THOU: What it means, why it's not used, and why LDS use it for prayer

[Vort]

Anyone who has learned another language has discovered that there are two forms of referring to yourself, depending on whether you're talking about yourself alone (singular: I/me) or yourself with others (plural: we/us). Similarly, there are two ways of referring to other people, depending on whether you are talking about just one person (singular: he/him or she/her) or more than one person (plural: they/them). The same idea applies to how you refer to people you're talking to, depending on whether you're talking to just one person (singular: thou/thee) or a group of two or more people (plural: ye/you). This is how things are done 100% of the time in the KJV Bible, for example. Very simple. Very logical. Easy peasy.

Except that, in English, we don't use thou/thee any more. We conflate any "second-person" reference into the catch-all term you, which as all English speakers know often causes confusion.

(I remember my high school French teacher expounding about what an awful shame it was that English didn't have a second-person plural form, and how wonderful and brilliant it was that those from the US South used "y'all" as the plural form, which just made so much sense. I was still many years away from realizing that (1) it wasn't the plural form we were missing, but the singular; and (2) "y'all" is used as a singular as often as it's used as a plural, so it's no more useful than just plain "you".)

Why not? What's wrong with us? How did we introduce such a deficiency into our language, and why do we put up with it? It appears to me that, as with so many of life's problems, we have the French to blame.

Back around 1000 AD, the tribes in Brittania spoke various forms of what we now call Old English. Those tribes, along with their language, derived from people who lived in northern Germany, whom the ancient Romans called Saxoni (those on the north German coast around the Jutland peninsula) and Anglii (those living on the Jutland peninsula in a small area immediately south of what we today call Denmark). And so things might have continued, with those tribes speaking their Anglo-Saxon dialects and squabbling amongst themselves. Except for the French.

Directly across the English Channel lies Normandy, a coastal area in modern-day France. Around 1000 AD, this area was inhabited by French-speaking people who were actually of both French and Viking descent. This is actually pretty common; the Vikings commonly conquered and enslaved northern Europeans around that time, so as the Norse spread blood all over Europe, Norse blood was spread all over Europe. (Hah! See what I did there?) Long story short: The Normans decided to conquer Britain, and after some extended efforts, did so.

Now England, much of Wales, and parts of Scotland consisted of Old English-speaking people being ruled by nobles who spoke a French dialect. Remember that this was a heavily classed society; your social rank determined who you were and what you did. So Norman French became the de facto upper-class language. The dirty peasants may have raised sheep and pig and maybe even cow, but the nobles ate the flesh of muton and porc and boeuf. And so today we still call the animals sheep, pigs, and cows, but we call the meat they yield mutton, pork, and beef.

Another thing those wacky Normans provided was a linguistic trick to distinguish classes. You see, for the word you, the French used tu when speaking to just one person, but vous when speaking to a group of people. Normal. Natural. Singular versus plural.

Except...

Kings and other nobility were worth more than common people. When you spoke to a king, you could not just go and address him using tu. He is not just some man, you peasant! He's the KING! He's worth many of you! So you refer to him as such! You use vous on the king. Of course, this idea was generalized, so that French speakers used vous when speaking to anyone of a higher social rank, and reserved tu for conversations with intimates, equals, and those of lesser social status (including children, animals, and inanimate objects). The Anglo-Saxon peasants, wanting to get in on such a good thing, adopted this multitiered way of speaking, and started using ye and you when talking to social highers-up.

For some reason, perhaps because the English did not have the strong Roman tradition of public education (that's purely a guess on my part), within a few generations the English started to lose grasp on the difference between thou and ye. Both of them meant those other people you were talking to -- but when did you use one and when the other? People generally started using the object form you instead of the subject ye -- a common enough thing even today, when many of us say "Me and Bobby are going to the park." So the pronoun you started to take over, and as the generations passed, the more you was used, the less anyone outside of academia remembered how to use thou. By Shakespeare's time, thou wasn't used as much. Within a couple of hundred years, it more or less disappeared entirely -- except in the Bible, where old translations were well-established.

Enter the LDS usage of thou. Joseph Smith was familiar with it from his KJV Bible, and used thou extensively in his revelations and in the translation of the Book of Mormon and the elements in today's Pearl of Great Price. In the April 1993 General Conference, Elder Oaks explained that Latter-day Saints use thou because it is a scriptural term and because it is available for use in our modern language, having been abandoned by the rest of English-speaking society. He explained that we don't use it as an "informal" or even quite as an "intimate" pronoun. Rather, we use it as a "divine" pronoun, to refer to God. In Elder Oaks' view, it expresses both our respect and reverence for God and our intimacy and love for him.

So there's your non-authoritative historical/linguistic anecdote for the day.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Vort

[zil]

30 minutes ago, Vort said:

Why not? What's wrong with us? How did we introduce such a deficiency into our language, and why do we put up with it? It appears to me that, as with so many of life's problems, we have the French to blame.

 

[Jamie123]

Interesting, but...

1. How often did ordinary peasant people talk to the king? I would guess almost never, and those who did talk to him would have spoken in Norman French rather than in English. There may have been the odd exception like Henry I (who I believe could speak English when he wanted to, though his mother tongue was Norman French). Things are also complicated by the fact that the Normans did not speak "French" per se but a language called "Norman French" (a mish-mash of the actual French of the time, Old Norse and various Germanic dialects from the East). In 1154 Henry II brought in a purer form of French from Anjou, but I doubt it was used anywhere much except in the king's palace. By that time the more common Norman French had evolved into "Anglo-Norman" - yet another distinct dialect, and "English" (i.e. "Old English" had mingled with French to become "Middle English". It wasn't until Henry IV came to the throne in 1367 that England had a king who was a native English speaker (which of course I mean a Middle-English speaker) and it was another 100 years after that before English (by now more-or-less Modern English) became the official language of the royal court.

