Originally,
thee/thou was the singular second
person pronoun, while you functioned
as the plural second person pronoun. The use of each was unmarked; that is,
each was used in general communication and served a mere grammatical purposes
and neither connoted any unusual intent, tone, or meaning. By the sixteenth
century, you had come to be generally
used for both the plural and singular second person in Standard English, while thee/thou was used only in specific
situations (i.e., not merely to distinguish singular from plural), thus
becoming a marked form of address. It has been speculated that this shift was
occasioned by the English desire to adopt a T-V form of address similar to that
used by the French, in which the plural form (the V form, in this case, you) was used to connote respect even to
a singular addressee, while the singular form (the T form, in this case thee/thou) was used to address one’s
inferiors or to connote familiarity (Walker, 75). By the seventeenth century, thee/thou was generally used to express
familiarity, affection, or contempt, or to address one’s social inferiors
(Lass, 149).
By
1800, both unmarked and marked uses of thee
and thou, had become virtually obsolete
in Standard English (Denison, 314). Yet, throughout the nineteenth century, its
marked use remained extant in many regional dialects, particularly those of
rural, “working class”, and farming communities (Wright, V.6, 81). As in older
Standard English, thee/thou continued
to be used to address family members, particularly one’s children (Wright,
101), to express familiarity or affection, to address one’s inferiors, or to
express contempt. These marked uses of thee/thou
still survive today “mostly amongst the oldest generation of speakers” (Wales,
76) in a reduced number of English dialects in the north, south, and south/west
of England and in Canada’s Newfoundland (Wales, 14, 76).[1]
The distinction between thee/thou and
you as singular and plural pronouns
has become obsolete even in dialect form. (There are, however, several dialects
which contain plural second person pronoun replacements such as you all in parts of the United States
and youse in Northern England [Wales,
16-17] and parts of Canada).
In
some of the dialects where thee/thou
is still used, the two pronouns are pronounced ‘correctly’. However there were
several variations, particularly of the pronunciation of thou, often with a reduction of the voiced ‘th’ to an unvoiced ‘t’
and an alteration of the vowel, sometimes with the result of ‘ta’ (e.g., in
Yorkshire: “Wilt ta cum wi ma?”) (Wright, V.6,100). Variations in pronunciation
within a given dialect could indicate whether thee or thou are stressed
in a given sentence (ibid.). In addition, thee
is often used ‘incorrectly’ in the nominative as well as the accusative case
and thou is occasionally used
‘incorrectly’ in the accusative case.
The
Religious Society of Friends, commonly known as the Quakers, was founded in
England in the mid-seventeenth century (Powell), when the T-V distinctions
between thee/thou and you were still being used in Standard
English, though they were rapidly falling out of favour. The Quakers adopted
what was known as “plain speech”, one of the most noticeable aspects of which being
the use of thee/thou in all situations, when addressing all people, regardless of the addressee’s
rank or relation to the addresser. This use of thee/thou was employed, in part, as a means of expressing the
Quaker belief in the equality of all people (Birch 40-41).
To
escape religious persecution and to create a Quaker community, many Quakers
moved to the United States in the late seventeenth century
(Powell) where the use of thee/thou
in Quaker plain speech persisted well into the twentieth century and may
occasionally still be heard, especially amongst Quaker elders. When asked if
she remembers Quakers “thee and thouing” people in her childhood, Selma Sheldon[2],
born in 1942 and raised in a well-established Quaker family in New York State,
wrote,
Yes – particularly within
their families. It was quite common. Ann Lane, who was my grade 3 teacher,
ended up in her senior years living across the hall from Grandma down at Friend’s Homes [a Quaker retirement
community in North Carolina]. Whenever she saw me, right up until her death
less than 10 years ago, she used the thee/thou form of address. I’m almost
positive that you could find people at Friend’s Homes using it today. (personal
communication)
Don Badgley, Sheldon’s
cousin, confirms that Quaker seniors today still use thee/thou: “Some Quakers still use the thee and thou especially
around Philly in the octogenarian set” (personal communication)[3].
As
in other dialects, thee came to be
used by many Quakers, at least in the New York State area, in both the
nominative and the accusative cases[4].
Thee is supposed to be the
object form of the word, and yet Quakers in my day have always used it as
subject as well. Thus, “Thee is looking lovely today.” I never heard plain
friends (as we call the theeing folk) use the word ‘thou’. (Sheldon, personal
communication)
It is likely, however, that
this use of thee in both nominative
and accusative cases is a later development.
As
stated above, the Quaker use of thee/thou
was initially adopted as a means of expressing a belief in the equality of all
people. This is the understanding most Quakers have today of their religion’s
use of thee/thou and was what I,
raised Quaker, was taught in First Day School (i.e., Sunday School) as were the
generations before me. Says Sheldon
The story I learned as a
Quaker kid is that ‘you’ was used in addressing your ‘betters’, and because
Quakers didn’t believe a peer or landed person or whatever was any better than
anyone else, they took to addressing everyone with thee and thou – the same
reason they didn’t use titles like Mr. or Mrs., or whatever. They simply called
a person by their name. Thee/thou was the more intimate/familiar form of
address. (personal communication)
With the eventual demise of
the T-V system of address, “The forces of language change,” says B.M. Birch in
her essay, “Quaker Plain Speech”, “had accomplished what George Fox, the
founder of Quakerism, had desired: equality and democracy in the use of
pronouns” (44). This effectively rendered the initial intent of Quaker plain
speech archaic which probably is a large contributing factor to the erosion of
its use.
Ironically, the surviving use of thee/thou amongst Quakers closely resembles its surviving uses in
other dialects in which it is used to imply intimacy, familiar relations, and even
mild contempt. Says Birch, “thee is
reserved for Quaker members of the immediate family, the extended family, or
husband and wife...” (46) and “mild eldering (criticism)” (47). It could be
argued that thee/thou is now used
amongst Quakers very much like the T-V system they first meant to protest.
It seems that many Quakers are no longer aware of some of
the other influences leading to the initial adoption of Quaker plain speech.
One of these influences was the general respect accorded the Authorized Version of the Bible (Wales, 15). The high regard for
what Roger Lass refers to as “the double-barreled influence of the great
Elizabethan and Jacobean poets and the Authorized Version” (153) may be what
led many poets to continue to use thee/thou
until about the mid-twentieth century (Wales, 77). The 1989 edition of the Oxford English Dictionary reports that thee/thou is still used in “poetry,
apostrophe, and elevated prose”. While this entry in the OED may not yet have
been updated and the information may already have been inaccurate in 1989,
Wales does point out that, “Thou-forms
occasionally appear in contemporary popular songs, if only for rhyme: e.g.
‘Respectfully/ I say to thee/ you’re turning me/ upside down’ (Diana
Ross, 1980)” (77). I would argue that those who see thee/thou as an acceptable option in lyric writing are probably
somewhat influenced by its relatively recent use in poetry.
Again, because of the prestige of the Authorized Version of the Bible, as well as the continued
influence of 1549 Book of common prayer
(Wales, 76), thee/thou persists most
vibrantly in liturgical settings (OED;
Denison, 314). This survival too is degrading with the introduction of new
prayer books such as the “Alternative Service” Book in England (Wales, 15) and Celebrate God’s Presence: A Book of Services
for the United Church of Canada in Canada (Bristow, personal communication)
which do not use thee/thou. The
increasing use of modern translations of the Bible, such as The Good News
Bible, which drop the use of thee/thou
also influences the decline of the use of thee/thou
in liturgical settings. However, even with the reduced influence of the Authorized Version, says Rev. Ted
Bristow, of the United Church of Canada, “Many, many prayers survive in thee
and thou form... for familiarity” (personal communication). Because, speculates
Bristow, most people memorized prayers such as “The Lord’s Prayer” using the thee/thou form, they prefer to continue
to use this translation of the prayer though new translations are available.
Thee/thou is
often still used as “a special or marked form for addressing God [or Christ] in
a special or marked register” (Wales, 77; OED). Though it could still retain a
sense of intimacy – the intimacy of the Christian with Christ or God it
connoted in the Authorized Version
– that it once held in general use, it
is more likely being used to connote the inferior status of the person
addressing God. Says Bristow, ‘theeing’ God is, “a handy distinction between
divine thee’s and human you’s and thereby an honouring the THEE as special, not
to be taken for granted as just another person” (personal communication). It
is, says Bristow, “a different form of address [that] allows that difference to
be underlined” (personal communication) though he admits that he does not
himself use this form of address. The irony here is that, in this context, thee/thou has taken the V form of
respect that was once filled by you.
