Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Rosemary Gould on 12th mo. 1, 2010 at 5:42pm

Dear Simon,

Thank you. You have given me much to think and pray about.
Rosemary

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sarah Rosemary Ann Zimmermann on 1st mo. 7, 2011 at 10:19am

Dear Rosemary, 

 

The best example of Plain Speech I have ever encountered was in the life of a beloved friend who recently passed of Putney Meeting, NEYM.  

 

Hattie had the gift of making the person in front of her feel, always, as if they were the most wonderful person in the world to her, just the person she wanted to see to make her day better.  She was the face of love for me and for many others.  I learned at her memorial service that she had made a discipline of never saying hurtful things about others- ever.  Almost every time I saw her she would say, "Sarah! How is thee?"  I would say, "Very well Hattie, and you?" whereupon she would reply, "All the better for having seen thee."

 

She used thee with everyone she encountered, not just Friends, which I also did not know until her memorial service.  There, a clerk from the town bookshop said it best.  "When you were with Hattie, you weren't you any more.  You were thee." 

I have rarely felt so loved as when I was thee to Hattie.  

 

And that is a fine, fine usage of Plain speech.

 

-S. Rosemary

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rosemary Gould on 1st mo. 7, 2011 at 12:32pm

That's beautiful. Thank you.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sarah Rosemary Ann Zimmermann on 1st mo. 7, 2011 at 2:56pm

I'm late, but thank you, Stephanie.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sarah Rosemary Ann Zimmermann on 1st mo. 7, 2011 at 3:09pm

I wonder what modern implementations of Plain Speech others are called to.  In the days since Hattie's memorial, I have tried (and consistently failed) to give up saying cruel things about others.  I am going to keep trying.  

I have tried for a long time, and failed, to stop taking the Lord's name in vain (No, "God, that hurt!" or what have you).  I am slowly, slowly, improving, but I still fail.  

I also am trying to stop using the word 'love' inappropriately, reserving it for people, other living things, and concepts.  I can love my husband, God,  justice, and the environment  but I can only like (very, very, much) chocolate, Pride and Prejudice, Scrabble, and merino wool.  There is a certain grey area when it comes to things such as my pet cat and playing my violin, but I'm trying to sort it.  Slowly.  I do find that giving up 'love' has helped my language become more precise.  

I appreciated what Stephanie said about hyperbole and sarcasm.  Hyperbole seems like more of a priority for me.  I might try to deal with both in time.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Karen Mercer on 1st mo. 13, 2011 at 6:20pm

Hello,

 

Somebody in the follow-ups to this post (I can't find it now!) asked  questions that I think I can answer. I am a bit of an amateur linguist and I'm familiar with some of the basic grammar of several languages and I do Shakespearean theatre.

 

The first question was about you vs thou generally and there are a lot of arguments about how it evolved. The Indo-European and Semitic languages almost all have singular and plural second person forms and some have seperate forms for male and female addressees as well. At some point in many European languages You began to be used as a polite form. Using We probably began with ruling royalty, as a way of indicating when they were speaking as a monarch (me + God, or Me representing entire State) as opposed to speaking as a private person. You would have been the correct response to that. The use of the plural form expanded eventually to include anyone of higher status than the speaker, thou to equals or lesser. It also came to have a family association with thou being used with "intimates" (family, close friends). It kept expanding until it became normative to use you between men and women (sometimes even in marraige) and in any polite situation. In German people may work together for 30 years and still use the polite/plural Sie to each other and call each other by their last names. Eventually it became almost an insult in English to use thou instead of you and the majority dropped thou alogether. The result is that English is more egalitarian, but that you eventually became exactly like thou and some people consider it rude to call someone "you" directly...also, since we have forgotten that you is plural people are now starting to make up new plural forms, like "yous". In modern Gaelic the use of Sibh for everyone (polite) is falling out of favour and people are going back to Tu and Thu (familiar) leaving Sibh as an sign of particular respect or affection. Language is what you decide it is.

