This is an (incomplete) list of languages that continued to be used for religious purposes long after they ceased to be used in everyday life:
* Sumerian was used for religious purposes long after Akkadian became the everyday language of Mesopotamia,
* Hattic persisted in religious use long after Hittite was the language of Anatolia,
* Coptic continue in religious use by Coptic Christians mostly in Egypt and Ethiopia long after it ceased to be used in everyday speech.
* Hebrew persisted in religious use long after it was a dead language in everyday use (and before it was revived as a living language).
* Latin continued in religious use long after it ceased to be used in everyday speech.
* Old Church Slavonic continued in religious use long after it ceased to be used in everyday speech.
* Sanskrit continued in religious use in South Asia long after it ceased to be used in everyday speech.
While not exactly analogous (because it was and continues to be in many places a superstrate rather than a substrate language of colonizers and missionaries), classical Arabic is still used for Islamic religious purposes, but it is not really spoken on an everyday basis anymore in its classical form.
Queries:
What languages am I missing?
How much can tribal languages of Native Americans and Siberian peoples, for example, be seen in this context and framework?
Fascinating. Also: King James English continued to be used in prayer & writing hymns till recently.
ReplyDeleteAs I am sure you are aware, the "King James Bible", or KJV (King James Version) is the book with the most copies printed. As such it has had an incalculable impact on the English spoken today worldwide.
DeleteMany idioms still current in our language originate in that 1611 printed version, for example, "reap the whirlwind", "fight the good fight", "by the skin of your teeth" and "broken heart" In fact some authors count 257 phrases as originating in KJV.
Even well-known atheists such as Richard Dawkins acknowledge the continuing cultural influence of the KJV, and has been quoted in a Guardian interview as saying of the KJV "a great work of literature" and "A native speaker of English who has never read a word of the King James Bible is verging on the barbarian".
Your contention, however that "King James English continued to be used in prayer & writing hymns till recently." kind of misses the point of this post, namely that " This is an list of languages that continued to be used for religious purposes long after they ceased to be used in everyday life"
The KJV was a translation from numerous sources into a LIVING language. That language (English!) is still extant today as opposed to the situation for the languages listed by Andrew.
In fact one could argue that the KJV has been a conduit for preserving older English language useage up to the present day.
There are many more examples of such liturgical languages: Koine Greek for Greek Christians, Classical Armenian for Armenian Christians, Old Georgian for Georgian Christians, Classical Syriac for Syriac/Assyrian Christians, Jewish literary Aramaic, in addition to Biblical Hebrew, for Jews, Classical Mandaic for Mandaeans, Geez for Ethiopian and Eritrean Christians, Avestan for Zoroastrians, Pali for Theravada Buddhists, Classical Tibetan for Tibetan Buddhists, Classical Chinese for various Chinese religious groups, Early Middle Japanese for Shintoists. Examples can be multiplied.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the additional examples. Some were on the tip of my tongue and I was brain farting, some I didn't know about.
ReplyDeleteToharian A.
ReplyDeletepardon, Tokharian A
ReplyDelete@NeilB
ReplyDeleteYour contention, however that "King James English continued to be used in prayer & writing hymns till recently." kind of misses the point of this post, namely that " This is an list of languages that continued to be used for religious purposes long after they ceased to be used in everyday life"
The KJV was a translation from numerous sources into a LIVING language. That language (English!) is still extant today as opposed to the situation for the languages listed by Andrew.
In fact one could argue that the KJV has been a conduit for preserving older English language useage up to the present day.
I disagree with what you say here and agree with what Samuel says on that point. Similar to King James English, Latin was still a living language when the Vulgate, the official Catholic translation of the Bible, was made and Latin has never really gone extinct as modern Romance languages are direct offshoots of Latin, at least of its vulgar form. The same can be said of Andrew's some other examples such as Old Church Slavonic and Sanskrit (modern spoken Hebrew is a revival of a dead language as a spoken language, so not direct offshoot).
