h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Possibly this new bible (whatever it was) did too. Now I'll have to search back through an etymological dictionary to see what comprehend meant in the C16

16th century be blowed, comprehend *still* means 'to include, take in' (source: Concise OED), hence comprehensive insurance includes all risks. You're right on that on Wandrin' Star.

As for the King James scholars using original sources, that's true. However, their chosen translation didn't go for accuracy. Given that most people in those days couldn't read, the translation was designed to sound good when it was read out. That's why the King James Version has a richness of language that's being stripped out by all the modernizations and 'politically correct' language that's being forced on us. Mind you, it's reckoned there are inaccuracies in the King James Version caused by mistranslation of Greek sources. A famous one is: Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Some modern scholars reckon the word 'camel' was originally 'rope', as the two words look simiar in Greek. Basically, IMO, the Bible contains some good stories, but so many inconsistencies and inaccuracies, and has been messed about with by man so much that I can't take it as 'the word of God' as some people do. (Yes, I have read it, cover-to-cover.)

I'm not religious. In fact, I haven't set foot in a church since mum-in-law's funeral 2 years ago, and I haven't attended a full church service since dad-in-law's ashes were interred nearly 4 years ago. Having said all that, I wish they'd stop messing about with the bible and things like The Lord's Prayer. At the last church service we attended, sheets were given out with the words of the prayers used, including modern wording for The Lord's Prayer. Hubby and I look thought ' that', and used the words we'd always used.

Thanks CD. I was just wondering what it meant in the sixteenth century in case the 'comprehensive' meaning was modern and it DID just mean understand.
I normally only go to weddings and funerals, but twice in the last ten years I've been to midnight mass and was very annoyed to find how much the creed has altered.(None of my business, at all)

Most modern translations are more particular about using original sources than the older ones. In general they use the Hebrew, informed by the Septuagint, which is a translation of the Hebrew into Greek done by 70 Jewish scholars at a time when no Jews spoke Hebrew any more.

The modern translation which I find most interesting is the birth of Jesus, which goes along the lines of:

Because there was no room in the guest quarters, Mary and Joseph had to sleep in the living room, with the family they were visiting and the farm animals.

Gosh! Yes, that really does shift the 'humble beginings' perspective that is usually read into the 'born in a manger' story.

The Uber-Atheist, Christopher Hitchens, has railed against the ditching of the KGV on the grounds that, as a genuine work of literature, it's the only good thing the church has going for it.

I'd agree with Hitchens. The secondary school I went to (it had been a boys-only grammar school that went co-ed 'cos it had to and independent to maintain standards) made the pupils do Religious Education for two years. During the first lesson our teacher, an ordained CofE priest, told us that the Bible contains laws, parables and myths, but very little fact. I've been wary of taking it as 'gospel' ever since.

Roman Catholic priests all teach the same thing.

Talking of the sixteenth century, my son asked a question yesterday which I found rather intriguing: When did "thou", "thy" and "thee" actually stop being used?

Shakespeare uses them, but Sheridan doesn't IIRC, so that limits it to somewhere between the beginning of the 17th C and the end of the 18th. Which is what one would have thought, anyway.

How and why did the fade-out proceed, and where are these "familiar" forms still in use (is it only Yorkshire?)

And, seeings as these forms are well and thriving in most other languages, the "Why" should be quite an interesting subject, too.

If Maria is still reading, perhaps she can confirm what my son was saying which was the reason the question came up in the first place. In Spain, he was told, the use of "vosotros" is still quite common (This was also true when I lived there in the 1970s). But apparently in South America, "vosotros" is hardly used, in favour of the formal "Ustedes".

Well 'thi' has recently had a popular resurgence, thanks to the likes of The Kaiser Chiefs.

Plus, some varieties of English still retain a distinction between the singular 'you' and plural 'yous'.

Am I right in recalling that the use by the KGV committee of 'thy' to address God was considered quite radical and controversial?



In Anthony Burgess's (very good!) book on English and Linguistics, 'A Mouthful of Air', he recalls entering a Lancashire moorland pub with an American friend on a rainy day in the 1970's. They were asked 'Art thi witshert?' - which is definitely English (What other language?) but incomprehensible to the American. ( = 'Are you wet-shod?' = 'Have you got wet feet?'

Do you think thee disappeared for religious/political reasons? When the puritans (who call(ed) everybody 'thee') lost out to the posh people'you' became more popular. I know several langauges where it is polite to refer to people you don't know or who are obviously of higher status as plural

I guess the Civil War is the right sort of timescale - although maybe the change was more of a social trend than a conscious political act (proto-Political Correctness?). Granted, though, that Quakers still uses 'thee' in their 'Plain Speech' to emphasise equality. (cf Rasta 'I-n-I')

It's interesting (to me, anyhow) that 'you' hasn't retained a nominative/accusative distinction. Originally it was thou/thee and ye/you. Now we have I/me, he/him, she/her, we/us, they/them...but you/you. 'I hit you'; 'You hit me'.

And even the Quakers drop the distinction, using 'thee' as both nominative and accusative.

Yorkshire, however, has tha/thi.

More on 'T-V Distinction':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-V_distinction#English

There's one joke where the punchline is best told with a Yorkshire accent. I don't know the whole joke, but the punchline is, "An' I knows about thee! Tha's been havin' it away wi' a duck!"

Decent article about 'Thou' here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou

The -eth and -est verb endings have declined in use along with 'thou'. (or should that be 'conjugated'?)

Yorkshire does something else entirely, though:
'Has thi...?' instead of '*Have* you...?'
'Tha's...' instead of 'You *are*...'
etc.

Surely that's not something else entirely?

Thou has --> Thi has'
Hast thou --> Has' thi

The Wikipedia link holds answers to all three of my questions:

Am I allowed to quote?

<>

It also confirms what my son's teacher said about "vosotros" having died out in South America.

So, if that's all true, then now I know why "thou" died out, when it died out and also why "vosotros" is not used in South America.

Now I'll read the other article about "thou"

And as to the 2 posts just above my last one - I don't see that they necessarily contradict each other?

>>Surely that's not something else entirely?

You're right, of course. They only *look* like third person verb forms. They are, in fact, second persons with the t dropped.

I've just learned a new word:

Retromingent.

and it got past the profanity filter!

One of my favourite Anthony Burgess show-off words is 'omnifutuant'.