Thee, Thou, Thine......

[LeSellers]

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

No—France and Switzerland.

"Familiar" and "formal" are technical terms, in this context, used to describe specific "declensions" of personal pronouns.

Yes, I understand, but we are not speaking of or to professional linguists. For most people, the term "formal" is not technical at all, but describes what I said: usage that meets prescribed forms.

"Formal language", to a linguist, is what you have said. To most of the world, however, it is language that must be used by convention or directiive, as in an USmerican court of law where the judge is "your honor", irrespective of whether he is honorable in his life or not.

Formal language in LDS English prayer is, perhaps, "familiar" to a linguist, but it is prescribed, and so "formal" to that non-linguist segment of the Anglophone world.

Lehi

[Tarski]

<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)
  

As I pointed out above, they are not merely technical terms since (and this is true for many languages) the grammatical formal/familiar distinctions are associated with social norms about when and with whom to use them. Those social dimensions have historically roughly corresponded to the connotations you seem to want to avoid.

Familiar is indeed familiar.

IN Spain, "vosotros" is generally used with friends and family and when referring to those of younger age or lower social status.

It is not for nothing that that this plural form of you is referred to as "familiar".

It is different outside of Spain where the word is seldom used. In fact, I was reading a book about Spanish written by a native speaker from a Latin American country wherein the author claimed that vosotros was actually "very formal" as opposed to "ustedes" which she called merely "formal". This showed a desire by at least one educated person to keep the terminology in line with social concepts of formality. In Spain vosotros is familiar and by saying that we are saying something about both the grammar and the occasions for usage.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Tarski

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I must say, THIS blog post came across quit refreshing for me. Not so much to validate my own personal feelings but that I'm not alone in this.

As a member we're taught in Primary the proper way to pray using Thee, Thou, Thine... Which is fine and I get it and agree with it. However, I've seen people turned off (including myself) when someone approaches us after a prayer or whatever and try to "correct" us when we might have slipped in a "YOU" or two. I mean really? Who does that?

I think sometimes we get so caught up in the mechanics we lose the purpose. I remember one person in sacrament apologize after she prayed because she used a "you" by accident. NO one should have to apologize after praying. Thoughts?

Source

If I may; such things should only be said to a child by a parent (privately) or to a group in class when this is the assigned topic at any age. No one should ever take it upon themselves to correct someone in church about this in a group or privately…it is none of their business what someone says in a prayer.

My thinking on this issue is practice makes perfect. We should as counseled approach our Father in Heaven with an attitude of respect, but not beat ourselves up or allow others to do so when we do otherwise.

As for respect, let me give you an example; I am one a first name basis with my children and grandchildren, they are not on a first name basis with me. They don’t get to call me by name, unless that is father, daddy or dad. The same with my grandchildren…it is Papa. When kids first learn to speak they will hear (in my case) their Nanny call me Bill, but when they do so I gently remind them that I am Papa. True God knows modern English, but has chosen (even in the 1800 and 1900’s) to use, “Thee, Thou and Thine”. I for one am not going to question him (my Father) or the counsel given by his Apostles, I have faith both know what they are doing.

Hope this helps.

[Stargazer]

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.

In English we have shed this "you" familiarity thing. But in some other languages it still holds. On my mission in Germany, a family we taught and were eventually baptised were shocked to discover that in English we have no "familiar" you, and that we use the same second-person word for family and friends that we use for complete strangers.

And in prayer, Germans use the familiar "you" when speaking to God in prayer. He's family, after all.

Unser himmlischer Vater, wir danken dir ... willst Du uns segnen...

I suppose that there's some kind of point to using old English abandoned forms of speech to make praying to God a more special thing, but I am not in Lehi's camp about it being somewhat of a military briefing kind of thing.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

So is prayer supposed to be viewed practically the same as respectfully talking to Dad, or not?

Christ taught us how to pray, and followed that model in private, with one exception when in agony he "cried" Abba. Also children often talk back in a disrespectful manner to "dad", do you suggest we get that lax in out communications with God?

[Ahab]

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

I do understand. My point is that what is familiar to some is formal to others, and vice versa, so the context changes by person.

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

I tried to show you meant by example. How about if you spend a few seconds of your time trying to do the same thing?

Give an example of something formal, and I'll give an example of how that can be considered familiar by others.

And vice versa.

Give an example of something familiar, and I'll give an example of how that can be considered formal by others.

[William Schryver]

I do understand. My point is that what is familiar to some is formal to others, and vice versa, so the context changes by person.

I tried to show you meant by example. How about if you spend a few seconds of your time trying to do the same thing?

Give an example of something formal, and I'll give an example of how that can be considered familiar by others.

And vice versa.

Give an example of something familiar, and I'll give an example of how that can be considered formal by others.

You (and several others on this thread) are missing the point entirely. It doesn't matter at all about examples of "formal" or "familiar". All that matters is that "thou" was the personal pronoun in the second person singular familiar nominative declension of Elizabethan-era English. Period.

Again: "thou" was the personal pronoun in the second person singular nominative familiar declension. (See the table I posted above, or do yourself the favor of reading this excellent wikipedia entry on the topic, which also contains a table listing the various declensions: Thou.)

