Here's a Page from the original 1611 printing of the King James

[MineralMan]

Translation of the Bible:



This is the Bible people were reading in the 17th Century. Spellings weren't the same as they are today, and the typeface in use in this edition seems rather strange to most readers today. Just 400 years ago. Most people would quickly put this down if that was the only version of the Bible they had access to. It's just too hard to read now. We can still make it out in 2018, but who has the patience to read it in that form?

Just 400 years. The language has changed a great deal in that time. Now, go back to the year 1000. Here's what English looked like then, from an early manuscript of Beowulf in Old English:



Can't make that out at all, can you? Few can. Some scholars can read it, although they really have no idea what Old English sounded like. It's funny to hear different scholars try to read it aloud. They're all over the place. Nobody has heard Old English for 1000 years.

If we go back 2000 years to the year 1 CE, English didn't exist, and the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic of early Bible texts is as hard to make out today as the Old English of Beowulf, or even harder. Here's an image of an early Bible Text, specifically Matthew 24:



So, why do we think what we find in our copy of a recent translation of the Bible says the same thing as that early copy of the Book of Matthew? It doesn't. Not a chance. What we read today is someone's impression of what it originally said. It's someone's guess. It's someone's scholarship, of course, but how does language survive for 2000 years intact? It doesn't. Period.

It's worth thinking about.

[zipplewrath]

1. Hardly call it a "guess"

The scholars that do this work are doing more than "guessing". There is some extrapolation in their work, but it is based upon more than the single text that is being "updated".

By the by, it is fairly well understood in academia that the King James version isn't anywhere close to the "best" translation. It baffles me why certain sects continue to use it.

Fun fact though, if you wanna hear someone speak with a typical dialect from Dickensian period, apparently going to rural Georgia is about as close as you'll get.

[MineralMan]

3. OK. Whatever you say, then.

As for the sounds, I've posted some samples of English spoken as it was at different periods just below. Of course, nobody really knows, but the pronunciation is based on scholarship.

[Major Nikon]

8. Explanation can be found in post#6

[MineralMan]

2. And what did English sound like in olden days:

Here's someone reading Beowulf aloud (about 1000 CE) Note: Is this correct? Nobody knows.:

And here's someone reading from Chaucer's Canterbury Tales (about 1400 CE) Note: probably closer to the actual sound:

Finally, here's someone reading a Shakespeare Sonnet as the English of 1611 was pronounced:

These samples are based on scholarship alone, since nobody has heard English spoken from those time periods.

[exboyfil]

4. Good study Bibles attempt to address these issues

They will often show alternative texts (like the ending of Mark) and also discuss where scholars are unsure of translations. They dive deep into writings outside the Bible for understanding of what is said in the Bible.

Of course at the end of the day, everyone has their own ax to grind. It is amazing how interpretations fit one's own belief system.

I use the ESV Study Bible. I also have a couple of NIV study Bibles. I also have the complete Daily Study Bible commentary (New Testament by Barclay). My goal when I retire is to read it from cover to cover. I now use it mostly for Bible studies.

I am not sure what I am now. The church I am still a member of has way too many fundamentalists. We have folks that cycle between being church staff and Republican politicians. I sent three months fighting in a Sunday morning class over "The Truth Project" which is one of the most sickening displays of Republican Christo-fundamentalism I have ever seen.

The thing is I genuinely love these people. I recently gave a bunch of my homeschool materials to our Junior high youth director who husband was an attendant at my wedding.

[MineralMan]

5. Yes, they attempt to do that.

Whatever translation one uses, though, and there are dozens upon dozens of them, it's like the end of a game of Telephone, really. Almost 2000 years of language passed on and translated by various scholars of variable abilities.

And then there were the political manipulations by those who created the official Canon.

I've read the entire Bible through half a dozen times, using different translations for each reading. I recommend it as an exercise. Few bother to do that.

[watoos]

26. Furthering your point,

there are modern day writers like Ekhard Tolle, who quote the bible, mainly Paul, and come away with an explanation quite different than what religion teaches. Buddhist writers also come to similar conclusions.

