When nouns are used to modify another noun, have editors of KJV editions used any consistent principles or guidelines for deciding whether to keep the first noun separate from the second, to join the two nouns with a hyphen, or to attempt to merge them together and create a compound noun?
Perhaps a similar question could be asked of some other words besides just nouns that were once hyphened in several KJV editions in the 1700's and 1800's. Use of hyphens seems to have been popular for some KJV editors or printers in the 1700's and seem to have been overused. Did later editors or printers use any guidelines for determining which hyphens should be kept and which should be removed? Did they remove hyphens in any cases where the use of the hyphen would be considered correct, standard English today?
When nouns are used to modify another noun, have editors of KJV editions used any consistent principles or guidelines for deciding whether to keep the first noun separate from the second, to join the two nouns with a hyphen, or to attempt to merge them together and create a compound noun?
Perhaps a similar question could be asked of some other words besides just nouns that were once hyphened in several KJV editions in the 1700's and 1800's. Use of hyphens seems to have been popular for some KJV editors or printers in the 1700's and seem to have been overused. Did later editors or printers use any guidelines for determining which hyphens should be kept and which should be removed? Did they remove hyphens in any cases where the use of the hyphen would be considered correct, standard English today?
Throwing around questions without data seems more like an attempt to pre-empt the data (i.e. to foist one's interpretation) than to actually give a sound analysis.
There are only a few occasions of hyphen use in the KJB today (outside of proper names), as compared to some historical editions. Our list is short: "you-ward", "us-ward" and "God-ward", and "joint-heirs". It could be that hyphens are used because of possible mispronunciations in the compounding, as is difficult in other cases like "lovingkindness" or even "fellowhelpers", etc.
What we are observing is the standardisation of the language. Clearly there are parallels between Bible English and normal English in regard to this type of editorial work in the presentation.
Throwing around questions without data seems more like an attempt to pre-empt the data (i.e. to foist one's interpretation) than to actually give a sound analysis.
.
Since you know that I have been comparing many editions of the KJV and compiling data from them, you should know that my questions are the result of my collection of data. I have been gathering data from the Old Testament of a 1768 Oxford KJV edition and data from a 1768 Cambridge edition this afternoon. I came across some surprises in the 1768 Cambridge edition.
Since you know that I have been comparing many editions of the KJV and compiling data from them, you should know that my questions are the result of my collection of data. I have been gathering data from the Old Testament of a 1768 Oxford KJV edition and data from a 1768 Cambridge edition this afternoon. I came across some surprises in the 1768 Cambridge edition.
Let me guess (here's a start):
early 1800s:
OXFORD v. CAMBRIDGE
alabaster box alabaster-box
algum trees algum-trees
almond tree almond-tree
almug trees almug-trees
apple tree apple-tree
armourbearer armour-bearer
axletrees axle-trees
Actually, these were more the type examples I was thinking of. Examples where the two nouns were printed separate in 1611, the two nouns were hyphenated in the early 1600's Cambridge editions and remained that way around 100 years, and then were merged together as though a compound noun in the 1800's. There are other examples where the hyphenated nouns were printed separate again as in 1611 or earlier editions.
What principles or guidelines were used by editors or printers of KJV editions to determine which of the hyphenated nouns they kept hyphenated, which they merged together as though one word, and which they separated again?
Since the language was not standardised in 1611, the forms such as "in stead" or "first born" were improved to form which now stands, "instead", "firstborn".
This matter is not directly related to issues of adjectives and nouns, but where the compound word is itself one conceptual entity, e.g. "atonement", "scapegoat". Even Humpty Dumpty in Alice Through the Looking-Glass explained that two words together can create a new word, with a new meaning.
Thus, "louing kindnesse" (1611) is not merely loving and kindness, but actually is a single concept so now perfectly presented "lovingkindness".
English commonly had "to day", and the Bible retains that use, even though people might have written "to-day" and many now write "today". Again, "jailer" (1611) is "jailor", even though at some point "gaoler" was in (common) use.
