can I always put " ye " instead " the " ?


the question = ye question

the beatles = ye beatles


a second question is about " hath " . What is a difference between " hath " and " has " ?

You are confusing OLD English with NEW English.
These terms are not interchangeable, as you have suggested, although their means are broadly similar.

I think that difference between singular and plural is more clear with :

Thou / you

Thy / your


Doest thou agree ?

OK . In the case of multiple personality disorder " you " is acceptable . :P

OOOOOOOOOkay, there's some strange things going on here.

First of all, it's not really ye=the.
It was really þe which sounds like the, save the letter began to look like a y, and they started spelling it that way. It was a mistake. And that is from MIDDLE ENGLISH, not Old english.

Now, Has and Hath mean the same thing and in fact are the same word, except that Has was part of the London dialect that started them shifting out replacing all the th endings with s endings.

And Thou and You have two different meanings originally.

Thou was singular, and later singular and informal like french tu.
You was plural, and later formal singular, and later still singular and plural, formal or informal.

And it´s DOST not Doest.

Thak you very much!! Or thee :) .

Where can I find the whole grammar for thou ?

Hi, ravana2!

I think that Blackkdark is on to something here and most likely correct.

I just have one comment to make, and that would be, that it's my understanding that the word "thee" was used in a much more endearing sense as compared to "thou". This would be like they were in the King James version of the Holy Bible.

Thanks!

Clough, I have to tell you NO. Not at all. And I'll get to why that is in a moment. (Also I'm not just on to something, this is my primary field of research)

First, let's go over Thou and Thee. They are nominative and dative/accusative forms of the same pronoun. The Old English forms were ðú (or þú) and ðé (or þé). In Old English the word for "the" was never þe so do not mix it up with the above mentioned Middle English forms. Now, in Old English, ðú meant the singular form of you, neither formal or informal, exactly like Latin tu.

ðú was used, if it were a subject, and ðé if it were the object. Compare:
Ðú hæfst mé lufod. You have loved me. (Thou hast loved me)
Ic hæbbe ðé lufod. I have loved you. (I have loved thee)

Okay, well in Middle English, it was spelt sixty-five different ways, (that was an hyperbole, but most words were spelt different ways). Because the spelling ou, ow, and u had similar pronunciations, and ð, þ, and th also had similar pronunciations, ðú often became ðu, þu, thu, ðou, þou, ðou, thou, ðow, þow, thow amongst other possible ways. Now ðé also had different variations, depending on if the author wanted to indicate length by doubling the e or not, so that leaves ðee, þee, thee, ðe, þe, and the (yes just like the Middle English word for the).

This is also the era in which the French rules of formality, which started during the age of knights and peasants who began addressing each other different depending on their rank. The French passed it on to the rest of Europe, and is why modern German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian, Dutch, Low German, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Russian, Polish, Bulgarian, Czech, Ukrainian, Belorussian, Greek, Albanian, Hungarian, Estonian, Finnish, etc have these formality rules. (in fact the Spanish word Usted meant Lord, and the portuguese formal for of You is senhor, meaning sir, lord, like Spanish señor or Italian Signore.)
The point here is, LATER it became used in informal sense and by the Early Modern English era, which Shakespeare wrote in, and the King James bible, Thou and Thee were just forms of the same pronoun, which is why your statement, Clough, is a bit off. That is like saying Me is more about the person that the word I is. That makes no sense.

Any more questions?

Oh I have a lot of questions for you .

Lets start with first two :

You mentioned that has was used by londoners . Who used hath ?

What is more correct ? Or is that just a " rule of the capitol " ?

The second question is about - ess .

Can I use ess in friendess or doctoress like in actress or princess ?

Can I say : art thou my friendess ?

Of course if you are a girl :) .

