Caesar didn't "introduce the voi". Is this an urban myth that Italians believe? The tu/vous distinction in Romance languages arose in medieval times. Not only did it not exist in Caesar's time, it is absent from the centuries of Imperial-era literature in Latin.
There is a wide literature on Latin forms of address. Eleanor Dickey's monograph published by Oxford University Press is a good survey.
I am not an historian but it seems so, I’ve found in the past few minutes two sources that attribute Voi to romans, its in italian but sure it can be translated, going to paste the original links unaltered
Your first link backs up exactly what I mentioned above:
> In antichità, quando si parlava latino, le formule di cortesia non esistevano … L’usanza del Voi nasce insieme a una nuova formula politica: la tetrarchia introdotta nel 293 da Diocleziano.
It was an innovation in Romance that took place centuries after Caesar and most of the Imperial era. Again, there is ample scholarly literature on this, so no need to resort to popular references like encyclopedias.
Yeah I saw that, but I'd say if that makes sense, that they're attributing the introduction of "Voi" within the roman era and not in the medieval times, right? The second one instead attributes it to "Roma Cesarea", to be fair, it is not the encyclopaedia that attributes it to "Roma Cesarea" but the article that influenced Mussolini quoted on the article on the encyclopaedia, so they're probably only quoting, but I don't know enough, so I'd trust you're right, thank you
Historians today tend to trace the ultimate fall of the Roman Empire to the multiple crises of the third century, even if the name of the empire limped on for a couple of centuries more. So AD 293 is quite a late date, on the threshold to a new era. From the viewpoint of modern historians, it is hard to understand how Italian Fascism could have seen anything that late as worth being proud of and emulating.
The Western Empire was the only Roman Empire that the Italian Fascists ever really cared about. Early Byzantium was totally foreign to their mythology.
If negotiating the tu/vous distinction takes major mental effort, are you on the spectrum? Difficulty with understanding social cues and (these distinctions are also about creating distance) other people’s space is a typical trait of autism. These linguistic innovations wouldn't spread – and often quickly, within a couple of generations – if the neurotypical masses found them burdensome.
I'm in a country with this distinction, too, and I don't like strangers addressing me with the informal just like that. Every sociolinguistic setting is different, but using just the informal might not automatically create rapport but the opposite. Saying people like myself aren't worth your time sounds like sour grapes, and it might rob you of some opportunities.
In the Netherlands, it is very regional whether or not you use the polite form. In the capital region, it is not used, and use is a signifier you are from the countryside, if your accent wasn't enough. There are courses on how to get rid of your accent (or rather, get one of the capital region), and ceasing the employ of the polite form is featured.
I’m surprised to read this, inasmuch as when I briefly lived in Rotterdam (if “capital region” comprises it, too) some years ago, my local acquaintances coached me in where to use the formal, and where to use the informal, and the distinction seemed very much alive.
Thats funny because in Austria it’s the other way around. People in Vienna are used to being overpolite and will use the formal “Sie” abundantly, whereas on the countryside everyone is always almost “Du”. There is the saying: “Am Land sind alle per Du”.
It isn't difficult to see why. Vienna was an imperial capital, the Netherlands 'capital region' was ruled by (wealthy) capitalists. One group would be focused on courtesy, the other on efficiency, wouldn't they?
Naturally, both are ultimately evolved into appearance, not substance (because of courae this difference isnt substantial).
> If negotiating the tu/vous distinction takes major mental effort, are you on the spectrum
For me it’s the fact that these days it’s very inconsistent. The “rules” were pretty clear 20-30+ years ago. Now it’s a bit of a mess and there is a lot of overlap.
> Saying people like myself aren't worth your time sounds like sour grapes
I mean.. you’re somebody who just claimed that a random person is autistic because he doesn’t conform with some social norm you find to be somehow extremely important (specifically) in your environment. So it might not be such a bad heuristic.
indeed inconsistency is the problem. using the informal among colleagues at work, and especially with superiors is often the sign of a more relaxed work atmosphere, which is something people want and is thus becoming more common. especially in international companies where multiple languages are used.
there is never a question what to use when i am talking to cashiers, clerks, etc. but when i am at a tech meetup or an informal gathering of people from different companies then the way to address people is very much in question. you never know how people like to be addressed. and while using the formal option may seem like the safe choice, it really isn't because it forces others to be formal with me too, and when i am the only one doing that it puts me into an odd position. the only safe option is to avoid any choice until the other makes their choice.
I didn’t claim that the person was autistic, I asked. And I asked because the way he described his difficulty is precisely what can finds in the literature on autism and sociolinguistics. And as you can see, I wasn’t far off the mark. I also specifically said that the rules of my environment might not apply to his.
I had a psychologist diagnose me, and I was almost on the spectrum according to the test (with points), but not quite to give me the diagnosis. Obviously the questionnaires are ambiguous with their questions enough to have so many different ways of interpreting the questions that to me makes many of those questions non-sensical in the first place. But actually, I have been to mental institutions multiple times, and in many cases the evaluators have mentioned "autistic tendencies". In the end - am I on the spectrum? I don't know, but I still would feel like I would benefit from it if I would just try to make a joke and then become warm and call them with the informal and singular "you" in my language. I hope it could show that we are all in this together.
Why do you think the KJV is the "original translation"? As far as English translations of Scripture go, it was preceded by the Wycliffe Bible. And a translation of the Gospels was produced in the Old English era.
While technically true this is somewhat pedantic, the KJV was the first vernacular translation to be widely available in the English speaking world and is a hugely influential text for literary English, so just take "original" here in a metaphoric sense.
