Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Another Mystery
62 views
Skip to first unread message
DKleinecke
May 4, 2013, 7:18:37 PM5/4/13
to
Consider the constructions "neither do I" and "nor do I".
First, and less important, question: Does everybody agree with my
conclusion that these are equivalent and that in an construction of
this type they are synonyms and equally acceptable?
Second question: What kind of a construction is this? The subject
follows the verb - as in questions
These are just one example (restricting myself to "nor") of a class of
constuctions:
nor am I
nor do I agree
nor have I agreed
nor might I agree
nor could I have agreed
nor might I have been being watched
It seems that, exactly as in questions, any verb construction can
appear provided the verb is the copula or there is at least one
auxiliary. [Note to self - is there any chance of treating the bare
copula as an auxiliary to an invisible verb?]
I tried to find any discussion of this matter but failed. Technically
it should cause no trouble - if you can explain questions you can
explain this. The only implication I see that matters is that it shows
that subject-second is not characteristic of questions but rather an
independent process utilized in questions and elsewhere.
Anybody know something I am missing?
First, and less important, question: Does everybody agree with my
conclusion that these are equivalent and that in an construction of
this type they are synonyms and equally acceptable?
Second question: What kind of a construction is this? The subject
follows the verb - as in questions
These are just one example (restricting myself to "nor") of a class of
constuctions:
nor am I
nor do I agree
nor have I agreed
nor might I agree
nor could I have agreed
nor might I have been being watched
It seems that, exactly as in questions, any verb construction can
appear provided the verb is the copula or there is at least one
auxiliary. [Note to self - is there any chance of treating the bare
copula as an auxiliary to an invisible verb?]
I tried to find any discussion of this matter but failed. Technically
it should cause no trouble - if you can explain questions you can
explain this. The only implication I see that matters is that it shows
that subject-second is not characteristic of questions but rather an
independent process utilized in questions and elsewhere.
Anybody know something I am missing?
Nathan Sanders
May 4, 2013, 9:31:57 PM5/4/13
to
In article
<15c5269e-4687-4de8...@aw7g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,
It's not just "neither/nor", and it's not just "I":
...and so do I
...and so do you
...and so have you
...and so are you
...and so must you.
...as did I.
...as have I.
He can eat more food than can I.
Under no circumstances would I do that.
Had I eaten any peanuts, I would be in pain.
Should I eat any peanuts, I will be in pain.
Only after I saw the explosions did I realize the danger.
Little did I realize how many there were.
Never have I seen such a sight.
Boy, do I!
Damn, will I!
But it generally only works with auxiliary verbs:
*... and so saw I.
*...and so ate I.
The general process is called "inversion" or "subject-aux(iliary)
inversion". It's used not only for questions, but also the structures
above. And probably elsewhere that I'm not thinking of.
Nathan
--
Department of Linguistics
Swarthmore College
http://sanders.phonologist.org/
<15c5269e-4687-4de8...@aw7g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,
...and so do I
...and so do you
...and so have you
...and so are you
...and so must you.
...as did I.
...as have I.
He can eat more food than can I.
Under no circumstances would I do that.
Had I eaten any peanuts, I would be in pain.
Should I eat any peanuts, I will be in pain.
Only after I saw the explosions did I realize the danger.
Little did I realize how many there were.
Never have I seen such a sight.
Boy, do I!
Damn, will I!
But it generally only works with auxiliary verbs:
*... and so saw I.
*...and so ate I.
The general process is called "inversion" or "subject-aux(iliary)
inversion". It's used not only for questions, but also the structures
above. And probably elsewhere that I'm not thinking of.
Nathan
--
Department of Linguistics
Swarthmore College
http://sanders.phonologist.org/
James Hogg
May 5, 2013, 3:29:41 AM5/5/13
to
something other than the subject came first:
"Now is it time to arm."
"Why, then are you no maiden."
--
James
Franz Gnaedinger
May 5, 2013, 4:32:51 AM5/5/13
to
is the meaning of word order, low tension in the natural
word order, rising tension in other word orders. Pater
Rupert Ruhstaller OSB who kindly introduced me
into his revolutionary grammar in the 1960s is the only
one who considered word order. His grammar consists
of 'functors' and 'arguments' that can be visualized in
budding circles, arguments on circles around functors,
arguments becoming functors of new circles. Ruhstaller
explained his grammar in his dissertation (the joke was
that he needed ten years for his thesis and twenty years
for the footnotes). Topic of his doctoral thesis was the
structure of the Greek sentence in Aischylos - a most
challenging read, I can assure you. Apparently he didn't
dare include his drawings. I may be the only one in
possession of some of his grammatical drawings,
drawings he made for me, and published them online,
together with a short text
http://www.seshat.ch/home/grammar.htm
One morning around 11 o'clock, in his cell in the
theological seminary at Frybourg, Ruhstaller played
around with the opening lines of Virgil's Aeneid,
taking a grid, arranging the words in the actual order
on the right vertical side, and in the 'natural' order
- functors before arguments, main functors and
arguments first - along the bottom side of the grid,
and connected the points by zigzag lines. To his
great surprise and pleasure he obtained a tension
diagram: the peaks of a zigzag line point out the
key words of the opening lines that raise tension
and are then a summary of the summary of the epic!
Virgil had such a great natural sense of language
that he could play with word order, highlighting words
in the tension pattern of his verses. (I like especially
the Georgica of Virgil.) Here is the tension diagram
of the Aeneid's opening lines, Arma virumque cano ...,
a drawing Pater Rupert Ruhstaller made for me
http://www.seshat.ch/home/gram02.jpg
Curlytop
May 5, 2013, 4:42:33 AM5/5/13
to
James Hogg set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
continuum:
> In older English this inversion affected every construction where
> something other than the subject came first:
>
> "Now is it time to arm."
> "Why, then are you no maiden."
This is the regular case in German, which preserves many constructions which
have dropped out of use in English.
And so say all of us.
--
ξ: ) Proud to be curly
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
continuum:
> In older English this inversion affected every construction where
> something other than the subject came first:
>
> "Now is it time to arm."
> "Why, then are you no maiden."
have dropped out of use in English.
And so say all of us.
