Several correspondents have been in touch this week about the library crisis that is currently attracting a great deal of attention - not least yesterday from poet laureate Carol Ann Duffy - and asked for my views. The question is timely, as last Monday I gave a paper to the Friends of Rhosneigr Library, one of the tiny jewels in the library system in the UK, which has been desperately fighting for survival. As this paper might be useful to others in the same position, I reproduce it below. The local references to Rhosneigr (in Anglesey, North Wales) and to Welsh could of course be replaced by correspondingly local references in other areas. The paper can be used in support of the library movement without further permission from me.
Why care about Libraries?
I spy, with my little eye, something beginning with ... L.
It's a library.
L proves to be an interesting letter in English, because it introduces so many words strongly associated with the venture we are launching today: Literature. Language. Living. Loving. Lending. Learning. Leisure. Legacy. And also: Loss. Liquidation. Lament. Lunacy. We can tell the story of our enterprise by exploring the letter L. (We can do it in Welsh too, if you want: Llyfrau (books), Llenyddiaeth (literature), Llythrennedd (literacy), Lloerigrwydd (lunacy).)
Long before I was asked to give this talk, in Chapter 3 of my autobiographical memoir, Just a Phrase I'm Going Through, I had written about one of the magical worlds I experienced as a child: '...the world of reading. I learned to read very quickly and, according to my mother, I was always reading. We couldn’t afford much by way of books, but the local library was only two minutes away. I got to know every inch of its children’s shelves, and steadily worked my way through them, using my allowance of two books per person per week. ... And then there was the joy of ownership. A book was my book, even if it was due back at the end of the week. The words were mine. I was their master. Years later, when I came across Jean-Paul Sartre’s Words (Les Mots), I was delighted and amazed. This was my story, too: "I never scratched the soil or searched for nests; I never looked for plants or threw stones at birds. But books were my birds and my nests, my pets, my stable and my countryside; the library was the world trapped in a mirror. ... Nothing seemed more important to me than a book. I saw the library as a temple." A temple indeed, but so much more. A library is a refuge, a second home, a leisure centre, a discovery channel, an advice bureau. It is a place where you can sit and draw the shelves around you like a warm cloak. Those who threaten any library service with cutbacks and closures are the most mindless of demons.'
There is, indeed, something that literally takes away our minds when we lose a library. Or put it the other way round: when we gain a library we gain a source of wellbeing. The inscription over the door of the library at the ancient city of Thebes read (in classical Greek): 'The medicine chest of the soul'.
How best to capture the spirit, the ethos, the value of libraries? Over the centuries, people have marvelled at them. It doesn't have to be a huge establishment, such as the National Library. Even the smallest village library captures the magic described so well by the Scots poet Alexander Smith (1830-67): 'I go into my library, and all history unrolls before me. I breathe the morning air of the world while the scent of Eden's roses yet lingered in it, while it vibrated only to the world's first brood of nightingales, and to the laugh of Eve. I see the pyramids building; I hear the shoutings of the armies of Alexander.' And the American political writer Norman Cousins (1915-90) agrees: 'A library ... should be the delivery room for the birth of ideas - a place where history comes to life.'
The lauding of libraries crosses centuries and cultures. First and foremost they are seen as repositories of knowledge, windows into history. 'A great library', said Canadian scientist George Mercer Dawson (1849-1901), 'contains the diary of the human race.' And American essayist Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-82) echoes the theme: 'Consider what you have in the smallest chosen library. A company of the wisest and wittiest men that could be picked out of all civil countries, in a 1000 years, have set in best order the results of their learning and wisdom. The men themselves were hid and inaccessible, solitary, impatient of interruption, fenced by etiquette; but the thought which they did not uncover to their bosom friend is here written out in transparent words to us, the strangers of another age.' Women too, of course. Emerson's phrasing is of his age, but his sentiment is universal.
The metaphor of a library as a treasure trove is a recurrent figure. Here is British poet and journalist John Alfred Langford (1823-1903): 'The only true equalisers in the world are books; the only treasure-house open to all comers is a library.' And Malcolm Forbes (1919-90), the publisher of Forbes magazine, is in no doubt about the appropriateness of the wealth metaphor: 'The richest person in the world - in fact all the riches in the world - couldn't provide you with anything like the endless, incredible loot available at your local library.' But writers seem almost to be competing to find a metaphor that best captures the function of libraries in society. This is English clergyman William Dyer (1636-1696): 'Libraries are the wardrobes of literature, whence men, properly informed may bring forth something for ornament, much for curiosity, and more for use.' And, 400 years on, this is writer Germaine Greer (1939- ): 'libraries are reservoirs of strength, grace and wit, reminders of order, calm and continuity, lakes of mental energy'. For Norman Mailer (1923-2007), a library was 'a sanctuary', for Francis Bacon (1561-1626), 'a shrine', for Jorge Luis Borges (1899-1986) it transcends life itself: 'I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library'.
I like the reservoir metaphor - a library as a source of knowledge, waiting for us to simply turn on a tap. Like water, libraries are essential to our wellbeing. As the American social reformer Henry Ward Beecher (1813-87) said, 'A library is not a luxury but one of the necessities of life.' It is a means of self-improvement, of advancement. As American historian Arthur Meier Schlesinger (1888-1965) put it: 'Our history has been greatly shaped by people who read their way to opportunity and achievements in public libraries.' Or, as poet and humorist Richard Armour (1906-89) put it in 1954: A library...
Here is where people,
One frequently finds,
Lower their voices
And raise their minds.
And it brings together people from all walks of life. As 'Lady Bird' Johnson (1912-2007), former American first lady, commented: 'Perhaps no place in any community is so totally democratic as the town library. The only entrance requirement is interest.'
Along with these brief observations, we must not forget the longer and more thoughtful recollections. Esther Hautzig (1930-2009), deported to Siberia as a child during World War 2, wrote an account of her time there, called The Endless Steppe (1968). This is what she says:
'There was one place where I forgot the cold, indeed forgot Siberia. That was in the library. There, in that muddy village, was a great institution. Not physically, to be sure, but in every other way imaginable. It was a small log cabin, immaculately attended to with loving care; it was well lighted with oil lamps and it was warm. But best of all, it contained a small but amazing collection from the world's best literature, truly amazing considering the time, the place, and its size. From floor to ceiling it was lined with books - books, books, books. It was there that I was to become acquainted with the works of Dumas, Pasternak's translations of Shakespeare, the novels of Mark Twain, Jack London, and of course the Russians. It was in that log cabin that I escaped from Siberia - either reading there or taking the books home. It was between that library and two extraordinary teachers that I developed a lifelong passion for the great Russian novelists and poets. It was there that I learned to line up patiently for my turn to sit at a table and read, to wait - sometimes months - for a book. It was there that I learned that reading was not only a great delight, but a privilege.'
Let no one forget that. If you want to truly appreciate the value of reading, imagine it being taken away from you. Imagine a Siberia with no library. Or a Rhosneigr.
Of course, we are not the first to ponder the implications of losing a library. Listen to the claim made by American cardinal Terence Cooke (1921-83): 'America's greatness is not only recorded in books, but it is also dependent upon each and every citizen being able to utilize public libraries.' Listen to American astronomer Carl Sagan: 'The library connects us with the insight and knowledge, painfully extracted from Nature, of the greatest minds that ever were, with the best teachers, drawn from the entire planet and from all our history, to instruct us without tiring, and to inspire us to make our own contribution to the collective knowledge of the human species. I think the health of our civilization, the depth of our awareness about the underpinnings of our culture and our concern for the future can all be tested by how well we support our libraries.' Listen to science-fiction writer Isaac Asimov (1920-92): 'I received the fundamentals of my education in school, but that was not enough. My real education, the superstructure, the details, the true architecture, I got out of the public library. For an impoverished child whose family could not afford to buy books, the library was the open door to wonder and achievement, and I can never be sufficiently grateful that I had the wit to charge through that door and make the most of it. Now, when I read constantly about the way in which library funds are being cut and cut, I can only think that the door is closing and that American society has found one more way to destroy itself.' And in Britain, listen to Victorian critic John Ruskin (1819-1900): 'What do we, as a nation, care about books? How much do you think we spend altogether on our libraries, public or private, as compared with what we spend on our horses?'
Have you noticed? I've just quoted from a Roman Catholic cardinal, an art critic, a scientist, and a science fiction novelist. All sending out the same message. There can be few subjects like libraries to unite such disparate and distinguished minds. And the reason is clear. Libraries are truly special. As American writer Lawrence Clark Powell (1906-2001) put it: 'To be in a library is one of the purest of all experiences.' The point has long been appreciated here in Wales. In 1916 the Welsh Department of the Board of Education published a booklet, A Nation and its Books. On page 11 we read: 'The future of our people depends largely on our books and on our libraries. No teacher is more helpful or more candid than a book, no friend is a better friend than a good book, no school is so inexpensive as a library. ... Every town should have ... its library... Every village ought to have a library.' And if it already has one, it ought not to lose it.
Once a library is gone, it is gone. It cannot suddenly be resuscitated. As the British politician Augustine Birrell (1850-1933) once said: 'Libraries are not made; they grow.' That takes time. Behind each library, no matter how small, is a history of growth, watered by the professionalism of the library's caretakers and the enthusiasm of its readers. It is not an enterprise that can be measured by numbers. It is quality that counts, not quantity. No political body should fall into the trap of judging the success of a library solely in terms of the number of its visitors. That lone reader in the corner: who knows what personal potential will be realized in the future because of today's library experience? As American poet Archibald MacLeish (1892-1982) said: 'What is more important in a library than anything else - than everything else - is the fact that it exists.' If it exists, it will be used. And French writer Victor Hugo (1802-85) sums it up: 'A library implies an act of faith'.
A century ago, in 1911, a king and queen symbolized that faith. They visited Aberystwyth to lay the foundation stone of the National Library of Wales. In 2011, a future king and queen will come to live nearby. In my poetic imagination, I hear Prince William looking towards Rhosneigr - down on it, even, from his helicopter - and repeating my I Spy rhyme. 'I spy, with my royal eye...' - but will he have to end it with 'nothing beginning with L'? It is a scenario that I trust our political leaders will ensure we will never see. It is time for them too to make an act of faith.
Thursday, 20 January 2011
Wednesday, 5 January 2011
On built and builded in the KJB
Two correspondents have written to ask about the use of the verbs built and builded in the King James Bible. Is there a difference of meaning? There's evidently a debate going on somewhere online in which this issue is part of the evidence. I haven't explored what the debate is about, so the following observations are offered simply by way of providing linguistic data that might not otherwise be available to the participants.