Okay, Well, there are two things about the London dialectal changes. In Old English, the common ending for the 3rd person (like modern English -s) was instead -ð/-þ. In the North, in say Northumbria, which was a dialect that was heavily influenced by the Danes and the other Viking invaders, that had different changes, including the shift from -ð/-þ to -s. That quickly spread to London. London being the dialectal "standard" for English in the Middle English era. Chaucer, for example, could use either, as could Shakespeare, because the endings remained well past the age of its "death." Remember that s is easier to pronounce than ð/þ, so it quickly passed to s or in pronunciation /s/ or /z/.

-ess, often spelt -esse in the Middle English era, is actually a French suffix, not a native English one. Usually during the Middle English era, the French endings would usually go only on French words (not always the opposite). Friend is an English word, whereas prince (from Latin Princeps meaning Emperor), and actor (from Latin actor meaning agent, doer). Doctor might be able to take the ending, since it comes from Latin, but since there were no female doctors in the Medieval era, I cannot say if such a word was ever used. It is also unlikely, since some words that are one gender in languages like Spanish or French place no importance on the gender of the person. Doctor is like that in French so it is unlikely that Doctress would have even existed.

So, no, you cannot say that. And no I am not a girl.

Keep the questions coming.

When did Gaelic come to be? Where did it come from? Are there different (profoundly) dialects of it?

Well, that is a question that's a wee bit out of left field, but I can answer it.

Okay, Gaelic is part of the larger family Celtic. The Celts were a tribe that lived in modern France (formally Gaul) and they had even encountered the ancient Greeks.
The people of Gaul expanded and had gone throughout England, and even into Spain. The language they spoke is Gaul was Gaulic (which sounds a bit like Gaelic, doesn't it? That's not an coincidence). Later the Romans under Caesar pushed the Celts back into the British Isles and north from there. When the Roman Empire fell apart, other groups invaded England like the Angles, Jutes, Saxons, etc and later the Vikings. They fought for years, but the Anglo-Saxons pushed the Celtic groups back to Cornwall, Wales, and Pictland (later Scotland). Some actually went back to France and started the county of Brittany, which has a Celtic language too. Now the Irish at that point spoke Old Irish, and later as the English began conquering Ireland (this is during the Middle English era). Also Irish settlers took the Picts out in Pictland, and that later became Scotland. And those evolved into Modern Irish, Scottish, Cornish (not widely spoken but it's not dead yet), and Welsh as the modern Celtic languages.

Now, Two languages today are given the title Gaelic: Irish Gaelic and Scottish Gaelic. Both have various dialects, but I think Irish Gaelic dialects are more pronounced, and books often have to give differences between large county segments.

Also the Irish originally had a different alphabet, because the English wouldn't let them speak Irish. This was an old alphabet, probably newer than the runes though. It's called Ogham.

Clough, I have to tell you NO. Not at all. And I'll get to why that is in a moment. (Also I'm not just on to something, this is my primary field of research)

First, let's go over Thou and Thee. They are nominative and dative/accusative forms of the same pronoun. The Old English forms were ðú (or þú) and ðé (or þé). In Old English the word for "the" was never þe so do not mix it up with the above mentioned Middle English forms. Now, in Old English, ðú meant the singular form of you, neither formal or informal, exactly like Latin tu.

ðú was used, if it were a subject, and ðé if it were the object. Compare:
Ðú hæfst mé lufod. You have loved me. (Thou hast loved me)
Ic hæbbe ðé lufod. I have loved you. (I have loved thee)

Okay, well in Middle English, it was spelt sixty-five different ways, (that was an hyperbole, but most words were spelt different ways). Because the spelling ou, ow, and u had similar pronunciations, and ð, þ, and th also had similar pronunciations, ðú often became ðu, þu, thu, ðou, þou, ðou, thou, ðow, þow, thow amongst other possible ways. Now ðé also had different variations, depending on if the author wanted to indicate length by doubling the e or not, so that leaves ðee, þee, thee, ðe, þe, and the (yes just like the Middle English word for the).

