------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/GSaulB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: German style orthography
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Re: AEsir (was: OT, and religeous>
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. ON-topic (for a change): vowel reduction/loss
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. "Istinksy"?
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. Re: Left- & Rightbranching languages? (was: THEORY: Connections ...)
From: azathoth500 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Re: Left- & Rightbranching languages? (was: THEORY: Connections ...)
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. The Need for Debate
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Re: Left- & Rightbranching languages? (was: THEORY: Connections ...)
From: Andrew Patterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. plural
From: # 1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. Re: ON-topic (for a change): vowel reduction/loss
From: Steg Belsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. Re: The Need for Debate
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12. Re: The Need for Debate
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13. LLL Weekly Update #22/2004
From: J�rg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14. Re: plural
From: azathoth500 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15. Re: Pater Noster (purely linguistically)
From: taliesin the storyteller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16. Re: plural
From: Sally Caves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17. Re: ON-topic (for a change): vowel reduction/loss
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18. Re: Language & clans? Re: OT: Ukraine
From: Stephen Mulraney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19. Re: plural
From: # 1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20. Re: Language & clans? Re: OT: Ukraine
From: Sylvia Sotomayor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21. Re: plural
From: Sally Caves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22. Re: a "natural language" ?
From: Stephen Mulraney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23. Re: About perceiving flames. Was Addendum
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24. Amen (Re: Pater Noster (purely linguistically))
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25. Re: Addendum: a holy spirit
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 09:50:03 -0500
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: German style orthography
The suggestions I posted for the whistled consonants are mistaken. The
following are consistent:
/z_m_W/ ſhü
/x_W/ χü
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
j. 'mach' wust
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 09:52:09 -0500
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: AEsir (was: OT, and religeous>
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 03:02:56PM +0100, Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:
> <nitpick>
> �sir is plural. The singular is �ss,
> and the word you are looking for is
> �sago� -- reasonably the English forms
> are Ose (<OE �s) plural Oses, Ose-god.
I haven't seen the term "Ose". If we're talking about the Old Norse
pantheon, then they're usually called just that - the Old Norse gods.
Sometimes "Asgardian" is used, but I'm not aware of a non-Asgardian Old
Norse pantheon (although of course several of the Old Norse gods did not
actually live in Asgard...)
-Marcos
> --
>
> /BP 8^)>
> --
> Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
>
> Solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant!
> (Tacitus)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 10:01:31 -0500
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ON-topic (for a change): vowel reduction/loss
Okay, I'm finally getting around to the long-dreaded task
of developing a language through simulated
phonological development from a proto-language. Well,
not really "dreaded" - I only do any of this stuff for fun,
so there would be little point in doing it at all if I
dreaded it. But it does seem like a lot of work, with many
places to make mistakes that lead to an unrealistic result.
Starting with something simple, I decided that unstressed final
vowels would be lost.
I assume these vowels would necessarily go through a period of
reduction to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or similar before being lost entirely.
But it seems that this would involve reduction of unstressed vowels in other
positions, as well. Is that necessarily the case?
Also, the loss of the final vowel will in some cases trigger
modification of the previously-medial-but-now-final consonant.
One such change I'm contemplating is [r] -> [4], which seems safe enough
as it is well-attested in the Romance languages. Would it be realistic
to reduce it further from [4] to [d]?
That's all for now. Any and all help appreciated, as always.
-Marcos
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 16:29:41 +0100
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: "Istinksy"?
I was told today that "Istinsky", a nickname I have for one of my sisters, means
"truthful" in some language. Can anyone confirm? And if so, what language - I'm
guessing Russian?
Andreas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 11:03:01 -0500
From: azathoth500 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Left- & Rightbranching languages? (was: THEORY: Connections ...)
Left branching means the dependents (adjectives, clauses, etc) come
before their heads. Right branching is the other way around. English
and the other Germanic languages are a bit of both. Adjectives come
before the head, but clauses come after it.
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 15:04:34 +0100, Carsten Becker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What does "leftbranching" and "rightbranching" mean? Has it
> to do with whether a languages puts words after or in front
> of their heads? I mean, e.g. if you put an adjective in
> front of the word it refers to or after it, or if you use
> rather prepositions than postpositions?
