My apologies if this is a duplication, but we've been suffering from
various email plagues, and I'm not sure my original went out.
I second Kenneth Gross's point that it is in translation that the
"nature" of English is worked out, but I would add that no area
of translation had greater cultural impact than that of the Bible.
Tyndale, for instance, who got the ball rolling, commented on the
fundamental differences between English, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, noting
in particular the greater affinity between Hebrew and English than Hebrew
and Latin. On the matter of recommended reading, let me put forward
Brian Cummings's The Literary Culture of the Reformation: Grammar and
Grace, which makes a fascinating case for the role of grammatical
issues (worked out ad hoc in the process of biblical translation by
Tyndale and others, partly contra More and others) in the development of
sixteenth-century language and literature. We should probably take
a historical approach to the question of "what English was good
for," since it seems the language may have been a quite different
one pre- and post-reformation (or before and after the main run of
English Bibles, Tyndale to KJV).
Hannibal Hamlin
Hannibal Hamlin
Assistant Professor of English
The Ohio State University
1680 University Drive
Mansfield, OH 44906
419-755-4277
[log in to unmask]