shall vs. shalt
Pete Davis
Supporters: Thall shall not take it." The article, of course, has to do
with the ten commandments monument that's so controversial at the moment.
I wrote in the correction and they properly replaced "Thall" with "Thou."
However, it seems to me if you're using the archaic, it should be "Thou
shalt" instead of "Thou shall" (which is how they have it now). Typically
one sees the commandments translated as "Thou shalt not..."
In using the archaic, would "shall" technically be incorrect or can either
be used? From what I've read, it appears that either is technically correct.
I'm just curious.
I'm glad I found this newsgroup. I often have questions about English usage.
Particularly when trying to explain subtle usage issues to my Chilean
friend.
Pete Davis
Mark Wallace
> I was dismayed to see an article on CNN's web site entitled: "Monument
> Supporters: Thall shall not take it." The article, of course, has to
> do with the ten commandments monument that's so controversial at the
> moment.
>
> I wrote in the correction and they properly replaced "Thall" with
> "Thou." However, it seems to me if you're using the archaic, it
> should be "Thou shalt" instead of "Thou shall" (which is how they
> have it now). Typically one sees the commandments translated as "Thou
> shalt not..."
>
> In using the archaic, would "shall" technically be incorrect or can
> either be used? From what I've read, it appears that either is
> technically correct. I'm just curious.
Yup. Both were in use, and there's not enough documentarty evidence to say
for sure which came first.
Usage differences between 'shall' and 'shalt' varied over time, too. I
imagine that at the time of King James 'shalt' was the imperative.
--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
Raymond S. Wise
news:bie4id$83kif$1...@ID-51325.news.uni-berlin.de...
The usage in question is a parody of the language of the Ten Commandments as
they appear in the King James (Authorized) Version. Given that, there is no
point in having anything *except* "Thou shalt not..." in the headline.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Dave Swindell
<mwal...@dse.nl> writes
(sic). It represented one state of the language somewhere within the
"midlands triangle" a generation or more before 1611, and was already
"archaic" (albeit in a very respectful way). Essentially the dialect
chosen was dictated by that of the elders of the educated, powerful
middle and ruling class, but there was a wealth of alternative usages
and pronunciations elsewhere in Britain, and also within the midlands
triangle.
--
Dave OSOS#24 dswindel...@tcp.co.uk Remove my gerbil for email replies
Yamaha XJ900S & Wessex sidecar, the sexy one
Yamaha XJ900F & Watsonian Monaco, the comfortable one
mb
> Supporters: Thall shall not take it."
> I wrote in the correction and they properly replaced "Thall" with "Thou."
Was that well-advised? This is Alabama, after all, where archaizing
"y'all" by "th'all" could be acceptable.
Mark Wallace
True. I should have said "at the time and in the dialect of King James".
And I've just noticed my "documentarty evidence", above.
Conjures up a wealth of images, does that.
--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
Dave Swindell
Mark Wallace
Jeeze! How many blue pencils are there in this bloody place!
-- "~~ at the time of and in the dialect employed by the compilers of the
King James Bible"
And that's it!
Send it to setting!
--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit:
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
https://www.dse.nl/~mwallace/www/
-----------------------------------------------------
andrew
"Mark Wallace" <mwal...@dse.nl> wrote in message
news:bie4id$83kif$1...@ID-51325.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Yup. Both were in use, and there's not enough documentarty evidence to
say
> for sure which came first.
> Usage differences between 'shall' and 'shalt' varied over time, too. I
> imagine that at the time of King James 'shalt' was the imperative.
>
Wrong again, Mark.
"Shalt" is not imperative. You can't even use the verb "shall" in the
imperative mood. "Thou shalt..." is in the indicative.
That's an armchair grammarian for ya: not quite sure of the basics, yet full
of radical ideas about singular they and the like. Get some education before
you shoot your mouth.
Raymond S. Wise
news:NLz3b.9002$Jg5....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
Looks like we're in "English doesn't have a future tense" territory here,
which is the same territory as "English doesn't have a third person
imperative." "Thou shalt..." is a future indicative being used as an
imperative, and in the instances in the King James Version of the New
Testament where it is used in that sense, it translates a similarly used
indicative in Greek:
From *Moods and Tenses of New Testament Greek* by Ernest De Witt Burton,
"Former Professor at the University of Chicago" at
http://www.dabar.org/BurtonMoodsTenses/08-future_ind.htm
[quote]
*67.The Imperative Future.* The second person of the Future Indicative is
often used as an Imperative. _HA._ 844; _G._ 1265.
Jas. 2:8;VAgaph,seij to.n plhsi,on sou w`j seauto,n, _thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself._
[end quote]
That discussion is of Greek grammar, but in the case in question both Greek
and English are using the second person of the future indicative as an
imperative.
andrew
"Raymond S. Wise" <illinoi...@mninter.net> wrote in message
news:vktoges...@corp.supernews.com...
This is intentionally deceptive. I never said anything about a third person
imperative. The Greek website is merely a smokescreen.
Just because it does the work of a command, it does not suddenly get thrown
into the imperative mood. You're suggesting a kind of fantasy imperative
which is formed with auxiliary verbs. How many people subscribe to your
little system? We ALL know the real imperative: "Steal not", "Kill not",
etc.
Raymond S. Wise
What is your evidence that I have been intentionally deceptive? The Web site
was certainly *not* a smokescreen. It illustrated the use *in both Greek and
English* of the second person of the future indicative as a second person
imperative.
>
> Just because it does the work of a command, it does not suddenly get
thrown
> into the imperative mood. You're suggesting a kind of fantasy imperative
> which is formed with auxiliary verbs. How many people subscribe to your
> little system? We ALL know the real imperative: "Steal not", "Kill not",
> etc.
It is *not* my "little system," as you should have been able to see for
yourself. Ernest De Witt Burton, whose work I quoted, quite clearly
subscribes to it.
Mark Wallace
That's a remarkable opinion you've got there.
Where did you get it from?
The imperative is given in English either by 'shall/will' (the uses of which
have varied, over time), by the use of the word 'let' -- "Let it be" is an
imperative -- and by tone of voice.
