I am an Anglo Canadian, but lived in Quebec for a while some years ago. I have long been fascinated with the expressions "nous autres", "vous autres", and "eux autres" that are used in Quebec, and I believe also in Louisiana. Does anyone know the origin of these expressions? I have often wondered if they have any relation to the Spanish words "nosotros" and "vosotros".
What is the origin of the French expression "nous autres"
- Thread starter bloomhaven
- Start date
- bloomheaven: Yes, they are indeed related to those Spanish words, as both come from Latin nos altres, vos altres, and illi altres. 
The individual words come from Latin, of course, but not the expressions. The pronoun alter was rarely used in the plural in Latin (and the correct form was alteri/alteros, not altres
).The development of Spanish nosotros/vosotros is relatively recent (14th/15th century).
Nous autres and vous autres are also found in French in the same period, and they are still used in modern standard French, but always with contrastive force ("exclusive we" vs. "the rest of you"). In Quebec French these expanded forms have mostly lost this function and they are used as emphatic pronouns (in the same way that the emphatic form of je/me is moi). The third person form eux autres developed by analogy with the other two forms (and this Wikipedia article sort of explains why elles autres does not exist).
The words nosotros/vosotros probably appeared in the 14th/15th century in the written language. They might have been around for several centuries in the spoken language.The individual words come from Latin, of course, but not the expressions. The pronoun alter was rarely used in the plural in Latin (and the correct form was alteri/alteros, not altres
The development of Spanish nosotros/vosotros is relatively recent (14th/15th century).
I think the correspondence between these words seems too much of a coincidence:
- Spanish nosotros / vosotros
- Catalan nosaltres / vosaltres
- French nous autres / vous autres
- Italian noialtri / voialtri
Which is not quite true I'm afraid.The individual words come from Latin, of course, but not the expressions. The pronoun alter was rarely used in the plural in Latin (and the correct form was alteri/alteros, not altres
regards,
Hamlet
Hi,
The question is: can you please explain us why you don't think it's true, can you give some background information, can you elaborate? We're here to learn, but you're reply doesn't give any food for thought.
I mean, I would love to learn more about the reasons why you say it's not true!
Thanks!
Frank
To be afraid or not to be afraid, Hamlet, that's not the question.
The question is: can you please explain us why you don't think it's true, can you give some background information, can you elaborate? We're here to learn, but you're reply doesn't give any food for thought.
I mean, I would love to learn more about the reasons why you say it's not true!
Thanks!
Frank
Last edited:
I wonder if the Italian words noialtri / voialtri are a Spanish influence on Italian language.
I didn't realize you wanted textual evidence.
Well,there are a few works listed below[I am sorry but I'm a bit rushed at the moment] where the plural is quite frequently used:
M. Fabii Quintiliani Institutio Oratoria
Marci Tullii Ciceronis Orator ad M. Brutum
Marci Tullii Ciceronis De Oratore ad Quintum Fratrem
L. Iunii Moderati Columellae De Re Rustica.
Regards,
Hamlet
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi,
Groetjes,
Frank
Nope, neither do I need titles of 4 texts (by 3 authors).
Then take your time to give slightly more convincing arguments.
Groetjes,
Frank
I merely wanted to point out that that the suggestion of "alteri" being rarely used in the plural is not quite true,because there is evidence both in classical Latin prose as well as Latin poetry of this period.
If you wanted more convincing arguments than examples of usage in Cicero Suetonius Quintilian you would have to go to the Head of the Classics Department, who will most certainly make time for your request,if adequately phrased.
If you wanted more convincing arguments than examples of usage in Cicero Suetonius Quintilian you would have to go to the Head of the Classics Department, who will most certainly make time for your request,if adequately phrased.
Last edited:
This type of personal pronouns is also present in Occitan:
- nosautres - nosautras.
- vosautres - vosautras.
I found the information in this web-page, which looks quite helpful.
- nosautres - nosautras.
- vosautres - vosautras.
I found the information in this web-page, which looks quite helpful.
I have tried to follow the discussion and now it is partly clear to me; you might have told us in the first place that you refer to "alter" and only "alter" (and its use in plural) as described by CapnPrp in the post above which was posted by him as a sidenote only, and about which you've written that it is not correct, that the use of 'alter' in plural were not rare indeed. (And that you didn't refer to "nous autres" in particular.
