[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #703
b-greek-digest Wednesday, 10 May 1995 Volume 01 : Number 703
In this issue:
Secret Mark, Neusner, etc.
Re: Inclusive Language
Re: more inclusivity
HISTORIA
Re: The English Second Person Plural
Re: Son of Man in NRSV NT
Re: HISTORIA
Re: Son of Man in NRSV NT
Son of Man, Yet Again
WID
Re: Son of Man, Yet Again
Secret Mar, Smith, etc.
Re: Greek font on internet
NRSV and ADELFOI
Re: WID
Re: HISTORIA
Re: Secret Mar, Smith, etc.
Re: WID [Suggested convention]
Bruce Terry's "Married only once"
Re: Bruce Terry's "Married only once"
Transliteration
Re: Transliteration
Re: WID [Suggested convention]
RE: WID
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Greg Doudna <gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov>
Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 02:10:56 -0700
Subject: Secret Mark, Neusner, etc.
Paul Moser wrote:
> . . . Neusner announces that Smith's proposed evidence for the
> so-called Secret Gospel of Mark "must now be declared the
> forgery of the century" (p. 28). Neusner suggests that Smith
> himself forged the Clement of Alexandria fragment that
> allegedly surfaced in a library in Sinai in 1958, giving
> evidence of the Secret Gospel. As one might have expected,
> Helmut Koester and J.D. Crossan regard canonical Mark as
> postdating Secret Mark . . .
I had not heard of Neusner's claim or this particular work of
Neusner's (_Are There Really Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels?_)
but I have studied this issue of Secret Mark and had become
convinced that Morton Smith perpetrated a fraud, also.
Not a single reference to or reaction against this alleged
Clement letter is known in history; and the book in which
Morton Smith found the letter at the Mar Saba monastery was
not listed in any previous catalogue of that monastery. Morton
Smith made no effort whatever toward conservation of the
manuscript, nor has the document apparently been seen or brought
to light for testing and analysis by anyone else. (I do not
doubt that a genuine 17th century book with a letter in the
back exists; but there is no evidence beyond M Smith's word
that he found it in the monastery.) The shocking contents of
the letter sound suspiciously like theories Morton Smith was
working on; and there is much more. I am unfamiliar with
Neusner's analysis, but in my own reading of Smith's account
of the discovery I have noted strange ways Smith puts things.
For example, he dedicated his book on the Secret Gospel,
cryptically, "To the one who knows"; and never disclosed
who this person was or what this person knew.
For articulation of suspicions of forgery before now Quentin
Quesnell in _Catholic Biblical Quarterly_ 37 (1975): 48-67 is
a classic, and see also M. Smith's reply and Quesnell's reply
to Smith's reply in the next issue, CBQ 38. There is a good
discussion of the forgery question in _Longer Mark: Forgery,
Interpolation, or Old Tradition?- ed. R. Fuller (Berkeley:
Center for Hermeneutical Studies, 1976). This list's very
own Edward Hobbs was at the Colloquium reported in this last
citation, where Smith was also present at the discussion of
whether his discovery was a forgery; perhaps Dr. Hobbs can
offer some illuminating firsthand anecdotal information of
that occasion!
Greg Doudna
West Linn, Oregon
- --
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 05:52:54 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Inclusive Language
On Tue, 9 May 1995 ATaranto@aol.com wrote:
> Current English usage seems to be that "man" refers to male persons, while
> "human" refers to persons both male and female. Some, however, would point
> out that "human" still has sexest connotations since the word "man" is
> burried therein (just as some argue that "history" is a sexest term because
> it is only "his story").
>
> (As far as I can tell, there are no appreciable sexual biases in the Latin
> cognates of "human," by the way.)
This reading of "human" and "history" is intelligible only as a
rhetorical ploy in sexual politics. What is disturbing is that many have
taken it to be more than that and fear to use "human" as if it really
WERE a masculine adjective because of the imbedded "man." "History," of
course, derives from Grk HISTORIA meaning originally something like
"research report."
