makis:orthohawk: I have been trying to research the use of thee/thou/etc as a prescription of Eastern Orthodox so I won't have some ilinformed opinion but my search has been fruitless and I'm more confused than ever!

Is there some literature you can point me to advocating its use?

The most confusing aspect is why use thee/thou/etc but not retain any of the other old styles of word choice and word spelling?

Plain Speech has nothing to do with Orthodoxy. My adoption of it is in honor of a couple of ancestors and my wish to speak truthfully in all my dealings (using a plural form for singular addressees is not truthful speaking)
As to why use thee, etc and no other "quirks" one might as well ask why use -s on the third person when the pronoun used indicates the person doing the action thus making the -s superfluous: it's just the way it's done.

orthohawk:
I don't understand what there is to be confused about: "Thee" is both subject and object, it is used with what is actually the original 2nd person form of the verb, which happens to look like the modern third person.

I saw what you said but it didn't make sense to me. I don't know what you mean by "original". It seems like the last time that this kind of speaking was in vogue, a distinction was made between subject and object (like in the King James Bible). It seems like you are choosing an arbitrary moment in history and calling its usage "correct" and the other moments in history "wrong"? And if you can arbitrarily choose a moment in history and call this "right" and that "wrong" (like how the same form is used for subject and object forms in modern English), then why don't you also follow the evolution of the language, which has dropped a specific singular "you" pronoun in favor of a single pronoun for both singular and plural, just as modern English uses a single pronoun for both subject and object forms?

Honestly it would make more sense to me if you said "I chose arbitrarily because this is how I want to talk", and I'd stop asking. But you seem to have an internal logic behind it and this internal logic escapes me completely.

erinja:
Honestly it would make more sense to me if you said "I chose arbitrarily because this is how I want to talk", and I'd stop asking. But you seem to have an internal logic behind it and this internal logic escapes me completely.

Look like it's a Quaker thing:

Plain Speech etc.

Later, as "thee" and "thou" disappeared from everyday English usage, many Quakers continued to use these words as a form of "plain speech", though the original reason for this usage disappeared, along with "hath". In the twentieth century, "thou hath" disappeared, along with the associated second-person verb forms, so that "thee is" is normal. Today there are still Friends that will use "thee" with other Quakers.

Bruso:Look like it's a Quaker thing:

Plain Speech etc.

I understand the idea of using a singular as being a Quaker thing. But the earliest Quakers didn't use thee only, they used both thou and thee appropriately according to the normal grammar of those words. So it almost looks like whoever decided to start using "thee" only perhaps didn't have a good grasp of how the old grammar worked and didn't know how to use thou and thee, so they took the easy choice of "thee" only?

erinja:I understand the idea of using a singular as being a Quaker thing. But the earliest Quakers didn't use thee only, they used both thou and thee appropriately according to the normal grammar of those words. So it almost looks like whoever decided to start using "thee" only perhaps didn't have a good grasp of how the old grammar worked and didn't know how to use thou and thee, so they took the easy choice of "thee" only?

Did you read the quote below the link? It says Quakers dropped "thou" and "-st" in the 20th century. It doesn't say why. But it's not something orthohawk made up on his own.

erinja:
I saw what you said but it didn't make sense to me. I don't know what you mean by "original". It seems like the last time that this kind of speaking was in vogue, a distinction was made between subject and object (like in the King James Bible). It seems like you are choosing an arbitrary moment in history and calling its usage "correct" and the other moments in history "wrong"? And if you can arbitrarily choose a moment in history and call this "right" and that "wrong" (like how the same form is used for subject and object forms in modern English), then why don't you also follow the evolution of the language, which has dropped a specific singular "you" pronoun in favor of a single pronoun for both singular and plural, just as modern English uses a single pronoun for both subject and object forms?

Honestly it would make more sense to me if you said "I chose arbitrarily because this is how I want to talk", and I'd stop asking. But you seem to have an internal logic behind it and this internal logic escapes me completely.

Frankly I don't give a rat's patoot if it makes sense to anyone. It is how I speak. That anyone feels that they are entitled to any explanation why another person does anything that does not harm another or infringe on another's rights is rather unsettling to this Libertarian.

