Come forth!

13

Comments

  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    I agree with Eutychus and his desire to ensure that a translation should be as accurate as possible however obscure the meaning of a passage might be, even to the point of pedantry. The problem I have with "free" translations like The Message is that I don't know how faithful their message is without recourse to proper reliable translations.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    @Simon Toad there's a difference between understanding the content of Revelation* and deciding whether "forth" has a place in any contemporary translation of it, or anything else in the Bible, which is where the OP started out.

    ==
    *The KJV does have Jesus "girt about the paps" in chapter 1...
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Sojourner wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    [quote="Dave W;c-372827


    That link does not say that it's English. Never heard it used here, NZ, US, Canada or the UK.
    If you've never heard a word, it must not be English?

    Could be gibberish

    And it is.

    You never had jelly on a plate wibble-wobble when you were a kid?

    It's even established enough to be borrowed into Welsh; 'Pysgod wibli-wobli' is the young child word (cf moo-cow, baa-lamb, doggy) for jellyfish.

    Wobble, yes.

    Wibble, no.

    As for jellyfish, would not get near enough to check. We have some nasty numbers here in the Antipodes.

  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited January 5
    Kwesi wrote: »
    I agree with Eutychus and his desire to ensure that a translation should be as accurate as possible however obscure the meaning of a passage might be, even to the point of pedantry. The problem I have with "free" translations like The Message is that I don't know how faithful their message is without recourse to proper reliable translations.

    The back cover of The Message describes it as a
    paraphrasing translation of the Bible
    and the subtitle describes it as a
    contemporary rendering of the Bible... crafted to present its tone, rhythm, events, and ideas in everyday language
    Eugene Peterson made no secret of the freedom he took with the text and explicitly says his version is not designed to replace what he calls "study versions".

    It seems to me that there's absolutely no problem with that kind of approach provided one is honest about it. I get much more annoyed with Bible translations masquerading as the "study" kind that wilfully conceal the translators' theological bias.

    It's worth noting, though, that none of these translations, study or otherwise, attempt a rendering into "fake highbrow". The aim is to make the text at least as intelligible as the original, if not more so, not create a parallel fake text.

    If I want to riff poetically on Revelation, I listen to Supper's Ready and indeed cannot stop singing it since posting on this thread today.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Sojourner wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    [quote="Dave W;c-372827


    That link does not say that it's English. Never heard it used here, NZ, US, Canada or the UK.
    If you've never heard a word, it must not be English?

    Could be gibberish

    And it is.

    You never had jelly on a plate wibble-wobble when you were a kid?

    It's even established enough to be borrowed into Welsh; 'Pysgod wibli-wobli' is the young child word (cf moo-cow, baa-lamb, doggy) for jellyfish.


    As to the first, no (but we did not often have jelly either). What do the Welsh puritans say about the second?
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    While I strongly agree with the principles of the anti-forth brigade I note that David Bentley Hart, whose professed translation philosophy is as close to verbal equivalence as possible and if Paul was not clear or Mark was ungrammatical that's their problem - uses 'forth' in the passages in John and Revelation.
  • What if Paul was perfectly clear to his contemporaries, but is no longer clear to us? Is it permissable to go outside the text to discern meaning and thus aid in the translation?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Sojourner wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    [quote="Dave W;c-372827


    That link does not say that it's English. Never heard it used here, NZ, US, Canada or the UK.
    If you've never heard a word, it must not be English?

    Could be gibberish

    And it is.

    You never had jelly on a plate wibble-wobble when you were a kid?

    It's even established enough to be borrowed into Welsh; 'Pysgod wibli-wobli' is the young child word (cf moo-cow, baa-lamb, doggy) for jellyfish.


    As to the first, no (but we did not often have jelly either). What do the Welsh puritans say about the second?

    They tell you the word is slefren fôr, but that's not the point.

    You don't have:

    Jelly on a plate
    Jelly on a plate
    Wibble-wobble wibble-wobble
    Jelly on a plate

    then?
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    Dafyd wrote: »
    While I strongly agree with the principles of the anti-forth brigade I note that David Bentley Hart, whose professed translation philosophy is as close to verbal equivalence as possible and if Paul was not clear or Mark was ungrammatical that's their problem - uses 'forth' in the passages in John and Revelation.

    I've been following this thread with some interest, and I think the people arguing that 'forth' is unnecessarily too high in tone are missing the mark. I do not believe the average person would struggle to understand what "go forth" means. It also is a perfectly acceptable translation for exelthen, with the Great Scott version of Liddel and Scott listing it third as a translation choice.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    @mousethief it occurred to me that a key to Revelation might be in the early Church Fathers, which have their own difficulties for modern readers, no doubt.

    Very likely so. Good thought. Although I will admit I don't care enough to look up what they have to say about it, even though I have the series Ancient Christian Writers on Scripture or whatever it's called.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Given that Revelation was considered suspect longer than most of the New Testament, I'm not sure that there would be any continuous tradition of commentary upon it.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Given that Revelation was considered suspect longer than most of the New Testament, I'm not sure that there would be any continuous tradition of commentary upon it.