In modern English, "thou" is archaic and virtually obsolete, except in religious settings. It has been replaced in common usage by "you," which was formerly the second person singular (and plural) objective personal pronoun.

Regardless of how people in 2011 regard the meaning and usage of "thou," the indisputable fact remains that its true and accurate usage was as the second person familiar personal pronoun. That is how it should be understood in the context of the King James Version of the Holy Bible, which is the model for our current forms of religious speech, including prayer.

Case closed.

[seriously honestly]

You (and several others on this thread) are missing the point entirely. It doesn't matter at all about examples of "formal" or "familiar". All that matters is that "thou" was the personal pronoun in the second person singular familiar nominative declension of Elizabethan-era English. Period.

Again: "thou" was the personal pronoun in the second person singular nominative familiar declension. (See the table I posted above, or do yourself the favor of reading this excellent wikipedia entry on the topic, which also contains a table listing the various declensions: Thou.)

In modern English, "thou" is archaic and virtually obsolete, except in religious settings. It has been replaced in common usage by "you," which was formerly the second person singular (and plural) objective personal pronoun.

Regardless of how people in 2011 regard the meaning and usage of "thou," the indisputable fact remains that its true and accurate usage was as the second person familiar personal pronoun. That is how it should be understood in the context of the King James Version of the Holy Bible, which is the model for our current forms of religious speech, including prayer.

Case closed.

I'm sorry. I don't want to come off as sounding rude, but what does any of this have to do with OP (which was concerned that some people focus too much on the mechanics of how prayer should sound vs the purpose and intent of prayer)?

[zerinus]

I'm sorry. I don't want to come off as sounding rude, but what does any of this have to do with OP (which was concerned that some people focus too much on the mechanics of how prayer should sound vs the purpose and intent of prayer)?

That is a dumb comment. It has everything to do with the OP.

[Ahab]

You (and several others on this thread) are missing the point entirely. It doesn't matter at all about examples of "formal" or "familiar". All that matters is that "thou" was the personal pronoun in the second person singular familiar nominative declension of Elizabethan-era English.

It was, yes, but it's not as familiar to most of us now as it once was to some other people back then.

Period.

You and Paul Harvey should get together somtime. He'll tell you there is often more to the story.

Again: "thou" was the personal pronoun in the second person singular nominative familiar declension. (See the table I posted above, or do yourself the favor of reading this excellent wikipedia entry on the topic, which also contains a table listing the various declensions: Thou.)

I think a good title for that wiki entry would be: Thou as it once was and still is to some people.

But then that's just me and others who agree with me.

In modern English, "thou" is archaic and virtually obsolete, except in religious settings.

Except! There you go!

In modern days, like right now, that "old" language is still modern, although to some people, right now, it's still seen as an "old" language.

It has been replaced in common usage by "you," which was formerly the second person singular (and plural) objective personal pronoun.

In "common" usage. There you go. You're getting closer all the time.

Regardless of how people in 2011 regard the meaning and usage of "thou," the indisputable fact remains that its true and accurate usage was as the second person familiar personal pronoun.

It was, yes, and for some people it still is today, but for some people it's seen as a more "formal" form of language.

That is how it should be understood in the context of the King James Version of the Holy Bible, which is the model for our current forms of religious speech, including prayer.

Case closed.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Ahab

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

For the record, my area of expertise and study is language. My B.A. and M.A. are both in a foreign language and I am quadrilingual. So, I think I am as qualified as anyone to add my "two cents" to this very unimportant scholarly debate.

I agree 100% that thou is technically the singular, second person, informal/familiar pronoun of 16-17th century English. However, I completely reject the idea that that is why it is used in LDS prayers. We don't use thou because it is more intimate than you. I think that's a nice way to think of it, but that is not the explanation given by the leaders of the church for using it.

This is an example of the common reasoning behind its usage in prayer that I've heard all my life:

“In all our prayers, it is well to use the pronouns thee, thou, thy, and thine instead of you, your, and yours inasmuch as they have come to indicate respect.” (Spencer W. Kimball. Faith Precedes the Miracle, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1972, p. 201.)

In other words, thou has shifted in English-speakers' minds from being the informal/familiar form to more of a respectful form. We use thou, thee, etc because "they have come to indicate respect," i.e., they morphed in our minds to being formal instead of informal/familiar pronouns. Thou is being used in LDS prayers as a singular, second person, FORMAL pronoun, although this is not good 16th century usage of it nor is it used this way in scripture. Arguably, our prayer pattern departs from the scriptural pattern where the common familiar form of the day was used. In our day, that's you and not thou.

[rant]

And that's why I think using thou is silly (although I strictly follow the rule myself). I wouldn't in a hundred years use thou when speaking to anyone in an intimate or familiar way, and neither would 99.9999% of modern English speakers. You is the intimate form now. Who cares what grammatically "correct" English was three hundred years ago? Language evolves by nature. I think that's not necessarily a bad thing, either. Evolution does not automatically equate with degeneration.

