Or, as an icon read once, in a modest monastery celi,
that offered momentary warmth to a pouring rain-wet
proskyniitiis: THEOLOGEITE, OU TECHNOLOGEITE
Each to his own (cross).
>If we combine Semiotics and Psycholinguistics we may form a
>very simple theory where COMMUNICATION is the basis for a
>literal translation rather than etymology and semantics
(I am not aware that this has been done before). Words are
>stored in the mind in different ways (semantic domain, word
>classes..), not as clearly defined units, but as units with
>fuzzy edges .... etc
>My theory views the word, not as a unit with a particular
>meaning, but as a mere sign, which the reader ... etc, etc
Nothing personal, Mr. Furulli; but becoming One with the Logos
through a "Communications Sub-subtheory" is akin to a new
Course in Miracles, hyped by Madison Avenue com blitz, and
anyway certainly not in the spirit or practice of Christian
Catechism (to which, as we most all in this room realize,
translation is but a terrible, agonizing and debasing substitute
--brought about, nontheless, by said to be theologically sound yet
cosmically bound, personal power politics.) As is also not,
for that matter, in the spirit and within the proper context of
modern philological science. There are treasures to be uncovered
yet by each and everyone in the Biblos. To gloss it over by
quantitative, communication "fuzzy" chunks of imaginary signs
is to give up a glimpse, at least, of Eternity! Surely, to sub
fallacy by error is no alternative.
Isidoros
ioniccentre@hol.gr