T-V-Distinction in the PIE-Concept

- Decoding the Proto-Indo-European Language -

J. Richter

iéu
Fig. 1: The Provençal pronoun of the first
Person singular
Introduction
European languages derived their linguistic concepts from the common Indo-European sky-god
Dyaus, which in its purest form has been copied to god's name (Diéu) in Provençal language. The
personal pronoun of the first person singular (iéu) is correlating to the divine name (Diéu)1.
Simultaneously the creation legend has been coded as bipolar structures (a male symbol i and a
female symbol u) in the personal pronoun of the first person singular (e.g. iéu, iau or iou).
The first human creature (Adam Kadmon) has been described as an androgynous being called
“man”, which had to be split into a male and female being, symbolized by “i”, respectively “u”. The
correlating structures in the personal pronoun of the first person singular (iéu) and the divine name
(Diéu) have been identified in many languages.
The divine names Zeu, in Romania, Zeus in Greece, Dious-piter (Jupiter), Diu, Dui or Tuisco in
Central-Europe, Dius in Sicily, Dieu(s) in West-Europe, Vit (Svantevit) in the Northern European
areas all reveal a bipolar structure concentrated around the androgynous IU-core.

This essay analyses the divine names for the sky-god, the Adam Kadmon-concept, the pronouns for
the 1st en 2nd person singular including their T-V-distinction and the ancient social customs for the
PIE-societies.
In southern Europe the Indo-European core *iou has been used to encode a divine name (e.g. IU-
piter), pronouns (e.g. iu) and supreme justice (ius) and as a joint, especially a matrimonial joint.
In ancient eras a married couple has been considered as one flesh. When God created Adam & Eve,
He made this statement found in Genesis 2:24: "For this reason a man will leave his father and
mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh". A correlation between the Indo-
European core *iou and the biblical one flesh-concept has been proposed.
Generally Romance languages symbolized the Adam Kadmon-concept inside the personal pronoun
of the first person singular (*iou, e.g. iéu, iau or iou). IU-, IO- and IOU-combinations have been
identified in the pronouns for Aromanian, Lengadocian, Romansch, Sursilvan, Sutsilvan, Sicilian,
Aragonese, Aromanian, Catalan, Interlingua, Italian, Gascon (Occitan) and Spanish languages.
Speaking for himself or representing his family the male spokesman used an androgynous symbol
(e.g. iéu, iau or iou), representing Adam Kadmon in a plural form - as a couple and/or a family. In
communication with other men all speakers may have considered themselves as representatives of
an androgynous Adam Kadmon, requiring a plural declension.
This one flesh-concept may have resulted in the plural V-form of the formal pronouns in PIE-
languages.

1 Details are documented in: The Keywords in God's Name and An Integrated Proto Indo European Concept
(Overview)
The Adam Kadmon-concept
The Hebrew concept
Remarkable contradictions between the creation legends of Genesis did draw the attention of the
Pharisees, to whom the Bible was a subject of close study. In explaining the various views
concerning Eve's creation, they taught that Adam 2 was created as a man-woman (androgynous),
explaining ‫( זכר ונקבה‬Genesis 1:27) as "male and female" instead of "man and woman," and that
the separation of the sexes arose from the subsequent operation upon Adam's body, as related in the
Scripture.

Plato's Symposium
This creation legend correlates to a similar creation legend Plato's Symposium3. It is, Plato says,
because in primal times people had doubled bodies, with faces and limbs turned away from one
another. As somewhat spherical creatures who wheeled around, these original people were very
powerful. There were three sexes: the all male, the all female, and the "androgynous," who was half
man, half woman. The creatures tried to scale the heights of heaven and planned to set upon the
gods. Zeus thought about blasting them to death with thunderbolts, but did not want to deprive
himself of their devotions and offerings, so he decided to cripple them by chopping them in half, in
effect separating the two bodies.
Zeus then turned half their faces around and pulled the skin tight and stitched it up to form the belly
button. Ever since that time, people run around saying they are looking for their other half because
they are really trying to recover their primal nature.
The creation legends in Genesis and Symposium are correlating. This idea supports the links
between Hebrew concepts and the PIE-project.

Matrimony
The creation legends illustrated the importance of matrimonial relations. Religious ceremonies
included a bond for a lifetime, originally excluding divorces in most civilisations. Matrimonial
couples symbolized the divine concept. Non-married persons have been considered as halved or/and
incomplete human beings.

