Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!howland.erols.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uchinews!not-for-mail
From: deb5@midway.uchicago.edu (Daniel von Brighoff)
Subject: Re: Etruscans [was: Re: The Coming of the Greeks]
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: ellis-nfs.uchicago.edu
Message-ID: <E15KD6.9Hv@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator)
Organization: The University of Chicago
References: <54q9ou$85o_002@dialin.csus.edu> <328F505F.79DF@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> <32922221.105E@qualcomm.com> <32923E97.6B85@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 04:55:54 GMT
Lines: 144
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.archaeology:56227 sci.lang:64571

Saida:
>>>>I would be the last one to say that Hebrew (or Arabic) is easy to
>>>>learn, but, in case anybody is interested, the Hebrew Bible is  
>>>>written in simple prose, not much resembling the fancy, stilted 
>>>>language of, say, the King James version.

Mr. Dunsmuir:
>>>I'm sorry? That 'fancy stilted language' was the standard formal
>>>written English of the late 16th, early 17th centuries. This whole
>>>discussion has suffered abyssmally from an overdose of egocentrism, just 
>>>as disastrous a folly in anthropology as is anthropomorphism in the 
>>>scientific study of non-human societies.

>>>Your above statement simply indicates that you are more familiar
>>>with the Hebrew of the Bible than you are with the language of 17th
>>>century English literature.

Saida:
>>I think that arrow must be stuck between your ears, Banana Picker!  What
>>I was saying is that the old-style English is NOT a literal translation
>>of the Hebrew.  The Hebrew is much less complicated in  its prosaic 
>>style and therefore, in itself, more modern than the translations most 
>>people are accustomed to reading.  I don't know how much more simply I can 
>>put this SO THAT THOU WILT COMPREHEND MY MEANING, YORICK!

Holoholona:
>.  What you call fancy, stilted language in the King James version of 
>the Bible was neither fancy nor stilted at the time, but rather a 
>readable translation written in a way that any common man could 
>understand. 

Saida:
>So what?  You are completely misunderstanding the jist of what I said, 
>which is that the English is NOT a literal translation.  What is the 
>matter with you people?

	I don't know, but I have much the same "misunderstanding" as
Holoholona.  In your original post (quoted above), you seem to be saying
that the *styles* do not match:  That the Hebrew Bible is written in
simple prose, while the KJV is written in fancy and stilted prose.  (Have
I followed so far?)  Later, you say that the KJV is not a "literal
translation" of the Hebrew Bible, and call this the "jist" of your
argument.

	Speaking as a freelance translator, I hope you understand that
these two statements are not equivalent.  There is a great deal of
difference between a "literal" translation and a "faithful" one.  The
former tend to sound quite stilted because they make use of words and
expressions that are infrequent in the target language, if they appear
in it at all.

	No one has claimed that the KJV is a literal translation of the
Hebrew.  However, Mr. Dunsmuir and Holoholona have both said that is a
*faithful* one within the context of the time it was written.

Holoholona:
> You further compound your misunderstanding by comparing the KJV to 
>Shakespeare, indeed, _Hamlet_, when in fact the KJV and Shakespeare are 
>poles apart in their place in English literature.  Shakespeare did 
>indeed use fancy and stilted language, even invented vocabulary to suit his 
>purpose > (_Hamlet_, for instance).

Saida:
>Oh, really?  You mean the Elizabethans didn't really talk that way?  
>Then how do you know the Jacobeans did?

	There is a very large corpus of Elizabethan and Jacobean writings
from a variety of different registers (e.g. informal letters, poems, legal
documents, etc.).  From these, we can reconstruct the common formal
standard written registers of each period (you are the first to bring up
spoken registers, which are a different matter) and compare them to the
language of the KJV and Shakespeare, respectively.  This comparison
reveals that Shakespeare's language diverged quite a deal more from the
standard of his time than the language of the KJV did from the standard of
its time.

	May I remind you that Shakespeare was writing in verse (blank
verse, but verse nevertheless).  Although people are fond of quoting
"chapter and verse" of the KJV it, by contrast, was written in prose and
with the express intention of being intelligible to the greatest number of
people.  Stylistically, there's no comparison.

Holoholona:
>> The fact that English has changed over the years, and that people think
>>archaic expressions sound "old fashioned" or conservative has nothing
>>to do with "fancy" or stilted language (although it may seem that way
>>to you).

Saida:
>Yes, it does, actually, but that doesn't mean I don't like it.  In fact, 
>I do, and I never said I didn't.

	This sounds like a complete non sequitur to me.  Could you restate
it in a less confusing fashion?

Holoholona: 
>> The fact that Modern Hebrew was revived from the older form
>>structurally intact simply means that the divergence found between 16c 
>>English and 20c English is impossible in 20c Hebrew.

Saida:
>May be now you're beginning to understand what I meant--a literal 
>translation is virtually impossible then and now.  The languages are too 
>different.  

That's not really what he's saying.  He's saying that since Modern Hebrew
is closely based on Biblical Hebrew, it's not surprising that you, a
speaker of the former, find the latter sounds like "simple prose".  The
contrast between Modern English and Early Modern English is much different
in nature, being due to 400 years' natural divergence, and can't be 
easily compared.

	Now, I'm neither an expert in Biblical Hebrew or 17th century
English literature.  But, as a native speaker of English, I can say that I
find the prose of KJV quite simple.  It is not "fancy language" or
syntactic complexity that makes it sound "stilted" to me, but rather the
inclusion of many words and expressions which are now archaic, although I
understand they were current or merely obsolescent at the time of the
translation.  I imagine phrases like:

"Vanity of vanities, all things are vanity!"
"And G-d saw that it was good."
"Honour thy father and mother."

have much the same effect on me as a reader as they do on a reader of
comparable passages in the Hebrew original.  (How well they reflect the
*intent* of the corresponding passages is another matter entirely.)

Saida:
>Something tells me you are not very familiar with this newsgroup or the 
>people in it.  Aloha!

	If you are speaking of sci.lang, I can tell you that, on the
contrary, Holoholona has been a regular contributor for at least as long I
have (that is to say, at least four years) and I wager he knows its
denizens as well as anyone.  I can't speak with authority to
sci.archaeology as I read only the crossposts from it.  Considering the
nature of those crossposts (such as the thread that fathered this
discussions), I continue to think this a wise decision.

-- 
	 Daniel "Da" von Brighoff    /\          Dilettanten
	(deb5@midway.uchicago.edu)  /__\         erhebt Euch
				   /____\      gegen die Kunst!
