Mixing
Is “Who art” correct?
I came across these lines in a hymn:
Cherubim and seraphim falling down before Thee,
Which wert and art, and ever more shalt be.
I noticed that "wert", "art", and "shalt" were used with the subject "which" in the last line instead of which "thou." At first I thought this was just a grammatical mistake on the side of the hymn writer, but then I kept seeing such things where verbs in second person singular form are used with indefinite pronouns such as "which" or "who". Another example is give in this StackExchange question whose answer doesn't really answer my question.
So now I'm wondering, is it correct to use second person singular verbs with indefinite pronouns if the indefinite pronoun refers to a second person singular pronoun (in the hymn, "which" reffers to "Thee" from the last line)?
grammaticality pronouns archaic victorian-english
asked Jan 16 at 15:14
ElliotThomasElliotThomas
789
add a comment |
I came across these lines in a hymn:
Cherubim and seraphim falling down before Thee,
Which wert and art, and ever more shalt be.
I noticed that "wert", "art", and "shalt" were used with the subject "which" in the last line instead of which "thou." At first I thought this was just a grammatical mistake on the side of the hymn writer, but then I kept seeing such things where verbs in second person singular form are used with indefinite pronouns such as "which" or "who". Another example is give in this StackExchange question whose answer doesn't really answer my question.
So now I'm wondering, is it correct to use second person singular verbs with indefinite pronouns if the indefinite pronoun refers to a second person singular pronoun (in the hymn, "which" reffers to "Thee" from the last line)?
grammaticality pronouns archaic victorian-english
asked Jan 16 at 15:14
ElliotThomasElliotThomas
789
Welcome to EL&U! A sound question indeed. Would you care to tell us which hymn it is you are referring to to aid our research?
– A Lambent Eye
Jan 16 at 18:22
@ALambentEye Sure. It was Holy, Holy, Holy. I included he second-to-last line of the verse I was talking about to give the context of the sentence.
– ElliotThomas
Jan 16 at 19:09
1
Who art
– Hot Licks
Jan 17 at 0:28
add a comment |
I came across these lines in a hymn:
Cherubim and seraphim falling down before Thee,
Which wert and art, and ever more shalt be.
I noticed that "wert", "art", and "shalt" were used with the subject "which" in the last line instead of which "thou." At first I thought this was just a grammatical mistake on the side of the hymn writer, but then I kept seeing such things where verbs in second person singular form are used with indefinite pronouns such as "which" or "who". Another example is give in this StackExchange question whose answer doesn't really answer my question.
So now I'm wondering, is it correct to use second person singular verbs with indefinite pronouns if the indefinite pronoun refers to a second person singular pronoun (in the hymn, "which" reffers to "Thee" from the last line)?
grammaticality pronouns archaic victorian-english
asked Jan 16 at 15:14
ElliotThomasElliotThomas
789
I came across these lines in a hymn:
Cherubim and seraphim falling down before Thee,
Which wert and art, and ever more shalt be.
I noticed that "wert", "art", and "shalt" were used with the subject "which" in the last line instead of which "thou." At first I thought this was just a grammatical mistake on the side of the hymn writer, but then I kept seeing such things where verbs in second person singular form are used with indefinite pronouns such as "which" or "who". Another example is give in this StackExchange question whose answer doesn't really answer my question.
So now I'm wondering, is it correct to use second person singular verbs with indefinite pronouns if the indefinite pronoun refers to a second person singular pronoun (in the hymn, "which" reffers to "Thee" from the last line)?
grammaticality pronouns archaic victorian-english
grammaticality pronouns archaic victorian-english
asked Jan 16 at 15:14
ElliotThomasElliotThomas
789
asked Jan 16 at 15:14
ElliotThomasElliotThomas
789
asked Jan 16 at 15:14
ElliotThomasElliotThomas
789
asked Jan 16 at 15:14
ElliotThomasElliotThomas
789
asked Jan 16 at 15:14
ElliotThomasElliotThomas
789
789
Welcome to EL&U! A sound question indeed. Would you care to tell us which hymn it is you are referring to to aid our research?
– A Lambent Eye
Jan 16 at 18:22
@ALambentEye Sure. It was Holy, Holy, Holy. I included he second-to-last line of the verse I was talking about to give the context of the sentence.
