# 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:** 10\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2016, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/use-of-shalt-hath-etc-in-modern-translations/749875/41 "2016-03-23T22:12:27Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > So where did all the odd third person conjugates go? The OP’s “Hath” for example? Or “Thinketh”, or “Doth”? Simple sound change. The -th endings (/ð/ / /θ/) changed to /z/. Doth /duθ/ \> does /duz/ hath /hæθ/ \> has /hæz/ thinketh /θiŋkεθ/ \> thinks /θiŋks/ In some cases, the syllable lost its vowel, triggering further sound changes (thinketh). (Side note: one of the ways you can tell good Shakespearean actors from bad is whether they use the spelling pronunciation of “doth” to rhyme with “moth,” or the proper “duth”) ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2016, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/use-of-shalt-hath-etc-in-modern-translations/749875/42 "2016-03-23T22:33:30Z")
The (Protestant) translators of the Authorised Version (from which most of us get this stuff) wanted to emphasise the personal nature of the relationship with God which Protestantism insisted upon. In this they followed the Bishops Bible, which itself depended to a large extent on the work of Tyndale and Coverdale. ---
**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 23, 2016, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/use-of-shalt-hath-etc-in-modern-translations/749875/43 "2016-03-23T23:24:07Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#): > > In my experience with neopagans, and in popular culture, the need to sound slightly archaic and therefore magical trumps grammar. In both cases (polythesists & films / tv) you hear people switching from “thou” to “you” to “thee” in the same sentence without any cognizance of the grammatical hell they wreak. Since they basically both mean “you” to a Modern English speaker, it’s hard to keep them separate if you’re not (thou art not) really paying attention. Good points, thanks. I would also suspect that Asatru followers, being followers of the Germanic gods and all, might actually switch to English to pray, it being a Germanic language and all. ---
**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 23, 2016, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/use-of-shalt-hath-etc-in-modern-translations/749875/44 "2016-03-23T23:29:48Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > It’s been suggested that because speakers of different but related groups of languages (Anglo-Saxons, Danes) had to communicate, and these languages differed in the way they conjugated the verbs, they ended up mostly dropping the endings… This is a widespread theory. Also notice that English verb placement follows the Scandinavian languages rather than English’s fellow West Germanic languages, which use the infamous V2 word order. The main theory is that there were so many Vikings in England that spoke English as a second language with Norse-influenced word order (Norse being their native language), and these Vikings gained enough social and/or political influence that everyone else copied them. ---
**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 23, 2016, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/use-of-shalt-hath-etc-in-modern-translations/749875/45 "2016-03-23T23:55:58Z")
> [@Mk\_VII](#): > > The (Protestant) translators of the Authorised Version (from which most of us get this stuff) wanted to emphasise the personal nature of the relationship with God which Protestantism insisted upon. In this they followed the Bishops Bible, which itself depended to a large extent on the work of Tyndale and Coverdale. Except the Latin uses the familiar pronoun for God, too. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2016, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/use-of-shalt-hath-etc-in-modern-translations/749875/46 "2016-03-24T02:01:03Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > If you want to be truly correct, you’d spell it þe, not ye because it used a now defunct character known as the thorn which represented the sound we usually represent as [th]. That would only be “truly correct” for the word “the”, the definite article. “Ye”, the second person plural pronoun that we are discussing here, was spelled and pronounced with a ‘y’, not a thorn, and the use of the thorn would be pretty much the polar opposite of truly correct. ---
**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 24, 2016, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/use-of-shalt-hath-etc-in-modern-translations/749875/47 "2016-03-24T02:22:35Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > That would only be “truly correct” for the word “the”, the definite article. “Ye”, the second person plural pronoun that we are discussing here, was spelled and pronounced with a ‘y’, not a thorn, and the use of the thorn would be pretty much the polar opposite of truly correct. In the question posed by **md2000** , the example “ye olde tea shoppe” was given, to which **Inner Stickler** ’s answer is responding. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2016, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/use-of-shalt-hath-etc-in-modern-translations/749875/48 "2016-03-24T02:40:38Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > In the question posed by **md2000** , the example “ye olde tea shoppe” was given, to which **Inner Stickler** ’s answer is responding. Oh, right. Missed that. Apologies to both, and thanks to you. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2016, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/use-of-shalt-hath-etc-in-modern-translations/749875/49 "2016-03-24T14:50:46Z")
So is “ye” the pronoun a modern affectation, or was it a legitimate olde English word? Singular or plural? Or was it intermediate between thee and you? ---
**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 24, 2016, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/use-of-shalt-hath-etc-in-modern-translations/749875/50 "2016-03-24T14:58:55Z")
It’s the second person plural/formal singular in the nominative(subject) case, so it would be used as the subject of a sentence. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/use-of-shalt-hath-etc-in-modern-translations/749875.md?page=2)