You appear to be mixing up imperatives an negatives. "Steal not" is a very
nice negative, but it can't be imperative unless spoken in a commanding
tone. And how does your theory allow for issuing imperatives to *do*
something, rather than *not do* them?
--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit:
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal
-----------------------------------------------------
andrew
>
> The imperative is given in English either by 'shall/will' (the uses of
which
> have varied, over time), by the use of the word 'let' -- "Let it be" is an
> imperative -- and by tone of voice.
>
Your use of "imperative" as a noun is deceptive. You use it as a synonym for
"command" (which it indeed is), but the Imperative Mood is something
different altogether.
I hate to break it to you Mark, but not every sentence that contains a
command is in the Imperative Mood. We most often issue commands in the
imperative mood, but we an also do it in the indicative mood with the verb
"shall".
> You appear to be mixing up imperatives an negatives. "Steal not" is a
very
No, I'm not.
> nice negative, but it can't be imperative unless spoken in a commanding
> tone. And how does your theory allow for issuing imperatives to *do*
"Steal not" is always in the imperative mood. It could never be anything
else.
> something, rather than *not do* them?
This is irrelevant. I only used the negative because it was a reference to
the ten commandments. "Honor thy father and mother" is another example of a
sentence in the imperative mood which is not negative.
Mark Wallace
> "Mark Wallace" <mwal...@dse.nl> wrote in message
> news:bin4ot$aqbuh$1...@ID-51325.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>>
>> The imperative is given in English either by 'shall/will' (the uses
>> of which have varied, over time), by the use of the word 'let' --
>> "Let it be" is an imperative -- and by tone of voice.
>>
>
> Your use of "imperative" as a noun is deceptive. You use it as a
> synonym for "command" (which it indeed is), but the Imperative Mood
> is something different altogether.
... And you are talking bollocks. Explain to me how "the imperative mood"
(to quote you, above) is not a noun. I really look forward to hearing it.
> I hate to break it to you Mark, but not every sentence that contains a
> command is in the Imperative Mood.
Forgive me for butting in, but I don't recall saying anything of the kind,
so anything you build from that will be built on a false premise.
> We most often issue commands in the
> imperative mood, but we an also do it in the indicative mood with the
> verb "shall".
Ah, so you're saying that a command in the indicative mood uses 'shall', but
a command in the imperative mood uses...
... Um, what the Hell *are* you saying?
Pick up a grammar book and look in it, before digging yourself in any
deeper.
>> You appear to be mixing up imperatives an negatives. "Steal not" is
>> a very
>
> No, I'm not.
Well, you've explained that most satisfactorily
>> nice negative, but it can't be imperative unless spoken in a
>> commanding tone. And how does your theory allow for issuing
>> imperatives to *do*
>
> "Steal not" is always in the imperative mood. It could never be
> anything else.
*Why* do you insist on making these crass, *only one way is correct*
statements?
"Steal not" will be in the indicative mood more often than the imperative.
>> something, rather than *not do* them?
>
> This is irrelevant. I only used the negative because it was a
> reference to the ten commandments.
Say what?
*What* was a reference to the ten commandments?
If you intended to make such a reference, then you should have made that
reference clear.
The words 'ten' and 'commandments' have not been used in this thread.
And the imperative form used in *some translations* of the ten commandments
is no longer good English.
And the problem with your own "contributions" is that "steal not" is no
longer an imperative in English.
Carry a piece of paper with you, and make a note of the next time you hear
or read anyone using that construction outside of Bible quotations. It is
as much a part of the English language as "thou".
> "Honor thy father and mother" is
> another example of a sentence in the imperative mood which is not
> negative.
How impressive that you managed to find the deceased affirmative form of a
deceased negative imperative form -- from the same thousand-year-old edition
of a two-thousand-year-old book.
But I note that you have not made any response to my comments on what are
*currently* the imperative constructions in English.
What could the reason for that be, I wonder?
To everyone else: Is this that Canadian wanker from a few months ago? I
didn't carry my killfile across to this machine.
--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit:
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
https://www.dse.nl/~mwallace/www/
-----------------------------------------------------
Raymond S. Wise
> andrew wrote:
[...]
> > This is irrelevant. I only used the negative because it was a
> > reference to the ten commandments.
>
> Say what?
> *What* was a reference to the ten commandments?
> If you intended to make such a reference, then you should have made that
> reference clear.
> The words 'ten' and 'commandments' have not been used in this thread.
> And the imperative form used in *some translations* of the ten
commandments
> is no longer good English.
I mentioned the Ten Commandments:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=vkllu8fdrlsmd4%40corp.supernews.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
or
"The usage in question is a parody of the language of the Ten Commandments
as they appear in the King James (Authorized) Version. Given that, there is
no point in having anything *except* 'Thou shalt not...' in the headline."
"Thou shalt not...," "Thou shalt...," and "Steal not..." could be used in
modern English, but they would in almost every case be used only for the
purposes of parody. I can imagine someone taking them up again: After all,
translations of works sacred to the Baha'i (a relatively
recently-established religion) have been done using "thou," as in the
following:
From *The Hidden Words of Bahá'u'lláh* at
http://www.bahai.org/article-1-3-2-8.html
"4. O SON OF MAN!
"I loved thy creation, hence I created thee. Wherefore, do thou love Me,
that I may name thy name and fill thy soul with the spirit of life."
Few, if any, people talk this way: I think Peter Ustinov, in an interview
with H. Allen Smith, once spoke of an uncle who learned English by using the
King James Bible, and so used "thou" and "thee" and so forth, but he was not
(obviously) a native speaker of the language.
>
> And the problem with your own "contributions" is that "steal not" is no
> longer an imperative in English.
> Carry a piece of paper with you, and make a note of the next time you hear
> or read anyone using that construction outside of Bible quotations. It is
> as much a part of the English language as "thou".
>
>
> > "Honor thy father and mother" is
> > another example of a sentence in the imperative mood which is not
> > negative.
>
> How impressive that you managed to find the deceased affirmative form of a
> deceased negative imperative form -- from the same thousand-year-old
edition
> of a two-thousand-year-old book.
