Him/Her problem
James J. Griffith
ago. His solution: a new personal pronoun of neutral gender. His
suggestion: CO [he or she] COS [his or hers] CO [him or her].
Let me try it: Many people bought lottery tickets. There will be
only one grand winner. Co who is the winner will bring
cos ticket stub to the lottery office. Arrangements will
be made to have the prize sent to co promptly.
Do you think we could get used to that, Are we ready for a new personal
pronoun? Any comments??
Jim G
Patronius
>suggestion: CO [he or she] COS [his or hers] CO [him or her].
>Do you think we could get used to that, Are we ready for a new personal
>pronoun? Any comments??
In 1975, I saw a similar suggestion at UCLA. It was a proclamation which said
that since it's so difficult these days to know whether to use "He" or "She" or
"It," from now on we'd use a combinative pronoun which accurately reflects what
this whole discussion boils down to: "H/or(se)sh/it".
the jungle kitty
> In 1975, I saw a similar suggestion at UCLA. It was a proclamation which said
> that since it's so difficult these days to know whether to use "He" or "She" or
> "It," from now on we'd use a combinative pronoun which accurately reflects what
> this whole discussion boils down to: "H/or(se)sh/it".
Love it. But in all seriousness, my French Women Authors professor made
reference to Simone de Beauvoir's push for the use of the word "ille" in
French. Maybe it wasn't her idea, but it has been advocated by French
feminists.
I have also made reference to German's "man." Since English has its
roots in both, my question would be, is our use of "he" a carryover from
its earliest use or a departure from the French and Saxon influences?
Him/her and he/she are what I refer to as "charged" references. In an
effort to be mindful of the target audience, writers may elect to use
"he/she," "s/he," or alternate between the two. Some books include a
disclaimer in their preface with words to the effect that the use of
"he/him" is to save valuable print space. Cooler writers and more
level-headed readers recognize that "he/him" is gender-neutral.
janelaw
>
> A grammarian savant friend of mine discussed this problem a few years
> suggestion: CO [he or she] COS [his or hers] CO [him or her].
> only one grand winner. Co who is the winner will bring
> cos ticket stub to the lottery office. Arrangements will
> be made to have the prize sent to co promptly.
>
> pronoun? Any comments??
>
I don't think it's going anywhere.
As H pointed out, we already have "one." It's a perfectly good
word, just what we need.
However, as Patrick pointed out, people don't use it because
they don't want to sound affected. If people don't use "one,"
they are never going to get behind "co."
Personally, I'm pretty sick of a) pluralizing all my sentences,
and b) people telling me that using "he" to refer to women is
not offensive.
Pk2222
Put the candle back!
pk
Charles Riggs
Mizzell) wrote:
>The subject line of this thread makes me smile everytime I notice
>it.
Glad to hear so. I meant it to be mildly amusing.
Charles
Charles Riggs
>>His solution: a new personal pronoun of neutral gender. His
>>suggestion: CO [he or she] COS [his or hers] CO [him or her].
> . . .
>>Do you think we could get used to that, Are we ready for a new personal
>>pronoun? Any comments??
>
>In 1975, I saw a similar suggestion at UCLA. It was a proclamation which said
>that since it's so difficult these days to know whether to use "He" or "She" or
>"It," from now on we'd use a combinative pronoun which accurately reflects what
>this whole discussion boils down to: "H/or(se)sh/it".
How witty. Ha Ha. :-(
Charles
Patronius
>>it.
>
>Glad to hear so. I meant it to be mildly amusing.
>
said
>>that since it's so difficult these days to know whether to use "He" or "She"
or
>
>How witty. Ha Ha. :-(
The preference for one form of humor over another never ceases to amaze me. I
tend to think funny is funny, and I don't pay much attention to *why* (or how)
something is funny. But there are individual tastes out there. I wonder how
many types of humor there are, and whether anyone has ever tried to evaluate
them.
Frankly, I didn't see any humor at all in the subject line of this thread. It
never would have occurred to me if Ellen hadn't pointed it out. Even then, I
had to reread it quite a few times before I began to see how someone might find
it humorous. Now the best I can do is say, "Oh . . . I get it, I guess."
When I was studying Shakespeare, one of my profs said, "Nobody likes
Shakespeare's 'wit combats'; they're full of inane puns." But I liked them! I
think they're great. They show a lot more creativity and intelligence than
most of what passes for humor, IMHO.
My wife has what I consider to be a very peculiar sense of humor. If a joke
contains any cute or silly visual image, she'll tend to like it--especially if
it involves cute animals. But no matter how rip-roaringly funny a witty joke
is to me and most people I know, Sheralyn will find it disgusting if by *any*
stretch of the imagination it may be offensive or disparaging to someone (even
someone fictional).
