Satest? Sattest? Satst? What does this mean?
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    What does "satest" mean?

    Quaerens me, sedisti lassus:
    Redemisti crucem passus:
    Tantus labor non sit cassus.

    FR. BRITT: “Seeking me Thou sattest weary; suffering the Cross, Thou didst redeem me; let not so great a labor be in vain.”

    POETIC: Weary satst Thou seeking me,
    Diedst redeeming on the tree;
    Not in vain such toil can be.

    GUERANGER: "Seeking me thou satest weary; thou redeemedst me by dying on the Cross: let not such suffering be all in vain."
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674
    Here are two other instances from scripture.

    Psalms 9:4 For thou hast maintained my right and my cause; thou satest in the throne judging right. (KJV)

    Ezekiel 23:41 And satest upon a stately bed, and a table prepared before it, whereupon thou hast set mine incense and mine oil. (KJV DBY)

    Is it some early form of seated, or sat?
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,428
    Clearly an archaic form of "sit."

    See the KJV Psalm 9:4
    For thou hast maintained my right and my cause; thou satest in the throne judging right

    Or, more specifically, an archaic form of "sits," as the conjugation today would go:
    I sit
    you sit
    Thou sits (or Thou sittest)
    He/She/It sits

    What trips me up about it is how "past tense" it feels, although I assume it isn't meant to be. ( What is the exact tense of "sedisti" ? )
    Thanked by 1E_A_Fulhorst
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
  • If you had been reared on the BCP and The Authorised Version, the meaning would not need wondering at because you would have absorbed it as normal English. It means, obviously, 'did sit'. Of our tres chic and so horridly 'with it' modernists it might be said that they 'taketh away all the merriment of church-speak'.

    One might posit, though, that there is indeed some difference between 'sattest' and 'satest', the latter perhaps refering to one who has eaten more than another, while the former refers to one who did sit?
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 4,943
    It's the (former) past 2nd person singular (formal) of the verb "sit" – obviously from the time before most such conjugations were streamlined.
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    I could be wrong but "sedisti" looks like 2nd person perfect active indicative (i.e., finished past), and that appears to be how it's rendered in the first few examples.
    Thanked by 2gregp Elmar
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,921
    Aren't these archaic verb forms actually fairly simple? Only a few are not identical to modern forms. I haven't studied them in school, but these seem to be the rules:

    In the present tense:
    2nd person singular (thou) adds "-st" or "-est"
    3rd person singular (he, she, it) adds "-th" or "-eth"
    All other forms are identical to modern forms

    In the (simple) past tense:
    2nd person singular (thou) adds "-st" or "-est"
    All other forms are identical to modern forms

    Present tense:
    I love, I do, I sit
    **Thou lovest, thou dost, thou sittest**
    **He loveth, he doth, he sitteth**
    We love, we do, we sit
    Ye love, ye do, ye sit
    They love, they do, they sit

    Past tense:
    I loved, I did, I sat
    **Thou lovedst, thou didst, thou sattest**
    He loved, he did, he sat
    We loved, we did, we sat
    Ye loved, ye did, ye sat
    They loved, they did, they sat

    These verbs are irregular:
    I have, I am
    **Thou hast, thou art**
    **He hath, he is**
    We have, we are
    Ye have, ye are
    They have, they are

    I had, I was
    **Thou hadst, thou wert**
    He had, he was
    We had, we were
    Ye had, ye were
    They had, they were

    [We can cover the subjunctive later if necessary.]
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,428
    As an aside (or addendum) to all this archaic English goodness, and I bet 99% of the people around here know this already:
    You and Thou coexisted for second-person singular, with "You" being considered more formal, and "Thou" being considered more intimate. (This can be seen in the language used publicly and privately by characters in Shakespeare's plays.)

    I've always found it fascinating (and instructive) that the Anglican mode of religious English so praised (and derided) for it's hieratic nature has it's root in the familiar rather than the formal. (Maybe Jesus really is by BFF).
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 4,943
    Um, the old second person nominative plural (and formal) personal pronoun is "ye" not "you" (which is the accusative). Thus:

    "Seek, and ye shall find. Knock, and it will be opened unto you."
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,921
    Thanks, CHG; I'll integrate that into the above.
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    The phrase seems odd to me: "Thou sat weary." A comma probably helps, slightly: "Thou sat, weary."
  • JahazaJahaza
    Posts: 468
    OED (my emphasis):
    sit, v.
    Pronunciation: /sɪt/
    Inflections: Pa. tense and pple. sat /sæt/ .
    Forms: Illustration of forms.
    ... ind.a.sing. (1st and 3rd pers.)
    β. OE, ME sæt (OE sætt), ME seat; ME– sat, ME–17 satt, ME–15 satte. Also 2nd pers.15 sattest, 16 satst, sat'st.

    c888 Ælfred tr. Boethius De Consol. Philos. xxxv. §7 Se hearpere..sæt on ðæm muntum.
    c1200 Trin. Coll. Hom. 101 He sat ofte and tahte wisdom.
    c1275 (1200) Laȝamon Brut (Calig.) (1963) l. 1763 Þe swain sæt at hire fæit.
    c1275 (1200) Laȝamon Brut (Calig.) (1963) l. 1478 Þer he on æðelen seat.
    a1352 L. Minot Poems ix. 35 When sir Dauid..satt on his stede.
    1390 J. Gower Confessio Amantis vii. 2282 He satte him thanne doun.
    a1500 (1450) Merlin (1899) xiv. 226 The kynge leodogan satte stille.
    1535 Bible (Coverdale) Ezek. xxiii. 41 Thou sattest vpon a goodly bed.
    1579 Reg. Privy Counc. Scot. III. 241 [He] satt doun upoun the ground.
    1667 Milton Paradise Lost i. 21 Thou..Dove-like satst brooding.
    1676 T. Hobbes tr. Homer Iliads i. 101 This said, he sat.
    Thanked by 1E_A_Fulhorst
  • Maureen
    Posts: 671
    It sounds weird, because it is weird.

    As seen above -- in Old English, the 3rd person singular preterite of "sittan/gesittan" was "saet" (sat), just like "biddan" (pray, ask) was "baed" (bade). There is no such word as "satst" or "satest," except through weird over-regularization of the verb conjugation rules, which seems to have snuck into Middle English right at the end of its time. Of course, there were a few people in Middle English who thought you should talk about mouses instead of mice, too.

    Now, as you can see above, oversimplification of the verb conjugation rules does happen in the wild, though they give examples only in Early Modern English. (So the Middle English thing may even be a guess, or something only found recently.) In some dialects, it may have sounded okay. But it probably sounded pretty stupid to most dialects back then, too. (Which is probably why only Milton and Coverdale are cited, both being overeducated people who spent way too much time in libraries.)
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,428
    >> weird oversimplification of the verb conjugation rules

    Weird oversimplification is the path of all language development.
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,921
    Yep: if you've ever had a course on the history of a language, that's the general trend.
  • Weird oversimplification is the path of all language development.

    I used to have a rather odd colleague who wanted to regularize the verb "to be" so it would go "I be, I beed, I have beed." She would ask, "Did you be there for the meeting this morning?" This campaign is obviously so far unsuccessful (and, I was sure, tongue-in-cheek).
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,428
    It can only happen through organic development of the language.

    In fact, I suspect that a lot of our modern linguistic abuses stem from the new and unprecedented grammar and spelling rules stem from Mr. Webster's top-down attempt to impose a simplified form of the language, which removed the inherent communicative quality of the words themselves. For example, "center" lacks precisely that mysterious quality of middleness which was aptly conveyed by the older "centre."

    This newer spelling, the Obvious Form (OF) of the word, may be easier to understand the English Form (EF) of the word, but that betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of language as nothing more than a vehicle for communication.

    While I grew up with the OF spelling, and am quite attached to it, I understand the affection so many people have for the EF's beauty and meaning.

    I'm also hopeful that, as more and more people become accustomed to the Old Right way of spelling, that there will be mutual enrichment between the EF and OF, particularly as it relates to making the OF more like the earlier form.
  • The -(e)st ending in the 2nd singular simple past was originally (in Old English) restricted only to weak verbs (those verbs whose past tense ends in -(e)d): hierdest=(you) heard. Strong verbs, such as give, sit, run, had (in Old English) -e as the 2nd sing ending. This -e began to lose ground in Middle English, either being lost completely or giving way to -(e)st by analogy to weak verbs, occasionally even for "to be": wearst, werest, even wertstn't. Even Shakespeare uses "gau'st" (=gavest). The generalizing of the -(e)st was not complete before the time when "thou" began to fall into disuse.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen a_f_hawkins
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    Adam, I think most people who prefer the English Form are simply too young to remember how awful it was, to not know how the conjugations were working, and when whole paragraphs were less than 25 words! Thank God for Good Mister Webster and the Obvious Form of the English Language!
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,428
    But of course, now with the Obvious Form, there are so many options and choices, that everybody feels like they can just say whatever they want. Some people even think they can omit the Oxford comma, which defies all tradition and rationality.

    I think if you study the English Form, it gives you a lot of insight into how to properly speak and spell the Obvious Form. The English Form is our heritage, after all- even if we're not going to spell that way regularly, we should understand and appreciate where we came from.
  • One is grateful for the observations and insights they have gained from this treatment of our Noble Tongue (NT). Um, would any person who has contributed to this discussion care to add their learned opinion on the grammer of this very comment of mine? Or, does everybody feel like they can, with our NT, just say whatever they want?
  • JennyH
    Posts: 106
    Or, does everybody feel like they can, with our NT, just say whatever they want?