This is also the era in which the French rules of formality, which started during the age of knights and peasants who began addressing each other different depending on their rank. The French passed it on to the rest of Europe, and is why modern German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian, Dutch, Low German, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Russian, Polish, Bulgarian, Czech, Ukrainian, Belorussian, Greek, Albanian, Hungarian, Estonian, Finnish, etc have these formality rules. (in fact the Spanish word Usted meant Lord, and the portuguese formal for of You is senhor, meaning sir, lord, like Spanish senor or Italian Signore.)
The point here is, LATER it became used in informal sense and by the Early Modern English era, which Shakespeare wrote in, and the King James bible, Thou and Thee were just forms of the same pronoun, which is why your statement, Clough, is a bit off. That is like saying Me is more about the person that the word I is. That makes no sense.

Any more questions?

Okay, it looks like you know your stuff! Are you into the arts like music, theater, dance and the visual arts at all, like painting, drawing, calligraphy, etc.

Thanks!

Okay, it looks like you know your stuff! Are you into the arts like music, theater, dance and the visual arts at all, like painting, drawing, calligraphy, etc.?

Thanks!
Um, well, I am into music, I play like 7 instruments.

What instruments do you play, please?

Thanks!

Piano, guitar, bass, banjo, mandolin, ukulele, tin whistle. I also know music theory and can sing.

That's cool, Blackkdark!

It looks like you and I have quite a bit in common!

Are you into the composition of music at all, like composing pieces and/or songs?

Thanks!

You started discussion about alphabet . I shell like to continuo it .

English has a very difficult orthography or at least lets say it is not phonetic .

My question is :

What is your opinion about shavian alphabet . Was that a good idea ?

I know for an experiment called desert alphabet but it did not succeed ?

So shavian or latin alphabet ?

Then we can go back to " olde " english .

Latin. For many reasons. One, it is the most widely used alphabet in the world. Two, because our language actually was once phonetic. It's actually not the Latin alphabet's fault, it's the sound shifts of the English language, such as the Great Vowel Shift. Three, because never have constructed alphabets work as a permanent alphabet system.

I myself even created an alphabet, based with the Latin Alphabet, useful for having a more phonetic form for English. You can see it here: Tower Orthography (http://www.omniglot.com/writing/tower.php) or Tower Orthography - FrathWiki (http://wiki.frath.net/Tower_Orthography)

Ultimately, you have to stick with the alphabet you know. We'd need another language shift in order for that to work, and probably a language council like in France or Germany.

And just say Old English, or Anglo-Saxon

What about shell , will , shalt in shakespearean time ?

Is was shell just for the 1 st person singular and plural .

Um, I don't know what you mean by Shell. I'm not sure if you mean she'll, shell, or SHALL. The latter is the most likely case so I'll just go with that one.

Shall comes from Old English sculan, 1st and 3rd person singular sceal. It mean more of a sign of obligation, not future. (there was no future tense in Old English). In fact it's past tense was scolde, which becomes should in modern english. The 2nd person version was scealt, which is the origin of shalt. The German cognate is Sollen, meaning should, ought to, must
Will, on the other hand comes from the Old English verb willan (related to the German Willen), both meaning to want, or to will.

Later when they were both used for the future tense, the difference was whether the speaker wanted it to happen. So if I said, "I will go there," that means I will in the future go there because I want to. The opposite being, "I shall go there," meaning I will in the future go there because I am obligated to, or whether I want to or not.

There was a joke about a scotsman who didn't get the difference and whilst drowning, he yelled, "I will drown and no one shall help me," which indicated that he wanted to drown, he really meant, "I shall drown, and no one will help me?"

ye = you/your

shalt = Shall/will

hath = has


hope this answers your question

Is there any interesting word except thou shalt not in the king james bible ?

Any with sauch powerful meaning ?

Pick any .

The F word is the most powerful and versatile in the English language today. F.U.C.K used to be attached to your door if you were fornicating legally. Fornication Under the Consent of the King was what it meant.

That's sad. Permission was "granted" for that? Okay I guess, now we use marriage licenses. Is fornication still illegal?