I think some people take jokes too seriously. The whole point of humor, IMHO,
is to digress from the serious to the silly. Listeners are supposed to follow
you into the "silly" realm; otherwise the thing doesn't work. And in that
"silly realm," nothing is serious or sacred. It's all distortion and
caricature--a world of two-dimensional 'toons with no real substance.
Sheralyn would disagree, however, and point out that all too often people
conceal real anger, bigotry, and other unpleasant characteristics behind
so-called humor. My response to that is, so what? People with those traits
are going to express them somehow; and it may as well be behind smiles and
laughter. I'd rather see ethnic people use bigot jokes as a retort to racial
jokes than see the two parties beating each other up or killing each other.
As I said, to me funny is funny. Anything that lures me deep into "silly-land"
makes me laugh; and I don't stop and think about the serious side of it before
I laugh. However, I do find it hard to laugh when something supposedly
humorous is so mild as to be hardly noticeable--hardly discernable from the
ordinary.
The Marx Brothers are often hilarious to me; Mark Twain often eludes me. But
on the other hand, you don't have to whack me over the head (though some
readers may want to): I don't care for slapstick humor.
Charles Riggs
>The preference for one form of humor over another never ceases to amaze me. I
>tend to think funny is funny, and I don't pay much attention to *why* (or how)
>something is funny. But there are individual tastes out there. I wonder how
>many types of humor there are, and whether anyone has ever tried to evaluate
>them.
I'll try.
Very funny:
John Clive, especially in Fawlty Towers
Jack Benny on his TV show
Groucho Marx but not the Marx Brothers
Funny:
Shakespeare, at times
James Joyce, at times
Kurt Vonnegut
Catch-22
Mildly funny:
Charlie Chaplin
The Him/Her Problem
Mr Bean
Englishmen, in general
Not funny:
The Three Stooges
Slapstick
Violent Cartoons
Types of funniness:
Puns (One of the highest forms esp those by Shakespeare or Joyce)
Dry wit
Slapstick
Sarcasm (the lowest form)
Pantomime
Imitations of someone well known
There's gotta be more.
Charles
Charles Riggs
Mizzell) wrote:
>I didn't say I found it humourous. I said it made me smile.
A subtlety a little beyond my Irish mind.
Charles
Charles Riggs
Charles
janelaw
Sex makes me smile, but I don't find it humorous.
JUST AN H
I like a person who laughs in bed. -grin-
Charles Riggs
>Charles Riggs wrote:
>>
>> On 10 Sep 1998 23:56:30 +0100, $news1$@nospam.demon.co.uk (Ellen
>> Mizzell) wrote:
>>
>> >I didn't say I found it humourous. I said it made me smile.
>>
>> A subtlety a little beyond my Irish mind.
>>
>> Charles
>
>Sex makes me smile, but I don't find it humorous.
Good point. Though it CAN be humorous depending on this or that. By
the way, why do the English spell humor humour and humorless
humourless but they spell humorous humorous? It's difficult enough for
me to learn the spelling here without these sorts of inconsistencies!
Charles, displaced Irish American
janelaw
>
> >Sex makes me smile, but I don't find it humorous.
>
> I like a person who laughs in bed. -grin-
I like a person who brings a tear to my eye.
Petibacsi
>I like a person who brings a tear to my eye.
Than you would love Tommy Lee.... :)
George F. Hardy
>>I like a person who brings a tear to my eye.
>
> Than you would love Tommy Lee.... :)
How about: "Then you would love Tommy Lee."?
GFH
JUST AN H
>
>How about: "Then you would love Tommy Lee."?
>
>GFH
Touche, GFH.
janelaw
>
> >
> >I like a person who brings a tear to my eye.
>
Ouch.
Pete
It would work better if people then used the singular with it. They is.
They was. Lots of people speak that way anyway.
pfs
James J. Griffith wrote in message <35F59973...@home.com>...
>A grammarian savant friend of mine discussed this problem a few years
>ago. His solution: a new personal pronoun of neutral gender. His
>suggestion: CO [he or she] COS [his or hers] CO [him or her].
>Let me try it: Many people bought lottery tickets. There will be
>only one grand winner. Co who is the winner will bring
>cos ticket stub to the lottery office. Arrangements will
>be made to have the prize sent to co promptly.
>
>Do you think we could get used to that, Are we ready for a new personal
>pronoun? Any comments??
>
>Jim G
P&DSchultz
>
> I found several people have used the plural, they, in place of he or she.
> It would work better if people then used the singular with it. They is.
