Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Paula Deming on 1st mo. 27, 2011 at 9:13pm

Sometimes it comes out in the "real" world, including my non-Quaker family, but usually it is confined to Friends.

Nevertheless, the softer my heart is, the more the "thee" comes out. My heart is very soft these days.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paula Roberts on 1st mo. 28, 2011 at 8:54am

I find I use it with people I feel close to.  I routinely use thee with my friend Melanie. She takes it in stride.  It is not something I use routinely in the world, but it does come out and when it does I don't fight it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sloane on 1st mo. 29, 2011 at 9:09am

lol....I loved your post friend paul. 

 

Within' thee soft heart, I thank you all for educating me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Helen Gibbs on 1st mo. 31, 2011 at 1:00pm

When I first joined meeting over 20 years ago, Lily who was 93 at the time still spoke "plain" amongst Friends.

Most of the traditional use has died out, but some people still keep to it. My beloved and I occasionally use it for very formal and tender conversations.

In terms of modern plain, the shift in language has moved to a democratic use of the plural (e.g. you instead of thee), and the challenging area I find is the use of titles or not. I've had some impressive debates with government organisations who insist on a title, and have been known to use Mr, even though I am female to protest at the idea that a title is still essential

Helen

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chris Nugent on 2nd mo. 15, 2011 at 12:23am

I really appreciate the tenderness that moves Friends to use "plain speech." I had not considered it in that way. It reflects a true generosity of spirit. I have two concerns, though: one substantive, one historical/aesthetic. 

 If our speech is not consistent we may on some level inadvertently establish hierarchies of truth or lovingkindness. In this we risk creating unnecessary divisions both within the RSoF and with the wider community. This contradicts the original radical inclusivity of "plain speech."  Contemporary English has abolished grammatical social distinctions although linguistic equivalents to "hat honor", as Helen Gibbs points out.

It is perhaps to my discredit that I am deeply invested in the English language and literature. It pains me to hear grammatically faulty archaic forms from Friends with perfect grasp of the contemporary forms. Pen Wilcock offers the suggestion that "plain speech" derives from but is not identical to the language of early Friends.  This explanation makes sense, but I am still left feeling excluded by language that is clearly intended to create a sense of warmth and welcome.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ben schultz on 2nd mo. 26, 2011 at 10:00pm

Friend Chris speaks my mind.

There is nothing plain about either "plain speech" or "plain dress". it's actually some kind of vanity or attempt to exclude and as such should be avoided by Quakers.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion