# Use of 'Shalt', 'Hath', etc. in Modern Translations. **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 22, 2016, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/use-of-shalt-hath-etc-in-modern-translations/749875 "2016-03-22T17:58:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Jim\_B](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jim_b/32/4338_2.png) [@Jim\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_B)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2016, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/use-of-shalt-hath-etc-in-modern-translations/749875/1 "2016-03-22T17:58:30Z")
Like most of you, I sometimes look up stuff that peaks my interest. One thing, I have to confess, I often do, is look up translations. Usually, an ordinary dictionary will do, for the small stuff. They have a lot of little Latin phrases, translated. And French, and maybe a few other languages (depending on how well-known the saying is [they can’t include _EVERYTHING_;)]). Anyways, the translations sometimes include archaic English words, like thou and thee. And hath, shalt, and so forth. (These words aren’t called “Old English” or even Middle English, you know. Because we do still use them, if only in religious and poetic contexts.) Anyways, I have one minor mystery at least, resolved. It involves the use of the words _thou_ and _thee_. Thou and thee are always singular. So when they use them, they are drawing your attention to the fact it is only translatable as singular. For example, _Tu quoque_ translates as “thou also”. Because, you are referring only to one person. (Also, it is worth pointing out the singular form of _you_ is typically more familiar, and sometimes less respectful too, in Latin and the Romance languages.) And then there is the Latin phrase _In hoc signo vinces_. It translates as “in this sign [i.e., ☧] thou shalt conquer”. Again, you are addressing only one person (in this case, Constantine, in an alleged dream he had). And the “shalt” seems appropriate too, for this word. But sometimes this is not the case (thou or thee). And it really confuses me, why they use it. For example, the Hebrew name Raphael is translated in my dictionary as “God hath healed”. Why the “hath” in this case? There is no “thou” or “thee”. And I don’t think you would be referring to God in the familiar. So why “shalt” at all then? I’ll bet I am not the first person to wonder this, too. But I am the first to have the courage to ask, I think. So please tell me. :):)🙂 ---
**Author:** ![DCnDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dcndc/32/2842_2.png) [@DCnDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DCnDC)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2016, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/use-of-shalt-hath-etc-in-modern-translations/749875/2 "2016-03-22T18:03:21Z")
I don’t know, but the word you were looking for here: > [@Jim\_B](#): > > Like most of you, I sometimes look up stuff that peaks my interest. is “piques.” ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2016, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/use-of-shalt-hath-etc-in-modern-translations/749875/3 "2016-03-22T18:03:23Z")
Middle English Conjugations: (1st sing)I think (2nd sing)thou thinkest (3rd sing)He/She/It thinketh (1st pl)We think (2nd pl)You think (3rd pl)They think ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2016, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/use-of-shalt-hath-etc-in-modern-translations/749875/4 "2016-03-22T18:05:13Z")
“Hath” is a _third person_ singular version of “have”. Being third person, it wouldn’t be used with “thou” or “thee” ever. > **[Definition of HATH](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hath)** > > … See the full definition > **[Definition of hath | Dictionary.com](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hath)** > > Hath definition, 3rd person singular present indicative of have. See more. [https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/hath](https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/hath) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2016, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/use-of-shalt-hath-etc-in-modern-translations/749875/5 "2016-03-22T18:06:25Z")
> [@Jim\_B](#): > > Why the “hath” in this case? There is no “thou” or “thee”. And I don’t think you would be referring to God in the familiar. So why “shalt” at all then? Emphasis added. Contrary to intuition, that is incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2016, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/use-of-shalt-hath-etc-in-modern-translations/749875/6 "2016-03-22T18:10:56Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > Middle English Conjugations: > > (1st sing)I think > (2nd sing)thou thinkest > (3rd sing)He/She/It thinketh > (1st pl)We think > (2nd pl)You think > (3rd pl)They think Are you sure you mean [Middle English](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_English)? ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2016, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/use-of-shalt-hath-etc-in-modern-translations/749875/7 "2016-03-22T18:11:45Z")
Early Modern then. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2016, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/use-of-shalt-hath-etc-in-modern-translations/749875/8 "2016-03-22T18:12:34Z")
> [@Jim\_B](#): > > Why the “hath” in this case? There is no “thou” or “thee”. And I don’t think you would be referring to God in the familiar. So why “shalt” at all then? You’ve probably heard this from Psalm 23: > [@](#): > > Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. > > Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. The Psalm is addressing God in the familiar “thou” rather than the formal “You”. And this is done all through the King James translation. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2016, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/use-of-shalt-hath-etc-in-modern-translations/749875/9 "2016-03-22T18:21:09Z")
\*Our Father who art in heaven Hallowed by thy name. \* Both familiar forms. ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2016, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/use-of-shalt-hath-etc-in-modern-translations/749875/10 "2016-03-22T18:27:00Z")
