understanding Thee, Thine, Ye, Yea, Doth, etc...
 

Hello All!

Please bare with me as I have a few questions that might seem like a "piece of cake", and "a no brainer". Thank You

If any one can explain to me how the Thee, Thine, Thou, Ye, Yea, Doth, etc... are used??

How to understand when and where each one is used (singular, plural)???

Thank You in advance, and God Bless.:)

Remember that Bible English is God's use of English, so it is different to just "normal" English. But if you look into it, you will see that Bible English is exact and precise. The use of any particular word in any form in the King James Bible is entirely accurate, and is hardly understood by even those who read it every day.

There distinction in plurals (thou, thee, thy, thine = one person; ye, you, your, yours = more than one person)

There is a distinction between the subject and the object. The subject is the doer, the object is the recipient of the action. It is "ye" who praise God, and it is "you" whom God blesses, etc.

The grammar on verbs, such as "do", "doth", "doeth", "didst", "diddest", etc. matches up with the tense as well as the voice (grammar stuff).

"Yea" and "Nay" are normally used, but "Yes" and "No" are used when the question is asked in the negative form, such as, "But I say, Have they not heard?" the answer is "Yes verily", because to answer "yea" would be to agree with the negative, i.e. that they have not heard.

Hi

Thank You very much for that break down of those words.

Thank You and God Bless

On Sunday I had a discussion with a fellow and he pointed to a wonderful verse that shows how other translations corrupt these words. It is John 3.7... Look at how other translations treat this monumental verse.

Hi IC@KJV,
White's Dictionary of the King James Language is very good on this one.
He dedicated some twenty pages of his book just to the Grammar rules.
A great book that gives the history of each English word and its origin.
Volume one A to E only, so far. Waiting for the rest.

-th/-st endings do not indicate tense or voice. There is a rumor floating around that they do (and thus indicate more information/accuracy than modern English), but this is wrong. It is simply a matter of -st being second-person singular, and -th being third-person singular. E.g. "I love"/"I have" (first person singular), "thou lovest"/"thou hast" (second person singular), "he loveth"/"he hath" (third person singular).

It is no rumour but truth that the KJB is entirely accurate, which includes its grammar.

Here is Dr Johnson. Notice how he uses the -th, -eth, -st, -est endings. Dr Johnson is writing about English usage at his time, not Bible English. The Bible does distinguish use on the verb with tense and voice even more accurately and perfectly than what Dr Johnson lists, so that we see “do”, “doth”, “doeth”, “dost”, “doest”, “didst”, “diddest”, “did”, “done”, etc. in the Bible. All are distinctly and rightly used in their places.

* * * * * * * * * *

Pronouns, in the English language, are, I, thou, he, with their plurals,
we, ye, they; it, who, which, what, whether, whosoever, whatsoever, my,
mine, our, ours, thy, thine, your, yours, his, her, hers, theirs, this,
that, other, another, the same, some.

The pronouns personal are irregularly inflected.

Singular. Plural.

Nom. I, We.

Accus. and Me, Us.
other oblique
cases.

Nom. Thou, Ye.

Oblique. Thee, You.

...

English verbs are active, as I love; or neuter, as I languish. The neuters
are formed like the actives.

Most verbs signifying action may likewise signify condition or habit,
and become neuters; as I love, I am in love; I strike, I am now
striking.

Verbs have only two tenses inflected in their terminations, the present,
and simple preterit; the other tenses are compounded of the auxiliary
verbs, have, shall, will, let, may, can, and the infinitive of the active
or neuter verb.

The passive voice is formed by joining the participle preterit to the
substantive verb, as I am loved.

To have. Indicative Mood.

Present Tense.

Sing. I have, thou hast, he hath or has,
Plur. We have, ye have, they have.

Has is a termination connoted from hath, but now more frequently used
both in verse and prose.

Simple Preterit.

Sing. I had, thou hadst, he had
Plur. We had, ye had, they had.

Compound Preterit.