First, some background. When build appears as a verb in early Middle English, its past tense form was mainly regular (recorded forms include bildide, bylded, builded), though some writers used an irregular form (e.g. bult, byld, built). The past participle form was mainly irregular, with a wide range of forms (e.g. gebyld, bilde, bilt, buylt), along with the occasional use of a regular form (e.g. bylded, builded). In the Early Modern English period, the two forms, regular and irregular, are both frequent, with the built form gradually dominating during the 16th century - an unusual instance of an irregular form defeating a regular one. There are instances of builded recorded as late as 1800, and it's still heard today in some regional dialects. We see both forms in use around 1600, the choice between them being dictated by external factors. Shakespeare, for example, normally uses built (15 instances), but has three instances of builded, each one using the extra syllable to fill out a metrical line. There are many instances in the plays of this sort of thing: for example, the choice between -s and -eth in the 3rd person singular of verbs is also often conditioned by metrical demands. But the reason for choosing one form over another is not always clear, and sometimes one is left with the impression that the choice is random, or perhaps reflecting the preferences of an individual scribe or compositor.
In Modern English, there are several verbs which have two past forms (e.g. dreamed and dreamt) - a situation I discussed briefly in an earlier post (17 April 2008). In British English (American usage differs) there's usually an aspectual distinction: the -ed form is used when the duration of an action or the process of acting is being emphasized, and the -t form when something happens once, or takes up very little time, or the focus is on the result of a process rather than on the process itself (see the post for examples). However, it's unclear whether this kind of contrast was already operating in Early Modern English. And in any case, the built/builded alternation is different. It's more like the Modern alternation between highlit / highlighted, input / inputted, or wet / wetted, where the choice is governed by such factors as euphony, rhythm, and specialized usage (eg highlighted is the norm in hairdressing), as well as preferences related to a person's age and taste. Occasionally the two forms develop different regional uses (e.g. US dove, snuck, gotten) or different meanings (he was hanged/it was hung, I sped/speeded), but this is unusual.
What is the situation in the KJB? There are 271 instances of build used in the following four ways: as a past tense (Modern Standard English built and the emphatic did build); as a past participle form (Modern e.g. have built); as part of a passive construction (Modern e.g. was built by the Romans); and as an adjective (Modern e.g. a well built house). There is just one instance in KJB of an adjectival usage (4 Ezra 5.25, 'and of all builded cities thou hast hallowed Sion unto thyself'), and only six instances of did build: see below at Ruth 4.11, 1 Kings 11.7, 1 Kings 16.34, 2 Chronicles 35.3, Nehemiah 3.3, and Esdras 5.67. Leaving these six aside, we find 196 instances of built and 69 of builded - a ratio of nearly 3:1. The norm for the translators, as for everyone else at the time, was evidently built.
The situation in relation to built and builded in Early Modern English seems very similar to that presented by highlight and the others today. Looking at the list of instances at the end of this post, there are many parallel sentences which suggest that the forms are in free variation:
Genesis 8.20 Noah builded an altar
Genesis 22.9 Abraham built an altar
1 Chron 22.5 the house that is to be builded
1 Chron 22.19 the house that is to be built
There is even an example of both forms in the same verse:
Philemon 3.4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.
This seems to be a case where rhythm is the governing factor: builded in the first clause preserves an iambic rhythm (try replacing it with built to see the effect). And the same rhythmical plus comes from using built in the second clause.
However, there are some grammatical differences between the two constructions. Built is more likely to be used on its own, without auxiliary verbs (e.g. 'he built it'): 112 of 196 instances (57%), compared with 26 of 69 (38%) for builded. And when we look at individual auxiliaries, we find a definite preference for using them with built. The modal verbs used in the dataset are cannot, may, might, shall, shalt, should: only 4 of these are used with builded, whereas 17 are used with built. Similarly, 12 uses of auxiliary have occur with builded compared to 44 with built. On the other hand, there's no such trend with auxiliary be: 18 instances with builded and 17 with built.
Another difference relates to verb transitivity. If people wanted to use the verb intransitively (i.e. without an object, as in Luke 17.28 'they planted, they builded') there is a definite tendency to use builded: 12 out of 69 instances are intransitive (17%), compared with only 3 out of 196 instances of intransitive built (1.5%). The phrasal verb build up is found with 10 instances of built up and 2 of builded up. However, the other syntactic sequences I looked at (I haven't looked at them all!) showed few or no differences, e.g. the sequence build + not is found with 1 instance each (built not, builded not).
In all cases, we are talking about trends, not sharp distinctions. The grammar of the two forms substantially overlaps, and I've found nothing to suggest a semantic contrast.
So, why are there any differences at all? One possibility is that the different committees had a preference for one form or the other. Here are the relevant statistics (builded--built--did build--Total):
First Westminster 15 (16%)--76--3--94
First Cambridge 27 (32%)--55--2--84
First Oxford 4 (14%)--24--0--28
Second Oxford 1 (10%)--9--0--10
Second Westminster 3 (37%)--5--0--8
Second Cambridge 19 (70%)--27--1--47
There's the suggestion of a difference between Oxford and Cambridge, but the figures are small, and the overriding impression is that each committee was comfortable with both usages.
Perhaps individual books prompted one usage over the other? The following table brings to light one interesting fact: Ezra and 4 Ezra stand out in their exclusive use of builded. Together their 22 instances amount to almost a third of all cases. I have no explanation for this, so I asked Gordon Campbell, author of Bible: The Story of the King James Version 1611-2011 (OUP 2010) for his opinion, and he commented: 'An individual translator is a possibility, but so is an individual compositor. There may have been rules or agreed conventions about tense endings, but on many issues compositors took decisions. These weren't based on principles but rather on habits (when there is consistency) or the need to save or occupy space (when there is inconsistency).' Yes, space-saving strategies and compositor preferences have long been known in the case of Shakespeare. It remains to be seen whether they play an equally important role in relation to the KJB.
There are few other instances of builded predominance. Perhaps the poetic qualities of Proverbs and Song of Solomon motivated the exclusive use of the older form, but the numbers are tiny. Only in two other books (Genesis and Nehemiah) are there more instances of builded than built. Genesis is curious: until chapter 13 we find only builded, then there is a switch, with just a single exception.
Here is a complete listing, book by book (built--builded--did build
Genesis 4--7--0
Exodus 3--1--0
Numbers 5--1--0
Deuteronomy 3--1--0
Joshua 6--1--0
Judges 5--0--0
Ruth 0--0--1
1 Samuel 3--0--0
2 Samuel 3--0--0
1 Kings 35--3--2
2 Kings 9--1--0
1 Chronicles 8--1--0
2 Chronicles 36--0--1
Ezra 0--12--0
Nehemiah 5--9--1
Job 2--1--0
Psalms 2--1--0
Proverbs 0--2--0
Ecclesiasticus 1--1--0
Song of Solomon 0--1--0
Isaiah 4--0--0
Jeremiah 9--1--0
Lamentations 1--0--0
Ezekiel 4--2--0
Daniel 2--0--0
Amos 1--0--0
Micah 1--0--0
Haggai 1--0--0
Zechariah 2--0--0
Matthew 2--0--0
Mark 1--0--0
Luke 4--1--0
Acts 1--0--0
1 Corinthians 1--0--0
Ephesians 1--1--0
Colossians 1--0--0
Hebrews 0--2--0
Philemon 1--0--0
1 Peter 1--0--0
Judith 1--0--0
Esdras 8--2--1
1 Maccabees 10--4--0
2 Macc 2--1--0
4 Ezra 0--10--0
Sirach 2--1--0
Wisdom of Solomon 1--0--0
Tobit 3--1--0
And finally, here's the list of all forms, in reading sequence, so that anyone can test other hypotheses for themselves.
The builded/built dataset
First Westminster Company
Genesis 4.17 he builded a city
Genesis 8.20 Noah builded an altar
Genesis 10.11 and builded Nineveh
Genesis 11.5 which the children of men builded
Genesis 12.7 there builded he an altar
Genesis 12.8 there he builded an altar
Genesis 13.18 and built there an altar
Genesis 22.9 Abraham built an altar
Genesis 26.25 And he builded an altar
Genesis 33.17 and built him an house
Genesis 35.7 And he built there an altar
Exodus 1.12 And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities
Exodus 17.15 And Moses built an altar
Exodus 24.4 and builded an altar
Exodus 32.5 he built an altar before it
Numbers 13.22 Hebron was built seven years before Zoan
Numbers 21.27 let the city of Sihon be built
Numbers 23.14 and built seven altars
Numbers 32.34 the children of Gad built Dibon
Numbers 32.37 and the children of Reuben built Heshbon
Numbers 32.38 and gave other names unto the cities which they builded
Deuteronomy 6.10 cities, which thou buildedst not
Deuteronomy 8.12 hast built goodly houses
Deuteronomy 13.16 it shall not be built again
Deuteronomy 20.5 that hath built a new house
Joshua 8.30 Then Joshua built an altar
Joshua 19.50 he built the city
Joshua 22.10 the half tribe of Manasseh built there an altar
Joshua 22.11 the half tribe of Manasseh have built an altar
Joshua 22.16 ye have builded you an altar
Joshua 22.23 we have built us an altar
Joshua 24.13 cities which ye built not
Judges 1.26 and built a city
Judges 6.24 Then Gideon built an altar there
Judges 6.28 upon the altar that was built
Judges 18.28 and they built a city
Judges 21.4 and built there an altar
Ruth 4.11 which two did build the house of Israel
1 Samuel 7.17 and there he built an altar
1 Samuel 14.35 And Saul built an altar... that he built
2 Samuel 5.9 And David built round about from Millo
2 Samuel 5.11 they built David an house
2 Samuel 24.25 And David built there an altar
1 Kings 3.2 there was no house built unto the name of the Lord
1 Kings 6.2 the house which king Solomon built for the Lord
1 Kings 6.5 he built chambers
1 Kings 6.7 And the house, when it was in building, was built of stone
1 Kings 6.9 So he built the house
1 Kings 6.10 And then he built chambers
1 Kings 6.14 So Solomon built the house, and finished it
1 Kings 6.15 And he built the walls of the house
1 Kings 6.16 And he built twenty cubits... he even built
1 Kings 6.36 And he built the inner court
1 Kings 7.2 He built also the house of the forest of Lebanon
1 Kings 8.13 I have surely built thee an house to dwell in
1 Kings 8.20 and have built an house
1 Kings 8.27 how much less this house that I have builded
1 Kings 8.43 this house, which I have builded
1 Kings 8.44 the house that I have built for thy name
1 Kings 8.48 the house which I have built for thy name
1 Kings 9.3 this house, which thou hast built
1 Kings 9.10 when Solomon had built the two houses
1 Kings 9.17 And Solomon built Gezer
1 Kings 9.24 her house which Solomon had built for her
1 Kings 9.25 the altar which he built
1 Kings 10.4 the house that he had built
1 Kings 11.7 Then did Solomon build an high place
1 Kings 11.27 Solomon built Millo
1 Kings 11.38 as I built for David
1 Kings 12.25 Then Jeroboam built Shechem ... and built Penuel
1 Kings 14.23 they also built them high places
1 Kings 15.17 and built Ramah
1 Kings 15.22 timber, wherewith Baasha had builded
1 Kings 15.22 and king Asa built with them Geba
1 Kings 15.23 and the cities which he built
1 Kings 16.24 and built on the hill ... the city which he built
1 Kings 16.32 the house of Baal, which he had built in Samaria
1 Kings 16.34 In his days did Hiel the Bethelite build Jericho
1 Kings 18.32 he built an altar
1 Kings 22.39 all the cities that he built
2 Kings 14.22 He built Elath
2 Kings 15.35 He built the higher gate
2 Kings 16.11 And Urijah the priest built an altar
2 Kings 16.18 that they had built in the house
2 Kings 17.9 and they built them high places
2 Kings 21.3 For he built up again the high places
2 Kings 21.4 And he built altars
2 Kings 21.5 And he built altars
2 Kings 23.13 which Solomon the king of Israel had builded
2 Kings 25.1 they built forts around it
First Cambridge Company
1 Chronicles 6.10 the temple that Solomon built in Jerusalem
1 Chronicles 6.32 until Solomon had built the house
1 Chronicles 7.24 Sherah, who built Bethhoron
1 Chronicles 8.12 Shamed, who built Ono
1 Chronicles 11.8 And he built the city round about
1 Chronicles 17.6 Why have ye not built me an house to dwell in
1 Chronicles 21.26 And David built there an altar
1 Chronicles 22.5 and the house that is to be builded
1 Chronicles 22.19 the house that is to be built
2 Chronicles 6.2 I have built an house
2 Chronicles 6.10 and have built the house
2 Chronicles 6.18 this house which I have built
2 Chronicles 6.33 this house which I have built
2 Chronicles 6.34 the house which I have built
2 Chronicles 6.38 the house which I have built
2 Chronicles 8.1 at the end of twenty years, wherein Solomon had built the house of the Lord
2 Chronicles 8.2 That the cities which Huram had restored to Solomon, Solomon built them
2 Chronicles 8.4 And he built ... all the store cities, which he built in Hamath
2 Chronicles 8.5 Also he built Bethhoron the upper
2 Chronicles 8.11 the house that he had built for her
2 Chronicles 8.12 the altar of the LORD, which he had built before the porch
2 Chronicles 9.3 the house that he had built
2 Chronicles 11.5 And Rehoboam dwelt in Jerusalem, and built cities
2 Chronicles 11.6 He built even Bethlehem
2 Chronicles 14.6 And he built fenced cities in Judah
2 Chronicles 14.7 So they built and prospered
2 Chronicles 16.1 and built Ramah
2 Chronicles 16.6 and he built therewith Geba
2 Chronicles 17.12 and he built in Judah castles
2 Chronicles 20.8 And they dwelt therein, and have built thee a sanctuary
2 Chronicles 26.2 He built Eloth
2 Chronicles 26.6 and built cities
2 Chronicles 26.9 Uzziah built towers
2 Chronicles 26.10 Also he built towers in the desert
2 Chronicles 27.3 He built the high gate of the house of the Lord
2 Chronicles 27.4 Moreover he built cities in the mountains of Judah, and in the forests he built castles and towers
2 Chronicles 32.5 he ... built up all the wall that was broken
2 Chronicles 33.3 he built again the high places
2 Chronicles 33.4 Also he built altars in the house of the Lord
2 Chronicles 33.5 And he built altars for all the host of heaven
2 Chronicles 33.14 he built a wall without the city of David
2 Chronicles 33.15 all the altars that he had built
2 Chronicles 33.19 the places wherein he built high places,
2 Chronicles 35.3 the house which Solomon the son of David king of Israel did build
Ezra 3.2 and builded the altar of the God of Israel
Ezra 4.1 the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity builded the temple
Ezra 4.13 if this city be builded
Ezra 4.16 if this city be builded again
Ezra 4.21 Give ye now commandment to cause these men to cease, and that this city be not builded
Ezra 5.8 the house of the great God, which is builded with great stones
Ezra 5.11 build the house that was builded these many years ago, which a great king of Israel builded and set up
Ezra 5.15 and let the house of God be builded in his place
Ezra 6.3 Let the house be builded
Ezra 6.14 And the elders of the Jews builded... And they builded
Nehemiah 3.1 they builded the sheep gate
Nehemiah 3.2 And next unto him builded the men of Jericho. And next to them builded Zaccur the son of Imri
Nehemiah 3.3 But the fish gate did the sons of Hassenaah build
Nehemiah 3.13 they built it
Nehemiah 3.14 he built it
Nehemiah 3.15 he built it
Nehemiah 4.1 when Sanballat heard that we builded the wall
Nehemiah 4.6 So built we the wall
Nehemiah 4.17 They which builded on the wall
Nehemiah 4.18 every one had his sword girded by his side, and so builded
Nehemiah 6.1 heard that I had builded the wall
Nehemiah 7.1 when the wall was built
Nehemiah 7.4 the houses were not builded
Nehemiah 12.29 the singers had builded them villages round about Jerusalem
Job 12.14 he breaketh down, and it cannot be built again
Job 20.19 he hath violently taken away an house which he builded not
Job 22.23 If thou return to the Almighty, thou shalt be built up
Psalms 78.69 And he built his sanctuary like high palaces
Psalms 89.2 Mercy shall be built up for ever
Psalms 122.3 Jerusalem is builded as a city that is compact together
Proverbs 9.1 Wisdom hath builded her house
Proverbs 24.3 Through wisdom is an house builded
Ecclesiastes 2.4 I builded me houses
Ecclesiastes 9.14 there came a great king against it, and besieged it, and built great bulwarks against it
Song of Solomon 4.4 Thy neck is like the tower of David builded for an armoury
First Oxford Company
Isaiah 5.2 and built a tower in the midst of it
Isaiah 25.2 it shall never be built
Isaiah 44.26 Ye shall be built
Isaiah 44.28 Thou shalt be built
Jeremiah 7.31 they have built the high places of Tophet
Jeremiah 12.16 then shall they be built in the midst of my people
Jeremiah 19.5 They have built also the high places of Baal
Jeremiah 30.18 the city shall be builded upon her own heap
Jeremiah 31.4 Again I will build thee, and thou shalt be built
Jeremiah 31.38 the city shall be built
Jeremiah 32.31 from the day that they built it even unto this day
Jeremiah 32.35 And they built the high places of Baal
Jeremiah 45.4 that which I have built will I break down
Jeremiah 52.4 and built forts against it round about
Lamentations 3.5 He hath builded against me
Ezekiel 13.10 one built up a wall
Ezekiel 16.24 thou hast also built unto thee an eminent place
Ezekiel 16.25 thou hast built thy high place
Ezekiel 26.14 thou shalt be built no more
Ezekiel 36.10 the wastes shall be builded
Ezekiel 36.33 the wastes shall be builded
Daniel 4.30 Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom
Daniel 9.25 the street shall be built again
Amos 5.11 ye have built houses of hewn stone
Micah 7.11 In the day that thy walls are to be built
Haggai 1.2 The time is not come, the time that the LORD's house should be built
Zechariah 1.16 my house shall be built in it
Zechariah 8.9 that the temple might be built
Second Oxford Company
Matthew 7.24 unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock
Matthew 7.26 a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
Matthew 21.33 and built a tower
Mark 12.1 and built a tower
Luke 4.29 whereon their city was built
Luke 6.48 a man which built an house
Luke 6.49 a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth
Luke 7.5 he hath built us a synagogue
Luke 17.28 they planted, they builded
Acts 7.47 But Solomon built him an house
Second Westminster Company
1 Corintians 3.14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon
Ephesians 2.20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets
Ephesians 2.22 In whom ye also are builded together
Colossians 2.7 Rooted and built up in him
Hebrews 3.3 he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house
Hebrews 3:4 For every house is builded by some man
Philemon 3:4 but he that built all things is God
1 Peter 2.5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house
Second Cambridge Company
Judith 2 And built in Ecbatane walls
Esdras 1.3 the house that king Solomon the son of David had built
Esdras 2.24 if this city be built again
Esdras 4.51 until the time that it were built;
Esdras 4.55 them until the day that the house were finished, and Jerusalem builded up
Esdras 5.53 the temple of the Lord was not yet built
Esdras 5.58 So the workmen built the temple of the Lord
Esdras 5.67 they that were of the captivity did build the temple unto the Lord God of Israel
Esdras 6.14 it was builded many years ago
Esdras 6.19 that the temple of the Lord should be built in his place.
Esdras 6.24 the house of the Lord at Jerusalem should be built again
Esdras 6.28 I have commanded also to have it built up whole again
1 Maccabees 1.14 Whereupon they built a place of exercise at Jerusalem
1 Maccabees 1.33 Then builded they the city of David
1 Maccabees 1.54 and builded idol altars
1 Maccabees 4.47 and built a new altar
1 Maccabees 4.60 At that time also they builded up the mount Sion with high walls
1 Maccabees 5.1 the altar was built
1 Maccabees 10.12 the strangers, that were in the fortresses which Bacchides had built
1 Maccabees 13.27 Simon also built a monument
1 Maccabees 13.33 Then Simon built up the strong holds in Judea
1 Maccabees 13.38 the strong holds, which ye have builded
1 Maccabees 13.48 and built therein a dwellingplace
1 Maccabees 15.7 fortresses that thou hast built
1 Maccabees 16.9 Cedron, which Cendebeus had built
1 Maccabees 16.15 Docus, which he had built
2 Maccabees 1.18 after that he had builded the temple
2 Maccabees 4.12 For he built gladly a place of exercise
2 Maccabees 10.2 the altars which the heathen had built in the open street
4 Ezra 5.25 and of all builded cities thou hast hallowed Sion unto thyself
4 Ezra 7.6 A city is builded
4 Ezra 8.52 a city is builded
4 Ezra 9.24 where no house is builded
4 Ezra 10.27 there was a city builded
4 Ezra 10.42 there appeared unto thee a city builded
4 Ezra 10.44 even she whom thou seest as a city builded
4 Ezra 10.46 after thirty years Solomon builded the city
4 Ezra 10.51 the field where no house was builded
4 Ezra 13.36 being prepared and builded
Sirach 1.15 She hath built an everlasting foundation with men
Sirach 49.12 who in their time builded the house
Sirach 50.2 And by him was built from the foundation the double height
Wisdom of Solomon 14.2 the workman built it by his skill
Tobit 1.4 the temple of the habitation of the most High was consecrated and built for all ages
Tobit 13.10 that his tabernacle may be builded in thee again with joy
Tobit 13.16 For Jerusalem shall be built up with sapphires
Tobit 14.5 the house of God shall be built in it for ever
First, some background. When build appears as a verb in early Middle English, its past tense form was mainly regular (recorded forms include bildide, bylded, builded), though some writers used an irregular form (e.g. bult, byld, built). The past participle form was mainly irregular, with a wide range of forms (e.g. gebyld, bilde, bilt, buylt), along with the occasional use of a regular form (e.g. bylded, builded). In the Early Modern English period, the two forms, regular and irregular, are both frequent, with the built form gradually dominating during the 16th century - an unusual instance of an irregular form defeating a regular one. There are instances of builded recorded as late as 1800, and it's still heard today in some regional dialects. We see both forms in use around 1600, the choice between them being dictated by external factors. Shakespeare, for example, normally uses built (15 instances), but has three instances of builded, each one using the extra syllable to fill out a metrical line. There are many instances in the plays of this sort of thing: for example, the choice between -s and -eth in the 3rd person singular of verbs is also often conditioned by metrical demands. But the reason for choosing one form over another is not always clear, and sometimes one is left with the impression that the choice is random, or perhaps reflecting the preferences of an individual scribe or compositor.
