“ PHILOLOG) ne PUBLISHED UNDER TA DIREC TLON OF : : THE PHTLOLO GICAL CLUB OF THE. UNIVERSITY “OF : eee oe LEN pan et 20 ERE ihe NORTH. CARCHINA iow ‘oe: Error VOL. 1 Ne oe _ Version ee Studies i in y the Syntax af the Ki ng Jamos EAM Mosis. G IRAING ke eee - ae ¥ “CHAPEL, HILL ; a UNIVERSEDY. PRERS AOE be PSD siggs Me LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY PRINCETON. N. J. PRESENTED BY Are Gr, \los, D>. Wrbrarmy of Prinecton University. Der Sib Tamine PE English Seminary. Presented ly Mn. C Reena ae he! | YR A it < 5 Wp Pps oN, ’ PT ie nr Legs STUDIES IN PHILOLOGY PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE PHILOLOGICAL CLUB OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA C. ALPHONSO SMITH, Epiror VOU. I! v Studies in the Syntax of the King James Version JAMES MOSES GRAINGER CHAPEL HILL THE UNIVERSITY PRESS 1907 CONTENTS CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION. ...... CHAPTER Ii The IMPERSONAL CONSTRUCTION .. CHAPTER III DISTRIBUTIVE PHRASING ........ CHAPTER IV BO MORMS ite viii wes CHAPTER V RELATIVE PRONOUNS ...... CHAPTER VI SuBsJUNCTIVE Moop......... PAGE 10 14 19 28 50 P. U. Duplicaté STUDIES: IN . THE, SYNIAX OF “THE, KING JAMES VERSION * CHAT RT BR I INTRODUCTION In offering their new version of the English Bible to King James in 1611, the translators declared in the dedication that they were merely ‘‘poor instruments to make God’s holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people,” and that to this end, in their translating they had ‘‘walked in the ways of simplicity and integrity, as before the Lord.” On the title page we find the familiar words: ‘‘Appointed to be read in the churches.” It seems, then, that the chief aim of the translators was to present Bible truth in a form (1) sim- ple enough to be understood by illiterate people and (2) suit- able for reading aloud with impressiveness and perfect intelli- gibility. These are in general the principles which control the syntax of the King James Version, and which have doubt- less given our masterful Bible its influence upon the language. Since the thorough dissemination of this book among all class- es and conditions of English speaking people, English syn- tax has certainly been developing along lines of simplicity and easy intelligibility. Yet this version did more than to forecast future tendencies in English syntax: it recorded past development. It summed up in many ways the transition from Late Middle to Early Modern English. Itis an epitome of the development of English syntax from Tyndale’s time to 1611. First among the several reasons for this compendious nature of the syntax *A paper presented to the Faculty of the University of North Carolina as a partial requirement for the degree of Master of Arts. 6 James Moses Grainger of the version of 1611 was the use of the Bishops’ Bible of 1568 as a common basis for the new version, by all of the six dif- ferent companies who worked on the translation. The code of instuctions, given by the king to this body of biblical stu- dents, directed them to follow the Bishops’ Bible with as few alterations as truth would permit and to use the translations by Tyndale (1525-1535), Matthew (1537), and Coverdale (1532-1537), the Whitchurch or Great Bible (1549), and the Geneva Bible (1560), when these versions agreed better with the text than the Bishops’ Bible (1568). As the dates show, this chain of successive translations stretches over an impor- tant transitional period in the history of English. The Bish- ops’ Bible, the final link in the chain, being itself based to a great extent on former translations, and being the chief basis for the King James Version, naturally imparted, to the new version the synoptic nature of its own syntax, including the main features of the English language at that time, the late middle of the sixteenth century. The new version in turn reflected syntactic development from 1568 to1611. For this was the time during which the translators themselves acquired their mother tongue. They, while retaining most of the syntactic features of the older translations, naturally put their own living syntax into their alterations. Thus itcame about that Bible English is English of no fixed time but rep- resents a long period when the language was in transition. Another reason for the compendious nature of Bible syntax was the above-mentioned popular aim of the translators. Popular speech is at once the most conservative and the most progressive element ina language. It retains old idioms longer and adopts new ones more readily than literary lan- guage. If the translators had been producing a work for scholars, they would have used the medial literary language; but in adapting their work to the ear of the people, they fa- vored the popular style with all it embraces of both archaisms and neologisms. Yet the translators could not work without some norm by which to regulate their style. It was natural, therefore, that Syntax of the King James Version d they