> They was. Lots of people speak that way anyway.
"You are" used to be ONLY plural (the singular was "thou art"). When
"you" became singular, "are" became singular along with it, because in
the minds of the speakers the fact that "are" *goes* with "you" was
more significant than the fact that (up to then) "are" was plural. So
now we say "you are" even when we are talking to a single person.
The same thing has happened with "they are," which is used in the
singular and has been, by good writers and bad, for a very long time.
//P. Schultz
George F. Hardy
>
>"You are" used to be ONLY plural (the singular was "thou art").
Wrong. "Thou" is second person familiar, singular, nominative.
"Ye" is the second person familiar, plural,nominative. If you think
about it you should come up with the rest. (Hint: thine - genative
of thou). You was originally the formal second person. Germanic
languages (of which English is one) has three basic second person
pronouns.
GFH
P&DSchultz
No, not wrong. "You" was originally the dative and accusative PLURAL
second person pronoun. The point is that the plural verb form "are"
migrated into the singular along with its pronoun. The other
information you supply is interesting but not to the point which
was under discussion.
//P. Schultz
P&DSchultz
>
> In article <360834...@erols.com>, P&DSchultz <schu...@erols.com> says:
> > "You" was originally the dative and accusative PLURAL
> >second person pronoun.
>
Plural. Don't change the subject.
//P. Schultz
George F. Hardy
> "You" was originally the dative and accusative PLURAL
>second person pronoun.
Formal or familiar?
GFH
JUST AN H
I think it's fascinating that English once had the formal "You" form and the
informal "thou" form, and that our verbs were once conjugated accordingly.
I.E., You go, thou goest, etc....... My question is, when did we dispense
with the informal "thou" form in English?
George F. Hardy
>
>> Formal or familiar?
>
>Plural. Don't change the subject.
I am not changing the subject. There were three second person pronoun
forms -- singular, familiar; plural, familiar; singular/plural, formal.
I gave the three nominative forms: thou; ye; you. I suggested that
this thread would be advanced if the full declensions were posted. I
started it off with the hint that "thine" is the genetive of thou; now
I'll add dative and accusitive -- thee. So post the rest to show that
you know what you are writing about.
GFH
P&DSchultz
The subject was this: Can "are" be considered singular when used with
singular "they?" As an analogy, I brought up the second person, since
"are" was originally only plural in that person, and it followed the
pronoun "you" over into the singular column. That was the subject.
Except for that point, all of your added information about polite
forms, dative, thine, conjugations, ye, genitive, etc. etc. is
completely irrelevant and outside of the subject of whether "they
are" can be singular.
If you want to start a new subject to parade your particular take on
the provenance and pragmatics of second person pronouns, go ahead.
//P. Schultz
the jungle kitty
My brother credits Daniel Webster for this coup. I have also heard the
theory that the use of "you" gained popularity during America's Colonial
Era. The idea that we are all equals lead to the familiar "you." It
was official policy of townships and villages that children were taught
to use it in place of the socially stratified formal and informal.
Again, a theory, perhaps a myth.
George F. Hardy
>> When did we dispense with the informal "thou" form in English?
>
>My brother credits Daniel Webster for this coup. I have also heard the
>theory that the use of "you" gained popularity during America's Colonial
>Era. The idea that we are all equals lead to the familiar "you."
The same transition is occurring in Germany, but the direction is
different -- elimination of the formal "you" and retention of the
two informal "you" forms. OTOH, a woman was arrested for using the
informal "you" when addressing a policeman in Nuremberg.
GFH
George F. Hardy
>Except for that point, all of your added information about polite
>forms, dative, thine, conjugations, ye, genitive, etc. etc. is
>completely irrelevant and outside of the subject of whether "they
>are" can be singular.
Threads meander and change focus. Get a grip.
GFH
Charles Riggs
George F. Hardy
>>OTOH, a woman was arrested for using the
>>informal "you" when addressing a policeman in Nuremberg.
>That's scary.
And it was upheld in court! To "translate" it into English, he
claimed he was addressed as "kid". He was 26; she was in her 40s.
GFH
John Davies
>JUST AN H wrote:
>>
>> I think it's fascinating that English once had the formal "You" form and the
>> informal "thou" form, and that our verbs were once conjugated accordingly.
>> with the informal "thou" form in English?
>
>
>My brother credits Daniel Webster for this coup. I have also heard the
>theory that the use of "you" gained popularity during America's Colonial
>was official policy of townships and villages that children were taught
>to use it in place of the socially stratified formal and informal.
>Again, a theory, perhaps a myth.
>
>
British everyday speech by 1700, 80 years before Webster was born, and
well before the emergence of a separate American dialect of English.
