Wise ones - I’m working on something that is written in the 1960s, and I’ve some questions about the author’s inconsistencies in imitating 17th century English usage.
The posessive ‘thy’ - shouldn’t it always become ‘thine’ before a vowel? Examples - ‘Blow thy bugle…’ looks fine to me; ‘Always thine eye sees evil in preference…’ looks fine to me; ‘Call nothing thy own…’ makes me want to change it to ‘…thine own…’
The possessive ‘my’ - same question; should it not become ‘mine’ before a vowel, eg. - ‘The work of my enemy’ seems wrong, and I’m very tempted to say ‘The work of mine enemy’.
‘Thou’ exists only in the singular, right? There is a moment where someone says ‘Know thou…’ to more than one person. I think it should either be ‘Know you’ to more than one person, or ‘Dost thou know’, or ‘Knowest thou’ if it does turn out to be to only one person. Opinions that confirm or deny solicited…
Is there a subjunctive in the ‘thou’ conjugation? The following two sentences ‘Love not what thou art, but only what thou may become’ and ‘Do not pursue pleasure, for thou may have the misfortune to overtake it.’ seem to me to cry out for ‘mayest’ or ‘may’st’ instead of ‘may’. Later, a similar situation occurs with ‘Therefore I beg that thou dub me knight’ - shouldn’t that be ‘thou would’st’ or the bizarre ‘thou dub’st’?
In its strange way, it needs to be more consistent than Shakespeare or Marlowe or Jonson because it is an imitation - they could get away with inconsistencies because they were reflecting the spectrum of English usage. Any help or advice greatly appreciated.
1-2) The usage of “mine” and “thine” before a vowel is correct but not always consistent; searching an online Shakespeare concordance reveals many, many usages of “thy own,” “thy attempt,” “thy estate” and similar phrases. Donne and the King James Bible also use “thy own.”
Yes, “thou” is always singular (and always familiar); ye / you should be used in any situation where multiple people are being addressed, or where a formal or respectful tone is required, or both.
“Therefore I beg that thou dub me knight” is fine, at least grammatically (although this particular line would surely be addressed to a social superior, so the speaker should probably be using “you” anyway). “Thou may’st” is correct in your first two examples, although “thou may” does not sound horribly wrong to my ears, either.
In general, “thou/thee/thy/thine” takes an identical usage fo “I/me/my/mine.”
Thou governs the second person singular of the verb, which like the third singular takes an ending, in this case “-(e)st”: “I doubt, thou doubtest, he doubts” “I pine, thou pinest, she pines.” The forms of “to be” are tricky:
Present indicative: Thou art
Present subjunctive: Thou beest (prounounced “bee-yest”; “If I/he be a liar” goes to “If thou beest a liar”)
Past indicative: Thou wast (“For thou wast always comforting my soul” from an old hymn)
Past subjunctive: Thou wert (“Hail to thee, blithe spirit! Bird thou never wert.”)
Future: Thou wilt/ thou shalt be
Conditional: Thou wouldst/ shouldst be
Why? Try it with a different pronoun: you would surely say “I beg that he dub me knight” rather than “I beg that he would dub me knight.” The “would” or “wouldst” is superfluous.
Many thanks for your responses. One of the big tricks on this one is that it is more important that it seem right than that it actually be right. I’m also left with the impression that the author chose to use ‘thou’ more for its archaic feel than for the fascinating clues that ‘thou vs. singular you’ indicate in a genuine Shakespearean usage.
I’m very tempted to change all the thy/my to thine/mine before vowels - I think the consistency will offend less than the (potentially) perceived oddity of mixing and matching.
Fretful Porpentine You are absolutely correct that this is a malapropism - to me, this is an indication of the author using ‘thou’ for the wrong reason. This character only uses ‘you’ a total of twice in the piece (and both times to the same character), he once uses ‘thou’ to more than one person, and in this case, he (inadvertently) treats a character of higher status as an equal, which in the context of the times would have been taken as a presumption or an insult.
Fretful Porpentine, Elendil’s Heir To me, the ‘would’st’ softens the following verb and makes the difference between a demand and a request. ‘Pass the salt.’ versus ‘Would you pass the salt?’ That type of softening doesn’t work in the same way in the third person. What do you (pl.) think? Polycarp What is the imperative of the second person singular familiar? Of course, it wouldn’t appear in a conjugation of the verb ‘to be’.
Again, your collective help is greatly appreciated.
Quaker English has its own conjugations which are quite different from Shakespeare. In QE “thou” is never used, and “thee” serves for the nominative and objective cases both. Furthermore, the modern third-person-singular ending -s or -es is used for the verb, as in “What does thee wish?”
Errr… I believe there may be one exception here. You are right, as long as the “know thou” is a question.
However, there is also that archaic form where they say, “You must know that I was once a pauper”, in the sense of, “first, you need to know”. More commonly encountered is for them to simply say, “Know that I was once a pauper.” So if it’s a --stop me if I get this wrong-- declarative rather than an interrogatory sentence, one would say, “know thou” or “know you”; but not “knowest” or “dost know”.
Aren’t you describing the vocative voice rather than the declarative? Declarative would indeed be “Thou knowest that…” (i.e. “It is a fact that you know…”). However, “Know thou that” is essentially a command (i.e., “Be aware that…”), which would make it vocative.