Tolle claims that Adam and Eve lost being conscious. They let their egos run their lives. All of these religious people today waiting patiently for "heaven," aren't going to like Tolle's definition of heaven. Heaven means enlightenment, a return to consciousness.

That's just people talking about the New Testament, as my daughter says about the Old Testament, if that's the mean and nasty god I am supposed to worship, leave me out.

[MineralMan]

32. When we turn to look at explainers and explicators

of the bible, we open a case of cans of worms. We get apologetics, eisegesis, fanciful forays into dubious linguistics, and much, much more. One can find a host of people who pontificate on the meaning of any important passage in the Bible. Each one of them brings to the discussion his or her own biases, education or miseducation, and interpretive imagination.

It's an amusing thing to do - looking at various writers talking about the same passage. It's also time-consuming and, in the end, unsatisfying. There is no unity in it. Each self-styled scholar has some ax to grind and some point of view to maintain.

What happens, in most cases, is that people find their favorites among Bible "experts" and return to those people to answer their questions. Christianity has split again and again into countless denominations based on those various interpretations of what is suppose to be "god-given truth."

Christianity cannot even agree on what is a correct translation into English or other languages. It's a self-perpetuating business to come up with the next "inspired" translation, and teams of scholars labor to produce the definitive version.

It would be laughable if only people did not take all of this so seriously. They do, though, and I cannot see any end to the splintering and arguing over what should be the most basic part of any religion - it's scripture.

[Major Nikon]

6. There's a good reason why many Christians reject anything other than the KJV

The KJV contains something called the Johannine Comma. It's essentially the proof many Christians cite for the trinity doctrine. The problem is it didn't appear in earlier versions and biblical historians attribute it as a creative edit added several centuries later. Most modern translations either omit it entirely or add a footnote explaining the forgery. Without it there's no canonical reference to the trinity.

1 John 5: 7-8 New International Version (NIV)

7 For there are three that testify: 8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
Footnotes:

1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)

[MineralMan]

9. Yes. In almost 2000 years of translations, edits and manipulations,

how many such alterations and insertions are part of what people now read? Since none of the Gospels are contemporaneous with the main character, one wonders how much was made from whole cloth from the very beginning of the written Gospels. Paul's epistles, of course, may be more authentic. Maybe. It's all a hodgepodge of fragments, put together as best people were able to do, or stitched together with goals in mind.

Nobody knows. Truly, nobody knows. It's all hidden by the passage of time, secrets kept, and alternatives destroyed.

[Major Nikon]

13. Paul's epistles were only authentic to Paul

Paul described himself as an "apostle", but unlike the disciples never met Jesus. He was a religious huckster who started out denigrating Christians until he figured out the profit angle of bringing gentiles to the party.

[MineralMan]

18. Well, you're correct, of course.

Paul was a key figure, though, in the Romanization of Christianity. Indeed, Christianity today is more a Paulist religion than a Christ-centered one.

But, that's a different topic than the translation issue.

[zipplewrath]

20. Ah Paul!

There's a chance that Paul was basically crazy. He apparently believed the second coming was going to be "soon" and some of his writings are couched in that assumption. He is one of the early folks that perceived that in order to grow, what is now Christianity was going to have to cleave itself from Judaism. Why he perceived that of course is another question.

[Major Nikon]

21. There is an answer

Paul claimed the holy poltergeist whispered into his ear at a low moment in his life (I'm thinking at the end of a wine bender) and told him exactly what to do.

The reason Christianity had to depart from Judaism centered around the subject of circumcision. The problem Paul had was Mosaic law required Jewish men to be circumcised. Circumcision during a time of no sterilization of tools and no antibiotics was a risky proposition. It was one thing to do it to babies that had a high mortality rate anyway. It was quite another to volunteer for the process as an adult when you stood a good chance of pieces falling off or worse. In order to bring the rich Romans and Greeks to the party, Paul knew he had to change the law. There was quite a bit of division in the early church over the subject.

So it really wasn't all that crazy. Just the workings of a religious huckster who was better at his craft than most.

[zipplewrath]

23. Well that, and...

There was alot of jewish law at the time that was problematic in what became western society. For its day, jewish law and customs were fairly strict. But beyond that, if you are going to try to expand a religion, you sorta have to get away from that whole "chosen people" shtick. And by separating, Paul basically got to be the "head" of this religion and make alot of the rules. It wasn't the first time this would be done and it will never be the last either.