This was the end of a long process which was well advanced even in
Shakespeare's time a hundred years earlier, when "you" was already
common as a singular pronoun, but still considered more respectful than
"thou". "Thou" was still found in literature of course, and more
importantly in the Bible and Prayer Book, so people continued to be
aware of it and of the verb ending that goes with it ("..st"). It also
continued in use by the Quakers.
"Thou" (along with "thee" for the objective case and "thy/thine" for the
possessive) started life as the singular second person pronoun, with no
implication of informality. It was only in the 14th century that "you"
and "ye", previously the plural forms of "thee" and "thou"
respectively, started to be used as singular forms indicating respect or
politeness.
--
John Davies (jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk)
John Davies
<jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk> writes
[...]
> "You" had completely replaced both "ye" and "thou" in
>British everyday speech by 1700, 80 years before Webster was born, and
>well before the emergence of a separate American dialect of English.
>This was the end of a long process which was well advanced even in
>Shakespeare's time a hundred years earlier, when "you" was already
>common as a singular pronoun, but still considered more respectful than
>"thou". "Thou" was still found in literature of course, and more
>importantly in the Bible and Prayer Book, so people continued to be
>aware of it and of the verb ending that goes with it ("..st"). It also
>continued in use by the Quakers.
[...]
Oops. I see I accidentally deleted a couple of sentences about the
limited continuation of "thou" and its variants in certain British
dialects, especially in the north of England and in parts of the West
Country. It still persists, but is mainly rural and lower class, and I
suspect it won't survive much longer.
--
John Davies (jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk)
sir...@hotmail.com
>
> >> When did we dispense with the informal "thou" form in English?
> >
> >My brother credits Daniel Webster for this coup. I have also heard the
> >theory that the use of "you" gained popularity during America's Colonial
> >Era. The idea that we are all equals lead to the familiar "you."
>
My understanding of this situation is that in the hype to be "politer than
thou" (pardon the multilevel pun!) people ended up never using the familiar
form to *any*one and eventually, it sounded stilted to most people's ears
dmitri iowa city
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
the jungle kitty
> In article <360994C5...@home.net>, the jungle kitty
> <jki...@home.net> writes
>My brother credits Daniel Webster for this coup. I have also heard the
>theory that the use of "you" gained popularity during America's Colonial
>Era. The idea that we are all equals lead to the familiar "you." It
>was official policy of townships and villages that children were taught
>to use it in place of the socially stratified formal and informal.
>Again, a theory, perhaps a myth.
> It's a myth. "You" had completely replaced both "ye" and "thou" in
> British everyday speech by 1700, 80 years before Webster was born, and
> well before the emergence of a separate American dialect of English.
> This was the end of a long process which was well advanced even in
> Shakespeare's time a hundred years earlier, when "you" was already
> common as a singular pronoun, but still considered more respectful than
> "thou". "Thou" was still found in literature of course, and more
> importantly in the Bible and Prayer Book, so people continued to be
> aware of it and of the verb ending that goes with it ("..st"). It also
> continued in use by the Quakers.
> John Davies (jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk)
Why would the Quakers (and to an extent the Amish) use "thee" and
"thou" when the mainstream had rejected it? My understanding of
Quakers and their culture is an egalitarian society based on scripture.
Using language as a political device, I would think they would be the
first to advocate the abolition of social stratification of language.
Box 162
> In article <360994C5...@home.net>, the jungle kitty
> <jki...@home.net> writes
> >JUST AN H wrote:
> >>
> >> I think it's fascinating that English once had the formal "You" form and the
> >> informal "thou" form, and that our verbs were once conjugated accordingly.
> >> I.E., You go, thou goest, etc....... My question is, when did we dispense
> >> with the informal "thou" form in English?
> >
> >
> >My brother credits Daniel Webster for this coup. I have also heard the
> >theory that the use of "you" gained popularity during America's Colonial
> >Era. The idea that we are all equals lead to the familiar "you." It
> >was official policy of townships and villages that children were taught
> >to use it in place of the socially stratified formal and informal.
> >Again, a theory, perhaps a myth.
> >
> >
> It's a myth. "You" had completely replaced both "ye" and "thou" in
> British everyday speech by 1700, 80 years before Webster was born, and
> well before the emergence of a separate American dialect of English.
> This was the end of a long process which was well advanced even in
> Shakespeare's time a hundred years earlier, when "you" was already
> common as a singular pronoun, but still considered more respectful than
> "thou". "Thou" was still found in literature of course, and more
> importantly in the Bible and Prayer Book, so people continued to be
> aware of it and of the verb ending that goes with it ("..st"). It also
> continued in use by the Quakers.