>
> Thanks,
> Carsten
>
> --
> Eri silvev�ng aibannama padangin.
> Nivaie evaenain eri ming silvoiev�ng caparei.
> - Antoine de Saint-Exup�ry, Le Petit Prince
> -> http://www.beckerscarsten.de/?conlang=ayeri
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 11:07:22 -0500
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Left- & Rightbranching languages? (was: THEORY: Connections ...)
OK, I see. So my guess was right. Thank you.
Carsten
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 18:20:57 +0000
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: The Need for Debate
Recently there have been more accusations of flames etc on the list. I'm
reminded of when there were accusations of flames after I made certain
comments about American foreign policy and I'd say this: please will
everyone stop taking everything so personally and being so emotionally
sensitive (Since this issue keeps recurring with different people
accused of flaming, it obviously isn't just a problem with me). You have
to realize that most of these comments aren't intended to be personal
until people take them the wrong way and then a real flame war starts; I
would go further and argue that debate is a good thing. Why was there
little progress during most of the Middle Ages? Because the Church and
Governments repressed dissenting voices and prevented debate, which is
the key to new understanding and progress. With most of my friends I
often have debates that aren't personal, that are simply for enjoyment,
and which might change my point of view or help me understand the issue
more throughly. I am always willing in any debate to be swayed by a good
argument, and I almost always learn something from arguing about an
issue with someone. The same has applied to all my statements to this
list: I have simply stated my beliefs, and when a good argument is
presented to the contrary I am always willing to change them.
Unfortunately instead people often tend to interpret a statement of
belief as a personal attack on them even when they aren't even mentioned
in the email, especially on the issues of politics and religion, which
is why people on list try to avoid them. Why can't people just try to
take things less personally, to not interpret a critism of american
foreign policy as an attack on individual americans, to not interpret an
argument about the Bible as a personal attack on Christians? I might
argue about contradictory aspects of the Bible as I see them, but since
I am not omniscient I could be wrong and I know that, and you are free
to either ignore me if you choose, or debate the issue with me, and you
may convince me or I may convince you.
It is very easy when there is no tone of voice, no facial expressions,
as in email, to see the worst in what someone has written. Will everyone
please please just try to assume the best, and then (since a lot of us
happen to be argumentative, as several people have pointed out) maybe we
can all just talk happily and not have the constant angry replies to
what was probably not intended to be offensive in the first place.
And since I was talking about admitting when you're wrong, I have a
confession: all the bibles I've seen have been difficult to follow, so I
unfairly generalized. I'm perfectly happy to accept that there are good
translations I simply haven't come across, and that the priesthood isn't
simply happy with the Bible being difficult to interpret. I was wrong
and I'm perfectly happy to say so. :)
I hope no one takes offense at this, since it really isn't meant to offend,
Chris.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 13:38:05 -0500
From: Andrew Patterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Left- & Rightbranching languages? (was: THEORY: Connections ...)
I too have been trying to find a good definition of "branching" but I've
never been able to find one.
I think I'm beginning to form an opinion from all the uses I've seen, but
even your definition doesn't quite define it for me. Perhaps it wasn't
appropiate to go into too much detail at first.
I think I understand branching from a noun. Adjectives and relative clauses
can go before or after nouns left of the noun is left branching, right of
it is right branching, right?
I'm not sure that I understand "head" here. Can a head be a verb too? Are
we talking about describing functions in language. Adverbs can come before
or after verbs.
Does branching also refer to the order of subject verb object, does it
refer to modal verbs and verb patterns? Modal verbs you will note overlay
their meaning on the verb that follows in English (some would argue the
whole sentence.)Is this branching?
There is so much talk of branching out there that there really ought to be
a good definition.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 13:50:31 -0500
From: # 1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: plural
[This message is not in displayable format]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 21:25:12 +0200
From: Steg Belsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ON-topic (for a change): vowel reduction/loss
On Dec 5, 2004, at 5:01 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> Starting with something simple, I decided that unstressed final
> vowels would be lost.