)Now it might well be true that the plural of "alter" was widely used (this is far beyond my knowledge of Latin so I couldn't possibly comment) but I still would be interested in the original question referring to French (and other Romance) expressions like "nous autres" (even though I haven't yet posted here I'm still reading
but even though I'm interested in the outcome sadly I can't contribute to the original question).Is there any significance as to if Latin 'alter' had been used frequently in plural, or not so frequently, concerning the development of this phrase (of nosotros, nous autres, nosaltres, ...)? If so I have to say that I personally can't see the relation.
(In the linked text of Horace, Odes IV 'alter' is used three times; now I have to admit that my Latin has become really rusty so please correct me if I am wrong but I can't identify a single use of it in connection with a personal pronoun. - And the second link, unfortunately, is invalid or probably links to a protected site or whatever.)
I actually did mean and write "rarely used", which is not the same thing as "never used"…
I think that there are probably examples of plural pronoun + alteri already in Classical Latin, but as a free combination with contrastive meaning. This usage is still found in many modern Romance languages (e.g. standard French). But as I understood it, the question of the original poster — who has apparently moved on to greener pastures — was about languages where the expression "pronoun + autres/otros" has undergone grammaticalization (losing its contrastive meaning) and supplanted the simple pronoun.
For Spanish, this specific development has been dated to the 14th/15th centuries, and I don't think there would be "several centuries" of lag between spoken and written language for such a change in this period, which is well documented by texts of many different genres.
I think that there are probably examples of plural pronoun + alteri already in Classical Latin, but as a free combination with contrastive meaning. This usage is still found in many modern Romance languages (e.g. standard French). But as I understood it, the question of the original poster — who has apparently moved on to greener pastures — was about languages where the expression "pronoun + autres/otros" has undergone grammaticalization (losing its contrastive meaning) and supplanted the simple pronoun.
For Spanish, this specific development has been dated to the 14th/15th centuries, and I don't think there would be "several centuries" of lag between spoken and written language for such a change in this period, which is well documented by texts of many different genres.
This is also how I see it, but if there had been already uses of pronoun + alteri in (Classical) Latin this would be a starting point (use of alteri without pronoun aren't of much help I'd guess).
But probably the answer anyway would lie in Vulgar Latin rather than Classical Latin: that is, if a common ancestry of those forms in several Romance languages were to be found.
As I can only guess I'll stop here now, and go back to reading only ...
In classical Latin, the primary meaning of alter (most relevant to this discussion is the entry at I.2.g) is “the other of two, one of two, the other” (from which we get “alternative”). Alius also means “other”, but in the particular sense of “another, different” (as in “alias”, another identity). In medieval Latin, alius gradually disappeared and alter came to assume its meaning. So it is from alter that we get Spanish otro and French autre.
In classical Latin, alter can be used “to mark the similarity of one object to another in qualities, etc., a second, another (as in English, a second father [alter pater], my second self [alter ego], and the like).”
The only use of alter + pronoun that I’m familiar with is alter ego (‘another I’) to refer to a close friend or kindred spirit. We have from Cicero (Fam. 7, 5): vide quam mihi persuaserim te me esse alterum (‘See how I have convinced myself that you are another me (i.e. my other self)'). And famously (Lael. 21, 82): amicus est tamquam alter idem ('A friend is one’s other self.’ Or more literally, ‘A friend is like another the same’).
To my knowledge, Latin did not make the “exclusivity” distinction in the use of pronouns. (In verb conjugation,
Sorry I haven't any idea when or how "pronoun + autres/otros" underwent grammaticalization, or how noialtri came to be used as an emphatic pronoun.
-----------
Edit add: I just realized that noialtri is the exact equivalent of nous autres; it's a "contrastive" emphatic pronoun. As for the grammaticalization of nosotros, it loses the contrastive meaning but gains the grammatical distinction between subject (nosotros) and object pronoun (nos). Nosotros remains an emphatic pronoun of sort since the subject pronoun is not necessary as it's already built into the conjugation.
Last edited:
No need to excuse yourself of course, I think you've really shed some light on the issue.Sorry I haven't any idea when or how "pronoun + autres/otros" underwent grammaticalization, or how noialtri came to be used as an emphatic pronoun.
Just to make things precise, nosotros is not only the subject pronoun, but also the stressed object pronoun (used with a preposition), corresponding to the unstressed object pronoun nos (used with no preposition). For example in these sentences:
Viene con nosotros.
Lo hizo para nosotros.