Besides, "you" was the FORMAL form, "thou" was the FAMILIAR form. You used "thou"
for your wife, "you" for a stranger.
> "Thou" (along with "thee" for the objective case and "thy/thine" for the
> possessive) started life as the singular second person pronoun, with no
> implication of informality. It was only in the 14th century that "you"
> and "ye", previously the plural forms of "thee" and "thou"
Are you sure it's this late? I thought thee/thou had become familiar forms
shortly after the move from Middle English to "Modern" English (1200-1300?)
George F. Hardy
>"Thou" was still found in literature of course, and more
>importantly in the Bible and Prayer Book, so people continued to be
>aware of it and of the verb ending that goes with it ("..st").
Was the second person, plural, familiar, used in the expression
"Your Majesty" when addressing the king? (German did.)
GFH
John Davies
<jki...@home.net> writes
>Why would the Quakers (and to an extent the Amish) use "thee" and
>"thou" when the mainstream had rejected it? My understanding of
>Quakers and their culture is an egalitarian society based on scripture.
>Using language as a political device, I would think they would be the
>first to advocate the abolition of social stratification of language.
>
If you think about it, there are two possible solutions to the problem
of addressing everyone equally: you can use "you" to everyone, ie lift
everyone up a rung, or you can use "thou" to everyone, bringing everyone
down to the same level.
David Crystal(1) says that the Quakers "disapproved of the way singular
you had come to be part of social etiquette... [the use of thou] it was
felt, was closer to the way Christ and his disciples spoke, avoided
unnecessary social distinction, and was grammatically more exact..."
It's worth remembering that "you" still carried with it at that time the
idea of addressing someone superior to oneself, an idea that was and is
anathema to the Quakers, who believe each one of us, as a creature of
God, is worthy of the same respect.
I seem to recall that most Quakers dropped "thou" early this century,
and I've also heard that at least some of them used to use the objective
form "thee" in place of "thou". Anyone know more about this?
(1) David CRYSTAL: The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of the English Language.
CUP, 1995. ISBN: 0 521 40179 8. See especially p.71 for an excellent
summary of the abandonment of "thou".
--
John Davies (jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk)
John Davies
<geo...@mail.rlc.net> writes
Unlike German, (which now uses the equivalent of "they" as the formal
second person singular pronoun) English has never had both formal and
informal versions of the second person plural pronoun.
--
John Davies (jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk)
John Davies
<1...@southgaylord.com> writes
>John Davies wrote:
>
[...]
> "You" had completely replaced both "ye" and "thou" in
>> British everyday speech by 1700, 80 years before Webster was born, and
>> well before the emergence of a separate American dialect of English.
>> This was the end of a long process which was well advanced even in
>> Shakespeare's time a hundred years earlier, when "you" was already
>> common as a singular pronoun, but still considered more respectful than
>> importantly in the Bible and Prayer Book, so people continued to be
>> continued in use by the Quakers.
>
>Besides, "you" was the FORMAL form, "thou" was the FAMILIAR form. You used
>"thou"
>for your wife, "you" for a stranger.
Yes, that was implicit in earlier postings in this thread. But in the
socially dominant dialects of English that was no longer the case by
1700.
>
>> "Thou" (along with "thee" for the objective case and "thy/thine" for the
>> possessive) started life as the singular second person pronoun, with no
>> implication of informality. It was only in the 14th century that "you"
>> and "ye", previously the plural forms of "thee" and "thou"
>
>Are you sure it's this late? I thought thee/thou had become familiar forms
>shortly after the move from Middle English to "Modern" English (1200-1300?)
Middle English is generally defined as the variety used from the early
1100s to about 1450, but it did of course overlap with the use of Old
English (Anglo Saxon) at the beginning of that period, and Early Modern
English at the end. I can't check sources at this time on a Saturday
night, but I had *thought* I'd read the distinction wasn't in widespread
use until around 1300; my recollection could be at fault. The
distinction was certainly in full flower by the 1380s, when Chaucer
started the Canterbury Tales: it's interesting in that to see how the
Host addresses some of his fellow-pilgrims as "ye" or "yow", but others
(the cook, miller and reeve, for example) as "thou".
--
John Davies (jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk)
George F. Hardy
>It's worth remembering that "you" still carried with it at that time the
>idea of addressing someone superior to oneself, an idea that was and is
>anathema to the Quakers, who believe each one of us, as a creature of
>God, is worthy of the same respect.
Not really true. The Bible addresses God in the second person, singular
familiar. Just recite the Lord's Prayer.