When the papal encycliclal, HOMO REDEMPTOR, was issued, there appeared
quickly a criticism of it as "sexist" on grounds that the very opening
word of it is "man." I don't know whether this was simply ignorance of
Latin or a retrojection of the rhetorical ploy into Latin, where it is
absurd. The Vatican's stance may be criticized as sexist, but not the
Vatican's Latin.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
------------------------------
From: Pat Tiller <ptiller@husc.harvard.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 09:53:20 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: more inclusivity
On Tue, 9 May 1995, Mari Olsen wrote:
> When man is depressed, he loses interest in his wife and children.
Of the three examples given, this one seems to me to be not only the most
jarring, but wrong as well. In such a phrase, I would expect "man" to be
unmarked for gender, while "wife and children" imply a specific gender
and specific social circumstances as well.
That "man" can be unmarked for gender, however, does not mean that the
usage is not sexist, in that it may imply (or be taken to imply) that
the male is the standard for humanness. I'm not really sure.
It seems to me that there are two reasons for using more-or-less
"inclusive" language. (1) I don't want to offend people. (2) I want to
be understood, and non-inclusive language seems to be especially liable to
misinterpretation. It is possible to endorse the use of inclusive
language without having to pass judgment on past usage, the history of
the English language, or anyone else who continues to use more
traditional language.
BTW, I especially like the suggestion to use "their" as a common (not
gender specific) singular pronoun, since that usage is already
established in at least some dialects of American English.
Pat Tiller
Harvard Divinity School
------------------------------
From: "Marmorstein, Art" <marmorsa@wolf.northern.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 May 95 09:20:00 CDT
Subject: HISTORIA
How about a bit more clarification of the etymology of historia? I was told
as an undergraduate that Herodotus was borrowing a legal term, but I don't
see any examples of such usage prior to Herodotus in Liddell and Scott.
Also, does anyone know if a historian is ever called a HISTWP or are we
always merely HISTORIOGRAPHOI?
Art Marmorstein
(marmorsa@wolf.northern.edu)
------------------------------
From: Nichael Lynn Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 12:01:22 -0400
Subject: Re: The English Second Person Plural
Bruce Terry wrote:
>On Sat, 6 May 1995, Ellen Adams wrote:
>>Someone else suggested earlier that we reinstitute the old English
>>werman, to specify the male. While were at it, could we add ifn when
>>ei..an introduce a subjunctive, and yall as the plural of you?
>Y'all is the plural of you. It has been all of my life. Where are you from,
>anyway? :-)
>
>--Bruce (born and bred in Texas; another wacko from Waco)
More to the point, during the time I serve^H^H^H^H^H^H spent in Dallas, my
office mate was givent to using "y'all's" --i.e. the second person plural
possessive.
Nichael __
nichael@sover.net Be as passers-by -- IC
Paradise Farm
Brattleboro VT
------------------------------
From: Nichael Lynn Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 12:01:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Son of Man in NRSV NT
Edgar M. Krentz wrote:
>>Tim Mclay wondered whether the NRSV avoided the title
>>"Son of Man" in the NT as it does in Daniel 7:13.
>>The NRSV translates with "Son of Man" consistently
>>throughout the four gospels when Jesus uses the title
>>of himself. In addition, the NRSV goes with "Son of
>>Man" even at Revelation 14:14, where some find a
>>Danielic allusion. It's amazing, then, that the
>>NRSV goes with "human being" at Daniel 7:13.--Paul Moser,
>>Loyola University of Chicago.
>
>I wonder if it really is so amazing. The translators interpreted the phrase
>to make it clear that the words in Dan 7:14 are not titular, as they appear
>to be in the gospels. They do put the literal Aramaic in a note--without
>capitalization. The title in the gospels is capitalized. I also noticed
>that the NAB translates "a son of man"--without capitalization.
As an aside, one clear (and rather extreme) non-titular use of "son of man"
occurs in Job 25:5f:
Behold, even the moon is not bright
and the stars are not clean in his sight;
how much less man, who is a maggot,
and the son of man, who is a worm!