Some aspects of nationalism can certainly be traced to the Enlightenment. For example, the concept of one country = one language stemmed from the ideologues of the French revolution, who swiftly went to work suppressing regional languages in their own country. This fell like a lit match on Austro-Hungary, where each ethnic group now felt even greater pressure to carve out its own space on linguistic grounds.
I grant that the Enlightenment principle of the commonality of all people would lead to a universal language, and ending regional languages is the first step of that. However delineating linguistic boundaries based on national ones seems more like a throwback to the Westphalian settlement than to a universalizing movement. Just because something happened during the ferment of the Enlightenment doesn't mean its pedigree is pure; there are always atavistic forces at work.
You’re missing the key point expressed as exchanging theological conflict for political conflict through nationalism. Humans are a predator species and that doesn’t change.
To wit: “ Hume and his acolytes had not counted on the translation of superstition and intolerance from religion into politics. Just as soon as people stopped being willing to kill and die for their religion, they started killing and dying for their country.”
I thought that the political entity was known as the Holy Roman Empire up to the Napoleonic wars, and that Austria-Hungary was what it went by after. Maybe that's their point; at least nominally the basis of the empire went from being religious to being based on secular culture/ethnicity, and eventually a lot of the land previously part of the Holy Roman Empire instead eventually merged with Prussia into what became Germany.
So, I just read a bit on my pre-WW1 European history... And now I know why I regarded Austria-Hungary as seperate entity already before the Napoleonic Wars: The Prussian and Austrian tension arose already before, an in my memory that registered as an united Empire in name only, or as Volaire put it: Neither Roman, Holly nor an Empire.
One point to formalize this split would be 1806, rather early in the Napoleonic Wars.
Overall so, you are right. The Asutria-Hungary I talked about existed only between the Napoleonic Wars and the end of WW1.
My learning about this was all back in high school during AP European History over a decade ago, so I did have to do a quick search before my comment to make sure I remembered correctly when the transition from the Holy Roman Empire to Austria-Hungary happened as well. I also don't have any illusions that even if my memory of it was perfect, the stuff I learned wasn't necessarily any more accurate than anything anyone was taught to the contrary, since as you mention, trying to pin down an exact date of transition is a bit open to interpretation.
At least from what I remember being taught, Prussia definitely did start to rise in power before the Napoleonic Wars, and the Holy Roman Empire was certainly not a very unified entity (Voltaire's quote always sticks in my mind as well, although I honestly had forgotten who had said it). I think the textbook we used often would talk specifically about the Habsburg dynasty and their sphere of influence in order to be more precise about what was under a more centralized authority versus more independent, and it's arguable that centralized rule over the Holy Roman Empire was already proven infeasible by the Thirty Years War. My impression was that the disintegration of the Holy Roman Empire as a unified entity was more or less inevitable, but where exactly all the pieces would end up was much less clear. Prussia obviously ended up a large winner, but their influence was contested in places; they fought wars against Denmark and France later in the century in addition to Austria-Hungary in the process of unifying a larger German state, and even those claims didn't necessarily last (e.g. France taking back Alsace and Lorraine after WWI). The Napoleonic Wars kind of just eliminated any remaining pretense of Austrian control over the lands that they hadn't really had much authority over for some time beforehand, which made the path Prussia to expand and consolidate easier than ever before.
Austria-Hungary finally collapsed after an entire 19th century full of ethnic strife, where many ideologues specifically pointed to French Revolution values.
This may no longer be the case, with the industry largely having adopted the newer protocols by now. Even the PinePhone, developed over four years ago and with low-end hardware, will take a 1TB SD card no problem.
The problem in the Android world is that the most respected Android version for privacy, GrapheneOS, only runs on Google Pixel phones that all lack SD card slot. Sure, you can choose to buy another phone that has an SD card slot, but that will involve a privacy tradeoff.
DivestOS is the next best thing to GrapheneOS. The founder, Tad, has contributed a massive amount to privacy on android, I've used it for a few years. It's based on LineageOS and has similar device support..
The two projects are not even remotely comparable. DivestOS can’t ensure security features like memory-isolating the modem, because the range of hardware that it supports doesn't have that functionality. It doesn’t run sandboxed Play Services, so one is limited to generally the apps that are on F-Droid.
They are indeed different projects. GrapheneOS is maximum security possible. DivestOS is best effort security of old/EOL devices to prevent them from being completely e-waste.
It depends on the distro. What especially hammers SD cards on Linux, eventually rendering the card read-only, is logs being written to disk. A lot of distros for Raspberry Pi therefore now keep logs in RAM.
Rediscovery of Aristotle? Newly-formed universities? You are describing the late Medieval era and early Renaissance. The Enlightenment is the much later period of the 17th and 18th centuries. Moreover, the rediscovery of Aristotle and early universities were within a context of Roman Catholic scholasticism, while the height of the Enlightenment was skeptical, to put it mildly, about religion.
I had a 1TB card fail on me, but that only meant that the card would no longer accept writes. I could still read everything off it. Since I was using the card to carry my entire music collection in FLAC on my phone, I was pretty OK with that. Eventually, when I wanted to update that copy of my music collection, I easily replaced the card under warranty.
StreetComplete is great for newbies, especially those that need the gamification approach to be more motivated. But if you are already an experienced OSM editor, you likely have developed muscle-memory in Vespucci or EveryDoor that lets you quickly add additional tags while barely looking at the screen.
Also, as I mentioned in my other post, adding POIs and additional tags in some regions’ urban areas is difficult because you don’t want to walk around with your phone out. And the USA makes it challenging to add and update POIs because you often can’t just walk down a street, the sprawl sets everything too far apart for that. The existing mobile editing apps, alas, cannot make up for political failures.
There is a wide literature on Latin forms of address. Eleanor Dickey's monograph published by Oxford University Press is a good survey.