# Thee Thou Thine Thy



## TroubleEnglish

Do all native speakers know the words

*Thee Thou Thine Thy *?

And all other forms of creating the sentences in the archaic manner?

I mean all these phrases and grammar aren't used by anyone now but known by every person or aren't known, either.

Because it's kind of amusing if nobody uses it but knows perfectly and one day some guys can go for a walk and use this archaic genre of talking to make a view of some noble people. And everybody will understand them if it's known by everyone.

*P.S. I would be extremely pleased and grateful if you asnwered something using these adorable words...*


----------



## lingobingo

Yes, I’m sure everyone knows those words. But I don’t suppose many of them share your passion for archaic personal pronouns. Or for trying to speak in a way that went out of fashion centuries ago.


----------



## JulianStuart

Many will still know roughly that they are "old"  but not necessarily how to use them in a grammatically correct way, just like they don't know how to conjugate verbs correctly to go with them  So they'd be unlikely to create "correct" sentences in the "archaic" manner .  They'd come up with something they thought "sounded old". (I often hear people adding -eth to a modern verb, when they should, grammatically, add -est or vice versa, when trying fake old language). That said, there are also many who are familiar with/enjoy/study the older forms who would do well.


----------



## Myridon

People know those words, but very few people would use them correctly.  For one thing, the correct use involves the distinction between formal and informal pronouns which is not a concept that modern English has. 
People say things like "Dost thou goeth to ye olde park-eth?" to be funny.


----------



## Uncle Jack

TroubleEnglish said:


> Do all native speakers know the words


Most British English speakers will be aware of them, generally from the Bible and prayer books, where the seventeenth century Authorised Version of the Bible (1611) and the Book of Common Prayer (1662) remained in common use into the late twentieth century, and are still frequently quoted today.

Few people will have any familiarity with how they are used, though, and I expect the majority of people, from only hearing "thou" and "thee" used in connection with God, believe these to be excessively formal, rather than the familiar, singular, second-person pronouns. Few people could tell you the grammar of the words, and if they do try to use them, in satire or mockery, they are likely to mix up "thee" and "thou". But then, mixing up "I" and "me" is common enough in some situations.

Aspects of the second person singular survive in a number of regional British (and I dare say American) dialects, and you might hear "hast thou...?" around where I live (which is pronounced more like "esta" in the local accent), but really it is confined to a few expressions. "Thy" (often pronounced "tha") is moderately common throughout much of Northern England, even where "thee" and "thou" have died out. My guess is that second person verb forms, with a few exceptions such as "hast", are now very rare, even in places where the pronouns survive.


----------



## lingobingo

I would have thought it more likely young people’s familiarity with such words comes from fantasy fiction, video games and perhaps interminable remakes of Robin Hood movies?


----------



## Myridon

lingobingo said:


> I would have thought it more likely young people’s familiarity with such words comes from fantasy fiction, video games and perhaps interminable remakes of Robin Hood movies?


Possibly, but those sources are mostly wrong to begin with so the "correct usage" problem is even worse.


----------



## Chasint

1. Hardly anyone uses them. 
2. Most would recognise what was meant but get the grammar wrong. 
2. Those who still use them are speaking a dialect or have religious reasons to do so. (search for "Quakers thee thou")
3. If you want to see them as they were used historically then search the King James Bible and/or Shakespeare online.



> _"Neither a borrower nor a lender be;
> ...
> This above all: to *thine* ownself be true,
> And it must follow, as the night the day,
> *Thou* canst not then be false to any man.
> ..._
> --Lord Polonius, _Hamlet_ Act I, Scene 3
> http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/





> Genesis 14:23
> That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is *thine*, lest *thou shouldest* say, I have made Abram rich:


----------



## AnythingGoes

Uncle Jack said:


> Aspects of the second person singular survive in a number of regional British (and I dare say American) dialects….


A few Quakers (members of the Religious Society of Friends) may still use "thee" and "thees" (rather than _thy_). I live in an area with a fair number of Quakers and have never heard it, but I've heard that it still exists.

Other than that, none of the old second-person singular forms exist in any American dialect.


