Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2015 January 9

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 9

’In real terms'

A BBC article says that spending by the NHS on mental health care for children has dropped by 6% 'in real terms'. What does 'in real terms' mean, if it is not to clarify that it is not 'in fake terms' or 'surreal terms'? Is the phrase even necessary? Is it just added so the freelance writer can get his word count up? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 00:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

'In real terms' = adjusted for inflation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

KageTora -- The opposite of "real" in this context is "nominal"... AnonMoos (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

After some searching, I found Accounting for Inflation – Deflators, or “What Does ‘Prices in Real Terms’ Actually Mean?”, should you wish to know the actual mechanics of the thing. Alansplodge (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Why "justice" and "France" don't have articles?

Hi,
I've noticed that in French you say "La France" while in English you say France.
Furthermore, I've remembered that in French you say "La justice" while in English, well, it is just "justice".
My question, is why?01:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exx8 (talk • contribs)

There is an article on Justice and one on France. We don't need a definite article in English for concepts or place names. Mars, for example, is not called 'The Mars'. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 01:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Still often "the Earth", though. And "The James Krause". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

True, and The Moon, despite the fact that we actually have six of them. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 02:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the article from the Earth article (half a megabyte), but doubt it will last. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Wait, what? There are other moons of Earth? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Anything orbiting (or following - which is what they are essentially are doing) a planet and not man-made is called a Moon. In addition, some scientists are proposing the idea that the Earth-Moon relationship is actually a double planetary system, as the Moon we know of is actually very large in comparison to its host partner. Other planets have tiny moons compared to the size of the host. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 02:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I see. I've always called the virtually invisible things natural satellites, but that article backs you up. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

As for the Earth article, following a brief war between a tetra quark and a space potato, the forcefield went up and "Earth" is safe again, at least indefinitely. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Presumably the others are non-lunar, or illunar, moons. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The place the OP needs to read is French articles and determiners and English articles. With a few exceptions, French pretty much requires an article or a determiner before every noun. French just doesn't have nouns without some form of determiner before them (excepting personal names). English uses articles much less often, with different rules for when to use them. The two articles I linked do a pretty good job of explaining the differences. --Jayron32 02:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• KT gives the right answer, but in American French class taught in English it is explained that abstractions, like la justice require articles. It's the same in most if not all Romance languages, for example, Spanish, la justicia. There's even La Lupe, while English merely has Cher. μηδείς (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• • • Indeed, but with a small handful of exceptions such as The Donald Pine (talk) 06:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• • English does use "the" in some contexts before words like Justice, but leaves off articles in contexts dealing with any noun in the abstract. "She did not get the justice she deserved" is grammatically fine, as is "Justice should be given to all" Other nouns work no different than Justice does here. "She did not get the gifts she wanted" vs. "Gifts should be given on birthdays" The use of the definite article with justice is as consistent as it is with other nouns. Its just that English follows different rules than does French for using articles, for example French would use articles in all four of those sentences. See the Wikipedia texts I linked above for more information. --Jayron32 02:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is an interesting question. We would say 'she got the justice she deserved', but this would mean a certain type of justice. 'Justice shall be given to all' would mean a number of different justices meted out to each individual, and therefore not specific. It's called a definite article for a reason - it defines a specific thing. This is how it is used in English. French is different, as they attach definite articles to most nouns. Also, there is no point in comparing English to French, as the two languages are more like cousins than brothers, in linguistic terms. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 02:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

We use toilet paper, they use the paper toilets. But we're all straightforward about (the) toilet papering. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

(I took the liberty of ending the "small" tag). Pine (talk) 06:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Ou est le papier!? Alansplodge (talk)

Conditional tenses of "can," "may," and "ought."

Greetings!