[RSV]
Presumably, this usage --i.e. something like "mere human"-- was not the one
with which the synoptic writers were attempting to achieve resonance. ;-)
Nichael __
nichael@sover.net Be as passers-by -- IC
Paradise Farm
Brattleboro VT
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 11:10:19 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: HISTORIA
On Wed, 10 May 1995, Marmorstein, Art wrote:
> How about a bit more clarification of the etymology of historia? I was told
> as an undergraduate that Herodotus was borrowing a legal term, but I don't
> see any examples of such usage prior to Herodotus in Liddell and Scott.
>
> Also, does anyone know if a historian is ever called a HISTWP or are we
> always merely HISTORIOGRAPHOI?
(1) The ultimate root is WID, or, to be more precise, WEID/WOID/WID,
meaning "see," "know," depending on the specific form of the root. In
Greek the root is most commonly seen in the thematic aorist form EIDON
(E-WID-ON) and the perfect tense form OIDA (pl. IDMEN/ISMEN, inf.
EIDENAI). This is, of course, the same root as appears in Latin VIDERE,
German WISSEN, and English WIT and WIS-DOM.
(2) The noun HISTORIA derives more directly from the older agent noun
derived from the above verb root, HISTWR which shows up as far back as
Homer in the form WISTWR (with a digamma inferred from metrical
considerations). HISTWR means "one who knows," especially, as a technical
term, "one who knows law and right." This is clearly the source of what
you were told about derivation from a legal term.
(3) However, HISTWR does not account for the distinct sense of HISTORIA
as "a learning by inquiry," "research," or "research report," "written
account of one's inquiries." The word in the background of HISTORIA or
more closely associated with it is the verb, itself derived from HISTWR
in the less-technical sense of "knower," HISTOREW, "inquire," "learn by
asking questions," or, we might say, "do research."
(4) No less fascinating (to me, at least) is the later history of the word
after its naturalization in Latin: it splits into the almost antithetical
senses of "history" in the modern sense, and "narrative account," or
"(fictional) story." Thus both our English words HISTORY and STORY both
derive from the Latin word, while the French derivative HISTOIRE retains
both meanings; German GESCHICHTE has the same two meanings (whether by
analogy with Fr. HISTOIRE or Italian ISTORIA, I don't know).
More than you wanted to know, perhaps.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 11:20:52 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Son of Man in NRSV NT
On Wed, 10 May 1995, Nichael Lynn Cramer wrote:
> As an aside, one clear (and rather extreme) non-titular use of "son of man"
> occurs in Job 25:5f:
>
> Behold, even the moon is not bright
> and the stars are not clean in his sight;
> how much less man, who is a maggot,
> and the son of man, who is a worm!
> [RSV]
> Presumably, this usage --i.e. something like "mere human"-- was not the one
> with which the synoptic writers were attempting to achieve resonance. ;-)
And another celebrated non-titular usage, perhaps with a literary
relationship to the Job passage: Psalm 8.3-4, where RSV reads:
When I look at thy heavens, the work of thy fingers,
the moon and the stars which thou hast established;
what is man that thou art mindful of him,
and the son of man that thou dost care for him?
The corresponding verse 4 in NRSV reads:
what are human beings that you are mindful of them,
mortals that you care for them?
There can be absolutely no doubt that NRSV captures the correct sense of
the original, but there does seem to me to be a sad rhythmic loss,
especially in the first colon of verse 4.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
------------------------------
From: Paul Moser <PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 May 95 11:49 CDT
Subject: Son of Man, Yet Again
For an exceptionally concise and lucid treatment of
uses of "son of man", see Robert Stein, *The Method
and Message of Jesus' Teachings*, 2d ed. (Westminster,
1994), pp.135-51.--Paul Moser, Loyola University of
Chicago.
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 12:16:47 CST
Subject: WID
Carl--
Just a point of clarification on your interesting post on HISTORIA. When you
used the capital W in that post, it was to represent the digamma (which had
the w sound) and not the omega (which had the w shape), correct?
