Language desk
< June 9	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 10[edit]

Estonian labour parties[edit]

Would there be any difference in meaning if translated in English between Tööerakond and Tööliste Partei? --Soman (talk) 11:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Language used in the KJV Bible[edit]

Why does the King James Bible, especially the book of Revelation, use such strange repetitive grammar such as "Went forth conquering, and to conquer" or "Babylon is fallen, is fallen" or "time, times, and half a time" and other thoroughly confusing verses.

Besides the symbolism, was John intentionally trying to be cryptic à la Nostradamus or did they really talk like that back then? Either way it annoys me. (so does Shakespeare btw, despite my username, I'm actually no fan of language that needlessly makes me work hard at understanding it!) This is why I'm partial to the NLT Bible, at least it's in plain modern English.

I've read the article on Early Modern English, but it doesn't really explain why the repetitious grammar, and unusual ordering of words that is especially prevalent in KJV Revelation. I can tolerate the thees and thous, but when I see things like "thou hast there them that" (Rev 2:14) I cringe.

I'm not asking for an eschatological interpretation of these verses, but rather more interested in knowing why it's worded so inefficiently and if this was really how they spoke in those times. -- œ ^™ 11:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Multiple Edit Conflicts)I'm sure someone more expert will be along to answer more authoritatively, but from my limited study of the subject, my understanding is that it was a common semi-poetical stylistic feature of ancient Hebrew writing to repeat the same information twice using variant wording, such as (inventing on the spot) ". . . the city was utterly destroyed and laid low." When such phraseology was translated, the translators may not have fully understood this, or may not have had appropriate synonyms available in the target language. Such problems were probably exacerbated by the multiple translations involved (i.e. Hebrew->Greek(->Latin?)->English).

In addition, the grammatical structures of original and target languages are often so different that, when translating, it is sometimes difficult to strike a balance between word-for-word renditions that would be gibberish and more meaningful ones that actually distort the original meaning more than is judged acceptable. To this can be added the problem of much metaphorical or allusive terminology whose meaning is now obscure or lost (try analysing a modern newspaper or magazine article - you may be surprised at how much of the text comprises current or fossilised metaphor and other idioms that in literal terms mean something quite different from what you and I understand).

Then there is the question of the original author's style and intent. John of Patmos was in the Revelation writing in a well established tradition of Apocalyptic literature that had developed its own distinctive and somewhat obscure style, and sometimes deliberately concealed meanings for fear or reprisal - for example, references to the fall of "Babylon" that had happened long before are probably intended as forecasts of a forthcoming fall of Rome, which the ruling Roman authorities would have deemed treasonous; ditto references to "the Beast" (whose "number" is now thought to be 616, not 666 as faulty transcriptions had it), probably intended to refer to the Emperor Nero - yes, John was using cryptic language (and actual numerical codes) that his intended readers would understand but which could not, so to speak, be held up in court against him.

Your "plain modern English" translation has had the benefit of nearly four centuries more research and development in general translation techniques and historical studies than was available to the KJV scholars: even so, it may in some places have sacrificed a degree of original meaning for the sake of readability. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Not having looked at the passages in question, I suspect that the repetitiveness was there in the original Greek, and merely translated that way in the King James Bible for the sake of being faithful to the original. In other words, it's not the fault of Early Modern English that it's that way! I do remember reading somewhere that repeating oneself was a common rhetorical device in Biblical Hebrew, and is often found in the Old Testament too, although there it was more a case of using synonyms than repeating the exact same word. (This could often be rendered into English using synonyms too, as in Psalm 121, "He that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep".) Revelation was written in Greek, but by someone who was familiar with Hebrew Scripture and who may therefore have used the same rhetorical device, rhetorical device. +An gr 12:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - see the Authorised King James Version page: "In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) series of the Greek texts." The translators would have been making trouble for themselves by straying much from the original - many educated people could read Greek then. Blame St John the Divine! Alansplodge (talk) 12:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Book of Revelation belongs to a popular genre at the time known as apocalyptic literature, and its stylistic choices are probably related to that. It's not certain whether the author knew Hebrew, since it was no longer the vernacular at that time. As a side-note, the Greek Textus Receptus from which the KJV was translated was missing some of Revelation from its source manuscripts, and had to be supplemented by the Latin Vulgate. Paul Davidson (talk) 12:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did say "someone familiar with Hebrew Scripture", not "someone who knew Hebrew". I think Jews of that place and time were more familiar with the Septuagint than the Hebrew original, but I'm sure the Septuagint is just as faithful as the KJV in translating idioms word for word. +An gr 12:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A similar thing happens in Buddhist texts, many of which were in poetic form as an aide-mémoire, since few people could read or write. Although much of the poetry is lost in translation, the redundancies (which might not have been repetitions in the original) remain.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"time, times, and half a time" has prophetic significance, it's not just some repetitiveness. Rimush (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you check translations other than the King James, you will see that they have the same kind of repetition. As Angr suspects, the repetition is present in the original Greek (which you can see side-by-side next to your choice of English translations at Great Treasures). This is a poetic or rhetorical device used to emphasize the repeated word or phrase. In the case of a phrase like "went forth conquering, and to conquer", the device is used to mean something like "he went forth bent on nothing but endless conquest" but to convey this idea in a more poetic way. Perhaps this device is not to your taste, but others over the centuries have obviously thought it effective. Marco polo (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to unusual ordering of words and readability, remember that the King James Version of the Bible was written in a deliberately archaic style, both to sound more 'dignified' and because it was influenced by earlier translations. That is, it is trying to sound more 'biblical' and so would have been considered old-fashioned even when it was first printed. 86.164.69.239 (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, then there would be a use of pairs such as "let or hindrance", which as I understand it came from the Norman Conquest and the introduction of Norman French into the court language of England. One word in the pair is Norman, the other word is English, and this practice was designed so that the meaning could be understood by any Englishman, be he great or small. It looks like this contributed to the poetry of the KJV. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In "Babylon is fallen, is fallen" (Isaiah 21:9) the verb "fallen" is indeed repeated twice in the original Hebrew.