[Pope George Ringo II]

60. I gather circumcision was not much of a selling point, too.

Relatively few men at the time seemed all that keen on the idea.

[TomVilmer]

25. ... but he was a very good writer

Paul's stuff is some of the most poetic and quotable even for our more modern time. I even forgive him for I Corinthians 14:34-35, since it is very probably a later addition. And I translate I Corinthians 11:2-16 so, that "if anyone thinks this to be contentious, we do not have such a custom" - since it would be a better world with all forgiving gods. BTW - I am in no way a man of faith.

[Major Nikon]

48. The best hucksters are quite articulate and persuasive

How else do you get people to give you lots of money while providing nothing in return?

[LongtimeAZDem]

49. Indeed; Paul was a first-century L. Ron Hubbard or Joseph Smith. /nt

[MineralMan]

51. Interesting comparison!

[Raven123]

7. Also of note, it is not easy to find words of equivalent when translating

And as we all know, the meaning of words on our own language changes over time. Until relatively recently, a mouse was understood only as a small rodent.

[MineralMan]

10. Yes, absolutely.

[Major Nikon]

11. True

The meaning of words changes over time in all languages. This is even more true during a time when the vast majority of the population was illiterate and dictionaries didn't exist.

For an accurate translation, it's not only important to know what words are being used, but when and where and by whom. For almost all of the bible, we just don't know any of those things. Meanwhile documents in antiquity were highly frangible which required them to be rescribed periodically and during this process other errors were produced.

[MineralMan]

19. And even a mouse (the rodent) is a changeable thing.

My dog brought a short-tailed shrew (very dead and somewhat chewed up) into the house through the dog flap. My wife, who was carefully trained to be afraid of mice by her mother (may she rest in peace), shrieked lightly and called on me to "Get rid of that dead mouse."

I explained to her that is was actually a short-tailed shrew, one of the tiniest of predators, but she did not care for the biology lesson. "Just get it out of the house!" she exclaimed.

Any small furry mammal is a mouse to her. And so it will always be, I suppose. There is no point in my pointing out the difference between a rodent and a shrew.

[erronis]

22. Similar reaction in my house. Another group of humans seem afraid of mice (and -like creatures)

(R)epuglicons - the elephants in the house. ---Sorry.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

12. Your (apparently rhetorical) question ...

... does have answer. It’s called “textual criticism,” and it is a process that scholars use to reconstruct the original content of ancient writings where the autographs, the original manuscripts, have long since disappeared and all that is extant are later-in-time copies or fragments of copies.

Textual criticism is an academic/scholarly “science” that has been around since at least the 19th century, and is used with respect to ancient manuscripts in addition to the Bible.

You know, sometimes, before coming up with “something to think about” ideas that are even less than half-baked, there’s something to be said for a person setting aside their intellectual presumptions/arrogance and actually trying to educate oneself, as opposed to just pulling one’s bright ideas out of their ignorant ... uh, out of thin air.

Something to think about.

[Major Nikon]

15. I'm not sure what question you are trying to answer

Looks more like a non-sequitur.

[MineralMan]

16. Yes. I understand that.

My point is that errors and changes are still inevitable over time. If that were not so, we would have a standard translation in each language. We do not have such a thing. Instead, we have new translations or interpretations introduced on a frequent basis.

Are the latest translations the best ones? Oh, probably not.

The problem remains, and will always remain.

As for your final paragraph, I'm not writing a scholarly work here. This is DU, not a theological seminary, nor a linguistics seminar.

[watoos]

34. What about this thought?

Even if everything was translated perfectly as intended, are scholars missing the real meaning of what was written?

As I said in my other post, when Paul speaks of the 2nd coming of Christ was he actually speaking of a physical event or was he speaking of people going back to being conscious like before Adam and Eve ate the apple? Does going to heaven mean going to a physical place or does it really mean becoming enlightened?