should set up, as their standard, either conciously or un- conciously, the authors who were considered classic in their time. Exactly who these would be can hardly be settled to- day, but we are justified in assuming that, just as today an author’s work must have lived at least half a century before the title of classic is assured, soin the first decade of the sev- enteenth century the prose writers who would be taken as models by the scholars translating the Bible, would most likely be the best polemic and secular writers of at least two generations earlier. This would be especially true in a time when the language was shifting and nothing late could be accepted as permanent. ‘The conservative influence of relig- ion, together with the natural dignity and impressiveuess of the archaic, would operate also toward the retention of the older idioms. ‘Therefore, while the translators must needs have reproduced very late usages and followed recent tenden- cies to some extent, their work in its main features presents characteristics of times earlier than their own. Because Bible syntax does represent transition English, scarcely a rule can be fixed for any usage that was variable during the period represented. A few general principles can be pointed out, but.no hard and fast laws of practice can be established. The object of the treatment in hand is to show some of these general principles by studying the use of cer- tain constructions and forms. These studies make no pre- tense to exhaustiveness. More particularly, the aim is to show how the translators followed their expressed purpose of making the Bible simple and intelligible for the illiterate, and impressive when read aloud, and how, being little con- stricted by rules of grammar, and using English as they found it, they gave us a mosaic made up from transient stages in the development of the language. In this investigation no work on Bible syntax has been available. Scholars seem to have avoided the subject because, in the first place, the Bible being a translation, the ancient tongues must necessarily have impressed their idiom upon the language of the translation, and to a certain extent kept the 8 James Moses Grainger original genius of the English language from asserting itself strongly. In the second place, scholars have not cared to investigate closely the syntax of a translation that represents the individuality of no one man or period. The Authorized Version, however, because of its immense popularity, has exerted a greater influence upon the subsequent development of English syntax than any other body of literature. In view of this influence, any investigation of Bible syntax immediately justifies itself. Most of the books and treatises mentioned in the bibliography below have contributed to the results merely by suggestion. Cruden’s Concordance, which has served mainly in locating words and passages, has prac- tically no other use to the student of syntax. Particular ref- erence to other works will appear at the proper places. BIBLIOGRAPHY The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Testaments. Oxford University Press. The Holy Bible, an exact reprint page for page of the Authorized Version, r6zz._ Oxford University Press, 1833. The Holy Bible, American Revision. New York, 1901. Allen and Greenough, Latzn Grammar. Boston, 1891. C. S. Baldwin, Zhe /nflections and Syntax of the Morte d’ Arthur of Sir Thomas Malory. Boston, 1894. Alexander Cruden, A Complete Concordance to the Old and New Testaments. Wondon. EK. Hinenkel, ‘‘Syntax”. Grundriss der Germanischen Phil- ologie, I. Band. Strassburg, 1901. W. Franz, Shakespeare-Grammatik. Halle, 1900. B. L. Gildersleeve, Latin Grammar. New York, 1898. H. W. Hoare, The Evolution of the English Bible. Won- don, 1902. L. Kellner, Historical Outlines of English Syntax. Won- don, 1892. C. Alphonso Smith, Studies in English Syntax. Boston, 1906. ‘ Syntax of the King James Version o H. Sweet, A New English Grammar, Logical and His- torical, Il. ‘‘Syntax.” Oxford, 1903. L. R. Wilson, Chaucer's Relative Constructions. Chapel Hill, 1906. W. Van der Gaaf, Zhe Transition from Impersonal to Personal in Middle English. Amsterdam, 1904. Westcott and Hort, Editors, Zhe Mew Testament in the Original Greek. ondon, 1903. CHAPTER II THE ImpPpERSONAL CONSTRUCTION The transition from the impersonal construction, which prevailed with certain verbs in Middle English, to the per- sonal construction of today appears almost as complete in Bible English as it is today. The ‘‘really impersonal’™ con- structions, as in 7 rained (Lu. 17:29), zt thundered (John 12:29) are used in the Bible just as they are today and require notreatment here. ‘The ‘‘quasi impersonal verbs’, however, which ‘‘have z¢ for their grammatical, provisional subject, while the real logical subject is expressed in the form of a clause’*, show differences from both the previous Middle English usage and the later, current English usage, as in, ft repented the Lord that he had made man. Gen. 