– ElliotThomas
Jan 16 at 19:09
1
Who art
– Hot Licks
Jan 17 at 0:28
add a comment |
Welcome to EL&U! A sound question indeed. Would you care to tell us which hymn it is you are referring to to aid our research?
– A Lambent Eye
Jan 16 at 18:22
@ALambentEye Sure. It was Holy, Holy, Holy. I included he second-to-last line of the verse I was talking about to give the context of the sentence.
– ElliotThomas
Jan 16 at 19:09
1
Who art
– Hot Licks
Jan 17 at 0:28
Welcome to EL&U! A sound question indeed. Would you care to tell us which hymn it is you are referring to to aid our research?
– A Lambent Eye
Jan 16 at 18:22
Welcome to EL&U! A sound question indeed. Would you care to tell us which hymn it is you are referring to to aid our research?
– A Lambent Eye
Jan 16 at 18:22
@ALambentEye Sure. It was Holy, Holy, Holy. I included he second-to-last line of the verse I was talking about to give the context of the sentence.
– ElliotThomas
Jan 16 at 19:09
@ALambentEye Sure. It was Holy, Holy, Holy. I included he second-to-last line of the verse I was talking about to give the context of the sentence.
– ElliotThomas
Jan 16 at 19:09
1
1
Who art
– Hot Licks
Jan 17 at 0:28
Who art
– Hot Licks
Jan 17 at 0:28
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
Yes, "thou (...) who art" or "thee (...) who art" are correct.
I wasn't sure from the title whether you were asking about relative pronouns or interrogative pronouns, so I will discuss both in my post.
In the hymn that you quote, the relative pronoun "which" takes second-person singular agreement because its antecedent is the second-person singular pronoun "thee". This is a special thing that happened/happens in old-fashioned or formal English' related questions about this topic are What rules make “Remember me, who am your friend” grammatical? and "Me who is" or "me who am"?
In terms of interrogatives, "Who art..." would be possible in a sentence with "thou": "Who art thou?" In modern English, sentences of this type (e.g. "Who am I?") are best analyzed as having "who" as the (fronted) predicate rather than as the subject: a piece of evidence that "I" and not "who" is the subject of "Who am I?" is that we can't say *"Who am me", even though in predicate position "me" is usually possible (we can say “It was me,” regardless of whether it’s considered “incorrect” from a prescriptive point of view). In older varieties of English, I'm not sure whether there is any clear way of establishing which word is the subject in questions like this.
answered Jan 16 at 15:20
sumelicsumelic
48.9k8116220
Even if "who" were the subject in "Who am I", wouldn't "I" be the predicate nominative, which is in the nominative form ("I" instead of "me"), anyway?
– ElliotThomas
Jan 16 at 17:02
1
If you want to refute the theory that the subject in "Who am I?" is "who", why not consider "who is me"? After all, if the subject is "who", nothing forces the verb to be first-person, right?
– Rosie F
Jan 16 at 17:11
@RosieF "Who is me?" would be incorrect because it would still be of the form "Subject linking_verb predicate_nominative". Since the predicate_nominative has to be in the nominative form, it would have to be "Who is I?", but then I guess the verb doesn't agree with "who," because, according to this answer, the verb for "who" needs to agree with whatever the "who" represents (in this case, "I"). Thus, it would have to be "Who am I?" regardless of whether the "Who" or the "I" are the subject, which is ambiguous as ambiguous as asking which letter is equal to what in "a = b".
– ElliotThomas
Jan 16 at 17:59
@ElliotThomas: Descriptively, predicate personal pronouns can be in the objective case in modern English grammar.
– sumelic
Jan 16 at 22:19
@sumelic I know, such as in the case "We adopted him." However, when the personal pronoun is a predicate nominative ("Subject liking_verb/equals predicate_nominative) such as the case "The judge is he," you would use the nominative case for personal pronouns.
– ElliotThomas
Jan 17 at 18:52
|
show 1 more comment
The language is archaic (the hymn was written in 1861) on purpose.
Compare this to the Lord's Prayer. Matthew 6:9 reads in the King James version: "Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name."
The construction "which art" was current in the 17th century, but uncommon yet understood in the 19th. The lyricist Reginald Heber meant to match the older style
The lines in question,
Cherubim and seraphim falling down before Thee,
Which wert and art, and ever more shalt be.
are based on Revelation 4:8:
And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying,
Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.
(KJV)
So the verbs wert, art, shalt be, are correct in an archaic usage and are used here for their poetic value.
