Here's an example from the introduction to Dawood's translation, which I happen to have handy:
"But she rejoined by saying, 'Allah upon you both that ye come down forthright, and if you come not, I will rouse upon you my husband, this Ifrit, and he shall do you to die by the illest of deaths'; and she continued making signals to them."
I'm sure that's an accurate enough translation of the relevant bit of the Nights. But it's not good English. "Allah upon you"? "do you to die by the illest of deaths"? Maybe the idea is to give it an exotic flavour, but the stories themselves provide enough of that, and so far as I know the original language wouldn't feel exotic to a native reader.
It sounds like a pidgin, or literal translation. Can anybody compare the grammar used to that of the original text? Or is it a work of complete imagination?
There's (obviously) absolutely nothing with liking deliberately archaic, slightly high-flown language. Personally I find it rather annoying in Burton but like it in the KJV, but different people have different tastes.
Though ... A lot of people who read the KJV are doing so not so much for the enjoyment of its literary style, but because they believe it to be the Word of God; unfortunately this means that many people are seeking divine enlightenment from a translation that (1) in many cases they don't understand well just because its language is hundreds of years separated from what they're accustomed to speaking and reading, and that (2) is based on now-outdated textual scholarship and therefore does a suboptimal job of reporting what the allegedly divinely inspired writers actually wrote. That seems unfortunate.