How respectful is "prayer language"?

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I picked it up in general church contacts, but I learned it in Junior English English Lit) with Mr. Ramsey who had been a Shakespearian actor before teaching. He was inactive LDS.

 

Ok, different than my last question which was about your personal experience. Now I'm wanting to know about the language itself.

If you used tu like thee and though, but used usted forms for verb conjugation in prayer - what happens there?  Is it just a thing that Spanish speakers assume you don't know the right conjugation or does it change meaning?

[Islander]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I think we are talking past each other.

Tu and Vos can be used as insults in some Central American countries. But they can also be used with closest friends. Tu is used in prayer. 

In many Spanish instruction courses, tu is definitely compared with thee. Using tu forms in prayer was not only common, but ubiquitous in all the countries in which I served. In Costa Rica especially, our church prayers were beautiful and eloquent in their use of tu forms. 

 

 

Perhaps we are talking past each other. But "tu" is casual, familiar. In fact, too familiar in some settings. When I speak to my mother-in-law, for example, I never use "tu".  I use "Usted" which the formal way to refer to your elders, parents or people with whom you are not familiar. The "tu" is reserved to your friends and people you REALLY familiar with in general. 

I think we beat this to death, right?

[The Great Pretender]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

A shorter observation…

The word Lord isn’t sacred either when it refers to a nobility title nor is Jesus when it is the name of the neighbor kid, and yet when used in the context of speaking of God, they acquire a sacredness, a very authentic sacredness for many. 

I feel like we exist in different dimensions. The word "Lord" is in current usage so its contemporary use is perfectly legitimate. I don't believe there are any sacred words. They are all animal grunts. My point is that we cling to "thee," "thou," and "thine" on the basis that they add something to prayer. They add as much to prayer as the glossy paint on a Disney set. They are purely decorative and have no spiritual function — though we have been persuaded into believing they do. As such, they can be removed without losing anything except ornate gilding. 

[The Great Pretender]

On 1/30/2023 at 12:55 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

@The Great Pretender

Yeah, I struggle to believe that any devout Latter-day Saint would get angry [upset, worried, use whatever adjective you think fits] at his children for using "incorrect prayer language."  But, whatever.

I have something else for you get your head around. This evening, my wife and I had a Zoom call with our stake president. I am to be released from the High Council (after just over three years) because he extended a call for me to serve as the Stake Exec Sec. I didn't mention you by name, but I told him I've been accused of being a troll by another member (or so you assert about yourself — and who's to say whether or not you are genuine) who cannot countenance the idea that a covenant-keeping member should question the sanctity of so-called "prayer language." He laughed. I suspect both he and I question what most Americans say. Looks like I am to be sustained around the stake on Sunday. Go ahead and falsely accuse me; it won't change anything. I shall continue to protest that archaic language contributes nothing.

[Rain]

13 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

I feel like we exist in different dimensions. The word "Lord" is in current usage so its contemporary use is perfectly legitimate. I don't believe there are any sacred words. They are all animal grunts. My point is that we cling to "thee," "thou," and "thine" on the basis that they add something to prayer. They add as much to prayer as the glossy paint on a Disney set. They are purely decorative and have no spiritual function — though we have been persuaded into believing they do. As such, they can be removed without losing anything except ornate gilding. 

For me they have no spiritual function.  For others they do and they may have a hard time accessing the Spirit when they don't.   So I think it is ok to let people decide what works best for them.  

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

I feel like we exist in different dimensions. The word "Lord" is in current usage so its contemporary use is perfectly legitimate. I don't believe there are any sacred words. They are all animal grunts. My point is that we cling to "thee," "thou," and "thine" on the basis that they add something to prayer. They add as much to prayer as the glossy paint on a Disney set. They are purely decorative and have no spiritual function — though we have been persuaded into believing they do. As such, they can be removed without losing anything except ornate gilding. 

I can understand this as an opinion, but that you are presenting it as fact is weird to me.  

By what authority do you declare that they are the equivalent of glossy paint?  Not being snarky, sincere question.  Surely you can understand why no one should just take your word for it.

 

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Padre nuestro, 
que estás en el cielo.
Santificado sea tu nombre.
Venga tu reino.
Hágase tu voluntad en la tierra como en el cielo.
Danos hoy nuestro pan de cada día.
Perdona nuestras ofensas,
como también nosotros perdonamos a los que nos ofenden.
No nos dejes caer en tentación y líbranos del mal.

