Rendering 2nd person singular and plural in modern English

[Robert Truelove]

As an avid KJV reader, I am stricken by the loss of seeing 2nd person singular and plural in modern versions. I don't fault the versions, it's an English issue.

Here is a proposed solution for up and coming members of translation committees. What if we dropped the use of italics throughout the text and only used it to designate second person plural? I realize we then wouldn't be able to use italics to show words added by the translators but that approach has already not been in vogue for some time (regrettably). However, I think it is more helpful to show 2nd person singular/plural than it is to show the added words because showing "added words" is somewhat misleading (it's not so nearly as cut and dried as some people think, whereas 2nd person singular/plural is cut and dried).

I think the use of italics would also work well aesthetically. The use of spaces "y o u" or bold type would make the text look ugly, whereas italics are subtle.

Here is what it would look like in the ESV...

“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.” Luke 22:31-32

Thoughts?

 

[Robert Truelove]

Leave it to me to misspell the word "English" in the subject. Help me ADMINS!!! you're my only hope! ;-)

 

[Jake]

Another solution is the one employed by the "Modern Young's Literal Translation": http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Youngs-Literal-Translation-Testament/dp/0965307875

It uses a superscript P or S for each you. A bit much visually, perhaps.

 

[Robert Truelove]

Another solution is the one employed by the "Modern Young's Literal Translation": http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Youngs-Literal-Translation-Testament/dp/0965307875

It uses a superscript P or S for each you. A bit much visually, perhaps.

Yea, that would get really messy. Especially when you add superscripts for footnotes and cross references.

 

[arapahoepark]

Y'all

 

[Logan]

I appreciate your concern for aesthetics, and agree that the subscripts or bold, or underline would really make the page ugly. I almost wonder though if it makes more sense to have the italics be the singular form, since italics today imply emphasis and to me would imply you specifically, rather than "you" as a group.

While I agree this would be a nice feature, for discussion's sake I do wonder how critical this really is. If I'm studying that much in-depth that I'm concerned about whether it's a specific person or group that is being spoken to, I would think I'd be looking at a commentary anyway. Just like if I was concerned about the nuances of what the word "love" or "charity" meant in a context, I'd be looking at a commentary that would bring it up.

As a side note, my own conversations with people (KJV readers included) have shown that most don't even know there is a singular/plural difference, so unfortunately it seems that most today don't benefit from it anyway.

I think it is more helpful to show 2nd person singular/plural than it is to show the added words because showing "added words" is somewhat misleading

I do agree that this gives a misleading sense of precision, because there are lots of "added words" in any translating work.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you lot..." (i.e. the lot of you, kind of like y'all)?

In the long run, I don't think there's any effective substitute for the necessity of sound teaching. Consider: there is no "smooth rendering" of the nominative separate pronouns, typically used for emphasis in Gk (since otherwise the noun is "in" the verb form). My Gk professor suggested his students write "I, myself" or "you, yourselves" etc. in our personal translations to lay bare the emphasis.

 

[God'sElectSaint]

I like the idea of somehow making clear 2nd person singular and plural in modern translations. I like Logan's idea a little better with the italics for the singular. But I personally like the italics for added words in the KJV,NKJV,and NASB. I know sometimes these "added words" are necessary in translation but I still think they are good to have in a lot of cases. Sometimes whether the "you" is plural or singular can make a big difference. Here's an example that I think can make a significant difference: "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are."(1 Cor 3:16,17 KJV)Which here we see that the "Church" is the temple of God not simply each individual believer. Maybe it could be translated "Don't you know that the Church is the temple of God" in modern translations but that could be problematic as well. I suppose a footnote would do as well, I think the ESV provides footnotes indicating plurals sometimes, doesn't it? I like the ESV but it's lack of italics is a downfall in my opinion. But Logan you are right many folks don't even realize the difference the KJV is making with ye and thee, which is a shame because that is one of the benefits of reading the KJV or the ASV. Of course some use this as an example to throw out modern versions and stick with the KJV but I think that's just silly. Not to get off topic but these KJV only types in my opinion are actually destroying the reputation of the King James bible with their nonsense. And because of this I have to clarify to people that I don't use the KJV because I think it's "the only uncorrupt version" or "that it's the perfect preserved word of God". I use it because it's an accurate translation of the Greek text I prefer and I think it's a literary masterpiece which makes it a joy to read.

 

[Jack K]

No solution is perfect, but this sounds like a pretty good idea that has some benefit.

 

[KMK]

How is any of this better than 'thou'?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

How is any of this better than 'thou'?

It is not.

It takes about 5 seconds to explain thee, thy, thou, and you.

 

[Logan]

Wouldn't retaining "thee, ye, thou, thy..." in a modern translation be somewhat missing the point of doing a modern translation?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you lot..." (i.e. the lot of you, kind of like y'all)?

