Geneva Bible
Kenneth McKenzie
It is my opinion that the Geneva Bible bastardized the English language. It
was printed at a time when there was a fear that the common people could
understand it. Therefore they made some S=F U=V I=J Shakespeare and others
learned English from this bastardized translation. The King James Version
came fifty years later and took over a century to be accepted.
Another accomplishment of the Geneva Bible is that it numbered the verses
without thought to the continuation of the topic, To comprehend what the
writer was meaning a person must disregard the numbers.
--
--
Ken McKenzie
Designer of the Maillard Rotary Chamber Engine, the Starapex Engine, the
Starluck Engine, the Starnine Engine and Radia Art.
The Maillard Rotary Chamber Engine can be made in any properly equipped
hobby shop and has the potential to make every other engine including
turbines obsolete.
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( See http://www.enteract.com/~bible for details about this group. )))
Henry Churchyard
In article <9gl5g0$6au$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
Kenneth McKenzie <ten...@home.com> wrote:
> It was printed at a time when there was a fear that the common
> people could understand it. Therefore they made some S=F U=V I=J
If you're talking about the typographic practices of the time, this is
nonsense; originally there was only one letter in the Roman alphabet
corresponding both to modern "I" and "J", as well as only one letter for
"U" and "V"; so through Shakepeare's time, the forms that we now
consider to be forms of "I" and forms of "J" were all basically mere
typographical variants of the same letter (and similarly with "U" and
"V"). The distinction between visual typographical symbols that denoted
a consonant and forms that denoted a vowel was pretty much sorted out
during the 17th century, but even as late as the 19th century some
people in England sometimes left "J" out of an A-Z listing of letters of
the alphabet because they still consisdered it to be a mere variant of
"I", not a "real" separate letter. Long "s" that kind of looks like "f"
(but always like lowercase "f", and never like uppercase "F") was yet
another typographical variant; it tended to be used in certain positions
(just as the typographical variants "v" vs. "u" and "j" vs. "i" tended
to be used in certain positions), but never became a true separate
letter (as was later the case with "v" vs. "u" and "j" vs. "i"). If
yopu think these 16th century typographical variants obscure the text,
you should see 15th century printing, which duplicated a number of
traditional scribal abbreviation practices...
--
Henry Churchyard chu...@usa.net http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/