dmr@dutoit.UUCP (09/09/85)
I know several Philadelphia-area Quaker families who use "plain speech" when addressing family members. The nominative of the second person singular, among them, is "thee," as in, "Ben, if thee doesn't stop that, I'm going to hit thee." As you might guess from the example, I knew them best when we were kids together 30 years ago. I wonder if they are teaching it to their own children? Aside from "thee is", the rest of the declension (and conjugation) was as expected (thy book; this is mine, that's thine). I don't remember if I ever heard *thee's. Dennis Ritchie
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (09/10/85)
> I know several Philadelphia-area Quaker families who use > "plain speech" when addressing family members. The nominative > of the second person singular, among them, is "thee," as in, > "Ben, if thee doesn't stop that, I'm going to hit thee." > > As you might guess from the example, I knew them best when > we were kids together 30 years ago. I wonder if they are > teaching it to their own children? > Reminds me of an old story. Two Quaker children were having an argument, and finally one in her anger came out with the ultimate insult: "Thee...Thee...Thee...*YOU*!!!" -- Glend. I can call spirits from the vasty deep. Hot. Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call them? -- Henry IV Pt. I, III, i, 53 Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (UUCP) bill@astro.UTEXAS.EDU. (Internet)
betsy@dartvax.UUCP (Betsy Hanes Perry) (09/10/85)
> I know several Philadelphia-area Quaker families who use > "plain speech" when addressing family members. The nominative > of the second person singular, among them, is "thee," as in, > "Ben, if thee doesn't stop that, I'm going to hit thee." > > As you might guess from the example, I knew them best when > we were kids together 30 years ago. I wonder if they are > teaching it to their own children? > > Dennis Ritchie The usage is still current among Indiana Friends; my best childhood friend's family plain-spoke one another. I have never felt quite so included as when her four-year-old brother thee'ed me. Incidentally, I have heard "thee's", usually in contexts like "Thee's going to be quite surprised one of these days!" Friends themselves are ambivalent about the "plain speech"; it was adopted to be inclusive (Friends used "thou" to everybody, even the King!), but has gradually shifted into exclusiveness (we talk funny, but only among ourselves). A story Friends often tell on themselves is of the little girl who was giving a scolding to her doll: "Thee's been so bad! I don't know what to say to thee -- " "thee -- thee YOU, thee!" -- Elizabeth Hanes Perry UUCP: {decvax |ihnp4 | linus| cornell}!dartvax!betsy CSNET: betsy@dartmouth ARPA: betsy%dartmouth@csnet-relay "Ooh, ick!" -- Penfold
gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (09/11/85)
-- > > I know several Philadelphia-area Quaker families who use > > "plain speech" when addressing family members. The nominative > > of the second person singular, among them, is "thee," as in, > > "Ben, if thee doesn't stop that, I'm going to hit thee." > > > > Dennis Ritchie > Incidentally, I have heard "thee's", usually in contexts like "Thee's > going to be quite surprised one of these days!" > > Elizabeth Hanes Perry Fascinating--the pronoun has been retained in both these instances, but the declension ("thou"=subject, "thee"=object) has been lost. And in the face of a grammatically irreproachable model (the Bible). If this sloppier usage is real, Mr. Ritchie, how does thou explain it? If it's sloppy reporting, Ms. Perry, shame on thee. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 11 Sep 85 [25 Fructidor An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
cjdb@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Charles Blair) (09/11/85)
> If this sloppier usage is real, Mr. Ritchie, how does thou explain it? > ken perlow This should rather be, ". . . how *dost* thou explain it?"
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (09/13/85)
> -- > > > I know several Philadelphia-area Quaker families who use > > > "plain speech" when addressing family members. The nominative > > > of the second person singular, among them, is "thee," as in, > > > "Ben, if thee doesn't stop that, I'm going to hit thee." > > > > > > Dennis Ritchie > > > Incidentally, I have heard "thee's", usually in contexts like "Thee's > > going to be quite surprised one of these days!" > > > > Elizabeth Hanes Perry > > Fascinating--the pronoun has been retained in both these instances, > but the declension ("thou"=subject, "thee"=object) has been lost. > And in the face of a grammatically irreproachable model (the Bible). > If this sloppier usage is real, Mr. Ritchie, how does thou explain it? > If it's sloppy reporting, Ms. Perry, shame on thee. Oddly enough, it's "thee" that I have always heard in both cases. I remember vaguely wondering about this once, but you don't get to hear the Plain Speech very often here in Texas. :-) -- Glend. I can call spirits from the vasty deep. Hot. Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them? -- Henry IV Pt. I, III, i, 53 Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (UUCP) bill@astro.UTEXAS.EDU. (Internet)
barryg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Lee Gold) (09/13/85)
Here's what Baugh's HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE has to say.... "The 16th century saw the establishment of the personal pronoun in the form which it has had ever since....Three changes were involved: the disuse of thou, thy, thee; the substitution of you for ye as a nominative case, and the introduction of its as the possessive of it. "In the earliest period of English the distinction between thou and ye was simply one of number; thou was the singular and ye the plural form for the second person pronoun. In time, however, a quite different distinction grew up. In the 13th century, the singular forms (thou, thy, thee) were used among familiars and in addressing children or persons of inferior rank, while the plural forms (ye, your, you) began to be used as a mark of respect in addressing a superior....The usage spread as a general concession to courtesy until ye, your and you became the usual pronoun of direct address irrespective of rank or intimacy. By the 16th century the singular forms had all but disappeared from polite speech and are in ordinary use today only among the Quakers. "Originally a clear distinction was made between the nominative ye and the objective you. But since both forms are so frequently unstressed, they were often pronounced alike....In the 14th century you began to be used as a nominative. By a similar substitution ye appears in the following century for the objective case, and from this time on the two forms seem to have been used pretty indiscriminately until ye finally disappeared." --Lee Gold
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (09/13/85)
I've now gotten completely confused by the "Plain Speech", "thee/thou" discussion. Do the Friends use "thee" and "thou" to be formal and polite, or do they use them to be "intimate" -- that is, are they using them because "all men are brothers" and you address your close relations as "thee/thou"? If they use "you", would they be being distant and indifferent? Or do I have the meaning of these terms reversed? (I am aware of the German "du" and "Sie", being intimate and formal, respectively. So does "thee/thou" fall into the "du" category, or the "Sie" category?) Will
lucy@prism.UUCP (09/17/85)
As a former Philadelphian, I can attest to the Quaker usage of "thee" where the standard English declension of the personal pronoun would call for "thou". "Thee" is used in the nominative, not "thou". My understanding is that Friends use plain speech not only with family members, but also with other Friends. "You" is reserved for non-Friends (need I say more?) and is a formal, distancing usage. The irony here is that the original Quaker usage of the second person singular rather than plural was a political act, a defiance of the social code which reserved "you" for conversation between the aristocracy. As was (and to a real extent still is) the case in most of the Western European languages, the second person singular had a double edge. It could indicate profound intimacy, when used with family members and *very* good friends; but it also, when addressed to social inferiors (or those perceived to be so), clearly indicated the superiority of the speaker. This usage is breaking down in western Europe, particularly among students. But addressing strangers with the second person singular can still be an insult. I have seen cited as an example of racism in France the tendency of clerks to use "tu" when dealing with Arab customers. That the social distinctions in pronouns meant a great deal in sixteenth century England is indicated by the following tale (a counter-example to that of the Quaker children). During the treason trial of Walter Raleigh, one of his accusers made a speech, addressing Raleigh in the second person singular. Lest there be any misunderstanding about his motives (or his grammar), this fellow concluded with the fiery line, "And I thou thee, thou traitor!"