no one arrives at it directly, there's no practical reason for it to be in any specific namespace that can't be fixed with a tweak or two to the code. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Chuck Entz: Re "Since no one arrives at it directly, there's no practical reason for it be in any specific namespace that can't be fixed with a tweak or two to the code": exactly. I've slightly edited my previous message btw. Perutramquecavernam13:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
"she addresses him with the formal pronoun and even the title her Parzival", Myers 2003
"He had a completely different life-style from theirs, addressing his school-fellows ... with the formal pronoun “Sie”; which created a barrier.", Kanterian 2007
"Theresa consistently addressed the students with the formal pronoun and while most students employed the informal pronoun in return, ...", Magnan 2008