--
ξ: ) Proud to be curly
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
wugi
May 5, 2013, 5:25:08 AM5/5/13
to
Op 5/05/2013 10:42, Curlytop schreef:
Maybe that was one of the mechanisms leading to the generalised use of
the "do" aux.(?or copula?) and 'stand alone' auxiliaries?
> And so say all of us.
So do we.
guido google:wugi
> James Hogg set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
> continuum:
>
>> In older English this inversion affected every construction where
>> something other than the subject came first:
>>
>> "Now is it time to arm."
>> "Why, then are you no maiden."
>
> This is the regular case in German, which preserves many constructions which
> have dropped out of use in English.
... except where an auxiliary could pop up.
> continuum:
>
>> In older English this inversion affected every construction where
>> something other than the subject came first:
>>
>> "Now is it time to arm."
>> "Why, then are you no maiden."
>
> This is the regular case in German, which preserves many constructions which
> have dropped out of use in English.
Maybe that was one of the mechanisms leading to the generalised use of
the "do" aux.(?or copula?) and 'stand alone' auxiliaries?
> And so say all of us.
guido google:wugi
Eric Walker
May 5, 2013, 6:16:43 AM5/5/13
to
On Sat, 04 May 2013 16:18:37 -0700, DKleinecke wrote:
> Consider the constructions "neither do I" and "nor do I".
>
> First, and less important, question: Does everybody agree with my
> conclusion that these are equivalent and that in an construction of this
> type they are synonyms and equally acceptable?
>
> Second question: What kind of a construction is this? The subject
> follows the verb - as in questions
The use of forms with "do" arose for want of a way to assert emphasis in
> Consider the constructions "neither do I" and "nor do I".
>
> First, and less important, question: Does everybody agree with my
> conclusion that these are equivalent and that in an construction of this
> type they are synonyms and equally acceptable?
>
> Second question: What kind of a construction is this? The subject
> follows the verb - as in questions
negative statements. Of old, one might express disagreement by saying "I
think not so," but in speech the emphasis there naturally falls on the
verb rather than the negative. Thus evolved forms such as "I do not
think so," in which the "not" naturally receives the emphasis, owing to
the "dummy" verb "do". Presumably the same evolution affected other
negating terms, such as "neither" and "nor".
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Brian M. Scott
May 5, 2013, 7:32:15 AM5/5/13
to
On Sun, 5 May 2013 10:16:43 +0000 (UTC), Eric Walker
<em...@owlcroft.com> wrote in
<news:km5bib$a46$2...@dont-email.me> in
sci.lang,alt.english.usage,alt.usage.english:
[...]
> The use of forms with "do" arose for want of a way to
> assert emphasis in negative statements. Of old, one
> might express disagreement by saying "I think not so,"
> but in speech the emphasis there naturally falls on the
> verb rather than the negative. Thus evolved forms such
> as "I do not think so," in which the "not" naturally
> receives the emphasis, owing to the "dummy" verb "do".
> Presumably the same evolution affected other negating
> terms, such as "neither" and "nor".
It's rather more likely that the use of <do> as a dummy
auxiliary arose from causative <do>.
Brian
<em...@owlcroft.com> wrote in
<news:km5bib$a46$2...@dont-email.me> in
sci.lang,alt.english.usage,alt.usage.english:
[...]
> The use of forms with "do" arose for want of a way to
> assert emphasis in negative statements. Of old, one
> might express disagreement by saying "I think not so,"
> but in speech the emphasis there naturally falls on the
> verb rather than the negative. Thus evolved forms such
> as "I do not think so," in which the "not" naturally
> receives the emphasis, owing to the "dummy" verb "do".
> Presumably the same evolution affected other negating
> terms, such as "neither" and "nor".
auxiliary arose from causative <do>.
Brian
Peter T. Daniels
May 5, 2013, 8:57:00 AM5/5/13
to
On May 4, 9:31 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <15c5269e-4687-4de8-a94d-328b11cb7...@aw7g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,
"For he's a jolly good fellow ... (3x)
> In article
> <15c5269e-4687-4de8-a94d-328b11cb7...@aw7g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,
> DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Consider the constructions "neither do I" and "nor do I".
>
> > First, and less important, question: Does everybody agree with my
> > conclusion that these are equivalent and that in an construction of
> > this type they are synonyms and equally acceptable?
>
> > Second question: What kind of a construction is this? The subject
> > follows the verb - as in questions
>
> > These are just one example (restricting myself to "nor") of a class of
> > constuctions:
>
> > nor am I
> > nor do I agree
> > nor have I agreed
> > nor might I agree
> > nor could I have agreed
> > nor might I have been being watched
Those seem more literary than with "neither"
> > Consider the constructions "neither do I" and "nor do I".
>
> > First, and less important, question: Does everybody agree with my
> > conclusion that these are equivalent and that in an construction of
> > this type they are synonyms and equally acceptable?
>
> > Second question: What kind of a construction is this? The subject
> > follows the verb - as in questions
>
> > These are just one example (restricting myself to "nor") of a class of
> > constuctions:
>
> > nor am I
> > nor do I agree
> > nor have I agreed
> > nor might I agree
> > nor could I have agreed
> > nor might I have been being watched
Peter T. Daniels
May 5, 2013, 9:03:18 AM5/5/13
to
He might want to look at McCawley's *English as a VSO Language,"
published in *Language* in 1970.
> and connected the points by zigzag lines. To his
lines connecting?
> great surprise and pleasure he obtained a tension
> diagram: the peaks of a zigzag line point out the
> key words of the opening lines that raise tension
> and are then a summary of the summary of the epic!
> Virgil had such a great natural sense of language
> that he could play with word order, highlighting words
> in the tension pattern of his verses. (I like especially
> the Georgica of Virgil.) Here is the tension diagram
> of the Aeneid's opening lines, Arma virumque cano ...,
> a drawing Pater Rupert Ruhstaller made for me
>
> http://www.seshat.ch/home/gram02.jpg
How was the regression line arrived at? What is its statistical
validity?
Was the rearrangement on the x-axis done so as to make the lines as
smooth as possible?
Nathan Sanders
May 5, 2013, 9:47:32 AM5/5/13
to
In article <km51ij$v9s$2...@dont-email.me>,
Right, the modern inversion is similar to the older V2 structure. But
it isn't simply an historical holdover: it has its own system, with
its own rules.