- --Bruce
P.S. It would be nice to have a full Greek font, including digamma, on the
internet.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 13:27:10 -0400
Subject: Re: Son of Man, Yet Again
Paul Moser wrote
"For an exceptionally concise and lucid treatment of
uses of "son of man", see Robert Stein, *The Method
and Message of Jesus' Teachings*, 2d ed. (Westminster,
1994), pp.135-51."
I would also suggest Morna Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark. The treatment of
the background material is thorough.
Ethelbert Stauffer (NT Theology) stated that the use of the term SON OF MAN
by Jesus was about the most presumptuous claim that a first century Jew could
have made. He (Stauffer) was influenced more by its use in the Similitudes
of Enoch.
I'm not sure that I could agree with that. Hooker demonstrates that the term
allowed room for a suffering Messiah due to its application to the "Saints of
the Most High" in Daniel 7:18. Those who suffer for God will be vindicated.
Carlton Winbery
Chair Religion
Louisiana College
------------------------------
From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 13:33:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Secret Mar, Smith, etc.
Thanks for the invitation, again, to respond about the Secret Mark Colloquy
in Berkeley. Actually, I was not only present, but was the organizer,
part-author, editor, and recipient of the tones of hate-mail Smith generated,
I'm too swamped with things just now, but I promise to write on it soon,
perhaps next weekend. A forgery? OF COURSE!!! Who did it? Ah, there's
the story!
Edward Hobbs
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 13:33:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Greek font on internet
We all seem to enter transliterations in a different way. I have been typing
Greek according to Linquist's Software keyboard layout since 1984. There
were some changes in 85 when we went from Greek+ to SuperGreek. Now all
fonts from Philip Stone are like the SuperGreek layout. If a person simply
typed into e-mail using the keyboard layout (without accents), I could copy
the e-mail into any word processor and change the Greek to actual Greek font
with the click of a button. I would be interested to see the keyboard layout
of those who are using DOS machines.
What brought this to mind was the fact that in Linguist's Software fonts the
w is the omega.
Carlton Winbery
Chair of Rel.
LA College
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 13:05:22 CST
Subject: NRSV and ADELFOI
My major objection to the NRSV is not that they used inclusive language
(English is in the process of change) in translating, but that they did not do
it well. It is one thing to translate ADELFOI by "brothers and sisters"
instead of "brethren." It is another thing to translate it unpredictably by
half a dozen terms, several of which have no relation to family. I had always
said that the English word "member" in the NT was used in an organic rather
than an organizational way (i.e. as a part of a body rather than a member of
an organization). However, in the NRSV this is no longer true. 1 Tim. 6:2
translates ADELFOI as "members of the church." There is, IMHO, a great deal
of difference between this English translation (?) and the Greek text. Even
the Living Bible Paraphrased is more literal than this!
Maybe someone who has the software to do so can run us a list of the different
ways that ADELFOI is translated in the NRSV.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 13:34:10 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: WID
On Wed, 10 May 1995, Bruce Terry wrote:
> Carl--
>
> Just a point of clarification on your interesting post on HISTORIA. When you
> used the capital W in that post, it was to represent the digamma (which had
> the w sound) and not the omega (which had the w shape), correct?
>
> --Bruce
>
> P.S. It would be nice to have a full Greek font, including digamma, on the
> internet.
Yes, I did indeed mean for the W in the roots to represent the digamma.
It really is a nuisance to have to scrounge around the Roman alphabet in
ASCII. If I recollect aright, TLG Beta code does use W for Greek digamma,
but I'm all fouled up--on this list I tend to use what I think is the
SuperGreek/Graeca equivalences, whereas "at home" on my own machine, I'm
using Kadmos/Athena where the V is an Omega. I suppose I could have used
an F for a digamma, except that we've been using that to represent Phi!
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
------------------------------
From: Timothy Bratton <bratton@acc.jc.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 13:37:29 -35900
Subject: Re: HISTORIA
On Wed, 10 May 1995, Marmorstein, Art wrote:
> How about a bit more clarification of the etymology of historia? I was told
> as an undergraduate that Herodotus was borrowing a legal term, but I don't
> see any examples of such usage prior to Herodotus in Liddell and Scott.
