Most Formal Word Choice in Prayer Pleaseth God

[_Albion]

Utter pious claptrap. An all knowing God knows the intent of the heart and any sincerity and respectfulness of the one praying...it doesn't take outdated language to persuade him of the fact.

[_Gunnar]

Utter pious claptrap. An all knowing God knows the intent of the heart and any sincerity and respectfulness of the one praying...it doesn't take outdated language to persuade him of the fact.

This is one thing on which I actually agree with you, Albion! The idea that God would look more favorably on a supplicant who uses obsolete Elizabethan English rather than modern English is indeed "utter pious claptrap."

Besides that, LDS leaders compound the error by claiming that the use of "thee", "thou" and "thine" is the more formal and respectful usage. This is completely wrong! In Elizabethan times, "thee" and "thou" were the familiar forms used only when speaking to intimate family members and close friends, children and one's social inferiors, such as servants. Anyone familiar with European languages that still use both the formal and familiar forms knows that it is the familiar forms that are commonly used when addressing God in those languages. This is true of all the languages with which I have any familiarity and fluency. It is true of Spanish and German, and certainly the foreign languages I know best, Norwegian and Danish (I was born in Norway, by the way). Why LDS authorities are still promulgating this claptrap is a mystery to me! Certainly Dieter Uchtdorf knows better, as he is a native German speaker. It is inconceivable that Jeffery Holland does not know better, as he has a PhD in English from Harvard, for heavens sake!

[_Tobin]

Utter pious claptrap. An all knowing God knows the intent of the heart and any sincerity and respectfulness of the one praying...it doesn't take outdated language to persuade him of the fact.

This is one thing on which I actually agree with you, Albion! The idea that God would look more favorably on a supplicant who uses obsolete Elizabethan English rather than modern English is indeed "utter pious claptrap."

Besides that, LDS leaders compound the error by claiming that the use of "thee", "thou" and "thine" is the more formal and respectful usage. This is completely wrong! In Elizabethan times, "thee" and "thou" were the familiar forms used only when speaking to intimate family members and close friends, children and one's social inferiors, such as servants. Anyone familiar with European languages that still use both the formal and familiar forms knows that it is the familiar forms that are commonly used when addressing God in those languages. This is true of all the languages with which I have any familiarity and fluency. It is true of Spanish and German, and certainly the foreign languages I know best, Norwegian and Danish (I was born in Norway, by the way). Why LDS authorities are still promulgating this claptrap is a mystery to me! Certainly Dieter Uchtdorf knows better, as he is a native German speaker. It is inconceivable that Jeffery Holland does not know better, as he has a PhD in English from Harvard, for heavens sake!

Again, Gunnar, you and Albion have no idea what you are talking about.

In English, there are categories of pronouns. If you wish to be specific (and not ambiguous), then you should understand the differences as outlined below:

1st person singular nominative: I
1st person singular objective: Me
1st person singular possessive: My (or Mine)

1st person plural nominative: We
1st person plural objective: Us
1st person plural possessive: Our (or Ours)

2nd person singular nominative: Thou
2nd person singular objective: Thee
2nd person singular possessive: Thy (or Thine)

2nd person plural nominative: Ye
2nd person plural objective: You
2nd person plural possessive: Your (or Yours)

3rd person singular nominative: He/She/It
3rd person singular objective: Him/Her/It
3rd person singular possessive: His/Hers/Its

3rd person plural nominative: They
3rd person plural objective: Them
3rd person plural possessive: Their (or Theirs)

[_malkie]

Utter pious claptrap. An all knowing God knows the intent of the heart and any sincerity and respectfulness of the one praying...it doesn't take outdated language to persuade him of the fact.

This is one thing on which I actually agree with you, Albion! The idea that God would look more favorably on a supplicant who uses obsolete Elizabethan English rather than modern English is indeed "utter pious claptrap."

Besides that, LDS leaders compound the error by claiming that the use of "thee", "thou" and "thine" is the more formal and respectful usage. This is completely wrong! In Elizabethan times, "thee" and "thou" were the familiar forms used only when speaking to intimate family members and close friends, children and one's social inferiors, such as servants. Anyone familiar with European languages that still use both the formal and familiar forms knows that it is the familiar forms that are commonly used when addressing God in those languages. This is true of all the languages with which I have any familiarity and fluency. It is true of Spanish and German, and certainly the foreign languages I know best, Norwegian and Danish (I was born in Norway, by the way). Why LDS authorities are still promulgating this claptrap is a mystery to me! Certainly Dieter Uchtdorf knows better, as he is a native German speaker. It is inconceivable that Jeffery Holland does not know better, as he has a PhD in English from Harvard, for heavens sake!