6:6. Judas’ \.) '.:° .. wwepented himsel]. Matta 1 so: The Lord repented that he had made Saul king. 1 Sam. doi3D, The first example shows the purely impersonal construction of Middle English; the second shows the intermediate or transitional, half personal, or reflexive construction; and the third shows the late purely personal construction. The three examples illustrate completely the change from impersonal to personal. Some verbs with which the impersonal construc- tion was habitual in Middle English preserve the usage intact; others retain only remnants or reminiscences of it; while with most of them the usage has disappeared entirely. The fol- lowing list represents the remnants: Befall occurs once impersonally: And they that saw it told them how zt befell to him that was possessed. Mk. 5:16. Behove, used only impersonally, occurs twice: *Van der Gaaf, The Transition from Impersonal to Personal in Middle English. Amsterdam, 1904. Syntax of the King James Version 11 It behoved him to be made like unto his brethren. Heb. malts And thus z¢ dehoved Christ to suffer. Lu. 24:46. Grieve preserved both personal and impersonal usages as it does today. Four examples of the impersonal occur: For zt grieveth me much for your sakes that the hand of the Lord is gone out against me. Ruth1:13. Gen. 6:6, Neh. 2:10, Prov. 26:15. ; Happen, usually personal, occurs four times impersonally: As it happeneth to the fool, so zt happeneth even to me. Wcciwe 157 2 Petr 2:22eWccl. -8:14. Like occurs three times in the old impersonal sense now lost: He shall dwell with thee . . . where zt liketh him best. Deut. 23:16. Write ye also for the Jews, as zt liketh you. Esther 8:8. For this Liketh you, O ye children of Israel. Amos 4:5. iVeed occurs once impersonally: And Esau said, Let me now leave with thee some of the folk that are with me. And he said, What needeth it? Gen. 33:15. Please shows the same adaptation to both personal and im- personal usage that it has today: If zt please thee, I will give thee another vineyard. 1 Kings 21:6. Yet zt pleased the Lord to bruise him. Isa. 53:10. If the Lord were pleased to kill us. Judges 13:23. They please themselves in the children of strangers. Isa. 2:6. It shall accomplish that which I please. Isa, 55:11. repent had three varieties of use: 1. Steflextve: (5 instances) lidasiurin. 1 cepented hamself.) Matt. 27:3. 2. Personal: (numerous instances) The Lord repented that he had made Saul king. 1 Sam. 15:35. 3. Lmpersonal: (5 instances) Lt repented the Lord that he had made man on earth 12 James Moses Grainger and the Lord said . . . wa repenteth me that I have made them. Gen. 6:6,7. It repented the Lord because of their groanings. Judges 5:18. It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king. 1 Sam. 15:11. Return, O Lord, how long? and let zt repent thee con- cerning thy servants. Psalm 90:13. Seem is used both personally and impersonally as today. Instances of impersonal use are: And if z¢ seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve. Joshua 24:15. Seemeth it but a small thing unto you? Num. 16:9. Think recalls its old impersonal use in several ways: Me thinketh the running of the foremost is like the run- ning of Ahimaaz. 1Sam. 18:27. He thought scorn to lay hands on Mordecai alone, (for the old hym thought scorn.) Esther 3:6. Paul thought not goodto take him with them. Ane 15:38, The reflexive eva occurs twice: If they shall dethink themselves. 1 Kings 8:47, 2 Chron. 6:37. The following formerly impersonal verbs, though never used impersonally in the King James Version, seem, in dif- ferent ways, to preserve at least relics suggestive of their former use: Ail preserves a questionable reminiscence of its former imper- sonal use only in the question, ‘‘What aileth (ailed) thee?” which occurs seven times: They said to Micah, what az/eth thee? Judges 18:23. Dream, though not used impersonally, in ten occurrences out of thirteen is transitive and takes a cognate object: Your old men dream dreams. Joel 2:28. And Joseph dreamed a dream. Gen, 37:5. Lack, though never quite impersonal, seems to hesitate about taking a personal subject when used in the sense of ‘‘to be absent,” and avoids the difficulty three times, as far, at Syntax of the King James Version 13 least, as order of words is concerned, by inverting subject and predicate and_beginning the sentence with ¢here in place of the old impersonal 7? And there /acketh not one man of us. Num. 31:49, There /acked of David’s servants nineteen men. 2 Sam. 2:30. Peradventure there shall /ack five of the fifty righteous Gen, 18:28. Want also suggests an impersonal reminiscence in inversion with there: In a multitude of words there wanteth not sin. Prov. 10:19. Impersonal usages that are exceedingly common in the Bible are: /t shall come to pass. Ex. 3:21, etc. That z¢ may go well with thee. Deut. 4:40, etc. With the verb Zo de: Woe ts me that I sojourn in Meshech. Psalm 120:5. It zs better for me to die than to live. Jonah 4:3. (4 of this type). ft zs