By "original" I mean the form in earliest Old English as evinced by manuscript evidence from the north of England, which incidentally has been continuously used and is still being used by some people in some areas of the English speaking world.
I never called any point in history "wrong" or "right." Grammar-wise, there is in reality no such thing as "right" or "wrong"; it's all just a widely accepted social construct. One thing that IS wrong, from an ontological reality standpoint is using a plural pronoun to a single person. As I have tried patiently to explain, this is speaking untruthfully, which I have chosen to try my best to abstain from for the future. I don't use this aspect of Plain Speech because "the Quakers did it"; I couldn't care less what they did or "how they did it" (hence my not using the numbered day and month calendar they used: I go ahead and use the pagan names; it's not an issue) or actually why they did it. It just so happens that the one aspect of Plain Speech coincides with my method of achieving theosis and it also fits very well with the language (old and archaic as it is).
Now, if everyone is done prying into my personal and spiritual life (and even if they aren't), it would be much appreciated if people would keep any further commentary (judgmental and non) to themselves. Frankly I tire of it. (and please let's be grownup and not descend into the "well, if you don't like the commentary, don't talk like that" bull pucky. I'm sure none of us here comments on every little aspect of everyone else's personality; I expect the same courtesy.)

erinja:

Bruso:Look like it's a Quaker thing:

Plain Speech etc.

I understand the idea of using a singular as being a Quaker thing. But the earliest Quakers didn't use thee only, they used both thou and thee appropriately according to the normal grammar of those words. So it almost looks like whoever decided to start using "thee" only perhaps didn't have a good grasp of how the old grammar worked and didn't know how to use thou and thee, so they took the easy choice of "thee" only?

I don't think this is a question anyone will ever be able to give a definitive answer to. Afterall, I doubt anyone would be able to give an equally definitive an answer to the same question regarding "ye/you" either, especially since, by even the late OE period, all the plural forms were the same, there was no issue of "not having a good grasp of how the old grammar worked."

orthohawk:Frankly I don't give a rat's patoot if it makes sense to anyone. It is how I speak. That anyone feels that they are entitled to any explanation why another person does anything that does not harm another or infringe on another's rights is rather unsettling to this Libertarian.

I apologize.

I thought I remembered you saying in an earlier thread that if someone had a question about the way you speak, they should simply ask you rather than making assumptions. When you repeatedly posted with discussions of your reasoning, I made the incorrect assumption that you wished to explain your reasoning to others. I apologize for assuming wrongly, and I will stop asking additional questions. Your reasoning is not my business, and I will no longer ask, nor attempt to understand.

erinja:

orthohawk:Frankly I don't give a rat's patoot if it makes sense to anyone. It is how I speak. That anyone feels that they are entitled to any explanation why another person does anything that does not harm another or infringe on another's rights is rather unsettling to this Libertarian.

I apologize.

I thought I remembered you saying in an earlier thread that if someone had a question about the way you speak, they should simply ask you rather than making assumptions. When you repeatedly posted with discussions of your reasoning, I made the incorrect assumption that you wished to explain you reasoning to others. I apologize for assuming wrongly, and I will stop asking additional questions. Your reasoning is not my business, and I will no longer ask, nor attempt to understand.

No need to apologize. In reality, I don't mind explaining in a concise way. It's when, after I've explained, it descends into harping on the why's, wherefore's of it all with accompanying declarations of grammar mistakes (which are actually NOT mistakes). That's when it gets to the point where I want to scream in frustration. What I usually do is say something on the lines of "This is the way I speak. If thee doesn't like it, thee is more than welcome to refrain from talking to me at all." Maybe I should have just started with that and been done with it, because frankly I don't give a rat's patoot if someone (falsely) believes I'm being wrong. I know otherwise and that's all there is to it, but sometimes I slip into "teacher mode" and can't help myself.

orthohawk:Plain Speech has nothing to do with Orthodoxy. My adoption of it is in honor of a couple of ancestors and my wish to speak truthfully in all my dealings (using a plural form for singular addressees is not truthful speaking)

Well, the reason I asked about Eastern Orthodox was because in an earlier post, you said it violated a religious belief. Which is why I checked out your profile and tried to do my due diligence before commenting.

And the reason I did is because - besides religious prescription of some sort and the evidence posted for the avoidance of using ci - I think this whole (15 page!) thread might (just might!) be boiled down to the old proscriptive/descriptive debate of language and grammar.

So, maybe the question here is which side do you fall on?