Wow, I didn't realize how close this is to Latin:

PATER noster, qui es in cœlis; sanctificetur nomen tuum: Adveniat regnum tuum; fiat voluntas tua, sicut in cœlo, et in terra. Panem nostrum cotidianum da nobis hodie: Et dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris: et ne nos inducas in tentationem: sed libera nos a malo. (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

 

Edited January 31, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

I can understand this as an opinion, but that you are presenting it as fact is weird to me.

Great Pretender: If I dare 'pray wrong' at church, other members will judge me.

Also Great Pretender: Most of you on this thread are praying wrong, and you need to stop.

 

Edited February 1, 2023 by Hamba Tuhan

[CV75]

Professor Henry Higgins using sacred language:

Must be casting something out.

Edited January 31, 2023 by CV75

[sheilauk]

8 hours ago, Islander said:

Further, it is an established fact in English literature that,  "thee and thou" were NEVER common street English, including that of Queen Elizabeth I and King James I. Those words were rather part of the poetic forms used in religious language and love poetry of the time. Every language including the Hebrew of the Psalms, has special poetic and literary forms unique to the culture and language. 

 

Curious why you say this.  Where I grew up, the use of thou was still quite common in everyday speech, especially with the older and rural generations.  I myself frequently used the word - pronounced with the dialect/accent of the area.  It is dying out now, as the dialect is not used as much by the more recent generations (which I think is the case throughout the UK).  I’m talking about the north of England and the word is pronounced “tha” but it is thou not you that’s being said.  Less common, but still used was “thee”. Neither were limited to religion or poetry.  Saying “you” was considered quite posh!  

I do think it likely that thee and thou were little used in the South of England and I’m sure their majestys did not use the terms.

[Rain]

7 minutes ago, sheilauk said:

Curious why you say this.  Where I grew up, the use of thou was still quite common in everyday speech, especially with the older and rural generations.  I myself frequently used the word - pronounced with the dialect/accent of the area.  It is dying out now, as the dialect is not used as much by the more recent generations (which I think is the case throughout the UK).  I’m talking about the north of England and the word is pronounced “tha” but it is thou not you that’s being said.  Less common, but still used was “thee”. Neither were limited to religion or poetry.  Saying “you” was considered quite posh!  

I do think it likely that thee and thou were little used in the South of England and I’m sure their majestys did not use the terms.

Sounds like it is used in pockets around the world then.  Thinking about it I think the Amish use it in the US? Otherwise I haven't heard it in everyday language. I wonder if parts of Australia, Grenada, South Africa, India etc use it.

[sheilauk]

I think, as everyday usage, Northern England may be the only pocket left into the 21st century!  If you want to see the use of thee thou and thy that’s not love poetry or religious, read the song, On Ilkla Moor Baht At - it’s in everyday Yorkshire dialect (translations are available or I can translate!  It’s a favourite of mine, partly due to the gruesomeness!)

[Okrahomer]

56 minutes ago, Rain said:

Sounds like it is used in pockets around the world then.  Thinking about it I think the Amish use it in the US? Otherwise I haven't heard it in everyday language. I wonder if parts of Australia, Grenada, South Africa, India etc use it.

Are you thinking of the Quakers?  The Amish speak various dialects of German.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

I feel like we exist in different dimensions.

That is kind of my point, I exist in a dimension where certain language and other behaviour creates a sense of the sacred for me just as other language and behaviours can create a very real sense of, an experience of romance, peace, beauty, energy, discipline, respect, etc.  I am not suggesting that those who are not sensitive to all the same are therefore less spiritual or whatever than I am, their perception is authentic to them as this is authentic to me and others.  My only issue is when someone refuses to grant the other the authenticity of their own experience, whatever that is.  Telling someone who is like me that their use of sacred language is akin to a glossy Disney set is like telling a parent their experience of love for their children is fake just because you don’t look at them with the same feelings of love.  It is like telling someone who is a Spanish speaker they have no right to speak Spanish because it isn’t authentic as English because the sacred language is a living language to me and others because we give it life.

Why should I give credence to your experience over my own for myself?

Edited February 1, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

I have something else for you get your head around. This evening, my wife and I had a Zoom call with our stake president. I am to be released from the High Council (after just over three years) because he extended a call for me to serve as the Stake Exec Sec. I didn't mention you by name, but I told him I've been accused of being a troll by another member (or so you assert about yourself — and who's to say whether or not you are genuine) who cannot countenance the idea that a covenant-keeping member should question the sanctity of so-called "prayer language." He laughed. I suspect both he and I question what most Americans say. Looks like I am to be sustained around the stake on Sunday. Go ahead and falsely accuse me; it won't change anything. I shall continue to protest that archaic language contributes nothing.

