8 ms·
Mm. I'm a bit sceptical of the historical expertise of someone who thinks that "Who art Henry" is 19th century language. (It's not actually grammatically correc
by dash2 9mo ago
Mm. I'm a bit sceptical of the historical expertise of someone who thinks that "Who art Henry" is 19th century language. (It's not actually grammatically correct English from any century whatever: "art" is the second person singular, so this is like saying "who are Henry?")
- joshuakoehler 9mo agoAs a reader of a lot of 17th, 18th, and 19th century Christian books, this was my thought exactly.
- evolve2k 9mo agoThat text was from v0, the responses improved from there.
- freedomben 9mo agoThat text was from the example prompt, not from the models response
- joshuakoehler 9mo agoRight, assuming the OP had good data, then this likely wouldn't affect much, what he built is still really interesting.
- haensi 9mo agoWhat kind of Christian books do you read?Jonathan Edwards, John Bunyan, J.C. Ryle, C.H. Spurgeon?
- joshuakoehler 9mo agoYes, I've read the History of Redemption by Edwards, The Pilgrim's Progress and Holy War by Bunyan, quite a few Spurgeon sermons, and Holiness by Ryle in addition to (parts of) his commentaries on the gospels. I also read the puritans - I read Thomas Brook's Precious Remedies Against Satan's Devices and the Body of Divinity (Thomas Watson) last year. Lately I've read a few older biographies/autobiographies - Thomas Scott's autobiography (The Force of Truth), Halyburton's autobiography, and James Henley Thornwell and Benjamin Morgan Palmer biographies. Right now I'm reading the Life and Times of Jesus Messiah by Alfred Edersheim (19th century). How about you?
- auraham 9mo agoCan you elaborate on this? After skimming the README, I understand that "Who art Henry" is the prompt. What should be the correct 19th century prompt?
- canjobear 9mo ago"Who art Henry?" was never grammatical English. "Art" was the second person singular present form of "to be" and it was already archaic by the 17th century. "Who is Henry?" would be fine.
- asveikau 9mo agoIn some languages you can put a second person conjugation next to a noun that might otherwise use third person verbs, and it serves as implying that you are that noun. I'm not sure if older forms of English had that construct. I think many Indo-European languages do. The part of the lord's prayer that says "our father who art in heaven" is kinda like this - father is linked to a second person conjugation. You could remove some words and make it into "father art in heaven", which you claim is ungrammatical. I'm skeptical that it was.
- canjobear 9mo ago“who art in heaven” is a grammatical relative clause because the subject of the verb is the relative pronoun “who” which is second person in that context. You can still get this kind of thing in modern English, for example “I, who am a farmer, will be happy” is grammatical because the relative pronoun “who” is first person there. That doesn’t mean it would be grammatical to say “*A farmer am happy” and it wouldn’t have worked with art either. Conceivably it’s grammatical if Henry is vocative and the pronoun is dropped colloquially, like “Who art [thou], O Henry?” but it’s a stretch.
- asveikau 9mo agoI think the further back you go in Indo-European grammar, the more common the thing you are describing becomes. For me it's less of a question of if English did this, and more like how far back you need to go. Today, even ignoring the dated conjugation, "who art in heaven" or "who are in heaven", does not make sense. We would switch it into the third person.