"You" implies plurality. Thou implies singularity. They were monotheists.

"If this were done today, I'd chalk it up to just some poor understanding of the term's original meaning..."

lol, just for what it's worth, understanding of the original languages has improved vastly, and most modern translations are much more accurate.

Anyway, what putin says. Also, conceivably there's only so formal they though you would be to people you had made. I mean, people are formal TO kings, but kings don't have to be formal to subjects.

@Putin+semck:

Then why not use "ye?"

In fact, Luke 2:12 gets it RIGHT, in a segment I only know because of Charlie Brown and Linus:

"And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger."

Linus' "A Charlie Brown Christmas" speech, anyone? :)

But THERE they get it right--ye.

Formal, and it makes sense--an angel (so a formal, high-ranking authority of heaven" talking about Jesus, who's obviously someone who a Christian audience would regard as being worthy of formal, heightened language...

That's the same Bible, the King James one, so in the case of the Commandments and Burning Bush, they get it wrong, but in the case of Jesus' manger scene, they get it right...that, or...the Commandments are meant to be informal?

"I mean, people are formal TO kings, but kings don't have to be formal to subjects."

If this were Jesus, with his "Man of the People" image, I'd buy that.

But the OT God is notoriously formal...going so far as to knock down a Tower and make us all speak different languages, leading to war and division, JUST for building a Tower and suggesting it could reach Heaven...

He seems like a no-nonsense, formal kind of guy (which is a big reason, historically and thematically, for Jesus' persona, of course, to give a more relatable counterpoint.) ;)

Also, they use "you" in that Luke 2:12 speech...

I suppose you could argue that there is a "you" because there are multiple people there, but still, it is formal, and "ye" is as well.

"But the OT God is notoriously formal...going so far as to knock down a Tower and make us all speak different languages, leading to war and division, JUST for building a Tower and suggesting it could reach Heaven..."

I don't see majestic, demanding, and powerful as the same as formal. Remember -- formal is a sign of respect TO the person you're speaking to. How is knocking down a tower a sign of respect for people?

(The ye thing is interesting. Haven't thought about it, and will have to).

Ye & You are different cases of the same pronoun. Ye being nominative, you being accusative/oblique.

In other words, ye has the same problem as you.

In any case, if all of them have grammatical issues, thou being informal instead of formal and ye/you having their issues...

Why not use the ones that at least best suit the character, ye or you?

"Thou" just feels odd knowing its informal, it's not "in character," as it were...ye.

In fact (and I'll go off of Wikipedia for ease and expedience, here, realizing it's obviously not a Oxford research-caliber source)...

The 2nd person singular informal nominative is THOU,
the 2nd person singular formal nominative/plural is YE.

So it has the potential to be used as a plural, but just like read/read, you could easily use the context to determine which it was.

I don't get what your complaint is. God is considered a 'father'. Do you refer to your father in the formal? Trinitarian Christians are very sensitive about being perceived as polytheistic, so Thou simplifies things very easily.

"You" is a Frenchified invention anyway. The old Anglo-Saxon English imported this familiarity/formality concept. Thou had always been the singular and Ye the plural.

@Putin, I don't think the familiarity is entirely French, I think it's common to most Indo-European languages, but you're right in that it's primarily a singular plural distinction. I think that might just be weird to some native English speakers who learned language at a young age with only one second person pronoun.

@Obi, "If this were Jesus, with his 'Man of the People' image, I'd buy that."

No, that's just the way it was/is in other languages. The formality of the plural when used as the singular really only applies to your betters and your equals. The singular could often be used to show disdain, or merely superiority, so I think you're reading too much into this.

I didn't mean to imply familiarity is singularly French, only that English imported "you" & familiarity from the French via the Norman invasion.

not for nothing, the whole point of that passage is God revealing himself to moses, so if Thou is familiar, it would make sense. Then again I on't put much stock in king James translators

"I don't get what your complaint is. God is considered a 'father'. Do you refer to your father in the formal?"