Sing. I have had, thou hast had, he has or hath had;
Plur. We have had, ye have had, they have had.

Preterpluperfect.

Sing. I had had, thou hadst had, he had had.
Plur. We had had, ye had had, they had had.

Future.

Sing. I shall have, thou shalt have, he shall have;
Plur. We shall have, ye shall have, they shall have.

Second Future.

Sing. I will have, thou wilt have, he will have;
Plur. We will have, ye wilt have, they will have.

By reading these future tenses may be observed the variations of shall
and will.

Imperative Mood.

Sing. Have, or have thou, let him have;
Plur. Let us have, have or have ye, let them have.

Conjunctive Mood.

Present.

Sing. I have, thou have, he have;
Plur. We have, ye have, they have.

Preterit simple as in the Indicative.

Preterit compound.

Sing. I have had, thou have had, he have had;
Plur. We have had, ye have had, they have had.

Future.

Sing. I shall have, as in the Indicative.

Second Future.

Sing. I shall have had, thou shalt have had, he shall have had;
Plur. We shall have had, ye shall have had, they shall have had.

Potential.

The potential form of speaking is expressed by may, can, in the present;
and might, could, or should, in the preterit, joined with the infinitive
mood of the verb.

Present.

Sing. I may have, thou mayst have, he may have;
Plur. We may have, ye may have, they may have.

Preterit.

Sing. I might have, thou mightst have, he might have;
Plur. We might have, ye might have, they might have.

Present.

Sing. I can have, thou canst have, he can have;
Plur. We can have, ye can have, they can have.

Preterit.

Sing. I could have, thou couldst have, he could have;
Plur. We could have, ye could have, they could have.

In like manner should is united to the verb.

There is likewise a double Preterit.

Sing. I should have had, thou shouldst have had, he should have had;
Plur. We should have had, ye should have had, they should have had.

In like manner we use, I might have had; I could have had, &c.

Infinitive Mood.

Present. To have.
Preterit. To have had.
Participle present. Having.
Participle preterit. Had.

Verb Active. To love.

Indicative. Present.

Sing. I love, thou lovest, he loveth or loves;
Plur. We love, ye love, they love.

Preterit simple.

Sing. I loved, thou lovedst, he loved;
Plur. We loved, ye loved, they loved.
Preterperfect compound. I have loved, &c.
Preterpluperfect. I had loved, &c.
Future. I shall love, &c. I will love, &c.

Imperative.

Sing. Love or love thou, let him love;
Plur. Let us love, love or love ye, let them love.

Conjunctive. Present.

Sing. I love, thou love, he love;
Plur. We love, ye love, they love.
Preterit simple, as in the indicative.
Preterit compound. I have loved, &c.
Future. I shall love, &c.
Second Future. I shall have loved, &c.

Potential.

Present. I may or can love, &c.
Preterit. I might, could, or should love, &c.
Double Preterit. I might, could, or should have
loved, &c.

Infinitive.

Present. To love.
Preterit. To have loved.
Participle present. Loving.
Participle past. Loved.

The passive is formed by the addition of the participle preterit to the
different tenses of the verb to be, which must therefore be here exhibited.

Indicative. Present.

Sing. I am, thou art, he is;
Plur. We are or be, ye are or be, they are or be.
The plural be is now little in use.

Preterit.

Sing. I was, thou wast or wert, he was;
Plur. We were, ye were, they were.

Wert is properly of the conjunctive mood, and ought not to be used in the
indicative.

Preterit compound. I have been, &c.
Preterpluperfect. I had been, &c.
Future. I shall or will be, &c.

Imperative.

Sing. Be thou; let him be;
Plur. Let us be; be ye; let them be.

Conjunctive. Present.

Sing. I be, thou beest, he be;
Plur. We be, ye be, they be.

Preterit.

Sing. I were, thou wert, he were;
Plur. We were, ye were, they were.
Preterit compound. I have been, &c.
Future. I shall have been, &c.

Potential.

I may or can; would, could, or should be; could,
would, or should have been, &c.

Infinitive.

Present. To be.
Preterit. To have been.
Participle present. Being.
Participle preterit. Having been.

Passive Voice. Indicative Mood.

I am loved, &c. I was loved, &c. I have been
loved, &c.

Conjunctive Mood.

If I be loved, &c. If I were loved, &c. If I shall
have been loved, &c.

Potential Mood.

I may or can be loved, &c. I might, could, or
should be loved, &c. I might, could, or should
have been loved, &c.

Infinitive.

Present. To be loved.
Preterit. To have been loved.
Participle. Loved.

There is another form of English verbs, in which the infinitive mood is
joined to the verb do in its various inflections, which are therefore to be
learned in this place.

To do.

Indicative. Present.

Sing. I do, thou dost, he doth;
Plur. We do, ye do, they do.

Preterit.

Sing. I did, thou didst, he did;
Plur. We did, ye did, they did.
Preterit., &c. I have done, &c. I had done, &c.
Future. I shall or will do, &c.

Imperative.

Sing. Do thou, let him do;
Plur. Let us do, do ye, let them do.

Conjunctive. Present.

Sing. I do, thou do, he do;
Plur. We do, ye do, they do.

The rest are as in the Indicative.

Infinite. To do, to have done.
Participle present. Doing.
Participle preterit. Done.

Do is sometimes used superfluously, as I do love, I did love; simply for I
love, or I loved; but this is considered as a vitious mode of speech.

And how does any of that disprove what I wrote in my last post? You'll never find an -est/-st ending except on second person singular, and -eth/-th ending except on 3rd person singular.

Hello IC@KJV,
My advice to you is just read it and keep studying, that KJV language will grow on you and soon you will find that the Holy Spirit gives a deep appreciation for all those thee's and thou's. Certain people like BrianT don't even think the KJV is inerrant, and in my opinion they unwittingly seek to lead others astray here. Bibleprotector is correct—your King James Bible is entirely accurate! :)

Thou sayest it.

Welcome to Chuckle City
 

It looks like sincerity and ignorance are not good partners. :boom:
*******
Matthew, Where did you get this list from?
*******
Smith says that "-est" Used on verbs only to form Present indicative 2nd pers. sing. nom [used only with 'thou']. Eg. 'Camest', 'comest', 'eatest', 'gavest', 'meanest', 'standest' and 'wouldest'.

Peter, that quote was out of Samuel Johnson's grammar, I think dated from 1755.

As you can see, the endings are used on verbs in connection with the pronoun, and with the tense. Every kind of different form here is rightly used in its right place. There is nothing random about it. And it is so particular, conveying so much information, far beyond the comparatively simplistic grammar of modern translations (where it is sometimes wrong, because of their misunderstanding of Greek grammar laws).

The rumor I was originally referring to is the idea that -eth/-est endings indicate an ongoing/continual action rather than a one-time event, and that therefore dropping these archaic endings result in loss of meaning in more modern English. For example, some KJV-only supporters I have met in the past argued that "believe" in the KJV means one-time belief, while "believeth" means ongoing belief. Since this is not true, simplifying the grammar by dropping these endings does not result in any loss of meaning. "God loves" does not have any less meaning than "God loveth".

Maybe you have heard of this, I have not.

But on the other side, I have found that a number of charges are made against KJB-onlyism which are "strawman arguments", such as the accusation that KJB-onlyism promotes the inspiration of the translators from 1604 to 1611. Most KJBOs do not believe that. Yet this is used as a smear against all KJBOism.

Anyone who says that is mistaken.

No, that is a false syllogism or faulty logic. (Some KJBOs have the wrong definition for -eth endings. Since they are wrong, there is no problem in changing -eth endings.) In reality, it still constitutes a change of meaning if you change "believeth" to "believes". (Some KJBOs have the wrong definition for -eth endings. However there is a correct usage for them, so there would be a problem with altering -eth endings today.)