Recently, I have—rather vociferously—argued the issue of past-tense generalization in the English language. Namely, while the language (to widely varying degrees) distinguishes between present tenses by person and number, present participles, and the difference between the present indicative and subjunctive, it tends to adopt a "one size fits all" model for all past forms. This strikes me as particularly the case in certain, modal auxiliaries.

e.g. "Can"

Non-past Forms
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Present Indicative: I can easily walk ten miles. Present Subjunctive: I'll transport the groceries to his house, provided that I be able to walk ten miles. Future Indicative: I shall be able to walk ten miles, as I soon as I buy some new trainers. Present Participle: Whilst being able to walk ten miles, I also had no problem text-messaging my friends. Imperative: Be able to walk ten miles, soldier, or you will not graduate from boot camp!

Past Forms
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Past Indicative: She could bake our favorite dessert, before her oven broke. Past Subjunctive: She would bake our favorite dessert, if he could. Past Participle: Before her oven broke, she had been able to bake our favorite dessert.

My question relates to the conditional tenses of "can," "may," and "ought": I myself have always maintained that (due to past-tense generalization) they are simply "could," "might," and "ought," respectively.

Past Indicative:	You could finish your homework, yesterday.
Conditional Indicative:	If you didn't play video games so much, then you could finish your homework, on time.

Several English professors, though, have told me that by substituting a periphrase, one creates a far more proper and readable sentence.

Past Indicative:	You could finish your homework, yesterday.
Conditional Indicative:	If you didn't play video games so much, then you would be able finish your homework, on time.

Now I, for one, find the latter needlessly verbose and pedantic, but it seems as though I'm in the minority. What do you think?

If one asked the wikipedia reference desk, then could he receive a well-reasoned, rational response? Or, would he be able to?

Pine (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I really don't think you understand what "subjunctive" means in relation to English. AnonMoos (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Or "modal". You're not ready to be theorizing about English grammar, yet. Your time would be better spent reading good contemporary literature and modeling your speech and writing on them, and to listening better when "several English professors" correct you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

There's one obvious error in all your examples - extraneous commas. (Am I right in thinking your native language is German?) The only commas that are necessary in English are those around "soldier"; those in the other "Non-Past forms" section are acceptable but optional, and all the rest are positively wrong. On the sentences in your specific question, note that the distinction between the continuous and simple is maintained in the past tense - "I could finish my homework yesterday", although not ungrammatical, isn't something a native speaker would say. "I could have finished my homework yesterday" would give the meaning you're aiming for. An example of the simple past would be "I could walk yesterday, but this morning I sprained my ankle." However, "could" and "would be able" are indeed interchangable in your last example. A couple of extra points - you should use "one" rather than "he" (or "someone" rather than the first "one") in your last sentence, and pedantry would prescribe "you shall not graduate" in the "boot camp" sentence. Tevildo (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

On/At the weekend

Hi there!
What is more correct: on the weekend or at the weekend?
Thank you for your answer!
JoAnViSu (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

In British English, we say at the weekend exclusively. I'm sure a US editor will tell us the correct form "over there". Alansplodge (talk) 10:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Over here (North America), it's always on. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

In summary, it depends whether you're speaking English or American. I believe it's 'on' in Australia as well. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

English or American? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Adding to Alansplodge's note above, in British English you'll also find "over" and "for": I'm going out to dinner at the weekend; I'm going away for the weekend; I have people staying at my house over the weekend. Which to use is not strictly defined. Again, some American, Canadian, Australian or other may tell us about different usage in their version of English. Bazza (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"over the weekend" and "for the weekend" mean "during the entire weekend" though. "On the weekend" (as I would say in Canada) means "at some point on Saturday or Sunday" but not necessarily for the whole two days. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Why no "off board"?

I'm sitting in the transit lounge at Changi Airport and whiling away the hours by thinking important thoughts and posing to myself inspiring and challenging questions, as one does. Let me share such a question with you, my esteemed colleagues.