better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man. Psalm 118:8. (9 of this type). Better vt ts that it be said to thee, come up hither; than that thou shouldest be put lower. Prov. 25:7. (4 of this type). lt ts better 1 give her to thee than another. Gen. 29:19. (2 of this type). Then was zt better with me than now. Hos. 2:7. If 7¢ be your mind, that I should bury my dead. Gen. 23:8. How zs z¢ that ye are come so soon today? Ex. 2:18. Let z¢ now be dry only upon the fleece. Judges 6:39. For zt was dry upon the fleece only. Judges 6:40. CoH AGE Dour DOTeniy. DISTRIBUTIVE PHRASING To overcome certain difficulties inherent in rendering the original tongues into English the translators frequently resorted to devices here grouped under the general head of distributive phrasing. What is meant by distributive phras- ing becomes clear on comparing the use of the Latin distribu- tive numeral sewguli (one by one), as found in the Vulgate, with the device employed to render the same idea in the King James Version. The Vulgate translates Gen. 44:11, ‘‘Itaque festinato deponentes in terram saccos aperuerunt singuli.” The English Bible has, ‘‘Then ¢hey speedily took down every man his sack.” Here the pronoun ¢key conveys the plural significance of the ending z of szwguli, while every man his conveys the distributive sense of the word itself. This kind of distribution and several other kinds more or less related to it are illustrated below: Abide ye every man in his place. Ex. 16:29. Then the mariners were afraid and cried every man unto his god. Jonah 1:5. Take ye every man his censer and put incense in them, and bring ye before the Lord every man his censez, two hundred and fifty censers; thou also, and Aaron, each of you his censer. And they took every man his censer and put fire in them. Num. 16:17, 18. While the use of every man his in apposition with a plural is not exactly redundant when considered from the point of view of distribution, it is nevertheless closely akin to the redundant use of the pronoun as in, Joshua the son of Nun, which standeth before thee, he shall go in thither. Deut. 1:38. Here the use of the pronoun is resumptive of the force of the subject and is necessitated by the clause inserted between Syntax of the King James Version 15 the subject and its verb. The lack of suspensive power necessitates the distribution of the subject force between Joshua and he. Examples are numerous: And the coney because he cheweth the cud but divideth not the hoof, #e is unclean unto you. Lev. 11:5. And the man whose hair is fallen off his head, he is bald; yet heis clean. Lev. 13:40. The insertion of this apparently redundant pronoun serves to emphasize the subject and make it perfectly unmistakable. Therefore Adam found it very convenient in shirking the blame to say: The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree. Gen. 3:12. No doubt this distribution of the subject’s function between the real subject and a pronoun seemed to the trans- lators to add emphasis enough to justify the redundancy: _ Ye shall not fear them for the Lord, your God, he shall fight for you. Deut. 3:22. The Lord thy God, #e will go over before thee, and he will destroy these nations from before thee and thou shalt possess them: and Joshua fe shall go over before thee, as the Lord hath said. Deut. 31:3. In these cases “he Lord thy God is almost exclamatory while the redundant pronoun functions in its stead in the sentence. The result is more emphatic than if the Lord thy God were simply subject of the sentence. Pronouns are used redundantly in other cases with complete justification on account of the difficulty of translating from a highly inflected language, with comparatively free word order, into one of no inflections and rigid word order. In these instances the different case forms of the pronoun make the relation clear in a way that the noun could not for lack of declension: For all the wells which his father’s servants had digged in the days of Abraham, his father, the Philistines had stopped ¢hem and filled them with earth. Gen. 26:15. And the leper in whom the plague is, As clothes shall 16 James Moses Grainger be rent and his forehead bare. Lev. 13:45. In this sentence defer could not be made possessive without necessitating an awkward construction. And upon ¢hem that are left alive of you, I will send a faintness into ¢hezr hearts. Lev. 26:36. Frequently the redundant element is an adverb, a phrase, or a whole clause, The principle is the same. In the cases quoted so far the redundant pronoun has a def- inite function in the sentence while its antecedent stands in a kind of exclamatory relation to the whole, but still without altogether forfeiting its functional relation. Many cases occur where this order is reversed so that while the antece- dent has a definite function in the sentence, the pronoun statids independent. It is introduced thus in order to tack on to it something which relates to the antecedent, but which if placed beside the antecedent