>
> But I note that you have not made any response to my comments on what are
> *currently* the imperative constructions in English.
>
> What could the reason for that be, I wonder?
>
>
> To everyone else: Is this that Canadian wanker from a few months ago? I
> didn't carry my killfile across to this machine.
--
andrew
> Forgive me for butting in, but I don't recall saying anything of the kind,
> so anything you build from that will be built on a false premise.
>
Yes you did. You said that "Thou shalt..." is an imperative just because it
happens to be expressing a command.
IMPERATIVE Go to school.
INDICATIVE He will go to school.
INDICATIVE You shall go to school.
INDICATIVE Thou shalt not steal.
If you can't understand that, I recommend a high school grammar book and
some fucking sense.
> *Why* do you insist on making these crass, *only one way is correct*
> statements?
> "Steal not" will be in the indicative mood more often than the imperative.
The complete sentence, "Steal not", can never be anything but an imperative,
for it hath not a written subject.
>
> >> something, rather than *not do* them?
> >
> > This is irrelevant. I only used the negative because it was a
> > reference to the ten commandments.
>
> Say what?
> *What* was a reference to the ten commandments?
> If you intended to make such a reference, then you should have made that
> reference clear.
> The words 'ten' and 'commandments' have not been used in this thread.
Wrong again.
> And the imperative form used in *some translations* of the ten
commandments
> is no longer good English.
>
> And the problem with your own "contributions" is that "steal not" is no
> longer an imperative in English.
"Do not steal" is the modern equivalent.
> But I note that you have not made any response to my comments on what are
> *currently* the imperative constructions in English.
How about "Get some fucking education" ? Is that modern enough for you?
Ayaz Ahmed Khan
Hash: SHA1
"andrew" typed:
> smokescreen.
Okay. Let me know the difference between the two: _smokescreen_ and
_smoke screen_. Pondian difference, I believe, because M-W has the
latter, and POD the former of the two words.
_______________
Ayaz Ahmed Khan
Yours Forever in,
Cyberspace.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.5.8ckt http://www.ipgpp.com/
iQA/AwUBP0/iPCvQltYw3KsKEQLFWQCfaqeaLBa9DZRhZwD1JvEXvbt3JhMAn3ND
0SQ1dgyGQlfTLC+bofNqjT5K
=zaMh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mark Wallace
Mark Wallace
> "Mark Wallace" <mwal...@dse.nl> wrote in message
> news:bioj7l$blh72$1...@ID-51325.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> andrew wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> This is irrelevant. I only used the negative because it was a
>>> reference to the ten commandments.
>>
>> Say what?
>> *What* was a reference to the ten commandments?
>> If you intended to make such a reference, then you should have made
>> that
>> reference clear.
>> The words 'ten' and 'commandments' have not been used in this thread.
>> And the imperative form used in *some translations* of the ten
> commandments
>> is no longer good English.
>
>
> I mentioned the Ten Commandments:
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=vkllu8fdrlsmd4%40corp.supernews.com&oe=
UTF-8&output=gplain
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/lo3o
Oops!
So you did.
> "The usage in question is a parody of the language of the Ten
> Commandments
> as they appear in the King James (Authorized) Version. Given that,
> there is
> no point in having anything *except* 'Thou shalt not...' in the
> headline."
>
> "Thou shalt not...," "Thou shalt...," and "Steal not..." could be
> used in
> modern English, but they would in almost every case be used only for
> the
> purposes of parody. I can imagine someone taking them up again: After
> all,
> translations of works sacred to the Baha'i (a relatively
> recently-established religion) have been done using "thou," as in the
> following:
I used to hang out with a bunch of Iranian Baha'is, back in the late
Seventies. A good crowd.
(I was only there for the food, though.)
> From *The Hidden Words of Bahá'u'lláh* at
>
> http://www.bahai.org/article-1-3-2-8.html
>
> "4. O SON OF MAN!
> "I loved thy creation, hence I created thee. Wherefore, do thou love
> Me,
> that I may name thy name and fill thy soul with the spirit of life."
>
> Few, if any, people talk this way: I think Peter Ustinov, in an
> interview
> with H. Allen Smith, once spoke of an uncle who learned English by
> using the
> King James Bible, and so used "thou" and "thee" and so forth, but he
> was not (obviously) a native speaker of the language.
I can't remember who was in charge of the translations of Bahá'u'lláh's and
Abdul Baha's writings, but it's a reasonable bet that the archaic tone of
it, with its "thee"s and "thou"s, was given by the translator(s), rather
than by the writers. IIRC, it was all written in a standard religious style
of Persian, which possibly lends itself to King James English, but the
decision to use archaic styling in English would probably have been made
long after it was written, and possibly somewhat arbitrarily.
--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit:
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal
-----------------------------------------------------
andrew
> *PLONK*
>
>
This is Mark's reply when he has been proven wrong but he wants to try to
save face. He tries to come off looking like the winner even though he
couldn't defend his English.
Raymond S. Wise
*Sigh*
*PLONK*
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
mplsray @ yahoo . com
andrew
> "andrew" <and...@wicked.as> wrote in message
> news:Pe54b.9388$%z1....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Mark Wallace" <mwal...@dse.nl> wrote in message
> > news:biq0ef$c3icc$1...@ID-51325.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > *PLONK*
> > >
> > >
> >
> > This is Mark's reply when he has been proven wrong but he wants to try
to
> > save face. He tries to come off looking like the winner even though he
> > couldn't defend his English.
>
>
> *Sigh*
>
> *PLONK*
And this is a timely confirmation of my other article, "Don't look here for
open discussion". Here are two of the men I named, in slavish agreement with
one another just like I described. If you were truly interested in the
difference between the indicative and imperative moods (as I was), then go
somewhere else. This thread was shut down by the liberal quadrumvirate as
soon as the tide of the debate started to turn against Mark.
The truth is, "Thou shalt..." is an indicative sentence, just as "Thou
wilt..." is. Mark failed to prove me wrong on that point, so he called on
his liberal buddies to provide an ad hominem attack against me. But he
failed to make any real case for "Thou shalt..." being a imperative, so as
it stands I am right and the sentence is indicative.
