The "Originals"

Don't youse guyse know that standard English is spoken in New Yawwk?
Seriously, what are your thoughts regarding newscasters? It seems to me, that no matter what part of the US that they're from, they seem to use a standard English, or should I say a standard American English?

 

No, I said no region owns standard English.

HankD

 

The masoretic Hebrew itself has a system of textual criticism embedded in the text itself.

It wasn't an earth shattering issue. It never has been. The first gentile problem (it seems) was with the old Itala. The old Itala mss are/were notorious for their conflicting readings.

Jerome's Latin Vulgate (5th century) was the solution and went through several hands and revisions for over 1000 years.

http://wayoflife.org/fbns/jerome-latinvulgate.html

It was later claimed to be written in the "language of heaven" and better than the Greek.

It seems there are always those who must insist upon a translation which has fallen from heaven.

In my view, the original language mss should be the focus of "preservation" and translations secondary at best.

As Brother Ed has pointed once the obvious mss scribal blunders of the original laguage mss are resolved: spelling, word order (metathesis), homoioteuluton (a predictable kind of omission), etc, 2-4% of the text is affected. It has always been this way, more so with NT scribes and their work.

It didn't rattle Jesus when He read from the Book of Isaiah, so why get upset?

The KJVO are the modern counterparts of the Latin Vulgate Only adherents many of whom loudly proclaim that the sky is falling everytime an mv is published, some of them attributing the work to Satan.

No translation is perfect, the 1611 AV underwent it's first revision in 1613, for instance.

As to Greek Text, personally I believe the Scrivener TR (1894/5) is the "virtual" reproduction of the Greek NT. I know most BBers would disagree. However, I'm not the type to stage a Grand Inquisition as is so common here at the BB.

In fact I stand with the mv folks because of (IMO) the KJVO double-standards (e.g. things which are different are not the same (unless it's the 1611 AV compared to the 1769 AV)), the KJVO view of "second inspiration" and "advanced revelation".

HankD

 

One of the most famous is Canadian. And the Brits all think he talks funny.

 

Exactly. There is no such thing as "standard" English.

 

So, once again I ask you, "whose English is 'standard'?"

American? East or west?

British? Scots, Irish, Welsh or Cockney?

Australian? Mainland or Tasmanian?

New Zealand? North or South Island?

 

The English I use is standard for me. And evidently it must be at least partially standard for you as you respond to my posts in a manner showing you understand my English. I certainly understand YOURS, so yours must be at least partially standard to me.

 

And I answered none that you mentioned except by coincidence, so perhaps in KJVO style I should answer "ALL".

Again, the "standard English" talked about in all the documents I presented is not owned by any one region but is the variety of English which will be best understood by all English speakers.

I have already addressed the fact that among those experts who write concerning SE exists differences of opinion concerning the details.
I even posted a website that dealt with vocabulary and grammar of "standard English".

This ping-pong discussion is fruitless, neither of us will cede anything (especially after I ceded one point in a previous debate and you proclaimed a victory).

In fact the very underlying thesis has been lost in the discussion.

In 1611 the KJV was the "standardized" biblish of the day to be read and understood by English speaking subjects of the Crown worldwide in the churches (and the homes of those who could both afford a copy and had the ability to read).

Today in 2001 a whole new language demographic has presented itself as opposed to 1611. The KJV biblish only adds to the present day problem of the proliferation of English speaking cultures along with the trend of English becoming the "lingua franca" in the world today of the 21st century.

The KJV is becoming more and more difficult to read for native English speakers not "churched" and even worst for those who speak english as a second language.

Personally the NKJV seems to me to be the solution. However even though it is TR based the KJVO (second-inspiration, advanced revelation kind) won't accept it but then they usually don't need to being happy with what they have.

HankD

 

So "standard English" is an idealization that does not exist as an actual language. Just as I have been saying all along. It doesn't exist.

 

How could you declare a language English unless there were some sort of standard?

 

We aren't talking about a standard, we are talking about a fictitious language called "standard English."

 

Okay. I understand. But I am serious when I did ask the question. I am curious at how they would declare a word English or something else.

 

After several pages of redefinition and fine tuning of your position, you have convinced yourself of a certain stand but no one else I suspect.

HankD