"False Friends" between Englishes

[@EricCouture315]

I love seeing this in secular, nonreligions, and low-stakes areas to help demonstrate the concept of false friends. This is a great way to break into the idea without the harsh recoil. This is going in my library.

[@markwardonwords]

Exactly!

[@CharlesSeraphDrums]

I have been saying this for a long time: the reason I love the KJV (not my main translation) is that I have been teaching Shakespeare at high school level for well over a decade now. Even then, I still have my apps and dictionaries and whatnots to get me over the language. I enjoy reading the KJV because I have to teach that language to students who are ESL learners. But I have training and education and so I would never urge people to pick up a KJV unless they’re willing to put in a lot of work to understand the language. Which is NOT the point of the Bible. A XXI century plow bow would be reading ANYTHING BUT a KJV. The entire point was to bring the Bible to the language of the common folk. We speak Standard American and English (see what I did there?), not Early Modern English. As a literature teacher, I love the older language. But the Bible is not primarily an academic piece of literature.

[@markwardonwords]

Those last two lines are so important! I love older language, too! For me, it's Dickens. It's just delightful! Austen, too. And I do love the KJV. But our purpose for reading the Bible is not primarily academic or literary. Although those are worthy aspects of Bible reading; they are not primary.

[@tgleo1]

What a great video! I can't imagine stronger validation of the notion of false friends in the KJV than this presentation of exactly the same thing in the secular Elizabethan literature that is in our own time so well known and highly regarded.

[@markwardonwords]

RIGHT!

[@captainnolan5062]

Fantastic video! I am so glad that you enjoyed revolving on the book. It is also nice to be called a friend (and not a false one at that!).

[@markwardonwords]

Ha, yes!

[@dustinburlet7249]

This is pretty much a perfect video I love it I took Rome and Juliet, Macbeth, and Hamlet in High School and other(s) in College I did use a type of textbook that defined certain things but it did not use this language of false friends This is such a good video Kudos to whoever pointed this out to you Awesome Awesome Awesome

[@markwardonwords]

Many thanks, brother!

[@Dwayne_Green]

Interesting! I have a friend in Norway who has mentioned false friends in Norwegian.

[@markwardonwords]

Fun!

[@pastorcoreyadams]

Great video, Mark. I think Kevin Stroud of the History of English Podcast has brought up David Crystal on a couple of episodes. I might have to pick up this book at some point. Looks like it is an interesting read.

[@markwardonwords]

Yes, I love the History of English Podcast!

[@pastorcoreyadams]

@ me too. The next episode is going to cover the King James Bible. It will be interesting to see how Kevin covers it.

[@ianholloway3778]

I like Ben Crystal's videos on Shakespeare's accent/ original pronunciation

[@markwardonwords]

Yes, great stuff!

[@calebschaaf1555]

How good does it feel to find other voices who have made the same argument that you have been making? :) Praise the Lord for his divine providence in giving us resources like this.

[@calebschaaf1555]

At BJU, I was in Cymbeline my Sophomore year. We discussed "revolve" there at one point, and decided it must mean "tell the same stories over and over."

[@markwardonwords]

Yes, it's a fun encouragement!

[@DrJulianNewmansChannel]

Beautiful video. By the way, a possible "false friend" that I discovered while studying the Song of Songs [apologies if you've already covered this]: "Thou hast ravished my heart" in Song 4:9. Apparently, "ravish" can be used today to mean "fill with intense delight" but has an archaic sense "seize and take away by force/violence". Saying that the Bride has forcefully taken away the Groom's heart by one glance of her eyes is much more poetic than merely saying that she has filled his heart with delight by one glance of her eyes.

[@markwardonwords]

Interesting. Other translations go with "you have stolen my heart," "you have captured my heart." Would need to look further here. Thanks for the tip!

[@DrJulianNewmansChannel]

@@markwardonwords Thank you for your reply :) The Hebrew reads "you have hearted me" with "hearted" being a Piel verb form derived from the noun "heart", which seemingly most scholars interpret here as implying a 'privative' sense meaning "remove the heart from", like "to skin" means "to remove the skin from", and "to gut" means "to remove the gut from". I even found out that some older commentators seemingly invented a word "beheart" to communicate the sense of this, intended in analogy to "behead". Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar [the version on Wikisource], Section 52 ("Piel and Pual"), point 2(c) includes discussion of the privative use of noun-derived Piel verb forms, and includes this example.