GFH
George F. Hardy
>
>Unlike German, (which now uses the equivalent of "they" as the formal
>second person singular pronoun) English has never had both formal and
>informal versions of the second person plural pronoun.
So "you" and "ye" never existed together???
GFH
John Davies
<geo...@mail.rlc.net> writes
[NB: I am conflating my responses to two of GFH's posts in this one
article]
Indeed they did. "Ye" was the nominative case (akin to "thou") and
"you/yow" (akin to "thee") was the objective or accusative case. I don't
know why the case distinction was dropped, and "you" adopted for both;
after all, we still have I/me, he/him, she/her, we/us and they/them.
"You" is the only personal pronoun which serves for nominative,
objective, singular and plural. Odd, isn't it?
>>It's worth remembering that "you" still carried with it at that time the
>>idea of addressing someone superior to oneself, an idea that was and is
>>anathema to the Quakers, who believe each one of us, as a creature of
>>God, is worthy of the same respect.
>
>Not really true. The Bible addresses God in the second person, singular
>familiar. Just recite the Lord's Prayer.
But the Authorised Version (or "King James Bible" as it is sometimes
known) was written in an English which was deliberately archaic even at
the time it first appeared, and does not anywhere reflect the then
current fashion for using "you" as a mark of respect. So far as I am
aware there is not a single instance in it of "you/ye" representing
anything other than the plural form of the 2nd person pronoun;
furthermore, the distinction between "you" and "ye" was rigorously
preserved, at a time when "ye" was disappearing elsewhere. That was in
part the consequence of a desire to preserve the grammatical structure
of the Greek and Hebrew texts from which it was translated, in which no
distinction was made between formal and informal modes of address.
Another factor was that much of the text was in fact simply a recycling
of much older versions (eg William Tyndale's, first published in 1525)
which themselves had been deliberately written in an old-fashioned
style. There are many other examples in the Authorised Version of
deliberate and systematic archaisms, especially in the forms of
irregular verbs and in word order, that were already noticeably old-
fashioned at the time it was first published.
So it is a mistake to regard calling God "thou" as a demonstration of
familiarity or informality, or even their reverse: it came from a
conscious decision to ignore such new-fangled distinctions.
--
John Davies (jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk)
JUST AN H
>Why would the Quakers (and to an extent the Amish) use "thee" and
>"thou" when the mainstream had rejected it? My understanding of
>Quakers and their culture is an egalitarian society based on scripture.
>Using language as a political device, I would think they would be the
>first to advocate the abolition of social stratification of language.
>
>http://members.home.net/jkitty
></PRE></HTML>
From what I gather, Quakers clung (and still cling) to "thou" as a reminder of
how close to God they are.
janelaw
>
> In article <uIDzgHAu...@redwoods.demon.co.uk>, John Davies <jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk> says:
>
> >It's worth remembering that "you" still carried with it at that time the
> >idea of addressing someone superior to oneself, an idea that was and is
> >anathema to the Quakers, who believe each one of us, as a creature of
> >God, is worthy of the same respect.
>
> Not really true. The Bible addresses God in the second person, singular
> familiar. Just recite the Lord's Prayer.
>
That really depends on which translation you are reading,
doesn't it?
George F. Hardy
>> Not really true. The Bible addresses God in the second person,
>>singular familiar. Just recite the Lord's Prayer.
>That really depends on which translation you are reading,
>doesn't it?
Come on. We are discussing "thou" and its use. Guess.
GFH
David C. Jack
>
> In article <360e4...@news.rlc.net>, George F. Hardy
> <geo...@mail.rlc.net> writes
>
> So it is a mistake to regard calling God "thou" as a demonstration of
> familiarity or informality, or even their reverse: it came from a
> conscious decision to ignore such new-fangled distinctions.
> --
> John Davies (jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk)
Since the "Father" of "our Father" is a translation of aramaic
"abba", which I understand translates into something like "dad", the use
of "thy" might be an attempt to accurately translate the sense of the
prayer.
Dave
P&DSchultz
> John Davies wrote:
> > George F. Hardy writes
> snip
> > So it is a mistake to regard calling God "thou" as a demonstration of
> > familiarity or informality, or even their reverse: it came from a
> > conscious decision to ignore such new-fangled distinctions.
> Since the "Father" of "our Father" is a translation of aramaic
> "abba", which I understand translates into something like "dad", ...
I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. The Lord's Prayer is written
in Greek, not Aramaic. We assume Jesus was actually speaking Aramaic;
but if the Greek says "our father" (which it does), then that means
that the Aramaic was definitely not "dad". It was the Aramaic
equivalent of "our father," the noun with its possesive pronoun
suffix. Do you think people didn't know how to translate back then,
or what?
