Revision of the American Standard Version

1941 ◽  
Vol IX (2) ◽  
pp. 104-106
Author(s):  
GEORGE DAHL
Keyword(s):  
Standard Version ◽  
American Standard

scholarly journals Differences in the Emotional Content in Different Bible Translations

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert G Franklin
Keyword(s):  
Sentiment Analysis ◽  
Emotional Content ◽  
Literal Meaning ◽  
Standard Version ◽  
Bible Translations ◽  
Original Meaning ◽  
English Translations ◽  
American Standard

The Christian Holy Bible is the most translated document of all time. In this study, we used sentiment analysis to investigate whether common English translations varied in their emotionality, comparing how positive or negative they were. We predicted that more dynamic translations, which are not as constrained to the literal meaning of the text would have a more positive emotional sentiment than more formal translations, which are more focused on accurately conveying the literal meanings of individual words and syntax. More dynamic translations, including The Message and the New Living Translation were more emotionally positive and less negative than translations which mix formal and dynamic approaches. More formal translations, such as the New American Standard Bible and the English Standard Version, were significantly more negative. These findings illustrate that translations significantly vary in emotionality and indicate the importance of using many different translations to accurately assess the original meaning.

‘Advisers or Fellow-revisers’: Recognition, Status and the Revised Version

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-81
Author(s):  
Alan H. Cadwallader
Keyword(s):  
International Cooperation ◽  
English Translation ◽  
English Language ◽  
Academic Ability ◽  
National Pride ◽  
Standard Version ◽  
Biblical Scholarship ◽  
Public Debates ◽  
History Of ◽  
American Standard

AbstractThe Revised Version is recalled in the history of English language biblical versions because of the intense public debates over its potential to supplant the Authorized Version of 1611. These highly politicized contests over text and translation have continued through to the present day and have sidetracked attention from the deeper issues of identity and status associated with scholarship and national standing. Philip Schaff led a committed and ambitious group of American Protestant and Unitarian scholars in efforts to be credited as equal participants with the English Revisers in the massive project of the revision of the long-standing and much-loved English translation. The formation of the American Revised Version Committee within a year of the commencement of the work of revision by the two English Revision Companies ushered in an immense behind-the-scenes struggle over the requisite standing for decisions over the wording of the revised translation. Linguistics and text became the arena on which contests for recognition, national pride and scholarly achievement were fought. The choice of weapons of influence ranged from promotion of academic ability to rhetorical appeals to threats of commercial subversion. This paper explores the significance of American efforts to be involved credibly and influentially in the work that culminated in the Revised Version of 1881/1885 in England and (as a testament to the standing of American biblical scholarship and the failure of international cooperation) the distinct American Standard Version of 1901.

scholarly journals The debatable identity in Isaiah 62:5

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Suciadi Chia
Keyword(s):  
Textual Criticism ◽  
Public Domain ◽  
Standard Version ◽  
Literal Translation ◽  
Reading Preference ◽  
American Standard ◽  
Common Reading ◽  
World English ◽  
King James Version ◽  
Original Reading

In Isaiah 62:5, there are three major translations of who will marry ‘you’ or ‘Zion’ based on the immediate context (Is 62:1). Firstly, the most common reading is ‘your sons’ (Amplified Bible [AB], American Standard Version [ASV], Berean Study Bible [BSB], Catholic Public Domain Version [CPDV], Douay-Rheims Bible [DRB], English Standard Version [ESV], King James Version [KJV], New International Version [NIV], New American Standard Bible [NASB], Smith’s Literal Translation [SLT], World English Bible [WEB]). Secondly, the scholars reading preference is ‘your builder’, which refers to ‘God’ based on Psalms 147:2. This reading is adopted by Coverdale Bible of 1535, New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and Good New Bible (GNT). Lastly, although the translation ‘builders’ is the least favourable reading, LSV and YLT use this reading. This research, therefore, attempts to argue for ‘your sons’ translation as the original reading through textual criticism as the methodology.Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: This article is a combination of textual criticism studies with translations.