[@markwardonwords]

@@DrJulianNewmansChannel Ah, didn't know who I was dealing with! Yes, that's consistent with what I saw when I glanced! As you know, when English translations differ like that, sometimes they're all just doing their best to guess well. =|

[@DrJulianNewmansChannel]

@@markwardonwords "Ah, didn't know who I was dealing with!" Thank you - but I'm not a Hebrew expert, I've just been semi-obsessively studying the Song of Songs during my free time over the last few years, and I also happen to share your passion (in an amateur capacity) for nerdy linguistic stuff :)

[@hefinjones9051]

Love this... I'm sure my teenaged interpretations of Shakespeare (sometimes even aided and abetted by Mrs Jenkins in Form 4 and 5) were full of pop-etymologies and contextual guesses, sometimes broadly right and at other times laughably wrong. As for embarrassed I was once in a classroom of girls in France when one of my own British classmates said he'd been pregnant which was a self-fulfilling prophecy...

[@Bazza1025b]

Thank you for the video, it has become interesting how widespread these false friend phenomena is and how it can cause unintentional confusion. I wonder how much cultural context and the Elizabethan worldview/mindset (e.g. The Great Chain of Being) plays in their usage of the Elizabethan language. How much of their values, norms, ethos, culture, political outlook is reflected in the texts of their era, and any differences to today would be more pronounced (pun intended). The short book The Elizabethan World Picture by E. M. W. Tillyard has greatly helped me understand the Elizabethan age and its characteristics & qualities and have come to see Bible translation from not only a hermeneutics perspective but one of worldview/world-understanding.

[@salvadaXgracia]

Great analogy! I am 35 and I have never been able to understand Shakespeare. Sure words and sentences here and there and maybe eventually the overall gist but it is so difficult I have always ended up frustrated and never finished. I also did not understand it when I saw it acted out by professional actors in front of me. And I acted in some as a kid with some friends and a director who loved Shakespeare but our audience did not seem to understand it (though we were not professionals of course). I am trying again now to read one to my daughter but we got a version with original on one side and modern translation on the other. It is still hard reading since culture has changed so much and I still had to explain a lot to my daughter as much as I could when I wasn't confused myself. It could stand even more updating. But it also provided helpful clarification of who is being spoken of when there are copious pronouns in the original and where someone is being sarcastic or using a pseudonym signaling it with quotes. It seems obvious to me Shakespeare would want his plays and jokes understood and appreciated, not just attended out of obligation or showing off how sophisticated we are. To me the answer is obvious- of course Shakespeare should be translated! (Although jokes that are puns like "bootless" and "without boots" are particularly hard to translate!) And it seems obvious that in the same way, the Bible should be translated (and has been translated well already) into our language today.

[@P_Ezi]

Puns like "bootless" and "without boots" are _impossible_ to translate. All that is needed are footnotes or margin notes.

[@P_Ezi]

There is a book by Asimov that explains historical factors, cultural backgrounds, and some word meanings. It is concise and very helpful when reading Shakespeare.

[@salvadaXgracia]

@@P_Ezi yes I agree. Sometimes there is a way to translate a pun but most of the time there isn't. Footnotes are perfect for these situations for reading plays but I am not sure about plays that are performed.

[@P_Ezi]

@@salvadaXgracia You make a good point about live performances. Maybe footnote helps could be projected over the stage as is done when translating opera. (Sounds like a lot of trouble)

[@debras3806]

Dr Ward don’t LEAVE us…. We need you in the “Read intelligible translations” world!

[@markwardonwords]

I'll still be in that world! I just won't be directly addressing the KJV-Only people who reject that world.

[@curtthegamer934]

I never had a problem with the use of "false friend" in reference to older style English. It's very common for people to use words that aren't a 1-to-1 equivalence in order for people to understand what they're talking about. "Explaining it in a way you can understand," if you know what I mean.

[@markwardonwords]

Right!

[@larrysullivan707]

Hi Mark, I have a question. While I understand, to a point, the text issues, and translations vs interpretations, the question always comes to mind when a pastor or teacher is expounding on the Word, they are giving their view and therefore are translating/interpreting the word and end up making their own Bible translation. I once heard a well known pastor say that about the sufficiency of scripture is that it is sufficient and pastors are there to fill in the blanks. Of course my thought is if there are blanks then how is that sufficient? But alas, I am just a plow boy.

