Tell me more ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 8 down vote favorite
2

What happened to them, and how were they once used? Straining my mind to sound archaic, I came up with the following:

Dost thou thinkest thou can escape thy sins?

and

Bringeth me my armor and favorite sword.

I’d like to use these suffixes intelligently, so my questions are, how are ‑est and ‑eth properly appellated in conjugations, and when and why did they disappear?

share|improve this question
12  
These examples are incorrect. The first should be "dost thou think...", because you've already conjugated do, and the second should be bring because that is the imperative form. Bringeth would be the 3rd person indicative form ("he bringeth"). – Kosmonaut Apr 24 '11 at 16:19
3  
The correct versions would be “Dost thou think thou canst escape thy sins?” and “Bring me my armor and my favorite sword.” – Jonathan Sterling Apr 24 '11 at 23:23
3  
Nice to see we have plenty of people here capable of correcting medieval grammar. I also find it exceptionally irritating when people get these mock versions so wrong. But at least now I can tolerate people saying Y instead of Th in Ye Olde Tea-Shoppe, for example. So there is hope my 'word-rage' can be managed without excessive bloodshed. – FumbleFingers May 20 '11 at 16:06
3  
@FumbleFingers: Yes, you are right; it would have been mine because the following word (armor) begins with a vowel. – Kosmonaut May 21 '11 at 2:01
1  
Um, wouldn't Thinkest thou that thou canst escape.. be perfectly KJV-compliant? – TimLymington Mar 10 '12 at 21:31
show 3 more comments

3 Answers

up vote 12 down vote accepted

Verb paradigm in King James English for think

   Singular             Plural
   --------------------------
1  (I)    think         (we)   think
2  (thou) thinkest      (you)  think
3  (he)   thinketh      (they) think

Imperative: think
Infinitive: (to) think

These unfamiliar suffixes are applied in the same context that the -s suffix is applied in Modern English; for example:

  • He thinks.

  • Thou thinkest.

  • He shall go. (no -s suffix on go)

  • Thou shalt go. (irregular verb form for shall; but again, no suffix on go)

During the Early Modern English period, the 2nd person singular suffix disappeared and the -th suffix in the third person became -s. Other conjugations, such as -e in the first person singular from Middle English, had already been lost.

This sort of change is known as paradigm leveling. There is no particular reason per se that this kind of change happens, but it is not uncommon in the languages of the world.

share|improve this answer
What about that song by The Ark, "Calleth you, Cometh I", do you remember it? If "-eth" is the third person, what's going on here? I was just wondering :D – Alenanno Apr 24 '11 at 17:01
@Alenanno: They probably just did it wrong (either intentionally or unintentionally, I don't know). – Kosmonaut Apr 24 '11 at 18:52
To expand on this, morphological leveling isn't a random phenomenon. It can be difficult to track the precise reasons for a specific change, but we can conjecture that it might be similar to issues like verb agreement in Modern English ("they/you is"). This one is likely the result of AAVE; the ancestors of modern African-Americans, not being native speakers of English, largely had difficulty grasping things like verb agreement which may have been radically different in their native language. Language is mimetic, so these little peculiarities spread beyond just one cultural group. – user19572 Mar 31 '12 at 18:11
up vote 6 down vote

It's basically a feature of being a Germanic language. In German, the second person takes -st, e.g., "Ich bin, du bist, Ich kenne, du kennst" (I am, you are, I know, you know).

The old English forms follow the same pattern, as Kosmonaut shows above. This is the easiest way to spot "fake Elizabethan" language in books and movies. "Wouldst thou?" is fine, "wouldst I?" don't fly.

share|improve this answer
6  
To be clear, it's not a remnant of Germanic influence, but a feature of being a Germanic language. – Jonathan Sterling Apr 25 '11 at 0:19
Correct - good clarification. – The Raven May 20 '11 at 14:58
Well I think if we're all agreed on that point, you should edit your answer to reflect it. Your substantive point remains valid, and does usefully supplement Kosmonaut's answer, so it shouldn't be left with misleading elements that downgrade the whole. – FumbleFingers May 21 '11 at 2:31
up vote -2 down vote

Surely it would have been "armour" as you damned colonials hadn't yet initiated the demolition process, had you? No offence (sic) intended, my dear fellows.

Good morrow, Mac.

p.s. "Thames Estuary" English is completing the process, sadly...

share|improve this answer
This doesn't answer the question at hand. – Matt Эллен Oct 25 '12 at 9:22

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.