    True but the vast majority of writings of the Fathers that we have are 4th century and later.
  • It seems about as likely to appear in my speech as 'whence' and 'whither', which is to say, not very likely at all.

    Hmm. "Hold forth" and "back and forth" are normal parts of my speech. I don't have a more widely understood alternative to "back and forth" at all.

    I rather like @BroJames's idea of going forth to put the bins out. I suppose if there had been a great deal of snow, I might say that I ventured forth to empty the bins. Whilst doing so, it would be almost obligatory to channel Captain Oates and say "I may be some time."
  • Hmm. "Hold forth" and "back and forth" are normal parts of my speech. I don't have a more widely understood alternative to "back and forth" at all.

    Kreuz und quer. Time to expand our nations' knowledge of German idioms!
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Kreuz und quer. Time to expand our nations' knowledge of German idioms!

    That works in some places where I'd use back and forth, but not others. I don't think I'd use "kreuz und quer" to describe reciprocating motion, for example. But my German isn't so good, so I'm willing to be corrected.
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Sojourner wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    [quote="Dave W;c-372827


    That link does not say that it's English. Never heard it used here, NZ, US, Canada or the UK.
    If you've never heard a word, it must not be English?

    Could be gibberish

    And it is.

    You never had jelly on a plate wibble-wobble when you were a kid?

    It's even established enough to be borrowed into Welsh; 'Pysgod wibli-wobli' is the young child word (cf moo-cow, baa-lamb, doggy) for jellyfish.


    As to the first, no (but we did not often have jelly either). What do the Welsh puritans say about the second?

    They tell you the word is slefren fôr, but that's not the point.

    You don't have:

    Jelly on a plate
    Jelly on a plate
    Wibble-wobble wibble-wobble
    Jelly on a plate

    then?

    No, thank God


  • @Sojourner hasn't been an Australian infants' teacher. The rhyme is a common one in kindergarten classes.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    We have it in Scotland too. The people who lead the local children's preschool singing time have my sympathy.
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    I
    @Sojourner hasn't been an Australian infants' teacher. The rhyme is a common one in kindergarten classes.

    Sure haven’t but my 3 children all went to kindergarten but that didn’t make it home.

    Might have been something to do with kindergarten in the inner west of Sinny, although I don’t recall my ( now retired) kindergarten teacher SIL burbling that one....and her stamping ground was not the inner west.

  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    @Sojourner hasn't been an Australian infants' teacher. The rhyme is a common one in kindergarten classes.

    And New Zealand. We have used that rhyme for at least forty years, I know because it was one of the rhymes I taught.

    It's also in a song, Six Little Ducks that I Once Knew.
  • CathscatsCathscats Shipmate
    Americans call it Jello, so the rhyme would need adapted for them!
  • Cathscats wrote: »
    Americans call it Jello, so the rhyme would need adapted for them!
    Or gelatin or “congealed ____.” Jelly here is what goes on toast or with peanut butter on a sandwich.

    And in my experience, I usually hear that Jello jiggles, not wobbles. I can’t recall ever hearing “wibble.”

  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    It is a truth universal of discussions on the Ship of Fools that every thread will eventually become a discussion of lexical differences between people from different English-speaking countries.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Cathscats wrote: »
    Americans call it Jello, so the rhyme would need adapted for them!
    Or gelatin or “congealed ____.” Jelly here is what goes on toast or with peanut butter on a sandwich.

    And in my experience, I usually hear that Jello jiggles, not wobbles. I can’t recall ever hearing “wibble.”

    (What Americans call jelly, Brits call jam.)

    Wibble in conjunction with wobble is fairly familiar to me (cf. teeter-totter, jingle-jangle, and similar constructions); the only place I have heard wibble in the absence of wobble is Blackadder.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    In the US, jelly is a clear spread made with fruit juice, while jam is a thick spread make with crushed or ground fruit. Is it different in the UK?
  • In my household Jam has decent sized lumps of fruit, large enough that the fruit can be identified.

    Jelly in my household is a clear fruit spread - made like a mushed up jam, that is then allowed to drip through a muslin cloth overnight. Then boiled to setting point.
  • Ethne Alba wrote: »
    In my household Jam has decent sized lumps of fruit, large enough that the fruit can be identified.

    Jelly in my household is a clear fruit spread - made like a mushed up jam, that is then allowed to drip through a muslin cloth overnight. Then boiled to setting point.

    This is my understanding of the terms also. Jelly has no inclusions.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    In the US, jelly is a clear spread made with fruit juice, while jam is a thick spread make with crushed or ground fruit. Is it different in the UK?

    Perhaps it's just that the normal fruit spread in the US is a jelly, and the normal fruit spread in the UK is jam. I think the only jelly of this sort I've actually ever made is redcurrant.

