Timeline for "Is he not the carpenter's son?" v.s. "Is not he the carpenter's son?"
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 9 at 15:40 | history | edited | Laurel♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| May 8 at 21:15 | comment | added | Billy Kerr | @BenVoigt - yes in this case, but I wasn't just talking about the KJV. I should have made that clearer. There are many old bibles that use arcane/archaic language. The Douay Rheims for example uses "Is not this the carpenter's son?" | |
| May 8 at 20:19 | comment | added | Ben Voigt | @BillyKerr: And yet, the KJV uses the word order that's still in use. It is only OP's expectation that doesn't align with current usage. | |
| May 8 at 19:08 | answer | added | Astralbee | timeline score: 0 | |
| May 8 at 15:14 | answer | added | xtratic | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 7 at 20:25 | comment | added | phoog | @KingofSpades is there any four-century-old document whose writing style isn't outdated? | |
| May 7 at 15:58 | comment | added | Billy Kerr | "Is not he" is extremely rare in current English, at least without contracting it. There are really only two choices that are used today: either: "Is he not?" or with the contraction "Isn't he?". Most bibles tend to use arcane/archaic language. The KJV is over 400 years old, and used language that was considered archaic even at the time it was written. | |
| May 7 at 14:58 | comment | added | JimmyJames | @Lambie This is an English learners site. What part of that do you not understand? | |
| May 7 at 13:10 | comment | added | Lambie | I don't understand how you can ask if: Is he not [x]. should be Is not he x. The basic rule of a question form applies even if nowadays it sounds old fashioned. The rules have not changed: Is this not obvious? | |
| May 7 at 11:49 | answer | added | Vloxxity | timeline score: 3 | |
| May 6 at 16:56 | history | became hot network question | |||
| May 6 at 13:19 | answer | added | James K | timeline score: 12 | |
| May 6 at 12:33 | answer | added | TimR | timeline score: 16 | |
| May 6 at 11:06 | comment | added | Eugene | @KingofSpades Would you feel the difference between these implications? 1. (there is only one person in veiw or implied) "Is he not the carpenter's son?"-"No, he is the tailor's son"-"Hm, I've always thought him to be the carpenter's son". 2. (there are some persons in view) "Is not HE the carpenter's son? (which can be also said this way: "Isn't it HE who is the carpenter's son?)-"No, the carpenter's son is he who is standing to the left of HIM". | |
| May 6 at 9:52 | comment | added | Michael Harvey | KingofSpades - you got it! | |
| May 6 at 9:06 | comment | added | KingofSpades | Would that mean that the KJV's writing style is "outdated"? | |
| May 6 at 9:02 | comment | added | Stuart F | See this and this. But note that while this example from the KJV is still grammatical, in general the KJV shouldn't be used as a guide for modern English - it was written 400 years ago in what was even then deliberately old-fashioned language, and English has changed a lot since then. | |
| May 6 at 9:00 | history | edited | KingofSpades | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 157 characters in body
|
| May 6 at 8:53 | history | asked | KingofSpades | CC BY-SA 4.0 |