U
Username3000
Guest
I feel that not only was rebellion against your king wrong, but so was jettisoning the King's English.Tell us how you really feel
But let us not derail this thread.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I feel that not only was rebellion against your king wrong, but so was jettisoning the King's English.Tell us how you really feel
Well, the British have given to us Dr Who and James Bond.I feel that not only was rebellion against your king wrong, but so was jettisoning the King's English.
But let us not derail this thread.
William Shakespeare, John Milton, Keats, Shelly, and John Donne were no slouches either.Well, the British have given to us Dr Who and James Bond.
I needed a good laugh today.I feel that not only was rebellion against your king wrong, but so was jettisoning the King's English.
But let us not derail this thread.
what would too American refer to?
Poor English, choppy sentences, and vulgar to the point of lacking any hint of majesty in the language?
I used to think that trash was an American word too until I came across it in Gurnall's "Christian in Complete Armour". John Owen also uses it in his commentary in Hebrews. It was actually a good Puritan English word, long before the Americans discovered it. It's time we British knew the history of our own language better.For instance, when I preached through Psalm 113, the CSB uses the word "trash," which isn't a commonly used word here. The congregation said they found that wording distracting and too American. I had to agree.
Why not use the KJV then if we are handing out points for old words that are no longer used by people today?I used to think that trash was an American word too until I came across it in Gurnall's "Christian in Complete Armour". John Owen also uses it in his commentary in Hebrews. It was actually a good Puritan English word, long before the Americans discovered it. It's time we British knew the history of our own language better.
Why not use the KJV then if we are handing out points for old words that are no longer used by people today?
No British person misunderstands the meaning of the word "trash", they simply (erroneously) think it to be an American word. Just setting the record straight.Why not use the KJV then if we are handing out points for old words that are no longer used by people today?
I have anglicized (British) versions of the NIV and ESV, and I prefer those to their American counterparts. Aside from colours instead of colors, for example, there is a dignity to the language lacking in the American versions ...... in my humble opinion.The KJV is clearly British English rather than American English, but that is not an obstacle in America because British English is generally perceived as "intelligent" and "polite" by Americans, so no one is offended by it.
I think the word trash is in use today.
No British person misunderstands the meaning of the word "trash", they simply (erroneously) think it to be an American word. Just setting the record straight.
By the way, I take the point about the potential difficulty of a "foreign-sounding" translation. Even if that perception is mistaken, it could easily be an obstacle. The Presbyterian church in England in the 19th and 20th centuries unfortunately fostered the sense of the exotic foreignness (Scottishness) of their faith by calling most of their churches "St Andrew's" or "St Columba's". Perception matters, which is why the NIV is published in both British and American versions. The KJV is clearly British English rather than American English, but that is not an obstacle in America because British English is generally perceived as "intelligent" and "polite" by Americans, so no one is offended by it.
Brother, the only dignity left in my country is found where she resembles the old Motherland the most. And, not to sound too harsh, but she is most undignified where she has swallowed current American culture hook, line, and sinker.I have anglicized (British) versions of the NIV and ESV, and I prefer those to their American counterparts. Aside from colours instead of colors, for example, there is a dignity to the language lacking in the American versions ...... in my humble opinion.
Brother, the only dignity left in my country is found where she resembles the old Motherland the most. And, not to sound too harsh, but she is most undignified where she has swallowed American culture hook, line, and sinker.
Of course, old America was far better than her contemporary self as well.
My British blood (Lowland Scottish--AKA not English-hating Highlander-- & English) boils to read of such things!As my wife is an almost completely Americanized Canadian, even to the extent of preferring football over hockey and occasionally dropping a y'all, I resemble that remark! Still, this does not explain Newfies!
Once I started thinking about this, it raised a number of interesting questions about unassimilated Britishisms in American translations - for example the rendering of terms for small coins such as "lepton" and "kodranten": the KJV goes with the terms "mite" (which was probably not a current coin even in those days) and "farthing", which is very British. It uses the equally British "penny" for the denarius. The ESV regularly retains the very British penny (following its source, the RSV), and even the supposedly American CSB has "penny" in Matthew 5:26 and 10:29, unlike the genuinely American NASB, which goes with "cent" throughout (CSB has "cent" in Luke 12:59). By the way, this is a great example of dynamic equivalence in the KJV, translating small coins into equivalent familiar small coins, rather than simply transliterating!No British person misunderstands the meaning of the word "trash", they simply (erroneously) think it to be an American word. Just setting the record straight.