----------



## hwit

Like others have said, pretty much everyone knows thou/thee but the verb conjugation is frequently gotten wrong when people try to use it. Because it is archaic, the informal/formal distinction is lost and thou actually feels more formal because of its archaicness.


----------



## TroubleEnglish

hwit said:


> Like others have said, pretty much everyone knows thou/thee but the verb conjugation is frequently gotten wrong when people try to use it. Because it is archaic, the informal/formal distinction is lost and thou actually feels more formal because of its archaicness.





AnythingGoes said:


> A few Quakers (members of the Religious Society of Friends) may still use "thee" and "thees" (rather than _thy_). I live in an area with a fair number of Quakers and have never heard it, but I've heard that it still exists.
> 
> Other than that, none of the old second-person singular forms exist in any American dialect.





Chasint said:


> 1. Hardly anyone uses them.
> 2. Most would recognise what was meant but get the grammar wrong.
> 2. Those who still use them are speaking a dialect or have religious reasons to do so. (search for "Quakers thee thou")
> 3. If you want to see them as they were used historically then search the King James Bible and/or Shakespeare online.





Uncle Jack said:


> Most British English speakers will be aware of them, generally from the Bible and prayer books, where the seventeenth century Authorised Version of the Bible (1611) and the Book of Common Prayer (1662) remained in common use into the late twentieth century, and are still frequently quoted today.
> 
> Few people will have any familiarity with how they are used, though, and I expect the majority of people, from only hearing "thou" and "thee" used in connection with God, believe these to be excessively formal, rather than the familiar, singular, second-person pronouns. Few people could tell you the grammar of the words, and if they do try to use them, in satire or mockery, they are likely to mix up "thee" and "thou". But then, mixing up "I" and "me" is common enough in some situations.
> 
> Aspects of the second person singular survive in a number of regional British (and I dare say American) dialects, and you might hear "hast thou...?" around where I live (which is pronounced more like "esta" in the local accent), but really it is confined to a few expressions. "Thy" (often pronounced "tha") is moderately common throughout much of Northern England, even where "thee" and "thou" have died out. My guess is that second person verb forms, with a few exceptions such as "hast", are now very rare, even in places where the pronouns survive.



But is it possible to imitate that kind of English knowing only the forms of the auxiliary verbs, endings like "est" and pronouns?
I mean if to find some schemes of forming every Tense in the archaic manner and know the endings with the pronouns, is it possible to sound like all those people who lived before?
Or even the word order was different and there were some other unique elements of the speech which don't exist in the modern English now?
*

*


----------



## JulianStuart

TroubleEnglish said:


> But is it possible to imitate that kind of English knowing only the forms of the auxiliary verbs, endings like "est" and pronouns?
> I mean if to find some schemes of forming every Tense in the archaic manner and know the endings with the pronouns, is it possible to sound like all those people who lived before?
> Or even the word order was different and there were some other unique elements of the speech which don't exist in the modern English now?


It is possible to create sentences in older versions of English the way they were created many years ago, just like people can create sentences in ancient Latin or Greek.  To answer your original question, not many native speakers could do that correctly.


----------



## dojibear

TroubleEnglish said:


> is it possible to imitate that kind of English



Writers do it all the time, when creating historical dramas. Some of those dramas (Game of Thrones) are on TV, so are spoken. 
But those writers often adjust for "what modern audiences will understand", rather than trying to be 100% authentic.



TroubleEnglish said:


> s it possible to sound like all those people



Pronunciation is an area where TV and movie script-writers compromise. What is the point of a 2018 American movie that 2018 American watchers cannot understand? There is no point! Movies are for entertainment, not for language teaching. 

There is one exception. William Shakespeare wrote his plays around 1590, and his plays are still read in the US by high school students, and still performed very often in the US. Shakespeare's original words are used, and actors use a BE accent, but probably not a 1590s pronunciation of the words. Where would they learn? I'm not sure anyone even teaches that pronunciation.


----------



## dojibear

TroubleEnglish said:


> But is it possible to imitate that kind of English knowing only the forms of the auxiliary verbs, endings like "est" and pronouns?



No, that is not enough. 

[1] You would need to know the long-ago grammar. Grammar has changed. I've seen grammar changes in the last 50 years.