Hope this helps.
answered Jan 17 at 1:17
Reboot CommanderReboot Commander
712
add a comment |
Consider:
- He, who is your master, ...
- They, who are your masters, ...
- You, who are my master, ...
- You, who are my masters, ...
- I, who am your master, ...
I surely wouldn't say "I, who is your master, ..." or "You, who is my master, ...", or "They, who is my masters, ...".
answered Jan 16 at 16:53
Green Grasso HolmGreen Grasso Holm
2,277416
4
So is your answer to the original Q 'Yes' or 'No'?
– TrevorD
Jan 16 at 16:58
1
Do you think I reached the conclusion that I arrived at in my response (that the form of the copula follows not "who" but its antecedent) and then expected it to be understood that the exact opposite conclusion should be drawn about the original question?
– Green Grasso Holm
Jan 16 at 17:03
5
I'm sorry, but I understand neither your answer nor your comment - and I can see no clear "conclusion" in your answer. It is not clear to me how your answer relates to the Q. about "Who art". I also note that the questioner is a "New contributor" and that we are asked to be considerate about how we respond to new contributors.
– TrevorD
Jan 16 at 17:36
@TrevorD I think I understand his answer. Just as you would say "I, who am your master", you would have to say, "Thou, who art my master."
– ElliotThomas
Jan 16 at 18:00
5
This answer would definitely be improved by providing a more explicit answer. I'd suggest following the common format "The answer to your question is YES, and here's the reason why..."
– barbecue
Jan 16 at 18:54
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f481441%2fis-who-art-correct%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Yes, "thou (...) who art" or "thee (...) who art" are correct.
I wasn't sure from the title whether you were asking about relative pronouns or interrogative pronouns, so I will discuss both in my post.
In the hymn that you quote, the relative pronoun "which" takes second-person singular agreement because its antecedent is the second-person singular pronoun "thee". This is a special thing that happened/happens in old-fashioned or formal English' related questions about this topic are What rules make “Remember me, who am your friend” grammatical? and "Me who is" or "me who am"?
In terms of interrogatives, "Who art..." would be possible in a sentence with "thou": "Who art thou?" In modern English, sentences of this type (e.g. "Who am I?") are best analyzed as having "who" as the (fronted) predicate rather than as the subject: a piece of evidence that "I" and not "who" is the subject of "Who am I?" is that we can't say *"Who am me", even though in predicate position "me" is usually possible (we can say “It was me,” regardless of whether it’s considered “incorrect” from a prescriptive point of view). In older varieties of English, I'm not sure whether there is any clear way of establishing which word is the subject in questions like this.
answered Jan 16 at 15:20
sumelicsumelic
48.9k8116220
Even if "who" were the subject in "Who am I", wouldn't "I" be the predicate nominative, which is in the nominative form ("I" instead of "me"), anyway?
– ElliotThomas
Jan 16 at 17:02
1
If you want to refute the theory that the subject in "Who am I?" is "who", why not consider "who is me"? After all, if the subject is "who", nothing forces the verb to be first-person, right?
– Rosie F
Jan 16 at 17:11
@RosieF "Who is me?" would be incorrect because it would still be of the form "Subject linking_verb predicate_nominative". Since the predicate_nominative has to be in the nominative form, it would have to be "Who is I?", but then I guess the verb doesn't agree with "who," because, according to this answer, the verb for "who" needs to agree with whatever the "who" represents (in this case, "I"). Thus, it would have to be "Who am I?" regardless of whether the "Who" or the "I" are the subject, which is ambiguous as ambiguous as asking which letter is equal to what in "a = b".
– ElliotThomas
Jan 16 at 17:59
@ElliotThomas: Descriptively, predicate personal pronouns can be in the objective case in modern English grammar.
– sumelic
Jan 16 at 22:19
@sumelic I know, such as in the case "We adopted him." However, when the personal pronoun is a predicate nominative ("Subject liking_verb/equals predicate_nominative) such as the case "The judge is he," you would use the nominative case for personal pronouns.
– ElliotThomas
Jan 17 at 18:52
|
show 1 more comment
Yes, "thou (...) who art" or "thee (...) who art" are correct.
I wasn't sure from the title whether you were asking about relative pronouns or interrogative pronouns, so I will discuss both in my post.