Simple. It’s not a modern translation. One possibility is that it’s a traditional translation, which the dictionary editors believed was well known enough that readers wouldn’t be served be needlessly updating it Many foreign and classical idioms, biblical sayings, state and national mottos and similar things have English versions that have themselves become traditional formulae or cliches that may not reflect the best possible translation. “Manly deeds, womanly words” may not be the best translation of Marylands’s motto _Fatti maschii, parole femine_ (nor is “Strong deeds, gentle words,” the modern official version, any better - in fact, it’s worse) but it is what you’ll find in a dictionary because it is what most people intend to convey when they quote the Italian original. Another possibility (more likely in this case) is that the dictionary editor simply cut and pasted a list of translations from an older source without much (or any) effort at modernizing them. ---
**Author:** ![bob\_2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_2/32/3341_2.png) [@bob\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_2)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2016, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/use-of-shalt-hath-etc-in-modern-translations/749875/11 "2016-03-22T18:36:23Z")
I had always assumed that they were following latin grammatical rules. Am I wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2016, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/use-of-shalt-hath-etc-in-modern-translations/749875/12 "2016-03-22T18:56:22Z")
> [@bob\_2](#): > > I had always assumed that they were following latin grammatical rules. Am I wrong? The examples in the OP have absolutely nothing to do with Latin. Latin has a different way to indicate the function of each word in the sentence - changing its form - than English does. The order of words generally doesn’t matter. While some English words do change with function, for the most part function is indicated by word order. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2016, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/use-of-shalt-hath-etc-in-modern-translations/749875/13 "2016-03-22T20:02:40Z")
> [@Jim\_B](#): > > But sometimes this is not the case (thou or thee). And it really confuses me, why they use it. For example, the Hebrew name Raphael is translated in my dictionary as “God hath healed”. > > Why the “hath” in this case? There is no “thou” or “thee”. As mentioned, “hath” is the third person singular conjugation of “to have” in early Modern English. It’s I have, thou **hast** , he/she/it hath. So nothing to do with “thou” in this case. And, no, not Latin grammatical rules. In Old English (pre-1066) the verbs were this for “to have” ic hæbbe þū hafast / hæfst hē hafaþ / hæfþ wē habbaþ gē habbaþ hīo habbaþ If you use your imagination a little bit and understand that b-f-v sounds are related and that “þ” is a “th” sound, you can see the relationship between “I have” and “ic hæbbe”, “thou hast” and “þū hafast / hæfst”, and “he hath” and "hē hafaþ/hæfþ."The “hast” and “hath” forms directly derive from Old English/Germanic, pre-battle of Hastings and direct Latin influence in our language. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2016, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/use-of-shalt-hath-etc-in-modern-translations/749875/14 "2016-03-22T20:09:32Z")
It’s not a completely archaic form. In 1950s English private school my father was taught the french conjugation of verbs using that version of ‘you’ for the informal you. E.g.: Tu vas = Thou goest Ils vont = You go (He also attempted to teach me the same version when helping my revise my French GCSEs). ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2016, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/use-of-shalt-hath-etc-in-modern-translations/749875/15 "2016-03-22T20:40:51Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > \*Our Father who art in heaven > Hallowed by thy name. \* > Both familiar forms. Hallowed be thy name. It’s a subjunctive, not a preposition. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2016, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/use-of-shalt-hath-etc-in-modern-translations/749875/16 "2016-03-22T20:48:25Z")
> [@Jim\_B](#): > > Why the “hath” in this case? There is no “thou” or “thee”. And I don’t think you would be referring to God in the familiar. So why “shalt” at all then? > > :):)🙂 God is in fact referred to in the familiar in Christian contexts (and in some non-Christian religions as well). ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2016, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/use-of-shalt-hath-etc-in-modern-translations/749875/17 "2016-03-22T21:21:28Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > E.g.: > Tu vas = Thou goest > Ils vont = You go Ils vont is “they go.” You mean “vous allez.” ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2016, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/use-of-shalt-hath-etc-in-modern-translations/749875/18 "2016-03-22T23:18:48Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > It’s not a completely archaic form. In 1950s English private school my father was taught the french conjugation of verbs using that version of ‘you’ for the informal you. E.g.: > Tu vas = Thou goest > Ils vont = You go > … Right. The Thou/Thee form remains useful in making a technical distinction in grammar in areas where a high or pedantic level of grammatical specificity is required. Formal, written Modern English glosses over two distinctions that are found in many languages - the distinction between singular _you_ and plural _you_, and the distinction between familiar _you_ and formal _you_. Of course, the Thou form generally takes (by tradition) its own verb conjugations such as _art_ or _hast_. European Spanish distinguishes four different forms of _you_: Tú vas = Thou (familiar) goest Usted va = You (formal) go Vosotros vais = Y’all (familiar) go Ustedes van = Y’all (formal) go N.B. The Vosotros form (familiar y’all) is generally used only in Spain. In Latin America and the Caribbean, the Ustedes form is used for both familiar and formal y’all, but the singular forms remain distinct. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2016, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/use-of-shalt-hath-etc-in-modern-translations/749875/19 "2016-03-22T23:24:35Z")
What confuses modern people is the thys and thous sound stilted and formal, and so we think they’re some sort of formal way of addressing someone. But it’s the exact opposite. “You” is the formal pronoun, and we always use it, and so it’s not formal anymore, and the archaic form of the familiar pronoun sounds formal to our ears. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2016, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/use-of-shalt-hath-etc-in-modern-translations/749875/20 "2016-03-23T00:28:04Z")
And, ironically, they sound stilted and formal because most people only ever encounter them in the Bible, and they assume that if it’s referring to God, it must be formal. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/use-of-shalt-hath-etc-in-modern-translations/749875.md?page=2)