As a matter of fact, I do increasingly refer to him more and more as "sir" rather than "dad," and the former would seem more formal.

But then, my dad and I don't see each other much, be design, we clash pretty badly and don't get along (except for football season and drinking, so for a few days during the NFL season, I'd probably slip into "dad" instead, but as he's a former California Highway Patrol officer and still acts like it, it's "sir" from me to him.)

"You" is a Frenchified invention anyway. The old Anglo-Saxon English imported this familiarity/formality concept."

To an extent, but even so, this is the KJV, these French-influenced words and the dichotomy that resulted would've been in place for a good few centuries, so this would have been nothing new. What's more, the formal/informal phenomenon is not at all exclusive to just the Anglo-Franco areas of the European language trees, Spain's version of Spanish (odd to type it that way, but you'll see why in a moment) has the same thing, formal/informal, and takes it to another level by adding an extra formal level, or at least that's what I was taught in Spanish class...I remember, as the formal-formal words were the ones always in italics with the explanation that they were predominantly used in Spain and not so much Mexican/Latin American Spanish, so those words were always (thankfully) optional to learn...and no one ever learned them as a result. :)

"The formality of the plural when used as the singular really only applies to your betters and your equals. The singular could often be used to show disdain, or merely superiority, so I think you're reading too much into this."

Well, that's the whole thing--isn't the OT God, if anyone ever was, someone to use an air of superiority?

But again, even eschewing "you," which would seem an easy fix (it has it's problems, but so does "thou") "ye" could've been used to greater effect, and in fact was used, and that certainly seems closer to the intention of the character and text.

It has a grammatical foible, sure, but surprise of surprises, you WILL get that translating from Hebrew to Latin (so from no vowels to vowels, among other things) and from Latin to English...

So none of this "Holy Trinity" of choices, thou/you/ye, are perfect, but if nothing else, "thou" just seems the most out of character on top of it all, so it puzzles me why they'd choose that, when the other two choices have grammatical problems fitting, sure, but are at least more suited to those moments the OT God uses them...

The Commandments =/= the informal tense, in any way.

"I think you're reading too much into this."

Not really.

I mean, I am, but I'm not having a whole theological crisis of faith or anything (as I don't believe in any of this, obviously.)

I'm just having fun with this, as from a cultural, literary, and historical perspective, this is all fun for me...

I could spend hours doing this sort of thing, thinking about the enjambment of lines or placement of commas or why this word was used and not another, delving into the meaning and symbolism of the text--

It's part of what makes literature fun for me, and after all, as I said, that's what I'm treating this as, just another work (albeit a hugely-influential work, of course, rivaled by nothing except arguably the works of Homer, Plato, and/or Aristotle in terms of influence over the Western world) of literature/philosophy.

So for once, I'm not having this discussion to attack the idea of God or religion...

But rather just to discuss what I thought was a pretty interesting foible in the text, especially given the fact that most now, as a result, treat "thou" in the opposite way, as incredibly formal, in large part because most people have only ever read or heard "thou" in two places:

The Bible (especially the Ten Commandments) and Shakespeare.

Shakespeare's language can seem very flowery (and is) and that, and it's sheer age, helps contribute there to the misconception that "thou" is meant as over-the-top formally and dramatically as a stereotypical over-acting thespian might say it...

And then the Bible surely solidifies this idea, as, surely we can ALL agree--

You'd assume, being read the Bible for the first time as a kid, that when God issued a Commandment, he was being pretty authoritative, and that this rarely-used-word "thou" would, to a child's mind, seem to underscore that point?