> I assume these vowels would necessarily go through a period of
> reduction to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or similar before being lost entirely.
Not necessarily.
Hebrew lost all final short vowels, while the same vowels in other
parts of words sometimes became long.
-Stephen (Steg)
"if that's all you will be
you'll be a waste of time
you've dreamed a thousand dreams
none seem to stick in your mind..."
~ 'two points for honesty' by guster
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 14:23:47 -0500
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Need for Debate
The human race needs debate. However, the Conlang list only has a limited
subset of the universe that is on-topic to debate.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 19:46:26 +0000
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Need for Debate
Its natural for people to wander. Very few mailing lists, news groups
etc are always completely on-topic. Without a strict enforcer or two
there's no way this is achievable, and if it were enforced I think it
would kill any sense of community on the list.
PS: the OT topic marker exists for a reason. I try to use it. I suggest
that you encourage the increased use of this instead and change your
settings.
> The human race needs debate. However, the Conlang list only has a limited
> subset of the universe that is on-topic to debate.
>
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 21:10:40 +0100
From: J�rg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: LLL Weekly Update #22/2004
Hallo!
Today is my birthday, and because it's Sunday, here's the weekly update
on the League of Lost Languages.
Not much has happened on the lostlang mailing list in the past week;
the only post was my own, a repost of an old CONLANG post on degrees
of volition in Old Albic. I hoped it would stir a discussion and
attract traffic, but it didn't.
Greetings,
J�rg.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 14:55:54 -0500
From: azathoth500 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: plural
German marks plurals in different ways. Some nouns add -en, -er, -e,
an umlaut, or nothing. But even if the noun adds nothing in the
plural, the article still changes. That's the only example I know of.
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 13:50:31 -0500, # 1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But is there an exemple of a language that represents plural only on the
> article?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 21:03:02 +0100
From: taliesin the storyteller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pater Noster (purely linguistically)
* Mark J. Reed said on 2004-12-04 17:44:14 +0100
> On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 10:40:29AM -0500, # 1 wrote:
> > There is a site with a lot of translation of the bible (sometimes only
> > the New Testament or Gospels)
>
> There are weveral. My favorite is http://www.blueletterbible.org,
> which includes several English translations as well as the Vulgate.
My favorite is <http://www.menfak.no/bibel/lesbibel.html>, just type in
a reference, select bibles, click "Les bibelteksten(e) et voila! For
instance (enormous url!)
<http://www.menfak.no/bibelprog/mb.cgi?bi=King+James+Version+2&bi=Bible+in+Basic+English&bi=Dansk+Bibel+av+1933&bi=Darby+oversettelse&bi=Bibelselskapets+utgave+av+1930&bi=Elberfelder+-+tysk+oversettelse&bi=Louis+Segond%27s+oversettelse+av+1910&bi=Luther+Bibel&bi=Revised+Standard+Version&bi=Young%27s+Literal+oversettelse&bp=1+mo+11%3A1-9&refk=ja>
which compares the Babel text of 10 different bibles... (Reference used:
gen 11:1-9)
t.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 15:32:56 -0500
From: Sally Caves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: plural
----- Original Message -----
> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 13:50:31 -0500, # 1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> But is there an exemple of a language that represents plural only on the
>> article?
From: "azathoth500" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> German marks plurals in different ways. Some nouns add -en, -er, -e,
> an umlaut, or nothing. But even if the noun adds nothing in the
> plural, the article still changes. That's the only example I know of.
>
I think French comes even closer, if only aurally! Le chat, les chats;
l'implication, les implications; une technique, des techniques, etc.
Sally
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 15:35:55 -0500
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ON-topic (for a change): vowel reduction/loss
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 09:25:12PM +0200, Steg Belsky wrote:
> On Dec 5, 2004, at 5:01 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> >Starting with something simple, I decided that unstressed final
> >vowels would be lost.
> >I assume these vowels would necessarily go through a period of
> >reduction to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or similar before being lost entirely.
>
> Not necessarily.
> Hebrew lost all final short vowels, while the same vowels in other
> parts of words sometimes became long.