In Modern English, there are several verbs which have two past forms (e.g. dreamed and dreamt) - a situation I discussed briefly in an earlier post (17 April 2008). In British English (American usage differs) there's usually an aspectual distinction: the -ed form is used when the duration of an action or the process of acting is being emphasized, and the -t form when something happens once, or takes up very little time, or the focus is on the result of a process rather than on the process itself (see the post for examples). However, it's unclear whether this kind of contrast was already operating in Early Modern English. And in any case, the built/builded alternation is different. It's more like the Modern alternation between highlit / highlighted, input / inputted, or wet / wetted, where the choice is governed by such factors as euphony, rhythm, and specialized usage (eg highlighted is the norm in hairdressing), as well as preferences related to a person's age and taste. Occasionally the two forms develop different regional uses (e.g. US dove, snuck, gotten) or different meanings (he was hanged/it was hung, I sped/speeded), but this is unusual.
What is the situation in the KJB? There are 271 instances of build used in the following four ways: as a past tense (Modern Standard English built and the emphatic did build); as a past participle form (Modern e.g. have built); as part of a passive construction (Modern e.g. was built by the Romans); and as an adjective (Modern e.g. a well built house). There is just one instance in KJB of an adjectival usage (4 Ezra 5.25, 'and of all builded cities thou hast hallowed Sion unto thyself'), and only six instances of did build: see below at Ruth 4.11, 1 Kings 11.7, 1 Kings 16.34, 2 Chronicles 35.3, Nehemiah 3.3, and Esdras 5.67. Leaving these six aside, we find 196 instances of built and 69 of builded - a ratio of nearly 3:1. The norm for the translators, as for everyone else at the time, was evidently built.
The situation in relation to built and builded in Early Modern English seems very similar to that presented by highlight and the others today. Looking at the list of instances at the end of this post, there are many parallel sentences which suggest that the forms are in free variation:
Genesis 8.20 Noah builded an altar
Genesis 22.9 Abraham built an altar
1 Chron 22.5 the house that is to be builded
1 Chron 22.19 the house that is to be built
There is even an example of both forms in the same verse:
Philemon 3.4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.
This seems to be a case where rhythm is the governing factor: builded in the first clause preserves an iambic rhythm (try replacing it with built to see the effect). And the same rhythmical plus comes from using built in the second clause.
However, there are some grammatical differences between the two constructions. Built is more likely to be used on its own, without auxiliary verbs (e.g. 'he built it'): 112 of 196 instances (57%), compared with 26 of 69 (38%) for builded. And when we look at individual auxiliaries, we find a definite preference for using them with built. The modal verbs used in the dataset are cannot, may, might, shall, shalt, should: only 4 of these are used with builded, whereas 17 are used with built. Similarly, 12 uses of auxiliary have occur with builded compared to 44 with built. On the other hand, there's no such trend with auxiliary be: 18 instances with builded and 17 with built.
Another difference relates to verb transitivity. If people wanted to use the verb intransitively (i.e. without an object, as in Luke 17.28 'they planted, they builded') there is a definite tendency to use builded: 12 out of 69 instances are intransitive (17%), compared with only 3 out of 196 instances of intransitive built (1.5%). The phrasal verb build up is found with 10 instances of built up and 2 of builded up. However, the other syntactic sequences I looked at (I haven't looked at them all!) showed few or no differences, e.g. the sequence build + not is found with 1 instance each (built not, builded not).
In all cases, we are talking about trends, not sharp distinctions. The grammar of the two forms substantially overlaps, and I've found nothing to suggest a semantic contrast.
So, why are there any differences at all? One possibility is that the different committees had a preference for one form or the other. Here are the relevant statistics (builded--built--did build--Total):
First Westminster 15 (16%)--76--3--94
First Cambridge 27 (32%)--55--2--84
First Oxford 4 (14%)--24--0--28
Second Oxford 1 (10%)--9--0--10
Second Westminster 3 (37%)--5--0--8
Second Cambridge 19 (70%)--27--1--47
There's the suggestion of a difference between Oxford and Cambridge, but the figures are small, and the overriding impression is that each committee was comfortable with both usages.
Perhaps individual books prompted one usage over the other? The following table brings to light one interesting fact: Ezra and 4 Ezra stand out in their exclusive use of builded. Together their 22 instances amount to almost a third of all cases. I have no explanation for this, so I asked Gordon Campbell, author of Bible: The Story of the King James Version 1611-2011 (OUP 2010) for his opinion, and he commented: 'An individual translator is a possibility, but so is an individual compositor. There may have been rules or agreed conventions about tense endings, but on many issues compositors took decisions. These weren't based on principles but rather on habits (when there is consistency) or the need to save or occupy space (when there is inconsistency).' Yes, space-saving strategies and compositor preferences have long been known in the case of Shakespeare. It remains to be seen whether they play an equally important role in relation to the KJB.
There are few other instances of builded predominance. Perhaps the poetic qualities of Proverbs and Song of Solomon motivated the exclusive use of the older form, but the numbers are tiny. Only in two other books (Genesis and Nehemiah) are there more instances of builded than built. Genesis is curious: until chapter 13 we find only builded, then there is a switch, with just a single exception.
Here is a complete listing, book by book (built--builded--did build
Genesis 4--7--0
Exodus 3--1--0
Numbers 5--1--0
Deuteronomy 3--1--0
Joshua 6--1--0
Judges 5--0--0
Ruth 0--0--1
1 Samuel 3--0--0
2 Samuel 3--0--0
1 Kings 35--3--2
2 Kings 9--1--0
1 Chronicles 8--1--0
2 Chronicles 36--0--1
Ezra 0--12--0
Nehemiah 5--9--1
Job 2--1--0
Psalms 2--1--0
Proverbs 0--2--0
Ecclesiasticus 1--1--0
Song of Solomon 0--1--0
Isaiah 4--0--0
Jeremiah 9--1--0
Lamentations 1--0--0
Ezekiel 4--2--0
Daniel 2--0--0
Amos 1--0--0
Micah 1--0--0
Haggai 1--0--0
Zechariah 2--0--0
Matthew 2--0--0
Mark 1--0--0
Luke 4--1--0
Acts 1--0--0
1 Corinthians 1--0--0
Ephesians 1--1--0
Colossians 1--0--0
Hebrews 0--2--0
Philemon 1--0--0
1 Peter 1--0--0
Judith 1--0--0
Esdras 8--2--1
1 Maccabees 10--4--0
2 Macc 2--1--0
4 Ezra 0--10--0
Sirach 2--1--0
Wisdom of Solomon 1--0--0
Tobit 3--1--0
And finally, here's the list of all forms, in reading sequence, so that anyone can test other hypotheses for themselves.
The builded/built dataset
First Westminster Company
Genesis 4.17 he builded a city
Genesis 8.20 Noah builded an altar
Genesis 10.11 and builded Nineveh
Genesis 11.5 which the children of men builded
Genesis 12.7 there builded he an altar
Genesis 12.8 there he builded an altar
Genesis 13.18 and built there an altar
Genesis 22.9 Abraham built an altar
Genesis 26.25 And he builded an altar
Genesis 33.17 and built him an house
Genesis 35.7 And he built there an altar
Exodus 1.12 And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities
Exodus 17.15 And Moses built an altar
Exodus 24.4 and builded an altar
Exodus 32.5 he built an altar before it
Numbers 13.22 Hebron was built seven years before Zoan
Numbers 21.27 let the city of Sihon be built
Numbers 23.14 and built seven altars
Numbers 32.34 the children of Gad built Dibon
Numbers 32.37 and the children of Reuben built Heshbon
Numbers 32.38 and gave other names unto the cities which they builded
Deuteronomy 6.10 cities, which thou buildedst not
Deuteronomy 8.12 hast built goodly houses
Deuteronomy 13.16 it shall not be built again
Deuteronomy 20.5 that hath built a new house
Joshua 8.30 Then Joshua built an altar
Joshua 19.50 he built the city
Joshua 22.10 the half tribe of Manasseh built there an altar
Joshua 22.11 the half tribe of Manasseh have built an altar
Joshua 22.16 ye have builded you an altar
Joshua 22.23 we have built us an altar
Joshua 24.13 cities which ye built not
Judges 1.26 and built a city
Judges 6.24 Then Gideon built an altar there
Judges 6.28 upon the altar that was built
Judges 18.28 and they built a city
Judges 21.4 and built there an altar
Ruth 4.11 which two did build the house of Israel
1 Samuel 7.17 and there he built an altar
1 Samuel 14.35 And Saul built an altar... that he built
2 Samuel 5.9 And David built round about from Millo
2 Samuel 5.11 they built David an house
2 Samuel 24.25 And David built there an altar
1 Kings 3.2 there was no house built unto the name of the Lord
1 Kings 6.2 the house which king Solomon built for the Lord
1 Kings 6.5 he built chambers
1 Kings 6.7 And the house, when it was in building, was built of stone
1 Kings 6.9 So he built the house
1 Kings 6.10 And then he built chambers
1 Kings 6.14 So Solomon built the house, and finished it
1 Kings 6.15 And he built the walls of the house
1 Kings 6.16 And he built twenty cubits... he even built
1 Kings 6.36 And he built the inner court
1 Kings 7.2 He built also the house of the forest of Lebanon
1 Kings 8.13 I have surely built thee an house to dwell in
1 Kings 8.20 and have built an house
1 Kings 8.27 how much less this house that I have builded
1 Kings 8.43 this house, which I have builded
1 Kings 8.44 the house that I have built for thy name
1 Kings 8.48 the house which I have built for thy name
1 Kings 9.3 this house, which thou hast built
1 Kings 9.10 when Solomon had built the two houses
1 Kings 9.17 And Solomon built Gezer
1 Kings 9.24 her house which Solomon had built for her
1 Kings 9.25 the altar which he built
1 Kings 10.4 the house that he had built
1 Kings 11.7 Then did Solomon build an high place
1 Kings 11.27 Solomon built Millo
1 Kings 11.38 as I built for David
1 Kings 12.25 Then Jeroboam built Shechem ... and built Penuel
1 Kings 14.23 they also built them high places
1 Kings 15.17 and built Ramah
1 Kings 15.22 timber, wherewith Baasha had builded
1 Kings 15.22 and king Asa built with them Geba
1 Kings 15.23 and the cities which he built
1 Kings 16.24 and built on the hill ... the city which he built
1 Kings 16.32 the house of Baal, which he had built in Samaria
1 Kings 16.34 In his days did Hiel the Bethelite build Jericho
1 Kings 18.32 he built an altar
1 Kings 22.39 all the cities that he built
2 Kings 14.22 He built Elath
2 Kings 15.35 He built the higher gate
2 Kings 16.11 And Urijah the priest built an altar
2 Kings 16.18 that they had built in the house
2 Kings 17.9 and they built them high places