These days, the F. word has so many uses! It can be an expletive, a noun, a transitive verb, a non-transitive verb, an adverb a pronoun, an expression of joy or intense sorrow, it can indicate worry... How it is used in a sentence and the tone of voice used give it more meanings than... Oh, but it is not to be used, kind-of like sex.

Sorry, what was your question? I'm in left field again.

OKAY, SIMON, no. SO very much no.

Does not come from there. In fact that's something we historical linguists call "Folk" etymology. Someone comes up with a legend and that gets passed one. First of all, they never needed permission to have sex. No culture or nation has ever had that. What era is this one supposed to be? The history I know involves people having sex all over the place and wandering around naked, especially during most of the history of England. Check, "A World Lit Only By Fire" as a source.

The other reasons this is true is because it has cognates in other languages, which usually means it has a common root and doesn't come from that at all. It also had various spellings suck as fukkit, which is not something that happens with acronyms. Also almost NO acronyms from the past are passed down.

It's in other Germanic dialects, like fukka and focka in Norwegian and Swedish respectively (they didn't have the negative connotations we have for today). It's also in German (ficken) and Middle Dutch (fokken). And Futuere, unrelated, is the Latin word. Basically, Simon, whoever fed you that, was either fed a lie him/herself or made it up. Look it up:
Online Etymology Dictionary (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=)

If you want to know the real histories and facts, do some research first. Popular words like that are bound to have lots of folk etymologies.

Well, I don't have a King James Bible. I can tell you what era it's written in, it's written in the Early Modern English Era, similar to Shakespeare. It was written after the Great Vowel Shift, which was the process of long vowels raising, and the highest ones becoming diphthongs. Short vowels stayed the same, and thus things got all mixed after that. That's why our vowel system is so crazy, but we decided to maintain historical spellings instead of changing it like the Germans.

The King James bible isn't as interesting as similar texts in Old and Middle English.

Thanks Blackkdark. Perpetuating rumors isn't my intention, ever. There's a lot of misinformation isn't there?

Thanks Blackkdark. Perpetuating rumors isn't my intention, ever. There's a lot of misinformation isn't there?

Yeah, Definitely. That's how the whole genre of folk etymology came about. It's fine to read the rumors, but you should definitely find something's that back them up. I heard a similar thing with Picnic, being from a racial thing meaning "pick a nigger" to lynch. I looked it up, found out that it comes from a French word "piquenique" meaning something completely different.

Now if you have any questions about English or other languages, feel free to ask me.

Robby or robbie ? What is write spelling in north part of england ?

It's not just in England, it's actually throughout the English language. People in America vary those two often in names. Outside of names there isn't much variation except in so-called "slang" such as hottie vs. hotty, or hippy vs. hippie.

Historically speaking, the ending as in words like weary came from the -ig ending (pronounced the same or like eey). In Old English, the spellings y, i.e. and I were actually interchangeable. The word for they, for example, was híe, hý, or hí, or is, ys, and rarely ies, for the word "is." Because of these spelling variations, it could have lead to different variations up until the Early Modern Era, which still had spelling variations (look at originate Shakespeare texts and tell me if they are spelt like you normally see them). And the names are few things that preserve this.

Sir or mister blackkdark ? If I do not know you real identity .

My name is T. Patrick Snyder. You can call me Patrick.

My name is domagoj . Patrick is domagoj in croatian .

If I use sir for a man what shell I say for a woman ?

Well, generally speaking, if you talk to a woman formally like that, you would us "ma'am" or "miss" (if they're younger) and you may hear the French term "madame" and more bluntly "lady."

And Domagoj means (not patrick) what does the word in it's origin mean?

dom = home

patria = homeland

that is croatian version of patrick . My name day is 17 . 3 according to catolic ccalendar .

I heard that somewhere exist english dictionary with 1.000.000 words . Is that correct ?

And where can I buy it ?

Okay, first of all. Patrick doesn't come from Patria.

