Thee Thou Thine Thy

TroubleEnglish

Senior Member
Russian
Do all native speakers know the words

Thee Thou Thine Thy ?

And all other forms of creating the sentences in the archaic manner?

I mean all these phrases and grammar aren't used by anyone now but known by every person or aren't known, either.

Because it's kind of amusing if nobody uses it but knows perfectly and one day some guys can go for a walk and use this archaic genre of talking to make a view of some noble people. And everybody will understand them if it's known by everyone.

P.S. I would be extremely pleased and grateful if you asnwered something using these adorable words...:)
 
  • lingobingo

    Senior Member
    English - England
    Yes, I’m sure everyone knows those words. But I don’t suppose many of them share your passion for archaic personal pronouns. Or for trying to speak in a way that went out of fashion centuries ago. ;)
     

    JulianStuart

    Senior Member
    English (UK then US)
    Many will still know roughly that they are "old" but not necessarily how to use them in a grammatically correct way, just like they don't know how to conjugate verbs correctly to go with them :) So they'd be unlikely to create "correct" sentences in the "archaic" manner . They'd come up with something they thought "sounded old". (I often hear people adding -eth to a modern verb, when they should, grammatically, add -est or vice versa, when trying fake old language). That said, there are also many who are familiar with/enjoy/study the older forms who would do well.
     

    Myridon

    Senior Member
    English - US
    People know those words, but very few people would use them correctly. For one thing, the correct use involves the distinction between formal and informal pronouns which is not a concept that modern English has.
    People say things like "Dost thou goeth to ye olde park-eth?" to be funny.
     

    Uncle Jack

    Senior Member
    British English
    Do all native speakers know the words
    Most British English speakers will be aware of them, generally from the Bible and prayer books, where the seventeenth century Authorised Version of the Bible (1611) and the Book of Common Prayer (1662) remained in common use into the late twentieth century, and are still frequently quoted today.

    Few people will have any familiarity with how they are used, though, and I expect the majority of people, from only hearing "thou" and "thee" used in connection with God, believe these to be excessively formal, rather than the familiar, singular, second-person pronouns. Few people could tell you the grammar of the words, and if they do try to use them, in satire or mockery, they are likely to mix up "thee" and "thou". But then, mixing up "I" and "me" is common enough in some situations.

    Aspects of the second person singular survive in a number of regional British (and I dare say American) dialects, and you might hear "hast thou...?" around where I live (which is pronounced more like "esta" in the local accent), but really it is confined to a few expressions. "Thy" (often pronounced "tha") is moderately common throughout much of Northern England, even where "thee" and "thou" have died out. My guess is that second person verb forms, with a few exceptions such as "hast", are now very rare, even in places where the pronouns survive.
     

    lingobingo

    Senior Member
    English - England
    I would have thought it more likely young people’s familiarity with such words comes from fantasy fiction, video games and perhaps interminable remakes of Robin Hood movies? ;)
     

    Myridon

    Senior Member
    English - US
    I would have thought it more likely young people’s familiarity with such words comes from fantasy fiction, video games and perhaps interminable remakes of Robin Hood movies? ;)
    Possibly, but those sources are mostly wrong to begin with so the "correct usage" problem is even worse. :)
     
    Last edited:

    Chasint

    Senior Member
    English - England
    1. Hardly anyone uses them.
    2. Most would recognise what was meant but get the grammar wrong.
    2. Those who still use them are speaking a dialect or have religious reasons to do so. (search for "Quakers thee thou")
    3. If you want to see them as they were used historically then search the King James Bible and/or Shakespeare online.

    "Neither a borrower nor a lender be;
    ...
    This above all: to thine ownself be true,
    And it must follow, as the night the day,
    Thou canst not then be false to any man.
    ...

    --Lord Polonius, Hamlet Act I, Scene 3
    http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/
    Genesis 14:23
    That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:
     

    AnythingGoes

    Senior Member
    English - USA (Midwest/Appalachia)
    Aspects of the second person singular survive in a number of regional British (and I dare say American) dialects….
    A few Quakers (members of the Religious Society of Friends) may still use "thee" and "thees" (rather than thy). I live in an area with a fair number of Quakers and have never heard it, but I've heard that it still exists.

    Other than that, none of the old second-person singular forms exist in any American dialect.
     

    hwit

    Member
    English - US (AL)
    Like others have said, pretty much everyone knows thou/thee but the verb conjugation is frequently gotten wrong when people try to use it. Because it is archaic, the informal/formal distinction is lost and thou actually feels more formal because of its archaicness.
     

    TroubleEnglish

    Senior Member
    Russian
    Like others have said, pretty much everyone knows thou/thee but the verb conjugation is frequently gotten wrong when people try to use it. Because it is archaic, the informal/formal distinction is lost and thou actually feels more formal because of its archaicness.
    A few Quakers (members of the Religious Society of Friends) may still use "thee" and "thees" (rather than thy). I live in an area with a fair number of Quakers and have never heard it, but I've heard that it still exists.

    Other than that, none of the old second-person singular forms exist in any American dialect.
    1. Hardly anyone uses them.
    2. Most would recognise what was meant but get the grammar wrong.
    2. Those who still use them are speaking a dialect or have religious reasons to do so. (search for "Quakers thee thou")
    3. If you want to see them as they were used historically then search the King James Bible and/or Shakespeare online.
    Most British English speakers will be aware of them, generally from the Bible and prayer books, where the seventeenth century Authorised Version of the Bible (1611) and the Book of Common Prayer (1662) remained in common use into the late twentieth century, and are still frequently quoted today.

    Few people will have any familiarity with how they are used, though, and I expect the majority of people, from only hearing "thou" and "thee" used in connection with God, believe these to be excessively formal, rather than the familiar, singular, second-person pronouns. Few people could tell you the grammar of the words, and if they do try to use them, in satire or mockery, they are likely to mix up "thee" and "thou". But then, mixing up "I" and "me" is common enough in some situations.

    Aspects of the second person singular survive in a number of regional British (and I dare say American) dialects, and you might hear "hast thou...?" around where I live (which is pronounced more like "esta" in the local accent), but really it is confined to a few expressions. "Thy" (often pronounced "tha") is moderately common throughout much of Northern England, even where "thee" and "thou" have died out. My guess is that second person verb forms, with a few exceptions such as "hast", are now very rare, even in places where the pronouns survive.
    But is it possible to imitate that kind of English knowing only the forms of the auxiliary verbs, endings like "est" and pronouns?
    I mean if to find some schemes of forming every Tense in the archaic manner and know the endings with the pronouns, is it possible to sound like all those people who lived before?
    Or even the word order was different and there were some other unique elements of the speech which don't exist in the modern English now?


     

    JulianStuart

    Senior Member
    English (UK then US)
    But is it possible to imitate that kind of English knowing only the forms of the auxiliary verbs, endings like "est" and pronouns?
    I mean if to find some schemes of forming every Tense in the archaic manner and know the endings with the pronouns, is it possible to sound like all those people who lived before?
    Or even the word order was different and there were some other unique elements of the speech which don't exist in the modern English now?
    It is possible to create sentences in older versions of English the way they were created many years ago, just like people can create sentences in ancient Latin or Greek. To answer your original question, not many native speakers could do that correctly.
     

    dojibear

    Senior Member
    English - Northeast US
    is it possible to imitate that kind of English
    Writers do it all the time, when creating historical dramas. Some of those dramas (Game of Thrones) are on TV, so are spoken.
    But those writers often adjust for "what modern audiences will understand", rather than trying to be 100% authentic.

    s it possible to sound like all those people
    Pronunciation is an area where TV and movie script-writers compromise. What is the point of a 2018 American movie that 2018 American watchers cannot understand? There is no point! Movies are for entertainment, not for language teaching.

    There is one exception. William Shakespeare wrote his plays around 1590, and his plays are still read in the US by high school students, and still performed very often in the US. Shakespeare's original words are used, and actors use a BE accent, but probably not a 1590s pronunciation of the words. Where would they learn? I'm not sure anyone even teaches that pronunciation.
     

    dojibear

    Senior Member
    English - Northeast US
    But is it possible to imitate that kind of English knowing only the forms of the auxiliary verbs, endings like "est" and pronouns?
    No, that is not enough.

    [1] You would need to know the long-ago grammar. Grammar has changed. I've seen grammar changes in the last 50 years.

    [2] Many thousands of words have changed. You would have to use thousands of words that nobody uses today, and avoid thousands of words that were not used then.

    [3] Slang changes every 20 to 30 years. In the US, you cannot use words that everyone used in the 1970s. If you use them today, people laugh at you.
     