2 Kings 21.3 For he built up again the high places
2 Kings 21.4 And he built altars
2 Kings 21.5 And he built altars
2 Kings 23.13 which Solomon the king of Israel had builded
2 Kings 25.1 they built forts around it
First Cambridge Company
1 Chronicles 6.10 the temple that Solomon built in Jerusalem
1 Chronicles 6.32 until Solomon had built the house
1 Chronicles 7.24 Sherah, who built Bethhoron
1 Chronicles 8.12 Shamed, who built Ono
1 Chronicles 11.8 And he built the city round about
1 Chronicles 17.6 Why have ye not built me an house to dwell in
1 Chronicles 21.26 And David built there an altar
1 Chronicles 22.5 and the house that is to be builded
1 Chronicles 22.19 the house that is to be built
2 Chronicles 6.2 I have built an house
2 Chronicles 6.10 and have built the house
2 Chronicles 6.18 this house which I have built
2 Chronicles 6.33 this house which I have built
2 Chronicles 6.34 the house which I have built
2 Chronicles 6.38 the house which I have built
2 Chronicles 8.1 at the end of twenty years, wherein Solomon had built the house of the Lord
2 Chronicles 8.2 That the cities which Huram had restored to Solomon, Solomon built them
2 Chronicles 8.4 And he built ... all the store cities, which he built in Hamath
2 Chronicles 8.5 Also he built Bethhoron the upper
2 Chronicles 8.11 the house that he had built for her
2 Chronicles 8.12 the altar of the LORD, which he had built before the porch
2 Chronicles 9.3 the house that he had built
2 Chronicles 11.5 And Rehoboam dwelt in Jerusalem, and built cities
2 Chronicles 11.6 He built even Bethlehem
2 Chronicles 14.6 And he built fenced cities in Judah
2 Chronicles 14.7 So they built and prospered
2 Chronicles 16.1 and built Ramah
2 Chronicles 16.6 and he built therewith Geba
2 Chronicles 17.12 and he built in Judah castles
2 Chronicles 20.8 And they dwelt therein, and have built thee a sanctuary
2 Chronicles 26.2 He built Eloth
2 Chronicles 26.6 and built cities
2 Chronicles 26.9 Uzziah built towers
2 Chronicles 26.10 Also he built towers in the desert
2 Chronicles 27.3 He built the high gate of the house of the Lord
2 Chronicles 27.4 Moreover he built cities in the mountains of Judah, and in the forests he built castles and towers
2 Chronicles 32.5 he ... built up all the wall that was broken
2 Chronicles 33.3 he built again the high places
2 Chronicles 33.4 Also he built altars in the house of the Lord
2 Chronicles 33.5 And he built altars for all the host of heaven
2 Chronicles 33.14 he built a wall without the city of David
2 Chronicles 33.15 all the altars that he had built
2 Chronicles 33.19 the places wherein he built high places,
2 Chronicles 35.3 the house which Solomon the son of David king of Israel did build
Ezra 3.2 and builded the altar of the God of Israel
Ezra 4.1 the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity builded the temple
Ezra 4.13 if this city be builded
Ezra 4.16 if this city be builded again
Ezra 4.21 Give ye now commandment to cause these men to cease, and that this city be not builded
Ezra 5.8 the house of the great God, which is builded with great stones
Ezra 5.11 build the house that was builded these many years ago, which a great king of Israel builded and set up
Ezra 5.15 and let the house of God be builded in his place
Ezra 6.3 Let the house be builded
Ezra 6.14 And the elders of the Jews builded... And they builded
Nehemiah 3.1 they builded the sheep gate
Nehemiah 3.2 And next unto him builded the men of Jericho. And next to them builded Zaccur the son of Imri
Nehemiah 3.3 But the fish gate did the sons of Hassenaah build
Nehemiah 3.13 they built it
Nehemiah 3.14 he built it
Nehemiah 3.15 he built it
Nehemiah 4.1 when Sanballat heard that we builded the wall
Nehemiah 4.6 So built we the wall
Nehemiah 4.17 They which builded on the wall
Nehemiah 4.18 every one had his sword girded by his side, and so builded
Nehemiah 6.1 heard that I had builded the wall
Nehemiah 7.1 when the wall was built
Nehemiah 7.4 the houses were not builded
Nehemiah 12.29 the singers had builded them villages round about Jerusalem
Job 12.14 he breaketh down, and it cannot be built again
Job 20.19 he hath violently taken away an house which he builded not
Job 22.23 If thou return to the Almighty, thou shalt be built up
Psalms 78.69 And he built his sanctuary like high palaces
Psalms 89.2 Mercy shall be built up for ever
Psalms 122.3 Jerusalem is builded as a city that is compact together
Proverbs 9.1 Wisdom hath builded her house
Proverbs 24.3 Through wisdom is an house builded
Ecclesiastes 2.4 I builded me houses
Ecclesiastes 9.14 there came a great king against it, and besieged it, and built great bulwarks against it
Song of Solomon 4.4 Thy neck is like the tower of David builded for an armoury
First Oxford Company
Isaiah 5.2 and built a tower in the midst of it
Isaiah 25.2 it shall never be built
Isaiah 44.26 Ye shall be built
Isaiah 44.28 Thou shalt be built
Jeremiah 7.31 they have built the high places of Tophet
Jeremiah 12.16 then shall they be built in the midst of my people
Jeremiah 19.5 They have built also the high places of Baal
Jeremiah 30.18 the city shall be builded upon her own heap
Jeremiah 31.4 Again I will build thee, and thou shalt be built
Jeremiah 31.38 the city shall be built
Jeremiah 32.31 from the day that they built it even unto this day
Jeremiah 32.35 And they built the high places of Baal
Jeremiah 45.4 that which I have built will I break down
Jeremiah 52.4 and built forts against it round about
Lamentations 3.5 He hath builded against me
Ezekiel 13.10 one built up a wall
Ezekiel 16.24 thou hast also built unto thee an eminent place
Ezekiel 16.25 thou hast built thy high place
Ezekiel 26.14 thou shalt be built no more
Ezekiel 36.10 the wastes shall be builded
Ezekiel 36.33 the wastes shall be builded
Daniel 4.30 Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom
Daniel 9.25 the street shall be built again
Amos 5.11 ye have built houses of hewn stone
Micah 7.11 In the day that thy walls are to be built
Haggai 1.2 The time is not come, the time that the LORD's house should be built
Zechariah 1.16 my house shall be built in it
Zechariah 8.9 that the temple might be built
Second Oxford Company
Matthew 7.24 unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock
Matthew 7.26 a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
Matthew 21.33 and built a tower
Mark 12.1 and built a tower
Luke 4.29 whereon their city was built
Luke 6.48 a man which built an house
Luke 6.49 a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth
Luke 7.5 he hath built us a synagogue
Luke 17.28 they planted, they builded
Acts 7.47 But Solomon built him an house
Second Westminster Company
1 Corintians 3.14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon
Ephesians 2.20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets
Ephesians 2.22 In whom ye also are builded together
Colossians 2.7 Rooted and built up in him
Hebrews 3.3 he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house
Hebrews 3:4 For every house is builded by some man
Philemon 3:4 but he that built all things is God
1 Peter 2.5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house
Second Cambridge Company
Judith 2 And built in Ecbatane walls
Esdras 1.3 the house that king Solomon the son of David had built
Esdras 2.24 if this city be built again
Esdras 4.51 until the time that it were built;
Esdras 4.55 them until the day that the house were finished, and Jerusalem builded up
Esdras 5.53 the temple of the Lord was not yet built
Esdras 5.58 So the workmen built the temple of the Lord
Esdras 5.67 they that were of the captivity did build the temple unto the Lord God of Israel
Esdras 6.14 it was builded many years ago
Esdras 6.19 that the temple of the Lord should be built in his place.
Esdras 6.24 the house of the Lord at Jerusalem should be built again
Esdras 6.28 I have commanded also to have it built up whole again
1 Maccabees 1.14 Whereupon they built a place of exercise at Jerusalem
1 Maccabees 1.33 Then builded they the city of David
1 Maccabees 1.54 and builded idol altars
1 Maccabees 4.47 and built a new altar
1 Maccabees 4.60 At that time also they builded up the mount Sion with high walls
1 Maccabees 5.1 the altar was built
1 Maccabees 10.12 the strangers, that were in the fortresses which Bacchides had built
1 Maccabees 13.27 Simon also built a monument
1 Maccabees 13.33 Then Simon built up the strong holds in Judea
1 Maccabees 13.38 the strong holds, which ye have builded
1 Maccabees 13.48 and built therein a dwellingplace
1 Maccabees 15.7 fortresses that thou hast built
1 Maccabees 16.9 Cedron, which Cendebeus had built
1 Maccabees 16.15 Docus, which he had built
2 Maccabees 1.18 after that he had builded the temple
2 Maccabees 4.12 For he built gladly a place of exercise
2 Maccabees 10.2 the altars which the heathen had built in the open street
4 Ezra 5.25 and of all builded cities thou hast hallowed Sion unto thyself
4 Ezra 7.6 A city is builded
4 Ezra 8.52 a city is builded
4 Ezra 9.24 where no house is builded
4 Ezra 10.27 there was a city builded
4 Ezra 10.42 there appeared unto thee a city builded
4 Ezra 10.44 even she whom thou seest as a city builded
4 Ezra 10.46 after thirty years Solomon builded the city
4 Ezra 10.51 the field where no house was builded
4 Ezra 13.36 being prepared and builded
Sirach 1.15 She hath built an everlasting foundation with men
Sirach 49.12 who in their time builded the house
Sirach 50.2 And by him was built from the foundation the double height
Wisdom of Solomon 14.2 the workman built it by his skill
Tobit 1.4 the temple of the habitation of the most High was consecrated and built for all ages
Tobit 13.10 that his tabernacle may be builded in thee again with joy
Tobit 13.16 For Jerusalem shall be built up with sapphires
Tobit 14.5 the house of God shall be built in it for ever
Monday, 20 December 2010
On me/my being right
A correspondent writes about an earlier post headed 'On Shakespeare being Irish', worrying about the grammar rather than the content. Shouldn't it be 'On Shakespeare's being Irish', he asks? 'Has grammar changed?', he adds.
No, it hasn't - at least, not in the last 200 or so years. As with many issues of this kind, the arguments go back to the 18th century and the rise of prescriptivism. The construction without the possessive is the older one, and can be traced back to the Middle Ages. But the one with the possessive was felt to be more elegant and grammatically correct, and it was given the strongest possible support by Fowler (in his 1926 Dictionary). Indeed, rarely does Fowler attack a usage more intensely than in his entry on what he calls the 'fused participle'. A brief quotation:
'It is perhaps beyond hope for a generation that regards upon you giving as normal English to recover its hold upon the truth that grammar matters. Yet every just man who will abstain from the fused participle (as most good writers in fact do, though negative evidence is naturally hard to procure) retards the process of corruption; & it may therefore be worth while to take up again the statement made above, that the construction is grammatically indefensible.'