Patrick comes from the Latin word Patricus, meaning Nobleman. In turn it's also related to the Latin (and indo-European root) Pater, meaning father. In fact, Patria, means Fatherland, which also shows this root. But Patrick might be related to Patria indirectly, but directly, they aren't really even close. That means the names aren't the same.

I don't know if it has a million entries, but the largest English dictionary that I know of is the Oxford English dictionary. I don't have a copy because it's very expensive, but it only has about 300,000 entries.

One of my friends love rap music and he wants to speak ebonic . Are you good in ebonic ?

Does it exist ebonic dictionary ?

Actually, the term linguists use today is African American Variety of English, or Have. The name of this "dialect" has been changed several times over the last century or so.

Yes, there are dictionaries for 'ebonics' and Have but if your friend is not black, then there is a good change it will come off more offensive than anything. Like all dialects/languages a speaker can learn it naturally, regardless of race. However, culturally speaking often times non-blacks who speak Have are often stigmatised. It's kind of sad, but true.

Being a white person, I don't speak Have naturally, and as a linguist, I use other weird patterns as it is.

But is there a dictionary for it? Yes, there usually is, though I'd recommend a grammar more, since that's where the interesting stuff is.

I usually speak rp but people around me say that it sound like homosexual person .

How oxford university press rp sound to you ?

Watch Live Online TV Channels - Bbc world - Live News (http://www.tvchannelsfree.com/watch/4466/Bbc-world---Live-News.html)

Well, British RP has various degrees, and it could be a combination of your original accent with the RP, but it might be a lot of things.

In the states, we usually have an association with the accents found in San Francisco as the stereo-typical albeit more than often inaccurate sound of homosexuals. Often the stereo-type involves having a lisp, which ironically is the reverse situation in Greece.

Hmm...
I'll throw in a link to the answer to the question in the subject!

ye (http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/ye.html)

I just felt like it... Blackkdark is doing a wonderful job here, it isn't necessary, but yeah! I found it and felt I had to.

Hi Patrick,

My dad always says Ms. is a cop-out. I told him that because Master isn't used like Miss, then Ms. is the same as Mister. Who is right?

Haha, well, Miss and Ms. have the same root, it's more of a political correct form that developed later. In fact both Miss and Mrs. also come from the same root: Mistress. It was a culture shift. Our culture wanted a term for an older unmarried woman, so they created Ms. We wanted to respect them and still show what level they are at in marriage.
'tis all well, many words form this way.

HelpinHere,
Well I did already answer it earlier, but it´s always good to have more sources to back me up. No worries.

Lol, I know. I just ran across it, and thought, "why not?"

I like Mistress, it represents someone who commands, is in charge. Ms. is a reaction, in my mind, to males needing to know if a woman is spoken for (owned.) What about the development and use of Mister and Master though?

Well, I wouldn't say that the development of Ms. was to say if a woman was spoken for or not. Actually, quite the opposite, I would figure it to be something that arose out of a feminist ideal, the idea that a Miss is a young unmarried female, and Mrs. is a married female, Ms. was a respectful term for a non-child female who is unmarried.

Now, Mister, that does come from the word Master. This isn't uncommon, and in fact these are often changed into the pronouns for you in quite a few Romance languages. In Spanish, Usted, comes from a root meaning "lord" and domnul in Romanian has the same root as the latin Dominus or "lord." In Portuguese, the word senhor (similar to signore in Italian) meaning a formal pronoun you.

Please complete this .

I - me

Thou - thee

He - ?

She - ?

It - ?

We - ?

You - ye

They - ?

Okay, well, I'll just do the whole bit, cause you mixed up one of 'em:
I - me

Thou - thee

He - him

She - her

It - it

We - us

You - you

They - them

[edit] Etymology 1From Old English ġē, the nominative case of the second person plural personal pronoun. See also you.

ye - Wiktionary (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ye)

Yeah, you see Nominative case. That's Old English. You asked for Modern English. I can give you all the personal pronouns for All Eras of English, but ye was not really common in the Modern era. Either way, it would be interchangeable with you, not the accusative case of it.

