A new King James Bible defense book

[HankD]

And on and on and on it goes. And none of them the mythical (and more than just slightly bigoted concept of) "standard" English.

I’ve shown and documented dictionaries, schools, writers, linguists and grammarians who believe in this so-called “myth”. Here are a few more including a Bible translator.

Standard English, also known as Standard Written English or SWE, is the form of English most widely accepted as being clear and proper.
Publishers, writers, educators, and others have over the years developed a consensus of what standard English consists of. It includes word choice, word order, punctuation, and spelling.
Standard English is especially helpful when writing because it maintains a fairly uniform standard of communication which can be understood by all speakers and users of English regardless of differences in dialect, pronunciation, and usage. This is why it is sometimes called Standard Written English.
There are a few minor differences between standard usage in England and the United States, but these differences do not significantly affect communication in the English
language. http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000374.htm

Standard English
Form of English that in its grammar, syntax, vocabulary, and spelling system is the accepted form. It does not identify the speaker or writer with a particular geographical area or social grouping. In Britain, the accent associated with Standard English is received pronunciation but these are not the same thing. All forms of slang, dialect and grammatical deviation are non-Standard. In multi-cultural society, non-Standard accents and word forms are increasingly accepted and promoted in the mass media, and the concepts of Standard English and received pronunciation as standards of correctness have become less important, and are possibly seen as elitist.

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0038754.html

There are special dialects of English spoken by people who are familiar with the Bible, sometimes referred to as Bible English (or Biblish). Because these special dialects are limited to people with knowledge of the Bible, and are dialects not spoken by most speakers of the general population, for purposes of the tests on this webpage, "Bible English" is, by definition, not a form of standard English
http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/survey.htm#standard

 

[skanwmatos]

I can't help but notice you failed to answer the question. Which English is standard English? American? Which American? British? Which British? Australian? Which Australian? And on and on it goes. The newest form of bigotry - language bigotry.

 

[ScottEmerson]

I've noticed that you did nothing to refute shabby research. Hank specifically showed what standard English was.

 

[skanwmatos]

And I specifically showed that the best scholarship disagrees with the tired old repetition of the jingoism of days gone by.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
And I specifically showed that the best scholarship disagrees with the tired old repetition of the jingoism of days gone by.

As I showed earlier, one of your papers did not deal with the issue entirely, another was written by a student for a class assignment, another was found in a newspaper (and the quote was from a random person), another one seems to have been thrown on there with no quote or any detail, and yet another was attributed to the University of Berne when it was not written by them. In no way is this the best scholarship. It's barely passable as such.

 

[skanwmatos]

I will pass on your opinion that Professor John McWhorter and the University of California at Berkeley is "barely passable scholarship."

Of course it seems to me that "good scholarship" is anyone who will agree with your bigotry and anyone who disagrees with your bigotry is "barely passable scholarship."

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by robycop3:
Skanwmatos:You seem to have missed the point. ALL of them are Modern English.

No, I haven't; YOU have, by acting as if people still use 17th C. English for everyday conversation.

Please don't lie about what I said or believe. I have said it over and over again. The KJV, according to every Philologist in print, is Modern English. And, again, there are literally dozens of regional dialects, all different, and all Modern English. </font>[/QUOTE]But not one of'em is the form of English commonly-used in the 17th century.

 

[HankD]

I can't help but notice you failed to answer the question. Which English is standard English? American? Which American? British? Which British? Australian? Which Australian? And on and on it goes. The newest form of bigotry - language bigotry.

Go back and read the previous posts Skan, I answered all your objections.

Standard English: a form of English that in its grammar, syntax, vocabulary, and spelling system is the accepted form. It does not identify the speaker or writer with a particular geographical area or social grouping.

I will admit that there is disagreement among linguists concerning some of the details of "standard English", but there is disagreement among experts in any field of any of the arts and sciences. I provided documentation from encyclopedias, dictionaries, papers, etc. Most of what you provided was your usual ad hominems.
Let the readers discern.

HankD

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by robycop3:
But not one of'em is the form of English commonly-used in the 17th century.

There was no more an English commonly-used in the 17th century then there is an English commonly used today! That is the whole point! The very concept of a "common English" is regional bigotry.

[ March 30, 2004, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: skanwmatos ]

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by HankD:
Go back and read the previous posts Skan, I answered all your objections.

I did. You didn't. "Standard English" is a myth. My dad came here from Scotland in 1959. I remember him talking to a gardener about the hedge being all aglae. The gardener had no idea what he was talking about. Finally the gardener asked him to write it down so dad wrote "aglae." The gardener just shrugged and walked away.

And I still remember mom's fresh baked bannocks in the morning. And dad is still talking about buying a croft and retiring. He has always had a dream of whiling away his latter years as a crofter.

Standard English. Yeah. Sure.

 

[HankD]

And I still remember mom's fresh baked bannocks in the morning. And dad is still talking about buying a croft and retiring. He has always had a dream of whiling away his latter years as a crofter.

Thank you, you just made the point of the reason for the development of standard English and in particular to replace the KJV dialect of which so many words are unknown to 21 century English speakers.

HankD

 

[skanwmatos]

And, yet once again, you have failed to understand the point. Bannock and croft are the "standard English" of Glasgow and most of Scotland but are NOT the "standard English" of the US. So, there is, in the real world, no such thing as "standard English." The very concept is bigoted nonsense.

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
And, yet once again, you have failed to understand the point. Bannock and croft are the "standard English" of Glasgow and most of Scotland but are NOT the "standard English" of the US. So, there is, in the real world, no such thing as "standard English." The very concept is bigoted nonsense.

...and I'm glad that there's no standard English BV based out of England translated almost 400 years ago...now THAT'S bigoted nonsense.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Orvie:
...and I'm glad that there's no standard English BV based out of England translated almost 400 years ago...now THAT'S bigoted nonsense.

I am equally glad there are many English versions of the bible, none of them the "standard" English bible (in spite of the word "standard" being presumptuously included in the names of several of them) which we can read and come to a greater understanding or the true meaning regardless of whether we are British, American, Australian, or a part of any of the other English speaking peoples of the world who would laugh at the concept of a "standard English."

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Orvie:
...and I'm glad that there's no standard English BV based out of England translated almost 400 years ago...now THAT'S bigoted nonsense.

I am equally glad there are many English versions of the bible, none of them the "standard" English bible (in spite of the word "standard" being presumptuously included in the names of several of them) which we can read and come to a greater understanding or the true meaning regardless of whether we are British, American, Australian, or a part of any of the other English speaking peoples of the world who would laugh at the concept of a "standard English." </font>[/QUOTE]Interesting point, even when the NASB claims to be written for "American English"...what exactly is American English? Is the New International Version truly for an international English speaking audience?

 

[HankD]

Forget it, it's a lost cause.

let the BB readers check the references and decide/discern for themselves.

HankD

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Orvie:
Interesting point, even when the NASB claims to be written for "American English"...what exactly is American English? Is the New International Version truly for an international English speaking audience?

Excellent question! If the NASB is in "standard" English why isn't it suitable for English speakers everywhere? And if the NIV is in "standard" English, why is it different from the NASB?

The truth is that neither is in "standard" English for no such thing exists, and both are useful for some segment of the English speaking peoples around the world.

 

[HankD]

Excellent question! If the NASB is in "standard" English why isn't it suitable for English speakers everywhere? And if the NIV is in "standard" English, why is it different from the NASB?

The truth is that neither is in "standard" English for no such thing exists, and both are useful for some segment of the English speaking peoples around the world

Actually the truth is IMO that the next "KJV" which will be accepted as the "standard English" (define "standard" any way you wish) Bible is still in the process of development and part of that development is involved with exactly the kind of debate that's going on here at the BB.

The KJV will take it's place in the Lord's Hall of Fame (already has).

HankD

 

[robycop3]

Skanwmatos:There was no more an English commonly-used in the 17th century then there is an English commonly used today! That is the whole point! The very concept of a "common English" is regional bigotry.

The English of the AV, the English of Shakespeare's writings, & the English of King James himself-which would HAVE to be as "King's English" as possible-is no longer in common use today in everyday communications. There's just no getting around that FACT.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by robycop3:
The English of the AV, the English of Shakespeare's writings, & the English of King James himself-which would HAVE to be as "King's English" as possible-is no longer in common use today in everyday communications. There's just no getting around that FACT.

And the "King's English" and that of Shakespeare, was not the common language of the people either! That is the WHOLE POINT! How many more times do I have to make that very simple point!?