[MineralMan]

52. More interesting questions. I don't know.

[BlueSky3]

61. Have you read Bart Ehrman?

Bart Ehrman's book Misquoting Jesus was a real eye-opener for me, and it certainly backs up what you've said here. Here's the description of his book from Amazon for anyone who's interested:

"When world-class biblical scholar Bart Ehrman first began to study the texts of the Bible in their original languages he was startled to discover the multitude of mistakes and intentional alterations that had been made by earlier translators. In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman tells the story behind the mistakes and changes that ancient scribes made to the New Testament and shows the great impact they had upon the Bible we use today. ..."

[MineralMan]

62. No, but I'll check it out when I have time.

Thanks!

[classof56]

66. Misquoting Jesus led to me questioning my life-long fundamentalist beliefs

Ehrman's book God's Problem resulted in me, finally, becoming an atheist. Conflicts followed, but I am now at peace with my decision. I would recommend both books to all the truth seekers out there.

Blessings.

[MarvinGardens]

70. Thanks for the rec.

I have read the first one. Will now check out God's Problem.

[zipplewrath]

24. Unfortunately

You know, sometimes, before coming up with “something to think about” ideas that are even less than half-baked, there’s something to be said for a person setting aside their intellectual presumptions/arrogance and actually trying to educate oneself, as opposed to just pulling one’s bright ideas out of their ignorant ... uh, out of thin air.

That's fairly common in this particular group. It can be a bit like going back to 5th grade catechism.

[edhopper]

72. So your opinion is

scholars have come up with error free translations of the 1st Century Greek texts?

[Act_of_Reparation]

14. I'm still hoping eth and thorn make a comback sometime soon.

[MineralMan]

17. Wouldn't that be fun? Reintroduce old orthography.

What a concept.

[geardaddy]

31. Don't you mean...

Wouldn't ðæt be fun?

[MineralMan]

33. Exactly!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

29. They are alive and well in Iceland, the exception to the general rule

that languages change drastically over time. Here is the poem Heyr himna smiður in the original 12th-century Old Norse:

Heyr himna smiðr
hvers skáldit biðr;
komi mjúk til mín
miskunnin þín.
Því heitk á þik
þú hefr skaptan mik;
ek em þrællinn þinn,
þú est dróttinn minn.

Goð, heitk á þig
at græðir mik;
minzk mildingr mín,
mest þurfum þín;
ryð þú rǫðla gramr,
ríklyndr ok framr,
hǫlds hverri sorg
ór hjarta borg.

Gæt, mildingr, mín
mest þurfum þín
helzt hverja stund
á hǫlða grund;
sett, meyjar mǫgr,
málsefni fǫgr,
ǫll es hjǫ́lp af þér
í hjarta mér.

And here it is in modern Icelandic:

Heyr, himna smiður,
hvers skáldið biður.
Komi mjúk til mín
miskunnin þín.
Því heit eg á þig,
þú hefur skaptan mig.
Eg er þrællinn þinn,
þú ert drottinn minn.

Guð, heit eg á þig,
að þú græðir mig.
Minnst þú, mildingur, mín,
mest þurfum þín.
Ryð þú, röðla gramur,
ríklyndur og framur,
hölds hverri sorg
úr hjartaborg.

Gæt þú, mildingur, mín,
mest þurfum þín,
helzt hverja stund
á hölda grund.
Send þú, meyjar mögur,
málsefnin fögur,
öll er hjálp af þér,
í hjarta mér.

If you can read modern Icelandic you can read the sagas and the Eddas. Being isolated in the middle of the North Atlantic kind of helps keep your language from changing a lot.

[MineralMan]

35. Excellent example of how isolation tends to freeze language.

Thanks!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

39. And now they are trying to preserve it by avoiding loan-words

and inventing their own words for things that didn't exist in the 12th century. For example, the Icelandic word for "computer" is "tölva," which is a combination of two words meaning "number" and "prophetess." So a computer is a prophetess of numbers. https://gizmodo.com/icelandic-has-the-best-words-for-technology-1702697272

[MineralMan]

46. That's wonderful information!

I suspect it's a losing battle, in the end, though. The Vatican tries to keep loan-words out of Latin, too. Trying to preserve what is essentially a dead language is an interesting concept, I think.