2 Source Wikipedia: Adam Kadmon

3 Source Wikipedia : Plato's Symposium
The Indo-European sky-god Dyaus
The generation of PIE-languages occurred in phases ranging from 3500 BC and 500 AD, in which
the PIE-concept conquered areas all over Europe and the rest of the world. The name of the Indo-
European sky-god Dyaus seems to have been varied regionally between:
• Zeu, in Romania (near the Origin), respectively Zeus in Greece, resulting in the personal
pronoun eu (Romania) around 2500 BC (Romania) – 1500 BC (Greece).
• Dious-piter (Jupiter) in the Mediterranean area, resulting in the personal pronoun iou
(Aromanian and Sutsilvan) around 1500 BC.
• Diu, Dui or Tuisco in Central-Europe, resulting in the personal pronoun ih (old-German)
around 1500 BC and probably after a prolonged period of time I (English) around 500 AD.
• Dius in Sicily, resulting in the personal pronoun iu in Sicilian around 500 BC.
• Dieu(s) in West-Europe, resulting in the personal pronoun iéu (Provençal) around 500 BC.
• Vit (Uith (?), or Svantevit) in the Northern European (Slavic) areas, probably also
corresponding to the personal pronoun ih (old-German) around 500 AD.
• Thiou, in Great Britain, resulting in the personal pronoun I around 500 AD.
A number of pronouns of the 1st person singular seem to be included in the corresponding divine
name. The characters I and U inside these pronouns and divine name may be identified as
androgynous symbols for the male (I) respectively female (U) elements.

Generating pronouns
Generating the pronoun I
Generally the pronoun of the first person singular may have been generated by subtracting
(removing) the header (“D”) and (only if available) the trailing character (“s”) from the divine
name.
Some examples:
• PIE-language: Dyaus – (D and s) → *iau
• Aromanian and Sutsilvan: Dious – (D and s) → iou
• Provençal - French: Dieu – D → ieu
• English: þiou – þ → I(ou)
• Sicily: Dius - (D and s) → iu
• Italian: Dio (originally Diou) – (D) → io(u)
Generating the pronoun Thou4
Thou originates from Old English þú, and ultimately from the Proto-Indo-European *tu, with the
expected Germanic vowel lengthening in open syllables.
Thou is therefore cognate with Icelandic and Old Norse þú, modern German, Norwegian, Swedish
and Danish du, Latin, Spanish, French, Portuguese, Catalan, Italian, Irish, Kurdish, Lithuanian,
Latvian and Romanian tu or tú, Greek σύ, (sy), Slavic ты / ty or ти / ti, Armenian դու (dow), Hindi
त (tū), Bengali: ততত (tui), Persian ‫( تو‬to), and Sanskrit त म (tvam). A cognate form of this
pronoun exists in almost every other Indo-European language.
Generally the confidential pronoun of the 2nd person singular may have been generated by
subtracting (removing) the male symbol (“I”) including the central vocal character (“o”, “a” or
”e”) and (only if available) the trailing character (“s”) from the divine name.
Examples:
• PIE-language: Dyaus – (y, a and s) → *tu
• Aromanian and Sutsilvan: Dious – (i, o and s) → Du
• French: Dieu – (j and e) → Tu
• English: þiou – I → þou
• Sicily: Dius - (i and s) → Du
• Italian: Dio (originally Dious) – (D and s) → tu

4 Source Wikipedia: Thou

T–V distinction
Compared to the pronouns of the 1st person singular the pronouns for the 2nd person singular reveal a
remarkable pattern, which follows a so-called T–V distinction, depending on the situation wherein a
language has second-person pronouns that distinguish varying levels of politeness, social distance,
courtesy and familiarity.
The expressions T-form (informal) and V-form (formal) were introduced by Brown and Gilman
(1960), with reference to the initial letters of these pronouns in Latin, tu and vos. In Latin, tu was
originally the singular, and vos the plural, with no distinction for honorific or familiar. According to
Brown and Gilman, usage of the plural to the Roman emperor began in the fourth century AD. They
mention the possibility that this was because there were often two or more emperors at that time as
augusti, caesars and other titles, and later separate rulers in Constantinople and Rome, but also that
"plurality is a very old and ubiquitous metaphor for power".
T–V distinction however may also result from religious concepts such as the PIE-Concept.
• Most of the T-form (informal) pronouns are corresponding to a singular pronoun “Tu”,
which may be identified as the first and the fourth character of the divine PIE-name
“Dyaus”.
• Most of the V-form (formal) pronouns are corresponding to a plural pronoun “Vos”, which
obviously may be interpreted to another “Adam Kadom”, whose identity (iéu consisting of a
male element I and a female element U) may be understood as basically plural.
Brown and Gilman's V-T Theory has been very influential, perhaps in part due to the fact that its
binary system is a convenient easy-to-grasp concept. However, the V-T Theory does not provide an
entirely satisfactory framework of interpretation. First, it hinges on a power-solidarity duality and
does not cover adequately a platform of neutrality. Secondly, it does not cater for specific features in
different languages, starting with the English case. Manuela Cook's N-V-T Theory5 covers these
gaps.