In the hymn that you quote, the relative pronoun "which" takes second-person singular agreement because its antecedent is the second-person singular pronoun "thee". This is a special thing that happened/happens in old-fashioned or formal English' related questions about this topic are What rules make “Remember me, who am your friend” grammatical? and "Me who is" or "me who am"?
In terms of interrogatives, "Who art..." would be possible in a sentence with "thou": "Who art thou?" In modern English, sentences of this type (e.g. "Who am I?") are best analyzed as having "who" as the (fronted) predicate rather than as the subject: a piece of evidence that "I" and not "who" is the subject of "Who am I?" is that we can't say *"Who am me", even though in predicate position "me" is usually possible (we can say “It was me,” regardless of whether it’s considered “incorrect” from a prescriptive point of view). In older varieties of English, I'm not sure whether there is any clear way of establishing which word is the subject in questions like this.
answered Jan 16 at 15:20
sumelicsumelic
48.9k8116220
Even if "who" were the subject in "Who am I", wouldn't "I" be the predicate nominative, which is in the nominative form ("I" instead of "me"), anyway?
– ElliotThomas
Jan 16 at 17:02
1
If you want to refute the theory that the subject in "Who am I?" is "who", why not consider "who is me"? After all, if the subject is "who", nothing forces the verb to be first-person, right?
– Rosie F
Jan 16 at 17:11
@RosieF "Who is me?" would be incorrect because it would still be of the form "Subject linking_verb predicate_nominative". Since the predicate_nominative has to be in the nominative form, it would have to be "Who is I?", but then I guess the verb doesn't agree with "who," because, according to this answer, the verb for "who" needs to agree with whatever the "who" represents (in this case, "I"). Thus, it would have to be "Who am I?" regardless of whether the "Who" or the "I" are the subject, which is ambiguous as ambiguous as asking which letter is equal to what in "a = b".
– ElliotThomas
Jan 16 at 17:59
@ElliotThomas: Descriptively, predicate personal pronouns can be in the objective case in modern English grammar.
– sumelic
Jan 16 at 22:19
@sumelic I know, such as in the case "We adopted him." However, when the personal pronoun is a predicate nominative ("Subject liking_verb/equals predicate_nominative) such as the case "The judge is he," you would use the nominative case for personal pronouns.
– ElliotThomas
Jan 17 at 18:52
|
show 1 more comment
Yes, "thou (...) who art" or "thee (...) who art" are correct.
I wasn't sure from the title whether you were asking about relative pronouns or interrogative pronouns, so I will discuss both in my post.
In the hymn that you quote, the relative pronoun "which" takes second-person singular agreement because its antecedent is the second-person singular pronoun "thee". This is a special thing that happened/happens in old-fashioned or formal English' related questions about this topic are What rules make “Remember me, who am your friend” grammatical? and "Me who is" or "me who am"?
In terms of interrogatives, "Who art..." would be possible in a sentence with "thou": "Who art thou?" In modern English, sentences of this type (e.g. "Who am I?") are best analyzed as having "who" as the (fronted) predicate rather than as the subject: a piece of evidence that "I" and not "who" is the subject of "Who am I?" is that we can't say *"Who am me", even though in predicate position "me" is usually possible (we can say “It was me,” regardless of whether it’s considered “incorrect” from a prescriptive point of view). In older varieties of English, I'm not sure whether there is any clear way of establishing which word is the subject in questions like this.
answered Jan 16 at 15:20
sumelicsumelic
48.9k8116220
Yes, "thou (...) who art" or "thee (...) who art" are correct.
I wasn't sure from the title whether you were asking about relative pronouns or interrogative pronouns, so I will discuss both in my post.
In the hymn that you quote, the relative pronoun "which" takes second-person singular agreement because its antecedent is the second-person singular pronoun "thee". This is a special thing that happened/happens in old-fashioned or formal English' related questions about this topic are What rules make “Remember me, who am your friend” grammatical? and "Me who is" or "me who am"?