By the way, I take the point about the potential difficulty of a "foreign-sounding" translation. Even if that perception is mistaken, it could easily be an obstacle. The Presbyterian church in England in the 19th and 20th centuries unfortunately fostered the sense of the exotic foreignness (Scottishness) of their faith by calling most of their churches "St Andrew's" or "St Columba's". Perception matters, which is why the NIV is published in both British and American versions. The KJV is clearly British English rather than American English, but that is not an obstacle in America because British English is generally perceived as "intelligent" and "polite" by Americans, so no one is offended by it.
My British blood (Lowland Scottish--AKA not English-hating Highlander-- & English) boils to read of such things!
And Newfoundlanders is what happens when the Irish don't have the civilizing influence of old Bristish culture, and are instead left to themselves in the New World. A scary thing.
I still shake my head at Prairie cowboys driving around with Confederate flags on their trucks. What an odd phenomenon! At least you have far less of the French influence in BC!
But there was a time when even your lowland people were not so eager to adopt the demonym British and also a time when many, especially of Presbyterian and Reformed conviction, sympathized with the American "rebellion." As one of (partial) Scots heritage myself I still am piqued at England's abandonment of the Solemn League and Covenant. I'll take Christ's Crown and Covenant over Charles and Canterbury.
I still grant that the Brits, excepting Cockney variants and their ilk, have a far greater command of the language than Americans.
Anyways, we typically use the AV and ESV in our family. I tend to use the AV more and my wife the ESV but we use both.
I use the AV for all occasions, and so does my wife. Just can’t understand why Josh keeps using the KJV in every instance. Surely he must have heard of the Alternative Version instead of Knowing Josh’s Version! Not only that but though he is under grace he breaks the law, in that I believe the AV under the law of the realm, is the only Authorised Version to be read in churches. Get with it Josh, and update your reading by joining our AV only society, and be an Advanced Verbalist, renouncing all Americanisms and solely defending the KING JAMES VERSION.
Josh, you gave us Kiwis some free ammunition I met some American Reformed Baptists touring New Zealand a few months ago. They said they loved NZ Fish and Chips. I was very impressed they said Fish and Chips with the same accent as us Kiwis. So the concept of fesh and cheps is foreign to American thinking.(the Americans butcher the English language, then us Australians come along and make it worse),
Josh, you gave us Kiwis some free ammunition I met some American Reformed Baptists touring New Zealand a few months ago. They said they loved NZ Fish and Chips. I was very impressed they said Fish and Chips with the same accent as us Kiwis. So the concept of fesh and cheps is foreign to American thinking.
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?year_start=1900&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=7&case_insensitive=on&content=dignity&direct_url=t4;,dignity;,c0;,s0;;dignity;,c0;;Dignity;,c0
This is interesting, and sad.
Note the steady decline of the usage of the word 'dignity' within the books that Google has in Google Books. Fractions of percentages of all books, but still. A striking graphic.
Dignity is not even on our lips any longer as it once was.
NZ is the land of the long lost vowel.
I didn't know that, thanks.The data cannot support that conclusion. One might then also note the sad, steady decline of the use of the word "foot" in our 20th century.
First, the percentages are so small that we're close to the noise level (two versus eight thousandths of one percent). Second, there may be many factors that contribute to a perceived decline: not just changing language but copyright laws which mean fewer (or certain types) of modern books are indexed, automatically excluding a huge portion of what is being printed today. Third, you're relying on OCR to recognize these words, and not all will be accounted for equally over each time period. Fourth, the decline could be contributed by the number of books indexed from other languages (and their copyright laws) changing over time. Lastly, if you'll draw that graph back to the 1600s, you'll see that the usage of the word appears to have risen (based on the data obtainable), which could lead one to the conclusion that the 1600s were a sad period too!
Or even changing the time period and being case sensitive, we could be encouraged that "Dignity" has doubled in usage since the 1920s!