Biblical time travel: diachronic linguistics

Post Reply New Topic

Let's go back in time shall we and see how English has changed.

1962 English:

Ecclesiastes 1:9-11 MKJV
(9) That which has been is that which shall be; and that which has been done is that which shall be done; and there is nothing new under the sun.
(10) Is there a thing of which it may be said, See, this is new? It has already been in days of old, which were before us.
(11) There is no memory of former things, and also no memory of after things which shall be; for neither shall be a remembrance of them with those who will be at the afterwards.

Not strange is it?

1898 English:

Ecclesiastes 1:9-11 YLT
(9) What is that which hath been? it is that which is, and what is that which hath been done? it is that which is done, and there is not an entirely new thing under the sun.
(10) There is a thing of which one saith: `See this, it is new!' already it hath been in the ages that were before us!
(11) There is not a remembrance of former generations ; and also of the latter that are, there is no remembrance of them with those that are at the last.

Young has his own punctuation scheme there...

1769 English:

Ecclesiastes 1:9-11 KJV
(9) The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
(10) Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
(11) There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

Essentially the same.

1611 English:

Ecclesiastes 1:9-11 KJV-1611
(9) The thing that hath beene, it is that which shall be: and that which is done, is that which shall be done; and there is no new thing vnder the sunne.
(10) Is there any thing, whereof it may be sayd, See, this is new? it hath beene already of olde time, which was before vs.
(11) There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there bee any remembrance of things that are to come, with those that shall come after.

Now some difference.

1587 English:

Ecclesiastes 1:9-11 Geneva
(9) What is it that hath bene? That that shalbe: and what is it that hath bene done? That which shalbe done: and there is no newe thing vnder the sunne.
(10) Is there any thing, whereof one may say, Beholde this, it is newe? It hath bene already in the olde time that was before vs.
(11) There is no memorie of the former, neither shall there be a remembrance of the latter that shalbe, with them that shall come after.

Lot of difference.

1568 English:

Ecclesiastes 1:9-11 Bishops
(9) The thyng that hath ben, commeth to passe agayne, and the thyng that hath ben done, shalbe done agayne: There is no newe thyng vnder the sunne.
(10) Is there any thyng wherof it may be sayde, lo this is newe? for it was long ago in the tymes that haue ben before vs.
(11) The thyng that is past is out of remembraunce: euen so the thynges that are for to come, shal no more be thought vpon among them that come after.

Ahhhh!


1568 of a New testament passage:

1 Corinthians 13:1-3 Bishops
(1) Though I speake with the tongues of men and of Angels, and haue not loue, I am [as] soundyng brasse, or [as] a tincklyng Cimball:
(2) And though I coulde prophesie, and vnderstoode all secretes, and all knowledge: Yea, if I had all fayth, so that I coulde moue mountaynes out of their places, and haue not loue, I were nothyng.
(3) And though I bestowe all my goodes to feede the poore, and though I geue my body that I burned, and haue not loue, it profiteth me nothyng.

1534 English:

1 Corinthians 13:1-3 Tyndale
(1) Though I spake with the tonges of men and angels and yet had no love I were eve as soundinge brasse: or as a tynklynge Cymball.
(2) And though I coulde prophesy and vnderstode all secretes and all knowledge: yee yf I had all fayth so that I coulde move moutayns oute of ther places and yet had no love I were nothynge.
(3) And though I bestowed all my gooddes to fede ye poore and though I gave my body even that I burned and yet had no love it profeteth me nothinge.

1385 English:

1 Corinthians 13:1-3 Wycliffe
(1) If Y speke with tungis of men and of aungels, and Y haue not charite, Y am maad as bras sownynge, or a cymbal tynkynge.
(2) And if Y haue prophecie, and knowe alle mysteries, and al kunnynge, and if Y haue al feith, so that Y meue hillis fro her place, and Y haue not charite, Y am nouyt.
(3) And if Y departe alle my goodis in to the metis of pore men, and yf Y bitake my bodi, so that Y brenne, and if Y haue not charite, it profitith to me no thing.

After you get to 1000 AD it is basically a form of German, although I don't have an Anglo-Saxon Bible on my computer to show it.

Would anyone like to analyze the linguistic "evolution" here or request a verse or passage to go back in time with?

Is nobody interested in how languages change over the years?

I am sad at how the English language has degenerated from a intelligent form of speaking into slang thats terrible to listen to.

Well, as to that, as long as you have a populous without concern for grammar or education, you shall have slang.

Common language has always been a degenerate form of proper language. Many times there are practical reasons, like ignorance of rules: you don't know how you should say something, so you invent a way to say it. Other times it is out of indifference: as long as people can decipher your message you technically are still communicating....

I meant the degeneration of the language in America it seems everyone wants to talk like a rapper.

alright I'm going to shut my mouth before I start to piss people off.
and I don't want to hijack this thread from it's original purpose.

I wouldn't say the english language degenerated, its a living language, that likes to borrow from other languages. Old English from the Saxons and the Jutes or Denmark, and Middle English from the Normans or French, we have only been speaking modern English since the fifteenth century

grammatical genders, like referring to an object in a masculine feminine or neuter term, I had to ask my sister, and she said it happened when english switched from middle to modern were the language became gender neutral, instead of having a male and female word for the same thing, there was also a great vowel shift that also was occurring at the same time

Another thing is the dependence on word order rather than inflections.

Consider my custom rank: Chemistry Major. If I reversed the order to be, Major Chemistry, would it mean the same thing?

Calling yourself Major Chemistry might get you a girlfriend on the Love and Dating Forum.

I definitely wouldn't say that the english language has degenerated. I think the quality of language depends entirely on the individual using the language. The King James Translation contains some brilliant writing, but so does some of the stuff being written today. There's pompous boors and hillbilly poets.

Languages evolve something like species, with variation, selection, changing environments, and random drift in isolated populations. It wouldn't make sense to say that extinct forms are better than modern ones.