<<ye is for more than one
thou takes -st on verbs
that's it. basic grammar lesson. like a familiarization if you will >>
Unfortunately, there are irregularities in the -st ending (hast, art, etc.), and it can also affect the past tense (wast, hadst, knewest, etc.), and sometimes even auxiliaries (thou canst give, etc.), so it's not alll that simple.
<<Unfortunately, there are irregularities in the -st ending (hast, art, etc.), and it can also affect the past tense (wast, hadst, knewest, etc.), and sometimes even auxiliaries (thou canst give, etc.), so it's not alll that simple.>>
Yes, that's right. I was just being extremely general though
'art', 'shalt', 'wilt' and the form of 'wert' (alt. of wast) are all irregularities (forms with a -t instead of -st) that interestingly (with exception of 'wert') developed from the old preterite form, which was already gone in OE. These past tense verbs had also acquired a presnt tense meaning (similar to how 'got' [past tense] in ModEng means 'have' [present tense] as in "Got milk?" etc)
<<...English sorely needs is a legit plural form of "you".>>
<<Well y'all and youse etc are sub-standard.>>
If you want to speak of expressions as "sub-standard" (a phrase which smacks of a certain region elitism), then it would be worth considering that antiquated, non-current words fall into a similar state of "sub-standard" usage.
The truth is that millions of well-educated Americans use "y'all" as a standard part of their speech. Though its use is almost invariably misunderstood by those who hail from other regions of the country, it is far more a part of legitimate regional speech than the now-dialectic use of "thee", "thou", "thine", "ye", etc.
The demise of dual forms of formal/informal address has marked the modern history of a number of other Germanic languages besides English, and seems to be a natural outcome of the fact that living languages are organic and dynamic, changing to suit the needs of those who use them. To suppose that a language can be manipulated by any organized effort to enforce a speech pattern that isn't perceived by the masses to suit their ordinary needs of communication is at the very least highly optimistic, in my opinion.
Please don't take this as criticism or argumentative antagonism, because it is only meant in the spirit of friendly debate of the issue, and I can certainly appreciate the spirit of someone who desires to effect what he perceives as positive change. Best of luck!
<<To suppose that a language can be manipulated by any organized effort to enforce a speech pattern that isn't perceived by the masses to suit their ordinary needs of communication is at the very least highly optimistic, in my opinion.>>
But you would be surprised to know just how "manipulated" and controlled the language which you used to craft that dissertation was!
You might think that English is "dynamic"...even ultra dynamic,...and I will give you that it has its dynamic points--although very minor. In reality, English is much less dynamic than we like to think it is. True dynamic English would result in something like what is *spoke in da hood*, or *in da kuntry*--English that you would need a translator to understand.
With all due respect to you, changing thou to you is nothing in comparison.
Language is a lot easier to manipulate than it may seem. Look at Hebrew.
What do you mean about Hebrew? The fact that it was "brought back" fairly recently?
Modern Hebrew is a special case, as it was a needed lingua franca for a wide range of immigrants from across Europe, the Middle East, and North America who really had no other common language, as they spoke a range of languages including things such as German (incl. Yiddish), Polish, Russian, Arabic, English, Ladino, and so on. That is why it, as a revived language, succeeded - unlike practically all other language revival attempts, whose success has been marginal at best.
At least , contrarily to the assumption of many people, it demonstrates that it's possible to revive languages. Perhaps Latin will have its chance some day.
Offers hope to the esparantists! Ha ha ha! Esperanto - siempre esperando!
<<Perhaps Latin will have its chance some day. >>
No Thank you!
I would suggest that perhaps reviving a "dead" language and reviving an archaic speech pattern are not precisely the same sort of endeavor.
Though I can appreciate the point made by saying that a "truly" dynamic English would have absorbed some "in da hood" phraseology, I would also point out that across its history English has been the great borrower among world languages, with a facility for grabbing words from a wide variety of sources. A part of this owes to the far-reaching influences of the former British Empire, which brough English speakers into close daily contact with speakers of a wide range of other languages. Another aspect of this propensity for borrowed words has to do with the American melting-pot, and the wide range of new words accepted into standard English in the New World. Yet another aspect is the relatively uninflected nature of modern English. A language which utilizes prepositions more than changed word endings has, I would think, more ease in absorbing new words--that is to say, it is easier for a foreign word to "become English" than for it to become, for instance, French. Add to that the fact that English already has such a variety of influences, and it makes it quite easy for new words to be absorbed, regardless of their sound or spelling. It would be difficult for some words to ever be accepted by Francophones as "sounding French", whereas almost any word can "sound English", because English is already such a mixed bag of word origins. Based on those evidences, I would say that English, at least for my purposes in understanding and teaching the language, is quite dynamic and flexible.
Again, just an opinion--not meant to rebuke/rebut or argue with anyone else's equally well-studied thoughts on the matter.
Interesting, but what has thy comment to do with thou? Thou didst not make very clear what thou werst trying to say w.r.t. the topic?
About "yins", though, one thing I should have mentioned earlier is that the primary contenders for the status of second person plural pronoun in NAE today are "you guys" and "y'all", which are *generally* associated with Northern and Pacific coast dialects and Southern and AAVE dialects respectively. "Y'all" has spread quite greatly in the last few decades, and has even leaked into non-AAVE-speaking parts of the northern US (such as parts of New York City), while "you guys" has largely edged out other competing Northern forms such as "youse", "youse guys", "you'uns", and "yins", which have significantly contracted in their overall range today.
you guys - sounds more terrible than any of them!