The argument only really works for the first person (exclusive "we"); with vous and eux, autres is simply a plural marker, with no additional notion of exclusion. But just as alter was commonly used in correlative structures in Latin ("the one… the other…", "the former… the latter…"), it would be natural to use vous/eux autres in combination with nous autres.
The need to mark plurality was apparently enough to cause vosotros to replace vos in (most varieties of) Spanish. The pronoun vos was originally plural but it ended up having singular reference in many contexts (e.g. polite plural). So vosotros became the normal 2nd person plural disjunctive pronoun (in subject position, after a preposition, and in emphatic use), and nosotros subsequently replaced nos by analogy.
The same development is conceivable for Quebec French (with a further analogical step for eux autres) but I have not seen this documented anywhere.
Hi,
I was wondering myself about the origin of noialtri/nosotros/nous autres and found a very interesting and convincing explanation provided by Petrarca, the Italian poet, in an essay by Tiziana Piras ("Petrarca nello Zibaldone di Leopardi"). According to Petrarca, the pronouns derive from Latin "nos ceteri", which was used in spoken language to distinguish the "nos" used as a plural from the "nos" used as a singular, i.e. instead of "ego".
I was wondering myself about the origin of noialtri/nosotros/nous autres and found a very interesting and convincing explanation provided by Petrarca, the Italian poet, in an essay by Tiziana Piras ("Petrarca nello Zibaldone di Leopardi"). According to Petrarca, the pronouns derive from Latin "nos ceteri", which was used in spoken language to distinguish the "nos" used as a plural from the "nos" used as a singular, i.e. instead of "ego".
It's the same in EMILIANO
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetto_modenese
- nosotros=nosaltres=nous autres=Nuèter
- vosotros=vosaltres=vous autres=Vuèter
Romance languages originally being a dialect continuum, there are many expressions found in some French dialects that are also found in other Romance languages. For example À cette heure= quest'ora (Italian)
I'm from Québec. I use vous autres when trying to distinguish the plural vous from the singular form, if needed. It is oftentimes followed by vous. E.g. Vous autres, vous employez Angular pour le développement web(You guys use Angular for web development). This can refer to a group likewise(e.g. a company). Otherwise, you are stuck with, "Vous, je veux dire votre compagnie..." or "Votre compagnie". The same is true in English, except there are expressions like, "You guys use Angular for web development". It is obviously referring to the collective group. That's how we accomplish this without having to refer to the group by name like in English.
Nous autres contrasts that, but, that can be done through "on": "On fait le développement web avec React pour la plupart" — We(probably my company) do web development with React mostly. There is no equivalent in English I can think of. If I'm already referring to On(my group), I don't need to compare to vous autres, because the vous is mostly like another group compared to my group. E.g. On fait la cuisine comme ça, mais vous, vous le faites ainsi. We cook like this, but you guys cook like that.
I hope this is helpful. I wrote it rather quickly. It's relation to Latin or Spanish doesn't concern me and I couldn't comment on it.
Nous autres contrasts that, but, that can be done through "on": "On fait le développement web avec React pour la plupart" — We(probably my company) do web development with React mostly. There is no equivalent in English I can think of. If I'm already referring to On(my group), I don't need to compare to vous autres, because the vous is mostly like another group compared to my group. E.g. On fait la cuisine comme ça, mais vous, vous le faites ainsi. We cook like this, but you guys cook like that.
I hope this is helpful. I wrote it rather quickly
. It's relation to Latin or Spanish doesn't concern me and I couldn't comment on it.
In short, English and French have the same problem. Plural and singular 2nd person pronouns are identical and depend on context. In Spanish this is solved by Usted/Ustedes, Tú/Vosotros(only in Spain).I'm from Québec. I use vous autres when trying to distinguish the plural vous from the singular form, if needed. It is oftentimes followed by vous. E.g. Vous autres, vous employez Angular pour le développement web(You guys use Angular for web development). This can refer to a group likewise(e.g. a company). Otherwise, you are stuck with, "Vous, je veux dire votre compagnie..." or "Votre compagnie". The same is true in English, except there are expressions like, "You guys use Angular for web development". It is obviously referring to the collective group. That's how we accomplish this without having to refer to the group by name like in English.
Nous autres contrasts that, but, that can be done through "on": "On fait le développement web avec React pour la plupart" — We(probably my company) do web development with React mostly. There is no equivalent in English I can think of. If I'm already referring to On(my group), I don't need to compare to vous autres, because the vous is mostly like another group compared to my group. E.g. On fait la cuisine comme ça, mais vous, vous le faites ainsi. We cook like this, but you guys cook like that.