It seems that in virtually every instance where thee/thou is still being used –whether
in dialects, liturgy, or Quakerism – it is most often used by the elders in
that setting. My own hypothesis is that thee/thou
will continue its progression toward obsolescence, though it will probably
survive longest in liturgical environments. Its tenacity and the specific uses
for which it has survived suggests that some English speakers may have a
lingering desire for more subtle variations in forms of pronomial address,
particularly as a means of expressing some of the stronger emotions of love,
respect, and intimacy.
Works
Consulted
Abrams, M.H.. The Norton Anthology of English
Literature, Volume 2, 5th ed. New York: W.W. Norton &
Company, 1986.
Badgley, Don. <Don51249@aol.com> “thee/thou”
Personal email to Cheratra Yaswen. 6 March, 2003.
Birch, Barbara M. “Quaker Speech: a policy of
linguistic divergence.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language
116 (1995): 39-59.
Blake, Norman. “The Literary Language.” The
Cambridge History of the English Language, Volume 2: 1066-1476. Ed. Norman
Blake. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Bristow, Ted. <selted@shaw.ca> “thee/thou”
Personal email to Cheratra Yaswen. 14 Feb. 2003.
-- <selted@shaw.ca> “thee/thou yet again”
Personal email to Cheratra Yaswen. 9 May 2003.
Denison, David. “Syntax.” The Cambridge History of
the English Language, Volume 4. Ed. Suzanne Romaine. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1998.
Graveson, Caroline C.. The Farthing Family: The
Story of a London Family in The 17th Century. London: The
Bennisdale Press, 1950.
Lass, Roger. “Phonology and morphology.” The
Cambridge History of the English Language, Volume 2: 1066-1476. Ed. Norman
Blake. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
-- “Phonology and morphology.” The Cambridge
History of the English Language, Volume 3: 1476-1776. Ed. Roger Lass.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Oxford English Dictionary.
<www-oed-com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca>
Powell, Jim. “William Penn.” <www.quaker.org/wmpenn.html>
13 May 2003.
Richards, Jack C., John Platt, Heidi Platt, eds. Dictionary
of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Malaysia: Longman, 1992.
Sheldon, Selma. <selted@shaw.ca> “thee/thou”
Personal communication to Cheratra Yaswen. 14 Feb. 2003.
-- <selted@shaw.ca> “thee/thou yet again”
Personal communication to Cheratra Yaswen. 9 May, 2003.
Wales, Katie. Personal Pronouns in Present-Day
English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Walker, Terry. “The choice of second person singular
in pronouns in authentic and constructed dialogue in late sixteenth century
English.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory: Papers from the
Twentieth International Conference on English Language Reaseach on Computerized
Corpora. Eds. Christian Mair and Marianne Hundt. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2000.
Wright, Joseph. Ed. The English Dialect Dictionary,
Volume 6. London: Oxford University Press, 1898-1905.
[1] The English Dialect Dictionary, to which I referred for my regional information about the nineteenth century, did not outline dialects outside of England but one may infer that, if thee/thou is extant in Newfoundland today, it was also extant in the nineteenth century.
[2] In the interests of “full disclosure”, I must state that I have close relations with some of my valuable sources. Selma Sheldon is my mother. Thus, when she refers to “Grandma”, she is referring to her own mother, my grandmother. Friend’s Homes, the Quaker retirement home to which she refers is run by her brother, my uncle, also a Quaker. Don Badgley, whose father is a prominent Quaker elder in Poughkeepsie, New York, is her cousin. I was also raised as a Quaker. My mother became a United Church minister in 1987 and is now married to Rev. Ted Bristow whom I use as a source for information about modern liturgical uses of thee/thou.
[3] Philadelphia is in Pennsylvania, the region specifically set aside for William Penn, a founding Quaker, in the late seventeenth century. The goal was to create a Quaker colony (Powell). The area remains more strongly influenced by Quakers than many other areas.
[4] Some Quakers still refer to “theeing and thouing” even in areas where thou has not been used for some time. This may be a reflection either of the persistence of idioms even after the grammar they reflect is no longer used, or of the influence of the many older Quaker stories (written when the thee/thou distinction was still used correctly) read by Quakers. (See, for example, The Farthing Family, by Caroline C. Graveson.)