The fracas in Parliament on Wednesday and yesterday was caused as much by imprecision of language as political differences.
English can often be a precise language. It has so many words with so many shades of meaning that someone well versed in the language can convey meaning on the most complex subject. But the imprecision this week was caused by the absence in modern English of a very simple word to denote the second person singular.
The Opposition complained about the Minister for Employment Services, Tony Abbott, making what it said was an attack on his Opposition counterpart, the Member for Dickson, Cheryl Kernot. Ms Kernot, it will be remembered, was once the leader of the Australian Democrats.
In answer to a question about Work for the Dole, Abbott said, “”Yesterday the Member for Dickson, responding to misleading statements from ACOSS, issued a press release. She did not do live media lest she be asked the obvious question: how can you keep the so-and-sos honest when you are taking their money?”
Mr Abbott is a religious man and so used the word “”so-and-sos” rather than “”bastards”, but it was clear reference to the Democrats’ slogan created by its founder Don Chipp in 1977 that the Democrats would “”keep the bastards honest” — the “”bastards” being the two major parties. The words “”taking their money” was a reference to revelations the previous day that Wayne Swan, the Labor Member for the Queensland seat of Lilley, had admitted to giving about $1400 in $50 notes in a brown envelope to a local ALP organiser to give to the Democrats during the 1996 campaign. He denied that it was to influence the direction of preferences which were decided at a national level. It was to help with their campaign. The Democrats had already decided to give Labor preferences in the seat of Lilley. Ms Kernot was the leader of the Democrats at the time.
Enter the imprecision of language.
“”How can YOU keep the so-and-sos honest when YOU are taking their money?” was Abbott’s rhetorical question. But who is “”you”?
In English, the first person singular is “”I” (“”me” in the objective case). The first person plural is a different word: “”we” (“”us” in the objective case). The third person singular is “”he” or “”she” (him and her in the objective case). The third person plural is ”they” (“them” in the objective case). So in the first and third person modern English uses different words for the plural and for the objective case. (The objective case is after a verb or preposition. So he runs to me, her and them. And I, she and they run to him.)
But note the second person. In the lazy modern (post 18th century) the same word is used for the singular and plural both in the nominative and objective cases. The word is “”you”. The sentence, “”You will do your homework or I will yell at you” can be addressed to a classroom or a single child.
The word “”you” is also used as a replacement for “”one”, which is seen as too pompous these days.
In Abbott’s case the imprecision of language caused agitation among Kernot’s Labor colleagues. They thought the words “”when you are taking their money” meant “”when you (Kernot) are taking their money”. It is an accusation of bribery. Labor frontbencher Bob McMullan demanded it be withdrawn. If borne out, McMullan had Abbott on toast. If the Speaker, Neil Andrew, did not demand the withdrawal he would look inconsistent. Andrew said he did not hear the words and would check Hansard. The matter rebrewed yesterday.
In older English, Abbott would have had a choice of words and could have been more precise. In old English the second person singular had a separate word “”thou” (objective case “”thee”). The word “you” was preserved for the plural.
And to reinforce the distinction the verb was conjugated so it had a different ending for each person singular and plural. I keep, thou keepest, he keepeth . . . . In languages like Spanish the conjugation is so different between the persons that they can leave the pronoun out altogether – the ending of the verb (or the fact the word is completely different) on its own is enough to tell which person the speaker is referring to. Instead of “”jo soy” (I am) they just say “”soy”).
Abbott could have said, “”How can thou one keep the so-and-sos honest when one is taking their money?” That would have been an intellectual inquiry at a hypothetical level
He could have said, “”How can thou keepest the so-and-sos honest when thou art are taking their money?” That would have been a direct accusation at Kernot as an individual.
Or he could have said, “”How can you keep the so-and-sos honest when you are taking their money?” That would have been an accusation directed at the Democrats (plural) in general.
The imprecision of having the same word for the second person singular and plural has led to the generation of some slang words to distinguish between the singular “”you” and plural “”you”.
In the south of the US, people use the word “”y’awl”, a contraction of “”you all”, to mean plural “”you”. When an American urges “”y’awl” to “”have a nice day”, he is referring to the whole group, never an individual.
In Australia, we have the slang word “”youse” to mean the same thing. And former Prime Minister Paul Keating was fond of using the words “”you lot” to denote the second person plural. It seems silly to use the plural word at the singular and then have to invent a new plural word.
I prefer “”thou” and “”thee”, don’t you?