About "time, times, and half a time" it suffices to say that it's in Daniel. The language of the Book of Daniel is as weird as its content (both the Aramaic and the Hebrew chapters). The professor who taught me Biblical Aramaic said that "whoever wrote the Book of Daniel, used hard drugs".

In "He that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep" (Psalm 121) two different words (synonyms) are used in Hebrew, too. The KJV translators did their job well.

I don't know New Testament Greek, so i can't say anything about it.

Although i have a B.A. in Hebrew, i am not actually a full-blown expert on Biblical Hebrew, so i can't say much about the literary side of these repetitions. But, quite simply, some translations of the Bible want to be as literal as possible. If you think that it doesn't sound well in English, you are probably in good company. It's completely subjective, but i think that these repetitions do sound very well in Hebrew; I always say that reading the translated Bible feels like reading a religious book, but reading the Bible in Hebrew feels like reading fine poetry.

You may find it interesting that the KJV translators didn't translate every repetition in the original language into a repeated word in English. For example, Deuteronomy 16:20 in Hebrew is literally "Justice justice you shall follow", and in KJV it's "That which is altogether just shalt thou follow". --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the repetition in Biblical translations is an attempt to translate cognate accusative constructions in the original Hebrew... AnonMoos (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in Parallelism (rhetoric) and Biblical poetry, but I am not sure how much those articles help to answer your question. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Thanks to ALL of you for the great answers, very interesting reading! -- œ ^™ 23:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IPA help requested.[edit]

Resolved: Thanks to both Marco polo and Angr for such a speedy response here and on the article. Brammers (talk/c) 12:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone,

One of the DYKs today is about scrutinyite, a mineral. However, the article says that its pronunciation is /skruːtnɛitə/. I'm not sure if that's quite right, since to me that seems to be (roughly) "skroot-neh-it-tuh". Other proposals on the talk page are /skruːtənɛit/ and /skruːtəniːaɪt/. One of the article's references gives this pronunciation. Could someone fluent in IPA recommend the correct spelling please? I feel the urge to make sure the article's a-ok today since it'll be receiving extra attention. Brammers (talk/c) 12:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last IPA rendering (/skruːtəniːaɪt/) is the only one that is close to correct. The others are certainly wrong. I would change that last one to this: /skruːtəniaɪt/. It is a bit idealized, but it is close enough to the varying ways this would actually be pronounced in different variants of English (General American, British Received Pronunciation, etc.). Marco polo (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish transcription and translation[edit]

I've attempted to both copy down and translate the Spanish in File:Pink grain in Iraq, 1971.jpg, with some success. However, there are several numerous holes and guesswork on my part (hence the ?s). I know very little Spanish, so anyone with a better knowledge could probably assist. Any available context can be found in the linked article, although I don't think there are any more place or people references. Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no file by that name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was so carefully copying down the name I forgot the jpg extension. Silly me. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find it from the search box. Odd. Anyway, my Spanish is rudimentary, but I'll give a literal translation a try:

SEMILLA DE TRIGO - seed/kernel of wheat [wheat seed - obviously it was supposed to be planted, not eaten]

VARIEDAD SIETE CERROS - variety seven hills (possibly the variety name, as in "the seven hills of Rome")

CRIBADA Y TRATADO POR - screened and tested for/by

UNION DE CREDITO - union of credit [Credit Union]

AGRICOLA DE HERMOSILLO - agricultural/farming of Hermosillo ("farm" is a different word)

S.A. [Sociedad Anonima] DE C.V. [Capital Variable] - "anonymous society" of "variable capital" [a type of company in Mexico]

HERMOSILLO, SONORA - [a city and state in Mexico]

50 [?] KGS. AL ENVASAR - [weight] to the "to pack" [weight per bag]

NO USARLA PARA ALIMENTO - not to be used for [human] food/nourishment

GROWN IN MEXICO - or that's what it looks like to me (CULTIVADO would be "grown" in Spanish)

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bugs. I'd got a fair of it done (as on the file page, I fear you may have duplicated my work), but you've added a lot. It seems "UNION DE CREDITO AGRICOLA DE HERMOSILLO" is the name of business there, which makes sense. (here). I wonder whether anyone happens to know whether "Variedad siete cerros" is indeed a variety name, as both you and I supposed? - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you had done so, and tried to work it out independently. The top line on the bag is a little hard to read, but I already knew that "semilla" means "seed" (that's from the root for "semen", actually - which also means "seed". Probably TMI.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This source lists "Siete Cerrros" as a Mexican wheat variety. Marco polo (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish article es:Sociedad anónima corresponds to the English article Joint stock company. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. It's funny the expressions different languages come up with to translate English words that don't quite have a direct translation. I have to wonder how anyone expected the people of Iraq to read Spanish. That would be like China sending us products containing toxins, with the warning printed in Chinese. Not that that kind of thing ever happens. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And according to this,[1] Siete Cerros ("Seven Hills") is a small settlement within Hermosillo. Nearly everything called "Seven Hills" seems to relate back to the famous Seven Hills of Rome, and I expect the producers of that variety thought it would be a nifty name for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]