//P. Schultz
P&DSchultz
And if we guess wrong, his argument falls apart. So we have to
guess what he wants us to guess. Is that it?
//P. Schultz
George F. Hardy
> Since the "Father" of "our Father" is a translation of aramaic
>"abba", which I understand translates into something like "dad", the use
>of "thy" might be an attempt to accurately translate the sense of the
>prayer.
Dieties and monarch were addresses in the familiar -- singular or
plural.
GFH
David C. Jack
>
> David C. Jack wrote:
> > John Davies wrote:
> > > George F. Hardy writes
> > snip
> > > So it is a mistake to regard calling God "thou" as a demonstration of
> > > familiarity or informality, or even their reverse: it came from a
> > > conscious decision to ignore such new-fangled distinctions.
>
>
> I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. The Lord's Prayer is written
> in Greek, not Aramaic. We assume Jesus was actually speaking Aramaic;
> but if the Greek says "our father" (which it does), then that means
> that the Aramaic was definitely not "dad". It was the Aramaic
> equivalent of "our father," the noun with its possesive pronoun
> suffix. Do you think people didn't know how to translate back then,
> or what?
> //P. Schultz
Concerning translation, I think that then (17C) like now, they
played the hand they were dealt - we know somewhat more than them -
archeology has not been in stasis for 250 years.
The authority for "abba" and its sense of familiarity is "the New
Jerome Biblical Commentary", 42:39. Argue with the Roman Catholic Church
if you wish.
D
David C. Jack
By way of amplification, ten minutes research on the web uncovered
that abba is an aramaic word which when used in the New Testament was
always appended by "patros". Presumably, the 17C anglican committee
translated the latter word and not the former.
D
P&DSchultz
I don't think the whole Church is that confused. The commentator is no
doubt aware that in modern Israeli Hebrew, the Aramaic word "abba"
means "dad/daddy," and he is imparting that factoid as a sort of
warm-and-fuzzy. But in the Aramaic of Bible usage it means "father."
One of the translations for it in Alcalay's Hebrew dictionary, as an
Aramaic word, is "Reverend (father)."
Admittedly, knowledge of the scriptures and the art of translation
have come a long way. But the fact that among all the most
knowledgeable, modern translators, none starts the Lord's Prayer as,
"Hey, Dad,.." is pretty good evidence that the word means "father,"
and not "dad."
//P. Schultz
P&DSchultz
>
> By way of amplification, ten minutes research on the web uncovered
> that abba is an aramaic word which when used in the New Testament was
> always appended by "patros". Presumably, the 17C anglican committee
> translated the latter word and not the former.
Or, more logically, they translated the Greek, but not the Aramaic,
since it meant the same thing. Incidentally, the appended Greek word
is not "patros."
//P. Schultz
John Davies
<geo...@mail.rlc.net> writes
>>of "thy" might be an attempt to accurately translate the sense of the
>>prayer.
>
>Dieties and monarch were addresses in the familiar -- singular or
>plural.
Does this refer to English or Aramaic? If English, what is or was the
"familiar plural"? And what evidence can you cite for the last
statement?
Have you seen my previous postings on this topic? To very briefly recap:
1 In the King James and earlier English Bibles, "thou/thee/thy" is
used exclusively as the *singular* 2nd person pronoun, and "ye/you/your"
exclusively as the *plural* 2nd person pronoun. In that context,
neither pronoun carries any implication of either familiarity or
respect: God is addressed as "thou" because He's singular.
2. At some time during the Middle English period (1100 to 1450),
English monarchs began to be addressed as "Your Majesty". This was part
of the general trend to use "you" as a mark of respect, instead of
"thou", which was retained among intimates and to address eg servants.
3. There has never been in English a "familiar plural" 2nd person
pronoun.
If on the other hand you were making a joke, forgive me for my
obtuseness in not seeing it.
--
John Davies (jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk)
janelaw
>
> David C. Jack wrote:
> >
> > P&DSchultz wrote:
> > >
> > > David C. Jack wrote:
> > > > John Davies wrote:
> > > > > George F. Hardy writes
> > > > snip
> > > > > So it is a mistake to regard calling God "thou" as a demonstration of
> > > > > familiarity or informality, or even their reverse: it came from a
> > > > > conscious decision to ignore such new-fangled distinctions.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. The Lord's Prayer is written
> > > in Greek, not Aramaic. We assume Jesus was actually speaking Aramaic;
> > > but if the Greek says "our father" (which it does), then that means
> > > that the Aramaic was definitely not "dad". It was the Aramaic
> > > equivalent of "our father," the noun with its possesive pronoun
> > > suffix. Do you think people didn't know how to translate back then,
> > > or what?
