Ernest Adams' Some Thoughts on Archaic Language

Joshua Dyal said:
Eh, sorry for the tangent, mmadsen.
Don't be sorry at all; I enjoyed the tangent!

Anyway, I just read what the Wikipedia had to say about thou, and I found this passage interesting:
Thou had almost gone out of usage entirely in most English dialects by the year 1650. Its use in the Bible and in classical literature like Shakespeare gave thou an air of formality and solemnity. This usage has entirely dispelled any air of informal familiarity that might have hung around thou; it is used in solemn ritual occasions, in readings from the King James Bible, in Shakespeare, and in starchily formal literary compositions that seek to evoke the solemn emotions called forth by these antecedents. Since becoming obsolete in spoken English, it has nevertheless been used by more recent writers to address exalted beings such as God [1] (http://wyllie.lib.virginia.edu:8086...deng/parsed&tag=public&part=90&division=div1), a skylark [2] (http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/webstuff/poetry/Shelley-OdetoaSkylar.html), Achilles [3] (http://www.bartleby.com/166/38.html), and even The Mighty Thor [4] (http://paratime.ca/mv1/avengers/thor/thor528.html). In Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, Darth Vader, speaking to the Emperor, says, "What is thy bidding, master?" These recent uses of the pronoun suggest something far removed from intimate familiarity or condescension. The Revised Standard Version of the Bible, which first appeared in 1946, retained the pronoun thou exclusively to address God, using you in other places; the New Revised Standard Version (1989) omits thou entirely.​
I only recently learned that the Quakers used thee longer than other English-speakers, but I didn't realize the reasoning:
Quakers formerly used thee as an ordinary pronoun; the stereotype has them saying thee for both nominative and accusative cases. This was started by George Fox at the beginning of the Quaker movement as an attempt to preserve the egalitarian familiarity associated with the pronoun; it was not heard that way, and seemed instead to be an affected attempt at speaking like the King James Bible. Most Quakers have abandoned this usage.​
 

log in or register to remove this ad

All of this assumes that your players are as anal about language as this guy is. I suspect none of the players I've ever played with would balk if I described the Inn as "Ye olde Inn". That's assuming a lot, me thinks.
 

der_kluge said:
All of this assumes that your players are as anal about language as this guy is. I suspect none of the players I've ever played with would balk if I described the Inn as "Ye olde Inn". That's assuming a lot, me thinks.

On the other hand, playing with a bunch of US at the table (ENWorlders, ENWorld DMs in particular), It'll net you a lot of points -- we're goofy like this. ;)
 

Joshua Dyal said:
German (and I'm not the expert, not actually speaking German, so correct me if I'm wrong) actually does pretty much the same thing; using the plural second person also as formal singular second person.
German has the added craziness that you (plural), you (formal), and they are the same -- which leads me to ask, Did that pattern start at some point in recent history?:
The verb "sein" (= to be)

ich bin - I am
du bist - you are (informal)
Sie sind - you are (formal)
er/sie/es ist - se/she/it is

wir sind - we are
ihr seid - you are (informal)
Sie sind - you are (formal)
sie sind - they are​
 

Remove ads

Top