Note, for example, that we have some cases of inversion which are not
strictly V2, because the verb occurs in first position, such as the
counterfactuals and hypotheticals I cited above:
Had I eaten any peanuts, I would be in pain.
Should I eat any peanuts, I will be in pain.
And the "Boy/Damn" structure cited above can generally work without
the leading interjection:
Do I have a deal for you!
Will you ever be sorry!
And of course, polarity questions:
Do you want some cake?
Have you eaten already?
Plus, some frozen and semi-frozen cases:
Be it ever so humble, there's no place like home.
May he have a blessed day.
Come morning, the cookies will be gone.
it isn't simply an historical holdover: it has its own system, with
its own rules.
Note, for example, that we have some cases of inversion which are not
strictly V2, because the verb occurs in first position, such as the
counterfactuals and hypotheticals I cited above:
Had I eaten any peanuts, I would be in pain.
Should I eat any peanuts, I will be in pain.
the leading interjection:
Do I have a deal for you!
Will you ever be sorry!
And of course, polarity questions:
Do you want some cake?
Have you eaten already?
Plus, some frozen and semi-frozen cases:
Be it ever so humble, there's no place like home.
May he have a blessed day.
Come morning, the cookies will be gone.
Christian Weisgerber
May 5, 2013, 12:52:55 PM5/5/13
to
> Anybody know something I am missing?
The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language lists a variety of
types of _subject-auxiliary inversion_ (ch. 9, ￜ 2.1.2):
(a) Closed interrogatives
(b) Open interrogatives
(c) Exclamatives
- What a fool have I been!
- How hard did she try!
(d) Initial negative constituents
- Not one of them did he find useful.
- Nowhere does he mention my book.
(e) Initial "only"
- Only two of them did he find useful.
- Only once had she complained.
(f) Initial "so"/"such"
- So little time did we have that we had to cut corners.
- Such a fuss would he make that we'd all agree.
(g) Other fronted elements (formal style)
- Thus had they parted the previous evening.
- Tourism will continue to grow... Particularly is this the case in
Queensland.
- Many another poem could I speak of which sang itself into my
heart.
- The more wives he had, the more children could he beget.
- Well did I remember the crisis of emotion into which he was
plunged that night.
(h) Conditional inversion
- Had he seen the incident he'd have reported it to the police.
(i) Optative "may"
- May you both enjoy the long and happy retirement that you so
richly deserve.
Classification:
UNTRIGGERED TRIGGERED
OBLIGATORY OPTIONAL
Closed interrogative Open interrogatives Exclamatives
Conditional inversion Initial negative Other fronted elements
Optative "may" Initial "only"
Initial "so"/"such"
Also:
Subject-auxiliary inversion is to be distinguished from subject
postposing, as in "In the bottom right-hand corner could be seen
a small arrow" or "Good morning, said Kim". Auxiliaries are not
significantly involved in this construction, as is evident from
these examples, where the subject appears after the lexical verbs
"seen" and "said". [...]
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
Christian Weisgerber
May 5, 2013, 3:37:00 PM5/5/13
to
Christian Weisgerber <na...@mips.inka.de> wrote:
> The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language lists a variety of
> types of _subject-auxiliary inversion_ (ch. 9, ￜ 2.1.2):
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language lists a variety of
> types of _subject-auxiliary inversion_ (ch. 9, ￜ 2.1.2):
Sorry, that's chapter _3_, ￜ 2.1.2.
Trond Engen
May 5, 2013, 7:24:54 PM5/5/13
to
Nathan Sanders:
> James Hogg:
>
>> Nathan Sanders:
>>
>>> IDKleinecke:
Current English aside, this is generally explained as topicalization,
isn't it? Topic first, then verb, unless the verb itself is lifted up
front, adding an existensial effect. (Or, I suppose, if one prefers,
verb first, except whatever goes before is topic.) Whole clauses may be
lifted to front with their own internal topicality. Both "be it ever so
humble" and "come morning" are such clauses. Also the counterfactuals
can be analysed that way.
--
Trond Engen
> James Hogg:
>
>> Nathan Sanders:
>>
>>> IDKleinecke:
isn't it? Topic first, then verb, unless the verb itself is lifted up
front, adding an existensial effect. (Or, I suppose, if one prefers,
verb first, except whatever goes before is topic.) Whole clauses may be
lifted to front with their own internal topicality. Both "be it ever so
humble" and "come morning" are such clauses. Also the counterfactuals
can be analysed that way.
--
Trond Engen
Peter T. Daniels
May 5, 2013, 8:18:15 PM5/5/13
to
On May 5, 12:52 pm, na...@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
> (d) Initial negative constituents
> - Not one of them did he find useful.
> - Nowhere does he mention my book.
>
> (e) Initial "only"
> - Only two of them did he find useful.
> - Only once had she complained.
>
> (f) Initial "so"/"such"
> - So little time did we have that we had to cut corners.
> - Such a fuss would he make that we'd all agree.
>
> (g) Other fronted elements (formal style)
Hunh? The last few weren't?
> - Thus had they parted the previous evening.
> - Tourism will continue to grow... Particularly is this the case in
> Queensland.
> - Many another poem could I speak of which sang itself into my
> heart.
> - The more wives he had, the more children could he beget.
> - Well did I remember the crisis of emotion into which he was
> plunged that night.
>
> (h) Conditional inversion
> - Had he seen the incident he'd have reported it to the police.
>
> (i) Optative "may"
> - May you both enjoy the long and happy retirement that you so
> richly deserve.
Those two are legit.
> DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Consider the constructions "neither do I" and "nor do I".
> > Anybody know something I am missing?
>
> The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language lists a variety of
> types of _subject-auxiliary inversion_ (ch. 9, 2.1.2):
> > Consider the constructions "neither do I" and "nor do I".
> > Anybody know something I am missing?
>
> The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language lists a variety of
>
> (a) Closed interrogatives
>
> (b) Open interrogatives
>
> (c) Exclamatives
> - What a fool have I been!
> - How hard did she try!
Now that's weird. Where did they find examples?
> (a) Closed interrogatives
>
> (b) Open interrogatives
>
> (c) Exclamatives
> - What a fool have I been!
> - How hard did she try!
> (d) Initial negative constituents
> - Not one of them did he find useful.
> - Nowhere does he mention my book.