[2] Many thousands of words have changed. You would have to use thousands of words that nobody uses today, and avoid thousands of words that were not used then.

[3] Slang changes every 20 to 30 years. In the US, you cannot use words that everyone used in the 1970s. If you use them today, people laugh at you.


----------



## Dictatortot

Modern English speakers are aware of "thou/thee/thy/thine," and some still use it in circumstances such as prayer. However, as noted above, very few people handle it correctly.  Most speakers consider it an archaic version of "you"; they're unaware that "thou" was an invariably _singular_ pronoun and contrasted with the plural "ye/you/your." (As a kid in the 1970s, I remember reading _Thor_ comic books where some Asgardian would ludicrously address a group of people as "thou.")


----------



## TroubleEnglish

dojibear said:


> No, that is not enough.
> 
> [1] You would need to know the long-ago grammar. Grammar has changed. I've seen grammar changes in the last 50 years.
> 
> [2] Many thousands of words have changed. You would have to use thousands of words that nobody uses today, and avoid thousands of words that were not used then.
> 
> [3] Slang changes every 20 to 30 years. In the US, you cannot use words that everyone used in the 1970s. If you use them today, people laugh at you.



So, then it's impossible to use "thou" if we have to use other word endings. If we will just say "Thou are smart" it will be incorrect cause it should be "Thou art smart" but it's already pretty serious of changing. I can't even imagine what "art not" would be altogether like "are + not= aren't" if we want to say "thou art not smart". Artn't? Was it used?

I mean I can't use even just these pronouns for fun because of the -est endings of thou and it's auxiliary ones.


----------



## Myridon

TroubleEnglish said:


> So, then it's impossible to use "thou" if we have to use other word endings. If we will just say "Thou are smart" it will be incorrect cause it should be "Thou art smart" but it's already pretty serious of changing. I can't even imagine what "art not" would be altogether like "are + not= aren't" if we want to say "thou art not smart". Artn't? Was it used?
> 
> I mean I can't use even just these pronouns for fun because of the -est endings of thou and it's auxiliary ones.


Sure, you can use them for fun (as long as the people you're speaking to are amused by it instead of annoyed).
Thou are smart. or Thou art smart. or Thou be-eth smart-eth (totally incorrect). would all be okay if you meant to be funny. If you went back to the year 1300, you'd be telling someone that they were painful and you'd be talking to one person only who you knew rather well.


----------



## Uncle Jack

TroubleEnglish said:


> So, then it's impossible to use "thou" if we have to use other word endings. If we will just say "Thou are smart" it will be incorrect cause it should be "Thou art smart" but it's already pretty serious of changing. I can't even imagine what "art not" would be altogether like "are + not= aren't" if we want to say "thou art not smart". Artn't? Was it used?


"Thou art not" is probably what you are looking for. In speech, it is contracted to something like "th'art not", but I don't think it is contracted like this in print. I don't think there is a form where "not" is contracted.

For the inverted form, both "art thou not" and "art not thou" are used, with no contraction for either that I am aware of.


----------



## Uncle Jack

It might also be worth pointing out that the second person singular had a fairly short life in modern English. Shakespeare (1564 - 1616) is fairly sparing in his use of it. In the Authorised Version of the Bible (1611) it is used as the standard singular form, but the style of English used derives largely from earlier sixteenth century bibles, just like the Book of Common Prayer (1662), which uses thou to address God, derives from earlier prayer books, and from what I understand their use of thou and thee was already obsolete. However if you go back into the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries you are into middle English, which is very different from modern English, as anyone who has read Chaucer will tell you.

In British schools, Shakespeare is almost always taught in the original language (albeit with standardised spellings, and the "long s" (ſ) replaced with a modern "s"). Chaucer (1343 - 1400) is usually taught in translation.


----------



## Chasint

Here are some samples. Remember that you should also use vocabulary that was available in the appropriate time in history. Thus the phrase "Please canst put some bread in the electric toaster?" would sound anachronistic.

I go
Thou goest
He/she/it goeth
We go
You go
They go

I am
Thou art
He/she/it is
We are
You are
They are

That book is mine
That book is thine
That book is his/hers/its
That book is ours
That book is yours
That book is theirs

My book is here
Thy book is here
His/her book is here
Our book is here
Your book is here
Their book is here

John gave me the cup
John gave thee the cup
John gave him/her/it the cup
John gave us the cup
John gave you the cup
John gave them the cup


----------



## TroubleEnglish

Chasint said:


> Here are some samples. Remember that you should also use vocabulary that was available in the appropriate time in history. Thus the phrase "Please canst put some bread in the electric toaster?" would sound anachronistic.
> 
> I go
> Thou goest
> He/she/it goeth
> We go
> You go
> They go
> 
> I am
> Thou art
> He/she/it is
> We are
> You are
> They are
> 
> That book is mine
> That book is thine
> That book is his/hers/its
> That book is ours
> That book is yours
> That book is theirs
> 
> My book is here
> Thy book is here
> His/her book is here
> Our book is here
> Your book is here
> Their book is here
> 
> John gave me the cup
> John gave thee the cup
> John gave him/her/it the cup
> John gave us the cup
> John gave you the cup
> John gave them the cup



Perfect...

Can you form all the English Tenses' sentences, *please*?

If I want to say

*"Thou will come"*

 how will it be?

*"Thou wilt come"*?

I mean, okay, we change *"will"* for *"wilt"* but do we change the *"come"* for *"cometh"* or something as if it were for *"Thou cometh"*(or something)?

Or in the Middle English there was the same rule that after *"will\wilt"* the next verb is untouchable?


----------



## Chasint

You don't change 'come' because it is the bare infinitive - the rule is the same as today. In any case you say, "Thou comest" and "He cometh"

I suggest you search online for "early modern English verb conjugation" for more details. English has changed and evolved almost continuously over the centuries. There have been differing versions in different parts of Britain at the same time.

Here's somewhere to start - https://public.oed.com/blog/grammar-in-early-modern-english/


----------



## Uncle Jack

Chasint said:


> Thus the phrase "Please canst put some bread in the electric toaster?" would sound anachronistic.


Quite. That use of "please" is far too modern to go with "canst".


----------



## dojibear

Dictatortot said:


> Modern English speakers are aware of "thou/thee/thy/thine," and some still use it in circumstances such as prayer. However, as noted above, very few people handle it correctly. Most speakers consider it an archaic version of "you"; they're unaware that "thou" was an invariably _singular_ pronoun and contrasted with the plural "ye/you/your.



I recently read that the letter Y in many "old-fashioned" words is actually the old English consonant "thorn", pronounced "th". For example, "Ye Olde Pub" is really "The Olde Pub".

But that may not apply to the Y in the plural pronouns ye/you/your.


----------



## PaulQ

dojibear said:


> But that may not apply to the Y in the plural pronouns ye/you/your.


Ye (pron.) was originally *gee/gi* (Nothumbrian)
You was  *ieow*.
Your - *eouuer*.


----------



## User With No Name

Well, for many years, I (a reasonably educated English speaker) thought that the hymn "How Great Thou Art" was meant to praise the high quality of religious painting and architecture....


----------



## Hermione Golightly

Why would I use 'archaic' English/Anglo-Saxon forms considering that language is essentially about effective communication.
I have a few 'Quacker' friends and my children were educated at a 'Quacker' boarding school. I think I would know if these archaic forms were still in modern daily use.


----------



## AnythingGoes

Hermione Golightly said:


> I have a few 'Quacker' friends and my children were educated at a 'Quacker' boarding school. I think I would know if these archaic forms were still in modern daily use.


As I said, I've never heard Quakers using _thee. _I've read that some still follow the practice among themselves.


----------



## natkretep

TroubleEnglish said:


> I mean, okay, we change *"will"* for *"wilt"* but do we change the *"come"* for *"cometh"* or something as if it were for *"Thou cometh"*(or something)?
> 
> Or in the Middle English there was the same rule that after *"will\wilt"* the next verb is untouchable?


(No, not _thou cometh_ but _thou com(e)st, _as Chasint said. The verbs almost always take the -_est_ inflection with _thou_ (with the exception of _art_ and _wilt_), even in the past tense form: _thou went(e)st, thou walkedst._)

The auxiliary verbs need to take the right form with _thou_.