Facilitation of Verb Recognition by MR Subjects through Syntactic Cuing

1981 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-43
Author(s):  
Kandace A. Penner ◽  
Betsy Partin Vinson
Keyword(s):  
Mentally Retarded ◽  
Vocabulary Test ◽  
Peabody Picture Vocabulary ◽  
Word Comprehension ◽  
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test ◽  
Syntactic Form ◽  
Standard Version

It has been our experience in using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test that an inordinate number of verbs are missed by mentally retarded individuals. This study attempts to determine whether verb errors were due to a lack of word comprehension or a failure to understand what was being requested by the morphological-syntactic form of the stimulus. Twenty-eight subjects residing in a state facility for the mentally retarded were given a standard version and a modified version of the PPVT. On the modified version of the test, the stimulus "verbing" was altered to incorporate a syntactic helper, forming the stimulus "somebody verbing." As a result, there was a mean reduction of verb error by almost 50%.

Toward a Comprehensive Treatment of Tautomerism in Chemoinformatics Including in InChI V2

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Devendra K. Dhaked ◽  
Wolf Ihlenfeldt ◽  
Hitesh Patel ◽  
Marc Nicklaus
Keyword(s):  
Small Molecule ◽  
Comprehensive Treatment ◽  
Experimental Literature ◽  
Web Tool ◽  
Valence Tautomerism ◽  
Standard Version ◽  
Small Molecule Databases

<p>We have collected 86 different transforms of tautomeric interconversions. Out of those, 54 are for prototropic (non-ring-chain) tautomerism; 21 for ring-chain tautomerism; and 11 for valence tautomerism. The majority of these rules have been extracted from experimental literature. Twenty rules – covering the most well-known types of tautomerism such as keto-enol tautomerism – were taken from the default handling of tautomerism by the chemoinformatics toolkit CACTVS. The rules were analyzed against nine differerent databases totaling over 400 million (non-unique) structures as to their occurrence rates, mutual overlap in coverage, and recapitulation of the rules’ enumerated tautomer sets by InChI V.1.05, both in InChI’s Standard and a Non-Standard version with the increased tautomer-handling options 15T and KET turned on. These results and the background of this study are discussed in the context of the IUPAC InChI Project tasked with the redesign of handling of tautomerism for an InChI version 2. Applying the rules presented in this paper would approximately triple the number of compounds in typical small-molecule databases that would be affected by tautomeric interconversion by InChI V2. A web tool has been created to test these rules at https://cactus.nci.nih.gov/tautomerizer.</p>

Effect of Introducing the Universal Quantifier ‘All’ into the Class Inclusion Question

1987 ◽  
Vol 60 (3_part_2) ◽  
pp. 1255-1258
Author(s):  
Ron Gold
Keyword(s):  
Universal Quantifier ◽  
Class Inclusion ◽  
Standard Version ◽  
The Third

The effect of introducing the universal quantifier ‘all’ into the class inclusion question was investigated using 104 children aged 59 to 90 mo. One group of children was asked the standard version of the question, another an ‘all-subset’ version in which ‘all’ preceded the subclass, the third an ‘all-superset’ version with ‘all’ before the superordinate class, and the fourth a ‘double-all’ version with ‘all’ in both locations. When the superordinate class was mentioned last in the question, performance was better on the all-superset and double-all versions than on the standard version. When the subclass was mentioned last, performance was better on the all-superset version only. Performance on the all-subset version did not differ from that on the standard version. The results were explained in terms of the attention-directing role of ‘all’, together with the proposal that performance improves if attention is drawn towards the superordinate class and/or away from the contrast between the subclasses.

scholarly journals Enough is too much: the excessiveness objection to sufficientarianism

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-25
Author(s):  
Carl Knight
Keyword(s):  
Distributive Justice ◽  
Standard Version ◽  
Threshold Distribution

Abstract The standard version of sufficientarianism maintains that providing people with enough, or as close to enough as is possible, is lexically prior to other distributive goals. This article argues that this is excessive – more than distributive justice allows – in four distinct ways. These concern the magnitude of advantage, the number of beneficiaries, responsibility and desert, and above-threshold distribution. Sufficientarians can respond by accepting that providing enough unconditionally is more than distributive justice allows, instead balancing sufficiency against other considerations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document