"Then Moses sung," for "Then sang Moses." For "song," "canticle;"
for "fill the appetite," "satisfy the appetite;" for the inverted sentence "his blood will I require," "I will require his blood."
Canticle is just a Latin-derived word for "song".
Yeah, I know, that Challoner was practically starting a new religion by changing phrases like "Then sang Moses" to "Then Moses sung".
The heresy just oozes out of every verse. Burn that heretical trash. I want and need the real Scriptures to nourish my soul!
(In case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic. Nitpicking like this just BEGS for such sarcasm.)
The devil is certainly having a field day dividing Trads over the silliest of things.
Here's what I want to know -- those of you that "prefer" the 1500's Douay Rheims -- what do you think of the Challoner revision, or those who use it? Do you consider it to be part of the blur of Scripture "interpretations" or unfaithful translations of Scripture like the RSV, NAB, etc.?
If so, you demonstrate your sectarian nature and leanings.
Anyhow, long story short I DO know Latin and I can tell you the Challoner revision of D-R is as good as it gets. It doesn't get any better, unless you want to learn Latin and read the Vulgate yourself. I suppose that's always the best choice.
I'd be willing to bet that most (but not all) of the "elite" that stick with the 1500's D-R don't even know much Latin. They just like being elite.
Preferring that version is one thing. Grumbling about or casting slurs on the Challoner revision is another.