I think Ken went to troll because he expects at least some significant positive comments about the Church to be mixed in with negative criticism if someone is committed to the Church as why would you choose to commit so much if not in love?  You have chosen to discuss hate speech from church leaders and been critical of them and the Church there in that thread and now are calling the use of sacred prayer language in church inauthentic.  Of course it is a small slice of your experience with the Church, but they are the only ones you have really shown us so far.  
 

I am not suggesting I agree that you are a troll as I don’t believe you have been here long enough to make any overall judgment of you.  However, what reaction would you have to a spouse who claimed they loved their partner if all you heard from them was criticisms of that partner?  Would that seem like actual love to you?

Edited February 1, 2023 by Calm

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

Are you thinking of the Quakers?  The Amish speak various dialects of German.

Quite possibly! 😆 I knew the Amish didn't sound quite right,  but couldn't put my finger on it.  

[Okrahomer]

Just now, Rain said:

Quite possibly! 😆 I knew the Amish didn't sound quite right,  but couldn't put my finger on it.  

By the way:  “Friendly Persuasion” is a fine movie (one of my favorites) and portrays Quakers in a very loving and appealing way.

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

I wonder if parts of Australia ... use it.

You're more likely to run across you (singular) and youse (plural).

[Rain]

23 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

By the way:  “Friendly Persuasion” is a fine movie (one of my favorites) and portrays Quakers in a very loving and appealing way.

Alas, it is not coming up on Netflix.

[Rain]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You're more likely to run across you (singular) and youse (plural).

Informal plural you?  

[Tacenda]

9 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You're more likely to run across you (singular) and youse (plural).

I follow a family in Australia on YouTube and they'll say youse too. I thought they just didn't have good grammar at times. Thanks!

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Rain said:

Alas, it is not coming up on Netflix.

You can rent it for $3 on Amazon Prime.  I haven’t seen it for decades, but remember it as a great movie. 

[Islander]

16 hours ago, sheilauk said:

Curious why you say this.  Where I grew up, the use of thou was still quite common in everyday speech, especially with the older and rural generations.  I myself frequently used the word - pronounced with the dialect/accent of the area.  It is dying out now, as the dialect is not used as much by the more recent generations (which I think is the case throughout the UK).  I’m talking about the north of England and the word is pronounced “tha” but it is thou not you that’s being said.  Less common, but still used was “thee”. Neither were limited to religion or poetry.  Saying “you” was considered quite posh!  

I do think it likely that thee and thou were little used in the South of England and I’m sure their majestys did not use the terms.

In The Personal Pronouns in the Germanic Languages (Studia Linguistica Germanica) S. Howe, Sep 25, 1996. the author explained: "... in the fifteenth to sixteenth centuries, thou was generally used to address someone who was socially inferior or an intimate. For example, parents called their children thou , and children called their parents you , but then the use of thou sharply decreased in the seventeenth century, starting in London. Thou was used the longest in areas that were farthest from London, and in fact, it's still used in a few regional dialects including those in Yorkshire and Cumbria, which are both quite a bit north of London." 

Wiki (not my favorite source) has a short blurb that parallels the assertions of Howe above. I understand that some proverbial feathers are ruffled by my assertion that not everything uttered from the pulpit is accurate. I make no claims as to my scholarship of the English language. But some things I do remember from the Classics.  In any event, I think I will let it rest there. I suspect that many already made up their minds in terms what they want to believe relating to the subject of the OP.

Cheers!

[Bernard Gui]

On 1/31/2023 at 3:54 PM, Islander said:

Perhaps we are talking past each other. But "tu" is casual, familiar. In fact, too familiar in some settings. When I speak to my mother-in-law, for example, I never use "tu".  I use "Usted" which the formal way to refer to your elders, parents or people with whom you are not familiar. The "tu" is reserved to your friends and people you REALLY familiar with in general. 

I think we beat this to death, right?

That is precisely what I have said all along, but you have claimed tu is not used in prayer. I don’t believe that is correct. Paz.

Edited February 2, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

On 1/31/2023 at 3:46 PM, Rain said:

Ok, different than my last question which was about your personal experience. Now I'm wanting to know about the language itself.

If you used tu like thee and though, but used usted forms for verb conjugation in prayer - what happens there?  Is it just a thing that Spanish speakers assume you don't know the right conjugation or does it change meaning?

Again, it depends on the country or culture. If it is common practice, yes, they would assume you don’t know the grammar, but they may also recognize you are from an area that speaks differently. I never was in that situation, so I don’t know if they would “judge” or correct you. I doubt they would do so in an unfriendly way.