    Dictatortot

    Member
    English - American South
    Modern English speakers are aware of "thou/thee/thy/thine," and some still use it in circumstances such as prayer. However, as noted above, very few people handle it correctly. Most speakers consider it an archaic version of "you"; they're unaware that "thou" was an invariably singular pronoun and contrasted with the plural "ye/you/your." (As a kid in the 1970s, I remember reading Thor comic books where some Asgardian would ludicrously address a group of people as "thou.")
     

    TroubleEnglish

    Senior Member
    Russian
    No, that is not enough.

    [1] You would need to know the long-ago grammar. Grammar has changed. I've seen grammar changes in the last 50 years.

    [2] Many thousands of words have changed. You would have to use thousands of words that nobody uses today, and avoid thousands of words that were not used then.

    [3] Slang changes every 20 to 30 years. In the US, you cannot use words that everyone used in the 1970s. If you use them today, people laugh at you.
    So, then it's impossible to use "thou" if we have to use other word endings. If we will just say "Thou are smart" it will be incorrect cause it should be "Thou art smart" but it's already pretty serious of changing. I can't even imagine what "art not" would be altogether like "are + not= aren't" if we want to say "thou art not smart". Artn't? Was it used?

    I mean I can't use even just these pronouns for fun because of the -est endings of thou and it's auxiliary ones.
     

    Myridon

    Senior Member
    English - US
    So, then it's impossible to use "thou" if we have to use other word endings. If we will just say "Thou are smart" it will be incorrect cause it should be "Thou art smart" but it's already pretty serious of changing. I can't even imagine what "art not" would be altogether like "are + not= aren't" if we want to say "thou art not smart". Artn't? Was it used?

    I mean I can't use even just these pronouns for fun because of the -est endings of thou and it's auxiliary ones.
    Sure, you can use them for fun (as long as the people you're speaking to are amused by it instead of annoyed).
    Thou are smart. or Thou art smart. or Thou be-eth smart-eth (totally incorrect). would all be okay if you meant to be funny. If you went back to the year 1300, you'd be telling someone that they were painful and you'd be talking to one person only who you knew rather well.
     

    Uncle Jack

    Senior Member
    British English
    So, then it's impossible to use "thou" if we have to use other word endings. If we will just say "Thou are smart" it will be incorrect cause it should be "Thou art smart" but it's already pretty serious of changing. I can't even imagine what "art not" would be altogether like "are + not= aren't" if we want to say "thou art not smart". Artn't? Was it used?
    "Thou art not" is probably what you are looking for. In speech, it is contracted to something like "th'art not", but I don't think it is contracted like this in print. I don't think there is a form where "not" is contracted.

    For the inverted form, both "art thou not" and "art not thou" are used, with no contraction for either that I am aware of.
     

    Uncle Jack

    Senior Member
    British English
    It might also be worth pointing out that the second person singular had a fairly short life in modern English. Shakespeare (1564 - 1616) is fairly sparing in his use of it. In the Authorised Version of the Bible (1611) it is used as the standard singular form, but the style of English used derives largely from earlier sixteenth century bibles, just like the Book of Common Prayer (1662), which uses thou to address God, derives from earlier prayer books, and from what I understand their use of thou and thee was already obsolete. However if you go back into the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries you are into middle English, which is very different from modern English, as anyone who has read Chaucer will tell you.

    In British schools, Shakespeare is almost always taught in the original language (albeit with standardised spellings, and the "long s" (ſ) replaced with a modern "s"). Chaucer (1343 - 1400) is usually taught in translation.
     

    Chasint

    Senior Member
    English - England
    Here are some samples. Remember that you should also use vocabulary that was available in the appropriate time in history. Thus the phrase "Please canst put some bread in the electric toaster?" would sound anachronistic.

    I go
    Thou goest
    He/she/it goeth
    We go
    You go
    They go

    I am
    Thou art
    He/she/it is
    We are
    You are
    They are

    That book is mine
    That book is thine
    That book is his/hers/its
    That book is ours
    That book is yours
    That book is theirs

    My book is here
    Thy book is here
    His/her book is here
    Our book is here
    Your book is here
    Their book is here

    John gave me the cup
    John gave thee the cup
    John gave him/her/it the cup
    John gave us the cup
    John gave you the cup
    John gave them the cup
     

    TroubleEnglish

    Senior Member
    Russian
    Here are some samples. Remember that you should also use vocabulary that was available in the appropriate time in history. Thus the phrase "Please canst put some bread in the electric toaster?" would sound anachronistic.

