I’ve noticed that both traditional Catholics and Mormons use the name Holy Ghost more often than Holy Spirit.
Is this because of preferred Bible translations? Or was it because Ghosts are seen as creepy? Just curious why we started using Holy Spirit (which I prefer)?
It has also fascinated me that this shift in language took place.
The composite nature of the English language often means that we have two words for the same thing. As priest I can think of myself as being fatherly or paternal, depending on whether I would prefer the flavour of a Saxon term or a Latinate one.
It would seem - at least for a some centuries - the English speaking world preferred the more Saxon word of “Ghost” over the Latinate “Spirit”.
I don’t know the history of development well, but I know that both the Douay-Rheims and King James translations of the Bible preferred “Holy Ghost” and the Anglican Book of Common Prayer did as well (if I understand correctly). (Since Mormons use the KJV, that would explain why they prefer “Holy Ghost”.)
What I would be curious to know is whether the chicken or the egg came first. Was “Holy Ghost” favoured because of these books, or was “Holy Ghost” chosen for these books because they were part of common speech? Likewise, did the shift to “Holy Spirit” take place because of new translations of the Bible and of the liturgy, or did those new translations come about because of a change in the way people spoke? (Perhaps the answer is not even straightforward; it could be a dynamic linguistic shift.)
With regard to “ghost” sounding creepy: it’s an interesting hypothesis, and one that I have seriously considered. However, in the early 20th century, “spirit” would have had a strong association with the souls of departed ones (hence the “spiritualism” movement). So I am not sure spookiness can account for the change (though it may explain why so many people today are reticent about going back to “Holy Ghost”).