Dear Mr Dincer, you are correct that, in the period between, the Norman conquest and for some centuries, the nobility and officials of the 'state' spoke Latin. However, the common people spoke Old English. By 1600, however, Eglish, was once again spoken by the vast majority of the population, including churchmen and the upper classes. The language of course had evolved by then, to Middle English.
DeleteThe King James Bible was a response by the new King to the evangelical tensions between the Puritans and the established Church of England. Before his coronation, on his journey south to London, he had been presented with a petition by the Presbyterians urging change in church governance. King James took them seriously, and called the Hampton Court conference in October 1603 to decide the matter. Both C of E bishops and Presbyterians (puritans) were called to attend along with the King and his privy council. Unfortunately, for the Presbyterians, the King already disliked the way they ran the church in his native Scotland. Therefore, when the Presbyterian, leader John Reynolds suggested joint, church governance, the King exploded in anger, famously shouting "No bishops, no King!" However, Reynolds also suggested that the Geneva Bible, then the common one in use be replaced, the suggestion was met warmly by the King who also disliked that version. Therefore, by royal proclamation, the Bible was to be translated into Middle English, or the 'common idiom' as the instructions to the scholars put it. It was to be a bible for all, meant to be read aloud by the literate for the people. Why King James and his advisors decided to take this step away from Latin and the vulgate based version, may have been due to a desire to finally, distance the religion of the country away from 'papist', Catholic influence or whether King James saw it as a unifying measure is unknown.
This was an utterly revolutionary, idea! However, the 47 churches and scholars appointed to achieve the task, must've had some extremely gifted orators amongst their number, as the sonorous and lyrical translation provided the C of E with a work of genius. This new translation, when read aloud, seemed to ordinary people who listened to it, to be the true word of God. The rest as they say, is history. The KJV has remained in print ever since - for over 400 years!
Also,the old Arabic(Qurayshic) is used in all the worship of Muslims, even though it no longer speak.
ReplyDelete@Mem
ReplyDeleteAndrew already referred to Classical (or Quranic) Arabic when he wrote:
"While not exactly analogous (because it was and continues to be in many places a superstrate rather than a substrate language of colonizers and missionaries), classical Arabic is still used for Islamic religious purposes, but it is not really spoken on an everyday basis anymore in its classical form."
@NeilB
ReplyDeleteDescendants of Latin are no longer spoken as a first language by the British nobility and churchmen, but they are spoken as a first language by hundreds of millions of people worldwide under the name of "Romance languages" or "Latin languages".
KJV English was a very much living language when KJV was composed, but now it is a fixed form of English used in liturgy that is no longer spoken as English has evolved away from the English of KJV during the last 400 years. This makes KJV English a perfect example to liturgical languages.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDear Mr Dincer, far be it from me to cast the first stone, but I completely disagree with your statement that " KJV English was a very much living language when KJV was composed, but now it is a fixed form of English used in liturgy that is no longer spoken as English has evolved away from the English of KJV during the last 400 years. This makes KJV English a perfect example to liturgical languages."
DeleteLet's get to the root of the matter. Yourargument is fallacious.
It leaves me broken hearted, that you have ignored my initial point that, the KJV was translated from a liturgical language (Latin) TO a living language (Middle English), thus 'KJV English' as a liturgical language appropriated the language of the common people. This is the fly in ointment of your argument. It is true that continued readings from the KJV perpetuated the usage of a significant amount of Middle English vocabulary. However, the liturgy (language and sequence of the service) is drawn from The Book of Common Prayer NOT the KJV.
The original Book of Common Prayer, was the work of Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury. His prose style, has been seen by academics, as one of the glories of the English language ever since.
Published in 1549 in the reign of Edward VI, it was a product of the English Reformation following the break with Rome.
The work of 1549 was the first prayer book in English as opposed to Latin. It included the complete forms of service for daily and Sunday worship in English: Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer, the Litany, and Holy Communion and also the occasional services in full: Baptism, Confirmation, Marriage, and a funeral service. It also set out in full the "propers" - service that varied, throughout the Church's Year. It listed gospel readings for the Sunday service of Holy Communion. Old Testament and New Testament readings for daily prayer were included, in tabular format.
Psalms; and canticles, to be said or sung between the readings also.
The 1549 book was soon succeeded by a reformed revision in 1552. It was used only for a few months, as after Edward VI's death in 1553, his half-sister Mary I restored Roman Catholic worship. Mary died in 1558 and, in 1559, Elizabeth I reintroduced the 1552 book with minor modifications.
In 1604, James I ordered some minor changes, the most significant being the addition to the Catechist. Following the English Civil War, when the Book was again abolished, another modest revision was published by the C of E in 1662. That edition remained the official prayer book, until after WW2. In the later C20th alternative forms, largely displaced the Book of Common Prayer for the main Sunday worship of most English parish churches.
In summary:
1. Liturgical language, as used by the C of E is from the Book of Common Prayer.
2. The language of the KJV, therefore is not what you should be arguing for!
3. The language of the C of E liturgy is still wholly recognizable to English people today and hence does not equate to Andrew's premise for the blog post, namely: "languages that continued to be used for religious purposes long after they ceased to be used in everyday life".
While I am sure that the above is just a drop in the bucket, compared to the arguments, that religious scholars would undoubtedly have brought forward, to falsify your assertions, I hope by going the extra mile, I have helped your misconceptions, finally, bite the dust.
I am sure we could argue forever and a day, but really I think an apt phrase would be: Quod erat demonstrandum!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@NeilB
ReplyDeleteYou have two major criticisms to me in your argumentation, one invalid and the other more acceptable.
Your invalid major criticism is that since the English liturgy of the Church of England is drawn from the Book of Common Prayer my argument that KJV English is a liturgical language is not true. My answer to this criticism is simple: the Book of Common Prayer and KJV use essentially the same form of English, namely Early Modern English (not Middle English!), so saying that the English of the C of E liturgy is BCP English is practically no different than saying that it is KJV English (or Shakespearean English to give a more secular name to that form or stage of English).
Your more acceptable major criticism is that the English of BCP, KJV or Shakespeare, i.e., the English of the C of E liturgy, is close enough to the modern spoken English of today so much so that it should not be considered a liturgical language but practically the same exact language as the modern spoken English of today. While I agree that this criticism has some valid points, I think the fact that the English of the C of E liturgy has been frozen since the 16th and 17th centuries while spoken English has evolved a considerable amount since then makes the English of the C of E liturgy a liturgical language in its own right.
Your minor criticism that the English of the C of E liturgy was a living language when the BCP was composed has no relevance at all as all liturgical languages were once living languages.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDear Mr Dincer, I am glad to see you have been doing your homework on dates and idioms. Although Wikipedia does gloss over some important details.
DeleteSo as the devil is in the detail, for your edification, let's look at that.
Having been authored in 1549 the language of the Book of Common Prayer was written in Middle English.
However, a little known fact is that much of the language and particularly the spelling used was subtly changed by printers and/or editors as time went by.
For instance:
The letters "j" and "v" were hardly, if ever used in the original text, being represented by "i" and "u", repectively. Subsequent texts of the BCP replaced "i" and "u" with "j" and "v", as appropriate.
Where the lower case "s" was represented by something which looks much like a modern-day "f"; the modern "s" was substituted.
In addition significant spelling changes were gradually introduced:
When a vowel would, in modern usage, be followed by an "m" or "n", this was often indicated by the vowel-macron, or the vowel with a horizontal line over it, and the "m" or "n" was omitted i. e., the "m" or "n" has been added. This was done due to vowel-macron not being part of later typeface/character sets, generally available to printers. These characters were therefore replaced by their (then) modern equivalents.
These subtle, but ongoing changes, were seen as insignificant alterations by historians of the BCP, and therefore, infrequently noted.
Examples of wholesale paragraph change are also common. For example:
The following passage:
" ..if any of those be an open and notorious evilliver, or have done any wrong to his neighbours by word or deed, so that the Congregation be thereby offended; the Curate, having knowledge thereof, shall call him and advertise him, that in any wise he presume not to come to the Lord's Table, until he hath openly declared himself to have truly repented and amended his former naughty life.."
Was replaced by:
"If a Minister be persuaded that any person who presents himself to be a partaker of the holy Communion ought not to be admitted thereunto by reason of malicious and open contention with his neighbours, or other grave and open sin without repentance, he shall give an account of the same to the Ordinary of the place.."
Therefore your contention that " I think the fact that the English of the C of E liturgy has been frozen since the 16th and 17th centuries while spoken English has evolved a considerable amount since then makes the English of the C of E liturgy a liturgical language in its own right."
is totally falsified.
I can give you chapter and verse in the form of multiple references if you like. Have a nice day! NeilB
Ardhamagadhi, the liturgical language of Jainism is a Prakrit from about the same era as Pali (c. 200 BC).
ReplyDeleteClassical Tamil is used in some Hindu rites, including the coronation of the Kings of Thailand.
ReplyDeleteCarry on. Still reading. Not writing much because I'm still sick.
ReplyDelete@NeilB
ReplyDeleteHaving been authored in 1549 the language of the Book of Common Prayer was written in Middle English.
The Book of Common Prayer, or at least the form of it that has been used for centuries in the C of E liturgy, is in Early Modern English. Contrast this text example from Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, a book clearly written in Middle English (note: spelling is revised here to some extent):
https://www.sparknotes.com/nofear/lit/the-canterbury-tales/knights-tale-part-three/
with this text example from a 17th century edition of the Book of Common Prayer:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/1689_Prayerbook_Collect_for_5_November.jpg
The former requires translation to Modern English in order to be understood fully while the latter is fully understood without any translation. The latter (BCP) is clearly in Modern English however in an early form of it called Early Modern English.
Examples of wholesale paragraph change are also common. For example:
The following passage:
" ..if any of those be an open and notorious evilliver, or have done any wrong to his neighbours by word or deed, so that the Congregation be thereby offended; the Curate, having knowledge thereof, shall call him and advertise him, that in any wise he presume not to come to the Lord's Table, until he hath openly declared himself to have truly repented and amended his former naughty life.."
Was replaced by:
"If a Minister be persuaded that any person who presents himself to be a partaker of the holy Communion ought not to be admitted thereunto by reason of malicious and open contention with his neighbours, or other grave and open sin without repentance, he shall give an account of the same to the Ordinary of the place.."
Therefore your contention that " I think the fact that the English of the C of E liturgy has been frozen since the 16th and 17th centuries while spoken English has evolved a considerable amount since then makes the English of the C of E liturgy a liturgical language in its own right."
is totally falsified.
When I wrote "the English of the C of E liturgy has been been frozen since the 16th and 17th centuries" I was referring to the type of English of the C of E liturgy, i.e., Early Modern English, rather than to its text.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDear Mr Dincer the arguments you have brought forward are, once again, extremely weak.
DeleteThe scanned page from Wikipedia is fully readable and understandable to any reasonably, educated English person with a smattering of churchgoing. Even I, a science major could read it aloud without pause, translating it for the modern ear, as I went along, the difference is so minimal.
With reference to pasting a scanned page from Wikipedia, without context or reference is fraught with pitfalls. Sure it looks old, but what is its provenance? I am surprised you are still using that website! Are you sure you don't need some real, academic references? I did offer previously.
Having said 'I can read that' isn't a full answer to your point however.
As I previously explained in replies above, the 'official' history of the BCP is that it remained unchanged from the 1652 edition to the 20th century. I showed how this was false above. Put simply printers changed typeface and spelling to fit with the English of their day. Editors and churchmen rewrote passages to make them fully understandable to the curates/vicars/deacons of their day.
