Digit wrote:But in the Philippines, which has had Spanish influence for quite a long time, you never hear Filipinos use the informal 'ikaw' for 'you.' They always use the formal 'kayo' with copious use of the honorofic 'po' in practically every sentence during a prayer.
Huh.
Story time: I once knew a guy who'd served a mission in Brazil who had his Portuguese formal/informal pronouns switched. He used them correctly, he just thought he was using formal pronouns in prayer and informal pronouns with everyone else in the world, I guess. (To be fair, missionaries don't address very many people with informal pronouns, so for him the distinction would have been basically "God vs. everyone else." However, he must not have ever notice adults addressing little kids with "formal" pronouns.)
Katya wrote:
Yes, except that I'm not convinced that we use "thee or thou" to show respect. I think we use it because we've always used it and the "respect" justification is a more recent development. (Actually, maybe I should research this. It could be interesting.)
I agree that it's a post-hoc rationalization for why we do things a certain way. My guess is that most Methodists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians in the early 1800s used thee and thou, so Mormons did too.
Core point being though, Mormons come to exact opposite conclusions (whether to use very formal or very personal language) based on the same rationalization (to remind us of where we stand in relation to God).
I absolutely agree with your larger point (that sometimes we use the same rationale to take different actions). I still don't think that post hoc rationalizations are a good example of that, because the action comes first and the rationale comes later. (E.g., I'm not convinced that "remind[ing] us of where we stand in relation to God" isn't also post hoc. I certainly never made that connection when I was growing up.)
I wonder, do most language tend to use the opposite of the "normal" language? I only use formal in prayer, so it draws my attention to it. In languages that use the informal in prayer, do they often use formal in daily language?
Dragon Lady wrote:I wonder, do most language tend to use the opposite of the "normal" language? I only use formal in prayer, so it draws my attention to it. In languages that use the informal in prayer, do they often use formal in daily language?
In French you would. You'd use it with teachers, your boss, (adult) strangers, and probably with coworkers as well. Kids would use it with pretty much any adults who weren't relatives. (And, again, if you don't use "thee" and "thou" in any other formal situations, how do you know that they are formal pronouns? Why not call them "prayer pronouns" or "archaic pronouns" or "weird pronouns"?)
Whistler wrote:wait, I thought thee and thou used to be the familiar pronouns?
Exactly! (And they still are, for Quakers and the Amish.) But there have been some Mormon publications which wrongly referred to them as formal pronouns (although, to be fair, Elder Oaks didn't make that mistake in his talk on the subject).
English German French Welsh Russian
Informal thou du tu ti tyi
Formal ye Sie vous chi vyi
Notice that the informal pronouns all start with a dental sound (t/d/th). (The formal pronouns aren't as similar, although you can see the relationship between French "vous" and Russian "vyi.")
English German French Welsh Russian
Informal thou du tu ti tyi
Formal ye Sie vous chi vyi
Notice that the informal pronouns all start with a dental sound (t/d/th). (The formal pronouns aren't as similar, although you can see the relationship between French "vous" and Russian "vyi.")
And of course, so formal it doesn't even make the list; y'all.
I'd just like to say I've greatly enjoyed the direction this has gone; thank you.
He who knows others is clever;
He who knows himself has discernment.
He who overcomes others has force;
He who overcomes himself is strong. 33:1-4
Other potential cultural influences that contradict out of the same desire: prayer with hats off/on (maybe hands folded vs upraised vs other as a sister to this), respect of Diety by avoiding / seeking out the use of his name, quiet somber hymns vs energetic spirited songs, striving to be spiritual in a visible manner vs avoiding public displays of theocentric affection.
Bottom line is: don't judge folks. I think we are often more alike than we like to think.
He who knows others is clever;
He who knows himself has discernment.