 

Many Quakers have dropped thou (subject form) and use thee (object form) only but use it with the third person verb forms. Eg "thee is" instead of "thou art". Apparently this was a particular regional dialect some Friends brought from England but I'm not sure of the history or accuracy of that. This is not unlike the way that modern standard English has kept you but dropped the subject form ye

 

The other question was "If You is a sign of respect and status, why don't we use You for God?" I speak some Hebrew so I know this one. We use Thou (capitalized in English) because the Bible uses Thou. The Bible uses Thou because it was translated into English while thou was still in use and the text it is translated from uses a singular form for God. The previous texts use the singular because the original Hebrew uses the singular. Hebrew uses the singular for God, not to show closeness but because using the plural never took on the meaning of status and politeness. God is singular, so the address is singular. Hebrew has 4 second person addresses, singular male (male, neutral or unknown) , singular female (female only), plural male (groups of males or mixed gender groups) and plural female (exclusively female groups).

 

I quite like the Plain speech myself. Even though it would no longer signal "egalitarianism" the way it used to to Standard English speakers there is no reason it could not take on a new and different meaning for today. Because it dropped out of Standard English it has aquired almost the opposite meaning it once had...where once it was coarse and rude (in many circumstances) and uneducated it's now quaint and "old-fashioned, associated with politeness, gentility, learning and religiousity. It has the paradoxical effect of making people feel closer and more intimate while also feeling treated politely and respectfully. That is a powerful antidote to today's lack of manners and respect coupled with increasing objectification and alienation. Language means what people think it means, after all.

 

I admit that I don't yet "get" the days and months thing. I get the days more, as that's what they are called in Hebrew and in the Bible (first day etc) but I grew up thinking the days were mostly named for planets because I didn't know who Woden or Thor were. As for the months, some of them are already numbered (September, October, November) they have just been pushed out of place by new months added later. Many of the other months are named for emporers, and though I don't like any of them particularly, I don't consider it idolatry. If I stop using them, being the literalist I am, I will begin to feel uneasy talking about Denmark or the Danube (named for the goddess Dana) and all sorts of other places in Europe. I have often wondered why this didn't come up before in 2000 years of Christianity or if it did, why they stopped bothering about it for so long that these names are still in use...does anyone know the history of this objection?

 

Karen

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rosemary Gould on 1st mo. 14, 2011 at 1:01pm

Thanks so much for all the great info, Karen.

 

In response to your question at the end, I believe that a big part of the reformation included a drive to purify the church of pre-Christian elements and the worship of images and anything that was not really God. So Puritans destroyed many of the statues and stained glass windows of cathedrals as well as renaming things that they knew had pre-Christian origins and getting rid of saints who were worshiped as if they were God. The earlier church was more inclusive about these various elements and influences. As Christianity spread throughout Europe in the early middle ages, the church had a very politic way of not minding when local elements were brought in.

 

I don't write this to be critical of either side. I just find the history fascinating.

 

Rosemary

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rosemary Gould on 1st mo. 14, 2011 at 1:06pm

Yes, I really appreciated Stephanie's point as well. And I think simplicity of tone when speaking is every bit as important as simplicity in the words themselves. One can imply a great deal of mockery of others even when one's words are apparently true and would appear innocent if you wrote them down. I've even seen Friends grimace or roll their eyes when speaking of a difficult person. That seems equally "unplain" if I may use that term.

 

Rosemary

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Karen Mercer on 1st mo. 28, 2011 at 10:02am

It can also be about a different sort of "pride" issue than thinking and showing that you are cleverer than someone else, which is feeling the need to defend yourself or keep people at a distance. I am most prone to real sarcasm when feeling under attack or on the defensive.

Sometimes I do something like sarcasm but without the aggressive undertone that is meant to make people laugh and put them at ease. I'm not sure what to make of that, whether it's out of any pride or just that I hate a discussion to turn into an angry argument. I wonder if Plain Speech would be found soothing enough to do the same thing.

And yes, sometimes it's just a habit picked up from around me and I don't even realize how I sound.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Karen Mercer on 1st mo. 28, 2011 at 10:27am

Sorry, I lost this thread and didn't answer. Yes, I remember the Puritan purge. I think they called themselves "iconoclasts" (or someone else called them that). I was in sympathy with their desire to be simple and pure but I couldn't agree with it being very Christian to ransack churches and destroy property.

