shakespearish?

American English and British English vary quite a bit as well, Cyracuz. Unfortunately, in the United States, citizens have not been diverse in languages because we have not had to be, since most of the main land states are English speaking; pity, that.

I heard somewhere that there are more people who speak spanish in USA than there are people who speak english. As for the differences between Am. english and Br. englis, I find it annoying. Cell- phone, mobile phone. Sometimes it's even dangerous. The first floor in england does not mean the same as the first floor in usa. People have died because of that difference...

In Florida, Hispanic languages are mushrooming because of immigration, etc. I need to check that out, Cyracuz. In the meantime let's have a little fun song:

In Spain they say "Si, Si"
In France you'll hear "Oui, Oui"
Ev'ry little Dutch girl says "Ya, Ya"
Ev'ry little Russian says "Da, Da"

But, Sweetheart, tell me why
No matter how I try
You won't listen to my plea
Won't say "Yes" in any language to me
When will you say "Si, Si"

"Si, Si", "Si, Si"
"Si, Si", "Si, Si"
Ev'ry little Dutch girl says "Ya, Ya", ya-ya-ya
Ev'ry little Russian says "Da, Da"

But, Sweetheart, oh, why won't you tell me why
No matter how m-m-much I try, please tell me why
La-la-la-la-da, won't listen to my plea
Won't say "Yes" on any language to me
Oh-woh, and when you say "Si, Si", say "Si, Si"

La la la la la la la da da da da
La da da da da da da da
La da da da da da da da
Da da da da da da da da daaa

(Orchestral Interlude)

If you could only say "Si, Si", "Oui, Oui", "Ya, Ya", "Da, Da,"
Da da da la da
And all my life would be a song,
Nothing could go wrong, go wrong, go wrong

If you give in, I'll win
I won't give up, give up
Darling, if you give in
I must hear you say "Si, Si"

Oh, won't you listen to my plea
Please say "Yes" in any language to me
Won't you say "Si, Si", say "Si, Si"


(Transcribed from the Andrews Sisters
recording by Mel Priddle - January 2005)

Think about trying to survive in Canada; the first floor (premier etage) in Canada could be either, as the British heritage, and American influence are constantly at war, and it's anyone's guess who is being paid 'homage' (exageration at best) to at any time!

[check out the best before date: 5/3/05; U.S. = May 3rd. - Brit/Cdn. 5th of March; better get chewing, who knows!]

No wonder there's war in the world...

[hmm planning the itinerary of my next trip......
it will be:

Spain, to France, on to Holland, and then it's Northbound while practicing reading ladies names in Cyrillic!!!
got it! ............er, any warranty on that?]

Bo be funny, and that's a great part of philosophy.

My motto: If it's not fun, it's not worth doing.

But I don't think Kant would agree with you..

Kant's a coward and afraid to try. <smile>

A good thing he's dead then. But I met one of his diciples once (a philosophy professor with 10 years of kant studies behind him). He couldn't think for himself, only quote Kant. How sad is that? I told him he was a historian more than a philosopher. THAT was fun

Goodbye William Shakespeare!The blender is at work again.

To blend or not to blend......

I have asked this before, but I deem it worthy of another try. There are many who think that Shakespeare is the one who did the King James translation of the Bible. Whoever he was, he was shrewd in playing the game of the day. What do you think spendius?

Letty:-

I understood it was a guy called Tyndall who got burnt at the stake for his pains.So he wasn't that shrewd.I think it was in Holland.It wasn't here but he had run away.Memory thinks he was a William too but not sure.

It wouldn't have entered my head that it was Shakespeare.Heresy was a mobile concept at the time.

Hmmm. I am not familiar with the people of whom you speak, spendius, but given that the King James version doesn't have enough iambic pentameter, we all must agree that the translation is Shakespearish, in a way.

Cyracuz, we're not limited to sonnets are we?

Letty:-

I have read a number of books on WS and I never remember seeing anything relating to his having done The Bible.He could hardly have had the time.
I think it was Tyndall's life's work.He was highly thought of for a while.I'll have a look tonight in my library.

This is the only thing that I could find, spendius, but it's rather limited for a support. What floored me, was the fact that Christians today don't accept the King James version of the Bible.

Shakespeare] not being a very religious person, his involvement in the KJV was not disclosed to the public, but he did leave a very nice clue to prove he had at least been involved with the Psalms, or so it seems to me. For the 46th word in the 46th Psalm is "shake," and the 46th word backwards in the same 46th Psalm is "spear."