I know where Ye and You come from. And it also says that Ye is archaic, as in not really used anymore.

Btw, Nominative = Nominativ, Accusative = Akuzativ

your pattern was:
Nominative - Accusative
And ye was originally only used for the nom.

Blackdark,
I think you misread simoneaugie.

I'd be happy to give a different answer, but I don't see where I misread (I'm assuming) her.

Unless you mean about Mister and Master not having the same development as Mistress to Miss, Ms. and Mrs. If that's the case, it's probably an older development. Most Indo-European languages have a feminine form which differs from younger girls to older ones, and one general term for the male.
That might have to do with cultural values relating to the two genders. Chances are, that started in France, since France is where most rules of formality were formed, and from there it was passed to the rest of Europe.

I thought Master is the "correct" way to address an unmarried male. Then Mister would mean that the man is married. If Mister is used exclusively then why have Master at all? Were these terms used in English long ago?

Well, yes. Master in Modern English has several meanings. If say a person becomes an expert, than he is a master, so a Master magician, or logician, or blacksmith (even expressions like Schoolmaster can still be heard). Then there's the concept of the Master of the house, which relates it back to the "lord" concept. Also, if a person works for another, he or she often refers to the male children as 'master' (this is more common with those from Britain). However, this is not restricted to children, and adult married and unmarried males can be referred to as 'master.'

In some cases, schools (not usually American ones) a boy may be called 'master' but I cannot common on how widespread that is.

And again, Mister comes FROM Master, and originally Master had a different meaning, that of someone who's has quite literally a Mastery of a subject. In my mind, they occupy two different spheres of usage in the English language. I don't associate Master with Mister, save in the historical origins.

No, I meant that in your answer you took simone to mean that Ms. developed to determine whether a woman was spoken for or not; what she was really saying (and I agree) was that Ms. developed as a reaction against the idea that it was important to know whether a woman was spoken for or not (Miss, Mrs.).

I'm not sure if I agree by the wording, but I also don't think it ultimately matters. The argument against both is simple, that if there is a difference in pronunciation, than Ms. and Mrs. still show the difference between a married and unmarried woman, and thus it's development in that sense is pointless.

Either way, Ms. is not likely to develop as a reaction to the idea of understanding if a female is married or not, but more likely to the idea that if a female is unmarried, it doesn't necessarily mean they are young or ignorant. That is, that a mature woman can still be unmarried, and thus a Mrs. I'd say it has more to do with connotations that Miss entails such as innocence or child-like mentality.

Blackkdark .

I jointed your web page . Can you recommend me someone who is god in thou/hath way of speaking ?

Newcastle will be perfect .

What? Jointed? What web page?
In the Early Modern way of speaking? I can recommend READING Shakespeare, he's the one whom we have the most texts in the Early Modern period. There are others, but he is the best for a beginner.
Newcastle?

can i always put " ye " instead " the " ?


the question = ye question

the beatles = ye beatles


a second question is about " hath " . what is a difference between " hath " and " has " ?

No, you are mixing them up. "Ye" is the old version of the word "You" and "hath" is the old version of the word "has". Ye people of the north is like You people of the north.
Thy = Your
Thou = formal word for You when addressing God or someone superior
Ye = Plural version of You
Read a little Shakespeare or the old King James Version of the Bible and you'll catch on eventually.

Wow, okay, I know you're heart is in the right place, but you need to do a bit more research.
You're not wrong, but you're not right, as funny as that sounds.

Yes, Ye has it's origins in Old English ge, and hath has its origins in hæfþ, which later dropped the f and by the Early Modern era often looked like Hath, which has been said by everyone who's answered the question so far.

However, many places made a mistake with not spelling þe correctly. Þe meaning the, changed from the Old English triple nominative forms se, seo, and þæt, though it's more likely that the word came from the plural þa since that was used for all genders, nominative and accusative. Anyway, the þ was reanalyzed as a y (for various reasons), and thus in some Modern parodies of the old, you will find Ye instead of Þe. Such as Ye Olde Shoppe, which a nearby shopping centre to me is called. Is it originally a mistake? Yes. But is the question valid? Yes.

