arts // no. 8

Why art thou archaic?

» The evolution of the word ‘thou’

Benjamin Howard
Columnist

present-day English, we can use
“you” in any situation, formal or
informal, but Elizabethans had
two second-person pronouns to
choose from: “thou” and “you.”
Despite sounding poetic
today, “thou” was the informal
pronoun, similar to “tu” in
French, and “you” was the
formal (and sometimes plural)
pronoun, such as “vous.”
“Thou” was used among
equals, intimates, or towards
subordinates, while “you” was
used only towards superiors.
For example, an
Elizabethan fellow might
remark to his friend or child,
“How art thou?” but to his
father or the king, the fellow
would say, out of respect, “How
are you?” So when Shakespeare
wrote, “Shall I compare thee to
a summer’s day? Thou art more

: lovely and more temperate,”
: he was being intimate. To
: say “You are more lovely”

Wwe Shakespeare wrote
“thou” instead of “you” for :
a good reason, and it wasn’t that :
he was trying to sound fancy. In :
: changed in English between

: now and Shakespeare’s day?
: What ever happened to “thou”?

would’ve sounded oddly stiff
in Elizabethan times, yet it

sounds much more natural than :

“thou” to modern ears. So what

Well, in the 17th century,

: English speakers—those of

: London, in particular—began
: to favour “you” over “thou” due
: to a few reasons. For one, the

: middle class was expanding in
: those days, and aspired to be

: prim and proper, so they used
: “you” quite often, in imitation
: of the genteel upper class. The
: growth of the middle class also
: made it hard to distinguish

: between the wealthy and the

: poor. To use “thou,” even by

: accident, towards someone of
: wealth would be disrespectful,
: so “you” was favoured over

: “thou,” just in case. On top of
: that, there was a movement

: towards equality occurring,

: so to be more fair some

: would only ever say “you.”

Many years later, as the

: language evolved, “thou” was
: still in use, but was clearly losing
: out in favour of “you.” Since

: the use of “thou” had become
more rare, its use would create a
: special emphasis. At that time,

: to say “How art thou?” would

: be quite offensive because it

: implied that thou art inferior,

: and that the speaker is superior
: to thee. Naturally, people began
: using “thou” as an insult.

Here’s an exemplary

: quotation from Sir Edward Coke,
: who said this in court: “All that

: he did was at thy instigation,

: thou viper; for I thou thee, thou

: traitor.” With “thou” being used
: actively as an insult, it was no

: longer a term of intimacy at all,

: so it fell even further out of use.

For those who've read

: Shakespeare or the King James
: version of the Bible, the usage
: of “thou” instead of “you” may
: have seemed arbitrary, but

: that’s far from the truth.

I hope that this morsel of

knowledge will grant better
: understanding of English’s
: older, more nuanced form.

 

theotherpress.ca

Image via wikimedia

 

A monster in human form

» ‘Victor Frankenstein’ movie review

Lauren Paulsen
Senior Columnist

OOO0S

Frartensien is a title we're
all familiar with. It conjures
images of pieced-together
monsters and mad science, of
dark nights and thunderstorms,
of lightning and angry mobs.
It’s the perfect monster story.
Frankenstein crosses the lines
of life and death, and forces a
heavy examination of humanity.
Needless to say, I walked into
Victor Frankenstein expecting
a story I had heard before. |
did get a monster movie, but
not the monster I expected.
Despite its name, Victor
Frankenstein follows the story
of his assistant, Igor (Daniel
Radcliffe). We find Igor, at the
time a nameless hunchback,
working as a clown and
occasional doctor for a large
London-based circus. Abused
by the people around him, he
finds himself drawn to anatomy
and biology, burying himself
in any related books he can get
his hands on. In short, Igor’s
brilliance is being wasted
beneath face paint and bruises.
Circumstances introduce
us to Victor (James McAvoy), a
member of the upper class who

: is also extremely intelligent,

: not to mention attractive.

: Intrigued by Igor, he takes

: him in as his assistant to help
: further his mysterious work,

: usually involving questionably
: acquired organs and lots

: of morally grey areas.

This movie, while certainly

: not a complete retelling of the

: novel by Mary Shelley, wasn’t

: a terrible adaptation. It made

: some allowances and added

: some details, yet was still a

: monster movie at its core. In

: this case, however, the monster
: in the spotlight was Victor.

Director Paul McGuigan

? seemed to want to show us

: amore human side to those

: involved, instead of just the

: mad scientists we have all heard
: about. He succeeded in that, as
: I felt myself sympathizing with
: Victor even as his decisions

: became more and more

: irrational. Even though I knew
: how it was all going to end, I

: was still on his side. The focus
: on him as a person, instead of

: him asa mad scientist, made

: for a more intriguing story.

While the actors are

: excellent in their roles, I

: found myself questioning how
: necessary the key players in all
: this are. Alongside Victor and

: Igor are Lorelei (Jessica Brown
: Findlay), Igor’s love interest;

: Inspector Turpin (Andrew Scott), :
: the incredibly religious Scotland
: Yard inspector looking into

: Victor's questionable activities;

: and Finnegan (Freddie Fox), a

: fellow classmate of Victor’s who
: is more than willing to throw

: money at Victor's projects. All

: these people are unique in their
: own right, but that feels lost

: in pursuit of the main story.

: They feel flat, acting only in the
: interest of fueling the plot.

Even so, I was pretty

invested in this film from
: beginning to end. I, like most

of us, already knew the story,

: but was excited to see it reborn

: for a modern audience. There

: was a bit of disappointment as

: it didn’t follow Mary Shelley’s

: vision as completely as it could,
: feeling more like a prequel

: than anything. The questions

: of immortality and whether we

: should bring the dead back to

: life are critical to the story and

: didn’t fade to the background

: with this new rendition. Even

: while I held troubled thoughts

: on these topics, I still celebrated
: Victor and Igor’s breakthroughs.

 

g
&
oY
£
wn
q
ov
x
q
o
©
i
a
3
&
oO
g
>
g
3
S
a
=
Zo
a

: The viewer is forced to consider

: their stance on this, as characters
: around the protagonists

: begin to question them too.

In the end, Victor

: Frankenstein provided enough

: gritty humour, action, and

: likeable characters to make for a
: satisfying story. As movies go, I

: don’t really think it’s necessary to
: see on the big screen. If you want
: a primer ona well-known story

: though, or are a fan of British

: actors, Victor Frankenstein is a

: great way to fill an evening.