[/rant]

Edited September 22, 2011 by DispensatorMysteriorum

[zerinus]

For the record, my area of expertise and study is language. My B.A. and M.A. are both in a foreign language and I am quadrilingual. So, I think I am as qualified as anyone to add my "two cents" to this very unimportant scholarly debate.

I agree 100% that thou is technically the singular, second person, informal/familiar pronoun of 16-17th century English. However, I completely reject the idea that that is why it is used in LDS prayers. We don't use thou because it is more intimate than you. I think that's a nice way to think of it, but that is not the explanation given by the leaders of the church for using it.

This is an example of the common reasoning behind its usage in prayer that I've heard all my life:

“In all our prayers, it is well to use the pronouns thee, thou, thy, and thine instead of you, your, and yours inasmuch as they have come to indicate respect.” (Spencer W. Kimball. Faith Precedes the Miracle, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1972, p. 201.)

In other words, thou has shifted in English-speakers' minds from being the informal/familiar form to more of a respectful form. We use thou, thee, etc because "they have come to indicate respect," i.e., they morphed in our minds to being formal instead of informal/familiar pronouns. Thou is being used in LDS prayers as a singular, second person, FORMAL pronoun, although this is not good 16th century usage of it nor is it used this way in scripture. Arguably, our prayer pattern departs from the scriptural pattern where the common familiar form of the day was used. In our day, that's you and not thou.

[rant]

And that's why I think using thou is silly (although I strictly follow the rule myself). I wouldn't in a hundred years use thou when speaking to anyone in an intimate or familiar way, and neither would 99.9999% of modern English speakers. You is the intimate form now. Who cares what grammatically "correct" English was three hundred years ago? Language evolves by nature. I think that's not necessarily a bad thing, either. Evolution does not automatically equate with degeneration.

[/rant]

Two reasons why I think you are wrong.

1. Whether "thou" is taken "formally" or "informally" today is not the issue. The issue is that by knowing the etymology of the word (i.e. how it was used then), it gives us a correct perspective of how they approached the Deity in prayer, and gives us fresh insight into how we might approach Him too.
   
2. In most other languages, the second person familiar form (like thou) has not dropped out. It is still in use; and what is more, it is still used to address the Deity in prayer. Therefore the issue is still very alive to them today; and furthermore, by gaining an understanding of how other cultures and races have used, and still continue to use, language to address the Deity in prayer, using the familiar rather than the formal pronoun, it give us an even deeper insight still into how we might approach God in prayer.
   

This does not mean that we should stop using thee and thou. That is not the idea. The idea is that by knowing how it was used then, it helps us to understand how better to approach the Deity in our hearts and minds, in prayer.

Edited September 22, 2011 by zerinus

[seriously honestly]

That is a dumb comment. It has everything to do with the OP.

Well that was a rude comment and no it does not. The OP wasn't concerned with whether or not "thou" is formal or familiar; it was concerned with how people are more focused on how the pray sounds vs the intent. Hence the line in the OP “I think sometimes we get so caught up in the mechanics we lose the purpose”.

[Daniel2]

I think most non-Mormon religious folk who pray to God would be baffled by this discussion and any need to specify (and certainly correct someone over) some sort of "proper" language to address God and employ in prayer. Coming from a Mormon background, I understand the intellectual side of the discussion--but I think the average non-Mormon would just be astounded that there needs to be seven pages of discussion correcting/specifying/clarifying/disagreeing/struggling-to-reach-a-consensus about which pronouns should be used, and what they mean. As someone who's left the Faith, it seems rather Pharisaical and... well, for lack of a better word (and I don't mean this to be an insult, just a comment on the discussion, in general)... petty.

Isn't whatever heartfelt language is comfortable for an individual that he or she chooses to communicate with his or her Heavenly Father "good enough"? Wouldn't many simply just be happy--including God, if there was one!--if everyone at least spoke to him/her on a daily basis, instead of getting vexed over ensuring to use an archaic version of the language...?

Oh well. As an unbeliever, my comments are merely intellectual. Carry on, for those to whom this topic is important.

Best,

Daniel2

Edited September 22, 2011 by Daniel2

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

That is a dumb comment. It has everything to do with the OP.

Easy, you are speaking to a Lady.

[HeatherAnn]

When my younger kids get flustered trying to say a prayer I quietly whisper, "God is interested in the sincerity of your prayer more thyan the clarity of your prayer."

Using formal language is a good way to show reverence. That is why we do it as a people.

I agree on both. If it helps someone feel closer to God (even if it's based on illusional reasons) so be it.

God didn't speak to Moses in Elizabethian English... God doesn't speak so much, but communicates by symbolism, impression, intuition, serendipity, tender mercies - the spirit.

This is really a very significant aspect of spirituality to remember...

It's not so much the word, the religion etc... but how it helps you get closer to God.

[volgadon]

I think most non-Mormon religious folk who pray to God would be baffled by this discussion and any need to specify (and certainly correct someone over) some sort of "proper" language to address God and employ in prayer.

Lets see, I had this conversation with an Algerian rabbi at a bus stop after work one day. He aksed me if I recited the benediction after meals. I stated that I did not, but do pray to God using my own terms. To which he replied that it was hardly the same thing.