Talk:Du-reformen

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no further change at this time. User:Tamfang already did got rid of the definite article and the quotation marks, and we can change the capitalization as necessary whenever we determine what the appropriate capitalization actually is. I've created a redirect from the You-Reform for now. If it gets in the way of a future move, feel free to message me and skip the 7-day RM process. - GTBacchus^(talk) 01:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "You-Reform" → you-reform – As of the punctuation difficulties in the title (which occur when attempting to link from another page, such as Twitter) it would be better if the page address became - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/you-reform - if possible. Talihinasky (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine there would be controversy about this. The new title conforms better to WP customs, so I just did it. —Tamfang (talk) 07:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be You-Reform? – ukexpat (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that does make sense. :/ —Tamfang (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has this phenomenon been described in reliable English-language sources? If so, what do they call it? If not, I suggest a descriptive title. (I don't see any need to change the title to make it easier to link to - it doesn't matter whether or not the first letter is capitalized, the URL will still work.)--Kotniski (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

You = you

It is somehow perplexing, for me as a foreigner, to read of the *You*-reform, as "you" is known to be a plural anyway. It sounds to me like: »Look, before the reform one would have said "you", but now it is all different, one says "you" instead«

Why not to call this "The Thou-Reform"? »Look, before the reform one would have said "you", but now one says "thou" instead« Or is "thou" not generally understood in english?

The "You-Reform" is what happened in England: Before one would have said "thou" to some, after one had to say "you" to everybody.

46.115.19.203 (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin[reply]

I agree with the above. The article seems complete nonsense now. As the word you has never been used in Swedish, but rather the word du, it shouldn't be used here either. This article must be much more understandable, if the word du is used throughout it. As naming the article "Du reform" for example. Fomalhaut76 (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

old wit

The use of the third-person pronoun may occasionaly re-appear in the form of old wit, although the main purpose of this is likely to have less to do with mocking pre-reform language, or to make a point that the events described in this wit are pre-reform, but as to make it easier for its audience to recognize the different people that the story (although in wit) is about.

I'd replace the word wit with jokes or humour. But first, can someone explain the last clause (beginning 'but') to me? —Tamfang (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to du-reformen

I was bold and moved this to du-reformen. Since it is virtually unknown outside Sweden, it IMO makes most sense under its Swedish title, which is also clear enough for the English reader. I think that translation is a bit of original research. Compare similar situation at Dagen H, which only has a redirect from H-Day. No such user (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not make any narrative reference to the Swedish term and consistently uses the English equivalent. I don't know what the English Wikipedia policy is about the use of article headings that are neither lexemic nor idiomatic English, but in any case, the body of this article would need to be edited for the Swedish rubric to be appropriate. --Futhark|Talk 11:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the interesting, albeit unreferenced, material from T-V distinction and organized it a bit better. It needs additional copyediting and, moreover, referencing. I also changed the references to the reform in the text.
As for the title, (as a foreigner to both English and Swedish), I feel that we should not translate titles of the topics which are specific for a society, and only make sense within the context of that society. So we have, for example, Hovsångare, Civilekonom or mentioned Dagen H. Yes, they probably could be translated, but at least for me, those translations remove the recognizability for the native speaker, and do not bring too much for the English speaker. No such user (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History Section

I think it might be a god idea to use some actual examples from the language to show the history. It might be a little easier to follow. Danwaggoner (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To English

Since knowledge of foreign languages is extended in Sweden, do Swedes carry on their addressing customs when using, say, English? --Error (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The difference to English usage is, after the reform, rather small. It may even be argued that the English You was seen as a paragon. But in other languages, Swedes like other Scandinavians often make that kind of error, overusing the informal du instead of Sie in German and tu instead of vous in French and usted Spanish.

In fact, unsophisticated Germans from the north-westernmost parts of Germany, say Frisia and Schleswig, often baffle visiting Germans by unexpected Du usage.

/Johan M. Olofsson (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English translation

The lead says: "the you-reform" which IMHO does no make much sense in English (another pronoun - ni - also means "you"); why not "thou-reform"? (see also #You_=_you) Apokrif (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Translating by cognates is a very bad idea in general. Here the choice is between the English word that functions like the modern Swedish "you", and "du":s cognate which gives a very old-timey feeling. I don't think it's a good idea for Wikipedia to offer new translations. "you-reform" gets a few hits in Google scholar [1], "thou-reform" one [2] , in the form of "“you-/thoureform”". I've removed it, since it was unsourced.

Andejons (talk) 06:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]