It was further back I was wondering about and could only remember the original arguments about ikons (icons) in the Greek Churches. Some were saying that icons were idols or nearly so and had no place in Christianity and the Greeks argued back that the people were illiterate and the icons helped them to imagine the stories and focus in services and had emotional value.

I just know that Celtic Christianity was the one I studied most and didn't appear to worry one way or other about icons, or about borrowing holidays and cleaning up anything about them they felt contradicted Scripture. Perhaps they were being politic too, but they had no empire to promote so there isn't much reason for them to water things down for acceptance. The Celts actually didn't have seem to have any days of the week or months named after gods until after Christianity brought the Roman calendar...a bit ironic.

It's funny that there is a new sweep to purify Christianity by getting rid of Halloween because it's placement links it to Samhain, the Celtic festival day. I always worry about these because they tend to be accompanied by "witch-hunts" and persecutions of Christians who don't get with the program.

 

Karen

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Schibik on 5th mo. 5, 2012 at 10:53pm

Dear Brethren & Sisters,

Plainness is the outward manifestation of the indwelling Light in thy speech, appearance, conduct, and approbations. Indwelling, not as though the Light is actually “in” thee, but indwelling as it relates to the Light being that which pervades and envelopes everybody and everything that thee could ever possibly comprehend and beyond even that. To the degree that thee has surrendered thy “self” to the Light, will determine the degree of plainness in thy life. Plainness is Grace.

Humans are endowed with two inclinations. The inclination to seek the immutable Light that transcends all things and the other is the shadow inclination, that is also subject to the Light but is inattentive to its' Presence . To the level the shadow “self” inclines towards the Light, the individual experiences Wisdom. The self perceives itself to be the definitive authority of its' own understanding. It is vainglorious and unsettled, always running after something and ever discontent. If thee stands squarely in the Light, thee will be inclined to be centered, unassuming in thy demeanor and long-suffering in thy dealings with thy fellow man. Since the Light is immutable, Its' indwelling is immutable also. There is no “new” plain or old plain. There isn't one plainness for “conservative Friends” and another for “evangelical Friends”. There isn't one kind for the Ohio Yearly Meeting and another kind for the Iowa Yearly Meeting. There is just that which abides and that which is predisposed to dispute, condemn, condone, or obfuscate what abides. The shadow self couches its' arguments in terms like individualism, self expression, and freedom as though the Light somehow unfairly impedes the individual's quest for happiness and peace. That which abides in Truth seeks moderation in all things, modesty in appearance, and forbearance in conduct. Stability, simplicity and tolerance is the precursor to happiness and peace. Friends of like mind are accustomed to the gift of simplicity and shall bear witness to that which has Truth as it's source and provender. Plainness is not about agitating thyself over black or gray, zippers instead of buttons or hooks & eyes. The wearing of broadfalls and bonnets does not make thee plain. A child of Light must recognize the plain within, suppressing or even sublimating thy ego-self, will not work.

Plainness in speech is just as important as thy outward appearance. The world condemns the use of thee and thou and thine as an affectation or nuisance. Think. What speech causes more provocation or angst? “You better get over here, right now!” Or, “Thee ought to get over here, right now.” Kindness in speech, gentleness in tone, reflects a calm mindedness and a willingness to solve disagreements. Thee maybe dressed plain but nothing gives the provocateur away more than speech.

For the frustrated and anxious, wait patiently in silence. Everything, everyone is just the outward manifestation of the Supernal Source, we call God. The flower blossoms and gives off it's scent, whether there is someone there to enjoy it's fragrance, or not. The sun shines on both the good and the bad. The indwelling Light, that is Living Truth, is like the scent of the flower and like the light of the sun. When the shadowy ego-self, relinquishes itself to the Light, then what is simple, what is plain, in though word and deed, will be already found within thee as it has been there for all time. Thee is not here to save the world, not even to change it. It is given to thee to realize only the Oneness which is thy Self and to lend thyself to others. Abide in this, abide in that Wisdom and all will be opened to thee. -

Amicus

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page