Spanish

Trotter, apson indicated he would probably be able to post about once a week, so it may be several days before he has a chance to reply.

El_guero, I'm not sure what you mean about what direction this thread is going, but I would think the usage of you/thou in the King James Version is mainly what is relevant to this thread and its readers (as far as English is concerned).

Apson's original post correlates the English "you" with the Spanish "usted". This cannot be correct, because "usted" is singular, and "you" in old English is plural. "Ustedes" is the plural formal "you" in Spanish. As far as I can tell, "thou" consistently translates Gk. singular and "you" the plural. Can an exception to this be shown? Is there any evidence that the KJV intends "familiar" usage with thou/thee/thine?

 

Sorry about taking so long to respond, I hope you see this. Yes, I do agree 100% that it has NOTHING to do with, nor should it have nything to do with a Spanish translation. There are plenty of Greek/Hebrew scholars who know Spanish. Translation from English is not a good thing whatsoever.

If the Bible were penned in English by those inspired of God--then we would have a different story. But Greek/Hebrew and possibly Aramaic is it.

Now, whether they pick the MT or CT as their preference is optional and up to the opinions of the translators. It would probably be nice to see one of each so people will have their choice.

Maybe even the TR, like the NKJV.

 

rlvaughn

The impression that I am getting is:

Personal bias has induced some posters to misuse logic to support their case, first in Spanish and then continuing in Archaic English.

I like the KJV, enjoy reading it, and am reading it now.

But, misusing foreign language(s) to support a peculiar theology is not necessary.

This is the same with Greek studies, Hebrew studies ...

But, why bring Spanish into it? And archaic English? I have studied both, and see very little connection between the two languages.

 

So my question is: Why? Why are we chasing rabbits in Spanish and King James English?

 

Originally posted by El Guero:

"The impression that I am getting is:

Personal bias has induced some posters to misuse logic to support their case, first in Spanish and then continuing in Archaic English.

I like the KJV, enjoy reading it, and am reading it now.

But, misusing foreign language(s) to support a peculiar theology is not necessary.

This is the same with Greek studies, Hebrew studies ...

But, why bring Spanish into it? And archaic English? I have studied both, and see very little connection between the two languages."

....Good post, Good Question....

I think this has to do with the "Rey Jaime" edition mentioned in the other thread (sorry I forgot the name of the thread), in which (I understand) the KJV has/had been translated into Spanish.

As a side note, I have not seen a copy of the Rey Jaime edition, only some commentary, so if someone has a link to it...........

I will say that (IMHO) the receptor language could be Urdu for all that matters.......Translations still need to be made from source manuscripts.

 

Trotter said:

'Thou' has nothing, I repeat nothing, to do with familiarity. 'Thou' is the singular form of 'you' and nothing else, period.

Er, that's not exactly true. That is the original distinction between you and thou, yes. But by the late 16th century, thou as a singular was beginning to fall into disuse as you started doing double duty. Notice how Shakespeare doesn't always use thou as a second-person singular. Rather, it becomes a term of condescension (e.g. "Thou scurvy knave," etc.)

The KJV translators were just trying to maintain the singular/plural distinction of the original and the previous English Bibles. Unfortunately, English had passed them by. To address God as thou by then was to talk down to him.

 

http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~cpercy/courses/6362Yaswen2.htm

HankD

 

What has transpired since the translation of the KJV has no bearing on this.

Every translation is frozen in time at the moment it is completed. English, or almost any other language, does not stand still. The older a translation, the further it drifts from the current usage.

The KJV translators knew this when they decided to use an outdated form of English (even in 1611). They used 'thee' and 'thou' as the singular, no the diminuative. To try to force the interpretation of familiarity onto the usage of 'thou' as used in the KJV is to adulterate its usage and meaning.

What a word means NOW does not change what the translators wrote THEN. One people understand this small, but significant, point, all translations of the bible become much easier to understand.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

It also carried the familiar usage in the 17th century as per the quote in my previous post and may have caused some confusion even then.

But we are missing the point by this distraction.

The bearing that it has on this thread is that the formal/familiar usage corresponded to Spanish which the poster says facilitates the translation on that one point of agreement.

However, English (for instance) does not carry gender as in the Romance languages except where gender is obvious so the point that for a short time in history English corresponded to Spanish in relation to formal/familiar mode is really lost seeing all the other idiomatic exceptions between English vs Spanish and then the differences between them and Hebrew and Greek.

This is the whole point of this thread. The original question was if the KJV uses the best period English for translation into Spanish.

The answer is no because there is too much more at stake making a translation from a translation for any reason. Perhaps as a temporary measure until the dreaded scholars can do a better job by going back to original languages for translation work as the KJV translators and justify it as they did: "being the tongues wherein God was pleased to speak to his Church by the Prophets and Apostles".

HankD

 

All languages have forms of:

GENDER

FAMILIARITY

"Boy", "girl" ... which gender? If you address a 40 year old is it the familiar usage? Or is it literal.

NOTE: I did not use complete sentances ... but, the intent is still communicated.

Some languages have formal distinctions. Our (English) distinctions are informal and developed by cultural usage.

 

I acknowledged this by saying "where gender is obvious".

Are you asking me and what are you asking - respect for age?

I adress everyone here in the same way because:

1) there is no distinction in the English language for me to use to make that difference apart from using titles ("sir") or phrases ("with all due respect") which is my point, Formal/familiar mode is not part of the English syntax as it is with Spanish. English has to add to its vocabulary to accomplish this grammatic distinction.

2) Even if I could make that distinction with English syntax, I can't because I can't see you or those with whom I am speaking unless they have a current picture posted.

BTW and FWIW, I'm MUCH older then 40.

HankD

 

HankD,

I was not addressing this to you as much as to the thread.

English DOES have a "Formal/familiar mode".

And I agree with you that English familiar "is not part of the English syntax."