In terms of interrogatives, "Who art..." would be possible in a sentence with "thou": "Who art thou?" In modern English, sentences of this type (e.g. "Who am I?") are best analyzed as having "who" as the (fronted) predicate rather than as the subject: a piece of evidence that "I" and not "who" is the subject of "Who am I?" is that we can't say *"Who am me", even though in predicate position "me" is usually possible (we can say “It was me,” regardless of whether it’s considered “incorrect” from a prescriptive point of view). In older varieties of English, I'm not sure whether there is any clear way of establishing which word is the subject in questions like this.
answered Jan 16 at 15:20
sumelicsumelic
48.9k8116220
edited Jan 16 at 22:21
answered Jan 16 at 15:20
sumelicsumelic
48.9k8116220
answered Jan 16 at 15:20
sumelicsumelic
48.9k8116220
answered Jan 16 at 15:20
sumelicsumelic
48.9k8116220
48.9k8116220
Even if "who" were the subject in "Who am I", wouldn't "I" be the predicate nominative, which is in the nominative form ("I" instead of "me"), anyway?
– ElliotThomas
Jan 16 at 17:02
1
If you want to refute the theory that the subject in "Who am I?" is "who", why not consider "who is me"? After all, if the subject is "who", nothing forces the verb to be first-person, right?
– Rosie F
Jan 16 at 17:11
@RosieF "Who is me?" would be incorrect because it would still be of the form "Subject linking_verb predicate_nominative". Since the predicate_nominative has to be in the nominative form, it would have to be "Who is I?", but then I guess the verb doesn't agree with "who," because, according to this answer, the verb for "who" needs to agree with whatever the "who" represents (in this case, "I"). Thus, it would have to be "Who am I?" regardless of whether the "Who" or the "I" are the subject, which is ambiguous as ambiguous as asking which letter is equal to what in "a = b".
– ElliotThomas
Jan 16 at 17:59
@ElliotThomas: Descriptively, predicate personal pronouns can be in the objective case in modern English grammar.
– sumelic
Jan 16 at 22:19
@sumelic I know, such as in the case "We adopted him." However, when the personal pronoun is a predicate nominative ("Subject liking_verb/equals predicate_nominative) such as the case "The judge is he," you would use the nominative case for personal pronouns.
– ElliotThomas
Jan 17 at 18:52
|
show 1 more comment
Even if "who" were the subject in "Who am I", wouldn't "I" be the predicate nominative, which is in the nominative form ("I" instead of "me"), anyway?
– ElliotThomas
Jan 16 at 17:02
1
If you want to refute the theory that the subject in "Who am I?" is "who", why not consider "who is me"? After all, if the subject is "who", nothing forces the verb to be first-person, right?
– Rosie F
Jan 16 at 17:11
@RosieF "Who is me?" would be incorrect because it would still be of the form "Subject linking_verb predicate_nominative". Since the predicate_nominative has to be in the nominative form, it would have to be "Who is I?", but then I guess the verb doesn't agree with "who," because, according to this answer, the verb for "who" needs to agree with whatever the "who" represents (in this case, "I"). Thus, it would have to be "Who am I?" regardless of whether the "Who" or the "I" are the subject, which is ambiguous as ambiguous as asking which letter is equal to what in "a = b".
– ElliotThomas
Jan 16 at 17:59
@ElliotThomas: Descriptively, predicate personal pronouns can be in the objective case in modern English grammar.
– sumelic
Jan 16 at 22:19
@sumelic I know, such as in the case "We adopted him." However, when the personal pronoun is a predicate nominative ("Subject liking_verb/equals predicate_nominative) such as the case "The judge is he," you would use the nominative case for personal pronouns.
– ElliotThomas
Jan 17 at 18:52
Even if "who" were the subject in "Who am I", wouldn't "I" be the predicate nominative, which is in the nominative form ("I" instead of "me"), anyway?
– ElliotThomas
Jan 16 at 17:02
Even if "who" were the subject in "Who am I", wouldn't "I" be the predicate nominative, which is in the nominative form ("I" instead of "me"), anyway?
– ElliotThomas
Jan 16 at 17:02
1
1
If you want to refute the theory that the subject in "Who am I?" is "who", why not consider "who is me"? After all, if the subject is "who", nothing forces the verb to be first-person, right?
– Rosie F
Jan 16 at 17:11
If you want to refute the theory that the subject in "Who am I?" is "who", why not consider "who is me"? After all, if the subject is "who", nothing forces the verb to be first-person, right?
– Rosie F
Jan 16 at 17:11
@RosieF "Who is me?" would be incorrect because it would still be of the form "Subject linking_verb predicate_nominative". Since the predicate_nominative has to be in the nominative form, it would have to be "Who is I?", but then I guess the verb doesn't agree with "who," because, according to this answer, the verb for "who" needs to agree with whatever the "who" represents (in this case, "I"). Thus, it would have to be "Who am I?" regardless of whether the "Who" or the "I" are the subject, which is ambiguous as ambiguous as asking which letter is equal to what in "a = b".