We cannot apply English taste (it is fickle and in flux) over and above proper Bible use.
Thus, the presentation of words in compound form has been part of the editorial standardisation. Hyphens are still retained in a few instances, where pronunciation might otherwise be confused. We have "seatward" but "God-ward".
Originally Posted by Coverdale
I came across some surprises in the 1768 Cambridge edition.
Let me guess (here's a start):
By the way, the words in hyphens were not any surprise since I was well aware that a good number of words were hyphenated in the 1600's Cambridge editions and still in the 1769 Cambridge edition. I did find some renderings that were surprises in the 1768 Cambridge edition, but they do not relate to the topic of this thread.
English commonly had "to day", and the Bible retains that use, even though people might have written "to-day" and many now write "today".
We cannot apply English taste (it is fickle and in flux) over and above proper Bible use.
.
When there were no spelling rules for English in 1611 and no complete rules for English grammar, variations and inconsistencies in spelling and in use of hyphens were normal.
Is it "the Bible" itself that retains that use of "to day" or is it some editors and printers that have retained that use of "to day" from earlier editions?
Retaining spellings and certain hyphen uses when they were based on no consistent principles or guidelines when introduced is not an indication of sound consistent English. There are a number of words that were united as one in the 1611 edition or other KJV editions, but that are now printed as two separate words in present KJV editions. There are also words that were printed as two words in the 1611 edition or other KJV editions, but that are now printed as one word. I know of no consistent standard English rule or guideline that shows that "to day" needs to be keep separated in two words because some editions retained it that way from earlier editions. The matter does not involve "English taste," but it does involve what is or is not standard correct English.
When there were no spelling rules for English in 1611 and no complete rules for English grammar, variations and inconsistencies in spelling and in use of hyphens were normal.
There were spelling rules in 1611, because Caxton had already endeavoured in this area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coverdale
Is it "the Bible" itself that retains that use of "to day" or is it some editors and printers that have retained that use of "to day" from earlier editions?
Since editors and printers have properly worked in the presentation of the Bible, it is the Bible which reads that way, according to the conclusion of the work of the editors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coverdale
Retaining spellings and certain hyphen uses when they were based on no consistent principles or guidelines when introduced is not an indication of sound consistent English.
Since hyphen use is rare, that use is deliberate, consistent and in line with what is comprehensible to normal standard English.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coverdale
There are a number of words that were united as one in the 1611 edition or other KJV editions, but that are now printed as two separate words in present KJV editions.
You should provide examples, also considering the proper use of "present editions".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coverdale
There are also words that were printed as two words in the 1611 edition or other KJV editions, but that are now printed as one word.
Because they are actually one word.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coverdale
I know of no consistent standard English rule or guideline that shows that "to day" needs to be keep separated in two words because some editions retained it that way from earlier editions.
In Bible English it is retained because it has come that way from earlier editions, and because it is therefore the Bible English standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coverdale
The matter does not involve "English taste," but it does involve what is or is not standard correct English.
It does not involve taste, but while considering standard English, Bible English is always superior. It is never contradictory.
Originally Posted by Coverdale
I know of no consistent standard English rule or guideline that shows that "to day" needs to be keep separated in two words because some editions retained it that way from earlier editions.
In Bible English it is retained because it has come that way from earlier editions, and because it is therefore the Bible English standard.
.
Is "Bible English" a label that is used to attempt to excuse, whitewash, or rationalize inconsistent, non-standard, or incorrect spelling, grammar, or other English forms in the KJV?
The views and opinions expressed on this web site are not necessarily those of the Fighting Fundamental Forums management. This is an open and unmoderated forum. The content of each post is the sole responsibility of the poster. Participants are expected to follow the simple rules of the forum. Within these wide parameters various views are welcome to be expressed freely.
The college names used on the FundamentalForums.com web site are trademarks of their respective schools. The forums are not officially sanctioned by any of the institutions represented.
separated, merged, or hyphenated in KJV?
Linear Mode
