Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 October 5

= October 5 =

Ye Olde Curiositie Shoppe
OK - so I get why the old letter "thorn" got transcribed to "Y" in print - so "Ye" is really pronounced "The" and modern pronunciation of "Ye" as "Ye" is just silly.

I also get that in an era before decent dictionaries and standardized spelling, "curiosity" could be written "curiositie".

But why do "olde" and "shoppe" have "e"'s on the end in modern faux medieval writing?

SteveBaker (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It is an article of faith among Americans faking up "medieval" (usually really Early Modern) spelling, that everything had an 'e' on the end in "olden times", whether it does now or not. This is apparently inspired by the horrified discovery that all those silent e's on the ends of words used to be pronounced[!], plus that whole theater/theatre, center/centre, etc. thing that Noah Webster started. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  17:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you sure? I've seen these spellings in the UK also - and we were never inflicted with Webster's "simplifications". SteveBaker (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The best thing about blaming "Americans" for things is you never need a reference to back up your bias. μηδείς (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Here are three examples of an Americaine doing thatte sorte of thynge:, , . --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  21:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, mye. Surelie thou keptest noughte those edittes in thy memorie.  So where didst thou keep hem?  Hast thou a liste thou keepest?  Matters noughte so long as oure readers do readen oure editte sommairies. μηδείς (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Surely I did remember them, because they stuck out at the time as extremely odd. It was less than a week ago, after all; I may be ayncientte in the eyes of some people, but my memory ain't that short. What made them particularly memorable for me, was that you took the time to make those three apparently pointless edits, but hadn't found time* to respond to any of my four questions seeking clarification about your earlier contribution to the thread under discussion.  One could have been forgiven for thinking you were pointedly avoiding the questions.  Maybe that was your point (or poynte, in this case). (* You've since made a response.  Of sorts.)


 * But are you saying you post stuff on websites in order to be totally ignored and immediately forgotten? That wasn't my impression at all, but I'm happy to be corrected.   --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  23:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, this isn't the first time you've remembered my owne postes bettere than I have. I am hugely impressed.  Or flattered.  Or impressed.  Or flattered. μηδείς (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It's fair to say you've created a certain impression of yourself, Medeis. As we all do.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  23:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Here in Detroit, we have a drug store named "Ye Olde Drug and Party Faire". Sounds like the place for fun, doesn't it ? :-) StuRat (talk) 07:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You can see here in the texts of Wycliffe, Chaucer, and Grower the use of things such as "The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne" (the tender crops and the young sun--compare "shoppe" and "croppes"), and "these olde wise" (these old wisemen), and "Jhesu made iorney by citees and castelis, prechinge and euangelysinge þe rewme [realm] of God".


 * These final ees represent fossilized markers of case and gender, as in the feminine yonge sonne. Copmare the German, Die Sonne, sie glänzt "The sun, she shines".  Spellings in printed material tend to be conservative, especially in religious texts.  Consider original texts of the King James Bible or look at this facsimile of King Lear. μηδείς (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I could only testify to how Yanks get it wrong. As to ol' Noah: youse guys are exposed to your side of the whole Websterian differentiation, and I suppose folks might think that "this is how we who preserve the Fine Old Heritage of Mother England used to spell thinges!" Actually, a quick peek at the OED reveals that the legitimate spelling "olde" has been attested from 940 C.E. well into the 1600s; and "shoppe" was common in the 16th century, alongside (at different times) schopp, schop(p)e, shope, schop, shopp, schoop, shoope, shop; shapp, chope, choipp, shap, and even chop. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;  Talk  17:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

However, as far as the first word goes: while "curiosity" has been spelled coryouste, curiouste, curyouste(e), curyoste, coriouste, curiowstee, curyste, curiosite, cury-, curiosite(e), curiosyte(e), curiosytye, curiositye, kewriosyte, etc., the sense of "the kind of tschotschke sold in a curiosity shop" was first attested in 1645, by which time the spelling was settle solidly in the modern form, with not a single counter-example found. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  17:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The original Old Curiosity Shop lacks any superfluous "e"s. However, we Brits are not above adding an extra "e" when the urge takes us.,, , Note that "ye" is still pronounced "ye" when it is the plural form of "thou" as in "Oh ye of little faith" (but you probably knew that already). Alansplodge (talk) 01:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, yes; not all us Friends mangle 17th-century pronoun use, as thee may know. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  01:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's, "As thou mayest know...." Thee is the object form of that pronoun. μηδείς (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * However, some 19th-century Quakers said "thee knows" as a kind of partial compromise between "you know" and "thou knowest"... AnonMoos (talk) 12:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am familiar with that, but would call it an affectation (or a corruption--but I don't think it was a continuos transmission), not a compromise. I love the Nixon (film), but Mary Steenburgen as Nixon's mother talking that way drove me nuts. μηδείς (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It may have been accurate, though; there was what some purists consider extensive corruption of traditional Friends practices among the group to whom Nixon's mother belonged.-- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  21:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is one of my favourite videos. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally, I like this one better. V85 (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Apparently the use of thee is for thou art is a corruption, the earliest Quakers used the terms properly: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2732 μηδείς (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * One of my favorite lines:
 * "When thee asks or suggests, I am like putty in thy hands, but when thee forbids, thee is barking up the wrong tree". --Quigley
 * --Trovatore (talk) 08:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Medeis -- "Thee is" certainly isn't correct 17th-century English, and could be considered to have originated as a "corruption" or drastic simplification. However, it seems to have been the way that thousands of people customarily talked during parts of the 19th century, and it's fairly useless to label it "corrupt" in that context... AnonMoos (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Framed poster in a synagogue


What is the significance of this framed poster which I photographed in Chesed-El Synagogue in Singapore? — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you asking for a translation ? Other than that, all we can do is speculate about the imagery.  The Stars of David are obvious.  The flowers, scissors, teapot, stairs, and chalice, not so obvious. StuRat (talk) 07:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not asking for a translation, just what sort of poster it is. I presume it has some particular religious significance. For instance, is it a prayer? Are posters of this sort a standard feature in synagogues, perhaps? Just wondering if I can describe it more accurately on the file description page apart from calling it a "framed poster". — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It's an example of a Shiviti, per the upper text in large letters at the top, under the inner vertical rectangular frame line that underscores "Know before Whom you stand..." (from Berakhot (Talmud)). I would suppose the content conforms with the composition of a Shiviti, and would be displayed accordingly. It's being a framed reproduction, its provenance might be clarified with the synagogue's custodians for documentary purposes. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Fascinating! Thanks very much. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I can confirm DeborahJay's identification. I might add: it's a more or less standard Shiviti. The Menorah is a mystical calligraphic version of Psalm 67 (see the Hebrew version), repeated three times in this case. The only unique features on this Shiviti are the illustrations: the items depicted are various (labeled) utensils of the Temple in Jerusalem used with the Temple Menorah - the stairs for the Kohen to mount when lighting and cleaning the Menorah (oddly labeled as a "ramp"); the "teapot" is the oil jug, for filling the lamps; tongs for removing the used wicks, and shovels to clean the lamps of ash. Ratzd&#39;mishukribo (talk) 03:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)