The King's English

[Part 2] I picked up one of Bill Bryson's old books, Mother Tongue, which gives a comprehensible and entertaining account of "English and how it got that way." This is of interest to Mormons, of course, because antiquarian formulations of the King's English live on in contemporary Mormon culture by way of the King James Version, the Book of Mormon, and Mormon prayer-speak. For deep background, go read the Wikipedia article English Language and related entries. I'll give a general summary up to the KJV in this post (pulling most of my material from chapter 4 of Bryson's book), then consider KJV grammar, BoM grammar, and prayer grammar in later posts.

1. Development. Modern English conjugates verbs but doesn't decline its nouns or inflect its adjectives. So the form of the verb changes with subject (I write, you write, he writes) and with tense (I write, I wrote, I have written) but the form of the noun doesn't change whether it's a subject (The book is long), an object (I read the book), something possessed (my book), or the focus of a command (Drop the book!), and adjectives don't change for plurals (we say red cars, not reds cars). This invariance of nouns and adjectives is a real advantage for English.

But it wasn't always this way. Old English, the language of Beowulf, inflected its verbs and nouns, but after the Norman conquest English became the language of peasants and commoners, while the Norman dialect of French ("Anglo-Norman") became the language of the rulers and the aristorcratic class. As a result, English got simpler, incorporated many Anglo-Norman words (e.g., jury, felony, marriage, sovereign, parlaiment), and became (by the 12th century) Middle English, the language of Chaucer. Maybe "streamlined" is a better term for the process.

Rather than being displaced by Anglo-Norman, English rather surprisingly persisted, then reasserted itself, and by the late 16th century emerged as Modern English. Thou knowest, I am sure, that Shakespeare and the King James Bible are examples of Early Modern English. We can read Hamlet or the KJV and have a pretty good idea of what is being said, although footnotes or a glossary are often handy.

2. Details. Dialect features competed for inclusion in "national" English, and the dialect spoken in London generally truimphed. But the southern practice of ending present-tense verbs in -th (loveth) displaced the London practice of ending in -n (loven). Later, the northern practice of ending these verbs in -s or -es (loves) prevailed.

A jumble of pronouns emerged. They was borrowed from the Vikings who settled in England. Until about 1600, his was used for possession where we now use its. Thou for second person singular (along with related forms thee, thy, and thine) was in decline, but lasted through Shakespeare and the KJV. Quoting Bryson: "Originally thou was to you as in French tu is to vous. Thou signified either close familiarity or social inferiority, while you was the more impersonal and general term" (p. 64).

Thus the Early Modern English of Shakespeare and the KJV was still a language in transition. That allowed Shakespeare a great deal of poetic license but caused KJV scholars a good deal of anxiety and made for many awkward constructions. As we shall see in the next installment.

Comments

[Kim Siever]

Very interesting, Dave. Thanks for this. I am particularly struck by the idea that we do not necessarily use "thou" in prayer because it is more respectful, but because it represents a close relationship with God.

Oh, and Typepad doesn't seem to like the URL for Our Thoughts.

[Geoff J]

Good stuff Dave. You said: "Thus the Early Modern English of Shakespeare and the KJV was still a language in transition." Of course languages always are in transition. I guess you are saying that at the time the KJV was translated the language was in a period of faster transition than usual?

[Last Lemming]

Thanks for this. I am particularly struck by the idea that we do not necessarily use "thou" in prayer because it is more respectful, but because it represents a close relationship with God.

More precisely, people during the time of Shakespeare and King James used "thou" because it represented a close relationship with God. But now, the Church's rationale is the opposite. Unless you speak Spanish, French, or German, in which case you use the familiar form because it still reflects familiarity.

[Clark Goble]

What's interesting is that this same phenomena occurred in the Dead Sea Scroll community. My translation even uses a different font for archaic terminology used in prayers and like with respect to God. I always found that kind of interesting.

[Ben S.]

