Talk:Archaism

See Also

"Retronym" is not really a related concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.42.47 (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thou

Much of the following paragraph (transferred from the article) is misleading and needs to be rewritten if it is to be included in the article:

"In English, one sure indicator of a deliberately archaic style is the contemporary use of the second person singular pronoun thou and its related case and verb forms. Ironically, the word thou fell out of English speech because it was thought abruptly colloquial, like French tu (see T-V distinction). Thou is now seen in current English usage only in literature that deliberately seeks to evoke an older style, though there are also some still-read older works that use thou, especially religious texts like the King James Bible. The word ye and its related forms also are indicative of archaism, however in spoken English it might be hard to tell the difference, especially if the speaker has an accent that seems strange to the listener."

If the article on thou is accurate, this paragraph needs to conform with what is said there if any of its content is to be restored to the article. Adrian Robson 11:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I added a "citation needed" template to the following sentence:

Although originally a familiar pronoun, it has been misinterpreted as a respectful one by many modern Christians.

I also somewhat dispute its factual accuracy, since according to the article on thou

Originally, thou was simply the singular counterpart to the plural pronoun ye, derived from an ancient Indo-European root. Following a process found in other Indo-European languages, thou was later used to express intimacy, familiarity, or even disrespect...

It would seem that the use of "thou" to refer to God predates any implication of disrespect, and at least the King James Bible is extremely consistent in that "thou/thee/thy/thine" is singular and "ye/you/your/yours" is plural, no matter who is being referred to. The word "thou" in this case implies nothing more than that there is one God, not many, but I can't speak as to how others nowadays may may interpret or misinterpret it, as the case may be. Deepmath (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Use modern language

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Feedback request and Wikipedia:Use modern language.
-- Wavelength (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Present subjunctive

The article currently says:

A good example of an archaic sense is the present subjunctive form be: it is not obsolete—it is used in constructions such as whether it be X or Y and be that as it may—but it is little used outside of those specific contexts and a few others, and its use outside of them sounds old-fashioned..

This is false. The present subjunctive is still fully in use in expressions like It is important that you be prompt. Substituting are sounds inferior, especially in American English. --Trovatore (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It might sound "old-fashioned" to some, but I know several people to whom it sounds just fine and current. Without a convincing source, there is no ground to claim this. Removing. LjL (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Confusions in "Usage"

In "Usage" I found this opening paragraph:

Archaisms are most frequently encountered in history, poetry, fantasy literature, law, philosophy, science, technology, geography and ritual writing and speech. Archaisms are kept alive by these ritual and literary uses and by the study of older literature. Should they remain recognised, they can potentially be revived.

I found it quite odd that the editor should have listed science, technology, and geography as practices in which people frequently encounter archaisms. The second sentence refers only to ritual and literary uses, so it needs to be amended to include philosophy and law. It is not clear what the third statement means—everybody recognizes archaisms as archaisms, and since archaisms are already a part of the living language, they cannot be revived; at any rate, the possibility that an archaic word might be restored to general use is irrelevant to the matter of the contexts in which one most frequently encounters archaisms.

The second paragraph ran:

Because they are things of continual discovery and re-invention, science and technology have historically generated forms of speech and writing which have dated and fallen into disuse relatively quickly. However the emotional associations of certain words (for example: 'Wireless' rather than 'Radio' for a generation of British citizens who lived through the Second World War) have kept them alive even though the older word is clearly an archaism.

The writer has confused obsolete words for archaic words: phlogiston is obsolete as a scientific term, but it is not an archaic, let alone an obsolete word, since anyone who deals in the history of science knows the word. The fact that science and technology continually make discoveries and that technical terms fall out of use as the disciplines advance is irrelevant to the question of whether people encounter archaisms in the current language of science or technology. "Wireless" is not a good example of a word that has fallen out of use with the advance of technology, since even when it was in current use in Britain, it was never in use in America, though all Americans knew that the Brits called the radio "the wireless." The word "wireless" is old-fashioned, but it is not archaic." "Ice box," for instance, is the name of an appliance that was displaced by the refrigerator, and when I was growing up (b. 1957), my parents called the refrigerator the "ice box," so the word is old-fashioned, but it is not archaic, because there is no restricted context in which its use has been frozen.

The third paragraph ran:

A similar desire to evoke a former age means that archaic place names are frequently used in circumstances where doing so conveys a political or emotional subtext, or when the official new name is not recognised by all (for example: 'Persia' rather than 'Iran', 'Bombay' rather than 'Mumbai', 'Madras' rather than 'Chennai'). So, a restaurant seeking to conjure up historic associations might prefer to call itself Old Bombay or refer to Persian cuisine in preference to using the newer place name. A notable contemporary example is the name of the airline Cathay Pacific, which uses the archaic Cathay ("China").

"Persia" is not archaic—it is just the former name of the country, and is in general use in various contexts like history or literature. "Bombay," far from being archaic, or even particularly old-fashioned, is still in use by Indians like Salman Rushdie who see no reason for the politically-correct "Mumbai." "Madras" has the same chronological linguistic status as "Bombay" with respect to its replacement—it is just a former name, not archaic. "Cathay," by contrast, is not archaic, but obsolete—there is no universal context in which it is ordinary to use "Cathay" instead of "China." It's just poetic—like calling Britain "Albion."

Since people do encounter archaisms in literature, law, philosophy, and ritual, examples should have been given from these domains. Everybody knows the words "damsel," "brethren," "Hear ye," etc.

The section really needs a complete re-write. Wordwright (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Confusions in the Intro

In the opening section I found:

In language, an archaism (from the Ancient Greek: ἀρχαϊκός, archaïkós, 'old-fashioned, antiquated', ultimately ἀρχαῖος, archaîos, 'from the beginning, ancient') is the use of a form of speech or writing that is no longer current or that is current only within a few special contexts. Their deliberate use can be subdivided into literary archaisms, which seeks to evoke the style of older speech and writing; and lexical archaisms, the use of words no longer in common use.

“A form of speech or writing” is too vague; we should distinguish clearly archaic words and archaic styles. “No longer current” and “current only in a few special contexts” are both too broad: the term “Negro” is no longer current, but it is not archaic; “Uncle Sam” is current only in a few special contexts, but it isn’t archaic, either. An archaism is a word, a sense of a word, or a style of speech or writing that belongs to an epoch long beyond living memory, but that is currently in restricted use in a few practical settings or affairs.

A distinction between archaic and obsolete words and word senses is widely used by dictionaries.

Dictionaries do not typically discriminate synonyms. Here is Merriam-Webster's definition:

archaic (adjective) 1 : having the characteristics of the language of the past and surviving chiefly in specialized uses: an archaic word. Note: In this dictionary the label archaic is affixed to words and senses relatively common in earlier times but infrequently used in present-day English. 2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of an earlier or more primitive time : antiquated archaic legal traditions 3 capitalized : of or belonging to the early or formative phases of a culture or a period of artistic development especially : of or belonging to the period leading up to the classical period of Greek culture 4 : surviving from an earlier period specifically : typical of a previously dominant evolutionary stage

Here is the American Heritage Dictionary:

archaic (adj).1. Relating to, being, or characteristic of a much earlier, often more primitive period, especially one that develops into a classical stage of civilization: an archaic bronze statuette; Archaic Greece. 2. No longer current or applicable; antiquated: archaic laws. See Synonyms at old. 3. Relating to, being, or characteristic of words and language that were once in regular use but are now relatively rare and suggestive of an earlier style or period."

In neither is there any contrast to the obsolete. Here now, however, is the distinction between the archaic and the obsolete in the article as it stands:

An archaic word or sense is one that still has some current use but whose use has dwindled to a few specialized contexts, outside which it connotes old-fashioned language. In contrast, an obsolete word or sense is one that is no longer used at all. A reader encounters them when reading texts that are centuries old. For example, the works of Shakespeare are old enough that some obsolete words or senses are encountered therein, for which glosses (annotations) are often provided in the margins.

Note that a new, different, and inaccurate definition of an archaic word is given. “Still has some current use” is unexplained—what justifies the “still”? “Dwindled to a few specialized contexts” implies a historical process that is not identified, and “dwindled” always presupposes size or amount, not distribution; “outside which it connotes old-fashioned language” is inaccurate: a word cannot “connote” old-fashioned language in the sense of having old-fashioned language as its emotional color—an archaic word is not old-fashioned, it is archaic, and its connotations can vary from the humorous (nobody uses “forsooth” seriously) to the highly formal (What say you?) to the solemn (With thee do I plight my troth).

Archaisms can either be used deliberately (to achieve a specific effect) or as part of a specific jargon (for example in law) or formula (for example in religious contexts). Many nursery rhymes contain archaisms. Some archaisms called fossil words remain in use within certain fixed expressions despite having faded away in all other contexts (for example, vim is not used in normal English outside the set phrase vim and vigor).

Fossil words are not archaic, but obsolete—nobody knows what vim or kith means.

An outdated form of language is called archaic. In contrast, a language or dialect that contains many archaic traits (archaisms) relative to closely related languages or dialects spoken at the same time is called conservative.

“An outdated form of language” is yet another definition of archaic and is yet again too broad—the expressions “iced tea” and “iced cream” are outdated, but they are not archaic. Finally, the fact that some languages or dialects contain archaic traits is irrelevant—only linguists can recognize a feature of language to be archaic because only they have the scientific and historical knowledge of how languages develop to know which features are archaic; but ordinary people who speak the language don't perceive those features as archaic—they are just ordinary.

In a revision, only these items need be retained: (i) an accurate definition; (ii) an indication of the emotional color of archaisms; and (iii) a brief indication of the contexts in which one finds them. Wordwright (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Rhetorical effect

@Spannerjam: Could you please clarify the following (incomplete) sentence fragment? I can make neither heads nor tails of it.

And also because of the rhetorical effect they evoke by the use of two of the four fundamental operations in rhetoric, permutation (immutatio) and addition (adiectio). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)