Bob Cunningham
<illinoi...@mninter.net> said:
> "andrew" <and...@wicked.as> wrote in message
> news:Pe54b.9388$%z1....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
> > "Mark Wallace" <mwal...@dse.nl> wrote in message
> > news:biq0ef$c3icc$1...@ID-51325.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > *PLONK*
> > This is Mark's reply when he has been proven wrong but he wants to try to
save face. He tries to come off looking like the winner even
though he
> > couldn't defend his English.
> *Sigh*
> *PLONK*
Sometimes I wish I had a kill-file, so that I, too, could
plonk fools like Andrew.
andrew
"Bob Cunningham" <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9qp1lvofljh2upihd...@4ax.com...
Look, three of the four liberals are in agreement, JUST AS I SAID IN MY
OTHER POST. This is an example of how they silence conservative opposition.
The only one absent is John Dean.
Martin Ambuhl
>>*PLONK*
*PLONK*
--
Martin Ambuhl
Harvey Van Sickle
-snip-
> If you can't understand that, I recommend a high school grammar
> book and some fucking sense.
-snip-
> How about "Get some fucking education" ? Is that modern enough for
> you?
It's certainly indicative of your lack of civility.
Harvey Van Sickle
after a lot of other people had plonked him, starting with "Mark
Wallace" who wrote:
>>>>> *PLONK*
Which was in reply to andrew's post, containing the following:
If you can't understand that, I recommend a high school
grammar book and some fucking sense.
not to mention:
How about "Get some fucking education" ? Is that modern
enough for you?
And in this post andrew wrote:
> Look, three of the four liberals are in agreement, JUST AS I SAID
> IN MY OTHER POST. This is an example of how they silence
> conservative opposition. The only one absent is John Dean.
You've apparently not seen any link between your descent into vulgar
abuse and the subsequent plonking.
In case you're interested -- which I doubt -- that's what's placed you
beyond the pale.
AB
>
> You've apparently not seen any link between your descent into vulgar
> abuse and the subsequent plonking.
>
> In case you're interested -- which I doubt -- that's what's placed you
> beyond the pale.
Well sometimes it _takes_ a few Saxon words to get the point across.
If Mark is too soft for that then I'm glad to be in his killfile -- I
wouldn't want to burn his sensitive ears.
Mark Wallace
I never take offence at the vocabulary people use, or any crudity in their
speech (click the link in the sig, if you are tempted to believe otherwise);
it's the attitude that goes with it that makes the difference between
whether I'm willing to put up with the person's idiotic arguments or not.
I would totally ignore someone who behaves as andrew does in real life, so I
don't see why I should do otherwise here.
I think that no-one here could possibly believe that I'm the type to run
away from a fight (can we say "overwhelming empirical evidence", children?);
I just have no desire to discuss things with people who both talk *and* act
like scum.
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________________________
Wanna kill a Spice Girl?
http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/c-pages/sgdvd0.htm
____________________________________________
Daniel James
news:<wJ54b.9410$UL1...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>, Andrew
wrote:
> And this is a timely confirmation of my other article,
> "Don't look here for open discussion".
There is plenty of open discussion here, but if all you do is
repeatedly restate a demonstrably false position and insult
those who attempt to set you straight you will not find much
of it.
> The truth is, "Thou shalt..." is an indicative sentence,
> just as "Thou wilt..." is.
The /truth/ (according to the OED) is that shalt is an
archaic form of "shall", and as such can be indicative or
imperative, depending on context. In the examples from the
Ten Commandments it is clearly intended to be imperative, and
so it is.
End of story.
Cheers,
Daniel.
Alan Jones
"Daniel James" <waste...@nospam.aaisp.org> wrote in message
news:VA.0000032...@nospam.aaisp.org...
I don't think so.
Quirk et al. "A grammar of contemporary English" Longman 1978: section 3.10
(a) "In contrast to the 'unmarked INDICATIVE mood, we distinguish the
'marked' moods IMPERATIVE, to express a command (see 7.72 ff) and
SUBJUNCTIVE, to express a wish, recommendation and so forth. Both the
imperative and the present subjunctive consist of the base form of the verb:
[examples] Come here at once! / The committee suggests that he come in tie
and jacket."
Section 7.72 ("Commands") gives a further range of variants, all of which
use the 'base' form ("Be seated"/"Everybody shut their eyes"/"Let us pray"
etc).
Now, I suppose that Quirk et al. may be outdated: if so, perhaps we could be
given the details of a more recent and equally authoritative grammar that
regards "Thou shalt not kill" as an example of the imperative. But I prefer
not to confuse grammatical form with semantics: I do believe that English
has no future tense but a range of ways in which one can speak of future
time, and (pace the Sage of Owlcroft); I don't believe English has a dative
though it has a range of ways of expressing what might in other languages be
conveyed by the dative case. "Thou shalt..." is grammatically not an
imperative but a statement, in the indicative mood, as also "The platoon
will come to attention", "You are to leave by dawn", "You must stop
drinking". Do those who disagree with Andrew regard all these as
imperatives?
It was interesting to Google for "thou shalt [not]" in Shakespeare and the
Bible AV/KJV. The command sense is, to my surprise, fairly unusual: most
citations seem to convey promise/threat or prediction.
Alan Jones
Eric Walker
>"Daniel James" <waste...@nospam.aaisp.org> wrote in message
>news:VA.0000032...@nospam.aaisp.org...
>> In article
>> news:<wJ54b.9410$UL1...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>, Andrew
>> wrote:
[...]
>> > The truth is, "Thou shalt..." is an indicative sentence,
>> > just as "Thou wilt..." is.
>>
>> The /truth/ (according to the OED) is that shalt is an
>> archaic form of "shall", and as such can be indicative or
>> imperative, depending on context. In the examples from the
>> Ten Commandments it is clearly intended to be imperative,
>> and so it is. . . .
>
>I don't think so.
>
>Quirk et al. "A grammar of contemporary English" Longman 1978:
>section 3.10 (a) "In contrast to the 'unmarked INDICATIVE
>mood, we distinguish the 'marked' moods IMPERATIVE, to express
>a command (see 7.72 ff) and SUBJUNCTIVE, to express a wish,
>recommendation and so forth. Both the imperative and the
>present subjunctive consist of the base form of the verb:
>[examples] Come here at once! / The committee suggests that he
>come in tie and jacket."
>
>Section 7.72 ("Commands") gives a further range of variants,
>all of which use the 'base' form ("Be seated"/"Everybody shut
>their eyes"/"Let us pray" etc).
>
>Now, I suppose that Quirk et al. may be outdated: if so,
>perhaps we could be given the details of a more recent and
>equally authoritative grammar that regards "Thou shalt not
>kill" as an example of the imperative.
Curme, at 37.C, "Imperative Mood", speaking generally (at that
point) states that the Imperative is "the mood of command,
request, admonition, supplication, entreaty, warning,
prohibition. It now has many forms." That definition would
surely seem to include, in spirit at any rate, "Thou shalt not
kill."
Of the "many forms", the one that seems applicable he discusses
in detail at 116.D, "Future Indicative With Imperative Force",
a heading that largely explains itself. It is a form that
indicates that the speaker is, as Curme puts it, "confidently
expecting that [his] wish will be fulfilled." As an example,
he gives "Heads of departments will submit their estimates
before January first."
So, in a sense, all parties get something: the mechanical form
is explicitly Indicative, but the usage gives the form
Imperative force. (As to possible differences in sense between
_will_ and _shall_, especially in older English: that is a
quagmire into which I neither shall nor will tread.)
>But I prefer not to confuse grammatical form with semantics: I
>do believe that English has no future tense but a range of
>ways in which one can speak of future time, and (pace the Sage
>of Owlcroft); I don't believe English has a dative though it
>has a range of ways of expressing what might in other
>languages be conveyed by the dative case. "Thou shalt..." is
>grammatically not an imperative but a statement, in the
>indicative mood, as also "The platoon will come to attention",
>"You are to leave by dawn", "You must stop drinking". Do those
>who disagree with Andrew regard all these as imperatives?
I am not sure about agreeing or disagreeing with anyone else,
but as to those, yes, I do regard them as imperatives, despite
their indicative form, for the reasons given by Curme.
You are perfectly correct that one should not confuse the
mechanical form of a casting with its semantic ("of or
pertaining to meaning") value, but I completely disagree with
the statements you follow that with (which seem to me to be
strikingly at variance with it): English is, as I suppose all
languages are, chock full of instances where the semantic
value--owing to one or another convention of modal particles,
word arrangement, context, or some such--is different from and
larger than the sheer mechanical form. Jesperson assuredly was
right that English has no distinctive mechanical form for a
future tense, but when Dickens writes "You and I will get on
excellently well", his character is using the future tense, no
matter the form that expresses it; when one says "I gave Sally
some flowers", she is using the dative case despite no
distinctive mechanical form for manifesting it; and when one
says "The platoon will come to order", one is expressing the
Imperative mood, regardless of the Indicative appearance of the
casting.
The key there is the word _convention_: we are not at a loss to
find out what's what, nor is anything random or _ad hoc_. The
indicators--the applicable conventions--are well known and
clearly set out in the grammar texts. Those who, with an
Oxford accent, would say that "Sally" in the sentence above has
no case, or is in some hypothetical "common" case will have
difficulty explaining why we can only replace it with "her" and
not with "she". (That, I realize, is not material to the
matter of the dative, which is a whole other discussion, but it
*is* material to situations in grammar involving more than set
mechanical forms.)
If "Thou shalt not kill" is not in "the mood of command,
request, admonition, supplication, entreaty, warning,
prohibition", what is?
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
My opinions on English are available at
http://owlcroft.com/english/
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> If "Thou shalt not kill" is not in "the mood of command,
> request, admonition, supplication, entreaty, warning,
> prohibition", what is?
"Do not kill."
It's all in how you look at it, form vs. semantic content. But
that's old business ...
--
Bob Lieblich
And getting older
Eric Walker
>Eric Walker wrote:
>
>[ ... ]
>
>> If "Thou shalt not kill" is not in "the mood of command,
>> request, admonition, supplication, entreaty, warning,
>> prohibition", what is?
>
>"Do not kill."
>
>It's all in how you look at it, form vs. semantic content.
>But that's old business ...
OK, let me ask directly: Is it possible for rational persons
truly to believe that "Thou shalt not kill" is *not* an
utterance made in a "mood of command, request, admonition,
supplication, entreaty, warning, prohibition"?
Robert Lieblich
>
> On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 21:09:52 -0400, Robert Lieblich wrote:
>
> >Eric Walker wrote:
> >
> >[ ... ]
> >
> >> If "Thou shalt not kill" is not in "the mood of command,
> >> request, admonition, supplication, entreaty, warning,
> >> prohibition", what is?
> >
> >"Do not kill."
> >
> >It's all in how you look at it, form vs. semantic content.
> >But that's old business ...
>
> OK, let me ask directly: Is it possible for rational persons
> truly to believe that "Thou shalt not kill" is *not* an
> utterance made in a "mood of command, request, admonition,
> supplication, entreaty, warning, prohibition"?
I'm sorry to be coy, but -- and I really mean this -- it depends on
what the meaning of "mood" is. (The Evanses in their *Contemporary
English Usage* use "mode" in place of "mood" as a grammatical term.
Others may as well. There's much to be said for it.) We've already
had a similar discussion with respect to "dative." Let's not do it
again.
--
Bob Lieblich
Old business
Eric Walker
Not parallel. I agree that "mood" is a poor term, and "mode" a
better (though I've not seen it so used). In any event, we can
ignore that part, so why the coyness? What is the
complication? I will rephrase yet again:
Is it possible for rational persons truly to believe that
"Thou shalt not kill" is *not* an utterance made with the
sense or force of, or in the form of, a "command, request,
admonition, supplication, entreaty, warning, prohibition"?
Does not at least one of those accurately describe it?
(Obviously, that list is disjunctive, not conjunctive.)
Robert Lieblich
You are evading the issue without realizing it. If "mood" or "mode"
refers to a particular syntactical structure, then the description
of that mood does not open the category to usages not fitting the
structure, no matter their "force". The imperative mood as a matter
of syntax has a particular *form*. Anything not in that form is, by
*my* definition, not an imperative. We don't convert the present
progressive "I am going to the football game" into the future
progressive by adding "later today" to it, even though it then
expresses the idea of futurity. Similarly the military: "You will
shine your shoes today" is in either the future tense or the present
with modal (let's not reopen that one) even if it does express a
command.
Meaning does not dictate syntax. Syntax dictates meaning. You
describe syntax not in terms of the meaning it conveys but in terms
of its form. That erects no bar to describing the sense or meaning
of the sentence in terms like "command," "request," or "admonition,"
but a sentence is not in the grammatical mood called "imperative"
merely because it has that meaning. A mood is a syntactical
phenomenon, and to qualify as an instance of that mood a sentence
must follow the syntactical requirements.
So yes, it is easy to construct sentences in the indicative that
have the force of the imperative. But they don't have the syntax of
the imperative. It really does depend on what you mean by "mood."
I mean a given syntactical form. You are free to mean what you mean
by it. It is foolish to get into an argument over definition of
terms. I have mine. You are welcome to yours.
--
Bob Lieblich
Is that un-coy enough?
AB
> So yes, it is easy to construct sentences in the indicative that
> have the force of the imperative. But they don't have the syntax of
> the imperative. It really does depend on what you mean by "mood."
> I mean a given syntactical form. You are free to mean what you mean
> by it. It is foolish to get into an argument over definition of
> terms. I have mine. You are welcome to yours.
Great discussion. It seems the issue is not as simple as Mark Wallace
would have us believe.
If Wallace had got his way this thread would have been shut down on
August 30. He had already declared victory, and proclaimed that "Thou
shalt..." was imperative; and his cohorts were already taking cheap
shots at me in celebration. This is a textbook example of their
silencing strategy which I summarized in my post about "Open
Discussion".
The one thing that saved this thread was my message
<wJ54b.9410$UL1...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>. It was a pathetic,
despairing cry for justice, and it did the trick. It revived the
thread and stimulated a new discussion which led us to the TRUTH about
the indicative mood. I consider myself a defender of free speech in
the face of elitists like Mark Wallace.
Robert Lieblich
>
> Robert Lieblich <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote in message news:<3F546034...@Verizon.net>...
>
> > So yes, it is easy to construct sentences in the indicative that
> > have the force of the imperative. But they don't have the syntax of
> > the imperative. It really does depend on what you mean by "mood."
> > I mean a given syntactical form. You are free to mean what you mean
> > by it. It is foolish to get into an argument over definition of
> > terms. I have mine. You are welcome to yours.
>
> Great discussion. It seems the issue is not as simple as Mark Wallace
> would have us believe.
I want you to understand most clearly, Andrew, that I had, and still
have, no interest in vindicating your position, whatever it may be;
indeed, I was unaware that you had even participated in this thread,
let alone originated it. Nor is my position unilateral. I allow
for the alternative.
>
> If Wallace had got his way this thread would have been shut down on
> August 30. He had already declared victory, and proclaimed that "Thou
> shalt..." was imperative; and his cohorts were already taking cheap
> shots at me in celebration. This is a textbook example of their
> silencing strategy which I summarized in my post about "Open
> Discussion".
There are many times when I, too, wish you would just shut up,
Andrew, and there have been times when I have abandoned a thread
because I felt there was no more to be said -- or because it was
getting out of control. This may soon become one such.
>
> The one thing that saved this thread was my message
> <wJ54b.9410$UL1...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>. It was a pathetic,
> despairing cry for justice, and it did the trick. It revived the
> thread and stimulated a new discussion which led us to the TRUTH about
> the indicative mood. I consider myself a defender of free speech in
> the face of elitists like Mark Wallace.
I consider you a royal pain in the ass. I posted what I posted
because I thought Eric Walker's view too narrow. What led him to
post what he posted I have already forgotten, as I have who he was
responding to, and I have no interest in tracing it back. But the
sole reason for my posting was to offer an alternative to what Eric
had said -- not a contradiction, an alternative.
If you take some comfort from all this, you're welcome to it. It
was not my intent to offer any.
--
Bob Lieblich
Moderately pissed off
Eric Walker
[...]
>If "mood" or "mode" refers to a particular syntactical
>structure, then the description of that mood does not open the
>category to usages not fitting the structure, no matter their
>"force". . . .
This particular point is part of a larger discussion, which has
been held intermittantly but at length here, about whether a
given grammatical situation can only be said to be operative if
it has a mechanically distinctive form (as with the much-
discussed dative case).
It is my position--and, so far as I can see, that of classical
English grammar--that semantic value determines grammatical
analysis. At the root is the question "What _is_ grammar, and
why do we do it?" Why do we distinguish pronouns from nouns?
Why do we distinguish adverbs from adjectives? Why do we talk
about such stuff at all?
We do so, I would say, because doing so helps us clarify our
understanding of what we are doing when we emit words, so that
we may better fit our words to our purpose.
The purpose of English grammar was and is to allow English
users to discuss how and why they do or should express their
thoughts in words. Sometimes the result is simple
prescription: these are the plural forms of verbs, these are
the singular forms of nouns and pronouns, we use singular verb
forms with singular noun/pronoun forms and plurals with
plurals, and so on. But that is by no means all of the matter.
English always was, and is apparently ever more becoming, a
language that relies little on inflection--actual changes in
words--and much on auxiliaries, modal particles, word order,
and word patterns.
When Curme, scarcely a radical of grammar, heads a discussion
"Future Indicative with Imperative Force", we must ask
ourselves whether a sentence rightly falling under that heading
is or is not in the Imperative Mood, or whatever we choose to
call the thing. The mechanical form is at once conceded in the
title to be indicative: does that mean that the mood of the
sentence is therefore rigidly set by its apparent form? Or do
we judge by the semantics of the usage?
Is the answer relevant to anything, or is it counting dancing
angels on a pinhead? I would say that it is very much relevant
to anyone who wants to know in what exact ways a thought can be
expressed in English and be taken to be in the imperative--that
is, to have the *semantic force* of a "command, request,
admonition, supplication, entreaty, warning, [or] prohibition".
And that is what referring to "Thou shalt not kill" as being in
the imperative signifies: that the typical educated English
speaker will understand it to be a statement that is at least
one of the possibilities "command, request, admonition,
supplication, entreaty, warning, [or] prohibition". If we
insist that No, the sentence is in the Indicative Mood, we
mislead those who want to know the various ways in which
English words can be assembled into a sentence having
imperative force.
In sum, the response to "If "mood" or "mode" refers to a
particular syntactical structure" is that it does not and
should not--nor should any grammatical term necessarily refer
only to "a particular syntactical structure" if the forms in
which it presents are regular and tabulated enough for rule.
(A failure to understand the importance of that principle is
what leads people who should know better to say that "English
has no real cases" because the mechanically distinct forms of
it are few.)
Mark Wallace
> Robert Lieblich <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:<3F546034...@Verizon.net>...
>
>> So yes, it is easy to construct sentences in the indicative that
>> have the force of the imperative. But they don't have the syntax of
>> the imperative. It really does depend on what you mean by "mood."
>> I mean a given syntactical form. You are free to mean what you mean
>> by it. It is foolish to get into an argument over definition of
>> terms. I have mine. You are welcome to yours.
>
> Great discussion. It seems the issue is not as simple as Mark Wallace
> would have us believe.
If you had understood what Robbie said, you would have seen that it agrees
exactly with what I said.
> If Wallace had got his way this thread would have been shut down on
> August 30. He had already declared victory, and proclaimed that "Thou
> shalt..." was imperative;
I did not say any such thing. What I said was:
"Usage differences between 'shall' and 'shalt' varied over time, too. I
imagine that at the time of King James 'shalt' was the imperative."
and:
"The imperative is given in English either by 'shall/will' (the uses of
which
have varied, over time), by the use of the word 'let' -- "Let it be" is an
imperative -- and by tone of voice."
Now, if you believe that "tone of voice" is syntactical, then what I said
does indeed disagree with what Robbie has said. However, one would have to
be particularly demented to believe that tone of voice is part of syntax.
The main point that you have to get into your skull is that the syntax for
the imperative has changed often, over time (and even in recent years, with
the decadence of the shall/will division). I made that perfectly clear,
largely because examples of imperatives from different eras were being held
up as "the one and only imperative!".
> and his cohorts were already taking cheap
> shots at me in celebration. This is a textbook example of their
> silencing strategy which I summarized in my post about "Open
> Discussion".
Cheap shots?
Who the Hell are you?
Is that andrew?
Plonking a big-mouthed, poorly-educated cretin is not a "cheap shot". It is
an intelligent course of action.
Kiddo, if you learned to discuss -- and learned to listen, rather than shout
your foul mouth off -- then you would not run into the problems that you do.
*PLONK*
--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit:
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/
-----------------------------------------------------
Jerry Friedman
> >
> > > Yup. Both were in use, and there's not enough documentarty evidence to
> say
> > > for sure which came first.
> > > Usage differences between 'shall' and 'shalt' varied over time, too. I
> > > imagine that at the time of King James 'shalt' was the imperative.
> > >
> >
> >
> > "Shalt" is not imperative. You can't even use the verb "shall" in the
> > imperative mood. "Thou shalt..." is in the indicative.
> >
> > That's an armchair grammarian for ya: not quite sure of the basics, yet
> full
> > of radical ideas about singular they and the like. Get some education
> before
> > you shoot your mouth.
>
>
> Looks like we're in "English doesn't have a future tense" territory here,
> which is the same territory as "English doesn't have a third person
> imperative." "Thou shalt..." is a future indicative being used as an
> imperative, and in the instances in the King James Version of the New
> Testament where it is used in that sense, it translates a similarly used
> indicative in Greek:
Which in the Hebrew Bible (often?) translates a "future" indicative,
as in the Ten Commandments. If I remember correctly, it's 'al
tirtsech, you will not murder. (I put "future" in quotation marks
because that tense is sometimes called the imperfective. If I
understood that, I'd explain it.)
...
--
Jerry Friedman
Yusuf B Gursey
the site does say "from the Arabic". my impression also was that the
"Baya:n" was written in arabic, and I remember a muslim persian
mocking it, saying it was poor arabic (though I completely forgot the
error he was refering to).
arabic consistently makes a distinction singular and plural in the
second person, with no distinction as to polite or informal. some
greetings though, are always said in the plural.
persian evolved somewhat similar to english, though AFAIK the singular
is not quite so obsolete as in english.
Mark Wallace
>> I can't remember who was in charge of the translations of
>> Bahá'u'lláh's and
>> Abdul Baha's writings, but it's a reasonable bet that the archaic
>> tone of
>> it, with its "thee"s and "thou"s, was given by the translator(s),
>> rather
>> than by the writers. IIRC, it was all written in a standard
>> religious style
>> of Persian, which possibly lends itself to King James English, but
>> the
>
> the site does say "from the Arabic". my impression also was that the
> "Baya:n" was written in arabic, and I remember a muslim persian
> mocking it, saying it was poor arabic (though I completely forgot the
> error he was refering to).
>
> arabic consistently makes a distinction singular and plural in the
> second person, with no distinction as to polite or informal. some
> greetings though, are always said in the plural.
>
> persian evolved somewhat similar to english, though AFAIK the singular
> is not quite so obsolete as in english.
I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge on that, I'm afraid. I don't
know enough about it to be able to discuss it.
--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit:
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/
-----------------------------------------------------
Yusuf B Gursey
: "Mark Wallace" <mwal...@dse.nl> wrote in message news:<biq134$bqaoc$1...@ID-51325.news.uni-berlin.de>...
yup.