What we find is that "believeth" is matched with second person he/she/whosoever. Fiddling around with the KJB grammar today always constitutes an error/loss of information.

In the KJB, "loves" is the plural of love. While "loveth" is a verb form, I think, second person (object) loveth subject. Changing it means bad grammar. And God's Word should have correct and proper usage.

I disagree. What is the change of meaning? What does "God loves" mean that "God loveth" doesn't?

It is not bad grammar. Grammar changes over time, and it is perfectly good grammar today. "love" can be both a noun or a verb, depending on context, and in today's grammar, "loves" as a verb is third person singular in the same way "loveth" was in the past. No meaning is changed or lost. It is exactly the same as in the past we would say "art" for second person singular, but "are" today. For third person singular, we didn't say "God iseth" even though we say "God is" today - the "eth" ending did not have a different meaning and it was not used on some verbs, which would not be the case if the meaning was different or the grammar was wrong.

Brian,
I fear you are beyond the slippery slope, you may have fallen off the deep end.
We understand you think changes and modernizations to our KJV Bibles are acceptable and even required. We understand you and other KJV-bashers don't accept the idea that our KJV Bibles are inerrant and perfect. We get it. But as you have been told many times, WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT. We like the thee's and thou's, and all the other little things that make KJV-bashers bang their heads against the wall. We think God likes them too, since He has preserved them. The grammar of the preserved Word of God is perfect AS IS, and makes the Bible easier to memorize too.

Let's face it---while you and your ilk were creating a forum dedicated to bashing the KJV, we have been teaching it to our children, winning souls with it and honoring it as the absolute final authority on all matters of faith and doctrine and the most superior Bible available to man. Unfortunately for you, this sort of renders your entire quiver of arguments completely moot, so it has become nothing more than a silly show of smoke and mirrors.

You are still busy slopping paint on a trashed, wingless airplane that will never fly here. Let me know if any of this starts sinking in, until then I will keep reminding you. :cool:

AMEN BROTHER PARRISH, Tell it like it is! :amen::boxing::D

I was pondering the other day after hearing yet another amazed person...amazed in the that the KJV even exists anymore. I believe that was how it was put. I shook my head, smiled, and said that I found it quite interesting that people could learn, understand, embrace, and use the slang of countless generations about and before them yet refuse to do the same with the Word of God. I always like to add that one verse makes it a no-brainer for me...

John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Jesus has made me free...not set me free.

Thank you, Jesus.:amen:

When I became Deaf and was studying American Sign Language (ASL), I realized that, in order to understand the rules of grammar in ASL, I first had to understand rules of grammar in English. If I didn't understand what "dangling participles," "imperatives," "split infinitives," "intransitive verbs" or "modifiers" meant in English grammar, how was I going to be able to understand the grammatical rules in ASL? And how was I going to explain such rules to my ASL students at university (I was an ASL professor for many years), if I couldn't understand the grammatical rules of the language that I and most Americans have grown-up speaking and writing?

However, a miraculous thing happened in reading the KJV Bible. I never had to study the grammatical rules of "old English." I never had to study what "thee", "thou", "thine" or "thy" meant. Do you know why? Because the Holy Spirit was at work in me and I had clarity! It was amazing to me the way that the KJV opened up to me. It was just NATURAL. I never had to struggle with grammar or a feeling of awkwardness. So many people have told me that they can't read the KJV because the stumble over all those "thee's" and "thou's" - well, all I can suggest is PRAYING and fully allowing the Holy Spirit to do a work in you to miraculously open your understanding. I believe that is better than undergoing a complex study of grammatical rules.

This is not HUMANLY-devised grammar. This is GODLY grammar - and we, therefore, need Godly assistance in growing in wisdom and understanding.

Jassy

Well put, Jassy. I like to use the phrase "Biblical English". {not my invention}

:RunToKJB::peace::amen:

Sometimes little pictures say it better than I can. Truly well put, Jassy.