would make a cumbersome con- struction: Thou shalt rejoice, ¢how and thine household and the Levite that is within thy gates. Dent. 14:26. For the Lord thy God hath chosen him out of all thy tribes to stand to minister in the name of the Lord, zm and his sons forever. Deut. 18:5. And he stood by his burnt sacrifice, Ae and all the princes of Moab. Num. 23:6. Such usages as those just mentioned were tiecessitated by the comparative rigidness of the word order in English due to the lack of inflections. Yet Bible English varies the word order with more freedom than current English does today. It is well, here, to notice the distributive manner of grouping series of modifiers. When a noun has a number of modifiers, one or two of them are sometimes placed before and the rest after it: O foolish people and unwise. Deut. 32:6. I knew that thou art a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil. Jonah 4:2. And thou shalt command the children of Israel that they shall bring pure ozl, olive, beaten, for the light, to cause the lamp to burn always. Ex. 27:20. Studies in Philology will be issued from time to time under the direction of the Philological Club of the University of North Carolina, The exchange of similar publications will he ‘appreciated, Very Respectfully, Louis R. Wison, Permanent Secretary Philological Club, Chapel Hill, N.C, Syntax of the King James Version 17 Occasionally even a compound subject is divided and grouped around its predicate: Aaron shall come and his sons. Num. 4:5. The distribution of the word éoward is also interesting: Be thou for the people fo God-ward. Ex. 18:19. Even éo the mercy seat-ward were the faces of the Cheru- bimt./h x. 13729. Descriptive distribution or repetition for picturesqueness is well shown by: And beneath upon the hem of it thou shalt make pome- granates of blue, and of purple, and of scarlet, round about the hem thereof; and bells of gold between them round about: A golden belland a pomegranate, a golden bell and a pomegranate, upon the hem of the robe round about. Ex. 28:33. Phrasing with distributive intent sometimes appears to vio- late the rule of numerical concord. Thus Lu. 22:31: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you that he might sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not. Here you the plural pronoun is used exactly in the sense of the Southern you all while the singular thee refers especially to Peter. Satan had desired to have them all, but Peter especially on account of his bitter trial was in danger of los- ing faith. A similar case isin John 14:9: Have I been so long time with you and yet hast thou not known me Philip? This kind of distribution, however, by no means explains all the violations of concord in number even in the prononn of the second person. In the laws of Moses we very often find a number of commands grouped together under one head. In the first general command or prohibition the plural of the pronoun is used while in the specific commands under the general heading, the singular is used: Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: ¢how shalt not respect the person of the poor nor honor the person of 18 James Moses Grainger the mighty; but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor. Lev. 19:15. The following verses, 16, 17, 18, have chou and thy in specific commands under the general one above. Ye shall keep my statutes. 7/ow shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind; ¢ow shalt not sow thy field with mingledseed. Ibid:19. Furthermore Moses seems to think of the people, Israel, at one time as one person, Jacob, and again as many persons, Israel, and varies the number of his pronouns accordingly. English of today lacks this kind of distributive power on account of the loss of the distinction between the singular and plural of the pronouns of the second person and by its rigid adherence to the principle of concord. The distributive phrasing treated above is of three general types: (1) that causing apparent redundancy, chiefly of pronouns, and due to lack of inflection, necessitating rigid word order; (2) distributive word order contrary to ordi- nary practice in English; (3) distribution embracing appar- ent violation of the rules of concord as recognized today. To these should be added a fourth type treated below under the subject of distributive do-forms, in which a form of the auxiliary do is introduced to share the burden of relations laid upon the verb. This distributive tendency is due partly to the genius of the original languages which the translators strove to transliterate as precisely as possible, and partly to the aims of the work. All four types of distribution consti- tute a positive advantage to Bible English in contributing to its easy intelligibility, emphasis, beauty, and dignity. Cyliiamie bakit al ay Do-Forms The remark that the King James Version represents tran- sition syntax is perfectly exemplified in the use of do-forms. For the Bible shows every variety of the use