> > > //P. Schultz
> >
> > Concerning translation, I think that then (17C) like now, they
> > played the hand they were dealt - we know somewhat more than them -
> > archeology has not been in stasis for 250 years.
> >
> > The authority for "abba" and its sense of familiarity is "the New
> > Jerome Biblical Commentary", 42:39. Argue with the Roman Catholic Church
> > if you wish.
> >
> > D
>
> By way of amplification, ten minutes research on the web uncovered
> that abba is an aramaic word which when used in the New Testament was
> always appended by "patros". Presumably, the 17C anglican committee
> translated the latter word and not the former.
>
David,
I'm a little out of my depth here. Can you give me a link or
two for this kind of research?
TIA
Jane
Opinicus
>> By way of amplification, ten minutes research on the web
uncovered
>> that abba is an aramaic word which when used in the New
Testament was
>> always appended by "patros". Presumably, the 17C anglican
committee
>> translated the latter word and not the former.
>
>I'm a little out of my depth here. Can you give me a link or
>two for this kind of research?
Try, for example http://www.dogpile.com for a good example of a
meta-search engine.
Bob
Istanbul
---
To reply by email, dot the dash in doruk-net.
David C. Jack
> > that abba is an aramaic word which when used in the New Testament was
> > always appended by "patros". Presumably, the 17C anglican committee
> > translated the latter word and not the former.
> >
> > D
>
> David,
>
> I'm a little out of my depth here. Can you give me a link or
> two for this kind of research?
>
> Jane
I use Alta-Vista with a search on +abba +greek +aramaic.
One reference, for example, indicated that abba was an Aramaic word
taken into Greek.
David C. Jack
>
> David C. Jack wrote:
> >
> > P&DSchultz wrote:
> > >
> > > David C. Jack wrote:
> > > > John Davies wrote:
> > > > > George F. Hardy writes
> > > > snip
> > > > > So it is a mistake to regard calling God "thou" as a demonstration of
> > > > > familiarity or informality, or even their reverse: it came from a
> > > > > conscious decision to ignore such new-fangled distinctions.
> > >
> > > > Since the "Father" of "our Father" is a translation of aramaic
> > > > "abba", which I understand translates into something like "dad", ...
> > >
> > > I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. The Lord's Prayer is written
> > > in Greek, not Aramaic. We assume Jesus was actually speaking Aramaic;
> > > but if the Greek says "our father" (which it does), then that means
> > > that the Aramaic was definitely not "dad". It was the Aramaic
> > > equivalent of "our father," the noun with its possesive pronoun
> > > suffix. Do you think people didn't know how to translate back then,
> > > or what?
> > > //P. Schultz
>
> doubt aware that in modern Israeli Hebrew, the Aramaic word "abba"
> means "dad/daddy," and he is imparting that factoid as a sort of
> warm-and-fuzzy. But in the Aramaic of Bible usage it means "father."
> One of the translations for it in Alcalay's Hebrew dictionary, as an
> Aramaic word, is "Reverend (father)."
>
> Admittedly, knowledge of the scriptures and the art of translation
> have come a long way. But the fact that among all the most
> knowledgeable, modern translators, none starts the Lord's Prayer as,
> "Hey, Dad,.." is pretty good evidence that the word means "father,"
> and not "dad."
> //P. Schultz
It was merely a suggestion, but for what it's worth Jerome comments
upon how "the easy familiarity of abba" troubles Matthew in his Gospel.
As I understand it, the "reverence" connotation derives more from the
Greek and Coptic churches and their understanding of the meaning of the
word. By the way, Jerome has the 'nihil obstat' and 'imprimatur', and so
"is free of doctrinal or moral error" - it does represent the views of
the whole Roman Church, in 1988 anyway.
A further comment on the 17C translation. Then, as now they were
not above putting their own political twist on the translation. For
example, towards the end of 'Romans' Phoebe is refered to as a "servant"
of the church. In Acts, Stephen is called a "deacon". As I understand
it, the Greek word used was the same in both cases, but it was not
expedient in a church with a biblically based male priesthood, starting
with the rank of deacon, to acknowledge that Paul had female deacons.
Similarly, the use of the word "father" in modern translations could
well represent the modern translators view of God, rather than Jesus's -
they usually spell it with an uppercase 'F'. The translators of "The New
English Bible" took pains in their preface to point also out that "We
have sought to avoid jargon .... and all that is either stilted or
slipshod". Incidentally, the translators of "The New English Bible" use
the archaic "thy" in the Lord's Prayer, and with that we come full
circle.
Dave