In the long run, I don't think there's any effective substitute for the necessity of sound teaching. Consider: there is no "smooth rendering" of the nominative separate pronouns, typically used for emphasis in Gk (since otherwise the noun is "in" the verb form). My Gk professor suggested his students write "I, myself" or "you, yourselves" etc. in our personal translations to lay bare the emphasis.

My thoughts when I read this thread.

I know this isn't quite a similar issue but it reminds me of the dynamic equivalence debate over translation. I think there is a default idea that the Scriptures are intended to be self-disclosing so that a person with reading ability ought to be able to pick up the Bible in his own language and learn whatever is needful for salvation.

English speakers are blessed to speak a language that has been enriched by the Scriptures. We have words like propitiation and justification that convey Biblical truth. Some languages do not and attempts to translate into what some remote tribe knows ill fail because they need to be taught the concepts so their minds (even their language) can be expanded beyond what they currently possess.

I do think there is something to be said about lamenting the loss of plural 2nd person pronouns but what about the lack of plural 3rd person feminine and masculine forms? What about English's lack of verb conjugation?

At the end of the day we still need teachers (even with English) equipped to work with the original language.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Wouldn't retaining "thee, ye, thou, thy..." in a modern translation be somewhat missing the point of doing a modern translation?

Not really. There has always been a need to "update" at times, which you (pl.) see with the revisions of the AV.

 

[Jake]

Wouldn't retaining "thee, ye, thou, thy..." in a modern translation be somewhat missing the point of doing a modern translation?

Some newer translations have retained it for clarity. I think by the late nineteenth/early twentieth century very few English dialects retained the distinction, yet the RV, ASV, and YLT, for example, all retained it.

 

[Edward]

"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you lot..." (i.e. the lot of you, kind of like y'all)?

Might work in the Midwest, but in the South, 'Y'all'; a special limited edition for New York - 'Youse guys'

 

[BGF]

Don't forget "you'uns" of Scotch-Irish origin, used primarily in Western and Central PA.

 

[MW]

How about we use the English forms for singular and plural (thou, thee, ye, you), and then we don't have to go making up code-words.

 

[earl40]

How about we use the English forms for singular and plural (thou, thee, ye, you), and then we don't have to go making up code-words.

Because the vulgar language has changed?

 

[SeanAnderson]

The only elegant solution is to stick with 'thou' and 'ye', or otherwise to provide notes.

This is one of the reasons why I loved switching to the KJV as my primary Bible (as well as my adoption of the TR position).

For most modern speakers of English, there is no distinction between the singular and plural second person. 'You all' is just cumbersome. Others are too regional.

 

[KMK]

Wouldn't retaining "thee, ye, thou, thy..." in a modern translation be somewhat missing the point of doing a modern translation?

Or, wouldn't doing a 'modern' translation be somewhat missing the point of not fixing what isn't broken?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

How about we use the English forms for singular and plural (thou, thee, ye, you), and then we don't have to go making up code-words.

Because the vulgar language has changed?

But, as is pointed out regularly in these threads, thee and thou was not the "vulgar" language in 1611.

 

[Logan]

And I still think that misrepresents the situation. I'm not sure it wasn't the vulgar speech of the time and in any case, if you read sermons or books from that era you see it is common enough that it might as well have been. Not to mention works like Shakespeare's which use similar language but were definitely written for a vulgar audience.

 

[earl40]

How about we use the English forms for singular and plural (thou, thee, ye, you), and then we don't have to go making up code-words.

Because the vulgar language has changed?

But, as is pointed out regularly in these threads, thee and thou was not the "vulgar" language in 1611.

Thus is why I used a question mark. What was the vulgar language then?

EDIT: I see there are some other threads that answer my question that satisfy me.

 

[God'sElectSaint]

I have heard it stated before that the KJV was a little outside the "vulgar" language of it's day but isn't any decent bible translation? I think for instance the ESV is is on an elevated level of English but that's why it's so popular because it's done the best job to follow the literary standard set by the Authorized Version, I think.

 

[Edward]

I think for instance the ESV is is on an elevated level of English

Not really. NIV, ESV, and NKJV are all about the same reading level (7-8). KJV now rates out at about 12, although it probably would have rated lower when translated. NASB is 11.

http://www.mardel.com/bibleTranslationGuide

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Just to clarify, "vulgar" doesn't necessarily mean that the words are "street speech". I'm not arguing for or against the retention of the terms but simply to guard against the idea that the translation needs to meed some mid-level common denominator that people who speak a given language can understand. As I already pointed out there are gramattical features of Greek that English doesn't have because English doesn't decline nouns or conjugate verbs in a way that have the same clarity. Add to this general ignorance even with the forms we do have. A lot of people don't know how to use "Who" and "Whom" so that even when English is representing whom as an accusative or genetive or dative then folks might miss what can be communicated by the language.