 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / May 2009"Our prayers are with you." What does this mean?
Very often, when a person is going through a difficult time, we'll hear another person say to them, "Our prayers are with you." What do you suppose this means? Is it equivalent to "we hope your situation improves"? I suspect this is what most people mean by it. But saying a prayer about this or that is a specific religious act, at least in the literal sense. If Phyllis tells me she is suffering from a bad headache, and I respond, "My prayers are with you," it seems to me that I am affirming that on at least two occasions in the future ("prayers" being plural), I am going to take a few seconds to pray something like, "Dear Lord, please look down upon poor Phyllis, and heal her awful headache -- if it be Thy Will...." Perhaps I'm being an "overly literal" nitpicker, but it seems that unless I perform such actions, my prayers are NOT with Phyllis. I suppose there's another way to fulfill my commitment to Phyllis (in her agony). Perhaps it is my daily practice to pray something like, "Dear Lord, please look after the well being of my family and friends." Assuming Phyllis is either a friend or family member, would this constitute a fulfillment of my statement to her? If this is my practice, wouldn't it be more *accurate* (if not more elegant) to say to Phyllis, "Ah, dear Phyllis, I am sorry that you have a headache. And though I will not pray for you individually, I will lump your agony together with the collective agonies of those I care about and offer up a sincere petition to the Deity that you will be restored to health"? But alas, the human moral condition being what it is, I have never heard anyone utter such an accurate commitment to spiritual entreaty. Your opinions on the meanings of "Our prayers are with you" and/or "My prayers are with you" would be most welcome. Yours in the Deity.... -- Brett (in Berkeley, California, USA) http://www.100bestwebsites.org/ "The 100 finest sites on the Web, all in one place!" Widely-watched non-profit ranking of top Internet sites > Very often, when a person is going through a difficult time, we'll > hear another person say to them, "Our prayers are with you." [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Yours in the Deity.... I never say those phrases as I don't pray. If someone says something like that to me, I assume that they believe in prayer and are not lying, but you never know, you know.  SignatureSkitt There's nothing wrong with religion until you start taking it seriously. >> Very often, when a person is going through a difficult time, we'll >> hear another person say to them, "Our prayers are with you." [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > something like that to me, I assume that they believe in prayer and > are not lying, but you never know, you know. Closest I come to that is something on the order of, "Good, strong, healing vibes headed your way ... " I don't have to believe it, or in it, for it to have whatever effect it has. -- Frank ess (Who actually has had some good results from laying-on of words) I like your version, Frank. As for believing in it, I am reminded of the story told of the physicist Niels Bohr.... A visitor to Niels Bohr’s country cottage asked him about a horseshoe nailed above the front door. “Surely, Professor Bohr, being a man of science, you do not really believe that a horseshoe over the entrance to a home brings good luck?” “No,” answered Bohr, “I certainly do not believe in this superstition. But you know,” he added, “They say it brings good luck even if you don’t believe in it.” Cheers.... -- Brett (in Berkeley, California, USA) http://www.100bestwebsites.org/ "The 100 finest sites on the Web, all in one place!" Widely-watched non-profit ranking of top Internet sites > I like your version, Frank. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > But you know,” he added, “They say it brings good luck even if you > don’t believe in it.” That's hard to believe because, as the saying goes, [ Raymond Smullyan, 5000 B.C.], "superstition brings bad luck." - Frank ess filted: >>> Very often, when a person is going through a difficult time, we'll >>> hear another person say to them, "Our prayers are with you." [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >I don't have to believe it, or in it, for it to have whatever effect >it has. That effect, according to research, is the opposite of what the person doing the praying intends: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681/ ....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? In our last episode, <b2df2ae4-ef37-42e4-9760-bc5a9d428a49@u9g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, the lovely and talented Berkeley Brett broadcast on alt.usage.english: > Very often, when a person is going through a difficult time, we'll > hear another person say to them, "Our prayers are with you." > What do you suppose this means? "Hocus pocus, presto chango, abracadabra." SignatureLars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> usenet@larseighner.com 124 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term. Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't. > Very often, when a person is going through a difficult time, we'll > hear another person say to them, "Our prayers are with you." > > What do you suppose this means? > > Is it equivalent to "we hope your situation improves"? Not really, though that is obviously implied. > I suspect this > is what most people mean by it. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > heal her awful headache -- if it be Thy Will...." Perhaps I'm being > an "overly literal" nitpicker, Yes. > but it seems that unless I perform such > actions, my prayers are NOT with Phyllis. The plural is probably used loosely to cover both the singular and the plural. And remember your example has 'our', not 'my', so it has to be plural. In any case, don't you think "our prayer is with you" or "my prayer is with you" would look a little odd? > I suppose there's another way to fulfill my commitment to Phyllis (in > her agony). Perhaps it is my daily practice to pray something like, > "Dear Lord, please look after the well being of my family and > friends." Assuming Phyllis is either a friend or family member, would > this constitute a fulfillment of my statement to her? Of course. > If this is my > practice, wouldn't it be more *accurate* (if not more elegant) to say [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > offer up a sincere petition to the Deity that you will be restored to > health"? Perhaps, but, IMO, "our prayers are with you" complies far better with social conventions than this alternative version. >> Very often, when a person is going through a difficult time, we'll >> hear another person say to them, "Our prayers are with you." [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > has to be plural. In any case, don't you think "our prayer is with > you" or "my prayer is with you" would look a little odd? I would think that the understanding is that each day each person says several prayers, and that among these will be a request that Phyllis's health will improve. >> I suppose there's another way to fulfill my commitment to Phyllis >> (in her agony). Perhaps it is my daily practice to pray something [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> those I care about and offer up a sincere petition to the Deity >> that you will be restored to health"? I have only an outsider's understanding of Christian prayer, but the popular version of a child "saying his prayers" has him naming individuals ("... and God bless Mommy and Daddy and ..."). Jewish congregations name individuals "in need of healing", typically by the leader reading off a written list that congregants have added names to and then asking for verbal additions, and then say a collective prayer along the order of May the One who was a source of blessing for our ancestors, bring blessings of healing upon those whom we have named and those whom we name in our hearts, a healing of body and a healing of spirit. May those in whose care they are entrusted be gifted with wisdom and skill. Baruch Attah, Adonai, rofeh cholim. Blessed are You, Adonai, Source of healing. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Those who study history are doomed 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to watch others repeat it. Palo Alto, CA 94304 kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >Jewish congregations name individuals "in need of healing", typically >by the leader reading off a written list that congregants have added >names to and then asking for verbal additions, and then say a >collective prayer [...] There is similar moment in the modern Catholic mass, although I can't recall exactly where in the service it comes or what it says. The congregation also prays for their local bishop and the Pope. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness >>Jewish congregations name individuals "in need of healing", typically >>by the leader reading off a written list that congregants have added [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >recall exactly where in the service it comes or what it says. The >congregation also prays for their local bishop and the Pope. Likewise in the Anglican services I have attended. Prayers for the world, the nation, the church, the local community, for comfort and healing (because not everyone's ill, and not everyone who is ill will recover). SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary >>>Jewish congregations name individuals "in need of healing", typically >>>by the leader reading off a written list that congregants have added [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > healing (because not everyone's ill, and not everyone who is ill will > recover). There is something called the Canon in the Catholic missal. We always had to stop at a place called "N." while the priest muttered away. I later found out that "N." meant name(s) of people to be prayed for. I now see that there are 6 "remembrances": 1. Clergy and all believers (esp. Thy servant N., our Pope, and N., our bishop) 2. Friends and parishioners (Thy servants and handmaids [famulorum faularumque tuarum N. et N. et omnium circumstantium] this was the muttering part.) 3. All the Saints Consecration 4. Souls in Purgatory. (More N. and N. our known and forgotten dead) 5. Sinners (We,The Living) 6. All Nature (I don't see any language details on this, but a note says that people used to bring produce, into the church with them, to be blessed.) The