– ElliotThomas
Jan 16 at 17:59
@RosieF "Who is me?" would be incorrect because it would still be of the form "Subject linking_verb predicate_nominative". Since the predicate_nominative has to be in the nominative form, it would have to be "Who is I?", but then I guess the verb doesn't agree with "who," because, according to this answer, the verb for "who" needs to agree with whatever the "who" represents (in this case, "I"). Thus, it would have to be "Who am I?" regardless of whether the "Who" or the "I" are the subject, which is ambiguous as ambiguous as asking which letter is equal to what in "a = b".
– ElliotThomas
Jan 16 at 17:59
@ElliotThomas: Descriptively, predicate personal pronouns can be in the objective case in modern English grammar.
– sumelic
Jan 16 at 22:19
@ElliotThomas: Descriptively, predicate personal pronouns can be in the objective case in modern English grammar.
– sumelic
Jan 16 at 22:19
@sumelic I know, such as in the case "We adopted him." However, when the personal pronoun is a predicate nominative ("Subject liking_verb/equals predicate_nominative) such as the case "The judge is he," you would use the nominative case for personal pronouns.
– ElliotThomas
Jan 17 at 18:52
@sumelic I know, such as in the case "We adopted him." However, when the personal pronoun is a predicate nominative ("Subject liking_verb/equals predicate_nominative) such as the case "The judge is he," you would use the nominative case for personal pronouns.
– ElliotThomas
Jan 17 at 18:52
|
show 1 more comment
The language is archaic (the hymn was written in 1861) on purpose.
Compare this to the Lord's Prayer. Matthew 6:9 reads in the King James version: "Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name."
The construction "which art" was current in the 17th century, but uncommon yet understood in the 19th. The lyricist Reginald Heber meant to match the older style
The lines in question,
Cherubim and seraphim falling down before Thee,
Which wert and art, and ever more shalt be.
are based on Revelation 4:8:
And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying,
Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.
(KJV)
So the verbs wert, art, shalt be, are correct in an archaic usage and are used here for their poetic value.
Hope this helps.
answered Jan 17 at 1:17
Reboot CommanderReboot Commander
712
add a comment |
The language is archaic (the hymn was written in 1861) on purpose.
Compare this to the Lord's Prayer. Matthew 6:9 reads in the King James version: "Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name."
The construction "which art" was current in the 17th century, but uncommon yet understood in the 19th. The lyricist Reginald Heber meant to match the older style
The lines in question,
Cherubim and seraphim falling down before Thee,
Which wert and art, and ever more shalt be.
are based on Revelation 4:8:
And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying,
Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.
(KJV)
So the verbs wert, art, shalt be, are correct in an archaic usage and are used here for their poetic value.
Hope this helps.
answered Jan 17 at 1:17
Reboot CommanderReboot Commander
712
add a comment |
The language is archaic (the hymn was written in 1861) on purpose.
Compare this to the Lord's Prayer. Matthew 6:9 reads in the King James version: "Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name."
The construction "which art" was current in the 17th century, but uncommon yet understood in the 19th. The lyricist Reginald Heber meant to match the older style
The lines in question,
Cherubim and seraphim falling down before Thee,
Which wert and art, and ever more shalt be.
are based on Revelation 4:8:
And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying,
Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.
(KJV)
So the verbs wert, art, shalt be, are correct in an archaic usage and are used here for their poetic value.
Hope this helps.
answered Jan 17 at 1:17
Reboot CommanderReboot Commander
712
The language is archaic (the hymn was written in 1861) on purpose.
Compare this to the Lord's Prayer. Matthew 6:9 reads in the King James version: "Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name."
The construction "which art" was current in the 17th century, but uncommon yet understood in the 19th. The lyricist Reginald Heber meant to match the older style
The lines in question,
Cherubim and seraphim falling down before Thee,
Which wert and art, and ever more shalt be.
are based on Revelation 4:8:
And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying,
Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.
(KJV)
So the verbs wert, art, shalt be, are correct in an archaic usage and are used here for their poetic value.
