khyod: Difference between revisions
Sherabzangpo (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Sherabzangpo (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
thou, you, yourself (addressing inferiors or equals it (subject marker in syllogisms [IW] | thou, you, yourself (addressing inferiors or equals it (subject marker in syllogisms [IW] | ||
You. The usage of [[khyod]] (and its plural form [[khyod tsho]]) is quite different in classical and modern Tibetan; in classical Tibetan it is not considered impolite or disrespectful and is even used to address buddhas, deities and lamas, while in modern colloquial and literary Tibetan it is generally considered to be familiar and non-honorific, often indicating closeness, friendliness, humor or in some cases aggression, and is mostly used with friends and family and not with strangers. [Erick Tsiknopoulos] | You. The usage of ''[[khyod]]'' (and its plural form ''[[khyod tsho]]'') is quite different in classical and modern Tibetan; in classical Tibetan it is not considered impolite or disrespectful and is even used to address buddhas, deities and lamas, while in modern colloquial and literary Tibetan it is generally considered to be familiar and non-honorific, often indicating closeness, friendliness, humor or in some cases aggression, and is mostly used with friends and family and not with strangers. [Erick Tsiknopoulos] | ||
[[Category:Tibetan Dictionary]] [[Category:rydic2003]] [[Category:kha]] | [[Category:Tibetan Dictionary]] [[Category:rydic2003]] [[Category:kha]] | ||
Revision as of 19:48, 28 April 2021
ཁྱོད
thou, you, you [JV]
1) you, yourself (to inferiors or =s; 2) it (subject marker in syllogisms [IW]
thou, you, yourself [used when addressing inferiors or equals] it. [a subject marker in syllogisms] [RY]
thou, you, yourself (addressing inferiors or equals it (subject marker in syllogisms [IW]
You. The usage of khyod (and its plural form khyod tsho) is quite different in classical and modern Tibetan; in classical Tibetan it is not considered impolite or disrespectful and is even used to address buddhas, deities and lamas, while in modern colloquial and literary Tibetan it is generally considered to be familiar and non-honorific, often indicating closeness, friendliness, humor or in some cases aggression, and is mostly used with friends and family and not with strangers. [Erick Tsiknopoulos]