ending is strange: Though Whom, Lord, Thou dost ever create, hallow, fill with life, bless and bestow upon us all good things*. A note here says it refers to the Bread and the Wine. I now understand the priest may have received requests for prayers from congregants, and adds to those requests the "memorial" gifts given at funerals, etc. (I only understand this because my cousin, whose mother died last fall at age 100, told me she requests the prayers be prayed on the anniversary of the death, so she can be in attendance at the Mass.) >>>Jewish congregations name individuals "in need of healing", >>>typically by the leader reading off a written list that congregants [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > healing (because not everyone's ill, and not everyone who is ill will > recover). Interesting. My conception of Christian services[1] was that if individual names were mentioned it would be in the context of asking those present to pray individually for their restored health rather than as a group prayer. [1] which stems from some direct observance, but mostly from reading and seeing filmed portrayal. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Marge: You liked Rashomon. 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Homer: That's not how *I* remember Palo Alto, CA 94304 | it. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>>Jewish congregations name individuals "in need of healing", >>>>typically by the leader reading off a written list that congregants [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >[1] which stems from some direct observance, but mostly from reading > and seeing filmed portrayal. The practice almost certainly varies between Christian denominations. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>>> Jewish congregations name individuals "in need of healing", >>>>> typically by the leader reading off a written list that congregants [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > The practice almost certainly varies between Christian denominations. And between Jewish communities. In our synagogue a prayer is said separately for each individual and even in larger communities I have never encountered the practice that Evan describes. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >>>>Jewish congregations name individuals "in need of healing", >>>>typically by the leader reading off a written list that congregants [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >those present to pray individually for their restored health rather >than as a group prayer. We pray together, as a group, in church. We can pray individually elsewhere, since the names of those requesting prayer are on the weekly notice sheet. SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary >Very often, when a person is going through a difficult time, we'll >hear another person say to them, "Our prayers are with you." > >What do you suppose this means? It could mean anything from a sincere promise to say a prayer for that person to a meaningless platitude. What difference does it make to you? The person saying that is trying offer comforting words. That is what they feel will be comforting. I don't believe in prayers, but if someone says that to me in a time of difficulty I thank them for the thought. Surely you can find something more important going on around to you to question than this. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >On Sun, 24 May 2009 18:53:34 -0700 (PDT), Berkeley Brett ><RoyalOui@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Surely you can find something more important going on around to you to >question than this. Come on, Tony, this is an English (language) usage discussion group, for Heaven's sake. The question is fine. The first counter-question is who are we, that "our" prayers are booked for the occasion. Presumably the respondent has a position of authority, to speak for a group. It's not a position I'd be likely to take on. But if we change the words of consolation to "My prayers are with you", it's reasonable to take the statement as a prayer in itself. Prayer doesn't have to be formal or formulaic. The statement "I pray for you" multi-tasks quite well. Perhaps it's stretching a point to distinguish one prayer from prayers. Who's counting? SignaturePaul >> Berkeley Brett wrote: >>> Very often, when a person is going through a difficult time, we'll >>> hear another person say to them, "Our prayers are with you." [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > for you" multi-tasks quite well. Perhaps it's stretching a point to > distinguish one prayer from prayers. Who's counting? The question is fine, and Tony answered it in the first sentence of his reply. SignatureSkitt (Follower of the FOTIPU) "The Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them." - Steve Eley >Paul Wolff wrote: >>> Berkeley Brett wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >The question is fine, and Tony answered it in the first sentence of his >reply. Good, we're agreed then. It was the "Surely you can find something more important" that surprised me. SignaturePaul >>On Sun, 24 May 2009 18:53:34 -0700 (PDT), Berkeley Brett >><RoyalOui@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Come on, Tony, this is an English (language) usage discussion group, for >Heaven's