Notes & Asides - language - Brief Article

-- Dear Mr. Buckley: In the March 11 issue, Mr. Gould B. Hagler Jr. poposed a grammar question about Matthew 6:19 in the King James Version: ". . . where moth and rust doth corrupt . . ."

In defense of the many translators who created the KJV in the beginning of the 17th century, all of whom used Tyndale and Latin and Greek sources, here is a quote from the Vulgate to support those translators: ubi aerugo et tinea demolitur (where rust and moth demolishes); the Latin verb is third person singular (as is the Greek).

As further evidence relating to agreement, I quote from Ward Powers in his Learn to Read the Greek New Testament:

"Like a pronoun, a verb indicates a person . . . it agrees with the number of its subject. When a verb has a multiple subject, the number of the verb regularly agrees with the part of the subject which is nearest to the verb."

Thus, Mr. Buckley, the King James Version passes the test! Each copy of your National Review receives careful attention!

With best wishes,

(Fr.) Martin Hanhauser, OFM

St. Petersburg, Fla.

--Dear Fr. Hanhauser: Thanks for the studious illumination. But isn't itit easier to go the even-Homer-nods route on this, than to question the rule that plural subjects require a plural form of the verb?

Cordially, WFB

-- Dear Mr. Buckley: I was dismayed in the extreme to find that a mimindless PCism (for lack of a better term) had crept into the hallowed pages of NR!

Specifically, in the Feb. 25 issue, Dave Shiflett uses the maddeningly annoying PC construction "fisher" in place of the time-honored and perfectly acceptable (at least to those of us who are not brain dead or liberal, an equivalent condition, I think) and much more euphonious "fisherman."

I hope never to see such liberal-inspired drivel in NR again. Pray, reassure me that it was a mistake. Otherwise, I cannot help feeling that the sun has been dimmed a notch or two because NR has succumbed.

Cordially,

John Chomis

Detroit, Mich.

-- Dear Mr. Chomis: You are very excitable today.

ThThe Oxford English Dictionary lists the word "fisher" as the equivalent of "fisherman" dating back to 893 p.c.

Cordially, WFB

-- Dear Mr. Buckley: Concerning the question of proper salutations, raraised in the March 25 issue:

I believe it is proper to address the junior senator from New York as the Honorable Hillary Clinton. The office she holds, however, is that of senator, and so she may be addressed as Senator Clinton.

"Reverend," as you well know, is a title, normally earned, conferred by a church and coincidental with licensing or ordination. It is similar to Senator Clinton or Major Smith. Most "reverends" fill an office called "pastor."

Therefore, to his parishoners, Rev. Born is, properly, Pastor Born, while to you and me, who do not know him or attend his church, he is still Rev. Born.

Of course, the downside of all this is that we have to endure Rev. Jackson et al.

Sincerely,

Rev. Ronald G. Burnsteel

(also Pastor and Major USMC Ret., but please, not Reverend Major)

Chino Valley, Ariz.

-- Dear Major Burnsteel: There are two schools, one holding that the woword "reverend" can be used only as an adjective.

The dissenters say, as you do, that it isn't so, that the noun use is okay. But see, e.g., William and Mary Morris, Dictionary of Contemporary Usage: "Respect for the clergy and for the language dictate that reverend be used as an adjective only. When this happens, perhaps divinity students will be able to discard the doggerel verse long heard on divinity school campuses, 'You may call me pal, you may call me friend, / But please don't call me Reverend.' "

Cordially,

-- WFB

COPYRIGHT 2002 National Review, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2002 Gale Group