>
Ah, interesting! I did neglect to mention that the protolang
has phonemic length and that only *short* unstressed final vowels were
lost. Stressed short and unstressed long vowels are retained in some
form.
Thanks!
-Marcos
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 21:40:27 +0000
From: Stephen Mulraney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Language & clans? Re: OT: Ukraine
Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 03:31:37PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
>
>>It's probably true that all kinship systems have distinct terms for
>>father, mother, son, daughter, brother, and sister, plus terms for
>>more distant kin, but exactly which subset of relatives can be called
>>by any of these terms is very variable. There are even systems in
>>which kinship terms are used reciprocally in certain cases: you call
>>your <whatever> by the same word he or she calls you.
>
>
> e.g. English "cousin". After all, I'm the first cousin twice removed
> of my first cousin twice removed, even though we are different
> generations (hypothetically, she may be my grandparents' or
> grandchildrens' generation, although in reality the latter is as yet
> empty in my family.)
I understood John's statement to mean that there exist kinship systems where
all kinship terms are reciprocal, rather then "there exist kinship systems
where there exist terms that are reciprocal". I'm intruiged now as to whether
that's what he meant. It wouldn't seem to fit into the Sudanese-Hawaiian-
Eskimo-Iroquois-Omaha-Crow (SHEIOC? SHECIO? HESICO? SEHICO?) classification,
but maybe it's more a feature of discourse, rather than of the underlying
kinship system.
s.
--
Work is of two kinds: first, altering the position of Stephen Mulraney
matter at or near the earth's surface relative to http://ataltane.net
other matter; second, telling other people [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to do so. -- Bertrand Russell http://livejournal.com/~ataltane
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 16:48:39 -0500
From: # 1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: plural
[This message is not in displayable format]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 14:03:45 -0800
From: Sylvia Sotomayor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Language & clans? Re: OT: Ukraine
On Sunday 05 December 2004 13:40, Stephen Mulraney wrote:
> Mark J. Reed wrote:
>
> I understood John's statement to mean that there exist kinship systems
> where all kinship terms are reciprocal, rather then "there exist kinship
> systems where there exist terms that are reciprocal". I'm intruiged now as
> to whether that's what he meant. It wouldn't seem to fit into the
> Sudanese-Hawaiian- Eskimo-Iroquois-Omaha-Crow (SHEIOC? SHECIO? HESICO?
> SEHICO?) classification, but maybe it's more a feature of discourse, rather
> than of the underlying kinship system.
>
I would like to see a kinship system in which all the terms are reciprocal.
I've kinda wanted that for Kelen, but I'm not sure how it would work,
exactly. I can imagine a Kele�i person saying:
selne� anp�ra for 'we (paucal, exclusive (hence, dual)) are mo-dau-relation'
But then, I think they also use animate nouns, like:
map�ra for 'mother, mother's-sister'.
mal�ca for 'daughter, girl, young woman'.
-S
--
Sylvia Sotomayor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K�len language info can be found at:
http://home.netcom.com/~sylvia1/Kelen/kelen.html
This post may contain the following:
� (a-acute) � (e-acute) � (i-acute)
� (o-acute) � (u-acute) � (n-tilde)
�e �arra anm�rienne c� �e reharra anm�rienne l�;
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 17:18:14 -0500
From: Sally Caves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: plural
So, you are a francophone! I was really actually responding to the other
conlanger who suggested German as a template. As for this idea of yours, I
think you ought to go about implementing it, Number One! I think it's
terrific. In my language, Teonaht, only the articles (not the nouns they
modify) demonstrate volitionality or non-volitionality. So I see this idea as
original and promising. Why duplicate linguistic information? The Welsh put
singular nouns after numbers; the number already implies plurality, and Teonaht
has adopted this rule as well.
If Matt Pearson were still online, he might be able to tell you what he does
with his "determiners" in Tokana. I think of Tokana as being very efficient.
Sally
----- Original Message -----
From: # 1
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: plural
Sally Caves wrote:
> I think French comes even closer, if only aurally! Le chat, les chats;
> l'implication, les implications; une technique, des techniques, etc.