Thou shalt go.
Thou wilt go.
Thou canst go
Thou should(e)st go
Thou must go (no additional 'st' because it already ends with -st)
Thou may(e)st go.
Thou might(e)st go.
Thou ought(e)st to go.

If you are imitating Shakespeare's English, remember that be uses -es more often than -eth for most verbs (except maybe for _hath_ and _doth_).


----------



## TroubleEnglish

Chasint said:


> You don't change 'come' because it is the bare infinitive - the rule is the same as today. In any case you say, "Thou comest" and "He cometh"



Then hopw


natkretep said:


> (No, not _thou cometh_ but _thou com(e)st, _as Chasint said. The verbs almost always take the -_est_ inflection with _thou_ (with the exception of _art_ and _wilt_), even in the past tense form: _thou went(e)st, thou walkedst._)
> 
> The auxiliary verbs need to take the right form with _thou_.
> 
> Thou shalt go.
> Thou wilt go.
> Thou canst go
> Thou should(e)st go
> Thou must go (no additional 'st' because it already ends with -st)
> Thou may(e)st go.
> Thou might(e)st go.
> Thou ought(e)st to go.
> 
> If you are imitating Shakespeare's English, remember that be uses -es more often than -eth for most verbs (except maybe for _hath_ and _doth_).



Okay, let's create Present Simple sentences

Thou dost it
Thou drawst it
Thou seest it
-----------------
Thou dost not do it
Thou dost not draw it
Thou dost not see it
-----------------
Dost thou not do it
Dost thou not draw it
Dost thou not see it
-----------------
Is there any way to say "dost + not" altogether like "don't"?

And is it correct what I wrote?


----------



## lingobingo

You might be interested in this earlier thread: Conjugation with thou & ye — and the link in it suggested by Loob: Thou - Wikipedia


----------



## Uncle Jack

TroubleEnglish said:


> Okay, let's create Present Simple sentences
> 
> Thou dost it
> Thou drawst it
> Thou seest it


You are doing things the wrong way round. First, think what you want to say, then ask about how to say it. Although all these sentences might have the correct present indicative second person singular verb form, when would you ever use the present indicative in this way? In ordinary modern English, with "you", these are imperatives ("You do it", etc), and, as far as I know, second person singular imperatives use the same base form of the verb as the second person plural ("Get thee to a nunnery", _Hamlet _Act 3 Scene 1). 

Curiously, the older Middle English forms apparently used -e or -eth for the second person plural imperative but the base verb for the singular.


----------



## PaulQ

I suspect that the "not" went to the end of the clause:
Thou dost do it not
Thou dost draw it not
Thou dost see it not.

There is also the problem of the periphrastic "do" which, prior to about 1500 was less common in statements and questions than those examples with it1, thus

Thou dost it not -> Dost thou it not?
Thou drawest it not -> Drawest thou it not?
Thou seest it not. -> Seest thou it not?

1"The Rise of Auxiliary DO‐Verb Raising or Category‐Strengthening?"  Richard Hudson. First published: 17 December 2002 (https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968X.00012 - pdf download.)


----------



## TroubleEnglish

PaulQ said:


> I suspect that the "not" went to the end of the clause:
> Thou dost do it not
> Thou dost draw it not
> Thou dost see it not.
> 
> There is also the problem of the periphrastic "do" which, prior to about 1500 was less common in statements and questions than those examples with it1, thus
> 
> Thou dost it not -> Dost thou it not?
> Thou drawest it not -> Drawest thou it not?
> Thou seest it not. -> Seest thou it not?
> 
> 1"The Rise of Auxiliary DO‐Verb Raising or Category‐Strengthening?"  Richard Hudson. First published: 17 December 2002 (https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968X.00012 - pdf download.)



But is there any normal book of that time's grammar?

How to create all Tenses? 

Present Perfect - "*Thou hast done?* Or *"thou hast doneth"* or somehow else...

How to say something in Continuous? *"Thou art goingest"*? Or how?

I need the conjugation


----------



## JulianStuart

TroubleEnglish said:


> But is there any normal book of that time's grammar?