How come we say that someone is "on board" a plane, train or whatever, but someone who's not on board is not said to be "off board"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Presumably because the logical alternative to being "on board" (i.e. on board a ship, which is where the idiom comes from) does not represent a single, coherent state, but a combination of very different possible states: a person who is not "on board" might be "overboard" (i.e. fallen into the water), or "outboard" (clinging on to the ship from the outside), or on land, or on some other ship, or whatever else. I suppose the functional pressure to find a single idiomatic expression covering all of these is not very great. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

wikt:offboard does exist as a verb, the opposite of "board". But not "off board" in the way you are talking about. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a chicken and egg issue, Adam. Does the word not exist because we have no use for it, or do we not use the word because it doesn't exist? Often, the fact of the non-existence of a word doesn't stop someone from breathing it into existence. But I guess the take-out from FPS, AM and AS's comments is that there is no need for this particular expression "off board". (Someone should compile a list of all the words and expressions that haven't been created yet, so that word creators would have something useful to focus on.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason why an expression "off board" should not find a use.
All the passengers are now off board. = All the passengers have now disembarked.
Any passengers still off board should make their way to the gate immediately.
109.156.50.178 (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm with you, but it seems nobody else has ever gone down that road. Maybe we should start a movement or something. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

In some contexts, "on board" contrasts with "on shore"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

In an article that I wrote about a ship (can't remember which one), another editor deleted my "on board" and replaced it with "aboard". Some folks have nothing better to do. Alansplodge (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

See also wikt:outboard: "Situated outside the hull of a vessel."--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

xxxiii = chips?

Anno imperii nostro xxxiii is, unless all my schooling has been thrown away, mediaeval Latin for "in the 33rd year of our reign". Google Translate prefers to render it "the power of our chips". I can see how imperii came out as "power", I can see why it might give up anno as a bad job, but what could GT possibly have previously read that would suggest to it that xxxiii meant "chips"? Any ideas what's going on here? --Antiquary (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It's all a bit odd. On pasting your Latin phrase into translate.google.com, I got "Year imperil our xxxiii". However on translate.google.co.uk, I got "Year of our chips", but by entering the Roman numeral in capital letters, the result was "Year of our 33". The British site seems to ignore imperii altogether. Alansplodge (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's very odd. My Google detects the phrase as Italian to give the first result on both .com and .co.uk. and the second result on both when it later decided it was Latin. Do machines have moods? Dbfirs 17:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the multi-lingual elves who work at Google get slapdash on a Friday afternoon. Alansplodge (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Bear in mind, GT is often edited by users, rather like Wikipedia, so sometimes it will be correct, sometimes slightly wrong, and sometimes complete gibberish, so, as a professional translator, I would never trust it for a complete phrase or sentence, but maybe just for the odd word I either don't recognize or am having that "it's on the tip of my tongue" moment. Anyway, if you Google "xxxiii chips", you will get over 2 million results, the first one being for something called Pizza Sam's, which apparently sells 'chips & dips xxxiii', whatever that is. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 18:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Assuming it's editable by users, and that users may sometimes vandalize it, is it possible for sincere users to come in and correct it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

After a translate, the right box contains a pencil symbol. Click that and you are allowed to enter a better translation. I've done so for this phrase, but I don't know whether it affects everyone immediately or just me. Unless Google Translate is smarter than it seems, it will only affect that exact phrase, exclusive of 33rd other things, for example. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I tried that, but, after closing the window and trying the translation again from scratch, Google still came up with Year of our chips. Perhaps if thousands of us make the correction it might learn? Dbfirs 19:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

For the phrase Anno imperii nostro xxxiii (which was wrongly identified as Italian, so I changed it to Latin), I get 'Year of our chips' with 'Ezek', 'Jer' and 'Isa' being alternative translations for 'chips', which is the GT 'translation' for xxxiii. By the way, I would translate 'imperii' as 'of the empire', as 'regnum' means 'reign'. So the whole thing would be "In the 33rd year of our empire." KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 19:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

This is weird. I even tried a Japanese translation on GT, and it gave me 私たちのチップの年, which means 'the year of our chips'. Something is really wrong here, and I am actually laughing while I type this. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 19:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Latin -> Japanese almost certainly goes Latin -> English -> Japanese. 109.156.50.178 (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