My mother tongue is the frensh and I know that fact about the plural.
Usually, plurals are unaudible, because final "s" or "x" are not pronounced so
it is audible only with the other plural forms like "aux". it is why it is more
simple to learn to speak frensh than to write it, the flexions are very present
but only on writings, when we speak the plural is like the singular and the
first, second, and third person singular conjugaisons are often the same.
But even unaudible, it is a plural change.
Nobody knows about a language (or conlang, because I'm probalby not the first
to have that idea) that uses to form the plural on the article?
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 22:34:16 +0000
From: Stephen Mulraney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: a "natural language" ?
J�rg Rhiemeier wrote:
> Hallo!
> is due to regular sound changes wreaking havoc with the inherited
> paradigms. Proto-Indo-European seems to have been more regular than
> most of its descendants.
Surely this is just an artifact of reconstruction, which relies on
regularities in the daughter langs to predict features of PIE?
(late reply, forgiveness begged; 1,913 messages behind)
s.
--
Work is of two kinds: first, altering the position of Stephen Mulraney
matter at or near the earth's surface relative to http://ataltane.net
other matter; second, telling other people [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to do so. -- Bertrand Russell http://livejournal.com/~ataltane
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 23
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 22:35:55 +0000
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: About perceiving flames. Was Addendum
On Saturday, December 4, 2004, at 07:48 , caeruleancentaur wrote:
[snip]
> I truly did not remember that it was you. Please
> chalk the lapse of manners to my newness in the group.
Touch�. I truly had forgotten that Charlie was Fr Charlie Brickner. I
haven't yet got used to the varying views of the new members - tho I am
learning very fast at the moment!!
Please accept my apologies both for imputing to you a motive that was
certainly incorrect and for the manner of my reply. If had had remembered
who you were, I would still have replied but I would have done so in a
very different way.
> .... And I will take your advice about giving my
> responses more thought.
Sally has advised me many times. I've got better (just imagine how I might
have replied otherwise!), but I still have some way to go, obviously :)
> And I certainly meant no snipe at a traditional trinitarian belief.
> It is a belief that I hold, too.
It was most unfortunate that it was worded so very like arguments I have
heard used to attack that belief which we both share.
===========================================================
On Saturday, December 4, 2004, at 07:32 , Sally Caves wrote:
[snip]
> Ray writes:
>> I am saddened that Charlie has chosen to use the list to
>> make a not very subtle snipe at traditional trinitarian belief. I can
>> make
>> a reasonable guess which religious group he adheres to - but I have no
>> wish to go down that path.
>
> Now Ray, forgive me, but this was not only dogmatic and inflammatory, but
> an
> ill-informed ad hominem attack.
I cannot for the live of me see anything _dogmatic_ in what I wrote. As
for inflammatory, I had found many earlier remarks inflammatory and
offensive in this and some other recent threads - but, OK, two wrongs do
not make a right.
I said however I was *saddened*. Maybe you do not believe me, but there it
is. It is not exactly an attack - I personally was saddened at what some
one said, period.
I do take the point that I was ill-informed. Fairly obviously I would have
worded things differently if I had realized that Charlie was Fr Charlie
Brickner.
But I remember watching a TV program many years ago now - before Castro
took control in Cuba. An interviewer was asking someone why he thought
Castro & co, were communists. He replied something like "When you see
something white, covered in feather, with webbed feet and a bill, you know
it is a duck."
Over the past five decades I have several times had occasion to be told by
certain people that the trinity is untrue and one of the planks of their
arguments is *precisely* that certain passages in the NT should be
translated with "a"/"an" because there is no definite article in Greek. I
then see the same thing being written here on the list.
> It has turned a relatively low-keyed
> dispute about a linguistic matter into a true flame.
Let me remind you what was actually written:
> BTW (not to you, Ph.D.), neither the Matthean annunciation story
> (1:24) nor the Lucan (1:35) mention The Holy Spirit/Ghost. In those
> verses the definite article is not used, so the translation would
> be "a holy spirit." To insert "the" is to paraphrase, to add a
> theological nuance not found in the text.