>
> (e) Initial "only"
> - Only two of them did he find useful.
> - Only once had she complained.
>
> (f) Initial "so"/"such"
> - So little time did we have that we had to cut corners.
> - Such a fuss would he make that we'd all agree.
>
> (g) Other fronted elements (formal style)
> - Thus had they parted the previous evening.
> - Tourism will continue to grow... Particularly is this the case in
> Queensland.
> - Many another poem could I speak of which sang itself into my
> heart.
> - The more wives he had, the more children could he beget.
> - Well did I remember the crisis of emotion into which he was
> plunged that night.
>
> (h) Conditional inversion
> - Had he seen the incident he'd have reported it to the police.
>
> (i) Optative "may"
> - May you both enjoy the long and happy retirement that you so
> richly deserve.
Robert Bannister
May 5, 2013, 9:01:51 PM5/5/13
to
"do" that (from memory) became popular in the 15th century?
--
Robert Bannister
DKleinecke
May 5, 2013, 9:05:43 PM5/5/13
to
inversion - it's a subject-second.
(a) and (b) are the usual question forms. (h) and (i) are what I
brushed aside as "other constructions". Note that Huddleston and
Pullum do not list the construction I asked about which is, I believe,
far more common than (h) or (i).
DKleinecke
May 5, 2013, 9:07:09 PM5/5/13
to
On May 5, 9:52 am, na...@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
Thank You. The Cambridge Grammar is, of course, one of those
resources not available to those us without a handy library.
> DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Consider the constructions "neither do I" and "nor do I".
> > Anybody know something I am missing?
>
> The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language lists a variety of
> types of _subject-auxiliary inversion_ (ch. 9, 2.1.2):
> > Consider the constructions "neither do I" and "nor do I".
> > Anybody know something I am missing?
>
> The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language lists a variety of
resources not available to those us without a handy library.
Nathan Sanders
May 5, 2013, 9:48:28 PM5/5/13
to
In article <km6pfh$jh5$1...@dont-email.me>,
sentence in the ordinary order. So if the language is ordinarily SVO,
and you topicalize the object, you get OSV (e.g., English "this one, I
like").
A V2 language requires that the verb always appear in second position,
whether there is topicalization or not. So if the language is V2 and
is ordinarily SVO, and you topicalize the object, you get OVS, rather
than the OSV order from plain topicalization by itself.
The subject-aux inversion under discussion here is neither of these,
because the topic isn't always in first position (so we're not always
dealing with topicalization), and the verb isn't always in second
position (so we're not dealing with a V2 requirement).
> Current English aside, this is generally explained as topicalization,
> isn't it?
Not quite. Topicalization is topic first, and then the rest of the
> isn't it?
sentence in the ordinary order. So if the language is ordinarily SVO,
and you topicalize the object, you get OSV (e.g., English "this one, I
like").
A V2 language requires that the verb always appear in second position,
whether there is topicalization or not. So if the language is V2 and
is ordinarily SVO, and you topicalize the object, you get OVS, rather
than the OSV order from plain topicalization by itself.
The subject-aux inversion under discussion here is neither of these,
because the topic isn't always in first position (so we're not always
dealing with topicalization), and the verb isn't always in second
position (so we're not dealing with a V2 requirement).
Nathan Sanders
May 5, 2013, 10:10:44 PM5/5/13
to
In article
<4fd035d0-6266-4bcb...@a15g2000pbu.googlegroups.com>,
in open interrogatives (b), the subject is third:
Which movie did you see? ("you" is the subject)
Similarly for exclamatives (d):
What a fool have I been! ("I" is the subject)
And for initial "only" (e):
Only once had she complained. ("she" is the subject)
And for initial "so/such" (f):
So little time did we have... ("we" is the subject)
And even fourth position is some of the other cases (g):
The more wives he had, the more children could he beget.
(the second "he" is the subject)
But in all of (a)--(i), the subject consistently occurs immediately
after the first auxiliary, exactly the opposite of the usual order in
ordinary sentences, hence the descriptive label "subject-auxiliary
inversion".
I mean, you can call this phenomenon "subject-second" if you want to;
it wouldn't be the first label in linguistics (or any field) that
doesn't accurately describe its referent (see "pro-drop language",
"guinea pig", "brown dwarf", etc.). But I don't really see the
benefit of inventing such a label when there is already an accurate
descriptive label in active use.
<4fd035d0-6266-4bcb...@a15g2000pbu.googlegroups.com>,
DKleinecke <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 5, 12:52�pm, na...@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
> >
> > > The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language lists a variety of
> > > types of _subject-auxiliary inversion_ (ch. 9, 2.1.2):
> >
> > > (a) Closed interrogatives
> >
> > > (b) Open interrogatives
> >
> > > (c) Exclamatives
> > > � � - What a fool have I been!
> > > � � - How hard did she try!
> > >
> > On May 5, 12:52�pm, na...@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
> >
> > > The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language lists a variety of
> > > types of _subject-auxiliary inversion_ (ch. 9, 2.1.2):
> >
> > > (a) Closed interrogatives
> >
> > > (b) Open interrogatives
> >
> > > (c) Exclamatives
> > > � � - What a fool have I been!
> > > � � - How hard did she try!
> > >
> > > (d) Initial negative constituents
> > > � � - Not one of them did he find useful.
> > > � � - Nowhere does he mention my book.
> > >
> > > (e) Initial "only"
> > > � � - Only two of them did he find useful.
> > > � � - Only once had she complained.
> > >
> > > (f) Initial "so"/"such"
> > > � � - So little time did we have that we had to cut corners.
> > > � � - Such a fuss would he make that we'd all agree.
> > >
> > > (g) Other fronted elements (formal style)
> > >
> > > � � - Thus had they parted the previous evening.
> > > � � - Not one of them did he find useful.
> > > � � - Nowhere does he mention my book.
> > >
> > > (e) Initial "only"
> > > � � - Only two of them did he find useful.
> > > � � - Only once had she complained.
> > >
> > > (f) Initial "so"/"such"
> > > � � - So little time did we have that we had to cut corners.
> > > � � - Such a fuss would he make that we'd all agree.
> > >
> > > (g) Other fronted elements (formal style)
> > >
> > > � � - Tourism will continue to grow... Particularly is this the case in
> > > � � � Queensland.
