Thee, Thou, Thine......

[toon]

Again, as I posted above, "thou" is NOT more formal, although it may be "quaint" (as in "old fashioned"). "Thou" is familiar, not formal. It is certainly not more "corporate," by any means. I regret that it is a common misconception that the use of "thou" is regarded as something that distances us from our Father in heaven, rather than something that should be understood as language that draws us nearer to Him.

When dealing with language among other things, isn't what is considered formal or not largely a product of common conception? That "thou" have have at one time been the "familiar" form does not mean carries a less formal connotation today.

[William Schryver]

It is very interesting and I am curious as to whether anyone might know why the formal "you" became the popular go-to format for English.

"You" was not the second person singular "formal" in the nominative case. "Ye" was. "You" was the second person objective pronoun. It assumed the role of second person nominative, as well.

[William Schryver]

When dealing with language among other things, isn't what is considered formal or not largely a product of common conception? That "thou" have have at one time been the "familiar" form does not mean carries a less formal connotation today.

But that's part of my point: "thou" is NOT used in a formal sense today. It is used in many religious settings, and it is a remnant of the King James Version of the Bible, which correctly uses the linguistic conventions of its day. It is a misconception (albeit a common one) that it is more "formal". Again: its correct sense has not changed, even if many people are ignorant of it. Frankly, I don't know how anyone can fully understand the King James Version of the Bible without an understanding of the grammar rules that permeate it. But that's another discussion altogether ...

Edited September 20, 2011 by William Schryver

[toon]

Just because people commonly use "accept" in place of "except," or "affect" in place of "effect" doesn't cause the correct meaning of those words to be altered.

But, over time, it may.

[Tarski]

But, over time, it may.

Exactly. Correct usage is ultimately determined by the practices of a particular linguistic community. That can change and even reverse desite the efforts of grammarians and guardians of traditional norms. See my post above and the example of "vosotros" outside of Spain.

Edited September 20, 2011 by Tarski

[mfbukowski]

What should we make of this? Well, I say that the real sense of a word is found in its use and so indeed for us "thee" and "thou" are hyper-respectful or formal and so it is with "vosotros" outside Spain. Rather than it being a matter of a group of people using a word incorrectly, the thing in question has actually semantically evolved so that the formal/informal aspect has reversed. In this light I try to convince my wife that in this matter and other matters of Spanish grammar and pronounciation, it is NOT that Spain's way is the correct way. What is correct depends on which linguistic community we are talking about.

Howdy Tarski- haven't seen you in a while- welcome back. Hope all is well with you and yours.

I agree with you on this one. I think meaning is in the context of communication. In this sense there is no "right" or "wrong" in language, yet obviously one's use of language can easily display one's background context, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse

[Ahab]

But that's part of my point: "thou" is NOT used in a formal sense today. It is used in many religious settings, and it is a remnant of the King James Version of the Bible, which correctly uses the linguistic conventions of its day. It is a misconception (albeit a common one) that it is more "formal". Again: its correct sense has not changed, even if many people are ignorant of it. Frankly, I don't know how anyone can fully understand the King James Version of the Bible without an understanding of the grammar rules that permeate it. But that's another discussion altogether ...

I think you're getting hung up on the word "formal", which I sometimes use to mean something special or out of the ordinary.

Like, for example, how a tuxedo is considered "formal" attire for some people, even though some other people may wear one fairly often.

Edited September 20, 2011 by Ahab

[William Schryver]

But, over time, it may.

I'm sure that's what happened with the people of Zarahemla--as well as the compelling imperative Nephi felt in terms of preserving the language of his fathers.

I dread to contemplate the long-term consequence of text messaging on the future of our language.

English is far too great a language--2G2B4G.

[zerinus]

In my opinion, no one should be correcting someone else's language of prayer. That's not the appropriate setting for a lesson on the usage of "thou," "thee," "thine," etc.

