This is more of an open-ended post than normal, but the issue of formality in Religious discourse came up today.
Having not been raised in any particular religion, I was somewhat surprised to discover that in the Bible, God is usually addressed informally rather than formally (when the language so permits).
For an example, let’s use Job 10:4 (this passage is the first I found where a person speaks with God. Attribute no special significance to this choice.).
In the New International Version of the Bible, the passage is glossed:
You don’t have human eyes.
You don’t see as people see
Modern English has lost the Second Person informal (‘Thou’), so this informality doesn’t show up at all in Modern English translation.
However, in the King James Version, we start to see this informality:
Hast thou eyes of flesh? or seest thou as man seeth?
Here, the full informal is used in reference to God. Also interesting is the lack of the capitalization found in the NIV’s “You”, when referring to God.
Interestingly, this same informality showed up in other languages as well. The Reina-Valera Spanish Version of Job 10:4 uses the informal “tu” (lowercase) in place of “Usted”, and the Russian Synodal Version uses the informal “Ti” (uppercase) in place of “Vi” (Sorry, my cyrillics are having issues with this blog). This pattern also held true in French, German, and Portuguese, as best as I can tell.
Of course, there are people who might have a field-day with this information, attributing all sorts of cultural conclusions to these choices (“People must view God as their friend!”). However, rather than jumping to any conclusions, I’m going to ask what other people think.
So, my questions for my readers are twofold:
First, if you speak another language or practice another religion, with what form of address do you address your Deity or Deities? Do you use a formal Pronoun (Usted, You, Vous, Sie, etc.) or an Informal pronoun (Tu, Thou, Du, etc.)? For languages with many levels of formality, please specify.
Second (and answer this only if you’d like), does this informality (or lack thereof) hold significance for you? Do you feel like it’s more a matter of tradition than anything? Do you think that this represents or affects your perception of your God(s)?
If you’d like to post a reply, either click “Comments” below this post, or send me an email (will at this domain name dot com). All comments will be moderated for spam prevention, so yours may take some time to appear.
I hope this yields some interesting answers, and maybe some interesting discussion!
Tagged with Conventional Linguistics, Language and Ritual, Language Usage, Linguistic Mysticism | 1 Comment
Comments
Leave a Comment
If you would like to make a comment, please fill out the form below.
Site Information
- About the author
- About this site (and the title text)
- Non-language-related posts
- Our Advertising Policy
- Our Pronoun Policy
- LinguisticMystic RSS Feed
Search the Site
Categories
- Computers and Software (19)
- Conventional Linguistics (104)
- Computational Linguistics (5)
- Dialects and Idiolects (6)
- Etymology (3)
- Language Acquisition (4)
- Language and Music (2)
- Language Change (10)
- Linguistic Anthropology (4)
- Phonetic Phriends (3)
- Phonetics and Phonology (27)
- Psycholinguistics (4)
- Sociolinguistics (22)
- Translation and Translation Theory (10)
- Words, Phrases, and Idioms (29)
- Language and Thought (11)
- Language Censorship (3)
- Language Creation (6)
- Language Humor (26)
- Language Usage (79)
- Linguistic Mysticism (11)
- Notes (53)
- Reader Questions (2)
- Recommended Links (2)
Latest Non-linguistic Posts
Language Sites and Blogs
Linguistics and Language Resources
Links for Corrections
Unrelated-yet-awesome
Archives
- January 2012
- December 2011
- September 2011
- July 2011
- April 2011
- June 2010
- March 2010
- September 2009
- March 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
Site features
- Entries RSS
- Powered by Wordpress
- Theme based on Vertigo Squared.
- Hosting by Joyent
Hey, just thought you might be interested in what I can tell you about Hinduism and Sikhism. In Punjabi and Hindi, I believe the pronoun in also an informal you, but it is never associated with any one gender. I know more about Sikhism though, so I thought you might be interested to know that God is often referred to as “Nameless One,” since God is sarguna (with form), nirguna (without form) and possessing both all attributes and no attributes. I view this addressing God as the “Nameless One” as both respectful and logically sound, from what I know about the religion. At the same time, a Sikh’s relationship with God is fairly informal. Tell me what you think.
Far East with the spirit of the Wild West,
Meredith