I don’t usually comment on staff reports. But this one had me a little confused about something. In it, SD staff member McCaffertA answers a question someone poses about whatever happened to thou, thine, etc. (we had a similiar discussion about this once on the boards–but I’ll keep focused on just this one staff report). She answers:
Also, from that other message board discussion, I posted:
Now please see the source of my confusion: Isn’t Ye still plural? And if it is, shouldn’t we be still using it as a universally respectful term? Or am I missing something in this article?
BTW, I don’t know if McCaffertA is a male or female. Perhaps I should’ve said “He/she answers:” (or maybe we really need a universally respectful neuter personal pronoun, hmm…). Again, thank you to all who reply.
As you noted, ye was nominative and you was dative and accusative. For some inexplicable reason we dropped the nominative and use the dat/acc in its place. When translated into the singular this is the equivalent of my saying, e.g., “Us don’t have the slightest idea why.”
I don’t have a Middle English grammar to hand, but note that in Modern English, the genitive of “you” is “yours” and the genitive of “thou” (insofar as it is used in Modern English at all) is “thine”. “Your” and “thy” are possessive adjectives.
As to why “ye” disappeared, to be replaced by “you” – well, that sort of thing happens all the time in languages. It’s nowhere near as strange as Italian taking its noun forms from the Latin ablative.
I assume the “yuh” and especially the “yeh” found in some Southern dialects as pronunciations of you are vestiges of ye. I know that some parts of the Appalachians have preserved bits and pieces of Elizabethan English – or so I was taught long ago. It sounded so fine in Shakespeare and yet we have come to associate it with ignorance in the States.
Please correct me if more up to date research proves me mistaken.
While it’s not Queens English, in Ireland we use Ye refering to you on an almost daily basis meaning you plural e.g. “Ye wouldn’t know a horse from a cow”.
Is this a new usage of an old word or a following on of the way it used to be used?
As far as I know, it’s a continuation of the old use. Plenty of regionalisms in the British Isles are simply old uses preserved. Even “thou” is not yet extinct in Yorkshire.
Yes, but that was a temporary aberration, applying to “mine” and “thine”, but not to “hers” or “theirs”. The modern distinction between “my/thy/her/their” and “mine/thine/hers/theirs” goes all the way back to Old English and earlier – the same distinction exists in Latin.
OK, so let me get this straight. “Thou” is singular, and “you” is plural, but “you” can be singular if you’re being formal. But the nominative of “you” is “ye.” Does that mean that if I’m speaking to a singular individual and using the nominative then I should call them “ye?” Or is it always “you” for the formal singular?
Also, I remember when I took high school Latin we referred to direct address as the “vocative,” a different (although usually identical) case from the nominative. If I’m addressing someone directly (giving them an instruction, for instance), would I use the nominative, e.g. “Thou, bring that over here.” That sounds weird to me, but “thee” doesn’t sound any better I guess.
It would depend on what century you were imitating. “Ye” ran out of steam somewhat earlier than “thou” and “thee” did, and there was a period in which the distinction between “ye” and “you” was confused.
I don’t think English ever had a distinct vocative. But while “Thou, bring that over here,” is not technically bad grammar, it’s not English as it was ever spoken at any time. “Bring thou that here” would be nearer, but it still grates on the ear. “Boy, bring me that” is far more likely to have been actually said.
My stepfather, an adamant adherent to the King James Version of the Bible, has been quite vocal about the difference between “ye” and “you”. He believes that quite a bit of meaning has been lost in the attempts to “modernize” the Biblical language, specifically in the replacement of “ye” with “you”.
Essentially, there were specific reasons, during the translation process, for choosing the English “ye”. Indeed, the word “you” appears numerous times in the KJV, so the KJV use of “ye” was not an attempt at grandiose language, contrary to the claims of some modern translators. The word was chosen for a reason (which I won’t get into here, since this is not GD).
Who the heck thinks that, Phase42? Of course “ye” wasn’t just grandiose language, but that’s not why modern transaltions don’t use it. It’s obsolete. Granted, the loss of differentiation between singular and plural results in a corresponding loss in meaning, but that’s no one’s fault in particular, just how we all speak and write.
Then why did you bring it up here? If you have something to say, say it. Don’t just amble in saying, “I know something you don’t know and I’m not gonna tell you.”
My reason for not wanting to get into it is because I felt I would be hijacking the thread and turning it into a Biblical debate. I intended to merely add a bit more information to the discussion, but I apparently failed in the attempt. So I’ll elaborate.
Keep in mind that my primary source for this stuff is my stepfather. And I do tend to take a lot of what he says with a grain of salt. However, he has made plenty of similar statements with which I have come to agree after making my own investigations, and so I usually give him the benefit of the doubt.
What his you/ye position boils down to is that the King James translators made the decision to differentiate between the singular and plural in the original Hebrew & Greek manuscripts by consistently using “ye” for addressing groups. My stepfather feels that there were theological reasons for using the plural in the original languages, and that the King James translators were retaining those meanings my using “ye” for plurals, and that those theological points have been lost by substituting “you” in those places. Perhaps modern translators would have done well to use “you all” in those instances, rather than simply “you”.
As to who claims that the old forms were “exalted” language, I perhaps erred by saying “translators”. More often, it seems to be the supporters of new tranlations who make that statement. I have no cites handy, as I have simply come across these thoughts on various Web sites over the years, which I no longer have bookmarked; I’ve also heard it in a number of conversations.
I have a number of different translations at hand, and I skimmed the prefaces of some of them attempting to locate the sentiment I described. Ironically, the closest one I could find was in the preface to the New King James translation:
“Readers of the Authorized Version [KJV] will immediately be struck by the absence of several pronouns: thee, thou, and ye are replaced by the simple you, while your and yours are substituted for thy and thine as applicable. Thee, thou, thy and thine were once forms of address to express a special relationship to human as well as divine persons.” (bolded emphasis mine)
“Ye” and “you” are both plural. He’s talking nonsense.
Actually, I have seen the claim made by the King-James-only crowd. Whoever says it, it’s garbage. The KJV was slightly archaic in its time, but that is because it, itself, was a revision of a revision of a revision.
Just as happens with every group of nutcases, the King-James-only gang is now reduced to telling outright lies.
BTW, I believe there used to be a single symbol that represented what we now write as th, and it looked pretty much like y. That’s why you see (usually fake) “old-time” names of places like “Ye Olde Boote Shope,” etc. The correct pronuciation in this context is the way we say the, not like the pronoun ye.
Thank ye! I was just about to post yat, along with the recollection that ye symbol, or missing English character was called “thorn” and just looked much like ye lower-case y. Cite: http://www.bartleby.com/61/10/Y0011000.html
.