So, again--this is all fun for me (it's really interesting that "God" actually switches around in the same verse, no less--" When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain" from Exodus 2:12. so there's either textual significance there, or else the translators felt like just interchanging the words to give a bit of variety to avoid repetition...though given how much the Bible LIKES repetition and lists in the OT, that seems odd, but again, this can go on all day. For fun.) :)

Thou could be used when addressing an inferior. Thus a lord may call his subject "thou" but the subject must address him as "you".
I have read that the King James Bible was deliberately written in an archaic style, even for the time. And "Thou" was already quite archaic by that time. In everyday speech most people said "you". (If recall correctly), so if the King James Bible is a bit inconsistent in the way it use "thou" and "you" that might be the reason.

One more point: (I just looked up this in Wikipedia): apparently the familiar form was okay when speaking to God, and that this was true for a few European languages.

Huh--really?

Wow...I wonder how the Church felt about that, if it was OK to speak to God informally?

Though I suppose the most puzzling one for me is still God using "thou" and being informal...unless, as spyman suggests, this is a case of God speaking to someone as an inferior...

I'll admit I don't quite see how using "thou" could be used in that way (I could get using it to address someone as if they were lower than their station, ie, "thou wretch," you can take that to be an informal insult by itself or else also take the "thou" to be a term of condescension of the "thou" in question is someone of stature, like a nobleman or woman in one of Shakespeare's plays) but I suppose it's possible.

Though that does bring up an interesting point with the Commandments--

If THAT'S the case...

God's either being inappropriately conversational with his Commandments, or else, if we take the latter idea, somewhat condescending in his use of "thou?"

After all, even if you're speaking to an "inferior," using "thou" seems to denote condescension if used that way; in the Luke 2:12 example I gave, the angel had no qualms using "you" and "ye," and he comes across as formal and yet polite as well...I guess condescension wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility for the vengeful OT God, but it WOULD be sort of funny in retrospect, especially hearing people now...

Quoting it as if it's highly formal and dignified, and in fact it could be unintentionally conversational, a grammatical mistake, or God being somewhat condescending (and I use "condescending" as the Commandments are God dictating to Moses--whom he seems to trust--and the Hebrew people, ie, his Chosen People, so it seems odd, hilarious, or both that he'd speak to EITHER in a manner as if they were inferior and lesser when he could just use "you" or "ye" and keep his station as the elevated one without grammatically lowering Moses/the Hebrews.)

Also, I'd be curious if anyone here has read the Bible in another version (not KJV) or, better yet, another language.

Just to see the difference between the two, to see how someone else tried to interpret it, and if that's better/worse, or just look at the difference.

The writers picked an archaic style to give the bible a grander tone to separate from it from other writings. You could could possibly say the writers were "putting it on" a bit. That is why they chose "thou" instead of, what was more usual by then, "you". They were trying to make it sound old fashioned. But its fake. So if they got it wrong that's the reason.

"I wonder how the Church felt about that, if it was OK to speak to God informally?"
Apparently it was the done thing, even in time when people really did say "thou" as a natural part of their speech.

The King James Bible actually brought "thou" back into fashion for some. But strangely enough it acquired the opposite connotation of what it originally meant. That is formal and solemn rather than informal. (There were exceptions to this - the Quakers started calling everyone thou in order to stress that we were all equal in the eyes of God).

"address someone as if they were lower than their station, ie, 'thou wretch,'"

I'm being nitpicky here, but I think that should be "thee wretch," as it's the accusative of exclamation.

That'd be interesting if "thou" was really already that close to being on its way out...by Milton's time (and definitely by the early 1700s) I know it was or nearly was on the way out....

If that's the case, though, and "thou" was really already that close to being "out"--

Shakespeare would have been doing the same thing--which I already know is true, he obviously has his characters (in the tragedies in particular) give a much more heightened form of speech than is or would have been normal, partly because of iambic pentameter and partly because of "thou"...

Though Shakespeare, more often than not, got it "right;" that is, he either used the right form of "ye/you/thou" or else got it wrong to break the rules of grammar, as he would do, and do something like you suggest, treat someone as an inferior by using a tone or term beneath their station.