Not surprisingly, then, the issue rumbles on.
The two constructions actually express slightly different meanings. The non-possessive one highlights the verb phrase, whereas the possessive one highlights the noun phrase. In 'On Shakespeare being Irish', it's the 'being Irish' that is the focus. It's thus more likely to be used in a context where the implied contrast is with some other verb phrase, such as 'being Welsh or 'being English'. In 'On Shakespeare's being Irish', the person is the focus, so it's more likely to be used where there is a contrast with someone else. I used the first construction in my post, because the content was on the interpretation of original pronunciation, not on the person using it.
However, the prescriptive attitude has had an effect, in that over the years the use of the possessive has come to be associated with formal expression. There's therefore a stylistic contrast involved, with the non-possessive form sounding more informal. This is especially the case when the participial form is used as the subject of a clause, as in 'Going by train is out of the question', where we have the choice of:
John's going by train is out of the question.
John going by train is out of the question.
The stylistic contrast is especially noticeable when there's an initial pronoun:
My going by train is out of the question.
Me going by train is out of the question.
The contentious character of the non-possessive construction is lessened if it is 'buried' later in the sentence:
It is out of the question, my going by train.
It is out of the question, me going by train.
This is presumably why my post heading was noticed. The style I use ('On X') keeps the usage in initial position. If I'd headed the post 'On discussing the argument about Shakespeare being Irish', I wonder if my correspondent would have picked up on the point?
No, it hasn't - at least, not in the last 200 or so years. As with many issues of this kind, the arguments go back to the 18th century and the rise of prescriptivism. The construction without the possessive is the older one, and can be traced back to the Middle Ages. But the one with the possessive was felt to be more elegant and grammatically correct, and it was given the strongest possible support by Fowler (in his 1926 Dictionary). Indeed, rarely does Fowler attack a usage more intensely than in his entry on what he calls the 'fused participle'. A brief quotation:
'It is perhaps beyond hope for a generation that regards upon you giving as normal English to recover its hold upon the truth that grammar matters. Yet every just man who will abstain from the fused participle (as most good writers in fact do, though negative evidence is naturally hard to procure) retards the process of corruption; & it may therefore be worth while to take up again the statement made above, that the construction is grammatically indefensible.'
Not surprisingly, then, the issue rumbles on.
The two constructions actually express slightly different meanings. The non-possessive one highlights the verb phrase, whereas the possessive one highlights the noun phrase. In 'On Shakespeare being Irish', it's the 'being Irish' that is the focus. It's thus more likely to be used in a context where the implied contrast is with some other verb phrase, such as 'being Welsh or 'being English'. In 'On Shakespeare's being Irish', the person is the focus, so it's more likely to be used where there is a contrast with someone else. I used the first construction in my post, because the content was on the interpretation of original pronunciation, not on the person using it.
However, the prescriptive attitude has had an effect, in that over the years the use of the possessive has come to be associated with formal expression. There's therefore a stylistic contrast involved, with the non-possessive form sounding more informal. This is especially the case when the participial form is used as the subject of a clause, as in 'Going by train is out of the question', where we have the choice of:
John's going by train is out of the question.
John going by train is out of the question.
The stylistic contrast is especially noticeable when there's an initial pronoun:
My going by train is out of the question.
Me going by train is out of the question.
The contentious character of the non-possessive construction is lessened if it is 'buried' later in the sentence:
It is out of the question, my going by train.
It is out of the question, me going by train.
This is presumably why my post heading was noticed. The style I use ('On X') keeps the usage in initial position. If I'd headed the post 'On discussing the argument about Shakespeare being Irish', I wonder if my correspondent would have picked up on the point?
Friday, 17 December 2010
On culturomics
Another day when the phone won't stop ringing from correspondents because of a newly reported project involving language. This time it's the so-called Culturomics project, reported on 16 December in the journal Science and picked up in a half-chewed state by several newspapers and radio stations today.
What has happened is that a team of researchers have collaborated with Google Books to present a corpus of nearly 5.2 million digitized books, which they think is around 4 per cent of all published books. The corpus size is 500 billion words, 361 billion being English (the others from six languages - French, Spanish, German, Chinese, Russian, Hebrew). The time frame is 1800 to 2000. This is now available for online searching, and there's a site where you can type in your own words or word-sets and see how they have developed over time. There is a report on the project here. The full report can be read in the journal Science, though you have to register first.
The name culturomics is an odd one, presumably based on ergonomics, economics, and suchlike. They define it as 'the application of high-throughput data collection and analysis to the study of human culture'. Most people in this business I imagine would normally talk of 'cultural history' or 'cultural evolution'. The language side of the project is familiar, as an exercise in historical corpus linguistics. The new term may catch on, as it blends the two notions (culture and language) in a novel way. We'll just have to wait and see.
The news reports have homed in on an analogy the authors make in their paper. They say: 'The corpus cannot be read by a human. If you tried to read only the entries from the year 2000 alone, at the reasonable pace of 200 words/minute, without interruptions for food or sleep, it would take eighty years. The sequence of letters is one thousand times longer than the human genome'. This has led to such headlines as 'Cultural genome project mines Google Books for the secret history of humanity' or (in today's Guardian) 'Google creates a tool to probe "genome" of English words for cultural trends'. But it isn't anything like the human genome, which is the complete genetic account of an individual. Culture doesn't work in that way. The authors themselves don't use the phrase in their paper, and rightly so.
We mustn't exaggerate the significance of this project. It is no more than a collection of scanned books - an impressive collection, unprecedented in its size, and capable of displaying innumerable interesting trends, but far away from entire cultural reality. For a start, this is just a collection of books - no newspapers, magazines, advertisements, or other orthographic places where culture resides. No websites, blogs, social networking sites. No spoken language, of course, so over 90 percent of the daily linguistic usage of the world isn't here. Moreover, the books were selected from 'over 40 university libraries from around the world', supplemented by some books directly from publishers - so there will be limited coverage of the genres recognized in the categorization systems used in corpus linguistics . They were also, I imagine, books which presented no copyright difficulties. The final choice went through what must have been a huge filtering process. Evidently 15 million books were scanned, and 5 million selected partly on the basis of 'the quality of their OCR' [optical character recognition]. So this must mean that some types of text (those with a greater degree of orthographic regularity) will have been privileged over others.
It's still an impressively large sample, though. So what can we look for? To begin with, note that this is culture not just lexicology. No distinction is made between dictionary and encyclopedia. Anything that is a string of letters separated by a space [a 1-gram, they call it] can be searched for - including names of people, places, etc. They also searched for sequences of two strings (2-grams) and so on up to five [5-grams]. Only items which turned up more than 40 times in the corpus are displayed. So, to take one of their example, we can search for the usage of 'the Great War' [NB the searches are case sensitive], which peaks in frequency between 1915 and 1941, and for 'World War I', which then takes over. Note that, to achieve a comprehensive result, you would have to repeat the search for orthographic variations (eg 'The' for 'the' or '1' for 'I'].
A huge problem in doing this kind of thing is punctuation. I know, because I had to deal with it when carrying out a very similar string-related project in online advertising a few years ago. You have to deal with all the ways in which a punctuation mark can interfere with a string - 'radio' is different from 'radio,' for example. The culturonomists have collapsed word fragments at line-endings separated by a hyphen - though there's a problem when a non-omissible hyphen turns up at a line break. And they have treated punctuation marks as separate n-grams - so 'Why?' for example, is treated as 'Why' + '?'. They don't give details of their procedure, but it doesn't seem to work well. I searched for 'Radio 4', for example. The trace showed the usage taking off in the 1970s, as it should, but there were many instances shown before that decade. I found examples listed in the 1930s. How can that be? There was no Radio 4 then. When you click on the dates to see the sources, you find such instances as 'stereo with AM/FM radio, 4 speakers' and 'RADIO 4-INCH BLADE'.
The other big problem is homographs - words which look the same but which have different meanings. This is the biggest weakness in software which tries to do linguistic analysis, and it was the primary focus of the ad project I mentioned above. A news page which reported a street stabbing had ads down the side which read 'Buy your knives here'. The software had failed to distinguish the two senses of 'knife' (cutlery, weapons), and made the wrong association between text and ad inventory. I solved it by developing a notion of semantic targetting which used the full context of a web page to distinguish homographs. The Culturomics project has to solve the same problem, but on a larger scale (books rather than pages), and there is no sign that it has yet tried to do so. So, type 'Apple', say, into their system and you will see a large peak in the 1980s and 1990s - but is this due to the Beatles or the Mac? There's no way of knowing.
The approach, in other words, shows trends but can't interpret or explain them. It can't handle ambiguity or idiomaticity. If your query is unique and unambiguous, you'll get some interpretable results - as in their examples which trace the rise and fall of a celebrity (eg Greta Garbo, peaking in the 1930s). But even here one must be careful. They show Freud more frequent than Einstein, Galileo, and Darwin, and suggest that this is because he is 'more deeply engrained in our collective subconscious' thanks to such everyday phrases as 'Freudian slip'. But which Freud is being picked up in their totals? They assume Sigmund. But what about Lucian, Clement, Anna...?
Linguists will home in on the claims being made about vocabulary growth over time. Evidently their corpus shows 544K words in English in 1900, 597K in 1950, and 1022K in 2000, and claim that around 8500 words a year have entered English during the last century (though of course only some achieve a permanent presence). These totals are pointing in the right direction, avoiding the underestimates that are common (and incidentally showing yet again how absurd that claim was a year ago about the millionth word entering English). The real figures will of course be much higher, once other genres are taken into account.
They point out that their totals far exceed the totals in dictionaries, and - one of the most interesting findings reported - say that over half the words in their corpus (52%) are what they call 'lexical dark matter'. These are words that don't make it into dictionaries, because they are uncommon, and dictionaries focus on recording the higher frequency words in a language. Their figure is probably a bit high, as (as mentioned above) this project includes proper names as well as nouns, and nobody would want to say that knowledge of proper names is a sign of linguistic ability. (I am reminded of the old Music Hall joke: 'I say, I say, I say, I can speak French'. 'I didn't know you could speak French. Let me hear you speak French.' 'Bordeaux, Calais, Nice...')
This 'cultural observatory' has given us a fascinating tool to play with, and some interesting discoveries will come out of it, especially when one types competing usages into the Ngram Viewer, such as the choice between alternative forms of a verb (eg dreamed/dreamt). There's nothing new about this, of course, as other corpora have done the same thing; but the scale of the enterprise makes this project different (though limited by its academic library origins). For instance, I typed in 'actually to do' and 'to actually do' to see whether there is a trend in the increasing usage of the split infinitive, and there certainly is, with a dramatic increase since 1980. The spelling of 'judgment' without an 'e' has been steadily falling since the 1920s, with the form with an 'e' having a stronger presence in British English [it is possible to search separately for British and American English]. Enough, already. As with all corpora, it gets addictive.