[@markwardonwords]

Yes, I've got a problem with that, as you might imagine. If you want to do a deep dive here, pick up this excellent book: www.amazon.com/dp/B01D8W4IAE?tag=3755-20 I've read it twice!

[@salvadaXgracia]

Mark, I have had to "translate" in my humble profession of piano teaching this Christmas. I not only teach but enjoy making easy versions of pieces for my students including some Christmas carols. It's always a struggle when the traditional words either are not understood or are grossly misunderstood, especially for my clientele who are mostly kids! I wonder if you could do an episode on Christmas carols. Examples abound. Most recently, I was making a version of Deck the Halls for easy piano and the lyrics include "Don we now our gay apparel" and "Troll the ancient yule-tide carol". The former of course means "put on glad clothing" and the latter "Sing out heartily the winter-season song." (I knew "gay" meant glad but I wasn't quite sure what "troll" used to mean until I googled it!) I was could not bring myself to leave in the word "gay" for a children's song so I changed it to "glad", but I left in "troll" since it's a least not immediately offensive or controversial! However "troll" could easily be misunderstood to mean "mock sarcastically the ancient carol!" Hopefully kids would just rush past it or they already know the song or they could ask an adult. The same issue occures in I think couple carols with the word "ass" for donkey, at least in "What Child is This?" ("Where ox and ass are feeding"). I change it to "lamb" since it fits the one-syllable timing and is not a super consequential word in the song. Much more confusing and distracting to children to leave in a bad word! 😆

[@christopherdecker3830]

Very interesting 😀! Glad you brought this up concerning Shakespeare as well as the KJV.

[@markwardonwords]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@TristanHayes]

I heard once that "gift" in German originally meant something similar to what it means in English, but was used euphemistically for poison so often that it came to mean poison. Not sure if it's true, just something I heard.

[@BrotherInChrist]

On a related (indirectly) topic, Mark, was Jesus' reading of the scroll in Luke chapter 4 translated from Hebrew or the Old Testament Greek Septuagint writings prominent in the time of Jesus? Why did the apostles favor the Old Testament Greek Septuagint writings over the Hebrew text? When I state "favor," I am referring to the usage of the Old Testament Greek writings as a source of citations in the New Testament Greek, not the apostles' individual personal preferences. Blessings

[@rosslewchuk9286]

Thanks!

[@markwardonwords]

Many thanks, my friend!

[@tb.9kba93g]

Proof that language DOES change over time. A: Milord, say not that my gift to you was bootless. B: A Pine-Cone? Milady, I am sore vexed. A: I doubt you mistake my purpose. B: Indeed, I revolve upon it.

[@patrickjames1492]

I recall Maurice Robinson saying that he would only read a Shakespeare in his contemporary English. It seems diglossia is required: being bilingual in your own language.

[@markwardonwords]

RIGHT! I love that! That's a great way of putting it!

[@4jgarner]

I think "embarazada" and "embarrassed" might very well be the most well known false friends in existence.

[@robertwheeler1158]

I have a hardcover copy of the KJV published by the American Bible Society, and in the back it has a list of over 500 words which have changed in meaning.

[@markwardonwords]

Nice! Would you care to share the ISBN?

[@robertwheeler1158]

@@markwardonwords Unfortunately, I can't find an ISBN for it. It was apparently published in 1972 and I inherited it from my mother. There is a cryptic note that says KJ53 series.

[@MAMoreno]

@@robertwheeler1158 Does it look like this one on the Internet Archive? ABS KJV: archive.org/details/holybiblecontain0000unse_t4s0/mode/2up

[@fibonacho]

@@markwardonwords I typed kjv kj53 into eb ay and a few popped up.

[@HelloFromSaints]

This video made me wonder if there are jokes in the Bible that are going over my head when I read the KJV. All I can come up with are Elijah's jabs at the pagan priests. I'd hate to be left out!

[@markwardonwords]

Ah, a GREAT question! I love this, Justin! I do think this happens. Maybe with the mote and the beam statement from Jesus?

