Has English Degraded?

[John of Japan]

I have a question: Does a standardized modern English language exist today?

There is not a language on earth and never has been with a standardized version of the language.

For example, Japanese has the Kanto dialect, the Kansai dialect, classical Japanese, colloquial Japanese, various levels of honorifics (polite language), etc.

I once had twin young men come to my church in Yokohama from Akita Prefecture, one of the outlying provinces north of Tokyo. Though I am fluent in the language, I couldn't understand them!

 

[Salty]

? Do you speak any foreign languages?

I speak military - does that count?

 

[Salty]

I have a question: Does a standardized modern English language exist today?

In addition - we in the USA speak American - not pure English!
(not counting the multiple regional....)

 

[John of Japan]

I speak military - does that count?

"Ten hut!!! Start digging that ditch, soldier." I have now reached the limit of my military speak.

 

[John of Japan]

There are two Anthony Pritchards with books on Amazon. One writes about car racing and cars. His books look cool! The other is a Mark Anthony Pritchard, and he writes weird stuff. No linguist or Bible translator on there.

 

[Conan]

I have no desire to visit your Islam embracing, and increasingly, antisemitic, Anti-Zionist, and anti-Christian country.

No reason to be insulting.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I have no desire to visit your Islam embracing, and increasingly, antisemitic, Anti-Zionist, and anti-Christian country.

Come on over! you have nothing to lose but your mindless, stereotypical prejudice.

There is no single governing body for written or spoken standards for the English language...never has been.

...the implication that the KJV's language is superior might be:

(1) a "flame" - a provocative post meant to stir up controversy,
or
(2) a strong indication of a presuppositional bias.

Has the English language evolved? Absolutely!

The KJV was a foundational achievement in the development of the modern English language.

Rob

Interestingly, in the 15th Century, Roman Catholics insisted that English was too rough and crude a language to have the Bible written in it.

 

[John of Japan]

Think of the Greek language. I teach NT Greek, and have translated it. However, don't ask me to translate Classical Greek for you. I recognize quite a few words of it, but am not fluent in it. The grammar and vocabulary changed drastically over the 800 or more years between Homer's Greek and the NT. I've tried to read that, Xenophon's Anabasis and other documents. Can't do it.

Take Septuagint Greek. It is supposed to be koine, but I have a hard time reading it. The vocabulary is quite different from NT Greek. Then there is modern Greek. It has lost a couple of tenses, etc. I recognize some words, but can't really read it. Languages change and grow, but they never become "degraded." That's a myth.

I'm fluent in modern colloquial Japanese, but there is a classical version. Until after WW2, all Japanese written documents were in classical Japanese, including the first complete Bible. But I can read it. How? I studied it! Is it inferior or superior to modern colloquial Japanese? Superior? Of course not!

Languages communicate differently. That goes along with any language, including 17th century English as compared to 21st century English--two different dialects, if you will, of the English language. Interestingly enough, Japanese have a terrible time learning English because the grammars are so different, but Chinese syntax (sentence structure) is very close to English, so Chinese learn English more easily. Chinese has no articles, so that part of English is tough for them, but they can speak it. None of these 3 languages are better then the others. Nor are Hebrew, Greek, Latin, whatever.

Now, I'm just wondering how much Anthony knows about languages and linguistics. So far I've not seen evidence that he is a genuine linguist. I hope he'll answer this and put my fears to rest.

P. S. When I write about languages and translation, especially the Greek, please don't think I'm bragging. It's what I do for a living. You'll never read me saying, "I'm good at languages." But if I asked, "What do you do for a living?" and you said, "I'm a plumber," I'd expect you to be able to answer my plumbing questions, right?

 

[Logos1560]

What Anthony is trying to portray (the supposed decay of the English language) belongs in the field of what we call historical linguistics, though he has shown little knowledge of that field. Here's a thought. If KJV English is superior, why is Anthony using modern English to make his points? Seems like he would want to use the superior 17th century language, and leave it up to us to try to figure out what he was saying.

Anyway, Anthony wants us to believe a popular linguistic myth, namely, that one language can be superior to another.

I have had a similar thought.

I have wondered why someone (who claims that Modern English has decayed and has become less capable and who claims that 1500's KJV English is a more mature form of English with a fuller vocabulary, richer syntax, and clearer distinctions) would still use that alleged, decayed and inferior Modern English in their present writings. I also wonder why that person would not stick with original 1611 KJV edition English instead of post-1900 KJV edition English with much standardization of spelling and some influence from the 1755 Johnson's Dictionary and from 1700's English grammars. That person would not seem to be practicing what they preach.

 

[John of Japan]

I have had a similar thought.

I have wondered why someone (who claims that Modern English has decayed and has become less capable and who claims that 1500's KJV English is a more mature form of English with a fuller vocabulary, richer syntax, and clearer distinctions) would still use that alleged, decayed and inferior Modern English in their present writings. I also wonder why that person would not stick with original 1611 KJV edition English instead of post-1900 KJV edition English with much standardization of spelling and some influence from the 1755 Johnson's Dictionary and from 1700's English grammars. That person would not seem to be practicing what they preach.

Let's see if he'll answer that.... Anthony, why don't you communicate with us in KJV English, if it is superior? Most of us have read the KJV and understand it. I've read it, preached it, studied it all my life, as I believe Logos and others here have.

 

[Mike B]

When I read or study my bible, I do not want it to read like a Tom Clancy novel, as I am
reading THE Word of God..it should be different, if not unique. It is a special, supernatural
book gifted and given to mankind by inspiration of God Himself.

Every person who has studied and learned anything has, at one time or another, come across a
word they did not understand. In the old days, we looked it up in an amazing book of words
and definitions commonly known as a dictionary. We would learn the correct meaning of
the word, and then apply it to our studies.

In today's world, I would submit that 95% of all readers of the KJV have the worlds largest
and most complete dictionary right at their fingertips....commonly known as a smart phone.
Google doesn't care that the word you are searching for is archaic, it will tell you the meaning
in a matter of seconds, and the next time you come across that word in Scripture you will
know it's definition and correct application to the text.

Not archaic..just different, and that's not a bad thing.

Let us also not forget that the Lord has blessed us with a Teacher..

John 14:26 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall
teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

 

[Mike B]

In addition - we in the USA speak American - not pure English!
(not counting the multiple regional....)

One thing I enjoyed greatly while traveling the country were the unique accents, words and
phrases in the various regions and states.

We should also consider that there is UK English, American English and Australian English,
with some words and phrases having completely opposing meanings, depending on what
country you are in.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

n addition - we in the USA speak American - not pure English!
(not counting the multiple regional....)

English across the world and even across the United States shows differences in both dialect and vernacular. Some regions develop true dialects with distinct grammatical and phonological features, while most differences are simply vernacular, the everyday local usage of the same language. These variations highlight the need for a common, pure, preserved Word of God in English, one that stands above shifting regional speech and provides a stable and unified standard for all English speaking believers.

 

[xlsdraw]

No reason to be insulting.

You find the truth insulting?

 

[xlsdraw]

Come on over! you have nothing to lose but your mindless, stereotypical prejudice.

Interestingly, in the 15th Century, Roman Catholics insisted that English was too rough and crude a language to have the Bible written in it.

My heritage was wise enough to leave a few hundred years ago.

 

[Logos1560]

In today's world, I would submit that 95% of all readers of the KJV have the worlds largest
and most complete dictionary right at their fingertips....commonly known as a smart phone.
Google doesn't care that the word you are searching for is archaic, it will tell you the meaning
in a matter of seconds, and the next time you come across that word in Scripture you will
know it's definition and correct application to the text.

Gail Riplinger proposed: “The King James Bible contains God’s Built-in Dictionary, defining each word, in its context, using the very words of the Webster’s and Oxford English Dictionaries” (Language, p. xvi). Gail Riplinger asserted: “God included his own built-in dictionary in his word, so that he, not man, would determine just what he means” (Dictionary Inside, p. 6). In another book, Gail Riplinger claimed that “the King James Bible has a built-in dictionary which defines all of its words” and that “the difficult ones are no exception” (In Awe, p. 286). Gail Riplinger declared: “The King James Bible’s built-in dictionary defines all of its vocabulary for you” (p. 49). After referring to “the Bible’s perfect built-in dictionary,” Gail Riplinger asserted: “The KJV gives the perfect definition of all of its own words” (p. 65). Gail Riplinger claimed: “The Bible’s built-in dictionary is repeated throughout the Bible, so that there is no question about the meaning of a word” (p. 289).

Even if Riplinger’s claims may be generally true concerning the few examples that she presents in her 2003 book and concerning the 2000 words in her 2018 book The Dictionary Inside the King James Bible, it does not follow that those examples prove her broad-sweeping absolute assertion concerning all the words in the KJV to be true. It has not been soundly proven that the KJV actually has a built-in perfect definition for all its words. All the specific particulars that would be needed to prove her broad-sweeping generalized claim to be true about a built-in definition for all the KJV’s words have not been provided or presented. Too few specific examples have been given to conclude her broad-sweeping absolute generalization concerning all words in the KJV to be true.

Gail Riplinger acknowledged: “Units of measure are often not defined since they are exclusive to one era, language, or region” (Dictionary Inside, p. 18). Is that in effect an admission that the KJV’s renderings for units of measure or weight do not have built-in definitions?

 

[Salty]

... In today's world, I would submit that 95% of all readers of the KJV have the worlds largest
and most complete dictionary right at their fingertips....commonly known as a smart phone. ...

I have a dumb phone!

 

[JonC]

I would not say (opinion) English has degraded. Languages change over time.

Using the KJV is a faulty measure as the KJV was not written in common language (the language used by common people). The KJV was written in an elevated and archaic form of English for the early 17th century.

The opposite is true of the New Testament. The NT was written in Koine Greek (the common language) rather than Attic Greek.


But language change. Words change, some becoming obsolete and others taking on new meanings.