>
> Art Marmorstein
> (marmorsa@wolf.northern.edu)
Dr. Timothy L. Bratton bratton@acc.jc.edu
Department of History/Pol. Science work: 1-701-252-3467, ext. 2022
6006 Jamestown College home: 1-701-252-8895
Jamestown, ND 58405 home phone/fax: 1-701-252-7507
Dear Art:
Robin George Collingwood, in his _The Idea of History_ (N.Y.,
N.Y.: Galaxy Books, 1964), pp. 18-19, remarks that "History is a Greek
word, meaning simply an investigation or inquiry. Herodotus, who uses it
in the title of his work, thereby 'marks a literary revolution'. . .
Previous writers had been _logographoi_, writers-down of current stories:
'the historian,' say How and Wells [_Commentary on Herodotus_, 1:53],
'sets out to "find" the truth.' It is the use of this word, and its
implucations, that make Herodotus the father of history." Rather than
reproduce R.G.C.'s extensive comments, I refer you to his work. Whether
"investigation or inquiry" carried over from the legal system I cannot say.
I assume that Prof. Conrad and others will take it from here!
Best regards,
TLB
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 13:37:13 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Secret Mar, Smith, etc.
On Wed, 10 May 1995, Edward Hobbs wrote:
> Thanks for the invitation, again, to respond about the Secret Mark Colloquy
> in Berkeley. Actually, I was not only present, but was the organizer,
> part-author, editor, and recipient of the tones of hate-mail Smith generated,
>
> I'm too swamped with things just now, but I promise to write on it soon,
> perhaps next weekend. A forgery? OF COURSE!!! Who did it? Ah, there's
> the story!
While I do readily understand what it is to be swamped, doesn't this
sound like something halfway between "the dog ate my homework" and "Who
killed JR?"?
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 13:52:20 CST
Subject: Re: WID [Suggested convention]
On Wed, 10 May 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
>On Wed, 10 May 1995, Bruce Terry wrote:
>
>> Carl--
>>
>> Just a point of clarification on your interesting post on HISTORIA. When you
>> used the capital W in that post, it was to represent the digamma (which had
>> the w sound) and not the omega (which had the w shape), correct?
>>
>> --Bruce
>>
>> P.S. It would be nice to have a full Greek font, including digamma, on the
>> internet.
>
>Yes, I did indeed mean for the W in the roots to represent the digamma.
>It really is a nuisance to have to scrounge around the Roman alphabet in
>ASCII. If I recollect aright, TLG Beta code does use W for Greek digamma,
>but I'm all fouled up--on this list I tend to use what I think is the
>SuperGreek/Graeca equivalences, whereas "at home" on my own machine, I'm
>using Kadmos/Athena where the V is an Omega. I suppose I could have used
>an F for a digamma, except that we've been using that to represent Phi!
Let me make a suggestion to the list members and see what people think about
it. I have finally moved to a modified TLG code in upper-case for posting to
this list, but I hate using the left parenthesis for a rough breathing, thus:
(UPER. What about using the lower case h for rough breathing, thus: hUPER.
It would be much more readable. By the same convension, a lower case w would
be the digamma, thus: wID. Let me know what you think of this convention.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 15:22:32 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Bruce Terry's "Married only once"
Bruce Terry's posts have been almost invariably helpful, IMnotsoHO. But
I can't refrain from saying that I DON'T have problems with seeing the
Pastor pulling a Catch-22 on widows. Young widows: "Re-marry, or you'll
seduce all the young men around." BUT: Widows over 60: "If you did as I
advised, you won't be supported by the community."
This chap (is it Polycarp, as von Campenhausen theorized?) really
has little use for women except as baby factories and housekeepers. He is
as far from the non-male-chauvinist Paul as it is possible to imagine, unless
remembers such characters as Tertullian.
Edward Hobbs
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 15:15:46 CST
Subject: Re: Bruce Terry's "Married only once"
On Wed, 10 May 1995, Edward Hobbs wrote:
>I can't refrain from saying that I DON'T have problems with seeing the
>Pastor pulling a Catch-22 on widows. Young widows: "Re-marry, or you'll
>seduce all the young men around." BUT: Widows over 60: "If you did as I
>advised, you won't be supported by the community."