To translate "a holy spirit" is, as you agreed, to add a theological
nuance not in the original. Having heard practically the same argument put
to me several times, I wrongly assumed someone was using the list to slip
in an attack on traditional Christian belief without actually saying so.
But I may well have kept quite had I not found some remarks that followed
in the thread more offensive.
[snip]
> Never jump to conclusions, Ray. And if you don't wish to go down that
> path,
> as you *say,*
I did *say* - and I meant it. I could name several groups that hold
similar views, but I have encountered them mostly from one. But I do *NOT*
want to turn this into such an argument, that is why I said I was
*saddened* at the original statement.
[snip]
> Charlie's error was of a
> linguistic nature,
I seem to remember something about "theological nuance".
======================================================
But let me make it clear to everyone, as there seems some misunderstanding.
I have no problem with accepting that other people do not agree with me.
Indeed, I explicitly said I respect their views and do not intentionally
seek to give offense. I have no problem with discussing the doctrine of
the Trinity, tho the _Constructed Languages List_ does not seem to me the
most appropriate place.
What I was objecting to is what I perceived to be - and quite mistakenly
perceived - the misuse of a thread to launch an attack on people's
personal belief without actually coming clean and saying so. OK - I
misunderstood some one and I have apologized for imputing such
dishonorable conduct to Charlie. I now realize it was unfounded. I have
apologized for the manner of my reply.
I hope Sally has noticed that I have not responded to certain other mails
in recent threads - I have heeded her words about wrestling with certain
creatures ;)
Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===============================================
Anything is possible in the fabulous Celtic twilight,
which is not so much a twilight of the gods
as of the reason." [JRRT, "English and Welsh" ]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 24
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 22:36:49 +0000
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Amen (Re: Pater Noster (purely linguistically))
On Saturday, December 4, 2004, at 08:28 , Steg Belsky wrote:[snip]
> In the time of the Masoretes, who invented vowel diacritics for Hebrew
> texts, "amen" seems to have been pronounced something like [O'men] -
> one or both of the vowels might be long, though. This was around the
> 800's CE.
>
> It may well have been pronounced something like [a'men] back around the
> non-year 0, though :) .
The Greek makes it quite clear that the 2nd vowel is long. Whether the 1st
vowel is long or short is impossible to tell. The word was accented on the
second syllable - strictly a pitch accent in Greek at that time but
possibly already changing to stress in some areas. Thus:
[a'me:n] or [a:'me:n] in Greek of the 1st cent CE.
Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===============================================
Anything is possible in the fabulous Celtic twilight,
which is not so much a twilight of the gods
as of the reason." [JRRT, "English and Welsh" ]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 25
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 22:36:07 +0000
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Addendum: a holy spirit
On Saturday, December 4, 2004, at 08:13 , Steg Belsky wrote:
> On Dec 4, 2004, at 7:01 PM, Ray Brown wrote:
>> And a proper discussion of _pneuma hagion_, which seems consistently to
>> preserve the Semitic order of noun+adjective, cannot be done without
>> considering its Hebrew antecedent. We need to consider how the concept
>> of
>> God's "holy breath" is used in the Jewish scriptures, beginning with
>> the
>> the second verse of the very opening chapter of Genesis where we read
>> of
>> God's breath (_pneuma Theou_ in the Septuagint version - notice lack of
>> articles before either noun!) hovered over the waters.
>
> Could "Theou" and the other forms of it without a definite article be
> being used as a name, like "God" in English or "E-lohim" in Hebrew?
Yes, of course, it obviously is. The Septuagint was made by Jews for Jews
and the very idea of "a god" in contexts like this is quite out of the
question. It is clearly being used as a name and I amazed that this has
not been recognized in New testament parallels.
> "holy breath/spirit" in Hebrew is actually a noun+noun construct
> compound, not a noun+adjective one - _ruahh haqodesh_, "(the)
> wind/spirit of (the) holiness" -
Right - Yep, this type of construction IIRC is common in Hebrew. I should
have said "head + qualifier". It is clear that _pneuma _hagion_ was a set
phrase.