sake. The question is fine. Read the entire original post. I found it irritating. A question of meaning of a phrase is quite acceptable, but the 40-some surrounding lines were the source of the irritation because they demonstrated that there was no legitimacy to the question. Anyone with enough understanding of the English language to compose a 40-some line post is fully aware that such utterances as "Our prayers are with you" are expressions of intended comfort couched in a manner that reflect the thinking of the person making the statement. There's no agenda, no hidden meaning, no subterfuge involved. This was not a question that involves a word not known, a word with some duality of meaning, or a word not commonplace in the context. Since I am not a religious person, my offering of comfort would be something along the lines of "I hope things get better for you.". Would you ask me what that means? SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >On Mon, 25 May 2009 20:38:48 +0100, Paul Wolff ><bounceme@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >lines were the source of the irritation because they demonstrated that >there was no legitimacy to the question. I can count 22 lines of substantive text, if counting is important. >Anyone with enough understanding of the English language to compose a >40-some line post is fully aware that such utterances as "Our prayers >are with you" are expressions of intended comfort couched in a manner >that reflect the thinking of the person making the statement. There's >no agenda, no hidden meaning, no subterfuge involved. We know what the speaker means. The question asks what the words mean. That's not the same thing. >This was not a question that involves a word not known, a word with >some duality of meaning, or a word not commonplace in the context. Does this define the limits of the newsgroup? >Since I am not a religious person, my offering of comfort would be >something along the lines of "I hope things get better for you.". > >Would you ask me what that means? Actually, it's quite an interesting question. What does it mean if person A tells person B that person A hopes person B has any specified experience? In particular, what difference does it make to person B if the verb used by person A, with appropriate grammatical adjustment, is: a. hope b. expect c. wish d. demand e. request f. doubt but this is not the point, is it? After due reflection, it seems that there's an unspoken accusation against the OP that the question is fraudulent, in the sense that it's a dummy question designed to promote a point of view. Maybe it is. Does the OP have a track record? If not, I'm content to just treat it as a question in search of an answer. SignaturePaul >>On Mon, 25 May 2009 20:38:48 +0100, Paul Wolff >><bounceme@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >I can count 22 lines of substantive text, if counting is important. The original post, as I said above, displays in the message window as having 43 lines. That, using the Agent line-counting system, includes paragraph break lines and the sig line. I don't know which of those lines you feel are substantive and which are not. >>Anyone with enough understanding of the English language to compose a >>40-some line post is fully aware that such utterances as "Our prayers >>are with you" are expressions of intended comfort couched in a manner >>that reflect the thinking of the person making the statement. There's >>no agenda, no hidden meaning, no subterfuge involved. >After due reflection, it seems that there's an unspoken accusation >against the OP that the question is fraudulent, in the sense that it's a >dummy question designed to promote a point of view. Maybe it is. Does >the OP have a track record? If not, I'm content to just treat it as a >question in search of an answer. If you feel my response to the OP contained an unspoken accusation, then I was uncharacteristically vague. In my opinion, it's a fraudulent question designed to provoke a discussion of religion and not one of word or phrase usage. I think that's what's often referred to as a "troll". Now if you want to discuss the meaning of something, try his ending line: "Yours in the Deity....". Is the OP maintaining that he speaks for the deity, establishing that there is but one deity, announcing that he is accepting that there is a deity, indicating that he has accepted the deity and is of that deity, or limiting the responders to others who are one with the deity? Extra points for comments on the representation of "deity" as a capitalized proper noun. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >On Tue, 26 May 2009 00:34:00 +0100, Paul Wolff > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >comments on the representation of "deity" as a capitalized proper >noun. I saw that line as irony, since I don't know of any religionists who sincerely write "the Deity" in their written communications. The phrase looked like a way of inviting readers to substitute whatever their own opinions or beliefs required, be it fluffy pink unicorn or whatever. SignaturePaul > On Sun, 24 May 2009 18:53:34 -0700 (PDT), Berkeley Brett > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > person to a meaningless platitude. �What difference does it make to > you? Some people may take the platitude literally and take offense. I know many atheists who are offended by the inscription "In God we trust" in a courtroom. >> On Sun, 24 May 2009 18:53:34 -0700 (PDT), Berkeley Brett >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > know many atheists who are offended by the inscription "In God we > trust" in a courtroom. Offended for some reason other than that it appears to be an official proclamation? SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |When you're ready to break a rule, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |you _know_ that you're ready; you Palo Alto, CA 94304 |don't need anyone else to tell |you. (If you're not that certain, kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |then you're _not_ ready.) (650)857-7572 | Tom Phoenix http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > >> On Sun, 24 May 2009 18:53:34 -0700 (PDT), Berkeley Brett > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Offended for some reason other than that it appears to be an official > proclamation? Offended because they are excluded from the "we". >> >> On Sun, 24 May 2009 18:53:34 -0700 (PDT), Berkeley Brett >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Offended because they are excluded from the "we". But only because there's an expectation that they should be included. They wouldn't similarly be offended by such a sign on a church or mosque or store. It's only because the court is speaking officially for the society that they are offended by the implied exclusion. I don't see why anybody would be offended by a private individual's "our prayers are with you" unless that individual was speaking on behalf of some group they were a part of. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If all else fails, embarrass the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |industry into doing the right Palo Alto, CA 94304 |thing. | Dean Thompson kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > Very often, when a person is going through a difficult time, we'll > hear another person say to them, "Our prayers are with you." [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > But saying a prayer about this or that is a specific religious act, at > least in the literal sense. . . . This inquiry has not yet noticed that everyday English has several formulaic expressions that have a recognized function dissimilar from their literal import. E.g. 1. Goodbye is a contraction of "God be with you," literally a blessing invoking God. Its function, however, is merely formal. Most people say Goodbye without intending to invoke God or confer a blessing. 2. "How do you do?" is the formulaic greeting of the British middle and upper classes. Its function is simply formal greeting: it is not a request for information about the other's state of health or wealth. 3. "Our prayers are with you" seems to have entered the language only in the last 50 or 60 years, i.e. during a period of rapid decline in prayer and religious observance etc. Prior experience suggests we should not assume its function is what the words literally mean. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) >> Very often, when a person is going through a difficult time, we'll >> hear another person say to them, "Our prayers are with you." [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >etc. Prior experience suggests we should not assume >its function is what the words literally mean. Agreed. It is an expression of sympathy. Some people will mean it literally, but certainly not all. Google finds: "thoughts and prayers are with you" 791,000 "prayers are with you" -thoughts 209,000 "thoughts are with you" -prayers 237,000 As an unbeliever I would use the latter. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) Quoth "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <mail@peterduncanson.net>, and I quote: >Google finds: > >"prayers are with you" -thoughts 209,000 Google even finds two examples of "prayers are against you", for those who are even more irreligious. SignatureJames > Google finds: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > As an unbeliever I would use the latter. Oy! --Jeff SignatureThe comfort of the wealthy has always depended upon an abundant supply of the poor. --Voltaire >> Google finds: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Oy! Like it or not, the OED says of "latter": 5. a. That has been mentioned second of two, last of a group of more than two,... SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>> Google finds: >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 5. a. That has been mentioned second of two, last of a group of more > than two,... Perhaps you've answered Henry Higgins question: Blame the OED. --Jeff SignatureThe comfort of the wealthy has always depended upon an abundant supply of the poor. --Voltaire >>>> Google finds: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Perhaps you've answered Henry Higgins question: Blame the OED. It just reports usages and attempts to explain what is meant by the usages. The OED is innocent, OK? SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>>> Google finds: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >The OED is innocent, OK? That should make Jesse Sheidlower's day. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.