Language desk
< October 17	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 19 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 18

I'm no grammatician (grammaticist? grammologist?) but...

A minor series of edits in our 2011 Tucson shooting article:

(a) As it was: "A 22-year-old Tucson man,Jared Lee Loughner, was arrested at the scene.Federal prosecutors have filed five charges against him, including the attempted assassination of a member of Congress, and the assassination of a federal judge. Both of those charges carrying the possibility of the death penalty".

(b) An edit: "...the attempted assassination of a member of Congress, and the assassination of a federal judge. Both of those charges carried the possibility of the death penalty".

(c) That doesn't look right, thought I: the charges still carry the possibility... - so I reverted to 'carrying'.

(d) But it still isn't right, is it? 'Both' isn't logically a start to a new sentence - in steps another editor: "...the assassination of a federal judge; both of these charges carrying the possibility of the death penalty".

(e) Hang on though, that doesn't look right either: How's about this, I think: "...the assassination of a federal judge: two charges each carrying the possibility of the death penalty".

I'll stress I'm not criticising anyone's grammar etc here - I'm not exactly the best person to judge on such matters - but, as a general question, are we better off than we were to start with? Is it more logical? And is my colon better than the previous semicolon? Or should I leave such matters to them wot noes how to rite proper? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either "both of these charges carry" (since it is a current fact of law that they do carry this penalty) or "with both of these charges carrying" which is an ablative absolute construction are fine. even the past tense is okay, but it has a strange emphasis. I would go with the simple present for an as of now timeless fact. μηδείς (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How 'bout we try: "...judge; both of which carry the death penalty". Simple, concise, gets the point across without 'grammar/punctuation/form' getting in the way. 03:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. That also works. But it is still grammatical. Grammar is inescapable, not intrusive. μηδείς (talk)

Ah! Yes - we don't want 'charges' twice in the sentence anyway. I'd still use a colon myself: but I'm probably guilty of overuse (or misuse) of these (and ellipses, brackets etc, come to think of it...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grammarian. Neutrality^talk 07:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Carried" is better, because "carry" indicates the current law, and "carried" indicates the law at the time. The current law may change, but I assume people are interested in the penalty at the time he was charged. (I'm sure there's a Wikipedia policy page about this.) This change would probably require using the simple past tense "Federal prosecutors filed five charges against him". --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about splitting it up? For example: "Federal prosecutors have filed five charges against him. Two of those charges—attempted assassination of a member of Congress and assassination of a federal judge—could result in the death penalty." Lambtron (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whipper Snapper

Hi There, I have been wondering for some time about the origins and the meaning behind the expression Whipper Snapper. Most such expressions have come from somewhere, and often on the face of it make no sense. This expression makes no real sense to me, and though I know what it means, by itself it is meaningless. Can anyone shed any light on its origins, and or a reference that will have it mentioned specifically. Kind Regards, J.T Slater — Preceding unsigned comment added by JT Slater (talk • contribs) 05:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you check this link to a google search it will give you a number of places to check. It seems the etymology is not certain. Richard Avery (talk) 07:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the OED gives exactly the same probable derivation ("a cracker of whips") along with the earlier and now almost obsolete "snipper-snapper". Dbfirs 09:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Word Detective gives a little further elucidation on the meaning. And Marlowe used "snipper-snapper" in Dr. Faustus, ca. 1592.

Pahss-par-too?

How do you pronounce Passepartout? I did a bit googling and I came up with Pahss-par-too (chosen by voters). Is this correct? I just want to be sure.-Meerkatakreem (talk) 05:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I remember it from the Around the World in 80 Days (1956 film). HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, "pass" in a northern british accent, "par" as in golf and "two" as in the number. - filelake shoe 09:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's French derived, so not "pahss", but "pass" with a short "a". /ˈpæs.pə.ˌtuː/ ("pass-pa-too"). Bazza (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are a rhotic speaker, there is no reason not to pronounce the 'r' at the end of the second syllable. The French pronounce it (in their own way). Marco polo (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name of footballer

How we spell a former keeper of Nethelands international football team's name Edwin Van der Sar or Edwin Van der Saar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.108.8.129 (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin van der Sar. —Akrabbim^talk 13:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where/we're

I've just read this rather sloppy sentence on someone's facebook: "I know your in Washington now but I wasn't sure we're?" - I know why native English speakers have trouble getting you're/your right because they're homophones, similarly in my dialect of British English "are" and "our" are homophones so lots of people from where I grew up had trouble getting those the right way round too. But I can't understand why people would mix up "we're" and "where"? Is there any dialect of English where these two are pronounced the same? - filelake shoe 13:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think some speakers with a Boston accent could pronounce both words as [wiə] or [wɪə]. Marco polo (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I blame modern "enlightened" education. It seem to me that marking spelling has been abolished in most of the Anglophone world and it is considered a human rights violation to even dare to think of ever considering the possibility of telling students they are wrong. I'd like to add a few of my pet peeves: there/their/they're, your/you're. There is one pair that I can't even begin to explain as they are not homophones - than/then. Roger (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was never any time in the history of mankind when such errors did not occur, or so says the widely held opinion of people like Lynne Truss. So let's not drag this off topic; the OP was interested in a specific pair. It typically happens in facebook that such occurrences are typographical oversights, that is to say on thought they would be corrected (say in a more formal document) but the user does not feel the need to do this given the context. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)

Reading the question, I "unapostrophed" the sentence as "I know you are in Washington now but I was not sure we were?" Maybe I'm just not yet very awake. Good morning. Pfly (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly how I read it the first time too - filelake shoe 20:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they used an iPhone to post, the aggressive autocorrect may be responsible. I've turned mine off since an update allowed you to do so, but it does (or did) weird things like autocorrecting every single instance of were to we're, unless you catch it (and I'll for ill, etc). Were for where is quite a common error, either because people aren't confident which vowel sound goes with which spelling (few dialects aspirate 'wh'), or because they are homophones in some dialects, or because of a simple typo. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a pretty good spellor, and have no trouble with obscure words or foreignisms, but I still routinely get there/they're/their wrong on a very regular basis, especially the unhyphenated forms. Spelling you're as your is also typical. And I do know I have confused were and we're, but not with where. And never our with are even though in my dialect the two may fall together in free variation. I suspect that visual confusion rather than auditory confusion is the cause. Otherwiser for me, substituting are and our would occur much more frequently. μηδείς (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Filelakeshoe, in my dialect, where, we're and wear are all homophones. Were is different; it's a homophone of whirr. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, is the irony of "I am a pretty good spellor" intentional? ¶ In my dialect, where, wear, and the strong forms of we're and were are all distinct. The weak forms of we're and were are the same. The strong form of we're is homophonous with weir. Angr (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some people's spelling is better than their orthography. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where and wear are different to you as well? - filelake shoe 20:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm among the declining band of holdouts against the wine-whine merger. And I use [hw] (or [ʍ] if you prefer) quite unselfconsciously, although I've been accused of only doing it because it was drummed into me as a child (it wasn't), or of only thinking I do it but then actually merging when I'm not paying attention (I don't). I do, however, have [w] in whoa, and I do reduce [hw] to [w] in weak forms of function words, e.g. in I don't know what you're talking about with no stress on what. Angr (talk) 07:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we're and were are homophones with a syllabic /r/ when unstressed. Where and wear are homophones in my dialect, but I have never confused the two in spelling. Nor weir and we're. Again, I think that's evidence the problem has visual and not auditory roots.

As for irony, certainly not moi.μηδείς (talk) 23:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answers. Hard for me to relate to "Boston accents" since everyone I've met from the New England area really has no accent to speak of (and would definitely not pronounce "where" as [wiə]), but that's interesting about Australian (assuming that is your accent Jack, I can hear it right in my head if so). - filelake shoe 20:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that most people from New England have an incredibly strong American accent. In my dialect of English (southeastern US), "wear" and "where" are pronounced identically, but "we're" and "were" are not. If you are so interested, however, the "were" in "werewolf" is pronounced exactly the same as "wear" and "where". Despite being quite familiar with the general implementation of English grammar (even if I do make egregious mistakes more often than I'd like to admit), I do frequently catch myself confusing "there" and "their", and having to correct myself. However, I never confuse "wear," "where," and "we're". It's odd how that works. Falconus^{p t c} 22:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we're you our, but weer Ah am (near Selby) the local accent kind of blends Hull and Leeds. "Our" and "are" are pretty much homophones "Our kid" – meaning "my sibling", not "our child" – could easily be confused with "are kid" or even "ah, kid" ("I've seen our kid"; "these gloves are kid") and "where are you" sounds like "we're are you". As often is the case with apparent homophones the pronunciation isn't exactly the same (and I can't show the differences in IPA as I don't speak it) but to a non-local "we're" and "where" would sound very similar indeed ("weer are you?" "weer 'ere") rand 'ere. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Boston accent is definitely class-marked these days, and its speakers tend to be too tied to their family and community to migrate far away, whereas the more geographically mobile New Englanders tend to be higher in the class hierarchy. Marco polo (talk) 23:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another Aussie here. Another homopohone with we're, where and wear is the were- part of werewolf. HiLo48 (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also in Northern England (at least my local bit) and my native Geordie accent). "Standard" British pronunciation would be "wurwolf" but round here it's a "weerwolf". Tonywalton ^Talk 00:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the lowerclass urban Boston accent is quite acute, along the lines of the very distinct Brooklyn accent of George Costanza on Seinfeld. There is most definitely a broader eastern New England accent which is not nearly so acute, but it is recognizably different from a Greater NYC area accent, Upstate NY, or a Delaware Valley, or a Baltimoron Accent.μηδείς (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I once heard a Bostoner explain that he'd seen a pool o' beer at the zoo. μηδείς (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would work in various Scottish accents as well. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give the IPA for the Scottish if you know how? I can't quite imagine it for some reason, even channeling Amy Pond. μηδείς (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Liverpool's dialect, Scouse "where", "we're", "were", "ware" and "wear" are all homophones. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was just looking at the sales catalogues, and realised that in Australian English the ware in kitchenware is another homophone with we're, where, wear and werewolf. It's a wonder we can communicate down here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across this in the comments section of an opinion article at Politico.com: "Does it mention the FACT that reagan raised taxes, was , and still is, the father of modern day Amnesty, deal with our enemies, increased the deficit and the of government, cut and run in lebanon after our marines where killed by terrorists. "Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66256.html#ixzz1bLXBXzHK

Professional's professional

Occasionally, we read that such-and-such was/is a "musician's musician" (Zappa, Art Tatum, ...) or a "writer's writer" (Flaubert, Jean Paul, ...), etc. Is there a general term (fancy or not) for these kind of artists who are admired more by their peers than by the general public or even critics? ---Sluzzelin talk 18:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but when I was a kid my Mum was always praising certain men for being "a man's man". It was never defined or explained, but I took it to be a man who is masculine, interested in manly pursuits, the way a man ought to be. I took her at her word and became a man's man, although my "manly pursuits" are probably not quite what she had in mind for me. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if there's a mot juste waiting to be found, because people (usually artists or performers) are described as an "X's X" for various reasons. Sometimes it's just a way of calling them a virtuoso, and doesn't imply a lack of critical or popular esteem. On the other hand, it's sometimes a euphemism for someone thought "difficult" or inaccessible, someone whose integrity gets in the way of easy profit, or someone who is especially devoted to their craft. Consider all the very different people who have been described (per Google) as "comedian's comedians": Bill Hicks, Woody Allen, George Carlin, Louis C.K., Lenny Bruce, Larry David, etc. Obviously, unpopularity is not a necessary ingredient. On balance, I think the closest term would probably be "craftsman" or "critical darling", because "X's X" always implies that the person is talented, devoted to their profession, respected by those "in the know", and not quite popular enough to seem vulgar. (Hence, someone like Jerry Seinfeld is not called a "comedian's comedian", even though comedians generally respect him.) A lot of "X's X" are very popular, but I can't think of any "X's X" who is critically reviled. Carlos Mencia and Dane Cook are not "comedian's comedians". In any artistic field, critics and artists will tend to be broadly in agreement as to who is a hack. LANTZY ^TALK 19:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never thought the term to mean "artists who are admired more by their peers than by the general public or even critics" (though some of the comedians I found on Google by searching for the term are people I've never heard of; perhaps an intervening Atlantic Ocean explains this!) Certainly the The Comedian's Comedian list here, as voted for by UK comedians in 2005, includes only two names unfamiliar to a sample of the UK general public (sample size = 1; me). The rest are almost without exception well-known and well-appreciated both among public and critics. Even some performers like Bob Monkhouse, criticised by some as a hack [1] appear on the list. Personally I see "the X's X" as a bit of flummery, or what Edward de Bono described as a "porridge word", like "X is the new Y". Tonywalton ^Talk 23:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of a concept depends not only on what it includes, but also on what it is differentiate from. See genus-differentia definition. If an X's X were simply a "great X", then one would simply say "Great X." What one is saying when one says an "X's X" is an X whose qualities will be appreciated by X's no matter what his inability to impress non-exes. A mother who exhorts her son to be a man's man is probably just trying to say something else without knowing how to do so without insulting. Shirley she means for him to be manly in a sense which she cannot specify. But were she to consider it more deeply, she would also want him to take a serious interest in how to woo a woman, which has nothing to do with being a good fishing buddy.μηδείς (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone, for your insights. Tonywalton, my definition was a bit careless, good point, and I have seen the phrase used carelessly (or emptily) as well. In other cases, "X's X" makes a lot of sense to me though, and has corresponded with what I had read or, in the case of the two musical examples, experienced in conversations with musicians as well as aficionados who are not musicians. Maybe it's more about affintity or source of inspiration than about preference or admiration. At any rate, this usage seems to be far older than "X is the new Y", and, in my opinion, also less vacuous. Still, its potential porridgeness is one of the reasons I was looking for another word. Lantzy is right about the variety of reasons why someone might be an "X's X", and maybe it is naive of me to expect a term for this. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the 19th century, "gentleman's gentleman" had a rather different meaning (a gentleman's gentleman was not in fact a gentleman at all in the ordinary sense)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thee/thou

Recently, there was a discussion at this desk concerning archaic speech. Someone pointed out that the words "thee", "thou", "thy" and "thine" were familiar terms that would have only been used in the most casual of conversations. I remember hearing this elsewhere, as well. How is it then, that these words are so ubiquitous in the King James Bible and the traditional hymns? I would think the church fathers would have found it irreverent-if not blasphemous-to speak to and of the Lord so casually. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite right. The familiar terms were not used only for casual conversations. In early medieval times and earlier, "thou" forms (or "þu" forms) were the standard 2nd person singular form, used without regard to formality. In early modern times, they were used between people who had intimate social relationships or to address people who were lower on the status hierarchy. These pronouns could be used even in very formal situations provided that the social relationships were as stated. So, for example, a father would use "thou" forms to speak to his son even in a formal address before an audience. In the Bible, early modern translators of Greek and Hebrew texts invariably used "thou" forms to translate 2nd person singular forms in the source languages. It may have seemed natural to use "thou" forms when believers address God because the relationship between the believer and the Christian god is supposed to be one of intimacy. Marco polo (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly makes sense. Thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly verify that in the three languages I've studied which retain T-V distinction nowadays, God is always addressed in the singular form, probably for the above reasons. Have a look at http://wikisource.org/wiki/The_Lord's_Prayer - it's certainly an international precedent. - filelake shoe 21:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But there are exceptions. According to fr:Notre Père, the form of the Lord's Prayer used by French Catholics before 1966 called God vous: "Notre Père, qui êtes aux cieux ; Que votre nom soit sanctifié ; Que votre règne arrive ; Que votre volonté soit faite sur la terre comme au ciel", etc. And the French Ave Maria calls Mary vous, too. Angr (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a roommate from Mexico for a short time and we discussed this once. He apparently prayed using Usted, and was somewhat surprised when he thought through the Lord's Prayer and realized it was in the tu form. Of course the actual word tu does not appear in the prayer, it's just a matter of verb forms, which is presumably why it was possible for him not to have noticed it previously (although even then I'm not quite sure I follow how it could go unnoticed). Actually now that I think about it tu does not appear as a pronoun, but it does as a possessive adjective (never remember for sure which one has the accent) so even that part doesn't quite work. --Trovatore (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, he also said Usted to his mother, so I gather that at least in Mexico Usted does not necessarily imply distance. --Trovatore (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two dozen French Pater Nosters all of which but one have tu http://www.christusrex.org/www1/pater/JPN-french.html. My general rule is, if you can call someone by his first name, you can tutoyer/tutear/dutzen/na ty, God and those you petition with prayer are the exception, and otherwise you can't go wrong with you. μηδείς (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why an exception? I'm not sure what God's second name is, and on petitioning to Jesus it's certainly his first name that's used (few prayers are uttered to Mar Bar-Joseph). Same goes for saints. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, God is addressed as God, or Lord, not Yahweh. I assume Jesus is addressed as tu, so that's not an exception. And saints are addressed by their titles, like nobility. One may pray "Dear Saint Joseph", or say "Excuse me, Prince Charles", but not pray to Joe or say "Excuse me Chuck". μηδείς (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is addressed to "Mary", as is this and, of course, the Hail Mary. Hardly equivalent to "eyup, Polly". I've certainly heard informal prayers addressed to "Dear Anthony" (etc) rather than "St Anthony". As for aristocracy, local people on occasion used to call Miles Fitzalan-Howard, 17th Duke of Norfolk "Miles", but that's another story; he was a most affable gentleman Tonywalton ^Talk 00:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand what a rule of thumb is, and why the odd exception does not invalidate them, no? The prayers you cite are versions from modern times written in contemporary and intentionally modernized English speech where the thou form and how to conjugate it is not even known. (So far as I know, the Roman Catholic Hail Mary still begins "Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee" and not "Yo, Mary, you righteous babe, Yahweh's got your back.") Those modernised prayers tell you nothing relevant to archaic English or foreign languages which are the subject here. Of course someone who writes a prayer to "Dear Anthony" isn't also going to say thou hast. But that doesn't tell you how the word thou was used in the 15th century, or how tu/du/ty is used in Romance, Germanic or Slavic. Rather than argue with me, look at dated and at foreign texts, and see what you see. In the meantime, you are not going to find any native speaker of a European language who will tell you that not using thou unless you would address a person simply by his first name is a 'bad rule of thumb for confused English speakers to adopt. μηδείς (talk) 03:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I admit it is an excourse, but as for the personal address in the Our Father, this is quite deliberate and intentional. It is a renderition of the affectionately-personal address Jesus uses in the Biblical renderitions of said prayer. I believe, the original speaks of abba, which can me moderately rendered as something like daddy. Theologically this is part of the greater point of the prayer in the context of its history and an important distinction with the Jewish Schemoneh Esreh providing the most important historical connection. The personal address is something unique to the new Christian approach of God, something that sets them apart and binds them in a greater community of the praying. (Neugebauer speaks of the Vaterunsergemeinschaft, which is, I think an interesting but not necessarily correct Thesis.) Also see: Fritz Neugebauer: Das Vaterunser - eine theologische Deutung. Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2008 or a work in your Language of Choice --Abracus (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that abba is not simply the standard, and is, in fact, a diminuitive? Do you have a source or know a more formal word for father? It certainly does sound like a nursery word to an English speaker, but plenty of languages have such forms (Zulu ubaba) without them implying any informality. μηδείς (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, aba (אבא) is the sole word in Hebrew for father. Avanu (אבנו) would be our father, as well as Aba shelanu (though the former is preferred (Eloheinu)). Hebrew is also a generally informal language, but I only speak from the standpoint of someone learning Israeli Hebrew as opposed to Biblical. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21 Tishrei 5772 22:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The basic unsuffixed word for "father" is אב -- Ab / Abh / Av (depending on choice of transcription). We have an article Ab (Semitic)... AnonMoos (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was using the sound that would be best understood by English speakers. So a more b like sound is aba and a more v like sound for possessive forms. Didn't know about that article though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21 Tishrei 5772 22:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, from my Google search for thou thee thy thine yahweh jehovah bible prayer, I found http://bible.cc/psalms/80-4.htm, with three translations using the Tetragrammaton together with one or more of thou, thee, thy, and thine in reference to the person whom it represents.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to see a text with a somewhat awkward mixture of divine "tu"/"vos" address, see File:Wernigeroder Wappenbuch 010.jpg previously discussed here... AnonMoos (talk) 11:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no awkward mixture of address, only an inadequate transcription. The first vestre is "Hester" = Esther, the second vestrum is "nostrum" = our. I could fix it. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for the Latin corrections! However, it's not necessarily an improvement to plug in the exact wording of the 1662 Church of England Book of Common Prayer translation of the Athanasian Creed, since this has significant problems -- some which were always there (i.e. "incomprehensible"), and some which have arisen due to changes in language (such as "Godhead", which really has no meaning in most people's ordinary modern English usage, and has come to have highly-distracting alternative meanings in the usage of certain groups). AnonMoos (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joefromrandb -- In spoken usage during the course of the 17th century, the thou/thee forms gradually acquired connotations of extreme intimacy or familiarity. By the late 17th-century, if a Londoner used the thou/thee form to someone who was not his very close friend, or his clear social inferior (by several degrees), or a small child, then it generally implied contempt. This is why the Quaker usages were considered so shocking, and also part of the reason why the thou/thee forms eventually disappeared from the standard language (while remaining in certain rural dialects). Of course the King James Bible was translated in the early 17th century, when such trends were just beginning... AnonMoos (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not just rural dialects, you still here it in some Yorkshire cities. In my experience you get it more in the South Yorkshire cities Sheffield & Doncaster than in Leeds, Bradford, or York. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was one possibility that I had considered. Usage at the time of the translation was somewhat different from earlier/later usage. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare's usage (around the same time as the KJV) is rather inconsistent. Sometimes you can see a pattern - for example Macbeth and Banquo always address each other as "you" in person, but "thou" when soliloquising. Lady Macbeth nearly always calls her husband "you" in public, but in private she switches between "thou" and "you" for no obvious reason (for example I.5); in III.1 Macbeth even addresses a servant with "Sirrah, a word with you". --ColinFine (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, English literary sources of that time show a "dynamic" thou/you usage in many cases (where the pronoun used depends on the emotions or state of connection between two individuals at any given moment), while in modern Continental European languages, usage has traditionally been rather static (i.e. once two individuals settle into a routine of mutual "tu" or mutual "vous", they rarely vary it). AnonMoos (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]