2. I don't know very much about modern French (I learned it at school but have forgotten most of it) but I do know that German has "sie"=you plural and "du"=you singular except that Germans (proper Germans that is who use the language correctly) will often address individuals as "sie" depending on who they are. It is considered more respectful to address a stranger as "sie" - which sounds very like what Vort was saying about calling the king "you" (because he's worth many ordinary people). On the other hand, I've been told it's quite rude to call a person "sie" when you should call him/her "du"; it is considered a snub. Furthermore once you have called someone "du" you have to carry on - for life! It is considered an insult to start calling them "sie" again. My German teacher told me the safest route is to call everyone "du" no matter who they are.

P.S. I've just remembered a meeting I had with a couple of Elders a little over 20 years ago: they were an odd pair: the more talkative one was an American - who for some reason seemed very interested in my bookshelves - and the other was a morose and mildly sarcastic Geordie. (I don't think his heart was in it to be honest.) At the end of the meeting the American wanted us to pray - which was fine - but he insisted we all knelt around the coffee table to do it (which irritated me slightly, though I went along with it). When he said the prayers he kept saying "thee" and "thou". At the time I took this for pretentiousness on his part, but maybe I did him an injustice. 

Edited April 17, 2017 by Jamie123
Unnecessary

[Rob Osborn]

And yet everyone in scripture, including Satan, is referred to in the same language of "thee", "thou", "thy". Its rather interesting then that we invented a social class set of rules to speak to others, including deity when our scriptures taught otherwise.

[Rob Osborn]

And, BTW, I have always felt it strange to address a judge as "your honor" and act like he is all holy or above others. I know we should show respect but why are they so priveledged? Its because hundreds of years ago in the social heirarchy of classes, those of more social or economical clout had official titles (like "Lord" and "Baron") that separated and elevated themselves over others.  Of particular interest to our doctrine however is the command for us to build Zion and do away with social class and create a true equality.

[Jamie123]

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

And, BTW, I have always felt it strange to address a judge as "your honor" and act like he is all holy or above others. I know we should show respect but why are they so priveledged? Its because hundreds of years ago in the social heirarchy of classes, those of more social or economical clout had official titles (like "Lord" and "Baron") that separated and elevated themselves over others.  Of particular interest to our doctrine however is the command for us to build Zion and do away with social class and create a true equality.

In the Church of England it was once the custom for priests to address their bishops as "my lord". I don't believe this ever happens now: bishops are usually addressed by everyone as as "Bishop [first name]" - or more formally as Dr. [Surname] (bishops nearly always have doctoral degrees) - or at most The Right Reverand [first name] [surname], though diocesan bishops are still formally styled "The Lord Bishop of...wherever".

But in the LDS church, aren't bishops and presidents (and even young missionaries) still addressed by their titles? I know this is not intended to elevate them personally, but to show respect for their office, but couldn't the same be said about judges? 

[Jamie123]

On 4/15/2017 at 4:30 PM, Vort said:

By Shakespeare's time, thou wasn't used as much.

And yet there are some parts of England (particularly rural communities in the north) where you'll hear "thee" and "thou" used in everyday speech (though "thou" is pronounced more like "thaaa"). 

[Guest]

On 4/15/2017 at 11:06 AM, zil said:

I was going to do that.  You beat me to the punch.

[Rob Osborn]

4 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

In the Church of England it was once the custom for priests to address their bishops as "my lord". I don't believe this ever happens now: bishops are usually addressed by everyone as as "Bishop [first name]" - or more formally as Dr. [Surname] (bishops nearly always have doctoral degrees) - or at most The Right Reverand [first name] [surname], though diocesan bishops are still formally styled "The Lord Bishop of...wherever".

But in the LDS church, aren't bishops and presidents (and even young missionaries) still addressed by their titles? I know this is not intended to elevate them personally, but to show respect for their office, but couldn't the same be said about judges? 

Bishops are common judges in Israel in our church. The big difference between my bishop and a local judge is you have to kiss the ones rearend or end up in jail while the other serves you, elevates you and treats you as an equal.

[MarginOfError]

I have deliberately obliterated the use of the historical singular conjugation (thee) in favor of the colloquial use of you in my prayers. 

In Ukrainian, Russian, and I believe many other foreign languages, prayers have historically been said with the familiar conjugation. To use the formal pronouns is perceived with sadness that the speaker feels so distant and unworthy to approach God. 

As I've watched people come into the church and develop feelings of self consciousness over not understanding the thee/thou usage, I've decided that encouraging (almost requiring by the handbooks) these pronouns is a meaningless barrier to those who so want to approach their God. So I don't use it. I exclusively use 'you' and encourage any and all who prefer to do so to join in this practice.

Approach God using your language. For heaven's sake, be familiar with Him. We'd all be better of if we were more familiar with deity.

[Guest]

So, there's an interesting continuation in Spanish.  The Spanish has tu, usted, ustedes, & vosotros. (singular familiar, singular formal, plural formal, plural familiar respectively).

Older versions of Spanish translation consistently use the tu and vosotros.  I remember teaching a young couple who "believed" but had never read the Bible apparently. When we went over the order of prayer, they felt surprised that we would use the familiar form.  I was with an El Salvadoran companion who told them that is was more respectful.  They looked at him funny.  I looked at him funny (surreptitiously).  But they were convinced and we went on.