of do as an aux- iliary, from the original half auxiliary do as a ‘‘pro-verb” down to emphatic do, which is the latest development of it. Furthermore, the Bible employs do in auxiliary senses peculiar to itself, grouped below under the head of Dzestrzbutive do. The different usages are treated here approximately in the order in which they came into the language, according to the outline of their development given in sections 2172 to 2195 of Sweet’s Wew /inglish Grammar. The remarkable scarcity of the purely emphatic do in the Bible, however, by the side of plenteous examples of do in negations, necessitates the explanation of the presence of do in negations on other grounds than emphasis, which Mr. Sweet accepts as the reason for this use of do. Do wasused with negatives before it was used for emphasis. In the examples given below it will be seen that the use of do-forms in the Bible, besides exemplifying transitional syntax, illustrates the continual effort on the part of the translators to attain a clearness, impressiveness, and dignity which would adapt the work to reading aloud to the people. The order of treatment here is: I. Do asa ‘‘pro-verb.” IJ. Mo as an auxiliary. III. Emphatic do. | (1.) In inversions. IV. Distributive do | (2.) With certain adverbs. | (3.) With negatives. I. Doasa ‘‘pro-verb.” Do is sometimes used as a ‘‘pro-verb” to avoid repetition of an antecedent verb: 20 James Moses Grainger Then he shall minister in the name of the Lord his God, as all his brethren the Levites do. Deut. 18:7, Here do, being supplied by the translator, is in Italics. Lest peradventure he die also, as his brethren dd. Gen. 38:11. (did in Italics). Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savor: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honor. Eccl. 10:1. (doth in Italics). Occasionally the ‘‘pro-verb” does not reproduce the full transitive significance of the antecedent verb: And we utterly destroyed them, as we dzd unto Sihon. Pewttns36. An anticipative ‘‘pro-verb” in imperative sentences similar to that ‘‘found in Transition and Early Middle English,” (Sweet 2173) appears occasionally in the Bible. This do: Take your censers, Korah, and all his com- pany. Num. 16:6. As ye do the heave offering of the threshing floor, so shall ye heave it (the cake of dough). Num. 15:20. II. Doas an auxiliary. Do is used frequently as an auxiliary with other verbs (1) for clearness in distinguishing tenses, (2) for convenience of form, (3) for euphony or rhythm, dignity or impressiveness, and (4) for no apparent reason but merely asa matter of Caprice. (1) Do used for clearness tn distinguishing tenses. Probably the most important auxiliary use of do is in the formation of the past tense of verbs whose past form was not clearly distinct in sound from the present. This function of do has been overlooked by the philologians. The most strik- ing case is that of eat whose past is dz7d eat in all but three cases. Other pasts formed with dd for clearness are did set, did put, did spit, did beat, did cast, did bear, did swear, did offer. With weak verbs this usage is commonest with those ending in -¢ or -d where the addition of -ed would cause an unpleasant repetition of ¢-sounds, e.g.: ded separate, did mete. Syntax of the King James Version 21 She took the fruit thereof and dd cal, and gave also unto her husband with her and he dd eat. Gen. 3:6. As they did eat. Matt. 26:21. Therefore they ded set over them taskmasters. TEx. 1:11. And Jacob did separate the lambs. Gen. 30:40. For my vesture they dd cast lots. John 19:24. And they dzd beat the gold into thin plates and cut it into wires. Ex. 29:3. (2) Do used for convenience of form. In the second person singular of the past tense such verbs as anoint and depart had very awkward forms which were avoided by using dzdst with the infinitive. As thou dzdst anoint their father. Ex. 40:15. (to avoid anotintedst). From the day that thou dzdst depart out of the land of Egypt. Deut. 9:7. Didst depart is better than departedst, easier to speak and more euphonious. Yet this usage was not at all uniform, e. g.: Wherefore Jassedst thou over to fight against the chil- dren of Ammon, and dzds¢ not call us to go with thee? Judges 12:1. (3) Do used for euphony, rhythm, dignity, or impressiveness: A gift doth blind the eyes of the wise and pervert the words of the righteous. Deut, 16:19. When all the workers of iniquity do flourish. Psalm 92:7. I, the Lord, do sanctify him. Lev. 21:15, 16, 23. And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon tereaten. 