Have you read the thread so far?

Oh, and Thou is actually informal singular, not formal at all. Informal is used to speak to God, and you'll see in Romance languages too, (tu) as well as Germanic ones (du). In fact you only use it with people who are NOT superior.
Thy and thine - both mean your, but the latter can also mean yours. (if you don't believe me, see Hamlet, to thine own self be true.)

Look it up.

Actually, I only just joined, so should probably have lurked for a while before putting in my opinion.
However, I do know that growing up using a different language than English (Platt Deutsch), my parents would use the language they considered more formal, in their case High German, in church. And we always used Du for informal use, but I said Sie to my grandparents out of respect. And I will check with my mother, but I am pretty sure we used the formal Sie for God too.

That's true, you probably should have, no offense.
Yes, High German would be more formal in some respects than Low. The word thou originally was þu, which was later þou, then thou. þu is a direct cognate to du.

Which form of Low German do you speak? All the variations I found of the Lord's prayer in Low German have the informal Du forms, or Dain, or Dein, etc.

Here:
Uns Vader, de is in Himmel.
Heiliget is dien Naam.
Dien Riek sall komen.
Dien Will doch doon,

Or
Unse Vader in' Himmel !
Laat hilligt warrn dienen Namen.
Laat kamen dien Riek.

Or
Vader iuse in'n Himmel.
Eheiligt were dain Name.
Dain Raik kume.

Or
Mogg doch dienen Namen ümmers hillig brukt wär'n.
Dien Riek laot to us kuemmen.

I don't know religion, but I know language. Especially Germanic ones. Now if you guys used Sie for God, I don't know why your Lord's prayer would use Du forms.

Black !

Someone invited me to this page . I fought that was you .

EnglishTheme • English Conversation Classes With Native-Speaking Teachers (http://www.englishtheme.com)

Nope, I'm not involved with that site.

Can I say this if I use " th " .

She loveth cats .

She hateth cats .

Yes, but if you were to speak to the everyday English-speaker it'd sound very archaic. But it's common in Shakespeare and evenmore in Chaucer's times.

Except thou/th is it there anything specific in grammar of that time ?

What about idea to use " ye " as an acusative ?

Yeah, Ye is not accusative. It's in fact nominative. It's origin is ge, which was nominative, and the accusative and dative of which was eow, which is where "you" comes from.

That first question doesn't really make sense. There are other factors in both Shakespearean and Chauceran grammar that are different that Modern English, yes.

Can you tell me some of that differences that are still in use as archaic ?

that question kind of doesn't make sense, since archaic really means it's not in use, only heard occasionally usually as a joke or in a mocking way.
An example would be "methinks" which is a very old expression which goes back to Old English in the form of Impersonal verbs. These are similar to Spanish when you say "Me gusta" in the sense that the subject is actually an object (Spanish example "me gusta la guitarra" > "The guitar is pleasing to me"). Methinks, and all the similar forms, feel out of use and now are considered archaic and corny sounding.

How to spell " she looks " ?

She lookth or she looketh .

Well, Look is not a strong verb, and doesn't have I-umlaut. I would vote for Looketh, since that's closer to the historical forms, but the other one is possible and likely, since the -e- is likely not to be pronounced.

What about : thou were , she was . Any archaic form . Like she wath ? I know that th is present .

Or other auxiliary verbs .

Well, it would be, Thou wert, which is archaic, yes. She was is still she was, and it's been that way since the Old English era. The -th ending was a descendant of Old English -ð/-þ which was only in the present tense. The past tense had -de endings in weak verbs and no endings in strong verbs. AND the past tense of the verbs béon and wesan had the past of wæs in the singular, and wæron in the plural.

I think that now I know enough about verb " to be " . What about verb " to have " ?

It should be like this ?

I have .

Thou hast .

She hath .

What about archaism of " to have " in perfect and future ?