    I go
    Thou goest
    He/she/it goeth
    We go
    You go
    They go

    I am
    Thou art
    He/she/it is
    We are
    You are
    They are

    That book is mine
    That book is thine
    That book is his/hers/its
    That book is ours
    That book is yours
    That book is theirs

    My book is here
    Thy book is here
    His/her book is here
    Our book is here
    Your book is here
    Their book is here

    John gave me the cup
    John gave thee the cup
    John gave him/her/it the cup
    John gave us the cup
    John gave you the cup
    John gave them the cup
    Perfect...:p:p:p

    Can you form all the English Tenses' sentences, please?

    If I want to say

    "Thou will come"

    how will it be?

    "Thou wilt come"?

    I mean, okay, we change "will" for "wilt" but do we change the "come" for "cometh" or something as if it were for "Thou cometh"(or something)?

    Or in the Middle English there was the same rule that after "will\wilt" the next verb is untouchable?
     

    Chasint

    Senior Member
    English - England
    You don't change 'come' because it is the bare infinitive - the rule is the same as today. In any case you say, "Thou comest" and "He cometh"

    I suggest you search online for "early modern English verb conjugation" for more details. English has changed and evolved almost continuously over the centuries. There have been differing versions in different parts of Britain at the same time.

    Here's somewhere to start - https://public.oed.com/blog/grammar-in-early-modern-english/
     
    Last edited:

    dojibear

    Senior Member
    English - Northeast US
    Modern English speakers are aware of "thou/thee/thy/thine," and some still use it in circumstances such as prayer. However, as noted above, very few people handle it correctly. Most speakers consider it an archaic version of "you"; they're unaware that "thou" was an invariably singular pronoun and contrasted with the plural "ye/you/your.
    I recently read that the letter Y in many "old-fashioned" words is actually the old English consonant "thorn", pronounced "th". For example, "Ye Olde Pub" is really "The Olde Pub".

    But that may not apply to the Y in the plural pronouns ye/you/your.
     

    User With No Name

    Senior Member
    English - U.S.
    Well, for many years, I (a reasonably educated English speaker) thought that the hymn "How Great Thou Art" was meant to praise the high quality of religious painting and architecture....
     

    Hermione Golightly

    Senior Member
    British English
    Why would I use 'archaic' English/Anglo-Saxon forms considering that language is essentially about effective communication.
    I have a few 'Quacker' friends and my children were educated at a 'Quacker' boarding school. I think I would know if these archaic forms were still in modern daily use.
     

    AnythingGoes

    Senior Member
    English - USA (Midwest/Appalachia)
    I have a few 'Quacker' friends and my children were educated at a 'Quacker' boarding school. I think I would know if these archaic forms were still in modern daily use.
    As I said, I've never heard Quakers using thee. I've read that some still follow the practice among themselves.
     

    natkretep

    Moderato con anima (English Only)
    English (Singapore/UK), basic Chinese
    I mean, okay, we change "will" for "wilt" but do we change the "come" for "cometh" or something as if it were for "Thou cometh"(or something)?

    Or in the Middle English there was the same rule that after "will\wilt" the next verb is untouchable?
    (No, not thou cometh but thou com(e)st, as Chasint said. The verbs almost always take the -est inflection with thou (with the exception of art and wilt), even in the past tense form: thou went(e)st, thou walkedst.)

    The auxiliary verbs need to take the right form with thou.

    Thou shalt go.
    Thou wilt go.
    Thou canst go
    Thou should(e)st go
    Thou must go (no additional 'st' because it already ends with -st)
    Thou may(e)st go.
    Thou might(e)st go.
    Thou ought(e)st to go.

    If you are imitating Shakespeare's English, remember that be uses -es more often than -eth for most verbs (except maybe for hath and doth).
     
    Last edited:

    TroubleEnglish

    Senior Member
    Russian
    You don't change 'come' because it is the bare infinitive - the rule is the same as today. In any case you say, "Thou comest" and "He cometh"
    Then hopw
    (No, not thou cometh but thou com(e)st, as Chasint said. The verbs almost always take the -est inflection with thou (with the exception of art and wilt), even in the past tense form: thou went(e)st, thou walkedst.)

    The auxiliary verbs need to take the right form with thou.