Stole that from a discussion group.

The only way to say goodnight:

"To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow; a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

Letty:-

I got the name slightly wrong.
Tyndale or Tindale.William.1494-1536.Gloucester born.Oxford and Cambridge.A Church reformer.Wanted a vernacular version,a blasphemy at the time,because they suspected the priests of using the Latin for their own purposes as a secret language.Charged with heresy in 1522 but flew the coop.Visited Luther in 1524.Whilst there translated New Testament.Published translation of Pentateuch in 1530.Executed in Vilvorde near Brussels.Strangled before being burnt so it wasn't too bad.Left translation of Joshua through second Chronicles.Mainly from Greek and Hebrew texts with bits from Latin.
After that comes Wycliffe 1329-84.The Council of Constance condemned his work in 1415 and his books were burned and his bones dug up.They didn't do things by half.

Then Miles Coverdale 1488-1568.Best known for Psalms.

Other versions-
The Great Bible 1539
Geneva Bible 1560 for Protestants.
Bishops Bible 1568.
Roman Catholic Douas-Reims 1582-1609.

James 1 organised the Authorised Version in 1604.
A panel of 54,some say 47, translators in 6 groups.2 in Westminster.2 in Oxford and 2 in Cambridge.All work revised by committee of 2 men from each group.Revision done by reading aloud every verse.There's a division here too between a "He Bible" and a "She Bible" stemming from different readings of Ruth 3:15.
Main sources were Tyndale (mainly),Coverdale and Geneva with bits from Wycliffe.Finished in 1611.
This is THE BIBLE.It was meant to be read or declaimed from pulpits etc to provide a guide to conduct and truth.Not as literature.
Jonathon Swift thought that THE BIBLE kept the language intact over generations.Without it we may not be able to enjoy Shakespeare today so the Authorised Version can be defended on that score alone.
Coleridge said-"without this holdfast,our vitiated imaginations would refine away language to mere abstractions.(see many threads).

The Revised Version (1881-95) came out along with many other new versions tailored to fit the needs of a wide collection of nuts a few of whom you have no doubt heard of.The whole caboodle may be equally nutty.If you were King you would get a translation that made you look good wouldn't you?
I would.This is one of the reasons for all the loggerheading.They are not singing from the same hymn sheet and even when they are they have different interpretations.
There's also the Breeches Bible and the Vinegar Bible.The Breeches was an English version of Geneva which took its name from Gen3:7-"They sewed fig leaves together,and made themselves breeches."The Vinegar 1716-17 had a misprint or alteration of "vineyard" to "vinegar" in Luke 20.
As far as my sparse knowledge goes you should only treat with the Authorised Version and The Book Of Common Prayer.The Prince Charles/Mrs Parker-Bowles controvesy results from loggerheading.She is already married and what God has put together etcetc.There's trouble brewing.

The oldest OT is Hebrew fromAD 916.The Masoretic.
There's a Samaritan text of the Pentateuch from 5 century BC.And Jerome's Latin Vulgate.
And the Greek Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus of the 4th Cent.There's others too.From Africa,Spain,Ireland and England (Lindisfarne).
The Convocation of Canterbury had another go in
1870.Published the NT in 1881 and the OT in 1885 but neither well received.Others arrived sensing lucre.Rev Moffatt(1924),R.Knox(NT 1945 and OT in 1949).Then a committee of all churches minus the RCs (naturally) produced the New English Bible
NT in 1961 and the OT and Apocrypha in 1970.

So-there you go.Confusion galore.There are other confusions but I'll save them.As you probably know confusion isn't good.We could discredit the lot and start again.But it's all too embedded for that.The only thing that makes sense to me is for us all to learn to respect each others confusions much as we do with home decoration.If the anti-Bible brigade think that the Bible is not deeply embedded in their own hearts they are having themselves on.

Will that do Letty?No Shakespeare I'm afraid.

Letty:-

By the way,the Shakespeare text you have is subject to even more potential confusions.

And,if I might,when you quote it helps us to identify the source.

spendius, as I said, that bit of information was taken from a discussion group that I found on line, and there were too many exchanges to cite one source. I appreciate your list of translators, and Wycliffe is the only one with which I am familiar. I have a parallel Bible, and I must say that the words have been somewhat twisted to suit the needs of the respective controllers. I love reading the King James version because it is so very poetic in it's content, just as I love reading any of Shakespeare's works.