He who overcomes others has force;
He who overcomes himself is strong. 33:1-4
I think the history of the Mormon language of prayer is very much affected by American societal norms throughout history, the distinct usage of the King James Bible in modern revelation and scripture (including revealed prayers that must be repeated verbatim for ordinances), the hierarchical structure of church leadership, and all sorts of other things.
For example, it was common practice not too many generations ago to call your father "Sir," while I think most people in our generation would find that sort of formality completely unsuited to the familial environment. But if I was calling my Earthly father "Sir," I'd certainly find it odd not to offer the same respect to my Heavenly Father.
While we no longer use a formal register with our parents, we do use Brother/Sister [last name] at church, often with people we are quite familiar with. The Bishop gets a fixed title of respect. This feeds into our expectation that the further up the hierarchy, the more formal our interaction needs to be. Thus, God, at the height of the priesthood hierarchy, will need to be spoken to formally.
As for Thou being the "formal", that comes from the fact that it's usage is archaic for most people, and only encountered in the Bible, Shakespeare, and other "serious" texts. Anyone paying close attention would of course notice that 'thou' in these texts is always used in informal contexts, but we shouldn't expect non-linguists to pay all that much attention to a distinction that the modern language no longer requires.
If you want a fun activity, though, look up the talk in General Conference that mentioned "thee" and "thou" are used because they are "formal" and see how they handled it in translation. Some languages just left the passage out entirely, others said "In English..." and then translated it into the respective formal and informal pronouns.
Yarjka wrote:I think the history of the Mormon language of prayer is very much affected by American societal norms throughout history . . . we no longer use a formal register with our parents . . .
So why wouldn't that current social informality transfer over to our prayer (assuming we think of God as a parent)? I.e., if it's social norms that are driving the language of prayer, why aren't we matching current social norms of informality?
Last edited by Katya on Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Yarjka wrote:I think the history of the Mormon language of prayer is very much affected by American societal norms throughout history . . . we no longer use a formal register with our parents . . .
So why wouldn't that current social informality transfer over to our prayer (assuming we think of God as a parent)? I.e., if it's social norms that are driving the language of prayer, why aren't we matching current social norms of informality?
I think religious traditions in general don't change as quickly as social norms.
Yarjka wrote:I think the history of the Mormon language of prayer is very much affected by American societal norms throughout history . . . we no longer use a formal register with our parents . . .
So why wouldn't that current social informality transfer over to our prayer (assuming we think of God as a parent)? I.e., if it's social norms that are driving the language of prayer, why aren't we matching current social norms of informality?
I think religious traditions in general don't change as quickly as social norms.
Particularly among Mormons. We are a snapshot of an 1800s religion in modern day America; we've adapted and changed with the times much more hesitantly than other church. We have retained certain unique characteristics, often at the behest of leaders or cultural pressure, that reflect different eras of history. The Church has a much stronger institutional memory than most church, primarily because it is particularly institutional.
I feel like that is true in some ways, and not so much in others. As a church, we might be the most embracing of new technologies among the large churches.
As far as "adapting to the times." I'd be interested in hearing in what ways the church has and hasn't done that, wired, so that I can understand a bit better where you are coming from.
On the subject of things perceived by some to be anachronistic, I just think it's funny how lawyers (barristers) in England still wear little white wigs on their heads.
Fredjikrang wrote:I feel like that is true in some ways, and not so much in others. As a church, we might be the most embracing of new technologies among the large churches.
As far as "adapting to the times." I'd be interested in hearing in what ways the church has and hasn't done that, wired, so that I can understand a bit better where you are coming from.
Let me be clear I'm not advocating we should "adapt to the times" in every aspect. I am just highlighting that, culturally, we're a weird mush of a church that has unique characteristics that reflect a patchwork adoption of different chronological cultures. For example, we are a distinct minority in the way we run our services and the music we sing. General Conferences were a common church practice in the early 1800s, but went "out of style" with most churches in the late 1800s, while the Church was secluded in Utah.
(The list doesn't include "ihr," either. And that German dual pronoun that I always forget. "Enk," maybe?)