1) Geu.6: 7. I do set my bow in the cloud. Gen. 9:13. (4) Capricious use of do: Andthey . . . didspztupon him. Mk. 15:19, And they sfz/ upon him. Matt. 27:30. Iam among you as he that serveth. Lu. 22:27. And he that it is chief as he that doth serve, Iu. 22:26, 29 James Moses Grainger Ill. “Lmphatic Do. While it is clear that three or four uses of the do-forms last mentioned are in emphatic connections, the purely emphatic do in the modern sense, where special vocal stress is given the form of do and not the principal verb, is very rare in the King James Version. The difficulty in determining whether do should really be stressed probably adds to the difficulty of discovering examples of this purely emphatic do: ; And the Lord said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child which am old? Then Sarah denied, saying, I laughed not; for she was afraid. And he said, Nay; but thou dzds/ laugh. Gen. 18:13-15. But thou shalt remember the Lord thy God: . . . And it shall be if thou do at all forget the Lord thy God. Deut. 8:18, 19. An emphatic use of do akin to the auxiliary use of it to distinguish past from present tense is that in which the past character of the statement is emphasized, as in: In the year of the jubilee the field shall return to him of whom it was bought, even to him to whom the possession of the land dd belong (that, is before it was sold). Lev. 27:24. For though I made you sorry with a letter, I do not repent, though I dd repent (did here implies ‘‘at one time”). 2 Gor.) 7:8. IV. Distributive Do. The auxiliary do is used in many sentences where the verb is so burdened with relations that another verb is needed to Share the burden. The nature of the verb’s relations to other sentence-elements requires its position before some, after others.. When these related elements are multiplied in one sentence or the position of the verb is such that some modifier can not stand reasonably near its verb, the needed form of do Syntax of the King James Version 23 is introduced so that the relations may be distributed between the main verb and the auxiliary do. Though this distributive use of do accounts for the modern use of do in questions, inhibitions, and with negatives, it has not received considera- tion at the hands of philologians. The chief constructions in which this principle operates are (1) in inversions, (2) with certain adverbs, and (3) in negative sentences. (1) Do 7“ inversions. Mere inversion alone seldom justifies the introduction of a do-form, but when adverbs appear in the inverted sentences do-forms are used. .In the question, ‘‘Seest thou a man dili- gent in business?” Prov. 22:29, the verb can sustain its two relations, viz., to subject and to object, just as well when at the head of the sentence as when in its usual position between subject and object. But in the question, ‘‘Requite ye thus the Lord?” a new element appears in the form of the adverb, thus, which also demands a place next to the verb. There- fore the translators split the verb in two by introducing do at the head of the sentence to effect the inversion, and placed subject, adverb, and object, each in its natural position relative to the main verb, reguzte, thus: ‘‘Do ye thus requite the Lord, O foolish people and unwise?” Deut. 32:6. Occasionally an ambiguity that would arise in an inverted sentence for lack of case forms of nouns was avoided by using do to effect the inversion, so that subject and object might stand respectively before and after the verb, as in, ‘‘Doth Job fear God for naught?” Job1:9. But even in such cases an adverb is usually present as here. Practically everywhere that do occurs in inverions some distributive aim is evident, and usually the distribution is necessitated by the presence of an adverb or its equivalent. (a) Do-forms in sentences inverted by adverbs at the beginning. Here the verb is usually transitive and is followed by its object: Onto Adam also and his wife did the Lord make coats of Skin Gens ai21- 24 James Moses Grainger And from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad. Gen. o393 Thus did he make for all the boards of the tabernacle. Ex. 36:22. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail. Gen. 7:20. Of my hand didst thou require it. Gen. 31:39. And he put the mitre upon his head; also upon the mitre even upon his forefront did he put the golden front. Lev. eee The negative conjunctions nezther and nor treated below under the head of Do tu negative sentences require do in the inversion just as adverbs at the beginning do. (6) Do-forms in sentences beginning with other elements than subject: The noise of them that sing do. hear. Ex. 32:18. (c) Do-forms in questions. Whenever do is used in questions some adverb or equivalent is present, which necessitates a distribution of the verb: Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? 2 Cor. 10:7. Did ever people hear the voice of God? Deut. 4:33. Why do ye look one upon another? Gen. 42:1. Why dost thou ask Abishag the Shumanite for Adonijah? 