> > > � � - Many another poem could I speak of which sang itself into my
> > > � � � heart.
> > > � � - The more wives he had, the more children could he beget.
> > > � � - Well did I remember the crisis of emotion into which he was
> > > � � � plunged that night.
> >
> > > (h) Conditional inversion
> > > � � - Had he seen the incident he'd have reported it to the police.
> >
> > > (i) Optative "may"
> > > � � - May you both enjoy the long and happy retirement that you so
> > > � � � richly deserve.
> > > � � � Queensland.
> > > � � - Many another poem could I speak of which sang itself into my
> > > � � � heart.
> > > � � - The more wives he had, the more children could he beget.
> > > � � - Well did I remember the crisis of emotion into which he was
> > > � � � plunged that night.
> >
> > > (h) Conditional inversion
> > > � � - Had he seen the incident he'd have reported it to the police.
> >
> > > (i) Optative "may"
> > > � � - May you both enjoy the long and happy retirement that you so
> > > � � � richly deserve.
> At least I now know what it is called. In my opinion it is not an
> inversion - it's a subject-second.
But the subject isn't always second in these structures. For example,
> inversion - it's a subject-second.
in open interrogatives (b), the subject is third:
Which movie did you see? ("you" is the subject)
Similarly for exclamatives (d):
What a fool have I been! ("I" is the subject)
And for initial "only" (e):
Only once had she complained. ("she" is the subject)
And for initial "so/such" (f):
So little time did we have... ("we" is the subject)
And even fourth position is some of the other cases (g):
The more wives he had, the more children could he beget.
But in all of (a)--(i), the subject consistently occurs immediately
after the first auxiliary, exactly the opposite of the usual order in
ordinary sentences, hence the descriptive label "subject-auxiliary
inversion".
I mean, you can call this phenomenon "subject-second" if you want to;
it wouldn't be the first label in linguistics (or any field) that
doesn't accurately describe its referent (see "pro-drop language",
"guinea pig", "brown dwarf", etc.). But I don't really see the
benefit of inventing such a label when there is already an accurate
descriptive label in active use.
Franz Gnaedinger
May 6, 2013, 3:24:45 AM5/6/13
to
On May 5, 3:03 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> What makes that the "natural" order?
Activities interest most, ergo comes the main functor
>
> What makes that the "natural" order?
- normally the main verb - first. Holding back the verb
is a way of raising tension and suspense. Mark Twain
made fun of German (his tirades are very funny),
among other things because verbs are often placed
at the end.
> He might want to look at McCawley's *English as a VSO Language,"
> published in *Language* in 1970.
I don't know of anyone else who considers word order
and tension in a sentence.
> Why zigzag and not straight lines? What, exactly, are the colored
> lines connecting?
a vertical and horizontal row, and connected them
in two possible ways, one of them the tension pattern,
high peaks to the right side meaning high tension,
the diagonal meaning average tension, the valleys
on the left side meaning low tension, suspense
relieved.
> > http://www.seshat.ch/home/gram02.jpg
>
> Why would that work for Virgil and not, say, Cicero? or Ovid?
finds interest. An epic has a defined structure that makes
investigations easier, the opening lines are a summary
of the epic, and the key words, of high tension in the
Ruhstaller diagram, turn out to be the summary of the
summary. What poem of Ovid do you have in mind?
> How was the regression line arrived at? What is its statistical
> validity?
>
> Was the rearrangement on the x-axis done so as to make the lines as
> smooth as possible?
Peter T. Daniels
May 6, 2013, 7:23:36 AM5/6/13
to
On May 6, 3:24 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
> On May 5, 3:03 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > What makes that the "natural" order?
>
> Activities interest most, ergo comes the main functor
> - normally the main verb - first.
So Japanese is "abnormal"?
> On May 5, 3:03 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > What makes that the "natural" order?
>
> Activities interest most, ergo comes the main functor
> - normally the main verb - first.
So Arabic, representing the worldwide minority VSO basic pattern, is
the most "normal" language?
> Holding back the verb
> is a way of raising tension and suspense.
> Mark Twain
> made fun of German (his tirades are very funny),
> among other things because verbs are often placed
> at the end.
>
> > He might want to look at McCawley's *English as a VSO Language,"
> > published in *Language* in 1970.
>
> There are entirely new ways of looking at language.
> I don't know of anyone else who considers word order
> and tension in a sentence.
> > Why zigzag and not straight lines? What, exactly, are the colored
> > lines connecting?
>
> He made dots where the same word occurs in
> a vertical and horizontal row, and connected them
> in two possible ways, one of them the tension pattern,
> high peaks to the right side meaning high tension,
> the diagonal meaning average tension, the valleys
> on the left side meaning low tension, suspense
> relieved.
_Why_ are any two dots connected?
> > > http://www.seshat.ch/home/gram02.jpg
>
> > Why would that work for Virgil and not, say, Cicero? or Ovid?
>
> There are more studies to be done, once his grammar
> finds interest. An epic has a defined structure that makes
> investigations easier, the opening lines are a summary
> of the epic, and the key words, of high tension in the
> Ruhstaller diagram, turn out to be the summary of the
> summary. What poem of Ovid do you have in mind?
You could start with Metamorphoses.
> > How was the regression line arrived at? What is its statistical
> > validity?
>
> > Was the rearrangement on the x-axis done so as to make the lines as
> > smooth as possible?
>
> Explained above.
Christian Weisgerber
May 6, 2013, 7:12:56 AM5/6/13
to
DKleinecke <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (a) and (b) are the usual question forms. (h) and (i) are what I
> brushed aside as "other constructions". Note that Huddleston and
> Pullum do not list the construction I asked about which is, I believe,
> far more common than (h) or (i).
Of course they did: (d) Initial negative constituents.
> (a) and (b) are the usual question forms. (h) and (i) are what I
> brushed aside as "other constructions". Note that Huddleston and
> Pullum do not list the construction I asked about which is, I believe,
> far more common than (h) or (i).