    Thou shalt go.
    Thou wilt go.
    Thou canst go
    Thou should(e)st go
    Thou must go (no additional 'st' because it already ends with -st)
    Thou may(e)st go.
    Thou might(e)st go.
    Thou ought(e)st to go.

    If you are imitating Shakespeare's English, remember that be uses -es more often than -eth for most verbs (except maybe for hath and doth).
    Okay, let's create Present Simple sentences

    Thou dost it
    Thou drawst it
    Thou seest it
    -----------------
    Thou dost not do it
    Thou dost not draw it
    Thou dost not see it
    -----------------
    Dost thou not do it
    Dost thou not draw it
    Dost thou not see it
    -----------------
    Is there any way to say "dost + not" altogether like "don't"?

    And is it correct what I wrote?
     

    Uncle Jack

    Senior Member
    British English
    Okay, let's create Present Simple sentences

    Thou dost it
    Thou drawst it
    Thou seest it
    You are doing things the wrong way round. First, think what you want to say, then ask about how to say it. Although all these sentences might have the correct present indicative second person singular verb form, when would you ever use the present indicative in this way? In ordinary modern English, with "you", these are imperatives ("You do it", etc), and, as far as I know, second person singular imperatives use the same base form of the verb as the second person plural ("Get thee to a nunnery", Hamlet Act 3 Scene 1).

    Curiously, the older Middle English forms apparently used -e or -eth for the second person plural imperative but the base verb for the singular.
     

    PaulQ

    Senior Member
    UK
    English - England
    I suspect that the "not" went to the end of the clause:
    Thou dost do it not
    Thou dost draw it not
    Thou dost see it not.

    There is also the problem of the periphrastic "do" which, prior to about 1500 was less common in statements and questions than those examples with it1, thus

    Thou dost it not -> Dost thou it not?
    Thou drawest it not -> Drawest thou it not?
    Thou seest it not. -> Seest thou it not?

    1"The Rise of Auxiliary DO‐Verb Raising or Category‐Strengthening?" Richard Hudson. First published: 17 December 2002 (https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968X.00012 - pdf download.)
     
    Last edited:

    TroubleEnglish

    Senior Member
    Russian
    I suspect that the "not" went to the end of the clause:
    Thou dost do it not
    Thou dost draw it not
    Thou dost see it not.

    There is also the problem of the periphrastic "do" which, prior to about 1500 was less common in statements and questions than those examples with it1, thus

    Thou dost it not -> Dost thou it not?
    Thou drawest it not -> Drawest thou it not?
    Thou seest it not. -> Seest thou it not?

    1"The Rise of Auxiliary DO‐Verb Raising or Category‐Strengthening?" Richard Hudson. First published: 17 December 2002 (https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968X.00012 - pdf download.)
    But is there any normal book of that time's grammar?

    How to create all Tenses?

    Present Perfect - "Thou hast done? Or "thou hast doneth" or somehow else...

    How to say something in Continuous? "Thou art goingest"? Or how?:D

    I need the conjugation:(
     

    AnythingGoes

    Senior Member
    English - USA (Midwest/Appalachia)
    Present Perfect - "Thou hast done?:tick: Or "thou hast doneth":cross: or somehow else...

    How to say something in Continuous? "Thou art goingest":cross:?
    The compound tenses used the same conjugation in the second-person singular as anywhere else. Present perfect: conjugate "to have" and add the bare infinitive. Present simple continuous: conjugate "to be" and add the present participle.
     

    TroubleEnglish

    Senior Member
    Russian
    The compound tenses used the same conjugation in the second-person singular as anywhere else. Present perfect: conjugate "to have" and add the bare infinitive. Present simple continuous: conjugate "to be" and add the present participle.
    You mean

    Present Perfect for 'Thou" is:

    Thou hast done ?

    Present Continuous for 'Thou" is:

    Thou art doing ?

    Honestly, I have seen no usage of continuous tense in all materials I found about the archaic English...
     

    Uncle Jack

    Senior Member
    British English
    But is there any normal book of that time's grammar?
    I am sure there are several, but there are some online resources as well. From your posts, it seems you are most interested in early modern English (1500-1680 or thereabouts), although the second person singular had more or less disappeared before the end of this period. Do a web search for "early modern English grammar".

    I would not recommend going back to Middle English, if all you are interested in is the second person singular.
     