I hope this is helpful. I wrote it rather quickly
Vous autres helps distinguish vous singular and plural. It is followed by vous oftentimes. Same issue in English. You vs you guys, yall, etc, depending on what region you live in. If you just say, "you", people may think that you are speaking to them specifically vs the group. I've had this happen to me and seen it happen to others quite a few times. Hence the need for, you guys, all of you, yall, etc.
Nous autres can be replaced by On. If not, it is in contrast to vous plural. Because you are generally contrasting Nous autres with a plural group, you don't say, "nous autres..., vous autres...". You just say, if you use nous autres instead of on, "nous autres, on fait..., vous faites...".
Also, someone mentioned about whether or not it was looked down on. There is a huge difference between the way one writes and the way one speaks in most languages. When writing, you are generally writing to the, "you", so it is clear who the "you" is. So, there is no ambiguity generally between vous plural and singular or you singular or plural. If needed, I'd put something like, "votre compagnie", if in an email, e.g. In speech, it is just expected, because it is needed to distinguish the two. Just as, in English, saying, "All of you" or "You guys" isn't looked down upon in speech, but wouldn't be used in writing because your context is very clear. If giving a speech how you speak is likewise different in any language. How you speak to your close friends is different than how you'd speak to your boss most likely, e.g.
If you speak how you write that is looked down upon likewise. It's weird. It doesn't show sophistication as much as a limited vocabulary most likely and that you don't know how to use different registers of the language and the context in which each is used.
I hope that's more succinct.
Last edited:
In Galician nosoutros, vosoutros are now dialectal, but they are already attested since around 1300 (Corpus Xelmírez - Resultados da consulta).
Edit: grammar
Last edited:
In current Italian, noialtri/voialtri are colloquial words only , and sound somewhat northern-dialectal. Such pronouns would never appear in a literary work (or maybe only to reproduce some character's colloquial speech).
Ciao,
Interesting! (For foreigners: -à as abbreviation of altri, no doubt).
Interesting! (For foreigners: -à as abbreviation of altri, no doubt).
For most of Italian people too
The same forms are used in my area, in the Marche Region.
Last edited:
In Standard Catalan, it's nosaltres, which allows three standard pronunciations: nu'zaɫtɾəs ; (Western) no'zaɫtɾes ; (Majorcan) no'zaɫtɾəs.
However, in spoken Catalan, there are more than 30 ways of pronouncing that very word, depending on the area. And the word is already attested in Archaic Catalan. These two facts alone point to the fact that the combination nos + alteros must have already been present in Vulgar Latin / Proto-Romance as a variant for 'we'. (Old Catalan also had the simple nós for 'we', but as a nominative form it didn't survive the Middle Ages)
However, in spoken Catalan, there are more than 30 ways of pronouncing that very word, depending on the area. And the word is already attested in Archaic Catalan. These two facts alone point to the fact that the combination nos + alteros must have already been present in Vulgar Latin / Proto-Romance as a variant for 'we'. (Old Catalan also had the simple nós for 'we', but as a nominative form it didn't survive the Middle Ages)
Why are such useful words considered dialectal and/or wrong in standard Italian?
Probably because the classical pronouns noi, voi (from Lat. nos, vos) are available and normal. In dialects, and dialect-influenced colloquial, the -altri part (originally expressing a contraposition meaning, like we/you on the contrary) today doesn't add anything to noi/voi. It has just remained as a lower-register expression, and for the contraposition meaning you would have to add ''on the contrary/on the other side'' or similar.
Right. It's also sometimes found in old Portuguese: "nós outros" - Google Search
Nós e "nós outros" - Ciberdúvidas da Língua Portuguesa
Ok, I can understand it if it doesn't indicate this contrast anymore.
In the dialect of Bologna (my hometown) for example, in order to say 'we' there is no other form than nuèter (noialtri), and to say you (pl.) vuèter (voialtri). Uneducated people there normally say in Italian noialtri/voialtri - sort of translation from dialect - instead ov noi/voi, without any 'contrast' whatsoever.
Aren't they used in the contrastive way: vós blablabla e nosoutros (on the contrary)?