DKleinecke
May 6, 2013, 8:31:51 PM5/6/13
to
On May 5, 7:10 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> But the subject isn't always second in these structures. For example,
> in open interrogatives (b), the subject is third:
> Which movie did you see? ("you" is the subject)
In my parse this is a question pharse - "which movie" followed a verb
> But the subject isn't always second in these structures. For example,
> in open interrogatives (b), the subject is third:
> Which movie did you see? ("you" is the subject)
second clause and this is the standard way of making there questions
> Similarly for exclamatives (d):
>
> What a fool have I been! ("I" is the subject)
wild. But, in fact, it is another case of standard questions - with
question phrase "what a fool"
> And for initial "only" (e):
>
> Only once had she complained. ("she" is the subject)
being modern English. It seems to me that this is a parallel to the
construction that started this - "nor has she complained" and part of
the same search for a clear explanation.
> And for initial "so/such" (f):
>
> So little time did we have... ("we" is the subject)
> And even fourth position is some of the other cases (g):
>
> The more wives he had, the more children could he beget.
> (the second "he" is the subject)
the $-er" except that am abusing the $ notation ($ is suppose to mean
"sentence"). There are examples like "The more I type, the more my
hand hurts". I could paraphrase the first half as "The more he
acquired wives". I consider this an open issue. As you example shows
verb-second is possible in the first half. So far as I am concerned
verb-second in the second half is another think needs to be supported
before I will accept it as modern English.
> But in all of (a)--(i), the subject consistently occurs immediately
> after the first auxiliary, exactly the opposite of the usual order in
> ordinary sentences, hence the descriptive label "subject-auxiliary
> inversion".
> I mean, you can call this phenomenon "subject-second" if you want to;
> it wouldn't be the first label in linguistics (or any field) that
> doesn't accurately describe its referent (see "pro-drop language",
> "guinea pig", "brown dwarf", etc.). But I don't really see the
> benefit of inventing such a label when there is already an accurate
> descriptive label in active use.
proper place for the subject is immediately before the verb phrase.
This is not a satisfactory assumption. Word order should be handled
differently. For example, is "Can you also catch the ball" an
inversion of "You also can catch the ball"? Never mind that they
don't mean the same. Does an inversion change meaning? It sounds to
me like this inversion is a fossilized fragment of the late and not
very lamented transformation grammar (or whatever name you would)
prefer.
Nathan Sanders
May 6, 2013, 10:28:40 PM5/6/13
to
In article
<00e62618-68c7-47e8...@yb1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
first element is the wh-phrase, the second element is the auxiliary,
and the third is the subject.
> > Similarly for exclamatives (d):
> >
> > � � �What a fool have I been! �("I" is the subject)
>
> I will believe that sentence is modern English when I find it in the
> wild.
This structure isn't very natural for me, but it exists in the wild:
"Oh boy what an idiot am I!"
<http://www.banjohangout.org/archive/218062>
"What a friend is he who brings good news, hope, consolation, and
sound counsel"
<http://www.lds.org/new-era/1975/10/qa-questions-and-answers?lang=eng>
"What a pair are they, beautiful!"
<http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=228724;article=872371;
title=The%20Doodle%20Zoo!>
"what a sight are we"
<http://debraandrayinparadise.blogspot.com/2010/09/youre-only-as-cool-a
s-your-dinosaur.html>
> But, in fact, it is another case of standard questions - with
> question phrase "what a fool"
It's not a question. The following two sentences have different
intonations and different meanings/usages:
What a fool have I been!
What a fool have I been?
The first is an exclamative, and the second is a question.
> > And for initial "only" (e):
> >
> > � � �Only once had she complained. �("she" is the subject)
>
> Much better than the last example - but I have my doubts about it
> being modern English.
It's perfectly ordinary for me, as are numerous similar examples:
Only at dinner does she complain.
Only in the morning does she complain.
etc.
> It seems to me that this is a parallel to the
> construction that started this - "nor has she complained" and part of
> the same search for a clear explanation.
Well, yes. They both involve inversion.
> > And even fourth position is some of the other cases (g):
> >
> > � � �The more wives he had, the more children could he beget.
> > � � �(the second "he" is the subject)
>
> This gets another issue involved - which I would encode as "The $-er,
> the $-er" except that am abusing the $ notation ($ is suppose to mean
> "sentence"). There are examples like "The more I type, the more my
> hand hurts". I could paraphrase the first half as "The more he
> acquired wives".
The first half is irrelevant. The subject of this sentence is the
second "he", which is the fourth element of the sentence (or the third
element of the second half).
In no way is it the second element of the sentence.
> I consider this an open issue. As you example shows
> verb-second is possible in the first half. So far as I am concerned
> verb-second in the second half is another think needs to be supported
> before I will accept it as modern English.
Why are you talking about verb second noun? You wanted to label these
structures "subject-second", and it's that label I was arguing against.
> > But in all of (a)--(i), the subject consistently occurs immediately
> > after the first auxiliary, exactly the opposite of the usual order in
> > ordinary sentences, hence the descriptive label "subject-auxiliary
> > inversion".
>
> > I mean, you can call this phenomenon "subject-second" if you want to;
> > it wouldn't be the first label in linguistics (or any field) that
> > doesn't accurately describe its referent (see "pro-drop language",
> > "guinea pig", "brown dwarf", etc.). �But I don't really see the
> > benefit of inventing such a label when there is already an accurate
> > descriptive label in active use.
>
> The reason for objecting the "inversion" is that that assumes the
> proper place for the subject is immediately before the verb phrase.
Not "proper"; "ordinary", "default", "unmarked".
All of these structures are "proper", since they are grammatical.
> This is not a satisfactory assumption. Word order should be handled
> differently. For example, is "Can you also catch the ball" an
> inversion of "You also can catch the ball"? Never mind that they
> don't mean the same. Does an inversion change meaning? It sounds to
> me like this inversion is a fossilized fragment of the late and not
> very lamented transformation grammar (or whatever name you would)
> prefer.
No one here cares about "transformations".
<00e62618-68c7-47e8...@yb1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
DKleinecke <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 5, 7:10�pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > But the subject isn't always second in these structures. �For example,
> > in open interrogatives (b), the subject is third:
>
> > � � �Which movie did you see? ("you" is the subject)
>
> In my parse this is a question pharse - "which movie" followed a verb
> second clause and this is the standard way of making there questions
None of which makes "you" the second element of the sentence. The
> On May 5, 7:10�pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > But the subject isn't always second in these structures. �For example,
> > in open interrogatives (b), the subject is third:
>
> > � � �Which movie did you see? ("you" is the subject)
>
> In my parse this is a question pharse - "which movie" followed a verb
> second clause and this is the standard way of making there questions
first element is the wh-phrase, the second element is the auxiliary,
and the third is the subject.
