MSGID: 1:153/716.0 ee1a4d71   
   REPLY: 2:221/6.0 5edba03e   
   CHRS: IBMPC 2   
   Hi, Anton!  Recently you wrote in a message to Ardith Hinton:   
      
   AH>  Bishop R. Heber said "... which wert, and art, and   
   AH>  evermore shalt be" WRT God in 1827.  I'm not sure   
   AH>  how much to attribute to liturgical anachronism...   
      
   AS>  I see no fault with bishop Heber's usage,   
      
      
             Nor do I.   
      
      
      
   AS>  for with these words he addresses God (rather than   
   AS>  saying it WRT Him), and therefore uses the second-   
   AS>  person verbs.   
      
      
             Yes.  But these days we'd say "(you) were, and are, and forever   
   will/ shall be" in ordinary speech.  While I have seen some attempts to   
   modernize the language in old hymns & whatnot I tend to prefer the original   
   version....  :-))   
      
      
      
   AS>  Why he wrote "which" instead of `who' is another   
   AS>  question.   
      
      
             IMHO the most likely explanation is that... as you commented   
   below... usage has changed over the years.  But "thee" and "thou", "thy" and   
   "thine" may be retained in certain circumstances....  :-)   
      
      
      
   AS>  It is probably permissible because `which' is more   
   AS>  general than "who", and, together with `that', used be   
   AS>  employed to personal and impersonal objects alike,   
      
      
             Hmm... I think you've made another important point there.  I like   
   the idea that "God the Father" could be a metaphor, BTW....  :-)   
      
      
      
   AS>  but Cf. another address: "Our Father, Who art in   
   AS>  Heaven...", where the verb is in the second   
   AS>  person too, but the prounoun is personal.   
      
      
             Except when it's not.  The Lord's Prayer is a translation & there   
   are many different versions.  The KJV says "which"....  :-)   
      
      
      
   AH>  ... or how much weight to assign to the idea that when   
   AH>  we speak of an immutable truth the verb tenses should   
   AH>  still be in agreement.  :-)   
      
   AS>  Well, even these days the prevailing tendency is to have   
   AS>  them agree, as a quick search for "knew the Earth was   
   AS>  round" in Boogle Gooks shows .   
      
      
             That's what I'd expect of an historian... [chuckle].   
      
      
      
   AS>  If the alternative is uncontrovesional yet unestablished,   
   AS>  then I prefer the former :-)   
      
      
             I think it's probably the safest, in formal English at least....  :-)   
      
      
      
   AS>  I have failed to what the esteemed Goold Brown has to   
   AS>  say upon the matter on account of the sheer volume of   
   AS>  his magnum opus.   
      
      
             Uh-huh.  When I try looking up some issues, if I can find anything   
   at all, I get one of two answers:  "there are so many possible uses of [blah   
   blah] I won't attempt an exhaustive list" or "my favourite dictionary includes   
   thirty pages of xxx in detail, but I feel overwhelmed with too much   
   information".  I'm reminded here of my adventures with French & Latin... where   
   the examples in the textbook make sense until question #4, when added wrinkles   
   are introduced.  :-Q   
      
      
      
      
   --- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+   
    * Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)   
   SEEN-BY: 1/120 123 18/0 90/1 116/116 120/340 601 123/0 25 50 131 150   
   SEEN-BY: 123/170 755 135/300 138/146 153/250 757 7715 154/10 30 40   
   SEEN-BY: 154/50 700 203/0 221/0 6 226/30 227/114 702 229/101 424 426   
   SEEN-BY: 229/664 1014 240/1120 1634 2100 5138 5832 5853 8001 8002   
   SEEN-BY: 240/8005 249/206 317 261/38 280/5003 313/41 317/3 320/219   
   SEEN-BY: 322/757 331/313 333/808 335/206 364 370 342/200 382/147 640/1384   
   SEEN-BY: 2454/119 3634/0 12 15 27 50 4500/1 5020/1042   
   PATH: 153/7715 3634/12 154/10 221/6 335/364 240/1120 5832 229/426