What has happened is that a team of researchers have collaborated with Google Books to present a corpus of nearly 5.2 million digitized books, which they think is around 4 per cent of all published books. The corpus size is 500 billion words, 361 billion being English (the others from six languages - French, Spanish, German, Chinese, Russian, Hebrew). The time frame is 1800 to 2000. This is now available for online searching, and there's a site where you can type in your own words or word-sets and see how they have developed over time. There is a report on the project here. The full report can be read in the journal Science, though you have to register first.
The name culturomics is an odd one, presumably based on ergonomics, economics, and suchlike. They define it as 'the application of high-throughput data collection and analysis to the study of human culture'. Most people in this business I imagine would normally talk of 'cultural history' or 'cultural evolution'. The language side of the project is familiar, as an exercise in historical corpus linguistics. The new term may catch on, as it blends the two notions (culture and language) in a novel way. We'll just have to wait and see.
The news reports have homed in on an analogy the authors make in their paper. They say: 'The corpus cannot be read by a human. If you tried to read only the entries from the year 2000 alone, at the reasonable pace of 200 words/minute, without interruptions for food or sleep, it would take eighty years. The sequence of letters is one thousand times longer than the human genome'. This has led to such headlines as 'Cultural genome project mines Google Books for the secret history of humanity' or (in today's Guardian) 'Google creates a tool to probe "genome" of English words for cultural trends'. But it isn't anything like the human genome, which is the complete genetic account of an individual. Culture doesn't work in that way. The authors themselves don't use the phrase in their paper, and rightly so.
We mustn't exaggerate the significance of this project. It is no more than a collection of scanned books - an impressive collection, unprecedented in its size, and capable of displaying innumerable interesting trends, but far away from entire cultural reality. For a start, this is just a collection of books - no newspapers, magazines, advertisements, or other orthographic places where culture resides. No websites, blogs, social networking sites. No spoken language, of course, so over 90 percent of the daily linguistic usage of the world isn't here. Moreover, the books were selected from 'over 40 university libraries from around the world', supplemented by some books directly from publishers - so there will be limited coverage of the genres recognized in the categorization systems used in corpus linguistics . They were also, I imagine, books which presented no copyright difficulties. The final choice went through what must have been a huge filtering process. Evidently 15 million books were scanned, and 5 million selected partly on the basis of 'the quality of their OCR' [optical character recognition]. So this must mean that some types of text (those with a greater degree of orthographic regularity) will have been privileged over others.
It's still an impressively large sample, though. So what can we look for? To begin with, note that this is culture not just lexicology. No distinction is made between dictionary and encyclopedia. Anything that is a string of letters separated by a space [a 1-gram, they call it] can be searched for - including names of people, places, etc. They also searched for sequences of two strings (2-grams) and so on up to five [5-grams]. Only items which turned up more than 40 times in the corpus are displayed. So, to take one of their example, we can search for the usage of 'the Great War' [NB the searches are case sensitive], which peaks in frequency between 1915 and 1941, and for 'World War I', which then takes over. Note that, to achieve a comprehensive result, you would have to repeat the search for orthographic variations (eg 'The' for 'the' or '1' for 'I'].
A huge problem in doing this kind of thing is punctuation. I know, because I had to deal with it when carrying out a very similar string-related project in online advertising a few years ago. You have to deal with all the ways in which a punctuation mark can interfere with a string - 'radio' is different from 'radio,' for example. The culturonomists have collapsed word fragments at line-endings separated by a hyphen - though there's a problem when a non-omissible hyphen turns up at a line break. And they have treated punctuation marks as separate n-grams - so 'Why?' for example, is treated as 'Why' + '?'. They don't give details of their procedure, but it doesn't seem to work well. I searched for 'Radio 4', for example. The trace showed the usage taking off in the 1970s, as it should, but there were many instances shown before that decade. I found examples listed in the 1930s. How can that be? There was no Radio 4 then. When you click on the dates to see the sources, you find such instances as 'stereo with AM/FM radio, 4 speakers' and 'RADIO 4-INCH BLADE'.
The other big problem is homographs - words which look the same but which have different meanings. This is the biggest weakness in software which tries to do linguistic analysis, and it was the primary focus of the ad project I mentioned above. A news page which reported a street stabbing had ads down the side which read 'Buy your knives here'. The software had failed to distinguish the two senses of 'knife' (cutlery, weapons), and made the wrong association between text and ad inventory. I solved it by developing a notion of semantic targetting which used the full context of a web page to distinguish homographs. The Culturomics project has to solve the same problem, but on a larger scale (books rather than pages), and there is no sign that it has yet tried to do so. So, type 'Apple', say, into their system and you will see a large peak in the 1980s and 1990s - but is this due to the Beatles or the Mac? There's no way of knowing.
The approach, in other words, shows trends but can't interpret or explain them. It can't handle ambiguity or idiomaticity. If your query is unique and unambiguous, you'll get some interpretable results - as in their examples which trace the rise and fall of a celebrity (eg Greta Garbo, peaking in the 1930s). But even here one must be careful. They show Freud more frequent than Einstein, Galileo, and Darwin, and suggest that this is because he is 'more deeply engrained in our collective subconscious' thanks to such everyday phrases as 'Freudian slip'. But which Freud is being picked up in their totals? They assume Sigmund. But what about Lucian, Clement, Anna...?
Linguists will home in on the claims being made about vocabulary growth over time. Evidently their corpus shows 544K words in English in 1900, 597K in 1950, and 1022K in 2000, and claim that around 8500 words a year have entered English during the last century (though of course only some achieve a permanent presence). These totals are pointing in the right direction, avoiding the underestimates that are common (and incidentally showing yet again how absurd that claim was a year ago about the millionth word entering English). The real figures will of course be much higher, once other genres are taken into account.
They point out that their totals far exceed the totals in dictionaries, and - one of the most interesting findings reported - say that over half the words in their corpus (52%) are what they call 'lexical dark matter'. These are words that don't make it into dictionaries, because they are uncommon, and dictionaries focus on recording the higher frequency words in a language. Their figure is probably a bit high, as (as mentioned above) this project includes proper names as well as nouns, and nobody would want to say that knowledge of proper names is a sign of linguistic ability. (I am reminded of the old Music Hall joke: 'I say, I say, I say, I can speak French'. 'I didn't know you could speak French. Let me hear you speak French.' 'Bordeaux, Calais, Nice...')
This 'cultural observatory' has given us a fascinating tool to play with, and some interesting discoveries will come out of it, especially when one types competing usages into the Ngram Viewer, such as the choice between alternative forms of a verb (eg dreamed/dreamt). There's nothing new about this, of course, as other corpora have done the same thing; but the scale of the enterprise makes this project different (though limited by its academic library origins). For instance, I typed in 'actually to do' and 'to actually do' to see whether there is a trend in the increasing usage of the split infinitive, and there certainly is, with a dramatic increase since 1980. The spelling of 'judgment' without an 'e' has been steadily falling since the 1920s, with the form with an 'e' having a stronger presence in British English [it is possible to search separately for British and American English]. Enough, already. As with all corpora, it gets addictive.
Tuesday, 14 December 2010
On being a champion of - what?
Several correspondents, having read Michael Rosen's generous piece about me in this week's Guardian, have asked what I think about being called, as the headline put it, 'the champion of the English language'.
Well, my first thought was: not just English. If I try to champion anything, it is language, and specifically languages, and most specifically, endangered languages. English is a language, so it gets championed. It also happens to be the language which I chose to specialize in, years ago, so in that sense I guess I'm identified with it more than any other. But I'd be sad if anyone thought to interpret the headline as if it meant that I was supporting English at the expense of other languages. In fact I probably spend more time these days making the case for the importance of modern languages, and trying to get endangered languages projects off the ground. The Threlford lecture I gave a few months ago to the Institute of Linguists, was entirely on that subject, for example, as will be a lecture to the British Academy next February. And we are still a long way from the goal of having 'houses' of language(s) presenting global linguistic diversity in all its glory. The first to open, as regular readers of this blog know, will be the 'House of Languages' in Barcelona (see the website at Linguamon) - a project I know very well, as I've been chair of its scientific advisory committee from the beginning. I've tried, and failed, twice, to get a similar project off the ground in the UK. One keeps trying.
Another first is the event with which Michael ended his piece: the 'Evolving English' exhibition at the British Library. This is indeed an amazing exhibition, and it was a privilege to be associated with it. It is like having the history of English brought to life. A significant number of the important texts always instanced in histories of the language are in the same room. You are greeted by the glorious Undley bracteate. You find yourself within inches of the Beowulf manuscript. In one cabinet you can see, side by side, the Wycliffe Bible, the Tyndale fragment, the Book of Common Prayer, and the King James Bible. The curators have been ingenious, not to say cheeky: in another cabinet you will see the first English conversation, Aelfric's Colloquy; next to it is a manuscript of Harold Pinter. Everywhere you look there are headphones. A visit is not just a visual experience. The Library has an excellent collection of sound recordings, and great efforts have been made to provide an analogous audio experience for the texts of the past. If you are passing through London between now and 3 April 2011, visit this exhibition. There won't be another for a long long time.
I was the lead consultant for the exhibition - not the curator, as some online sources have put it (the three curators are British Library staff) - and wrote the accompanying book. This isn't, incidentally, a 'catalogue' of the exhibition, as some reports have suggested. It did begin as an attempt to reflect what would be in the exhibition, but it had to go to press some six months before the exhibition opened, and in the interim other decisions were made about what it was practicable to show. There were some very large display items that it would have been silly to try to fit into a book (World War I posters, for example); and conversely, there were some items that worked well in a book but which were simply too fragile to put on public display. Also, none of the audio items could go into the book - though several are available online, in the Timeline section of the Library website. There's about a two-thirds overlap in content between book and exhibition.
What's really noticeable, when you enter the exhibition, is the lack of a single chronology. Rather, what you see is a series of themes - the evolution of Standard English, local dialects of English, international varieties of English, everyday English, English in the workplace, English at play. The message is plain: there is no one 'story' of English, there are many, each of which has its own validity. It is the driving force behind my The Stories of English, which I used as the guideline for my initial proposals to the Library as to what should be in an exhibition, when the project was first mooted three years ago. What I hope, more than anything else, is that the exhibition will, through its physicality, demonstrate more than any textbook could, the way the language thrives through its multifaceted character. We see Standard English strongly represented - the prestige dialect of the language, the criterion of linguistic educatedness and the means of achieving national and international intelligibility, especially in writing. At the same time, we see regional dialects and other varieties of nonstandard English strongly represented - the varieties which express local, national, and international identity, and which are actually used by the vast majority of English speakers around the world. The atmosphere in the Library is one of mutual respect.