:>
:> I can't remember who was in charge of the translations of Bahá'u'lláh's and
:> Abdul Baha's writings, but it's a reasonable bet that the archaic tone of
the "Bayan" was written by "the Bab". "Baha'ullah" wrote other things. I
don't know where the quote is from.
:> it, with its "thee"s and "thou"s, was given by the translator(s), rather
:> than by the writers. IIRC, it was all written in a standard religious style
probably classical persian with many arabisms, but the relationship of
classical persian to modern persian is closer to that of KJ English to
modern english because of conservative language policies and the
conservative educational policies.
:> of Persian, which possibly lends itself to King James English, but the
: the site does say "from the Arabic". my impression also was that the
: "Baya:n" was written in arabic, and I remember a muslim persian
apaprently there are two Bayans: the "shorter" Bayan in arabic and the
"longer" Bayan in persian.
: mocking it, saying it was poor arabic (though I completely forgot the
: error he was refering to).
: arabic consistently makes a distinction singular and plural in the
: second person, with no distinction as to polite or informal. some
: greetings though, are always said in the plural.
: persian evolved somewhat similar to english, though AFAIK the singular
: is not quite so obsolete as in english.
:> decision to use archaic styling in English would probably have been made
:> long after it was written, and possibly somewhat arbitrarily.
apparently the english was written by one of the original Bahais, and the
choice was deliberate.:
(what the post says about modern standard persian and modern standard
arabic is exaggerated, again because of policies).
======================================
Reply-To: "Alma Engels" <ael...@earthlink.net>
From: "Alma Engels" <ael...@earthlink.net>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.bahai
References: <afca5587.02020...@posting.google.com>
<u67ru48...@corp.supernews.com>
<a41g92$1bq9ff$1...@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de>
<3C647048...@attbi.NOSPAM.com>
<afca5587.02020...@posting.google.com>
<DNm98.23424$Hb6.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
<a4674h$1bf8mb$1...@ID-75545.news.dfncis.de>
<j9D98.25728$Hb6.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
<a4052167.02021...@posting.google.com>
<3c677061.114845712@news>
<cMM98.903$yV3....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
<gS3a8.438$8a2.2...@twister.socal.rr.com>
<Q_5a8.896$P21.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
<3c69281f.24039886@news>
Subject: Re: How many Artifical Assemblies in BF?
Jay, I am currently in a Senior home and my ability to memorize is not good.
In my youth I could read other languages though I couldn't write them. I
think that learning Persian and or Arabic is a good thing for nothing ever
exactly transfers from one language to another. I am a poet and have read a
lot of translated poetry -- sometimes the same poem by different
translators. Something is always lost. Particularly when a language has no
real equivalent. One of the earlier Baha'i yearbooks had a prayer or hidden
word. Think it was the short obligatory prayer translated into many
languages and even a non-linguist could see that there were variations.
Persian is simpler than Arabic. I tried to learn it some years ago but it
was beyond me. Moreover modern Persian or Arabic is not the same as the
languages in the time of Baha'u'llah. So I doubt if either will, at least
in the near future become anything like universal.
There is a further problem. The Guardian chose Jacobean English as his
model for translating. That is becoming more and more out-of-date. At some
time it probably will be necessary for someone to retranslate. Much as the
Bible has been. The King James version is elegant but less meaningful to
many than more modern translations.
In peace,
Alma NightShadow <night...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c69281f.24039886@news...
> There was someone named "Alma Engels" <ael...@earthlink.net> who once
> said...:
>
> >I took no action. It was not all clear to me how the situation should be
> >handled. On a related matter, Persians in the Phoenix Community would often
> >chant a prayer. I like the chanting but I had no idea what the prayer was.
> >I suggested that before the Persian chant, the person should very briefly
> >tell the group what the prayer was. I think this was implemented
>
> I've seen this done in quite a few communities where Persian or other
> languages are spoken. To boot, I have often heard prayers in Arabic or
> Persian which had not yet been translated to English text- simply
> because I bothered to ask. It's a good and reasonable thing to request
> and it almost never gets an up-turned eyebrow. As a matter of fact, I
> have seen that it is more often the case for Persians to be eager to
> translate their chants, if they have a firm enough grasp of the
> English language. I've even heard a few prayers verbally translated
> that had not *yet* been translated into text simply because someone
> had the wherewithall to ask. Of course, such translations are often
> prefaced with, "This is only my humble attempt at translation and
> should not be taken as perfect. I might miss something in the
> translation, but I will do the best that I can to at least convey the
> basic meaning." Such "disclaimers" are understood and accepted in the
> spirit in which they are given and the newly translated prayers, while
> often beautiful, were hardly ever repeated in English. What I *have*
> seen, more than anything else, is an effort for English-speaking
> Baha'is to try and learn Arabic or Persian so that they can better
> understand the chants when they come up.
>
> Even more rare and *just* as heartwarming is, "I don't know what you
> just said, but it sounded beautiful. Got another one?" =D
>
Yusuf B Gursey
: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
:> "Mark Wallace" <mwal...@dse.nl> wrote in message
:> news:<biq134$bqaoc$1...@ID-51325.news.uni-berlin.de>...
:>> I can't remember who was in charge of the translations of
:>> Bahá'u'lláh's and
:>> Abdul Baha's writings, but it's a reasonable bet that the archaic
:>> tone of
:>> it, with its "thee"s and "thou"s, was given by the translator(s),
:>> rather
:>> than by the writers. IIRC, it was all written in a standard
:>> religious style
:>> of Persian, which possibly lends itself to King James English, but
:>> the
:>
:> the site does say "from the Arabic". my impression also was that the
:> "Baya:n" was written in arabic, and I remember a muslim persian
:> mocking it, saying it was poor arabic (though I completely forgot the
:> error he was refering to).
:>
:> arabic consistently makes a distinction singular and plural in the
:> second person, with no distinction as to polite or informal. some
:> greetings though, are always said in the plural.
:>
:> persian evolved somewhat similar to english, though AFAIK the singular
:> is not quite so obsolete as in english.
: I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge on that, I'm afraid. I don't
: know enough about it to be able to discuss it.
thanks, but I don't know that much about Bahaism.