The French Academie works hard to maintain the purity of French, but is probably working in vain, since the vernacular makes broad use of "le weekend," etc.

[Act_of_Reparation]

54. I mean I am hoping they make a comeback in English.

It isn't fair the Icelanders get to have all the fun.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

56. You can start the trend.

Ðat is to say, you can start ðe trend. Use ðese letters in all your writings. Oðers will copy you and I þink ðat soon ðey will be þoroughly assimilated into English. Won't ðat be a great þing?

[Act_of_Reparation]

57. Sounds like a blast.

Almost as fun as ðat time ðat møøse bit my sister.

[MineralMan]

63. LOL!

I'll need a new keyboard, though, I think.

[geardaddy]

30. They're still used in Icelandic.

As well as "ash" (æ)

[MineralMan]

41. Indeed they are. Someone else also pointed that out, just upthread.

[geardaddy]

58. Yep, I posted that just before I saw the response upthread.

[MineralMan]

59. The more, the merrier!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

43. It's still used in Norwegian and Danish.

Æ comes after Z and before Ø in the Norwegian alphabet.

[MarvinGardens]

27. I think you would be interested in this book.

"Misquoting Jesus" by Bart D. Ehrman

One interesting claim he makes, is that the story of Jesus saving the prostitute from stoning, was added by a scribe. I predict that even if most scholars come to accept this as true, churches will overwhelmingly use translations that include the passage. It's a good story, after all.

[MineralMan]

64. Well, now that two people have recommended that book,

I'll add it to my Amazon wish list.

[BlueSky3]

65. Bart Ehrman

Marvin Gardens, I should have read your post before posting a reply to Mineral Man upthread. But in any case, I second your recommendation!

[mart48]

28. From Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason

The Creation speaks a universal language,
independently of human speech or human
language, multiplied and various as they may
be. It is an ever-existing original, which every
man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot
be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be
altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not
depend upon the will of man whether it shall
be published or not; it publishes itself from
one end of the earth to the other. It preaches
to all the nations, and all the worlds. This
natural word of God reveals to us all that man
needs to know of God.

[MineralMan]

37. Some look it as a creation of some deity.

Others look it as a self-created continuum. It is the second group that is revealing the secrets of our universe, not the first.

I'm sticking with the curious folks who are looking to existence as it is, rather than looking for its creator. They're way more interesting, in the end.

[thucythucy]

36. There's another layer of ambiguity to add to what you've mentioned,

that there no doubt are cultural or historical connotations to certain words, phrases, place names, of which we may be entirely unaware.

Here's a poor analogy. We say "Hollywood" which is a place name, but it also describes an industry, a culture, even a way of seeing the world. As in, "That's the Hollywood ending to this story" or "Hollywood elites" or whatever. Imagine it's 2000 years in the future, and 90 to 99% of all written and recorded texts are lost (which is pretty much what's happened in the past 2000 years--most of what's been written no longer exists). A reader 20 centuries from now might see a reference to "Hollywood" and they'd have no understanding of the widely held but mostly unwritten 20th and 21st century connotations attached to that simple geographic reference. Probably not the best analogy in the world, but i hope it makes my point.

There is of course a voluminous scholarship on Biblical history and translation, of which I have only the most shallow understanding.

Best wishes.

[MineralMan]

40. That's a very good point. Thanks.

Language is a temporal thing. Constantly changing, its words ebb and flow in meaning at different times. Your example is a good one.

[MineralMan]

44. Another thing to consider today is

that much of what is written no longer appears in print on paper. Increasingly, written ideas exist only as data, stored on either media that will cease to function or in the "cloud," which is even more transient.

I used to write software, not that long ago, either. I shut down my little shareware company in about 2004. Not long ago, I looked at a box containing 3.5" floppy disk. On them was all of the source code for the software I had created. There is no disk drive in any of my current computers. That information is lost now. I suppose I could resurrect it and store it again on other media, but it is doomed, beyond a doubt.

So is what we're all writing here. In ten years it will doubtless not exist any longer.

[MineralMan]

38. This thread has become something unusual.

Somehow, it has sneaked onto the Trending list, so it's being seen and commented on by people who normally don't come to the Religion Group.