Again, Gunnar, you and Albion have no idea what you are talking about.

In English, there are categories of pronouns. If you wish to be specific (and not ambiguous), then you should understand the differences as outlined below:

1st person singular nominative: I
1st person singular objective: Me
1st person singular possessive: My (or Mine)

1st person plural nominative: We
1st person plural objective: Us
1st person plural possessive: Our (or Ours)

2nd person singular nominative: Thou
2nd person singular objective: Thee
2nd person singular possessive: Thy (or Thine)

2nd person plural nominative: Ye
2nd person plural objective: You
2nd person plural possessive: Your (or Yours)

3rd person singular nominative: He/She/It
3rd person singular objective: Him/Her/It
3rd person singular possessive: His/Hers/Its

3rd person plural nominative: They
3rd person plural objective: Them
3rd person plural possessive: Their (or Theirs)

Tobin, I started to correct your post, but I just can't be bothered.

Let it stand as an indication of how free you are to point out others' errors, even when you are wrong.

Blixa or Dr Shades or someone else may have the patience, but I'm a bit short this afternoon.

However, I will give you a couple of hints:
- current usage vs. Elizabethan usage;
- possessive pronouns vs. possessive adjectives

[_Tobin]

Tobin, I started to correct your post, but I just can't be bothered.

Let it stand as an indication of how free you are to point out others' errors, even when you are wrong.

Blixa or Dr Shades or someone else may have the patience, but I'm a bit short this afternoon.

However, I will give you a couple of hints:
- current usage vs. Elizabethan usage;
- possessive pronouns vs. possessive adjectives

Please explain how I'm being incorrect in the slightest and give examples. I would really love to hear all about it because you are NOT correct and your suggestion is completely idiotic. What I stated is absolutely correct and the fact that the usage of singular 2nd person pronouns have been relegated to specific uses such as a religious context does not mean the usage is Elizabethan vs modern at all. It means only that in modern casual speech, the 2nd person singular is not in general use (outside of those specific uses and certain regions of the world). IT DOES NOT MEAN it is an "utter pious claptrap" as was characterized or any other such non-sense.

And I have no idea why you are bringing up possessive adjectives here. I was only talking about pronouns.

[_malkie]

Tobin, I started to correct your post, but I just can't be bothered.

Let it stand as an indication of how free you are to point out others' errors, even when you are wrong.

Blixa or Dr Shades or someone else may have the patience, but I'm a bit short this afternoon.

However, I will give you a couple of hints:
- current usage vs. Elizabethan usage;
- possessive pronouns vs. possessive adjectives

Please explain how I'm being incorrect in the slightest and give examples. I would really love to hear all about it because you are NOT correct and your suggestion is completely idiotic. What I stated is absolutely correct and the fact that the usage of singular 2nd person pronouns have been relegated to specific uses such as a religious context does not mean the usage is Elizabethan vs modern at all. It means only that in modern casual speech, the 2nd person singular is not in general use (outside of those specific uses and certain regions of the world). IT DOES NOT MEAN it is an "utter pious claptrap" as was characterized or any other such non-sense.

And I have no idea why you are talking about with possessive adjectives here. I was only talking about pronouns.

Yep - that is pretty much guaranteed to make me patient enough to put much more time & effort into this "exchange".

You may have been talking about pronouns, but you included possessive adjectives, apparently without realizing that that's what they are.

I agree that you can consider the archaic usages as special purpose/specific context. I don't think that anyone was disputing that, though I may have missed such a post. That does not make the stance of the LDS authorities concerning formal/respectful usage correct. However, if you are certain that you are correct on this point then I'm happy for you.

I can agree to disagree with you without suggesting that your opinion is idiotic.

[_Tobin]

Yep - that is pretty much guaranteed to make me patient enough to put much more time & effort into this "exchange".

You may have been talking about pronouns, but you included possessive adjectives, apparently without realizing that that's what they are.

I agree that you can consider the archaic usages as special purpose/specific context. I don't think that anyone was disputing that, though I may have missed such a post. That does not make the stance of the LDS authorities concerning formal/respectful usage correct. However, if you are certain that you are correct on this point then I'm happy for you.

I can agree to disagree with you without suggesting that your opinion is idiotic.

I'm thrilled you don't wish to explain how I'm mistaken. And again you have failed twice to explain why you have brought up possessive adjectives. Just because I stated 'my' is a possessive pronoun does not mean it can not be used as a possessive adjective as well in a sentence like 'This is my car'. I am boggled by what you are saying and would love to hear you explain that.

And I did not say the LDS authorities were correct in their statement about the formal/respectful usage of the 2nd person singular pronouns. I do agree that it is more specific. In certain contexts, such as the scriptures, the use of the 2nd person singular is very specific and clarifying vs the usage of the modern 2nd person plural 'you' which is less specific and ambiguous. This can also be true when used in prayer correctly (which often doesn't happen).

