Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz>
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: King James Bible published (traditional date) (2-1-1611)
Date: Sat, 4 May 2024 21:45:01 +1200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <v15031$153cp$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v13kve$omh9$1@dont-email.me> <87seyyi154.fsf@parhasard.net>
Reply-To: r.clark@auckland.ac.nz
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 04 May 2024 11:45:06 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c8cd465ee357efee0effcecdc086e5ee";
	logging-data="1215897"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/sWyzsD1J7fIjukd+bWiUSIHkKqifFUi8="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.9.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2ikKwZJOeUpZqj36zlldHbSHreo=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <87seyyi154.fsf@parhasard.net>
Bytes: 2061

On 4/05/2024 5:42 p.m., Aidan Kehoe wrote:
> 
>   Ar an ceathrú lá de mí Bealtaine, scríobh Ross Clark:
> 
>   > Why "traditional date"?
>   >
>   > Because the KJV was classified as a revision rather than a fresh
>   > translation, it does not appear in the registry of new books known as the
>   > Stationers' Register....we are left without any knowledge of when in 1611
>   > the KJV began to be sold.... - Gordon Campbell, _Bible: The Story of the
>   > King James Version 1611-2011_ (quoted by Crystal)
>   >
>   > It was not a fresh translation because it often continues earlier
>   > translations such as that of Tyndale and Coverdale (see 20 January).
>   >
>   > But we are left without any knowledge of the whence and by whom of the May 2
>   > "myth".
> 
> I take it the second of January (or the first of February) of the subject line
> was not intended?
> 
Oops