Hope this helps.
answered Jan 17 at 1:17
Reboot CommanderReboot Commander
712
answered Jan 17 at 1:17
Reboot CommanderReboot Commander
712
answered Jan 17 at 1:17
Reboot CommanderReboot Commander
712
answered Jan 17 at 1:17
Reboot CommanderReboot Commander
712
712
add a comment |
add a comment |
Consider:
- He, who is your master, ...
- They, who are your masters, ...
- You, who are my master, ...
- You, who are my masters, ...
- I, who am your master, ...
I surely wouldn't say "I, who is your master, ..." or "You, who is my master, ...", or "They, who is my masters, ...".
answered Jan 16 at 16:53
Green Grasso HolmGreen Grasso Holm
2,277416
4
So is your answer to the original Q 'Yes' or 'No'?
– TrevorD
Jan 16 at 16:58
1
Do you think I reached the conclusion that I arrived at in my response (that the form of the copula follows not "who" but its antecedent) and then expected it to be understood that the exact opposite conclusion should be drawn about the original question?
– Green Grasso Holm
Jan 16 at 17:03
5
I'm sorry, but I understand neither your answer nor your comment - and I can see no clear "conclusion" in your answer. It is not clear to me how your answer relates to the Q. about "Who art". I also note that the questioner is a "New contributor" and that we are asked to be considerate about how we respond to new contributors.
– TrevorD
Jan 16 at 17:36
@TrevorD I think I understand his answer. Just as you would say "I, who am your master", you would have to say, "Thou, who art my master."
– ElliotThomas
Jan 16 at 18:00
5
This answer would definitely be improved by providing a more explicit answer. I'd suggest following the common format "The answer to your question is YES, and here's the reason why..."
– barbecue
Jan 16 at 18:54
add a comment |
Consider:
- He, who is your master, ...
- They, who are your masters, ...
- You, who are my master, ...
- You, who are my masters, ...
- I, who am your master, ...
I surely wouldn't say "I, who is your master, ..." or "You, who is my master, ...", or "They, who is my masters, ...".
answered Jan 16 at 16:53
Green Grasso HolmGreen Grasso Holm
2,277416
4
So is your answer to the original Q 'Yes' or 'No'?
– TrevorD
Jan 16 at 16:58
1
Do you think I reached the conclusion that I arrived at in my response (that the form of the copula follows not "who" but its antecedent) and then expected it to be understood that the exact opposite conclusion should be drawn about the original question?
– Green Grasso Holm
Jan 16 at 17:03
5
I'm sorry, but I understand neither your answer nor your comment - and I can see no clear "conclusion" in your answer. It is not clear to me how your answer relates to the Q. about "Who art". I also note that the questioner is a "New contributor" and that we are asked to be considerate about how we respond to new contributors.
– TrevorD
Jan 16 at 17:36
@TrevorD I think I understand his answer. Just as you would say "I, who am your master", you would have to say, "Thou, who art my master."
– ElliotThomas
Jan 16 at 18:00
5
This answer would definitely be improved by providing a more explicit answer. I'd suggest following the common format "The answer to your question is YES, and here's the reason why..."
– barbecue
Jan 16 at 18:54
add a comment |
Consider:
- He, who is your master, ...
- They, who are your masters, ...
- You, who are my master, ...
- You, who are my masters, ...
- I, who am your master, ...
I surely wouldn't say "I, who is your master, ..." or "You, who is my master, ...", or "They, who is my masters, ...".
answered Jan 16 at 16:53
Green Grasso HolmGreen Grasso Holm
2,277416
Consider:
- He, who is your master, ...
- They, who are your masters, ...
- You, who are my master, ...
- You, who are my masters, ...
- I, who am your master, ...
I surely wouldn't say "I, who is your master, ..." or "You, who is my master, ...", or "They, who is my masters, ...".
answered Jan 16 at 16:53
Green Grasso HolmGreen Grasso Holm
2,277416
answered Jan 16 at 16:53
Green Grasso HolmGreen Grasso Holm
2,277416
answered Jan 16 at 16:53
Green Grasso HolmGreen Grasso Holm
2,277416
answered Jan 16 at 16:53
Green Grasso HolmGreen Grasso Holm
2,277416
2,277416
4
So is your answer to the original Q 'Yes' or 'No'?
– TrevorD
Jan 16 at 16:58
1
Do you think I reached the conclusion that I arrived at in my response (that the form of the copula follows not "who" but its antecedent) and then expected it to be understood that the exact opposite conclusion should be drawn about the original question?