However, I would like to use this setting to give a lesson on the topic:

"Thou" is not a more "formal" way of saying "you." It is, quite to the contrary, less formal. "Thou" is the familiar (although now archaic) form in English. It is the equivalent of "tu" in Italian and Spanish. It is the form one would use with close friends and family members. I think it is important to teach this concept to children when instructing them about the use of "thou" (and its objective and possessive forms: "thee," and "thine") in the context of prayer. We do it to emphasize our familiarity, our family relationship, with our Father in heaven; to underscore our unique relationship to Him as our Father.

William is right. Thou and thee are second person singular pronouns which have dropped out of English, whereas you is the second person plural pronoun which has replaced it, and is now used to serve both functions, singular as well as plural. There are many other languages, however, in which the second person singular pronoun is still in use, and has not been dropped; and it is almost universally the case that the singular form is used "informally" (including when addressing the deity in prayer), whereas the plural form is used "formally," such as in polite conversation. You use the plural form in singular mode to express politeness and formality, but use the singular form to express informality and familiarity. As far as I can tell, in all languages where the singular form is retained, it is used to address the deity to express familiarity, informality, and personal closeness. In Elizabethan English too that is how it was used, until the the "politer" plural form prevailed, and the less formal, familiar singular form dropped out of use. See here for more interesting discussion.

[Calm]

I suspect that if we pray as often as we should that if we choose to add an additional layer of symbolic familiarity and sacredness by the use of thou, that it soon will be our natural speech in the prayer setting.

[William Schryver]

I think you're getting hung up on the word "formal", which I sometimes use to mean something special or out of the ordinary.

Like, for example, how a tuxedo is considered "formal" attire for some people, even though some other people may wear one fairly often.

Nah! I'm not "hung up" at all. Don't misinterpret what I'm trying to say here. The failure of most Mormons to understand and appreciate the language of our scriptures and prayers is a pet peeve of mine, but I don't really worry about it that much. I'm just on a minor mission to save the extraordinary beauty of the King James Bible and Elizabethan English. That said, I recognize what a hopeless mission it is.

[Tarski]

Howdy Tarski- haven't seen you in a while- welcome back. Hope all is well with you and yours.

I agree with you on this one. I think meaning is in the context of communication. In this sense there is no "right" or "wrong" in language, yet obviously one's use of language can easily display one's background context, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse

Right and so if essentially every Mormon speaker feels like these words have a sacred feel and even a formal feel, then I guess one could say that it is correct for the Mormon community. Indeed, I believe that it extends beyond the confines of Mormonism. Probably the average church going American has a similar attitude about the words in question.

The efforts of some to straighten everyone out might (might!) be misguided. Maybe they should just educate everyone about how the words were used in the past in comparison to today and leave it at that. Knowing the original usage would help us read some translations of the scriptures more intelligently of course.

Edited September 20, 2011 by Tarski

[William Schryver]

William is right. Thou and thee are second person singular pronouns which have dropped out of English, whereas you is the second person plural pronoun which has replaced it, and is now used to serve both functions, singular as well as plural. There are many other languages, however, in which the second person singular pronoun is still in use, and has not been dropped; and it is almost universally the case that the singular form is used "informally" (including when addressing the deity in prayer), whereas the plural form is used "formally," such as in polite conversation. You use the plural form in singular mode to express politeness and formality, but use the singular form to express informality and familiarity. As far as I can tell, in all languages where the singular form is retained, it is used to address the deity to express familiarity, informality, and personal closeness. In Elizabethan English too that is how it was used, until the the "politer" plural form prevailed, and the less formal, familiar singular form dropped out of use. See here for more interesting discussion.

Well, as I wrote above, it is more accurate to say the second person singular and plural objective case ("you") took the role of the second person singular and plural nominative case. The second person plural nominative was "ye".

I suspect that if we pray as often as we should that if we choose to add an additional layer of symbolic familiarity and sacredness by the use of thou, that it soon will be our natural speech in the prayer setting.

I agree 100%. It is this way for me--although I don't mean to come across as "holier than thou."

Seriously though: the language of the King James Bible is, for me and many others, the sacred language of prayer. But I don't view it as being more "formal." In fact, I really view it as being more "familiar," but in a sacred sense.

Edited September 20, 2011 by William Schryver

[Cobalt-70]

No, they haven't. All that has happened is that the second person singular familiar has become obsolete. But then so has the second person singular formal ("ye"). At any rate, your statement is false.

Not technically, but effectively, I think I'm right. In practical use by modern Mormons, the English second person singular informal is definitely more "formal" than the second person singular "formal" usage, which is now effectively both formal and familiar. In most English today, there is no difference between formal and familiar. English has changed. In one of the few situations in contemporary English where there is a difference in conjugation between formal and familiar--Mormon prayer--the formerly "familiar" forms now designate formality, rather than familiarity. And according to a few general authorities, the formerly "formal" forms supposedly show disrespect. This is a reversal.

[Tarski]

But that's part of my point: "thou" is NOT used in a formal sense today. It is used in many religious settings, and it is a remnant of the King James Version of the Bible, which correctly uses the linguistic conventions of its day. It is a misconception (albeit a common one) that it is more "formal". Again: its correct sense has not changed, even if many people are ignorant of it. Frankly, I don't know how anyone can fully understand the King James Version of the Bible without an understanding of the grammar rules that permeate it. But that's another discussion altogether ...

We can always ask whether the situation should be best understood as being that a majority of people are misusing a word or if it is rather that correct usage has changed exactly because a majority use it in the new way. I would argue that there simply is no fact of the matter. The two views will just have to fight it out until some consensus is reached even among experts.

I do agree that the original sense of the words needs to be understood if one is going intelligently read the KJ version of the Bible for example.

On the other hand, what one makes of the usage in the Book of Mormon depends very much on whether you think it was a 19th century concoction that imitates the language of the KJ Bible or not. If one thinks that JS wrote the BoM then it becomes a question of whether JS had the same confusions as many people do today about the formal/informal distinctions we are discussing.

It would be an interesting topic and it would help to examine the language of the D&C and the BoA for possible clues.

Edited September 20, 2011 by Tarski

[William Schryver]

We can always ask whether the situation should be best understood as being that a majority of people are misusing a word or if it is rather that correct usage has changed exactly because a majority use it in the new way. I would argue that there simply is no fact of the matter. The two views will just have to fight it out until some consensus is reached even among experts.

I do agree that the original sense of the words needs to be understood if one is going intelligently read the KJ version of the Bible for example.

On the other hand, what one makes of the usage in the Book of Mormon depends very much on whether you think it was a 19th century concoction that imitates the language of the KJ Bible or not. If one thinks that JS wrote the BoM then it becomes a question of whether JS had the same confusions as many people do today about the formal/informal distinctions we are discussing.

It would be an interesting topic and it would help to examine the language of the D&C and the BoA for possible clues.

I'm not aware, right off hand, of any conclusive misuses of the "familiar/formal" personal pronouns in the Book of Mormon. There have been some people who have suggested misuse of the singular/plural, but I think, in most cases, those people fail to appreciate that "ye" was not exclusively used as the second person plural nominative, but also as the second person singular nominative.

[Cobalt-70]

Nah! I'm not "hung up" at all. Don't misinterpret what I'm trying to say here. The failure of most Mormons to understand and appreciate the language of our scriptures and prayers is a pet peeve of mine, but I don't really worry about it that much. I'm just on a minor mission to save the extraordinary beauty of the King James Bible and Elizabethan English. That said, I recognize what a hopeless mission it is.

I don't have anything against early modern English. It's not the English I speak except when required by custom, but I don't want it to go away because it has a certain quaint formality that is useful for artistic purposes. To Americans, it sounds kind of like an RP British accent on steroids. So you sometimes see it in poetry or science fiction, or in drama to mimic the stilted formality of Latin.

[toon]

But that's part of my point: "thou" is NOT used in a formal sense today. It is used in many religious settings, and it is a remnant of the King James Version of the Bible, which correctly uses the linguistic conventions of its day. It is a misconception (albeit a common one) that it is more "formal". Again: its correct sense has not changed, even if many people are ignorant of it. Frankly, I don't know how anyone can fully understand the King James Version of the Bible without an understanding of the grammar rules that permeate it. But that's another discussion altogether ...

I think that's a great point about knowing the grammar behind the KJV. There is a whole layer, or layers, that is missed in by not knowing the historical usage of "thou."

But I'm not sure how my knowedgle of how "thou" was used in Early Modern English helps me understand better the guy at the pulpet offering the opening paryaer in Sacrament meeting, as in all likelihood he's using it to convey something more formal, assuming that usage isn't just rote..

[mfbukowski]

Regarding, ye, I think it derives from the thorn letter doesn't it?

Thorn or þorn (Þ, þ), is a letter in the Old English, Old Norse, and Icelandic alphabets, as well as some dialects of Middle English. It was also used in mediæval Scandinavia, but was later replaced with the digraph th. The letter originated from the rune ᚦ in the Elder Fuþark, called thorn in the Anglo-Saxon and thorn or thurs ("giant") in the Scandinavian rune poems, its reconstructed Proto-Germanic name being Thurisaz.......

Middle and Early Modern English

The modern digraph th began to grow in popularity during the 14th century; at the same time, the shape of thorn grew less distinctive, with the letter losing its ascender (becoming similar in appearance to the old wynn (Ƿ, ƿ), which had fallen out of use by 1300) and, in some hands, such as that of the scribe of the unique mid-15th century manuscript of The Boke of Margery Kempe, ultimately becoming indistinguishable from the letter Y. By this stage th was predominant, however, and the usage of thorn was largely restricted to certain common words and abbreviations. In William Caxton's pioneering printed English, it is rare except in an abbreviated the, written with a thorn and a superscript E. This was the longest-lived usage, though the substitution of Y for thorn soon became ubiquitous, leading to the common 'ye's as in 'Ye Olde Curiositie Shoppe'. One major reason for this is that Y existed in the printer's type fonts that were imported from Germany or Italy, and thorn did not. The first printing of the King James Version of the Bible in 1611 used the Y form of thorn with a superscript E in places such as Job 1:9, John 15:1, and Romans 15:29. It also used a similar form with a superscript T, which was an abbreviated that, in places such as 2 Corinthians 13:7. All were replaced in later printings by the or that, respectively.

[edit] Abbreviations

The following were abbreviations during Middle and Early Modern English using the letter thorn:

• – (þ^e) a Middle English abbreviation for the word the
  
• – (þ^t) a Middle English abbreviation for the word that
  
• – (þ^u) a rare Middle English abbreviation for the word thou (which was written early on as þu or þou)
  
• (y^s) an Early Modern English abbreviation for the word this
  
• – (y^e) an Early Modern English abbreviation for the word the
  
• – (y^t) an Early Modern English abbreviation for the word that
  

An example of the last vestige of the letter thorn in the English language.

Modern English

Thorn in the form of a Y survives to this day in pseudo-archaic usages, particularly the stock prefix Ye olde. The definite article spelled with Y for thorn is often jocularly or mistakenly pronounced /jiː/ or mistaken for the archaic nominative case of you, namely ye.

A handwritten form of thorn that was similar to the letter 'y' in appearance with a small 'e' written above it as an abbreviation for 'the' was common in early Modern English. This can still be seen in reprints of the 1611 edition of the King James Version of the Bible in places such as Romans 15:29, or in the Mayflower Compact. Note that the article was never pronounced with a y sound, even when so written.

Y is used infrequently in some modern English word games to replace the th with a single letter.^{[citation needed]}

Edited September 20, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Tarski]

I'm not aware, right off hand, of any conclusive misuses of the "familiar/formal" personal pronouns in the Book of Mormon. There have been some people who have suggested misuse of the singular/plural, but I think, in most cases, those people fail to appreciate that "ye" was not exclusively used as the second person plural nominative, but also as the second person singular nominative.

Of course, you are right to imply that even a misuse doesn't by itself prove that the book is not a translation of an ancient text since one could always go to some version of a loose translation hypothesis. But note that even in that case, or maybe especially in that case, we would like to know how Joseph Smith understood the words and constructions which we are considering. Did he have the same misunderstandings as my mother for example and in the case of loose translation should believers therefore read it that way?

Disclaimer: As those familiar with me know, I am of the opinion that the BoM is not a translation of an ancient record. I am just playing along with that assumption for the sake of the discussion.

[William Schryver]

Not technically, but effectively, I think I'm right. In practical use by modern Mormons, the English second person singular informal is definitely more "formal" than the second person singular "formal" usage, which is now effectively both formal and familiar. In most English today, there is no difference between formal and familiar. English has changed. In one of the few situations in contemporary English where there is a difference in conjugation between formal and familiar--Mormon prayer--the formerly "familiar" forms now designate formality, rather than familiarity. And according to a few general authorities, the formerly "formal" forms supposedly show disrespect. This is a reversal.

Again, it's really not that big of a deal, but you are incorrect. The second person singular formal was "ye", not "you". So there has been no "reversal". "You" was the second person singular and plural objective case, and it has supplanted the nominative case.

[William Schryver]

Of course, you are right to imply that even a misuse doesn't by itself prove that the book is not a translation of an ancient text since one could always go to some version of a loose translation hypothesis. But note that even in that case, or maybe especially in that case, we would like to know how Joseph Smith understood the words and constructions which we are considering. Did he have the same misunderstandings as my mother for example and in the case of loose translation should believers therefore read it that way?

Disclaimer: As those familiar with me know, I am of the opinion that the BoM is not a translation of an ancient record. I am just playing along with that assumption for the sake of the discussion.

Again, I am not aware of any such misuse in the Book of Mormon, whether one regards it as a translation of an ancient record, or otherwise.

[Questing Beast]

Your failure to understand and your derisive use of the term "Saint Speak" are hereby noted, and justifiably ignored.

Incidently, "-est" is the archaic ending of the English verb conjugations of the "thou" (familar) form. It has nothing to do with "Saint Speak," and, if one were to read Shakespeare, you would find that he uses all these forms correctly. It is a misconception that this is the "language of scripture." It is nothing more or less than the language of the King James Bible translators, who were contemporary with Shakespeare. The familiar form persisted into the 19th century, but has since become archaic and effectively obsolete. Even so, an understanding of its origins is the mark of the educated and knowledgeable man or woman, just as ignorant mockery is quite frequently the mark of a fool.

And your ad hominem is duly noted, and not disingenuously "ignored".

"Saint Speak" is a term of self effacing humor. It was coined by Pat Bagley, iirc - if not him, then possibly Calvin Grondahl. You could take a lesson in understanding and acknowledging Mormon humor from him/them, imho.

I am perfectly aware of "the language of scripture" being the 19th century (ignorant) misconception of American country hicks of low education. That is no reason to excuse the continuation of the traditional misconception; even perpetuating it every few sermons in general conference.

The bulk of Saints who take their turn at corporate prayer in church meetings, do not use the "est" properly, as I pointed out. So your assertion that it is the mark of an educated person is non sequitur....

[William Schryver]

Regarding, ye, I think it derives from the thorn letter doesn't it?

This is actually a different discussion altogether, but an interesting one all the same. My opinion is that the phrase "Ye Olde ..." is actually a corruption, rather than a valid archaic usage. To my knowledge, you will not find "ye" used as an article, nor as a possessive pronoun, in either the King James Bible nor in Shakespeare's plays, nor in any other grammatically correct Elizabethan-era production.

[William Schryver]

And your ad hominem is duly noted, and not disingenuously "ignored".

"Saint Speak" is a term of self effacing humor. It was coined by Pat Bagley, iirc - if not him, then possibly Calvin Grondahl. You could take a lesson in understanding and acknowledging Mormon humor from him/them, imho.

I am perfectly aware of "the language of scripture" being the 19th century (ignorant) misconception of American country hicks of low education. That is no reason to excuse the continuation of the traditional misconception; even perpetuating it every few sermons in general conference.

The bulk of Saints who take their turn at corporate prayer in church meetings, do not use the "est" properly, as I pointed out. So your assertion that it is the mark of an educated person is non sequitur....

Your imputation of my having employed the ad hominem logical fallacy is misapplied. I recommend reading the article to which I have linked in order to expand your understanding of the term, pursuant to your future avoidance of any such misapplication of it.