These changes have rarely been objected to by the copyright holder - the English monarch (presently our Queen), as the changes were seen as purely 'cosmetic'. The process has been continuous. Therefore of course your example is readable as it was produced in 1689, I believe.
My point, which you have inadvertently accepted by citing that version is that the language of the KJV/BCP was NOT an example of a language that survived as a liturgical language long after its use outside its religious setting.
The 1549 version was written in Middle English from its date. Subsequent versions (1552, 1604, 1652 and 1653) had changes to make them more readable to the people of their day. A gradual evolution.
To have any validity you'd have to compare the 1549, 1553, 1604, 1652 and your 1689(?) versions with contemporary English texts at each stage and show that the liturgical language had survived intact.
That simply isn't the case! It didn't.
I have made this point to you before. Repeatedly.
Your final comment: "When I wrote "the English of the C of E liturgy has been been frozen since the 16th and 17th centuries" I was referring to the type of English of the C of E liturgy, i.e., Early Modern English, rather than to its text."
Is simply absurd! The original text was in Middle English that slowly evolved. Early Modern English was a phase the BCP passed through to Modern English. By slow evolution.
No survival of a liturgical language way past its usage in the general population as was Andrew's original discussion point.
Your comparison of Chaurcer's the Canterbury Tales written in Middle English with the Middle English BCP written in 1549 is fallacious due to the former being written between 1387 and 1400, as the same evolutionary language processes were at work in those 150 years.
As you seem to be deliberately ignoring the commentary of the ecclesiastical scholars I have sourced my arguments from, I can only conclude that you are just putting forward specious arguments for the sake of it.
On blogs that's known as trolling.
Tbh I can't think of any reason for you to keep advancing patently wrong headed arguments, except than we have disagreed online before, so a bit online trolling seemed to you to be a bit of a wheeze. Is that it Mr Dincer? Are you a Troll?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@NeilB
ReplyDeletePlease explain to me what part of the below statement, if any, you find false and why.
"The English of the BCP has been Early Modern English since its 17th century editions at the latest."
If you have any disagreements with this statement, please elaborate, if not, I see no point why you are still continuing this discussion other than to be able to claim victory at the end. That the English of the BCP is easy to understand for today's English speakers, even the non-church going ones, does not contradict my arguments as I have claimed nothing in opposition to it. Early Modern English in general is easy to understand for today's English speakers, that is why it is called Early Modern English in the first place.
To your first question: yes, that Wikipedia page shows a page from the 1689 edition of the BCP. I see nothing wrong with sharing a Wikipedia page that displays a scanned copy of an old edition of the BCP, it is not a piece of info from Wikipedia but a digital copy of a primary source that was just uploaded to Wikipedia. If you want to see some details about its upload, here they are:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1689_Prayerbook_Collect_for_5_November.jpg
To your last question: I did not even recognize you when I wrote my first objections to you on this thread, so it is purely by coincidence that we are now in disagreement again. Your slandering to me here by invoking terms like "troll" only shows your level of dignity. I have been completely civil to you throughout this discussion. If you continue your slandering attitude toward me, I will stop responding to you here or elsewhere.
I asked IF you were a troll. I apologize, for my English sense of humour. I suppose my countrymen would call it teasing.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what else to say except that if you were offended by my words, I think your decision not to communicate with me again is wise.
I will miss our little chats, but I must admit, having you ignore my repeated, clear explanations of why you wrong, did become a little wearing. Thus I bid you adieu!
@NeilB
ReplyDeleteApology accepted. There is nothing wrong with being in disagreement, but it is better to stick to the individual issues at hand instead of personalization of discussions or declaring the other side wrong. Note that throughout our discussion I have criticized your individual arguments rather than directly you and refrained from nonconstructive statements such as "you are wrong". I will happily listen to you if you have any disagreement with any of my points in my posts, and if I find your criticism valid I will change my position accordingly, I am not someone who is hesitant to openly accept one's mistakes.