Questions of cacophony and cadence in the 21st century

Reflecting on my last post, I thought it would be useful to gather some definitions of “cadence” to think about. Especially when thinking about how cadence is related to the specific vocabulary choices of a translation.

• “The natural sound pattern created by the spoken word.”
• “A rising and falling of the rhythms of speech in a poem. Not necessarily as strict as formal metre.”
• “The natural rhythm of language caused by the alternation of accented and unaccented syllables.”

Is the oft-praised cadence of the KJV rooted in the natural rhythm of 17th century language? The KJV’s language might be preserved through specific words and phrases in related translations like the NRSV, but the cadence is lost when those phrases are “rearranged” to fit modern grammatical sensibilities and the whole of the effect is weakened.

Is the “shorter” or “choppier” cadence of a translation like the NLT not merely simplified language for children and ESL readers, but a better reflection of the natural rhythms of 21st century langauge? Language today is different from the rhythms of the 17th century and subject to difference influences. Radio and television constantly push the fragmentation of language to the smallest unit of impact - just how short can that soundbite or quip be and still generate the desired reaction? Is our natural language’s cadence equally short and direct?

If the NRSV is lauded for its mix of modern cadence and KJV vocabulary, is it equally possible to have a Bible translation that uses 21st century vocabulary, but a 17th century cadence? Or would the result be literary and cultural cacophony?