Hence my examination of the Bible's use here, ie, if it's for effect (if so, what, like we're discussing) or if it was done just to make it sound more archaic, grammatical incorrectness be damned.

(And as for the actual text itself, I WILL say Exodus so far has a much better pace than Genesis, but it's almost too fast--all that time with characters I don't care about, and all those lists taking up space, and we get to Moses, and his childhood lasts a chapter, if that...I mean, to think of characters you might care to see grow up in the Bible, wouldn't Moses be one of them? From a Jewish cultural background, I know I would have rather have seen that than so many of these lists...closest thing we have to a Jesus/Muhammad Figure--Abraham not really counting, as we're dealing with leaders/prophets here--and his childhood is glanced over? By the end of Chapter 2 of 40 he's already an adult talking to the Burning Bush? I'd have liked to have seen him grow up and develop...)

@ghug:

"Thou wretched, rash, intruding fool, farewell. I took thee for thy better."

--Hamlet, Act III, Scene 4, to Polonius' corpse

So Shakespeare used "thou wretched," so either that's the right form...or Shakespeare broke the rules here...though it could be said that he's not being accusative here so much as informal, indeed, to the point of condescension, as he's rather dismissive of the fact he just killed Polonius, half because he feels (with some justification) it's Polonius' own fault for being so nosy, and half because he's so jaded after all the events of Act III (and indeed the whole play to this point.)

So he's maybe not accusing Polonius so much as being informal and intentionally insulting by using that informal tone?

As Hamlet's been insulting Polonius throughout the play to this point, that'd seem to fit...?

But I dunno. :)

This might only seem strange when you first language doesn't have the formal/informal distinction. God cannot use formal pronoun, because that would mean he lowers himself to people and treat them as equal which would be jerky since he punishes them when they try the same from the other side leveling themselves up to God's position. Just like you never (literally never, no one would even conceive such thing) speak formally to a child or to someone two generations younger (this one might happen to freak them out or just being too friendly). And then you have God who created humans and is beyond time and he should speak like during a business meeting with important client? Fat chance. Then again the translators could have just been lucky and used the right one.

The Bible in Russian also uses the informal. And they also pray to God using the informal second person.

The key is that even though this is GOD, Creator of the Universe, we are also supposed to be able to draw near unto Him, as our most intimate Friend.

Think of Abraham's relationship with God, where they barter for the fate of Sodom. He and God are buds.

But that's not how it reads to me...

To me, his using an informal pronoun reads, for lack of a better comparison at 5am, like Jean-Luc Picard, who's always very formal and in command, saying "Yo, Data man, warp speed--kick it, brah!"

To stick with the Star Trek analogy sometimes, sure, Picard will call Riker by his first name, Will, but 1. that's the exception, rather than the rule and 2. Not when he's giving instructions, it's always "Commander Riker" or "Number One" at that point...

So sure, I can see Jesus speaking informally with disciples, those are friends...

Or (if there was such a moment) God speaking informally with a prophet to whom he has trusted for a whole book or so...

But to all of humanity, when he's giving a Commandment?

Again, if I'm to take the Commandments and the (rather lengthy) amount of do's and do not's that follow in terms of diet, lifestyle, etc. as divine law (and that's the way it certainly seems to be intended) then informal language is very much out of place--

What architect of law would use informal, casual language, especially if the document was of extreme importance, and by the logic of this book, what could be of more importance than the Law of God?

He doesn't seem like he cow-tows to mankind by being formal to me; he comes across as a mighty ruler of creation who's acting like a man in charge, rather than some informal magistrate who's decided it's Casual Friday.

(Though I'll admit, I have a new, larger problem with Exodus, having just now "gotten out of Egypt"--SEVERAL TIMES during those plagues, Pharaoh is seemingly ready to capitulate and say "OK, fine, I was wrong, off you go, just stop with these plagues already!" but, as the text itself says...

God "hardened his heart" so Pharaoh doesn't let them go, for the express purpose--so sayeth God--of allowing God to show off even more plagues and power so the whole world can know of his power.