When I follow my original link I'm still getting "the year power of our chips", chaps. When I get it to translate the Latin into French it gives me la puissance de nos puces, "the power of our fleas", which I think is every bit as good. What sense of the word chips are you using when you translate the above Japanese for us, KageTora? Incidentally, I think you're being overly classical in translating imperii as "of the empire". I don't insist on "reign", but I would compromise on "in the 33rd year of our rule". This Mediaeval Latin wordlist backs me up. My Latin phrase is taken from a charter of Egbert of Wessex, a king rather than an emperor. --Antiquary (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Corrected the first sentence of the foregoing. It's been a long day.

(EC with Adam below) Mediaeval Latin is slightly different from the Classical Latin I learned at school, so I'll take your word for it. Anyway, the Japanese チップ (in the 'translated' sentence above) could mean either 'chip(s)' (no plural in Japanese for inaminate nouns) or 'tip', as in what you might give a waiter or bartender. If 'chips' (as it almost certainly is) it will be in the American sense of 'potato chips', and I guess the link I gave to that pizza place refers to something like doritos and salsa. I tried German, too, and it also gave me the English (and also German) word 'Chips'. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 21:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Most language-pair translations go through English, so a problem with Latin-to-English translation will affect most (if not all) translations from Latin.

Google Translate learns from a corpus of parallel texts, and this often leads to problems when the texts are not actually translations of one another. For example, country names may change, and "lorem ipsum" may turn into all kinds of crazy things, presumably because lorem ipsum text and English text often appear side by side. The "chips" mistranslation is funny enough that you should probably submit it to Language Log. -- BenRG (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that this another example of why Google Translate is terrible, at least for Latin, as I was vociferously arguing last week. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Google Translate is terrible for French too. Listening to a speech in French on a YouTube video with the Automatic Caption option on, always gives nonsense and always guarantees the absurd humor moment. Translating is NOT about literality, translating is all about interpreting correctly, placing oneself in the other's mindset and spirit. A machine cannot THINK, that's why a machine cannot translate. Akseli9 (talk) 09:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, in french "puce" can also mean "chip", the kind you have in your phone or computer: a microprocessor or microcontroller, an integrated circuit.Cfmarenostrum (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Anno imperii nostro ccxx — Year of our manned
Anno imperii nostro lxxiii — Year of our mud
Anno imperii nostro xci — Year of our dread
Anno imperii nostro dxx — Year of our equation
109.156.50.178 (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

That's marvellous! "Year of our Dread" deserves to be substituted for A.D. in the calendar system of some fantasy novel. It was worth trying 700 520 translations to come up with that list. --Antiquary (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Questions about punctuation in a prayer for Blessed Alfredo Ildefonso Schuster

Below is the collect prayer for Blessed Alfredo Ildefonso Schuster. I am trying to create a prayer card and want it to come out right. Hence, I have some questions about grammar and punctuation. Any insight is appreciated. Thanks.

Almighty God, through your grace, Blessed Alfredo Ildefonso Schuster, by his exemplary virtue, built up the flock entrusted to him. Grant that we, under the guidance of the Gospel, may follow his teaching and walk in sureness of life, until we come to see you face to face in your eternal kingdom. We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your son, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Question 1: Are the words "you" and "your" (referring to God) supposed to be lower-case or capitalized in a prayer? Or is it simply a stylistic preference? Question 2: In the very last sentence (before the "Amen"), should it be the single word "forever" or the two words "for ever"? Question 3: After the phrase "by his exemplary virtue", there is or is not supposed to be a comma? Question 4: After the phrase "walk in sureness of life", there is or is not supposed to be a comma? Question 5: Is the word "Gospel" capitalized or lower-case? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts:

