# What makes human language ordinary?



## JJF (Feb 9, 2006)

The Scriptures should be translated into ordinary language, right? Well, what makes language ordinary? What do y'all (ordinary use in the South) think?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 9, 2006)

Language is a mediator of communication between individuals or peoples. For language to be ordinary, I would think it should be rendered and composed in such a way as to not "get in the way" of proper and efficient mediation. As a good mediator, language should mediate well - not confuse.


----------



## JJF (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Language is a mediator of communication between individuals or peoples. For language to be ordinary, I would think it should be rendered and composed in such a way as to not "get in the way" of proper and efficient mediation. As a good mediator, language should mediate well - not confuse.



I agree with the general thrust of your post, but, confusion, in my mind, is a relative term. Could you explain what you mean by mediate well-not confuse? Perhaps, you have specific criteria in mind. I would like it very much if you would share your thoughts.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 9, 2006)

The English language has a rather fluid historical development. What a phrase or word meant 150 years ago means something entirely different today in our modern context. So, for language to be "not confusing" and "mediate well," it must take such things in consideration. As an example, if a verse in the Bible said:

"This made Thomas gay."

We would read it as saying Thomas was a homosexual. This would lead to - no doubt - much confusion, to say the least. However, if it was rendered:

"This made Thomas happy."

We would not have any question as to the proper meaning of the verse. While it is certainly true and most profitable for the Scriptures to be studied in their original vernacular, this is not always a possibility, nor should it be expected of all believers inclusively. Therefore, it is important for us to have translations of the Scripture to read that take into account our present context and how language is used so that it can function as a good mediator and bring the Scriptures to us as clearly as possible.


----------



## VictorBravo (Feb 9, 2006)

I like the language of John Owen. I think it should be considered ordinary. Can we vote on this?

Actually, this question is very important. The English language was even more fluid prior to the introduction of the KJV. I think a good argument could be made that, as with Luther, the general publication of the Bible helped stabilize the language.

But now we have translations of the Bible chasing language. It no longer is the stabilizing factor because it, in general, is no longer read or taught.

C.S. Lewis, in his preface to Mere Christianity alludes to the decline of language (I actually ran across this today on a Christian woman's blog-thanks Ann, if you are reading this):

"The word gentleman 'originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone 'a gentleman' you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not 'a gentleman' you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said - so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully - 'Ah but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?' They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man 'a gentleman' in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is 'a gentleman' becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker's attitude to that object. (A 'nice' meal only means a meal the speaker likes. (A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose."

A problem we face is that our language is somewhat unhinged from a standard. We will never be like the French, with their official proclamations of what is legitimate. For the time being, I guess, we can only look to T.V. or other mass media for a consensus standard. Not having a T.V myself, I really don't know what that would be, and I'm afraid I don't want to know.

Vic


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 9, 2006)

I think first ordinary or vulgar means not Hebrew, Greek, or Latin.

But it doesn't mean paraphrasing or dynamic-equivalenting for purposes of playing to lower standards.


----------