    Uncle Jack

    Senior Member
    British English
    Thou art doing ?

    Honestly, I have seen no usage of continuous tense in all materials I found about the archaic English...
    I agree. I cannot recall any examples of the present progressive in this time period, although the present participle certainly existed. Shakespeare used the present simple where we would now use the present continuous:
    O, I die, Horatio (Hamlet, act 5 scene 2)​
     

    Hermione Golightly

    Senior Member
    British English
    To hear what Shakespeare's English sounded like. look for the YouTube videos produced by the language expert David Crystal and his actor son Ben. One of the most noticeable features is the rhotic R, still found in some regional accents. There have been several productions using the pronunciation of the period. The language changed in various aspects as much then as it has in the past century. It would be the RP of the time. Quite possibly a Northumbrian peasant would be as uncomprehending as incomprehensible.
     
    Last edited:

    Chasint

    Senior Member
    English - England
    My ox is here
    Thine ox is here
    His/her ox is here
    Our ox is here
    Your ox is here
    Their ox is here
    Yes, 'thine' before a vowel. But it should also be, 'mine ox' for the same reason.

    Genesis 30:25 And it came to pass, when Rachel had born Joseph, that Jacob said unto Laban, Send me away, that I may go unto mine own place, and to my country.
     
    Last edited:

    TroubleEnglish

    Senior Member
    Russian
    I agree. I cannot recall any examples of the present progressive in this time period, although the present participle certainly existed. Shakespeare used the present simple where we would now use the present continuous:
    O, I die, Horatio (Hamlet, act 5 scene 2)​
    So, if English now has 16 Tenses, English then had at least 8, if they didn't have any Continuous. This way, they had only:

    Simple - Future, Present, Past + Future in the Past
    Perfect - Future, Present, Past + Future in the Past


    Right?

    Thou wilt\shalt do
    Thou dost
    Thou didst

    Thou wilt\shalt have done
    Thou hast done
    Thou hadst done

    Thou wouldst do
    Thou wouldst have done


    Is it correct?
     

    TroubleEnglish

    Senior Member
    Russian
    Looks good. Don't forget Thou shouldst do, Thou shouldst have done
    Oh, yes, thank you!

    But also I have such a problem.

    If we have "know" we do add "est" = "knowest". If it's "think", we add "est" = "thinkest". But if it's "did", we add "st" = "didst", not "didest". What is the rule for adding "est" or "st". It's not about vowel or consonants, as I can see from here.
     

    Chasint

    Senior Member
    English - England
    It's not that simple unfortunately. Shakespeare for example is inconsistent. He uses both "knowst" and "knowest". This is because at the time of the Bard, English was undergoing considerable changes. The Bible however, only uses "knowest"

    I suggest you use online resources to find out for yourself, e.g.

    Shakespeare: Open Source Shakespeare: search Shakespeare's works, read the texts

    Bible (King James version): OFFICIAL KING JAMES BIBLE ONLINE: AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION (KJV)

    You can search for a given word and see how it is used in context.
     

    TroubleEnglish

    Senior Member
    Russian
    It's not that simple unfortunately. Shakespeare for example is inconsistent. He uses both "knowst" and "knowest". This is because at the time of the Bard, English was undergoing considerable changes. The Bible however, only uses "knowest"

    I suggest you use online resources to find out for yourself, e.g.

    Shakespeare: Open Source Shakespeare: search Shakespeare's works, read the texts

    Bible (King James version): OFFICIAL KING JAMES BIBLE ONLINE: AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION (KJV)

    You can search for a given word and see how it is used in context.
    Thank you!

    And also about reading all of these words.

    Knowest is [nouest] or [nouist]?
    Didst is [didst] or [ditst]?
    Spokest is [spoukest], [spoukist] or even [spoukst]?

    How can I check the pronunciation or have an rule if there are any of them existing at all...?
     

    DonnyB

    Sixties Mod
    English UK Southern Standard English
    Thank you!

    And also about reading all of these words.

    Knowest is [nouest] or [nouist]?
    Didst is [didst] or [ditst]?
    Spokest is [spoukest], [spoukist] or even [spoukst]?

    How can I check the pronunciation or have an rule if there are any of them existing at all...?
    I'm not sure anybody really knows: it's not as if there are any surviving voice recordings.

    If I have to occasion read them out loud in prayers, which is the only time I'd ever need to pronounce them, I just use the modern pronunciation.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top