[@michaelkelleypoetry]

As you know, I don't believe in KJV-onlyism in any shape or form, but when it comes to Shakespeare's works, I don't think they ought to be updated. If Shakespeare had written novels, then sure, but Shakespeare wrote plays that are meant to be performed, and poetry (a medium that is also meant to be recited aloud). Much of Shakespeare plays are also in poetry form as well. To modernize Shakespeare's works, however, destroys the rhythm and form which is just as important as the meaning. I think for something like Shakespeare, footnotes suffice; changing the actual text, though, should not done. But for something as important as understanding Scripture, that's a different matter. Understanding needs to come first, then consider the beauty of the structure.

[@markwardonwords]

I respect this viewpoint, I do. If the rhythm and form are as important as the meaning, though, then at least we need to communicate this to people: You're not supposed to fully understand. I'm not being tart, I mean it.

[@michaelkelleypoetry]

@ I fully believe that's how people ought to go into a viewing of a Shakespeare play, to just watch and enjoy it rather than getting bogged down in the details. The general story of any play will be understood, and even if a word or two is misunderstood, it won't have that big of an effect. The Bible, though, is meant to be read, not watched/listened to, so it's more important to understand each and every word when it comes to Scripture.

[@P_Ezi]

I agree. Translating poetry gets complex when the translated language is far removed from the source material. Look at how many translations there are of Beowulf: Some try to translate each word. Some try to replicate the poetic rhythm. Some try to replicate the alliterative structure. Some try to substitute an equivalent modern poetic structure to have approximately the same effect on a modern reader or listener that the original poetic structure had on the original audience, because that original structure is deemed to be too jarring or too tedious to modern ears. Needless to say, it is impossible to achieve all of these goals at once (though some come closer than others to achieving this ideal). The language of Beowulf sounds more German than English, so we are stuck with these compromises and continuing efforts to have an approximately equivalent experience for the listener or reader. When poetry, such as found in Shakespeare, is intentionally designed to leverage puns and double meanings, many of which no longer exist in the modern form of the English language, you can't simply translate in another pun or another twist and expect the same effect. I do not believe Shakespeare should be translated, but he certainly should be footnoted to explain those puns and other word trickeries. With respect to the Holy Bible, however, we are blessed by the fact that the Hebrew poetic structures in the scriptures use forms and structures that appear to be very translatable, as they depend on parallel thoughts, synonyms, and symmetry. I am sure that a reader of the Hebrew scriptures would tell me I am missing out on something, but I would argue that this form of poetry is the most translatable that I am aware of, without having to create new puns or dynamically nearly-equivalent jokes. I believe the Bible was designed to be translatable. I want to know what God communicates to us. I am thrilled with the abundance of riches we have in (most of) our translations.

[@markmyers7760]

Please do a video on Isaiah 18:2,7 that uses the phrase "scattered and peeled" in the KJV. One commentary stated this phrase should be rendered "tall and dark-skinned."

[@SimmonsOpinions]

Use the Bible to define the Bible. Scattered: dispersed or spread apart Peeled: stripped (could apply to skin or belongings) When you look at the other verses that use "scattered," it certainly seems to mean "dispersed," not "tall." The only other verse that uses "peeled" is Ezekiel 29:18 in reference to a "peeled shoulder" in the same line as a "bald head," so that seems to mean stripped or exposed, not "dark-skinned." A "dark skinned shoulder" would be an odd way to describe a black person, no? Why focus on the shoulder if the entire body was black? If they were wearing some sort of outfit and the shoulder was exposed, "peeled" would make more sense. Given that the chapter is about Ethiopia, I think "dispersed" (because Ethiopia would be sparsely populated) and "stripped" (because they don't share Hebrew clothing standards) works well, especially given the context of the other verses using those "scattered and peeled" absolutely have nothing to do with height or skin color.

[@markwardonwords]

Brother Simmons, can I ask you one very, very serious question: why didn't you reference the Hebrew in your discussion of what translation might be most appropriate in Isaiah 18:2, 7?

[@pierreroynel1975]

What about an "interlinear Shakespeare"?

[@markwardonwords]

Yes! That would be great!

[@HebrewGreekKnowledge]

In Uganda, pants refers to undergarments.

[@markwardonwords]

Ah, yes! There's something similar in Spanish!

