from the early 18th century

h/t to @jetton@mastodon.online

  • BlemboTheThird@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    1 year ago

    At least this idiot had the excuse of historical linguistics being so underdeveloped; it’s understandable he’d think language was immutable… but he’s still a total idiot who apparently thought God spoke English in the Bible instead of Latin and Hebrew.

    • prayer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      God spoke Aramaic to Paul and wrote in Hebrew to Moses. I don’t think he thought of God speaking English in the Bible, rather than English was invented by God and man “ought not corrupt God’s language.”

    • SSFC KDT (MOVED)@mastodon.cloud
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      These are people who insist that the KJV, perhaps history’s absolute worst translation of scripture ever, as the single solitary legitimate version of the Bible.

  • lolola@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    1 year ago

    I wonder if there were 18th century shitposters who turned this into copypasta but subbed in “s” and “ſ” in place of “you” and “thou”

  • MasimatutuOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Alt text:

    Again, the corrupt and unsound Form of speaking in the Plural Number to a single person, YOU to One, instead of THOU, contrary to the pure, plain, and single Language of TRUTH, THOU to One, and YOU to more than One, which had always been used by GOD to Men, and Men to GOD, as well as one to another, from the oldest Record of Time, till corrupt Men, for corrupt Ends, in later and corrupt Times, to flatter fawn, and work upon the corrupt Nature of Men, brought in that false and senseless Way of speaking YOU to One; which hath since corrupted the modern Languages, and hath greatly debased the Spirits, and depraved the Manners of Men. This evil Custom

  • ornery_chemist
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I wish whatever jackaſs that decided that the long ſ needed a ſtupid nub at exactly the ſame poſition as the croſsbar of the letter f in Roman typefaces a very unpleaſant afterlife. As if OCRing hiſtorical documents didn’t have enough problems already.

  • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    I imagine romans had a lot of bitching about pronouns back in the day. Mostly because bitching about pronouns is an important part of learning Latin over a thousand years later. Like seriously use whatever pronouns you want, but there’s such a thing as too many and that fucking language has too many

    • MasimatutuOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s called the long s (ſ; ſenſeleſs). It’s actually pretty interesting, but unfortunately I don’t have much time to explain right now, so in short, it exists because language.

      • MasimatutuOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, they were pronounced exactly the same, but everyone who could write was a nerd

      • z500@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The f-like letter is the form they used inside of a word, and it’s actually called long s: ſ. Short s was used at the end of a word and after a long s.