To those DUers, I say: WELCOME!

The Religion group is the most active of all Groups on Democratic Underground. If you find the discussion in this thread interesting, please consider subscribing to the Religion Group and joining in other discussions there.

[thbobby]

42. I study WW1

Well after printing press, obviously. On the verge of radio. But trying to learn about the war is difficult:

Each country's writings are biased to their propaganda.

Illiteracy was rampant among the common people. Especially the Russians.

Regional dialects were common among the common people.

Learning the cause of the war requires reading all sides and interpreting the truth. Newspapers were mostly government controlled so almost all views are biased.

The experiences of the common person are anecdotal at best and mostly non-existent. Plus it is difficult to separate our own biases from what we try to interpret.

WW1 was barely over 100 years ago. The printing press was widely used, education was available to many. Many people were not confined to live in a few mile radius from where they were born.

Two thousand years ago??? Translations, scribes, limited travel and hence rampant regional dialects. Not to mention self-serving dishonesty. I could go on, but skepticism is not only warranted, but necessary to learn what little truth can be salvaged.

[MineralMan]

45. Very pertinent.

Nobody alive today was an adult during WWI. Nobody. Most books from that period are disappearing from the shelves of our libraries, and are not being converted to digital form. What happened 100 years ago is fading from our consciousness, and will continue to do so.

We are about to lose everyone who was an adult in WWII, as well. My parents, who are 94 years old now, will soon be gone. With them will go the first hand knowledge of what it was to be a 20-year-old B-17 pilot in Italy and a pregnant 20-year-old who lived in Arizona, hoping that pilot returned alive.

Stuff that happened 2000 years ago. We have no idea, really. We cannot even imagine living as people did at that time.

[elleng]

47. Well worth thinking about, if we care to do so.

So what about 'originalists,' re: the U.S. Constitution???

[MineralMan]

50. Yes. Much more recent, of course.

We argue about the intent of the authors of that document constantly. And looking at the original, with its unusual spellings and writing ("chuse" for "choose," etc.), it has already caused befuddlement and discord.

Just a few generations have passed since its composition and we already have trouble understanding what was crystal clear to the people who wrote it.

Thanks!

[MFM008]

53. Suddenly It hit me

.....why there was a dark ages.......

[MineralMan]

55. Yes.

Although, there was a lot going on during that period. It just wasn't being recorded. We actually don't know a great deal about that period of history, sadly.

There are a couple of books worth reading, though.

Life in a Medieval Village, by Joseph and Frances Gies, and the other books in that series are a fascinating look at what was going on. It's easy to find copies of those books on eBay and elsewhere. It has also been reprinted recently and is available on Amazon new.

Other books by the same authors include:

Life in a Medieval City
Life in a Medieval Castle

For a complete list, see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_and_Joseph_Gies

[struggle4progress]

67. To repeat the point that the meaning of a text changes with time,

let us note that this 1611 "King James" language is often nearly word-for-word the 1534 translation of William Tyndale, captured and burned for heresy in Brussels in 1536 by Henry VIII, in a day before the Anglican schism when Henry still hoped for Rome's favor

Tyndale's "heresy" (of course) resembled Luther's: it was the translation of the texts into language ordinary people could understand. And the heavy use of Tyndale's translation in the "King James" version certainly carried with it, at the time, a political message, underlining protestant themes

[MineralMan]

68. That's very interesting, indeed.

I was aware of the Tynsdale translation, but have never looked at it. There was a flurry of translations around that time. The King James Version appears to be the survivor.

[mbusby]

69. A Plan for the Improvement of Spelling in the English Language....

By Mark Twain

For example, in Year 1 that useless letter “c” would be dropped to be replased either by “k” or “s”, and likewise “x” would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which “c” would be retained would be the “ch” formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform “w” spelling, so that “which” and “one” would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish “y” replasing it with “i” and iear 4 might fiks the “g/j” anomali wonse and for all.

Generally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeiniing voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez “c”, “y” and “x”—bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez —tu riplais “ch”, “sh”, and “th” rispektivili.

Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.

[pansypoo53219]

71. i might have ended up being called retarded, cause those fonts are hell on my dislexia.

and mostly german, illiterate.