> > Similarly for exclamatives (d):
> >
> > � � �What a fool have I been! �("I" is the subject)
>
> I will believe that sentence is modern English when I find it in the
> wild.
"Oh boy what an idiot am I!"
<http://www.banjohangout.org/archive/218062>
"What a friend is he who brings good news, hope, consolation, and
sound counsel"
<http://www.lds.org/new-era/1975/10/qa-questions-and-answers?lang=eng>
"What a pair are they, beautiful!"
<http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=228724;article=872371;
title=The%20Doodle%20Zoo!>
"what a sight are we"
<http://debraandrayinparadise.blogspot.com/2010/09/youre-only-as-cool-a
s-your-dinosaur.html>
> But, in fact, it is another case of standard questions - with
> question phrase "what a fool"
intonations and different meanings/usages:
What a fool have I been!
The first is an exclamative, and the second is a question.
> > And for initial "only" (e):
> >
> > � � �Only once had she complained. �("she" is the subject)
>
> Much better than the last example - but I have my doubts about it
> being modern English.
Only at dinner does she complain.
Only in the morning does she complain.
etc.
> It seems to me that this is a parallel to the
> construction that started this - "nor has she complained" and part of
> the same search for a clear explanation.
> > And even fourth position is some of the other cases (g):
> >
> > � � �The more wives he had, the more children could he beget.
> > � � �(the second "he" is the subject)
>
> This gets another issue involved - which I would encode as "The $-er,
> the $-er" except that am abusing the $ notation ($ is suppose to mean
> "sentence"). There are examples like "The more I type, the more my
> hand hurts". I could paraphrase the first half as "The more he
> acquired wives".
second "he", which is the fourth element of the sentence (or the third
element of the second half).
In no way is it the second element of the sentence.
> I consider this an open issue. As you example shows
> verb-second is possible in the first half. So far as I am concerned
> verb-second in the second half is another think needs to be supported
> before I will accept it as modern English.
structures "subject-second", and it's that label I was arguing against.
> > But in all of (a)--(i), the subject consistently occurs immediately
> > after the first auxiliary, exactly the opposite of the usual order in
> > ordinary sentences, hence the descriptive label "subject-auxiliary
> > inversion".
>
> > I mean, you can call this phenomenon "subject-second" if you want to;
> > it wouldn't be the first label in linguistics (or any field) that
> > doesn't accurately describe its referent (see "pro-drop language",
> > "guinea pig", "brown dwarf", etc.). �But I don't really see the
> > benefit of inventing such a label when there is already an accurate
> > descriptive label in active use.
>
> The reason for objecting the "inversion" is that that assumes the
> proper place for the subject is immediately before the verb phrase.
All of these structures are "proper", since they are grammatical.
> This is not a satisfactory assumption. Word order should be handled
> differently. For example, is "Can you also catch the ball" an
> inversion of "You also can catch the ball"? Never mind that they
> don't mean the same. Does an inversion change meaning? It sounds to
> me like this inversion is a fossilized fragment of the late and not
> very lamented transformation grammar (or whatever name you would)
> prefer.
DKleinecke
May 7, 2013, 10:42:45 PM5/7/13
to
On May 6, 7:28 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <00e62618-68c7-47e8-bf20-e44a72704...@yb1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
My use of verb-second was a mindo - I obviously meant subject second.
Much of the problem here seems to be my use of sentence to mean
something on the order of functionally complete construction. I use
sentence to mean what many people call an independent clause. I allow
sentences to be embedded in sentences as in "I know he was here"
contains the embedded sentence "he was here". I parse a wh-question
of the type we are discussing as a question word followed by an
embedded sentence in subject second form with a gap somewhere. Since I
am not using the word "clause" elsewhere I am inclined to use it to
mean constructions using one of the non-active forms of the verb -
infinitive, gerund (-ing verbal) or participle (-en verbal). That is,
a construction involving a verb (and possibly a gap) is a sentence if
the verb form itself is active and a clause otherwise.
I will not hesitate to use non-standard nomenclature if it seems
desirable - we are concerned with ideas and not with the names we call
the ideas by.
> In article
> <00e62618-68c7-47e8-bf20-e44a72704...@yb1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Much of the problem here seems to be my use of sentence to mean
something on the order of functionally complete construction. I use
sentence to mean what many people call an independent clause. I allow
sentences to be embedded in sentences as in "I know he was here"
contains the embedded sentence "he was here". I parse a wh-question
of the type we are discussing as a question word followed by an
embedded sentence in subject second form with a gap somewhere. Since I
am not using the word "clause" elsewhere I am inclined to use it to
mean constructions using one of the non-active forms of the verb -
infinitive, gerund (-ing verbal) or participle (-en verbal). That is,
a construction involving a verb (and possibly a gap) is a sentence if
the verb form itself is active and a clause otherwise.
I will not hesitate to use non-standard nomenclature if it seems
desirable - we are concerned with ideas and not with the names we call
the ideas by.
Nathan Sanders
May 7, 2013, 11:10:57 PM5/7/13
to
In article
<58905be9-c4d4-4285...@zo5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
completely different meanings than the established usage, no wonder
it's so difficult to communicate with you!
<58905be9-c4d4-4285...@zo5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
DKleinecke <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I will not hesitate to use non-standard nomenclature if it seems
> desirable - we are concerned with ideas and not with the names we call
> the ideas by.
If you're going to insist on using technical terminology with
> I will not hesitate to use non-standard nomenclature if it seems
> desirable - we are concerned with ideas and not with the names we call
> the ideas by.
completely different meanings than the established usage, no wonder
it's so difficult to communicate with you!
DKleinecke
May 8, 2013, 8:47:05 PM5/8/13
to
On May 7, 8:10 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <58905be9-c4d4-4285-87e7-61145f44a...@zo5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
If you don't like my suggestion just call it a notational variant and
translate it into you own terms.
> In article
> <58905be9-c4d4-4285-87e7-61145f44a...@zo5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I will not hesitate to use non-standard nomenclature if it seems
> > desirable - we are concerned with ideas and not with the names we call
> > the ideas by.