    Or, does everybody feel like he can, with our NT, just say whatever he wants?
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    Or she.
  • Bump.

    I write in both modern and archaic English. I don't think that the modern is necessarily more useful, streamlined, or ugly; the archaic is not necessarily more good, true, or beautiful. A great deal depends on the ears of the people upon whom such choices fall. It is fun and interesting for me as a craftsman to play with expectations in this regard. Recently I wrote a hymn (not posted here) to a joyous little melody in 3/4 time; at first I thought that it would be easier to sing in modern English, but I thought that an archaic text sounded better, so I finally went with that. Conversely, I have another piece in the works that is highly structured and formal in its musical and poetic composition. For some reason---I can't put my finger on it; no doubt an expert in the field would know at once---using Thee/Thou and other elements of archaic language sounded completely wrong in that piece. (As I am still a fairly new Catholic, I do not know to whom I ought to pray when my ears need help; no doubt someone here has a recommendation.)
    Thanked by 2Elmar ServiamScores
  • Anna,

    Thank you for bumping this. I missed it first time.


    Thank you for your humorous jabs at the liturgy wars. I wonder if future readers will see what you did, and find it funny.

  • Elmar
    Posts: 464
    As I am still a fairly new Catholic, I do not know to whom I ought to pray when my ears need help; no doubt someone here has a recommendation.

    I'm an 'old Catholic', yet I needed the help of St. Isidore...
    Almighty and eternal God, who created us in Thy image and bade us to seek after all that is good, true and beautiful, especially in the divine person of Thy only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, grant we beseech Thee, that, through the intercession of Saint Isidore, bishop and doctor, during our journeys through the internet we will direct our hands and eyes only to that which is pleasing to Thee and treat with charity and patience all those souls whom we encounter. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
    ... to find the following: (pope Cornelius)
  • I'm an 'old Catholic'

    And to the neophytes among us, do be careful if you ever see a sign for an "old catholic" church (literally billed under the title "Old Catholic"). That's a horse of a different color and definitely not catholic.

    (This is not what Elmar is referring to, for the record.)
  • Elmar
    Posts: 464
    [sorry off-topic but I can't resist]
    They claim to be the 'real' catholics that even continued the hierarchy in the reformed Netherlands when remaining in contact with Rome was... ehm... difficult. And were not pleased when Rome 'restored' the hierarchy in the 19th century as if it was ever discontinued.
    But in October 2014 the episcopate of the Old Catholic Church was pleased to meet pope Francis, almost as if this was the most natural thing in the world:
    And I like their translation of Gregorian propers into the vernacular around 1900!
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,536
    The Berkeley Old Catholics used to rent from the Methodists, who got quite a chuckle out of their poster: "All the mystery, none of the guilt".
    Thanked by 2tomjaw Liam
  • There’s a lady so-called ‘priest’ who always goes to the cathedral for the chrism mass in full vesture as a protest in my former diocese. It’s very awkward. She has been formally excommunicated (and a public letter issued to the diocese because of the scandal) but doesn’t give a rip. She runs the “old Catholic” church and was “ordained” in an ecumenical service with the Methodists. It’s all terribly odd, to say the least.
  • Serviam,

    Untie that knot for me....

    A woman is "ordained" by a sect which does not have (or even claim to have) a sacrificial priesthood?
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,921
    Well, Chris, I've met Catholics -- well, at least a Jesuit -- who have theorized (implausibly) that Methodists might have valid orders. I could have taken up the guy's offer to read his dissertation on the subject, but I was busy at the time. So it doesn't surprise me to hear that a schismatic fringe group believes it.
    Thanked by 3CHGiffen CCooze Elmar
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,062
    In the constantly fragmenting world of tiny schismatic sects, are the Berkeley Old Catholics affiliated to any other groups? Not as far as I can see to the Union of Utrecht, which Elmar was referring to, and would be the only group I would consider entitled to the title of Old Catholics. Their orders were unquestioned by Rome - until they decided to ordain women.
    Thanked by 1Elmar
  • The Methodists themselves don't claim a sacrificing priesthood, because they don't believe anyone does.
  • Chris, it’s simple: they are coo-coo for Cocoa Puffs.

    When they first ordained woken… ahem… women, they got a bishop to do it, but they had to do it on a boat in the river rhine (or was it the Danube? I can’t remember now) because the river falls under maritime rules and was thus “outside” any diocese or jurisdiction. Now the lady priestesses go around ordaining each other and doing all sorts of weird “ecumenical” stuff.

    Sadly, there are weird liberal so-called Catholics that buy into this stuff and support it all. As you might surmise, they are of a certain age and have a certain liturgical aesthetic that will not surprise any of us.

    The fact is, there’s a reasonably large group of them and there are even more uneducated “real” Catholics who get taken in by it or don’t know any better.