• Question 1: It's a matter of stylistic preference. I recall reading in the introduction to the New International Version of the Bible that the original Aramaic, Greek and Latin texts of the Bible do not designate the pronouns used to refer to God in any special way. This was a later innovation. However, while the NIV decided not to do so, it's quite common to see such pronouns being capitalized these days.
• Question 2: For ever and ever is correct, I think. The writer is saying "for always" – ever and ever is being used as a synonym for all time or always.
• Question 3: A comma needs to be used here, because "by his exemplary virtue" is a parenthetical clause (or whatever it's called in grammatical terms) that adds additional information.
• Question 4: I think either including or omitting the comma is all right. It may be helpful to have a comma since this is a long sentence, and since it is in a prayer it would be good to provide an opportunity for people to take a breath.
• Question 5: Capitalizing Gospel seems right because it is a proper noun, being the name of a type of book of the Bible. But shouldn't it then be "Gospels", since there are four of them? Or is Gospel here being used to mean Jesus's message (i.e., the "good news") rather than the books of the Bible? In that case, perhaps gospel is more appropriate. I'm not sure about this last question – I look forward to hearing what other editors think.

— Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

As a catholic, I was taught that 'thou' (for 'you') and 'thy' (for 'your'), as well as 'thine' (for 'yours) were used when referring to God. They didn't need to be capitalized. See Our Father. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 08:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

This is probably also a stylistic convention, as I suspect the original languages didn't distinguish between the different pronouns. In fact, in early English translations of the Bible like the KJV pronouns like thou and thy were used throughout, not just to refer to God. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, I am quite interested in why English used (or even still uses) 'thou' when referring to God, as other Euro languages would use the second person plural, rather than the singular, to be more polite. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 09:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

IANAL (I am not a linguist) – could you explain? What is the "second person plural"? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll give you a clue - it's when you are talking about two young sheep, aka lambs of God, in fact. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 09:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

(AEC) See Grammatical person. The second person plural is "you" referring to more than one individual, and the verb forms that go with that. English used to have a distinct second person singular ("you" referring to one person), "thou", after which the verb usually ended in "-st", but it fell out of use in the early modern period, and survives only in religious speech. As for KägeTorä's question, in regular speech "thou" became familiar and "you" singular and plural formal, before "thou" fell out of use, but I understand that early English translations of the Bible ignored that T-V distinction and used "thou" and "you" as strictly singular and plural to accurately translate the Hebrew and Greek, which didn't have a T-V distinction. After "thou" stopped being used in regular speech, the only place people would have encountered it would be in a religious context, where they took it to be a formal form. Hence Darth Vader says "What is thy bidding?" to the Emperor in Star Wars. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Persons: 1st: I, me; we, us. 2nd: thou; thee; ye, you. 3rd: He, she, him, her; they, them.

I see. Or maybe not. So thou was used to refer to something singular, and you something plural? What about thee and ye? I had a look at the Wiktionary entries for thee and thou and there are references to nominative and objective cases which make me more confused than ever. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

See Grammatical case. But briefly, "case" is when a noun, pronoun or adjective takes a different form depending on its grammatical function. English only has cases in pronouns. "Nominative" is for the subject of a sentence, "objective" is for direct or indirect objects, "genitive" or "posessive" indicates a possessor. "I" is nominative, "me" is objective, "my" is possessive. "He" is nominative, "him" is objective, "his" is possessive. "They" is nominative, "them" is objective, "their" is possessive. You get the idea. Same thing applied to "thou" (nominative), "thee" (objective) and "thy" (possessive). --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, look at the pattern with I and me; he and him; she and her. I do something, but something is done to me (subject vs object). The same pattern applies to thou and thee (thou doest summet, but summet's done to thee (using my local dialect)) and originally to ye and you (ye do ... but something is done to you) but that distinction got very confused as time went on. Dbfirs 12:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thee and thou are still the familiar (not disrespectful) singular forms in my local dialect, though one doesn't hear them used often these days. The continental usage of the plural as a mark of respect was slow to catch on in English, and probably never reached isolated regions. English continues to use thee and thou for God because the King James version of the bible (and the Douay–Rheims Bible) did so (along with all singular persons being addressed). These bibles were a major influence on the English language. Dbfirs 09:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I lived in Yorkshire for six years (at uni at Leeds, at first, then just stayed). I noticed that 'tha' was used in place of 'thou' and 'thy', and "tha's' was used in place of 'thine' - as in, "That car, isn't that tha's?" That's an interesting innovation. Also, "Aye, tha be true" instead of 'Yes, thou art true", using the 'be' form of the copula throught. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 19:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