By the way I am also a male .

my next question is about " L " . I heard some british turists that speak like this :

international = inte(r)nationa(l) .

rock and roll = rock and ro(ll) .

football = footba(ll) .

they lose last l .

what region that could be ?

Okay, yeah, those look find for the present tense of the verb "to have" there's I have, thou hast, she/he/it hath/has. Has was used since before Shakespeare, but if you want it to sound archaic, use "hath". There were also lots of variations, and it was common to us "u" for "v" when inside a word, so you'd often find, "I haue," "you haue" "we haue" "they haue" but still pronounced like modern have. There were other major spelling differences too.

Well, the /l/ at the end of those words sometimes even sounds like it's swallowed up, but often times is still pronounced in one way or another. Dropping the /r/ is also common in British and American dialects, however dropping the /l/ is probably more not exactly what was going on. I think it's probably like French, where the ending sound might not sound like it's there, but if there were an ending like Internationally, you'd definitely hear it.

You have right . Doll was do(ll) but dolls were dolls . I see that you are from philadelphia but maybe you know in which region of england people do not like last " L " ?

Maybe that l-less is the way how norman ( french ) aristocracy will pronounce it ?

Nah, Norman French was actually known for its Germanic pronunciation, and Old French was very phonetic, unlike Modern French. Like I said, I don't think that they are not pronouncing the /l/, but rather after a back vowel, it becomes what we call a dark liquid /l/ which is harder to hear. That means it might still be pronounced but you might not hear it so easily. I think elements of my own dialect do that, were many people even think Mall and Maw are pronounced the same.

What is official name for your l-less dialect ?

Just philadelphian english or what ?

Thou wert or thou vert ?

Lol, it's not l-less, it just CAN drop /l/ at the end of a syllable. It's actually fairly common. That's why some people think Law and Mall rhyme, or mall and maw are homophones. It's just the Philadelphian dialect of English, yes.

And why would it be vert. Wert of course.

What is a difference between thou wert and thou wast ?

It depends more of when it was written, mostly. Wast was used initially in the 1500s because of analogy. It basically was imitating the first and second person was. Wert was reinterpreted later to fit with were. Although in terms of Old English, wert would be more accurate.

Beside wast/wath reform does it exist any other " bill " in reform of english in 1500 ?

I am white south european . May I know your race ?

Wath? There should not have been a wath. It's not in the dictionary, not even under archaic. And what do you mean by " bill " in reform? Lots of things changed and formed over time, through analogy, sound shift, etc.

My family is of European origin, my father Eastern European Jew, and my mother Irish and Italian Catholics.

You said that suffix -s is used in london . Th was used in the north of england .

So I can say was or wath . Right ?

Yeah, but I was talking about the present tense. Even in Old English, the past tense endings are never -th. Was is the past tense, it was wæs is almost every dialect. In a few, if it retained the old forms, then it would be war or wær. Wath was never a part of English.

In one sf movie I heard this :

I shall

Thou shallest

She shalleth

Is that producer`s joke or there were atempt to do something like that ?

That is a joke. For one, I know it´s Thou Shalt. I´m also pretty sure it´s She Shall, since it´s a modal verb and has a weird conjugation. Most of them have the same in the first and third persons, and the Old English form is ic sceal, ðu scealt, heo sceal

So I can use shall for third person singular . What is about plural like they shall ?

If shall cover all persons what is a difference between shall and will ?

I shall send you my name that we can be friends on Facebook . If you want .

In practical Modern English, there is no difference between Shall and Will. The major one is that more people use WILL more often. Historically, Will implied that there would be some sort of want or wish involved, whereas Shall just implied obligation.
They are cognates to German Sollen (must, should, to have to), and Wollen (to want, desire). There was a time when you had to make a distinction, but today most say you use shall in the first person and will in the second and third persons. Ultimately, I think people find it weird if you use Shall a lot, since it sounds a bit archaic, and in the US the negative shan't is almost never heard.

What about god and goddess ? That is not from roman languages .

Can I say " i love ye " ?