PIE-Pronouns in Afghanistan6
In his work “Kite Runner” (2003) Khaled Hosseini uses a lot of Afghan expressions. Most of these
are Arabian words. Looking for Indo-european equivalents I found Padar (father), Madar (mother)
and Tu (identical to the French word "you").
The personal pronoun "Tu" (confidential you) is being used for confidential relations (e.g. husband
and spouse), whereas "shoma" (respectful you) is signifying a more distant and respectful relation
(even between parents and children).
Originally the confidential word Tu may very well exclusively have been reserved for conversations
between husband and spouse to symbolize the divine matrimonial relation between husband and
spouse in a married couple. Of course this confidential you (reserved for marital couples) has to be
considered as the highest ranking title, which should not be used for profane discussions.
A similar T–V distinction may also have existed in Western Europe.

5Wikipedia specifies 2 references:

• Manuela Cook, "Power and Solidarity Revisited", 28th Romance Linguistics Seminar Meeting, Trinity Hall,
University of Cambridge, UK, 2000.
• Manuela Cook, "Forms of Address" ("Uma Teoria de Interpretação das Formas de Tratamento na Língua
Portuguesa"), Hispania, 80.3, Georgetown University, US, 1997.
6 See details in The Sky-God Dyaeus
T–V distinction in English
In the 13th century, the term "ye" or "you", previously the second person plural, was used as a
formal singular version of "thou" (to superiors or non-intimates), with "thou" used as the familiar,
informal form. However, this use was often contextually-dependent (i.e., changing dynamically
according to shifting nuances in the relationship between two people), rather than static.
By the 17th century, "thou" increasingly acquired connotations of contemptuous address, or of
addressing one's social inferiors (so the prosecutor in Sir Walter Raleigh's 1603 trial declaimed "I
thou thee, thou traitor!"). Accordingly, the frequency of use of "thou" started to decline, and it was
effectively extinct in the everyday speech of many dialects by the early 18th century, supplanted by
"you", which became both the singular and plural form.
The Quakers could still cause huge offence by addressing all individuals as "thou" for religious
reasons (and refusing to remove hats or bow). Its use is now archaic except in certain regional
dialects (for example in South Yorkshire) usually as "tha", and Modern English today makes no T–
V distinction.
The use of the term "thou", however, survives in some Christian liturgical language when
addressing God, most notably in popular translations of the Lord's Prayer and the Ten
Commandments. It is also found in liturgical dialogue (for example, "V. The Lord be with you R.
And with thy spirit."). This is not an indication of familiarity but retention of the original distinction
between singular "thou/thee/thy" and plural "ye/you/your", reflecting the corresponding singular and
plural Greek forms in the original texts. In Latter-day Saint prayer tradition, the terms "thee" and
"thou" are often used to address God as a mark of respect.
Originally "ye" and "thou" were nominative pronouns, while "you" and "thee" were objective
forms, but by the 15th century, "you" had started being used as a subject pronoun, and only "thee"
survived into Quaker "Plain Speech".

Special cases for distinct languages7

Relevant notes have been marked yellow.

Basque
Basque has three levels of formality: hi, zu and berori. The personal pronouns differentiate three
persons and two numbers8. Zu must once have been the second person plural pronoun but is now
only found as the polite singular, having partially displaced the original second person singular
pronoun hi which is now a markedly familiar form of address. Zuek represents a re-pluralised
derivative of zu and is now the only second person plural pronoun.
• The most neutral is zu, that is considered the formal one.
• The informal one is hi and its use is limited to some specific situations: among friends,
parents to address their children (never otherwise, neither the spouses among them), to
children and to pets. Unlike "zu", "hi" makes a distinction whether the addressed one is a
male or a female (for example: duk (you, male, have) and dun (you, female, have));
• The third form, berori, is a very strongly formal pronoun hardly used nowadays, used to
address priests, judges and nobility. It uses the 3rd form verbs.

7 Source: Wikipedia's T–V distinction

8 See: Basque personal pronouns.
Dutch
U is the formal pronoun used in all Dutch speaking regions, whereas jij or gij are used as the
informal personal pronouns to address someone.
The pronoun je can also be used impersonally, corresponding to the English generic you. The more
formal Dutch term corresponding to English generic you or one is men.