...

1. That's sadistic, I'm sorry, that just is. You can argue he's God and he's allowed to be sadistic with his creations if he wants, but that's still sadistic and unbelievably cruel.

2. That really hurts the idea that Pharaoh and Egypt had this coming when Pharaoh's ready to give in, and the only reason he does not is God makes him not give in, meaning

3. For everyone who ever argued "Free will!" in the whole "Why did God even put that Tree in the Garden, couldn't he have just stopped Eve eating the Apple?" bit...well, where's your free will now? According to the text itself, God is coming in and literally changing the mind of this ruler again and again, against his conscious will, JUST so he can show how awesome he is, disregarding the Pharaoh's free will entirely.

4. That really makes me feel, if anything, bad for the EGYPTIANS, of all people--after all, the KJV itself describes how it's everyone from Pharaoh to the lowest schlub to even those in the prisons who are suffering due to the plagues...and the plagues keep ongoing JUST because God is playing both sides, it seems, and acting on Pharaoh to have him deny Moses' request again and again, regardless of the fact that he keeps saying OK BEFORE God hardens his heart each time...these plagues devastate millions of people, and culminate with the death of every Egyptian firstborn...because God felt like showing off? What kind of just God does that? Am I supposed to believe *every* Egyptian there was wicked? What about the ones in prison--how could *they* have hurt the Hebrews? Hell, how could those children God kills have hurt then? And all because God wants to show off? I...I just can't get over that...why have that in? What possible purpose does that serve? I mean, take that out, for a second, and have it the way most people envision the Exodus story, ie, the Pharaoh's a stubborn ass and won't let them go...there! No logical problems there! It makes Pharaoh incredibly one-dimensional, sure, but this version is as well...but AT LEAST it'd make sense...I could just hate the Pharaoh and you could begin to argue God had to keep escalating the level of awfulness of those plagues...but this way? This way, God sends Moses to do his shtick, and then forces the Pharaoh not to give in so he, God, can show off even more of his power...as all the while millions suffer? How is this logical OR ethical? Who thought that made sense as a story idea? Again, why not just have the Pharaoh be a Nero figure who'd fiddle while Egypt burned, as it were, and refuse to let them go, rather than this convoluted and sadistic scheme to take away his free will and thus play both sides of the coin, leading to complete devastation and millions of innocent people suffering? That's just AWFUL!)

But if dipplayer's right...huh.

I would not have at all envisioned all these versions and languages would use the informal.

OK, fair enough, I suppose...I still think it's out of character, but apparently this is an accepted convention.

(Though in a religion and Church as hierarchy-driven as the Abrahamic religions and their respective factional/Church/sect superpowers are, I am still amazed that the informal is used...does that mean, strictly speaking, that the tone of voice between the Pope or Queen Elizabeth II and myself would be more formal grammatically, potentially, than between myself and God, if this God existed?)

"does that mean, strictly speaking, that the tone of voice between the Pope or Queen Elizabeth II and myself would be more formal grammatically, potentially, than between myself and God?"

yep

Dip has a point, God is your closest friend and formal language creates distance, he has no needs for formalities when you pray to him. You cannot open your heart and embrace God when you distance yourself from him.

I just said the commandments in formal Czech and had a good laugh, sounded like a Ashkenazi joke. No, really, the commandments are aimed at everyone, so they have to be in singular - YOU personally shall not steal - and they have to be strict so you cannot use a polite grammar, otherwise it would sound like - Sir, would you mind not stealing, please?

You're missing a big part of the issue here, obiwanobiwan. The Bible is entirely a work of translation.Perhaps it' as simple as Greek and Hebrew having familiar and formal forms for "you" and the distinction was kept. Or they don't and context demanded such a construction in English. The KJV is just the already existing Scriptures put into the English of the sixteenth century or whenever it came out, so you can't just look at the issue without remembering that these works were originally created in totally different tongues.