– Green Grasso Holm
Jan 16 at 17:03
5
I'm sorry, but I understand neither your answer nor your comment - and I can see no clear "conclusion" in your answer. It is not clear to me how your answer relates to the Q. about "Who art". I also note that the questioner is a "New contributor" and that we are asked to be considerate about how we respond to new contributors.
– TrevorD
Jan 16 at 17:36
@TrevorD I think I understand his answer. Just as you would say "I, who am your master", you would have to say, "Thou, who art my master."
– ElliotThomas
Jan 16 at 18:00
5
This answer would definitely be improved by providing a more explicit answer. I'd suggest following the common format "The answer to your question is YES, and here's the reason why..."
– barbecue
Jan 16 at 18:54
add a comment |
4
So is your answer to the original Q 'Yes' or 'No'?
– TrevorD
Jan 16 at 16:58
1
Do you think I reached the conclusion that I arrived at in my response (that the form of the copula follows not "who" but its antecedent) and then expected it to be understood that the exact opposite conclusion should be drawn about the original question?
– Green Grasso Holm
Jan 16 at 17:03
5
I'm sorry, but I understand neither your answer nor your comment - and I can see no clear "conclusion" in your answer. It is not clear to me how your answer relates to the Q. about "Who art". I also note that the questioner is a "New contributor" and that we are asked to be considerate about how we respond to new contributors.
– TrevorD
Jan 16 at 17:36
@TrevorD I think I understand his answer. Just as you would say "I, who am your master", you would have to say, "Thou, who art my master."
– ElliotThomas
Jan 16 at 18:00
5
This answer would definitely be improved by providing a more explicit answer. I'd suggest following the common format "The answer to your question is YES, and here's the reason why..."
– barbecue
Jan 16 at 18:54
4
4
So is your answer to the original Q 'Yes' or 'No'?
– TrevorD
Jan 16 at 16:58
So is your answer to the original Q 'Yes' or 'No'?
– TrevorD
Jan 16 at 16:58
1
1
Do you think I reached the conclusion that I arrived at in my response (that the form of the copula follows not "who" but its antecedent) and then expected it to be understood that the exact opposite conclusion should be drawn about the original question?
– Green Grasso Holm
Jan 16 at 17:03
Do you think I reached the conclusion that I arrived at in my response (that the form of the copula follows not "who" but its antecedent) and then expected it to be understood that the exact opposite conclusion should be drawn about the original question?
– Green Grasso Holm
Jan 16 at 17:03
5
5
I'm sorry, but I understand neither your answer nor your comment - and I can see no clear "conclusion" in your answer. It is not clear to me how your answer relates to the Q. about "Who art". I also note that the questioner is a "New contributor" and that we are asked to be considerate about how we respond to new contributors.
– TrevorD
Jan 16 at 17:36
I'm sorry, but I understand neither your answer nor your comment - and I can see no clear "conclusion" in your answer. It is not clear to me how your answer relates to the Q. about "Who art". I also note that the questioner is a "New contributor" and that we are asked to be considerate about how we respond to new contributors.
– TrevorD
Jan 16 at 17:36
@TrevorD I think I understand his answer. Just as you would say "I, who am your master", you would have to say, "Thou, who art my master."
– ElliotThomas
Jan 16 at 18:00
@TrevorD I think I understand his answer. Just as you would say "I, who am your master", you would have to say, "Thou, who art my master."
– ElliotThomas
Jan 16 at 18:00
5
5
This answer would definitely be improved by providing a more explicit answer. I'd suggest following the common format "The answer to your question is YES, and here's the reason why..."
– barbecue
Jan 16 at 18:54
This answer would definitely be improved by providing a more explicit answer. I'd suggest following the common format "The answer to your question is YES, and here's the reason why..."
– barbecue
Jan 16 at 18:54
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f481441%2fis-who-art-correct%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Welcome to EL&U! A sound question indeed. Would you care to tell us which hymn it is you are referring to to aid our research?
– A Lambent Eye
Jan 16 at 18:22
@ALambentEye Sure. It was Holy, Holy, Holy. I included he second-to-last line of the verse I was talking about to give the context of the sentence.
– ElliotThomas
Jan 16 at 19:09
1
Who art
– Hot Licks
Jan 17 at 0:28