    And colloquially, I think people in the UK would ask for the jam for their toast at breakfast, even if what was available was a little packet of jelly. Jelly on toast conjures up an altogether different, and rather bizarre, image.
  • If you go to the grocery store there seem to be far more jams and preserves than jellies, although I believe Welch's Grape Jelly claims to be the #1 seller.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    edited January 6
    Dave W wrote: »
    In the US, jelly is a clear spread made with fruit juice, while jam is a thick spread make with crushed or ground fruit. Is it different in the UK?
    Both would be jam in the UK, though if I understand the description I think that the clear spread is rare to non-existent. Jelly is the dessert made with flavoured gelatine in moulds which I am under the impression is jello in the US (but I may be wrong). (In specific contexts jelly can refer to other substances, as royal jelly or petroleum jelly.)

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    If it comes in a jar and it goes on toast it's jam. Unless it's marmalade. Some jars may say things like "bramble jelly" but they would still be referred to as jam.

    Jelly sets in the fridge and is eaten as a dessert on its own or with ice cream. It wouldn't really spread.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Jelly sets in the fridge and is eaten as a dessert on its own or with ice cream. It wouldn't really spread.

    I suppose if you were that way inclined, you could set jelly in thin toast-sized slices.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    This may vary in the UK. This UK-ian is used to the distinction between jams (with fruit pieces) and jellies (clear and without fruit pieces - medlar, red currant, bramble, crab apple, quince - typically, and occasionally black currant).
  • Jell-o is a brand name. The generic is gelatine. Which also refers to flavorless gelatine derivatives i.e. gelatin-based aspic.
  • I (south of England, but my mother got some of her culinary terminology from my Scottish grandmother) would think of 'jelly' as including, in no particular order: a) things like 'blackberry and apple jelly' in the sense that the two previous posters use 'jelly' -- but I'd think of that as being a type of jam; b) mint or redcurrant jelly that you might put on roast lamb (although maybe the redcurrant version could go on bread as a form of jam); c) what Americans call 'Jello'; and d) the gelatinous substance between the meat and pastry in a pork pie. But 'jelly' as a food without qualification or further context would probably make me think of c).

    Ethne Alba: Does your name indicate that you're in Scotland? If so, can you say whether the title of this song refers to jelly as you use the word, or includes jam as well, or what?
  • I am in Scotland ..... but have no idea!
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Jelly sets in the fridge and is eaten as a dessert on its own or with ice cream. It wouldn't really spread.
    At least in the American South, what you’re calling jelly would most often be called “congealed salad” and would be eaten as a salad or side dish, not as dessert. It generally contains fruits, nuts, celery or other ingredients, may be layered and is prepared in a large or individual molds.

    Jell-o, whether the real thing or an off-brand, would be eaten as a dessert on its own or with whipped cream, mainly by children.

  • To clarify, when I referred to 'the two previous posters', I meant Dave W and Ethne Alba, not realising that a whole lot of people had posted while I was writing (or getting sidetracked).
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    I think I could answer that: my late brother-in-law (an Orcadian who lived for a long time in Edinburgh) would have called a jam sandwich a "jeely piece". :)
  • I'd say that the jeelie piece thrown from the twenty story flat was jam.
  • @Nick Tamen
    Jelly containing nuts??????
  • Ethne Alba wrote: »
    @Nick Tamen
    Jelly containing nuts??????
    No, not jelly—congealed salad (sometimes called Jell-o salad) containing nuts. :wink:

    See Ruth’s recipe or this description.

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Sojourner wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    [quote="Dave W;c-372827


    That link does not say that it's English. Never heard it used here, NZ, US, Canada or the UK.
    If you've never heard a word, it must not be English?

    Could be gibberish

    And it is.

    You never had jelly on a plate wibble-wobble when you were a kid?

    It's even established enough to be borrowed into Welsh; 'Pysgod wibli-wobli' is the young child word (cf moo-cow, baa-lamb, doggy) for jellyfish.


    As to the first, no (but we did not often have jelly either). What do the Welsh puritans say about the second?

    They tell you the word is slefren fôr, but that's not the point.

    You don't have:

    Jelly on a plate
    Jelly on a plate
    Wibble-wobble wibble-wobble
    Jelly on a plate

    then?

    No
  • I ve gotta kinda sorta problem about getting beyond the word ........Congealed.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    That word always makes me think of Shakespeare.

    And the word “gelatinous” always makes me think of ... Battlestar Galactica.
  • Ethne Alba wrote: »
    I ve gotta kinda sorta problem about getting beyond the word ........Congealed.
    :lol:

    You are not alone. Congealed salads don’t seem to be nearly as popular as they once were—my
    mother couldn’t imagine Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner without them, and they were always to be found at church potlucks. Some of them are quite good, though.

  • But they look........((shudder))
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    It's the word congealed that I have difficulty with too Ethne Alba. I could be because I read too may murder mysteries, but when I think of congealed I think of blood. If I am talking about jelly I use the word set.
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    Makes me think of congealed fat.

    The simile used in Oz was “ all set ( and ready to go) like jelly”.

    You’d rarely see good old Aeroplane jelly packets in the supermarkets these days.
Sign In or Register to comment.