French
With regard to the second person singular, tu is used informally, whereas vous is used to convey
formality. (The second person plural is always vous.)
In families, vous was traditionally used to address older family members. Children were taught to
use vous to address their parents, and vous was used until about 1950 between spouses of the higher
classes. It is still in use between spouses in the French upper class. Former president Jacques Chirac
and his wife Bernadette are a prominent example.
When praying, tu is nowadays often used in addressing the deity, though vous was used in Catholic
prayers until the Second Vatican Council, and is still used to address the Blessed Virgin Mary. In
Louisiana, however, vous is always used to convey a sense of respect and reverence when praying.

Frisian – the origin of English “you”

The closest modern language to English, the formal singular nominative jo (pronounced yo) is very
close to the English you and the Middle and Early Modern English ye. In some parts of eastern
Germany, the plural familiar nominative is jöch instead of euch; the former is much closer to its
English counterpart.

German
In German, the respectful form is the same as the third person plural (sie), rather than the second
person plural (which in German is ihr).
Er (male, literally "he") or Sie (female, literally "she"), capitalized, was similarly used in the second
person to address a social inferior, as a master addressing a servant, but is now obsolete, except in
the Northeast, where it sometimes replaces Sie as formal address.

Greek
In Greek, sý (σύ9) was originally the singular, and hymeis (υμείς) the plural, with no distinction for
honorific or familiar.

Hebrew
In non-Hebrew-speaking Jewish culture, the second-person form of address is avoided in cases of
higher authority (e.g., a student in a yeshiva would be far more likely to say in a classroom
discussion "yesterday the rabbi told us..." than "yesterday you told us..."). However, this usage is
limited to more conservative (i.e. Orthodox) circles.

9 probably resulting in “Thou”

Italian
At the beginning of its history, in the Middle Ages, the Italian language had a tu/voi distinction of
formality, as with other Romance languages; in his Divine Comedy (begun in 1307), Dante normally
uses tu when talking to the people he meets, but addresses them with voi when he means to show
particular respect, for example to his former teacher: "Siete voi qui, ser Brunetto?" ("Are you here,
sir Brunetto?").
During the Renaissance the use of Lei as a polite pronoun began, and subsequently spread with
some influence from Spanish; the origin of this usage is due to expressions as "Your
Lordship/Eminence/Majesty/Holiness/...", where all of these nouns were feminine in gender (Vostra
Signoria/Eminenza/Maestà/Santità/...) and referred to in the third-person singular.

Macedonian
Macedonian distinguishes between familiar ti (ти) and respectful vie (вие) — which is also the
plural of both forms, used to address a pair or group. Children always use ti to address each other
and are addressed in this way by adults but are taught to address adults with vie.

Romanian
Romanian dumneavoastră when used for the second-person singular formal takes plural verbs but
singular adjectives, similar to French vous.
The form dumneata (originating from domnia ta – thy lordship) is less distant than dumneavoastră
and somewhat midway between tu and dumneavoastră.
A more colloquial form of dumneata is mata or even matale or tălică. It is more familiar than tu and
is used only in some regions of Romania. It is used only with immediate family members, and is
spelled and pronounced the same in all cases, similar to dumneavoastră. It is conjugated in the
second-person singular, like tu.

Russian
Russian distinguishes between familiar ty (ты) and respectful vy (вы) — which is also the plural of
both forms, used to address a pair or group. Children always use ty to address each other and are
addressed in this way by adults but are taught to address adults with vy. Younger adults typically
also address older adults outside the family as vy regardless of intimacy, and may be addressed as ty
in return.
Historically, the rules have been in favor of more formal usage. As late as the 19th century, it was
accepted in many circles (generally among the more educated) that vy is to be used between close
friends, between husband and wife, and when addressing one's parents (but not one's children), all
of which situations today would strongly call for using ty.

Spanish
In Spanish, the respectful form requires verbs to be conjugated in the third person singular; this is
because the form usted evolved from the title vuestra merced (your grace) which naturally took the
third person like the Portuguese você and Catalan vostè. In the plural, Spanish presents the T-form
vosotros and the V-form ustedes (in Catalan vosaltres and vostès respectively), which use verbs in
the second and third person plural, respectively.
Swedish
The second person singular du was used only to and between children, within a married couple,
between lovers or to a more or less voluntary mistress of lower standing, and between friends who
had druckit duskål ('toasted for thou', as it were; infinitive dricka duskål) with each other—of
course initiated by the elder or higher-ranked party.
Below that on the social scale, both among peers and from above, was the third person singular
pronoun only (han 'he', less often hon 'she'). That was more usual in the countryside; considered
rustic by "educated" people, but fitting towards e.g. an old fisher- or woodman.
The one flesh -concept
In ancient eras a married couple has been considered as one flesh. When God created Adam & Eve,
He made this statement found in Genesis 2:24.
"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they
will become one flesh"
The one flesh -concept has been influencing the linguistic constructs. The male spokesman for
matrimonial couple may have been speaking in a plural, which may have been interpreted and
compared to majestic plural.
Communicating with other matrimonial couples he may have addressed the spokesman of the
opposite couple with a plural pronoun (“vos”) of the 2nd person, which may have been interpreted
and compared to majestic plural. .