Granted that people pull catch-22's even on widows. And granted that hENOS
ANDROS GUNH and MIAS GUNAIKOS ANDRA "can" mean and be translated "married only
once. But the thing that bothers me is (despite Tertullian's insistence) how
such a rule would contribute to a person's character. On the other hand, I
can see the reason behind saying that and elder or deacon must be a "one-woman
man" (shall we break out in song?) if that is a restriction barring
philanderers (and by implication, poligamists and divorcees) from being
appointed. It would indeed be strange if the character flaw known to bring
down TV evangelists were missing from the lists. Likewise, one would not want
a widow who has spent her life welcoming man after man to her bed to be
teaching younger women how to act. But how is being faithful to a man who
died when she was younger and then being faithful to a man who died when she
was older a character flaw?
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Gary Meadors <gmeadors@epix.net>
Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 16:47:02 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Transliteration
Why not produce a table for Greek transliteration for B-Greek and include
it in the subscriber instructions? I appoint Carl and Bruce to coordinate
it with the list serve. Also post your first draft for interaction.
Keep it standard and simple for this format (e.g. no iota subs like JBL
directions). I would suggest keeping it in lower case...although TLG
uses upper case, most of our eyes still work on pubs which refuse to use
Greek characters and therefore use the trad lower case system. Myself, I
still like an h for the rough b. I naturally vocalize it in my mind.
Epsilon and eta without a diacritical is harder. I suppose we cannot
assume we all just know the difference in spelling? The w for omega is a
natural.
Hebrew? A nightmare for the net.
Thanks for all your work, guys...oops...You persons you.
Gary Meadors
BBSPA for now
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 16:20:18 CST
Subject: Re: Transliteration
On Wed, 10 May 1995, Gary Meadors wrote:
>Why not produce a table for Greek transliteration for B-Greek and include
>it in the subscriber instructions?
The problem is we hashed this out last Nov. (Dec.?), and if I remember right,
there are about four major systems being used to post here and no one wants to
give up the one they [indefinite singular pronoun] think is best.
I'm just floating a slight modification to one or two of them: a small h for
the rough breathing.
However, it might be a good idea to list the major systems for new
subscribers. They write from time to time to ask what is going on.
>Thanks for all your work, guys...oops...You persons you.
Gary, don't you know that in California "guys" is an inclusive word. The
second person plural pronoun in that state is (or used to be) "you guys." Of
course, after my now-wife had been in Texas a few months, she had compromised
on "y'all guys"!
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Wed, 10 May 95 16:41:56 EDT
Subject: Re: WID [Suggested convention]
Bruce Terry wrote:
> Let me make a suggestion to the list members and see what people think about
> it. I have finally moved to a modified TLG code in upper-case for posting to
> this list, but I hate using the left parenthesis for a rough breathing, thus:
> (UPER. What about using the lower case h for rough breathing, thus: hUPER.
> It would be much more readable. By the same convension, a lower case w would
> be the digamma, thus: wID. Let me know what you think of this convention.
Excellent suggestion. I also prefer the use of a lower case 'i' for
the iota subscript: EN TWi XRISTWi. Thus, the definite article in
the masculine singular would be: hO TOU TWi TON.
Stephen Carlson
- --
Stephen Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, : ICL, Inc.
scc@reston.icl.com : and songs chant the words. : 11490 Commerce Park Dr.
(703) 648-3330 : Shujing 2:35 : Reston, VA 22091 USA
------------------------------
From: perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
Date: Wed, 10 May 95 17:02:30
Subject: RE: WID
Hello, all.
If I remember correctly--I can't check because I'm on-line--the GRAMcord
software uses "V" for the vau, "J" for the eta, Q for the theta, etc.
I really had no idea that Dr. Conrad was referring to the V in his "WID"
posts--I almost went nuts trying to figger out how omega-iota-delta was
transformed in the ways he described! Ah, well.
Perry L. Stepp, Baylor University
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #703
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu