Thee, Thou, Thine......

[LeSellers]

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

No.

The "ye" referred to shows the degradation of the thorn into a "y"=shaped letter, such that "Þ" (upper case thorn) and "þ" (lower case) faded from use.

"Ye" (as in "Ye Olde Curiosity Shoppe") was, in essence, an abbreviation of "the", previously spelled "þe".

There were two older English letters, thorn and edh, that represented the soft and hard "th" sounds we have today. "Breath" and "breathe" have those two sounds, the first is the soft ("voiceless") one (thorn), the second, the hard ("voiced") one (edh "Ð", " ð").

Lehi

Edited September 20, 2011 by LeSellers

[Questing Beast]

Incidentally, the meaning of "thou" has not changed, even if most people are ignorant of that meaning.

Malarky. "Marriage" is undergoing a current assault and is changing. Eventually, soon it will mean something it NEVER meant down the ages.

"Thou" in its historical context is DEAD to the general population, and has been for generations. So the topic of the OP is not in any way connected to what you are talking about. The topic is: Why would God care if you used these formalized expressions of respect? If they don't help you feel closer to God when you use them, then they are inimical to the act of prayer.

Prayers are an ongoing thing. How people prayed in "olden" times, in what form or use of whatever language of the day, is not at all the concern of contemporary praying people....

[Questing Beast]

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.

In popular usage on the Net, an "ad hominem" is "attacking the messenger instead of the message." I don't need to read any historical lesson on how the term developed or came to vary from any earlier usage. And you know what I meant, being the smart person that you intend everyone to know that you are. You employed a derogatory observation about my education level, i.e. you waxed personal toward me negatively, deeming it to be reason enough to feel superior. That is an "ad hominem" on the Net, my friend. Earlier definitions of it mattereth not....

[Questing Beast]

"Ye Elders of Israel" cannot be rendered more familiarly as "Thou Elders of Israel". In modern application, "ye" is the plural (formal) "thou"....

[KevinG]

While I don't think language usage is going to make that much difference to Father in Heaven, where this and other cultural issues are important is for public prayers and ordinances. Non-doctrinal but social traditions such as wearing white shirts to serve the sacrament, saying prayers with ye olde pronouns and asking spouses if they can sustain their partner in a calling do serve the function of making others comfortable and not distracting from sacred moments.

Of course "in all things moderation" and correcting someone for a small cultural blip is very bad form IMO.

[William Schryver]

"Ye Elders of Israel" cannot be rendered more familiarly as "Thou Elders of Israel". In modern application, "ye" is the plural (formal) "thou"....

I rest my case.

Edited September 20, 2011 by William Schryver

[KevinG]

I rest my case.

Don't you me "I resteth mine case"?

[Cobalt-70]

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.

I think ye misunderstand my point. I'm not saying that every formal pronoun switched place with its corresponding familiar pronoun. Yes, "you" supplanted "ye" at the same time it was also supplanting "thou," but "you" was never a familiar singular pronoun, so in the case of "ye" you have one formerly formal pronoun replacing another.

My point was that all of the familiar pronouns (thou, thee, thy, and thine) are now used by Mormons and other Christians to convey a sense of formality, which is the opposite of how the familiar terms were understood when the King James version was written. On the other hand, according to some general authorities, the previously formal pronouns like "you" are considered too informal for prayer. A Mormon reading the King James version of the Lord's Prayer assumes that Jesus was addressing his father with kingly deference, whereas the King James scholars portray him has doing exactly the opposite. In all actuality, he probably did neither. The familiar-formal distinction wasn't really invented yet when the Jesus was alive.

[Cobalt-70]

"Ye Elders of Israel" cannot be rendered more familiarly as "Thou Elders of Israel". In modern application, "ye" is the plural (formal) "thou"....

But "You Elders of Israel" would be considered more familiar and less respectful to the Mormon ear.

[Zakuska]

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.

Intresting that you say this. It's the same way in Portuguese. To show respect for parents and elders and common everday people you talk to them using the "vos"... "voce" for you. Using the 'tu' actually makes your conversation with Diety even more intimate and personal than when you talk to your own parents.

Edited September 20, 2011 by Zakuska

[Ahab]

Nah! I'm not "hung up" at all. Don't misinterpret what I'm trying to say here.

No offense meant. I only meant that it seems that your focus is on us calling the "old" language a more "formal" language, and I think that if you understood what we mean by calling that "old" language a "formal" language you would more likely agree with our arguments.

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.

Are you talking about the "old" language when talking about the language of our scriptures and our prayers?

What leads you to believe we don't understand or appreciate it? I think we do, which is why we still use it in our prayers.

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.

Hah, not so hopeless as you seem to think.

If we keep using it, it will be saved.

[Ahab]

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 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.

More familiar to you because you still use it in prayer, apparently, but it's still a "formal" language in the sense of being a "special" and "out of the ordinary for most people" language, even though you, personally, and others like you, are accustomed to it.

Like I meant in that tuxedo analogy. To those who don't wear one very often, it's kinda weird to be wearing something that has a tail, but if you wear it often enough you'll get to where you feel very comfortable in it and it won't be all that special or "out of the ordinary to you even though most people who don't wear one all that often will still consider it to be something "special".

[William Schryver]

Don't you me "I resteth mine case"?

Nope. "-eth" is the verb ending for the third person singular.

[William Schryver]

I think ye misunderstand my point. I'm not saying that every formal pronoun switched place with its corresponding familiar pronoun. Yes, "you" supplanted "ye" at the same time it was also supplanting "thou," but "you" was never a familiar singular pronoun, so in the case of "ye" you have one formerly formal pronoun replacing another.

My point was that all of the familiar pronouns (thou, thee, thy, and thine) are now used by Mormons and other Christians to convey a sense of formality, which is the opposite of how the familiar terms were understood when the King James version was written. On the other hand, according to some general authorities, the previously formal pronouns like "you" are considered too informal for prayer. A Mormon reading the King James version of the Lord's Prayer assumes that Jesus was addressing his father with kingly deference, whereas the King James scholars portray him has doing exactly the opposite. In all actuality, he probably did neither. The familiar-formal distinction wasn't really invented yet when the Jesus was alive.

<sigh>

I'm sorry you just don't understand. "You" was indeed both the singular AND the plural second person objective case pronoun.

Anyway, I can see there is no point in attempting to set you straight on this, so I will stop trying. It's one of those cases where "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

[William Schryver]

Incidentally, familiar/formal distinctions were most certainly "invented" prior to the time of Christ, and were used in virtually every language spoken in the Roman empire.

(Why do people opine authoritatively on matters about which they are manifestly ignorant?)

[Ahab]

Incidentally, familiar/formal distinctions were most certainly "invented" prior to the time of Christ, and were used in virtually every language spoken in the Roman empire.

Every word and term can be both familiar and formal depending only on who is giving their opinion.

To one something is familar, and to someone else that same thing is considered formal. And vice versa.

And btw, "invented" is not the right word. Just so you know.

(Why do people opine authoritatively on matters about which they are manifestly ignorant?)

They think they know all there is to know about something without realizing there is more to be known about it.

Interesting how it works that way, isn't it.

[Cobalt-70]

Incidentally, familiar/formal distinctions were most certainly "invented" prior to the time of Christ, and were used in virtually every language spoken in the Roman empire.

I understand that the familiar/formal distinction in modern languages, referred to by linguists as the "T-V distinction," is dated to about the 12th-14th centuries AD in Latin, after which it spread to essentially all Latin-based and many non-Latin-based languages. In Jesus' day, the distinction didn't exist yet in either Koine Greek or Roman-Empire Latin. For some background, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%E2%80%93V_distinction.

[William Schryver]

I understand that the familiar/formal distinction in modern languages, referred to by linguists as the "T-V distinction," is dated to about the 12th-14th centuries AD in Latin, after which it spread to essentially all Latin-based and many non-Latin-based languages. In Jesus' day, the distinction didn't exist yet in either Koine Greek or Roman-Empire Latin. For some background, see http://en.wikipedia....93V_distinction.

The T-V distinction achieved a degree of formalization in western languages during the Medieval era, (or at least it seems to for the simple reason that many texts dating to that era have survived to the present day), but its origins are much more ancient than that. Indeed, that is why there is, in virtually every language on earth, such a distinction. It did not "spread" from the Latin-based languages to other languages. At least the Chinese would be surprised to learn that their familiar/formal distinction derives from western European linguistic usage.

At any rate, you should perhaps read the article you linked. Rather than supporting the arguments you have been making in this thread, it goes far to disprove them.

[William Schryver]

Every word and term can be both familiar and formal depending only on who is giving their opinion.

You don't understand the terms "familiar" and "formal" in the sense that they describe very specific declensions of pronouns in most languages.

To one something is familar, and to someone else that same thing is considered formal. And vice versa.

The "familiar" and the "formal" are not subjective in the context of declensions of pronouns. There are very specific rules governing usage.

And btw, "invented" is not the right word. Just so you know.

It wasn't my word. It was "Cobalt-70" who used it. I merely disputed his use of it.

They think they know all there is to know about something without realizing there is more to be known about it.

Interesting how it works that way, isn't it.

Indeed, it is.

[Tarski]

You don't understand the terms "familiar" and "formal" in the sense that they describe very specific declensions of pronouns in most languages.

I think most people realize that familiar and formal (or in some languages formal/honorific and informal) describe or relate to different grammatical rules in many languages. This is certainly true in Spanish as well as Japanese just to name two cases but let us not pretend that this is all there is to the matter. In every case that I know of, there is the social norms about when and with whom one should use these forms and they do in fact roughly correspond to the ordinary meanings of familiar and formal or formal and informal, humble and honorific etc in the social sense (though I have conjectured that the correspondence could be -and probably has been- washed out or even reversed over time for various reasons. )

Compare "iru", "oru", irassharu" etc in Japanese. (He/she/I is/am here/there.)

In the case of Spanish, it is not for nothing that the word "vosotros" is categorized as "familiar" and it is not for nothing that irassharu is categorized as honorific in Japanese.

[Cobalt-70]

The T-V distinction achieved a degree of formalization in western languages during the Medieval era, (or at least it seems to for the simple reason that many texts dating to that era have survived to the present day), but its origins are much more ancient than that. Indeed, that is why there is, in virtually every language on earth, such a distinction. It did not "spread" from the Latin-based languages to other languages. At least the Chinese would be surprised to learn that their familiar/formal distinction derives from western European linguistic usage.

At any rate, you should perhaps read the article you linked. Rather than supporting the arguments you have been making in this thread, it goes far to disprove them.

The topic of this discussion is primarily about English, and by extension the Greek and Latin manuscripts from which the King James Version was derived. What happens in Chinese is neither here nor there. I'm just saying what all the sources I can find seem to be saying: that the English familiar pronouns in the King James Version, which came from French and prior to that from late Latin, were a Medieval invention. Ultimately, the English familiar pronouns are the grand-children of a trend, during the the late Roman Empire, to refer to the Emperor in the plural, which is why the English 2nd person singular formal is the same as the English 2nd person plural. The distinction didn't come from the writers of the Bible, and is not present in the early Biblical manuscripts. When the Bible was written, the only distinction was singular versus plural. It was only later that plural began to serve dual-duty as formal singular, and singular came to mean familiar.

So we have this progression:

Roman times => King James Version => Mormon prayer

singular => familiar singular (thee, thou, thy, thine) => formal singular (thee, thou, thy, thine)

plural => formal singular/plural (ye, you, your, yours) => familiar singular (you, you, your, yours)

Edited September 21, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[William Schryver]

So we have this progression:

Roman times => King James Version => Mormon prayer

singular => familiar singular (thee, thou, thy, thine) => formal singular (thee, thou, thy, thine)

plural => formal singular/plural (ye, you, your, yours) => familiar singular (you, you, your, yours)

I will hand it to you, you are ... resolute ... to say the least.

But your proposed "progression" has no basis in fact.

That said, I see no purpose in pursuing this impasse further. You are free to choose to believe whatever you'd like, whether it is true or not. As my signature and member title both indicate (in Italian and English, respectively) "truth is a choice." If there is one thing I have learned from my message board career, it's that there is an extraordinarily wide variety of "truth" in which different people choose to believe--much of it with no relationship to "things as they really are."

[mfbukowski]

"Ye" (as in "Ye Olde Curiosity Shoppe") was, in essence, an abbreviation of "the", previously spelled "þe".

Yeah, like I said,

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

[LeSellers]

You don't understand the terms "familiar" and "formal" in the sense that they describe very specific declensions of pronouns in most languages.

"Formal" means that which complies with the required forms. Yes, in a more legalistic way, those forms are prescribed at a very high level, as when we say "formal dress". In old English courts, the form was to call the king "Your Majesty", and to use "you, etc. This spilled over to the other "peers", then to women (as a sign of respect) and, eventually to virtually anyone, whether of higher status or not.

"Forms", however, change.

Nonetheless, in English prayers among us Saints, the "formal" language is "thou, thee, thy, thine" as opposed to (singular) "you, you, your, yours".

It also includes pronouncing "amen" as "AY-men", rather than "AH-men". (Why? I believe it's to avoid the near homonym "Ahman", which is, in Adamic, then name of God. But that's just me.)

Lehi

[William Schryver]

"Formal" means that which complies with the required forms. Yes, in a more legalistic way, those forms are prescribed at a very high level, as when we say "formal dress". In old English courts, the form was to call the king "Your Majesty", and to use "you, etc. This spilled over to the other "peers", then to women (as a sign of respect) and, eventually to virtually anyone, whether of higher status or not.

"Forms", however, change.

Nonetheless, in English prayers among us Saints, the "formal" language is "thou, thee, thy, thine" as opposed to (singular) "you, you, your, yours".

It also includes pronouncing "amen" as "AY-men", rather than "AH-men". (Why? I believe it's to avoid the near homonym "Ahman", which is, in Adamic, then name of God. But that's just me.)

Lehi

<sigh again> (Why is this so hard to understand?)

Lehi,

I thought you served a mission to Italy? Why then are you struggling to understand the meaning of these terms?

"Familiar" and "formal" are technical terms, in this context, used to describe specific "declensions" of personal pronouns. They are not used, in this context, as qualitative descriptors (e.g. "formal dress"). For example, in most Latin-based languages, the declension of pronouns is as follows (with the pronouns in English, Elizabethan English, and Italian listed in parentheses):

• First Person Singular (I / I / Io)
  
• Second Person Singular Familiar (You / Thou / Tu)
  
• Second Person Singular Formal (You / Ye / Lei)
  
• Third Person Singular (He, She / He, She / Lui, Lei)
  
• First Person Plural (We / We / Noi)
  
• Second Person Plural (You [You All] / Ye / Voi)
  
• Third Person Plural (They / They / Loro)
  

Edited September 21, 2011 by William Schryver