Ancient familiar traditions

In earlier eras the male person in the married couple has been considered as the responsible
spokesman for the family. His wife and his children probably have been addressed by the T-form
(informal) pronouns (informal “you”). Women and children were the man's property and had no
property of their own. In ancient Rome a man even may have considered his wife as an extended
part of his own body. Details may be found Wikipedia Women's rights :
In ancient Athens women were always minors and subject to a male, such as their father,
brother or some other male kin. A women's consent in marriage was not generally thought to
be necessary and women were obliged to submit to the wishes of her parents or husband.
Ancient Rome subject all legitimate children, regardless of age or sex to the authority of
their Pater Familias while he lived, and they would only acquire any legal independence
when he died. The Pater Familias could grant any of his children or slaves a Peculium, but
that belonged to him and they were merely allowed to use it. All transactions made by a
child in power regardless of age or sex had to be directly approved of by their Pater
Familias. All children inherited equally from their Pater Familias regardless of age or sex,
by the Imperial Period of Roman history even bastards were included as intestate heirs.
Early in the Republic women were subject to Manus Marriage, but the custom died out by
the Late Republic in favor of marriage without Manus which did not grant the husband any
rights over his wife. When married without Manus a woman was not only free of her
husbands legal authority, but could divorce him as she pleased without any reason required.
Women in Ancient Rome when no longer under the control of their Pater Familias could
and did contract, work for wages (usually without many other options), own property, and
perform some (but not all) legal functions.
In a cum manu marriage the wife was placed under the legal control of the husband. In a
sine manu marriage the wife was still under the legal control of her father. In both cases, the
marriage could only take place with the approval of the patres familias if both the husband
and wife were alieni iuris. However, the creation and termination of the marriage somewhat
depended on the type of marriage. Initially cum manu was the only form of marriage but in
time the cum manu union faded and only sine manu marriage was widely practised.
Suggestions for plural forms of addresing
Speaking for himself or representing his family the male spokesman used an androgynous symbol
(e.g. iéu, iau or iou), representing Adam Kadmon in a plural form, as he originally represented a
couple and/or a family.
Addressing his wife and his children, the male spokesman used an informal singular female symbol
(the T-form pronoun“Tu”). In a response his wife and his children however were not allowed to use
the T-form (informal) pronoun. They had to respond by using the V-form (formal) pronoun in a
plural form.
Addressing other spokesman the male spokesman used the V-form (formal) pronoun in a plural
form. Of course any external conversation had to be managed by using the V-form (formal)
pronouns. For the same reason the use of the plural may be extended to other grammatical person,
such as the "royal we" (majestic plural) in English.
Table of pronouns and divine names
Language Ego-pronoun (I) T-pronoun (2nd V-pronoun (2nd God
person singular) person singular)
Aragonese yo
Aromanian iou , io
Catalan jo tu vostè Deus, Déu
English I thou10 You (U) Thiou (?)
French (oldFrench) je tu /toi /te vous Dieu, Diex , Dex
Galician eu tu, tí vostede Deus
old-German Ih Thu Sie Thiu or Tuisco (?)
Interlingua io tu vos
Italian io tu Lei 11, voi 12 Dio
Gascon (Occitan) jo
Lengadocian ieu , jo Dieu
Portuguese eu tu, vós 13 você 14, vós 15 Deus
Romanian eu tu dumneavoastră 16 Zeu, Dumnezeu
Romansch jau, eau Dieu
Sursilvan jeu Dieu
Sutsilvan jou Dieu
Sardinian eo fostéi Déu
Sicilian iu tu vuàvutri Diu
Spanish yo tú usted Dios
Vulgar Latin eo Deus
Table 1: Pronouns, T–V distinction and divine names in several PIE-languages

10 Originally Thou used to be the informal and U (you) used to be the formal pronoun.
11 archaic: Ella
12 dated or regional
13 regional use
14 less formal — in some regions and/or contexts may even be considered rude
15 archaic and literary
16 formal - dumneata (less formal or, in certain contexts, an insult)