"But now, the Church's rationale is the opposite."

I'm not sure about that.

"In our day the English words thee, thou, thy, and thine are suitable for the language of prayer, not because of how they were used anciently but because they are currently obsolete in common English discourse. Being unused in everyday communications, they are now available as a distinctive form of address in English, appropriate to symbolize respect, closeness, and reverence for the one being addressed." Elder Oaks, in the Ensign

Though I nitpick with these as well, I find Elder Oaks rationale different than that I had ascribed to the Church, ie. "we use them because they're more respectful" which we know is wrong, historically.

Oaks divorces it from historical usage.

[Dave]

Ben, does Elder Oaks really mean what he says, that we use thee and thou because they are obsolete in current spoken English? That strikes me as odd because the Church is quite happy to employ current spoken pronouns and forms of address for prayer in other languages. It's not like the rationale for prayer should vary across languages.

I'm more inclined to think no one is interested in changing or challenging an established practice, which then gets justified in various ways (Elder Oaks' attempt being one such justification) that don't really explain or justify the practice. One might as well say, "Thee and thou just sounds more prayer-like than you and your."

[Geoff J]

Dave,

I suspect that the reason Elder Oaks gives defends not changing the practice more than anything else. Regardless of original reasons the practice developed in the church, over time there have been other reasons to continue it. It probably boils down to an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" view overall. I certainly don't think our continuing with the tradition is because God finds the idea of us referring to him a "you" instead of "thee" abhorrent.

[Dave]

Geoff, I actually find "thee and thou just sound more prayer-like" to be a workable practical justification. The same way the songs in the LDS hymnal (sung to organ or piano) sound more worshipful than the music one might hear in a contemporary Christian service. We just get used to the Mormon way of doing things.

[John C.]

I have heard an argument that middle and modern English reflect a "Creolization" of old English. It is common to lose grammatical, morphological markers in Creole languages, which develop when there is no common language between two co-existing populations (as we had with the Norman French and the Saxon peasantry). Under these circumstances, word order often becomes the most important grammatical marker (as we have in English).

[Last Lemming]

It probably boils down to an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" view overall.

Speaking only for myself, I'm not sure it ain't broke. Is the language supposed to narrow or widen the distance between ourselves and God? The Oaks quote

...to symbolize respect, closeness, and reverence for the one being addressed.

provides contradictory answers: "closeness" on the one hand, but "respect" and "reverence" on the other. Those are distancing terms to me. But I know of others who don't find them to be such. Part of why I'm so weird, I guess.

[Beijing]

Ben S.,

In the portion you quoted, Oaks does say that thee and thou are used "to symbolize respect." So what you had ascribed to the church: "we use them because they're more respectful" is correct.

It's a side issue whether the respect allegedly stems from the historical usage or from the obsolescence of the words. The fact is that respect is first on the list of what thee and thou are meant to show.

[Ben S.]

That's true Beijing, but don't forget the rest of the list. He also says "closeness" which to me is not like addressing a boss but more intimate. I can respect my parents and still adress them intimately.

I have little doubt that it's primarily tradition, but re-interpretation of tradition isn't necessarily wrong.

What I liked most about it is that he doesn't fall into the trap of arguing historical usage.

[annegb]

I'm just going to write how I talk. When I pray, I instinctively use thee and thou, but just once, I wish somebody would get up and give a talk on prayer and say, "God doesn't care how you address Him. He doesn't stop listening and start slapping the person who says "you."

There are so many converts and newly activitated (did I spell that right, it looks funny) in our ward, I worry they will worry too much over doing it right and completely lose the spirit. They will think God is mad and judging and unkind.

Spare me.

[Beth]

Interesting habit we have of 'formalizing' the informal. Isn't that what we do with the terms 'Brother' and 'Sister'. In the early church days, they were very tender and relational words truly depicting a sibling, i.e. "Brother Jospeh". Now we use these titles very formally- as very serious titles on letterheads and at the pulpit.