He was in charge of the first English translation of the complete Bible
to be printed in England (1535) -- with the King's authorization.
While in exile in Holland, Coverdale had worked with translator William
Tyndale, who was put to death in 1536 -- not for Bible translation, but
for his theological opinions. Coverdale had similar opinions, but better
luck, and died in his bed, merely impoverished by the Church's disapproval.

"Most of Coverdale's text was superseded by later versions, though his
translation of the Psalms was used in the Book of Common Prayer (see 15
January)."

Crystal devotes a couple of paragraphs to Coverdale's "role in the
development of English vocabulary". There are apparently 189 words that
have their first OED citation in Coverdale's translation. Of course this
does not necessarily mean that Coverdale made up these words -- merely
that he was the first to put them in print. I suppose you could argue
that just putting them in a book gave them an added currency, which
could be considered a contribution to the English vocabulary. But I wish
people would make these distinctions more clearly (see my previous rants
about Shakespeare in this connection).

Anyhow, here are the examples that Crystal gives:

behold
fig leaves
swaddling-clothes
brawling
doorkeeper
evening star
morning star
killer
zeal
bellyful
off and on

And a few others which didn't catch on:

Babylonical (Babylonian)
yonside (farther side)
overmorrow (day after tomorrow)
out-quencher (candle-snuffer)

Sat, 20 Jan 2024 12:18:33 +1300: Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz>
scribeva:
>Crystal devotes a couple of paragraphs to Coverdale's "role in the
>development of English vocabulary". There are apparently 189 words that
>have their first OED citation in Coverdale's translation.
[...]
>Anyhow, here are the examples that Crystal gives:
>
>behold
[...]

>And a few others which didn't catch on:
[...]
>overmorrow (day after tomorrow)
[...]

His Bible translation may indeed have been the first time a word like
"overmorrow" appeared in print, but it seems very likely to be much
older, and not specially coined by the translator. That's because it
corresponds directly to Dutch 'overmorgen' and German 'übermorgen',
both still in current use.

Cf. my list in
https://rudhar.com/etymolog/TYSB/anciangl/ia.htm#Tabella .

Sat, 20 Jan 2024 08:45:26 +0100: Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com>
scribeva:

Sorry, I noticed the list of words first, and hadn't seen yet that you
also wrote this:
> Of course this does not necessarily mean that Coverdale
> made up these words -- merely that he was the first to put
> them in print. I suppose you could argue that just putting
> them in a book gave them an added currency, which could
> be considered a contribution to the English vocabulary. But
> I wish people would make these distinctions more clearly
> (see my previous rants about Shakespeare in this connection).

>Sat, 20 Jan 2024 12:18:33 +1300: Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz>
>scribeva:
>>Crystal devotes a couple of paragraphs to Coverdale's "role in the
>>development of English vocabulary". There are apparently 189 words that
>>have their first OED citation in Coverdale's translation.
>[...]
>>Anyhow, here are the examples that Crystal gives:
>>
>>behold
>[...]
>
>>And a few others which didn't catch on:
>[...]
>>overmorrow (day after tomorrow)
>[...]
>
>His Bible translation may indeed have been the first time a word like
>"overmorrow" appeared in print, but it seems very likely to be much
>older, and not specially coined by the translator. That's because it
>corresponds directly to Dutch 'overmorgen' and German 'übermorgen',
>both still in current use.
>
>Cf. my list in
>https://rudhar.com/etymolog/TYSB/anciangl/ia.htm#Tabella .

On 2024-01-20, Ruud Harmsen wrote:

> Sat, 20 Jan 2024 12:18:33 +1300: Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz>
> scribeva:
>>Crystal devotes a couple of paragraphs to Coverdale's "role in the
>>development of English vocabulary". There are apparently 189 words that
>>have their first OED citation in Coverdale's translation.
> [...]
>>Anyhow, here are the examples that Crystal gives:
>>
>>behold
> [...]
>
>>And a few others which didn't catch on:
> [...]
>>overmorrow (day after tomorrow)
> [...]
>
> His Bible translation may indeed have been the first time a word like
> "overmorrow" appeared in print, but it seems very likely to be much
> older, and not specially coined by the translator. That's because it
> corresponds directly to Dutch 'overmorgen' and German 'übermorgen',
> both still in current use.
>
> Cf. my list in
> https://rudhar.com/etymolog/TYSB/anciangl/ia.htm#Tabella .

Too bad it didn't catch on --- I like it.

--
skating away
on the thin ice of the new day

On 2024-01-19, Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

> Crystal devotes a couple of paragraphs to Coverdale's "role in the
> development of English vocabulary".
>
> Anyhow, here are the examples that Crystal gives:
>
> behold

That is surprising, since "behold" looks like a very old formation.
And indeed, Etymonline and Wiktionary trace it back to an Old English
verb. So I don't know what Crystal has in mind here.

The other examples look like straightforward formations/calques/
loans.

> And a few others which didn't catch on:
>
> Babylonical (Babylonian)

I imagine there are numerous cases like that where eventually a
different adjective suffix prevailed.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de

On 2024-01-20, Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> wrote:

> His Bible translation may indeed have been the first time a word like
> "overmorrow" appeared in print, but it seems very likely to be much
> older, and not specially coined by the translator. That's because it
> corresponds directly to Dutch 'overmorgen' and German 'übermorgen',
> both still in current use.

"While in exile in Holland, Coverdale had worked with translator
William Tyndale", so a calque from Dutch-German feels like a distinct
possibility.

Duden online says the German term goes back to Old High German "ubar
morgan"; the dedicated etymological dictionaries don't list it.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de

Sat, 20 Jan 2024 15:49:30 -0000 (UTC): Christian Weisgerber
<naddy@mips.inka.de> scribeva:

>On 2024-01-20, Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> wrote:
>
>> His Bible translation may indeed have been the first time a word like
>> "overmorrow" appeared in print, but it seems very likely to be much
>> older, and not specially coined by the translator. That's because it
>> corresponds directly to Dutch 'overmorgen' and German 'übermorgen',
>> both still in current use.
>
>"While in exile in Holland, Coverdale had worked with translator
>William Tyndale", so a calque from Dutch-German feels like a distinct
>possibility.

To my amazement, that is indeed what Wiktionary says:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/overmorrow

>Duden online says the German term goes back to Old High German "ubar
>morgan"; the dedicated etymological dictionaries don't list it.

--
Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com

On 21/01/2024 4:36 a.m., Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> On 2024-01-19, Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> Crystal devotes a couple of paragraphs to Coverdale's "role in the
>> development of English vocabulary".
>>
>> Anyhow, here are the examples that Crystal gives:
>>
>> behold
>
> That is surprising, since "behold" looks like a very old formation.
> And indeed, Etymonline and Wiktionary trace it back to an Old English
> verb. So I don't know what Crystal has in mind here.

Another good point. The verb does indeed appear as OE bihealdan.
What Coverdale is apparently the first to use is the interjection "used
to call attention" -- a little like voilà!

The passage is: Beholde, I will send my messaunger (Malachi iii,1)