As I've discovered at the thou article, William Tyndale used "thou" simply as singular with no connotations of familiarity, the King James Bible followed Tyndale, and then the Revised Standard Version used "thou" only for God, and switched to "you" for everyone else. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

We still use the expression "holier-than-thou". From the above explanation of cases, it might seem more appropriate to say "holier-than-thee", but that would be contraindicated. "Holier-than-thou" is short for "holier-than-thou-art" (holier than you are). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting observation, but in the absence of the verb 'to be', wouldn't 'than' take an indirect object, so for example, 'than him' rather than 'than he'? Therefore, 'holier than thou' would actually be incorrect. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 19:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I seem to remember being taught (many years ago) that the verb to be doesn't take an object, but a complement. This "rule" seems to have fallen out of fashion. Dbfirs 20:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's a copula. But it's true, what you say. "I am him" is probably more likely to be used than "I am he", which is 'more correct'. But language changes. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 22:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's a relevant forum on "holier than thou", which also includes discussion of "fare thee well" and a note that Shakespeare used "fare thou well" in The Tempest. But nobody ever said "holier than thee" (expect perhaps the latter-day Shakespeare masquerading as User:Kage Tora).  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

'Fare' just means 'travel', so 'fare thou well' (i.e. may you travel safely) would be correct. 'Fare thee well', which is the modern version would be incorrect, unless Billy Wagglestaff was using a new innovative vocative. Oh, I'm a poet, and I didn't know it :) KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 00:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Wait, is it even true that "other Euro languages would use the second person plural, rather than the singular, to be more polite?" That's the opposite of what I've always heard, and the translations of the Lord's Prayer in the German, French, Spanish, and Italian Wikipedia articles all use the informal form. I thought that the use of thou was, as with those languages, an intentional choice to indicate the closeness and personal nature of the relationship with God. -Elmer Clark (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Shouldn't gospel be unencapitalized, since it is referring to "the good news" and not one of the four canonical books? Neither google nor Oxford capitalizes it in the generic sense used above. μηδείς (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I concur, for the most part, with JackLee above. 'The Gospel' here is meant to refer to the good news of salvation rather than one of the canonical gospels; capitalizing it is a way of suggesting it's uniqueness by turning it into a proper noun. As a general rule, I'd sprinkle commas through corporate prayer as much as is permissible, as it slows down the reading and makes it easier to read together (and to breath). GoldenRing (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you clarify that, Golden Ring? The canonical Gospels are unique, and hence proper nouns. Are you saying the reliable sources are wrong, and that as a Christian, one should always capitalize the word? What source or sect supports the view that gospel in general is capitalized, while the Gospels aren't? μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

No no. I'm saying that whoever capitalized the word in that specific instance was doing so as a sort of emphasis. I don't feel like I'm explaining this very well. There's a minority but significant tradition of doing this for emphasis in English literature, often for humorous effect (though clearly not in this case), such as describing someone as a Good Thing (eg 1066 and All That). I think it's a sort of Reverential capitalization, derived, as that article suggests, from the 18th c practice of capitalizing every noun. Note also that, while eg Gospel of Matthew is a proper noun, that has nothing to do with its being one of the canonical gospels; the Gospel of Thomas is equally a proper noun. None of that makes 'gospel' a proper noun except where it refers specifically to one of them; one would refer to the canonical gospels, not the canonical Gospels. GoldenRing (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, understood and agreed. μηδείς (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't argue with your grammar, however it would seem to a contentious issue. A search for "canonical gospels" (with the inverted commas) in Google Books reveals a fairly even split between published works that capitalise and those that don't. Alansplodge (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all. This was very helpful. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)