Do you have a specific time in mind?  This is a subject that will requires study on your part, not listings in the forum!
Middle English - Wikipedia has pronouns and conjugations etc as a starting point and I'm sure there are text books available, once you decide on a time.


----------



## AnythingGoes

TroubleEnglish said:


> Present Perfect - "*Thou hast done?* Or *"thou hast doneth"* or somehow else...
> 
> How to say something in Continuous? *"Thou art goingest"*?


The compound tenses used the same conjugation in the second-person singular as anywhere else. Present perfect: conjugate "to have" and add the bare infinitive. Present simple continuous: conjugate "to be" and add the present participle.


----------



## TroubleEnglish

AnythingGoes said:


> The compound tenses used the same conjugation in the second-person singular as anywhere else. Present perfect: conjugate "to have" and add the bare infinitive. Present simple continuous: conjugate "to be" and add the present participle.


You mean

Present Perfect for *'Thou"* is:

*Thou hast done *?

Present Continuous for *'Thou"* is:

*Thou art doing *?

Honestly, I have seen no usage of continuous tense in all materials I found about the archaic English...


----------



## Uncle Jack

TroubleEnglish said:


> But is there any normal book of that time's grammar?


I am sure there are several, but there are some online resources as well. From your posts, it seems you are most interested in early modern English (1500-1680 or thereabouts), although the second person singular had more or less disappeared before the end of this period. Do a web search for "early modern English grammar".

I would not recommend going back to Middle English, if all you are interested in is the second person singular.


----------



## AnythingGoes

TroubleEnglish said:


> You mean
> 
> Present Perfect for *'Thou"* is:
> 
> *Thou hast done *?
> 
> Present Continuous for *'Thou"* is:
> 
> *Thou art doing *?


Yes. The OED has a nice summary of early modern English grammar here.


----------



## Uncle Jack

TroubleEnglish said:


> *Thou art doing *?
> 
> Honestly, I have seen no usage of continuous tense in all materials I found about the archaic English...


I agree. I cannot recall any examples of the present progressive in this time period, although the present participle certainly existed. Shakespeare used the present simple where we would now use the present continuous:
O, I die, Horatio (_Hamlet_, act 5 scene 2)​


----------



## Hermione Golightly

To hear what Shakespeare's English sounded like. look for the YouTube videos produced by the language expert David Crystal and his actor son Ben. One of the most noticeable features is the rhotic R, still found in some regional accents. There have been several productions using the pronunciation of the period. The language changed in various aspects as much then as it has in the past century. It would be the RP of the time. Quite possibly a Northumbrian peasant would be as uncomprehending as incomprehensible.


----------



## RM1(SS)

Chasint said:


> My book is here
> *Thy* book is here
> His/her book is here
> Our book is here
> Your book is here
> Their book is here


My ox is here
*Thine* ox is here
His/her ox is here
Our ox is here
Your ox is here
Their ox is here


----------



## Chasint

RM1(SS) said:


> My ox is here
> *Thine* ox is here
> His/her ox is here
> Our ox is here
> Your ox is here
> Their ox is here



Yes, 'thine' before a vowel. But it should also be, 'mine ox' for the same reason.



> *Genesis 30:25*   And it came to pass, when Rachel had born Joseph, that Jacob said unto Laban, Send me away, that I may go unto* mine *own place, and to *my* country.


----------



## TroubleEnglish

Uncle Jack said:


> I agree. I cannot recall any examples of the present progressive in this time period, although the present participle certainly existed. Shakespeare used the present simple where we would now use the present continuous:
> O, I die, Horatio (_Hamlet_, act 5 scene 2)​



So, if English now has 16 Tenses, English then had at least 8, if they didn't have any Continuous.  This way, they had only:

*Simple - Future, Present, Past + Future in the Past
Perfect - Future, Present, Past + Future in the Past*

Right?

_*Thou wilt\shalt do
Thou dost
Thou didst

Thou wilt\shalt have done
Thou hast done
Thou hadst done

Thou wouldst do
Thou wouldst have done*_

Is it correct?


----------



## Chasint

Looks good. Don't forget _*Thou shouldst do, Thou shouldst have done*_


----------



## TroubleEnglish

Chasint said:


> Looks good. Don't forget _*Thou shouldst do, Thou shouldst have done*_


Oh, yes, thank you!

