Author Topic: "Biblical" English (Read 1632 times)

Porter · « **on:** August 01, 2006, 09:28:40 AM »

Thee. Thou. Whilst. Doest. Many morest.

Where do these weird formations come from? What did they originally mean? When did we lose them?

I assume that they took on their current flavor because about the only time we encounter them are through either the Bible or Shakespear, or somebody trying to copy the style of such (like in the Book of Mormon).

Jonathon · « **Reply #1 on:** August 01, 2006, 11:15:24 AM »

Thou, thee, thy, and thine are just second-person singular pronouns. Thou and its other forms are cognate with tu in Romance languages and du in German. In Early Modern English, you began to be used as a formal form, and it eventually displaced thou.

Verbs ending with -st or -est are the forms that went with thou; when the pronouns disappeared from use, so did those verb endings.

Whilst isn't exactly archaic, though it is pretty rare in America. It's just while with a genitive -s on the end. I'm not quite sure what purpose that serves, but it eventually developed a -t on top of that, possibly through confusion with the the superlative adjective ending -st/-est.

I'm not sure about "many morest." That sounds weird to me. Where did you get that from?

pooka · « **Reply #2 on:** August 01, 2006, 11:58:06 AM »

The Book of Mormon doesn't actually use them anywhere near as much as the Bible, except in the passages that are direct quotations.

I can always get folks excited by speculating on when the church will move on from the King James translation. As I mentioned elsewhere fairly recently, Joseph Smith liked the Lutheran translation quite a bit. I think we'll change translations at the point that it becomes extremely rare for anyone else to be using it. Conversability is the main reason to use the translation we do.

I heard a very strongly worded quote from a General Authority criticizing missionaries who don't know how to decline and conjugate in King James English. Of course, he didn't use those words, he just felt it showed disrespect. I think it was an unfortunate attitude, and I'd favor the scriptural injunction to pray always over concepts that we should distort our speech or always kneel.

Porter · « **Reply #3 on:** August 01, 2006, 12:30:25 PM »

Quote

I'm not sure about "many morest." That sounds weird to me. Where did you get that from?

That was just a joke.

Quote

I heard a very strongly worded quote from a General Authority criticizing missionaries who don't know how to decline and conjugate in King James English.

He needs to get on Joseph Smith's case. He wasn't that great at it himself.

Jon Boy -- When is "Early Modern English" when it started becoming a formal form? Is it before or after Shakepear and the KJV?

Jonathon · « **Reply #4 on:** August 01, 2006, 12:46:24 PM »

Shakespeare and the KJV are both Early Modern English. The period lasted from the mid-1400s to the mid-1600s.

There's actually good evidence that Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Mormon was really more of a transcription process; that is, he received it word for word and dictated it to his scribes. That doesn't explain why the language is a mix of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century English and nineteenth-century English. Of course, that's probably a discussion for another thread.

Porter · « **Reply #5 on:** August 01, 2006, 01:00:43 PM »

Quote

There's actually good evidence that Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Mormon was really more of a transcription process; that is, he received it word for word and dictated it to his scribes.

There is evidence both ways, that he transcripted it, and that he translated the ideas into English. I suspect that there was some of both.

Jonathon · « **Reply #6 on:** August 01, 2006, 01:07:55 PM »

Quote

There is evidence both ways, that he transcripted it, and that he translated the ideas into English. I suspect that there was some of both.

I think you mean "transcribed."

Dr. Royal Skousen, whose life's work has been textual analysis of the Book of Mormon, seemed pretty certain that it was a transcription process. I don't remember all of his arguments, but I could try to dig them up later.

Porter · « **Reply #7 on:** August 01, 2006, 01:12:34 PM »

I've read quotes by people who heard Joseph Smith describe how he did it, and the (second-hand) descriptions are all over the map.

pooka · « **Reply #8 on:** August 02, 2006, 05:08:20 AM »

My experience in reading it aloud with children is that the non-biblical parts were much easier for a 7 year old to read than the biblical parts. That Isaiah would be harder is no surprise, but I thought 3 Nephi wouldn't be that different and it was. The ease with which one is ablet to read something can have to do with the idiosyncracies of that writer's speech pattern in interaction with the reader's as well.

So why is that a discussion for a different thread? Porter put "biblical" in quotes, and he brings up the Book of Mormon in the first post.

As for receiving it word for word, I think there is insight from Doctrine and Covenants Section 9 (or whatever the one is where Oliver Cowdery tried to help with the actual translation) into what the process was, and it was not a process of inspired dictation.

Porter · « **Reply #9 on:** August 09, 2006, 07:14:59 AM »

OSC in his latest column, ranting about bad Shakespearian language by hack fantasy writers:

Quote

If thou art a writer and knowest not how to conjugate in the second person singular, then thou shouldst restrain thyself from attempting to use it. And if thou darest to use the "eth" verb ending in any person except the third person singular, then I spit upon thy verbiage.

rivka · « **Reply #10 on:** August 09, 2006, 08:04:15 PM »

Jonathon · « **Reply #11 on:** August 09, 2006, 08:40:09 PM »

Thanks for the heads-up, Porter. I've never gotten in the habit of reading those columns regularly. But the book he's talking about sounds interesting, so maybe I'll have to check it out.