Also in Standard Italian noialtri/voialtri or noi altri e voi altri can be used in the contrastive way. Noi la pensiamo così e voi altri pensatela come vi pare.
nói in Vocabolario - Treccani
@ Olaszinhok
That's true, I think however that it's an outdated or literary way of expressing the contrast (see my #37: ''originally expressing a contraposition'').
In current Italian I'd rather say Noi/voi invece or noi/voi però.. In your example I would say:.... ma voi pensatela pure come vi pare.
That's true, I think however that it's an outdated or literary way of expressing the contrast (see my #37: ''originally expressing a contraposition'').
In current Italian I'd rather say Noi/voi invece or noi/voi però.. In your example I would say:.... ma voi pensatela pure come vi pare.
Last edited:
To be honest, it does not sound that outdated, nor literary to me. It find it to be rather colloquial instead and noialtri/voialtri with contrastive value can also be used in a very "spontaneous" utterence, in my view. Noi facciamo così, voi altri fate quel che volete.
Last edited:
Ok, then it might be a regional difference.
They were, mostly: now they are still used this way, sometimes, in the literary language, and also by some older speakers in the west. But in general either you use nós, vós (central and southern Galicia and younger speakers) or nosoutros, vosoutros (northeastern Galicia and the Galician speaking region of Asturias).
I've done a little bit of searching and have some interesting conclusions to share.
Gehling (2004), "Ich", "du" und andere briefly explores the topic, albeit mentioning just one other study, and concludes that there cannot have existed an exclusivity distinction in the history of the Romance languages, just as there isn't one now. Besides not being attested, such a distinction only seems to make sense in the first person. The actually attested meaning everywhere in Romance looks to be that of emphasis, and I think I have a convincing explanation of how it has most likely arisen. At the beginning of this thread the expressions alter ego and alter īdem are mentioned - these are relevant, but even more so are the following two:
Gehling (2004), "Ich", "du" und andere briefly explores the topic, albeit mentioning just one other study, and concludes that there cannot have existed an exclusivity distinction in the history of the Romance languages, just as there isn't one now. Besides not being attested, such a distinction only seems to make sense in the first person. The actually attested meaning everywhere in Romance looks to be that of emphasis, and I think I have a convincing explanation of how it has most likely arisen. At the beginning of this thread the expressions alter ego and alter īdem are mentioned - these are relevant, but even more so are the following two:
- … Rōmānus et Agilis, quōs ut nōs alterōs tibi commendāmus ('… whom I recommend to you as I would myself', Augustine, 4-5th c. AD)
- … <Pompeius> mē prīncipem nōmināvit et ad omnia mē alterum sē fore dīxit ('… <Pompey> named me first, and said that I should be his alter ego [=just like his own self] for all purposes', Cicero, 1th c. BC)
Last edited:
I would rather translate ''whom I recommend to you as if they were myself'' (lit. whom we recommend to you as (if) being ourselves). ''Nos alteros'' is accusative case (predicative of the object).
'whom I recommend to you as I would myself' is an idiomatic way to say 'whom I recommend to you as if they were myself', which sounds awkward. Specifically the bold part is idiomatic, where recommend is implied, and it is precisely parallel to the Latin nōs alterōs (being the object), while the other version is not.
Can't ''as I would myself'' be understood as ''as I myself would do'' in English? I find the expression at least very ambiguous.
Ex. You should get out of that horrible house, as I would myself.
My objection concerns only the grammar. The meaning is clear, however it's not simple to regard that 'myself' as accusative.
Ex. You should get out of that horrible house, as I would myself.
My objection concerns only the grammar. The meaning is clear, however it's not simple to regard that 'myself' as accusative.
Last edited:
Roughly speaking, meaning is made up of grammar, semantics and pragmatics. In our case it is mainly a question of grammar, there is only one possible semantic content to the individual words - the uncertainty is whether the phrase is the subject or the object. Pragmatics doubly help disambiguate this: firstly, because 'I recommend him as I myself would recommend him' is a senseless utterance; and secondly and more importantly, because 'as I would myself' is an idiomatic expression (something pragmatics deals with) which is used to express precisely this sort of object-object comparison. You will find many examples of this usage if you google the phrase. There's also some help from grammar - a by-product of the fact that this construction is idiomatic with coordinate objects is that a dummy verb is commonly used to express coordinate subject: You should get out of that horrible house, as I would do myself. Without the do, it feels like the two constructions (the idiomatic and the non-idiomatic one) have been mixed, although judging by google results this usage also seems to be common.
Last edited: