OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 21, 2014, 02:39:46 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: the vs. thee  (Read 629 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,238


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« on: January 22, 2013, 10:51:27 PM »

Not a big deal at all... however, this is something that has always kind of was strange.

When we pray together to God, is it more proper to say:
"Let us pray to the Lord"
or
"Let us pray to thee Lord"

I've sort of always thought it sounded awkward to say "the Lord" in prayer.  To me it sounds like its making God an object in ways.

We have the church
We have the pews
We have the church body
We have the church building

But let's say it's direct -

"I pray to the Lord to forgive my sins"
"I pray to thee Lord to forgive my sins"

Priest: "Let us pray to thee Lord"
Choir" "Lord have mercy"

I dunno.   Tongue Roll Eyes

Example: A child's prayer -

"Now I lay me down to sleep I pray thee Lord my soul to keep, if I should die before I wake, I pray thee Lord my soul to take.  If I should live another day, I pray thee Lord to guide my way."

Very small issue, but I have to admit it has sounded strange to me for some time now.  In most context, I'm seeing "thee" as proper.

Any care to discuss, or school me on some English Smiley
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 22, 2013, 10:55:17 PM »

No pronouns in Church Slavonic.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 22, 2013, 10:59:18 PM »

"Thee" is the objective form of thou. The purpose of the phrase is not to say "Let us pray to you Lord", but "Let us pray to THE Lord".

What is a Lord, but a person who has authority or the master of an area. Therefore, "praying to THE Lord" is to proclaim God, and usually specifically Jesus, as the ultimate ruler of the world/cosmos. The contrary would be to assume that any man/ruler/king/president was above God.

In recap, we pray to "THE Lord" not "you lord".
Logged


I'm going to need this.
dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,213


« Reply #3 on: January 22, 2013, 11:12:45 PM »

This is really not my area, but "thee" is in the oblique case, meaning that it is the object of a verb or preposition. "Thou" is nominative (for subjects of verbs: "Thou art..."; "art" being a form of the copular verb in earlier English), corresponding to modern second person subj./obj. "you", but early English still had formality distinctions that modern English no longer has. Originally, "thee" was actually the informal form (the formal used the plural 'ye' or 'you'...), but that's kind of switched around now since it has so fallen into disuse in everyday speech that it is only trotted out for special occasions/fancifying purposes. Smiley
« Last Edit: January 22, 2013, 11:13:50 PM by dzheremi » Logged

JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,634


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #4 on: January 22, 2013, 11:22:55 PM »

Given your above examples, the "The" one seems to be as if the speaker is addressing the people present, whereas the one with "Thee" seems to indicate that the speaker is addressing God.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 22, 2013, 11:52:32 PM »

"The" and "thee" are different word with different semantical and grammatical functions... How can one compare them?
« Last Edit: January 22, 2013, 11:52:43 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #6 on: January 23, 2013, 04:45:48 AM »

This is really not my area, but "thee" is in the oblique case, meaning that it is the object of a verb or preposition. "Thou" is nominative (for subjects of verbs: "Thou art..."; "art" being a form of the copular verb in earlier English), corresponding to modern second person subj./obj. "you", but early English still had formality distinctions that modern English no longer has. Originally, "thee" was actually the informal form (the formal used the plural 'ye' or 'you'...), but that's kind of switched around now since it has so fallen into disuse in everyday speech that it is only trotted out for special occasions/fancifying purposes. Smiley

Thee still is the informal form. It's not reversed at all. The reason for it being used in Church (for those that still use it) is that the Church is using archaic English, not because they believe thee to be formal. Quite the reverse, actually, thee and thou were always used to address God even when they were normal parts of English rather than archaic language. They're also used in places where these forms are still in use (and where I grew up I saw a parent hit their child for saying thee to an adult, so there still are places where this grammar is part of the living language). I'm not aware of any language which preserves informal and formal forms of you which addresses God in worship using the formal.

James
« Last Edit: January 23, 2013, 04:46:11 AM by jmbejdl » Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,213


« Reply #7 on: January 23, 2013, 06:32:08 AM »

There is no marked informal form in modern English, James, only archaisms, so I'm confused as to why you've written any of that in response to me. That was the whole point of my post. English used to have formality distinctions in its pronoun system (similar to the T-V distinction of many European languages: Spanish, Russian, etc.), but now that it no longer does, the less common pronoun(s) -- thee, thou, thy, etc. -- are considered archaic and hence, as I wrote "trotted out for special occasions" (i.e., used formally). I am well aware that there are still parts of the English-speaking world in which these forms are used, but I am writing about general American English, to the extent that such a thing exists. Please see (for instance) the works of Joan Bybee on usage-based phonology for more on this phenomenon. It makes no sense to claim that these archaic forms are somehow evidence of the preservation of formality distinctions when their frequency is so incredibly low.
Logged

Jonathan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 801


WWW
« Reply #8 on: January 23, 2013, 07:41:57 AM »

I wonder if the OP means the word "thee", or means the two ways to pronounce the word "the".

E.g. "the beginning" vs "the end" (the latter being pronounced like the word "thee").

"Let us pray to the Lord" would always be pronounced like "the beginning", not "the end".

"the" sounds like "thee" when the following word begins with a vowel (and sometimes an h).

the east. the end. the error. the honourable are all like "thee"
the Lord. The point. The thing. All not like "thee".


If the word "thee" is ment, of course it's ok to say "the Lord". "Jesus is the Lord" and "Jesus is You [Thee] Lord" mean quite different things and it would never be right to substitute one for the other based on what sounds good to the listener.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2013, 07:43:31 AM by Jonathan » Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,733



« Reply #9 on: January 23, 2013, 07:58:26 AM »

You silly English-speaking people and your problems. The proper form is "Rukoilkaamme Herraa". angel
« Last Edit: January 23, 2013, 08:00:05 AM by Alpo » Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,650



« Reply #10 on: January 23, 2013, 08:11:03 AM »

There is no marked informal form in modern English, James, only archaisms, so I'm confused as to why you've written any of that in response to me. That was the whole point of my post. English used to have formality distinctions in its pronoun system (similar to the T-V distinction of many European languages: Spanish, Russian, etc.), but now that it no longer does, the less common pronoun(s) -- thee, thou, thy, etc. -- are considered archaic and hence, as I wrote "trotted out for special occasions" (i.e., used formally). I am well aware that there are still parts of the English-speaking world in which these forms are used, but I am writing about general American English, to the extent that such a thing exists. Please see (for instance) the works of Joan Bybee on usage-based phonology for more on this phenomenon. It makes no sense to claim that these archaic forms are somehow evidence of the preservation of formality distinctions when their frequency is so incredibly low.

One thing we may be dealing with here (the OP) is false archaism, like sticking the ending -th on verbs of the first and second persons because it sounds old.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #11 on: January 23, 2013, 08:45:49 AM »

There is no marked informal form in modern English, James, only archaisms, so I'm confused as to why you've written any of that in response to me. That was the whole point of my post. English used to have formality distinctions in its pronoun system (similar to the T-V distinction of many European languages: Spanish, Russian, etc.), but now that it no longer does, the less common pronoun(s) -- thee, thou, thy, etc. -- are considered archaic and hence, as I wrote "trotted out for special occasions" (i.e., used formally). I am well aware that there are still parts of the English-speaking world in which these forms are used, but I am writing about general American English, to the extent that such a thing exists. Please see (for instance) the works of Joan Bybee on usage-based phonology for more on this phenomenon. It makes no sense to claim that these archaic forms are somehow evidence of the preservation of formality distinctions when their frequency is so incredibly low.


I was responding to this part of your previous post:

Quote
Originally, "thee" was actually the informal form (the formal used the plural 'ye' or 'you'...), but that's kind of switched around now

Maybe I should have highlighted it for clarity? I interpreted what you were saying (and I absolutely understand that you may not have meant it this way) as 'we now use thee, in certain circumstances, as a formal form of you'. I've known plenty of people that have adhered to such a misunderstanding (perhaps not you), but it simply isn't the case. No language that I'm aware of addresses God in worship with the formal form of you. English no longer (other than in a few dialects) preserves the formal/familiar distinction but the archaic English that we sometimes use for worship does and when we use it we specifically address God in the familiar form. I suppose another way of interpreting what you wrote would be that you were saying that we use this archaic form of English in order to increase the formality of the situation, but I don't believe that's true either. I'd say that the motive for preserving archaic linguistic forms in worship (and you see it all over the place from KJV English, to archaic Romanian, even to Koine, Slavonic and Latin in the extremes) has far more to do with continuity and tradition than any idea that worship requires formality.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,650



« Reply #12 on: January 23, 2013, 09:35:00 AM »

There is no marked informal form in modern English, James, only archaisms, so I'm confused as to why you've written any of that in response to me. That was the whole point of my post. English used to have formality distinctions in its pronoun system (similar to the T-V distinction of many European languages: Spanish, Russian, etc.), but now that it no longer does, the less common pronoun(s) -- thee, thou, thy, etc. -- are considered archaic and hence, as I wrote "trotted out for special occasions" (i.e., used formally). I am well aware that there are still parts of the English-speaking world in which these forms are used, but I am writing about general American English, to the extent that such a thing exists. Please see (for instance) the works of Joan Bybee on usage-based phonology for more on this phenomenon. It makes no sense to claim that these archaic forms are somehow evidence of the preservation of formality distinctions when their frequency is so incredibly low.


I was responding to this part of your previous post:

Quote
Originally, "thee" was actually the informal form (the formal used the plural 'ye' or 'you'...), but that's kind of switched around now

Maybe I should have highlighted it for clarity? I interpreted what you were saying (and I absolutely understand that you may not have meant it this way) as 'we now use thee, in certain circumstances, as a formal form of you'. I've known plenty of people that have adhered to such a misunderstanding (perhaps not you), but it simply isn't the case. No language that I'm aware of addresses God in worship with the formal form of you. English no longer (other than in a few dialects) preserves the formal/familiar distinction but the archaic English that we sometimes use for worship does and when we use it we specifically address God in the familiar form. I suppose another way of interpreting what you wrote would be that you were saying that we use this archaic form of English in order to increase the formality of the situation, but I don't believe that's true either. I'd say that the motive for preserving archaic linguistic forms in worship (and you see it all over the place from KJV English, to archaic Romanian, even to Koine, Slavonic and Latin in the extremes) has far more to do with continuity and tradition than any idea that worship requires formality.

James
I think dzheremi was pointing out (correctly) that while the context of archaic usage was formal, the mode of address is not, archaic or otherwise.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,009


"My god is greater."


« Reply #13 on: January 23, 2013, 09:48:14 AM »

"The" and "thee" are different word with different semantical and grammatical functions... How can one compare them?

It's a sad, sad day when it takes a Podlachian Belorussian to explain this to native Anglophones.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #14 on: January 23, 2013, 08:34:55 PM »

"The" and "thee" are different word with different semantical and grammatical functions... How can one compare them?

Just what I was thinking.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #15 on: January 23, 2013, 08:36:01 PM »

You silly English-speaking people and your problems. The proper form is "Rukoilkaamme Herraa". angel

The Finns took all the vowels and didn't leave any for the Georgians.  angel
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #16 on: January 24, 2013, 02:28:48 AM »

"The" and "thee" are different word with different semantical and grammatical functions... How can one compare them?

How shall I compare thee?
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,213


« Reply #17 on: January 24, 2013, 02:30:14 AM »

There is no marked informal form in modern English, James, only archaisms, so I'm confused as to why you've written any of that in response to me. That was the whole point of my post. English used to have formality distinctions in its pronoun system (similar to the T-V distinction of many European languages: Spanish, Russian, etc.), but now that it no longer does, the less common pronoun(s) -- thee, thou, thy, etc. -- are considered archaic and hence, as I wrote "trotted out for special occasions" (i.e., used formally). I am well aware that there are still parts of the English-speaking world in which these forms are used, but I am writing about general American English, to the extent that such a thing exists. Please see (for instance) the works of Joan Bybee on usage-based phonology for more on this phenomenon. It makes no sense to claim that these archaic forms are somehow evidence of the preservation of formality distinctions when their frequency is so incredibly low.


I was responding to this part of your previous post:

Quote
Originally, "thee" was actually the informal form (the formal used the plural 'ye' or 'you'...), but that's kind of switched around now

Maybe I should have highlighted it for clarity? I interpreted what you were saying (and I absolutely understand that you may not have meant it this way) as 'we now use thee, in certain circumstances, as a formal form of you'. I've known plenty of people that have adhered to such a misunderstanding (perhaps not you), but it simply isn't the case. No language that I'm aware of addresses God in worship with the formal form of you. English no longer (other than in a few dialects) preserves the formal/familiar distinction but the archaic English that we sometimes use for worship does and when we use it we specifically address God in the familiar form. I suppose another way of interpreting what you wrote would be that you were saying that we use this archaic form of English in order to increase the formality of the situation, but I don't believe that's true either. I'd say that the motive for preserving archaic linguistic forms in worship (and you see it all over the place from KJV English, to archaic Romanian, even to Koine, Slavonic and Latin in the extremes) has far more to do with continuity and tradition than any idea that worship requires formality.

James
I think dzheremi was pointing out (correctly) that while the context of archaic usage was formal, the mode of address is not, archaic or otherwise.

Yes, that's a much more succinct way to put it. Thank you, Isa.
Logged

LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,721


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #18 on: January 24, 2013, 03:42:50 AM »

You silly English-speaking people and your problems. The proper form is "Rukoilkaamme Herraa". angel

The Finns took all the vowels and didn't leave any for the Georgians Serbsangel

Fixed it for ya.  laugh
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,580



« Reply #19 on: January 24, 2013, 04:26:21 AM »

You silly English-speaking people and your problems. The proper form is "Rukoilkaamme Herraa". angel

The Finns took all the vowels and didn't leave any for the Georgians Serbsangel

Fixed it for ya.  laugh

I dunno, I think Georgian blows Serbian out of the water in terms of long consonant clusters.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #20 on: January 24, 2013, 01:52:27 PM »

You silly English-speaking people and your problems. The proper form is "Rukoilkaamme Herraa". angel

The Finns took all the vowels and didn't leave any for the Georgians Serbsangel

Fixed it for ya.  laugh

You mean the Srbs. Smiley
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #21 on: January 24, 2013, 01:53:54 PM »

You silly English-speaking people and your problems. The proper form is "Rukoilkaamme Herraa". angel

The Finns took all the vowels and didn't leave any for the Georgians Serbs.  angel

Fixed it for ya.  laugh

I dunno, I think Georgian blows Serbian out of the water in terms of long consonant clusters.

Yes. I'm still on lesson one in learning it, but I can pronounce "Mtskheta."
« Last Edit: January 24, 2013, 01:54:27 PM by Shanghaiski » Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #22 on: January 24, 2013, 02:01:33 PM »

A related thing that bothers me. The use of oh in stead of o a functional vocative particle (I have no idea what it is really called, so I am going with this).

We magnify thee, O Lord!

not:

We magnify thee, Oh Lord!

Even in a certain parlance, it is not Oh! Lord have mercy! (even if most speakers of such statements have moved to something like that meaning, using oh as an exclamation in itself), it is O Lord have mercy!.

O well . . .
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,733



« Reply #23 on: January 24, 2013, 02:12:22 PM »

You silly English-speaking people and your problems. The proper form is "Rukoilkaamme Herraa". angel

The Finns took all the vowels and didn't leave any for the Georgians.  angel

But despite that they managed to create the most beautiful form of EO chant.
Logged

Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.116 seconds with 52 queries.