[@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever]

Wow! Excellent! I had no idea that David Crystal wrote a book on the King James Bible titled: Begat: The King James Bible and the English Language by Oxford University Press Even Gail Riplinger positively references the work of David Crystal in her book Hazardous Materials: Greek and Hebrew Study Dangers pg. 79 & pg. 116 particularly she likes The Cambridge Encyclopedia o f the English Language in her pretty awful work The Language of the King James Bible on pages 33 & 73.

[@markwardonwords]

Yes, I've read Crystal's book Begat (or most of it?). He's pretty awesome.

[@sbccave4015]

lol respond to Kenyon Bowers. I forget his name but there was a Ruckmanite that you said you were afraid to debate because he is extremely smart and a radical.

[@markwardonwords]

I met Kenyon at the debate! And his mom. I didn't realize he was only 16! Nice kid.

[@waynemccuen8213]

You told us you were going to be finished talking KJVONLYISM.....Is this like a Sunday morning sermon that the pastor finishes after the final ANNNNNNND FINALLY dear brethern and sistern? (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) It is a helpful vid, as usual. Thanks for your fine work Dr. Ward

[@markwardonwords]

I'll be done on Dec 31, 2024, just like I said!

[@waynemccuen8213]

@@markwardonwords I always appreciate your efforts.

[@ricdavid7476]

The first mention of sinners relates to sodomites. What's that all about ?

[@wt1611]

Just because you can do it doesn't mean that you should. I can respect Crystal and John McWhorter and I truly do. But they clearly overstepped the boundaries by using the term false friends. You shouldn't follow their mistake even if you 'can'.

[@markwardonwords]

What matters most is the concept, not the label. What alternative label would you seriously propose?

[@wt1611]

@markwardonwords you don't care.

[@ricdavid7476]

Did Jesus say you need to have got a degree in theology or have a you tube channel to not go to hell.

[@johnneufeld6019]

Just like the evil spirit possessed ahabs 400 prophets so he is possessing mark ward.

[@markwardonwords]

My friend, perhaps God has told you to curse me. But perhaps 1 Peter 2:1 is in your Bible, too.

[@SimmonsOpinions]

A couple observations: 1. What is a woman? If you read the KJV, we know that a woman is a biological female. If you read modern scholarship, "woman" includes trans-men. Updated language does not mean better language. 2. Most KJVO rejectors support learning or at least studying the "original languages" (or at least refer to those "original texts" as inspired, but not English translations), but seem to find learning the "false friends" and their definitions too difficult or time consuming. An entire language is more profitable than a couple hundred words? 3. KJV - "white of an egg." Other versions, "sap of the mallow" (NIV), "juice of the mallow" (ESV), "juice of an alkanet plant" (NASB). I guess those modern versions need updated too! 4. KJV - "giants." Other versions, "Nephilim" (NIV, ESV, NASB). 5. "False friends," whether they be in Shakespeare or the KJV, are not a strong argument for changing or "updating" the language. As you said, many of them maintain multiple, sometimes conflicting, meanings. A secular example of this EXACT SAME THING would be "bad," which can mean something negative, but also something awesome. That is how language always works. Being aware of the vernacular and context takes care of this. It takes some work. It takes some study. It does not warrant throwing the baby out with the bath water because some words can be tricky (though not as tricky as "juice of the mallow"). 6. This is the same logic used by heretical postmodernist churches who "update" their worship (e.g. Bethel and Hillsong) to conform to the world and external cultural influences, rather than being the "called out assembly" that the Lord intended. "Updating" language to conform to a cultural that is more and more atheistic every day is not wise. And what is the logical conclusion? The Emoji Bible, the Pirate Bible, the "Good as New" Bible, and more "gender inclusive" language in Bibles. Amos 8:11, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:" Each NEW translation moves us farther from hearing the words of the LORD. If the KJV is (or at least was, in your perspective) the word of God, than anything that radically departs from it are, by definition, NOT. Things that are different are not the same. A translation that eliminates verses (like Acts 8:37 - which strips that eunuch of his salvation and leads to false doctrine) should be marked and avoided. Yet the anti-KJV crowd embraces those "Bibles" in which the words of the LORD are missing - which is exactly what Amos 8:11 is talking about.

[@markwardonwords]

No reply, brother. If you acknowledge that reading the KJV well requires learning the false friends, I'm content to agree to disagree on the other items you mention.