From: A. C. Livengood, Sr. (livngood@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Fri Jan 02 1998 - 18:58:33 EST
Greetings all.
Being a self taught, "wannabe" translator/commentator for about ten years (only
after and as a direct a result of the "Lightening Bolt" -if you will), I'm
going to go out on a limb here. I ask for your {collective} forgiveness in
advance. I am certain that, relative to the posts you are used to, my
statements will be rather "kindergardenish". Because I have no advanced, formal
education, I'm going to use terms that I am comfortable with.
Rolf Furuli wrote:
> Dear Jonathan
>
> In a message dated 1/1/98 12:05:17 PM, I analysed the substantive "home" in
> the clause "I went home" as "count noun, anarthrous, generic and
> indefinite". I thank Craig R. Harmon for pointing out to me that there was
> a typo in my post. The substantive should of course have been analysed as:
> "count noun, anarthrous,generic and definite". My very point was that some
> English nouns with the definite article are indefinite and some nouns
> lacking the article are definite.
>
> Regards
> Rolf
My confusion with the above stems from the fact that, though I am able to
"interpret" the specifics of phrase, the language -being as "lazy" as it is
(English -not your use of it, Mr. Furuli!!!)- would *demand* a general
translation and/or interpretation from one who had to do so, would it not? (As
it is used to explain a Greek construct.) This is assuming that the phrase is
not part of a poetic {abstract} discourse. Whereas something to the effect of,
"I went to *my* house" or, " . . . *the house of me*", could be nothing but
specific. So, even if we can understand something in a "general" sense, does
that mean that we should write to reflect the fact?
The reason I ask is that, in my simplistic way, I believe it to be much safer
(though I admit I may be missing something) to accept the most basic possible
translation and/or interpretation. I suppose my question (as it pertains to the
Scriptures) is, "Isn't a basic interpretation good enough?" I mean, it has to
be interpreted somehow, right? So why not keep the standard as basic and
"finite" as possible? And as (or, if) new information arises, improve (?) the
standard to reflect such? I'm inclined to believe (and again, I admit I may be
missing something) that the writer's of Scripture would not want to leave
anything "to chance". Being a "commoner" myself, I was not educated in advanced
English linguistics, but I believe I can communicate on a level which is
readily understood by most if not all, "commoners" and "advanced" alike.
Anyway, that's the mind-set *I hope* the authors would have had.
(Please don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that "criticism" is
unimportant! I *have to* depend on those of you who are called this. I have no
other choice BUT to rely on grammars, and "tagged texts", and other such helps.
And I kind of like it that way.)
On a more personal note:
If there exists a "Paul" out there, seeking a "Timothy", I would very much like
to hear from you (privately, of course). (You have no idea how long I've been
praying for a mentor.)
Sorry for the digression. I hope I haven't been too trying on your (collective)
patience.
May you all be blessed abundantly . . .
-- Acts 4.13; Jeremiah 15.16; Philippians 3.14A.C. Livengood, Sr. (Andy) Edison, NJ (732) 287-4445
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:44 EDT