Comments on: Thou-thee-thy from other angles

By: Wilfried

Wilfried — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 19:41:10 +0000

Hilarious, John, and to the point. Your inventory shows: language is, indeed, illogical convention. With your mother-in-law’s irrefutable argument: Cela ne se fait pas. [One does not do that].

By: John Buffington

John Buffington — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:08:53 +0000

Wilfried

Love this discussion.

I went to Belgium on my mission. After 25 years of marriage to a french-speaking native I have learned some rules:

I can use the “tu” form with

God
my wife
children
animals
her siblings
anyone in Québec
close friends

I can use the “vous” form with

my mother-in-law
people I meet on the street
groups of people
no individual in Québec

There are rules and context, and I have reached the conclusion that I will never understand all the nuances. I use thee-thou-thy language in english prayer out of convention. I am not sure it gives me the same sense of intimacy as when I pray in french, but as you note, maybe this is because I don’t see the french form as a “tu de majesté” when I pray, but rather as a form of familiarity.

I do find it amusing, that I cannot use this familiar form with my mother-in-law, even after 25 years since, “cela ne se fait pas!” I just tell her that I feel closer to God than to her, and she laughs.

By: Wilfried

Wilfried — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:39:53 +0000

Thank you, Chelsea. Interesting how you sensed the value of “tu” as intimate, since that is the value you were taught to perceive. However, for Francophones born into this language use, the pronoun would usually be sensed as a “tu de majesté” because perceived as belonging to a separate sacred sphere. It just shows how much personal experience determines perception, and how rules are determined by those who feel, with good intention, that their perception should be the tradition. Nothing in language has intrinsic value, it’s all a matter of convention.

By: Chelsea

Chelsea — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 18:09:45 +0000

It was interesting to me on my mission (France) that the only person I was supposed to “tutoie” was God. Even my dearest companions were supposed to be addressed as “vous.” I liked the idea that my closest, most intimate relationship was with Heavenly Father.

By: Adam Greenwood

Adam Greenwood — Wed, 27 May 2009 15:26:13 +0000

Thee has given me a helpful response, WD. Thank thee.

By: Wilfried

Wilfried — Tue, 26 May 2009 21:47:27 +0000

Thanks for asking this interesting question, Adam. Since Jessie T. did not respond yet, let me pass on some information that may help. There are variants in Quaker-talk and these have also evolved over the years. But, basically, no thou any more, and thee as subject requires the verb in the third person: Thee is looking good today. Various sources discuss these variants and developments. I limit to some easily found on the web: Cheratra Yaswen from the U of Toronto offers a good historical overview here. Robert Bley-Vroman from the University of Hawaii also offers some good insights here. A discussion summary from the Linguist here shows how a number of myths need to be rectified.

By: Adam Greenwood

Adam Greenwood — Tue, 26 May 2009 14:43:57 +0000

Remarkable, Jessie T. Since you didn’t use ‘thou,’ I take it verb forms were never a problem for you? I sometimes wonder if using ‘thou’ but leaving the verbs unchanged would be the easiest solution for many English speakers.

By: Jessie T.

Jessie T. — Tue, 26 May 2009 10:44:30 +0000

Interesting topic.

My family heritage is Quaker and when my mother joined the LDS church in her twenties she had a very difficult time giving up the traditional “plain language” speech that she used with her family. The words “thee, thy, and thine (no thou)” were used in place of “you, your, and yours” in her daily communication with her immediate relatives. She decided to continue using it and I grew up using the T-words with my family. Others who were not in our immediate family were addressed with “you”, even including my father’s family.

I have continued this tradition with my husband and our children. We love the closeness that it promotes and the ease with which my children pray. It makes the Lord seem like a part of our family. I have no idea if my kids will continue using this form of speech with their families, but I know how much I love it.

By: Wilfried

Wilfried — Mon, 25 May 2009 18:29:18 +0000

Comments much appreciated, eremite and James. Nice comments too, to confirm this post had no intention to undermine thoutheeing in English. The counsel has been given and we follow it. Period. What we tried to do through this post and discussion is broaden the horizon: looking at thoutheeing from other angles. Sometimes the Anglo-perspective as such does not clarify the implications outside its sphere. Hopefully the discussion has been helpful to do to this. No real resolution, which was not intended, but perhaps some things to consider in the future.

By: James Oldham

James Oldham — Mon, 25 May 2009 02:15:17 +0000

Thank you Wilfried for the very thorough and thoughtful discussion and insights. After living in Germany as a foreign exchange student, in France as a missionary, and in Mexico on business…. I had completely abandoned the KJV prayer language of my pioneer ancestors.

However, Elder Nelson’s recent talk brought this back for consideration. Sometimes I suppose there are blessings in rote obedience, such as conforming to the selected priesthood uniform of white shirt. I can’t grow a real beard anyway, so that has never been a challenge. Brass instruments are banned from services, yet the organ has a trumpet stop. From revelation we know there is a pecking order in intelligence, and it must be likewise applied to musical instruments.

Being somewhat of a conformist wannabe….my current solution is to thou/thee/thy for English where applicable and expected, and pray in a foreign language if I want to get “personal”.