[_Gunnar]

Again, Gunnar, you and Albion have no idea what you are talking about.

No, Tobin. It is you who doesn't know what I am talking about. Apparently you are essentially unfamiliar with any language but English. The familiar forms of personal pronouns have been out of regular use in English so long that you don't even seem to understand the concept. For example the Danish subjective pronoun "du" and the Spanish subjective pronoun "tu" correspond to the old English subjective pronoun "thou" and are intended normally for use only when addressing intimate acquaintances (with whom one is on a first-name basis), social inferiors and children. "De" (in Danish) and "usted" (in Spanish) are the more formal 2nd person pronouns used when addressing strangers or social superiors whom one wants to avoid offending by assuming undue familiarity, and correspond to the English "you", which can be either singular or plural.

Today's standard English uses only the formal "you" for everybody. In modern practice (in Scandinavia at least), however, as some non-English speaking societies becomes ever more egalitarian, there seems to be a tendency to greater use of the familiar forms rather than the formal forms (the opposite of what happened in English), even for rather casual acquaintances. In both Spanish and the Scandinavian languages (as well as in German), the familiar, not the formal forms, are the ones used in the Scriptures and in prayer when addressing Diety, as was the case (obviously since they are what is used in the King James Translation) in English when both forms were in standard usage. Because of the relative linguistic ignorance of the earliest leaders of the LDS Church (particularly Joseph Smith, though he should have realized better after acquiring some language training), and the fact that the familiar forms had already dropped from standard usage, they mistakenly assumed that the old English familiar forms found in the King James Translation that they favored were formal and somehow honorific.

[_Tobin]

Again, Gunnar, you and Albion have no idea what you are talking about.

No, Tobin. It is you who doesn't know what I am talking about. Apparently you are essentially unfamiliar with any language but English. The familiar forms of personal pronouns have been out of regular use in English so long that you don't even seem to understand the concept. For example the Danish subjective pronoun "du" and the Spanish subjective pronoun "tu" correspond to the old English subjective pronoun "thou" and are intended normally for use only when addressing intimate acquaintances (with whom one is on a first-name basis), social inferiors and children. "De" (in Danish) and "usted" (in Spanish) are the more formal 2nd person pronouns used when addressing strangers or social superiors whom one wants to avoid offending by assuming undue familiarity, and correspond to the English "you", which can be either singular or plural.

Today's standard English uses only the formal "you" for everybody. In modern practice (in Scandinavia at least), however, as some non-English speaking societies becomes ever more egalitarian, there seems to be a tendency to greater use of the familiar forms rather than the formal forms (the opposite of what happened in English), even for rather casual acquaintances. In both Spanish and the Scandinavian languages (as well as in German), the familiar, not the formal forms, are the ones used in the Scriptures and in prayer when addressing Diety, as was the case (obviously since they are what is used in the King James Translation) in English when both forms were in standard usage. Because of the relative linguistic ignorance of the earliest leaders of the LDS Church (particularly Joseph Smith, though he should have realized better after acquiring some language training), and the fact that the familiar forms had already dropped from standard usage, they mistakenly assumed that the old English familiar forms found in the King James Translation that they favored were formal and somehow honorific.

Again, thank you for proving you have no clue what you are talking about. The 2nd person plural you has really nothing to do with formality. It has to do with specificity. I challenge you to provide a superior substitute in modern English to replace the 2nd person singular OR PROVIDE ANY EXAMPLES TO COUNTER MINE. Otherwise, I stand by my assertion you HAVE NO CLUE what you are talking about. Again, if you require that specificity, you must resort to THOU, THEE, and THINE. And simply mistaking that other languages including English have 2nd person singular pronouns IS NOT a COUNTER EXAMPLE.

[_Gunnar]

I grant that the English word "you" is not specifically either singular or plural, but it is used for both in currently standard usage, and there can somtimes be confusion, in some contexts, whether it refers to an individual or a group (which is why, in some English dialects they use "you" when addressing an individual and "you'all" or "youse" when addressing more than one). It is also true that in old English it was basically plural, but it was still used when addressing an individual of a higher social status (especially royalty), just like the royal "we" was often used by a royal personage even when referring to himself or herself exclusively. I don't think, however, that God would have the slightest difficulty knowing which is meant when someone prays to him. I can't believe that God would in any way hold it against anyone who prayed to him, whatever linguistic standard they felt comfortable using. That is why I think it is nonsense when religious leaders maintain or imply that the now archaic "thee", "thou", "thine", etc. are the only acceptable forms to be used while addressing Diety.