It would be nice to think that this atmosphere will remain after the exhibition is gone, and perhaps it will, through the book and the website. Linguistic climate change there still needs to be. The comments that followed Michael Rosen's article clearly indicate this. There is a great deal of mythology still around - for example, the unfounded belief that linguists say that 'anything goes', when it comes to language teaching in class. Readers of this blog with very long memories will recall that this was something John Humphrys said about me. He eventually apologised, in The Spectator, saying that he was only a journalist, and the role of the journalist was to simplify and exaggerate. But such simplifications and exaggerations do a great deal of harm. So, for the record, once again, and hopefully for the last time: I have never said that 'anything goes' when it comes to language. Read my lips. I have never said that 'anything goes' when it comes to language. Nor do I know of any linguist who has said such a thing. The whole point of sociolinguistics, pragmatics, and the other branches of linguistics which study language in use is actually to show that 'anything does not go'. The only people who use the phrase 'anything goes' are prescriptivists desperately trying to justify their prejudices.
If people want to find out about my educational linguistic philosophy they will find it expounded, for example, at the end of The Stories of English and in various chapters of The Fight for English. It can be summarized as follows. It is the role of schools to prepare children for the linguistic demands that society places upon them. This means being competent in Standard English as well as in the nonstandard varieties that form a part of their lives and which they will frequently encounter outside their home environment in modern English literature, in interactions with people from other parts of the English-speaking world, and especially on the internet. They have to know when to spell and punctuate according to educated norms, and when it is permissible not do so. In a word, they have to know how to manage the language - or to be masters of it (as Humpty Dumpty says to Alice in Through the Looking Glass). And, one day, to be champions of it - all of it.
Well, my first thought was: not just English. If I try to champion anything, it is language, and specifically languages, and most specifically, endangered languages. English is a language, so it gets championed. It also happens to be the language which I chose to specialize in, years ago, so in that sense I guess I'm identified with it more than any other. But I'd be sad if anyone thought to interpret the headline as if it meant that I was supporting English at the expense of other languages. In fact I probably spend more time these days making the case for the importance of modern languages, and trying to get endangered languages projects off the ground. The Threlford lecture I gave a few months ago to the Institute of Linguists, was entirely on that subject, for example, as will be a lecture to the British Academy next February. And we are still a long way from the goal of having 'houses' of language(s) presenting global linguistic diversity in all its glory. The first to open, as regular readers of this blog know, will be the 'House of Languages' in Barcelona (see the website at Linguamon) - a project I know very well, as I've been chair of its scientific advisory committee from the beginning. I've tried, and failed, twice, to get a similar project off the ground in the UK. One keeps trying.
Another first is the event with which Michael ended his piece: the 'Evolving English' exhibition at the British Library. This is indeed an amazing exhibition, and it was a privilege to be associated with it. It is like having the history of English brought to life. A significant number of the important texts always instanced in histories of the language are in the same room. You are greeted by the glorious Undley bracteate. You find yourself within inches of the Beowulf manuscript. In one cabinet you can see, side by side, the Wycliffe Bible, the Tyndale fragment, the Book of Common Prayer, and the King James Bible. The curators have been ingenious, not to say cheeky: in another cabinet you will see the first English conversation, Aelfric's Colloquy; next to it is a manuscript of Harold Pinter. Everywhere you look there are headphones. A visit is not just a visual experience. The Library has an excellent collection of sound recordings, and great efforts have been made to provide an analogous audio experience for the texts of the past. If you are passing through London between now and 3 April 2011, visit this exhibition. There won't be another for a long long time.
I was the lead consultant for the exhibition - not the curator, as some online sources have put it (the three curators are British Library staff) - and wrote the accompanying book. This isn't, incidentally, a 'catalogue' of the exhibition, as some reports have suggested. It did begin as an attempt to reflect what would be in the exhibition, but it had to go to press some six months before the exhibition opened, and in the interim other decisions were made about what it was practicable to show. There were some very large display items that it would have been silly to try to fit into a book (World War I posters, for example); and conversely, there were some items that worked well in a book but which were simply too fragile to put on public display. Also, none of the audio items could go into the book - though several are available online, in the Timeline section of the Library website. There's about a two-thirds overlap in content between book and exhibition.
What's really noticeable, when you enter the exhibition, is the lack of a single chronology. Rather, what you see is a series of themes - the evolution of Standard English, local dialects of English, international varieties of English, everyday English, English in the workplace, English at play. The message is plain: there is no one 'story' of English, there are many, each of which has its own validity. It is the driving force behind my The Stories of English, which I used as the guideline for my initial proposals to the Library as to what should be in an exhibition, when the project was first mooted three years ago. What I hope, more than anything else, is that the exhibition will, through its physicality, demonstrate more than any textbook could, the way the language thrives through its multifaceted character. We see Standard English strongly represented - the prestige dialect of the language, the criterion of linguistic educatedness and the means of achieving national and international intelligibility, especially in writing. At the same time, we see regional dialects and other varieties of nonstandard English strongly represented - the varieties which express local, national, and international identity, and which are actually used by the vast majority of English speakers around the world. The atmosphere in the Library is one of mutual respect.
It would be nice to think that this atmosphere will remain after the exhibition is gone, and perhaps it will, through the book and the website. Linguistic climate change there still needs to be. The comments that followed Michael Rosen's article clearly indicate this. There is a great deal of mythology still around - for example, the unfounded belief that linguists say that 'anything goes', when it comes to language teaching in class. Readers of this blog with very long memories will recall that this was something John Humphrys said about me. He eventually apologised, in The Spectator, saying that he was only a journalist, and the role of the journalist was to simplify and exaggerate. But such simplifications and exaggerations do a great deal of harm. So, for the record, once again, and hopefully for the last time: I have never said that 'anything goes' when it comes to language. Read my lips. I have never said that 'anything goes' when it comes to language. Nor do I know of any linguist who has said such a thing. The whole point of sociolinguistics, pragmatics, and the other branches of linguistics which study language in use is actually to show that 'anything does not go'. The only people who use the phrase 'anything goes' are prescriptivists desperately trying to justify their prejudices.
If people want to find out about my educational linguistic philosophy they will find it expounded, for example, at the end of The Stories of English and in various chapters of The Fight for English. It can be summarized as follows. It is the role of schools to prepare children for the linguistic demands that society places upon them. This means being competent in Standard English as well as in the nonstandard varieties that form a part of their lives and which they will frequently encounter outside their home environment in modern English literature, in interactions with people from other parts of the English-speaking world, and especially on the internet. They have to know when to spell and punctuate according to educated norms, and when it is permissible not do so. In a word, they have to know how to manage the language - or to be masters of it (as Humpty Dumpty says to Alice in Through the Looking Glass). And, one day, to be champions of it - all of it.
Thursday, 4 November 2010
On shellacking
A correspondent (from Radio 4's 'World At One') rings up to ask me about the origins of shellacking, which has received a new lease of life thanks to President Obama's use of it yesterday. How did shellac develop the meaning of 'thrashing, beating'? There's no obvious link, she said.
True. To see what happened, you have to know the intermediate stage in the development of this word. The original meaning of the verb 'to varnish with shellac' (a type of resin) is known from the late 19th century. Anything that had been 'shellacked' would have a nice rosy tinge. By the 1920s, in the USA, this effect had evidently been enough to motivate a slang use of the word meaning 'drunk'. Rosey, illuminated, and plastered show similar developments - all early 20th-century slang.
At the same time, drunks were also being described using such words as busted, bombed, crashed, and thrashed. So it's not surprising to see these words sharing their associations. The connotations of thrashing transferred to shellac, which then developed its later slang sense of 'badly beaten'. I've only every heard this used in US English - but all that is about to change. I predict it will turn up in the House of Commons within the next few days.
So, drink is the link.
True. To see what happened, you have to know the intermediate stage in the development of this word. The original meaning of the verb 'to varnish with shellac' (a type of resin) is known from the late 19th century. Anything that had been 'shellacked' would have a nice rosy tinge. By the 1920s, in the USA, this effect had evidently been enough to motivate a slang use of the word meaning 'drunk'. Rosey, illuminated, and plastered show similar developments - all early 20th-century slang.
At the same time, drunks were also being described using such words as busted, bombed, crashed, and thrashed. So it's not surprising to see these words sharing their associations. The connotations of thrashing transferred to shellac, which then developed its later slang sense of 'badly beaten'. I've only every heard this used in US English - but all that is about to change. I predict it will turn up in the House of Commons within the next few days.
So, drink is the link.
Tuesday, 2 November 2010
On plays, parrots, and plurilinguals
A correspondent has just sent me details of a new play on endangered languages. In fact, two. It's like London buses. None come for ages, and then two come along at once.
Kamarra Bell Wykes has written Mother's Tongue, being staged this month by the Yirra Yakin Aboriginal Corporation in Perth, Australia. And Julia Cho has written The Language Archive, currently being staged in New York. You can see the post, from Peter Austin, here.
It's great to hear of these initiatives. I last posted on this subject on 8 January 2007, when I continued to bemoan the lack of arts projects presenting the theme of endangered languages and language death. My own play, Living On, was on its own then. Happily, no longer.
And another correspondent has added a fresh dimension to the famous story about the parrots speaking an extinct language, the inspiration behind Rachel Berwick's living sculpture that I mentioned in the 2007 post. You'll find that here.
And while on the subject of language diversity, another two-bus situation. Bilingualism, this time. Despite bilingualism being the normal human condition, a huge mythology has grown up around it, with monolingual communities being a bit scared of it and certainly not understanding it. Earlier this year, Madalena Cruz-Ferreira wrote a lovely little book, aimed at the general public, about the myths and realities of being bilingual, called Multilinguals are...? (Battlebridge Publications). And now she has started a blog on bilingualism. So has François Grosjean, whose fine book Bilingual: Life and Reality (Harvard University Press) also came out earlier this year. His blog is here. It seems to me that we are seeing a new climate slowly being formed.
Kamarra Bell Wykes has written Mother's Tongue, being staged this month by the Yirra Yakin Aboriginal Corporation in Perth, Australia. And Julia Cho has written The Language Archive, currently being staged in New York. You can see the post, from Peter Austin, here.
It's great to hear of these initiatives. I last posted on this subject on 8 January 2007, when I continued to bemoan the lack of arts projects presenting the theme of endangered languages and language death. My own play, Living On, was on its own then. Happily, no longer.
And another correspondent has added a fresh dimension to the famous story about the parrots speaking an extinct language, the inspiration behind Rachel Berwick's living sculpture that I mentioned in the 2007 post. You'll find that here.
And while on the subject of language diversity, another two-bus situation. Bilingualism, this time. Despite bilingualism being the normal human condition, a huge mythology has grown up around it, with monolingual communities being a bit scared of it and certainly not understanding it. Earlier this year, Madalena Cruz-Ferreira wrote a lovely little book, aimed at the general public, about the myths and realities of being bilingual, called Multilinguals are...? (Battlebridge Publications). And now she has started a blog on bilingualism. So has François Grosjean, whose fine book Bilingual: Life and Reality (Harvard University Press) also came out earlier this year. His blog is here. It seems to me that we are seeing a new climate slowly being formed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)