> or, if you want to interpret it
> theologically, "(the) wind/spirit of The Holiness", i.e. God.
>
> It doesn't seem possible to distinguish based on the term whether it
> means something like "God's non-corporeal existence" or just "a
> wind/spirit that belongs to God".
Thanks - that really is the point I was alluding to.
According to John's Gospel, Jesus speaks of the 'Holy Breath' as a person,
nameing him 'ho Parakle:tos' (the advocate) who he says his father will
send in his name. Now this makes it fairly clear that the 'Holy breath' is
not the same as the father. It has been traditional to take _pneuma
hagion_ basically as the first of your meanings and, as the doctrine of
the Trinity, the "non-corporeal existence of God" was acoounted one of the
three 'persons' (hypostaseis) of the one God.
Now some groups who accept the Christian scriptures do reject the teaching
of the trinity, making Jesus the greatest of God's creatures - but a
creature no less - and _pneuma hagion_ a breath/spirit that belongs to God.
==============================================
On Saturday, December 4, 2004, at 05:35 , Sally Caves wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip Newton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[snip]
>> It's also the only passage of the four that has a definite article in
>> my edition of the Greek NT.
>
> This is most interesting. I'm also interested in what looks like a
> doubling of the definite article in Mt 12:32 tou pneumatos tou hagiou?
> The
> spirit the holy? It I'm right, that's quite some definition! Is this
> common in Greek?
It is required if the adjective follows the noun. The common, unmarked
word order in both ancient & modern greek is: [article +] adjective + noun.
Just as in English, in fact. But if you wished to place the adjective
after the noun for reasons of emphasis, the definite article, if there was
one, had to be repeated.
>>> Also, Acts, 2:4; Romans 14:17 and 15: 16. etc.
>>
>> No definite article before "holy spirit" in any of those three passages.
>
> Strange: the holy Spirit here seems to indicate the "substantially
> important
>> one":
>
> Acts 2:4 KJV: "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to
> speak with other tongues like as of fire as the Spirit gave them
> utterance."
> (Ghost and Spirit seem to refer to the same thing.
Yes, in both cases the greek uses the same word _pneuma_, so one wonders
why the KJV uses two different words.
> I suppose one could see
> this as "a holy spirit," but it seems wrong, somehow. How many holy
> spirits
> are there?)
In this case, 12 - one for each apostle, if you understand it to mean just
"a breath God", which is possible - but as far as I can see somewhat odds
with the idea of the Paraclete.
> Romans 14:17 KJV: "For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but
> righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." ("a holy spirit"
> would seem massively inappropriate here.)
Well, yes, I would think so. But the greek texts do not have a definite
article here.
> Romans 15:16 KJV: "That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the
> Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the
> Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost."
> (Again,
> this passage seems to refer to the ONE Holy Spirit).
The literal translation is: "sanctified in holy breath."
"in a holy breath" and "in the Holy Breath" do not mean the same, but 'in
holy breath' is actually acceptable English but carries IMO a rather
different meaning from that normally understood.
[snip]
> I wonder why the definite article emerges, then, in the passage from
> Matthew
> 12:32?
I suspect it is balancing _tou hyiou tou anthro:pou_ where the second
article is not attached to _anthro:pou_ (man) - it is not "of the son of
the man" - it is a repetition of the article because the attribute follows
the noun: of-the son of-the-one of-man --> the son of man. We have:
article noun article attribute. So _tou pneumatos tou hagiou_ balances it
nicely and could well mean literally 'of-the breath of-the-one of-
holy[person]' cf _ruahh haqodesh_ above.
> I also just read Ray's response. Touche. I can't imagine why
> anyone would assume that it is not the Holy Spirit that entered Mary
> merely
> because of the absence of a definite article.
I have met people who do think it was not.
> Or that in the first passage
> from Romans it is joy in "a holy spirit." How many holy spirits ARE
> there?
One IMO - but I guess in the opinion of others it could be infinite.
Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===============================================
Anything is possible in the fabulous Celtic twilight,
which is not so much a twilight of the gods
as of the reason." [JRRT, "English and Welsh" ]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