But also I have such a problem.

If we have *"know"* we do add *"est"* = *"knowest"*. If it's *"think"*, we add *"est"* = *"thinkest"*. But if it's *"did"*, we add *"st"* = *"didst"*, not *"didest"*. What is the rule for adding *"est"* or *"st"*. It's not about vowel or consonants, as I can see from here.


----------



## Chasint

It's not that simple unfortunately. Shakespeare for example is inconsistent. He uses both "knowst" and "knowest". This is because at the time of the Bard, English was undergoing considerable changes. The Bible however, only uses "knowest"

I suggest you use online resources to find out for yourself, e.g.

Shakespeare: Open Source Shakespeare: search Shakespeare's works, read the texts

Bible (King James version): OFFICIAL KING JAMES BIBLE ONLINE: AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION (KJV)

You can search for a given word and see how it is used in context.


----------



## RM1(SS)

Chasint said:


> But it should also be, 'mine ox' for the same reason.


Oops....


----------



## TroubleEnglish

Chasint said:


> It's not that simple unfortunately. Shakespeare for example is inconsistent. He uses both "knowst" and "knowest". This is because at the time of the Bard, English was undergoing considerable changes. The Bible however, only uses "knowest"
> 
> I suggest you use online resources to find out for yourself, e.g.
> 
> Shakespeare: Open Source Shakespeare: search Shakespeare's works, read the texts
> 
> Bible (King James version): OFFICIAL KING JAMES BIBLE ONLINE: AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION (KJV)
> 
> You can search for a given word and see how it is used in context.



Thank you!

And also about reading all of these words.

*Knowest* is *[nouest]* or *[nouist]*?
*Didst* is *[didst]* or *[ditst]*?
*Spokest* is *[spoukest]*, *[spoukist]* or even *[spoukst]*?

How can I check the pronunciation or have an rule if there are any of them existing at all...?


----------



## DonnyB

TroubleEnglish said:


> Thank you!
> 
> And also about reading all of these words.
> 
> *Knowest* is *[nouest]* or *[nouist]*?
> *Didst* is *[didst]* or *[ditst]*?
> *Spokest* is *[spoukest]*, *[spoukist]* or even *[spoukst]*?
> 
> How can I check the pronunciation or have an rule if there are any of them existing at all...?


I'm not sure anybody really knows: it's not as if there are any surviving voice recordings.

If I have to occasion read them out loud in prayers, which is the only time I'd ever need to pronounce them, I just use the modern pronunciation.


----------



## Chasint

Difficult to say. There was no way of recording voices back then! Also grammar, spelling and pronunciation changed. Have a look at this article in Wikipedia.



> *The Great Vowel Shift*
> The Great Vowel Shift was a series of changes in the pronunciation of the English language that took place primarily between 1350 and the 1600s and 1700s, beginning in southern England and today having influenced effectively all dialects of English. Through this vowel shift, all Middle English long vowels changed their pronunciation.
> Great Vowel Shift - Wikipedia



As to a good guess as to the actual sounds, have a look at the suggestion by in #41 by Hermione Golightly.


----------



## PaulQ

Hermione Golightly said:


> To hear what Shakespeare's English sounded like. look for the YouTube videos produced by the language expert David Crystal and his actor son Ben. One of the most noticeable features is the rhotic R, still found in some regional accents.


I've just watched the Open University's presentation, by Ben Crystal, on the English accent with which Shakespeare would have spoken - it is very much the "Oo-Aaar" accent much favoured in films by pirates (Think "Pirates of the Caribbean"). The best approximation is probably an accent somewhere around Gloucester although this would have been modified by the length of time Shakespeare spent in London.

Another point of interest he makes is that the speech of the plays was delivered far faster than today's "declamatory verse" would have us believe. Ben Crystal points out that Romeo and Juliet has the lines
"The fearful passage of their death-mark'd love,
    And the continuance of their parents' rage,
    Which, but their children's end, naught could remove,
    Is now the *two hours'* traffic of our stage;

Whereas a modern production takes nearer 3 hours.


----------