1 Kings 2:22. Why ddst thou xoZ tell me that she was thy wife? Why saidst thou, she is my sister? Gen. 12:18, 19. If thou sayest, behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? aud he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? Prov. 24:12. *Doth Job fear God for naught? Job 1:9. *Do ye not know their tokens? Ibid 21:29, *Do ye now believe? John 16:31. * Quoted in Smith’s Studies in Suxtac. bo Or Syntax of the King James Version (d) Do-forms in imperatives. The only kind of imperative sentences in which do is used commonly to effect the inversion is the inhibition. The neg- ative is merely the adverb which produces the demand for the do-form. Here the practice is less regular and operates only in the presence of an object or another adverb, though with certain verbs not at all: Do noi sin against the child. Gen. 42:22. Do not drink wine or strong drink. Lev. 10:9. Let zot your hearts be faint, fear not, and do not tremble, neither be ye terrified because of them. Deut. 20:3. Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. John 5:45. In the following command the adverbial phrases require a do- form: And do ye abide w7thout the camp seven days. Num. o1s19, (2) Dowzth certain adverbs. Some adverbs must stand next to the verb and yet will make an awkward sentence if placed between either subject and verb or verb and object. In such acase the verb is split in two by introducing a form of do. The adverb is placed between the do-form and the verb proper. And if the people of the land do anyways hide their eyes fromthe man . . . then I will even set my face against that soul. Lev. 20:4. Therefore is the name of it called Babel because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth. Gens 11:9. The adverb most commonly used in this fashion is the neg- ative voz. Its influence in bringing do into negative sen- tences is treated below. (3) Dozn negative sentences. The negative words, zezther, nor, and not, in sentences, call for do-forms on no other ground than as adverbs, As stated 26 James Moses Grainger above nezther or nor at the beginning of a sentence produces inversion and demands a do-form under the same considera- tions that any sentence element other than the subject, at the beginning of a sentence, does. Likewise of is an adverb which can not well stand either between subject and its verb or betweem verb and its object. For this reason the presence of woz¢ in a sentence requires a do-form, so that of may stand between the auxiliary and the main verb and not interfere with the juxtaposition of either subject or object to the verb. Furthermore, it was noticed above that in inversions mo/ oper- ates precisely like any other adverb in bringing do-forms into interrogative and imperative sentences. ‘This would seem to indicate that do was used in negative sentences not for emphasis primarily, but to afford a two-part verb upon which to distribute the relations of the other sentence elements. (a) Do wth neither (nor). Nether standing at the head of a sentence was followed by a do-form only when the verb had an object or was modified: Neither did he set his heart to this also. Ex. 7:23. Nevther with you only dol make this covenant. Deut. 29314. Newher did he acknowledge his brethren, nor knew his children. Deut. 33:9. (In the last clause the absence of an expressed subject simpli- fies matters so that the do-form is unnecessary.) Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel. |);Matt. (5:15, Thy raiment waxed not old upon thee, nether did thy foot swell, these forty years. Deut. 8:4. (b) Dowzth not. In the majority of negative sentences with do it will be found that the regular verb is already either modified or so fortified before and after by subject and object that the nega- tive cannot get at it. Therefore, in order to enable xoZ to Syntax of the King James Version 27 stand next to the verb as it demands, the form of do is intro- duced and woz is placed between the auxiliary and the verb: The Lord dd not set his love upon you. Deut. 7:7. For they hated knowledge and dd not choose the fear of -the Lord. Prov. 1:29. Thou dost not enquire wisely concerning this. Eccl. 7:10. Kor though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh. 2 Cor. 10:3. CoH VAS PICEA iy: RELATIVE PRONOUNS That, which, and who. The common relatives of Bible English are thai, which, and who. That occurs oftener than whzch and who both together; while who occurs least frequently of all. No rules, however, can be discovered which governed the use of these pronouns with even an approximate invariability. In fact it is exceed- ingly doubtful whether the translators themselves could dis- tinguish at all clearly between the three relatives in refer- ence, meaning, or usage. Who, of course, always refers to persons except in the case of whose, which, being the only form of possessive* relative, refers to both persons and things. That and which constantly refer to both persons and things. Though no marked regularity appears in the use of these pronouns certain general principles which were probably the result of unconscious habit, seem to be followed. To point out some of these tendencies, without even attempting to establish any fixed rules for the use of that, which, and who, is the object of the following discussion. The most general line of distinction between the relatives of the Bible is that which separates restrictive from non-re-— strictive relative pronouns.