>
> If you're going to insist on using technical terminology with
> completely different meanings than the established usage, no wonder
> it's so difficult to communicate with you!
>
> Nathan
>
> --
> Department of Linguistics
> Swarthmore Collegehttp://sanders.phonologist.org/
I always tell you what the change I am making is. And usually why.
> DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I will not hesitate to use non-standard nomenclature if it seems
> > desirable - we are concerned with ideas and not with the names we call
> > the ideas by.
>
> If you're going to insist on using technical terminology with
> completely different meanings than the established usage, no wonder
> it's so difficult to communicate with you!
>
> Nathan
>
> --
> Department of Linguistics
> Swarthmore Collegehttp://sanders.phonologist.org/
If you don't like my suggestion just call it a notational variant and
translate it into you own terms.
Nathan Sanders
May 8, 2013, 11:50:46 PM5/8/13
to
In article
<286c68d1-8e8c-4e41...@vx13g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
<286c68d1-8e8c-4e41...@vx13g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
DKleinecke <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 7, 8:10�pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > In article
> > <58905be9-c4d4-4285-87e7-61145f44a...@zo5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > �DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I will not hesitate to use non-standard nomenclature if it seems
> > > desirable - we are concerned with ideas and not with the names we call
> > > the ideas by.
> >
> > If you're going to insist on using technical terminology with
> > completely different meanings than the established usage, no wonder
> > it's so difficult to communicate with you!
>
> On May 7, 8:10�pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > In article
> > <58905be9-c4d4-4285-87e7-61145f44a...@zo5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > �DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I will not hesitate to use non-standard nomenclature if it seems
> > > desirable - we are concerned with ideas and not with the names we call
> > > the ideas by.
> >
> > If you're going to insist on using technical terminology with
> > completely different meanings than the established usage, no wonder
> > it's so difficult to communicate with you!
>
> I always tell you what the change I am making is.
After a long protracted discussion.
Brian M. Scott
May 9, 2013, 12:27:41 AM5/9/13
to
On Wed, 8 May 2013 17:47:05 -0700 (PDT), DKleinecke
<dklei...@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:286c68d1-8e8c-4e41...@vx13g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang,alt.english.usage,alt.usage.english:
> On May 7, 8:10�pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> In article
>> <58905be9-c4d4-4285-87e7-61145f44a...@zo5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
>> �DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I will not hesitate to use non-standard nomenclature if
>>> it seems desirable - we are concerned with ideas and
>>> not with the names we call the ideas by.
>> If you're going to insist on using technical terminology
>> with completely different meanings than the established
>> usage, no wonder it's so difficult to communicate with
>> you!
> I always tell you what the change I am making is. [...]
It's possible that you've always doen so *eventually*. You
certainly have not always done so soon enough to avoid
misunderstandings.
<dklei...@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:286c68d1-8e8c-4e41...@vx13g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang,alt.english.usage,alt.usage.english:
> On May 7, 8:10�pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> In article
>> <58905be9-c4d4-4285-87e7-61145f44a...@zo5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
>> �DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I will not hesitate to use non-standard nomenclature if
>>> it seems desirable - we are concerned with ideas and
>>> not with the names we call the ideas by.
>> If you're going to insist on using technical terminology
>> with completely different meanings than the established
>> usage, no wonder it's so difficult to communicate with
>> you!
It's possible that you've always doen so *eventually*. You
certainly have not always done so soon enough to avoid
misunderstandings.
Nathan Sanders
May 9, 2013, 1:06:18 AM5/9/13
to
In article <hwpwtcobalz.1wu37y68pw140$.d...@40tude.net>,
Perhaps most notably when he called me a Chomskyan, which, as it turns
out, was intended to mean that I support Chomskyan theories and/or
support anti-Chomskyan theories.
out, was intended to mean that I support Chomskyan theories and/or
support anti-Chomskyan theories.
Peter T. Daniels
May 9, 2013, 7:18:32 AM5/9/13
to
On May 9, 1:06 am, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <hwpwtcobalz.1wu37y68pw140$....@40tude.net>,
assumptions that underlie them. Do you suppose that Jim McCawley and
George Lakoff were not Chomskyans, because they espoused an approach
that derived but diverged from his?
> In article <hwpwtcobalz.1wu37y68pw140$....@40tude.net>,
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 8 May 2013 17:47:05 -0700 (PDT), DKleinecke
> > <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 8 May 2013 17:47:05 -0700 (PDT), DKleinecke
> > <news:286c68d1-8e8c-4e41...@vx13g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
> > in sci.lang,alt.english.usage,alt.usage.english:
>
> > > On May 7, 8:10 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > >> In article
> > >> <58905be9-c4d4-4285-87e7-61145f44a...@zo5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> > >> DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> I will not hesitate to use non-standard nomenclature if
> > >>> it seems desirable - we are concerned with ideas and
> > >>> not with the names we call the ideas by.
>
> > >> If you're going to insist on using technical terminology
> > >> with completely different meanings than the established
> > >> usage, no wonder it's so difficult to communicate with
> > >> you!
>
> > > I always tell you what the change I am making is. [...]
>
> > It's possible that you've always doen so *eventually*. You
> > certainly have not always done so soon enough to avoid
> > misunderstandings.
>
> Perhaps most notably when he called me a Chomskyan, which, as it turns
> out, was intended to mean that I support Chomskyan theories and/or
> support anti-Chomskyan theories.
The "anti-Chomskyan" theories would not exist without the Chomskyan
> > in sci.lang,alt.english.usage,alt.usage.english:
>
> > > On May 7, 8:10 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > >> In article
> > >> <58905be9-c4d4-4285-87e7-61145f44a...@zo5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> > >> DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> I will not hesitate to use non-standard nomenclature if
> > >>> it seems desirable - we are concerned with ideas and
> > >>> not with the names we call the ideas by.
>
> > >> If you're going to insist on using technical terminology
> > >> with completely different meanings than the established
> > >> usage, no wonder it's so difficult to communicate with
> > >> you!
>
> > > I always tell you what the change I am making is. [...]
>
> > It's possible that you've always doen so *eventually*. You
> > certainly have not always done so soon enough to avoid
> > misunderstandings.
>
> Perhaps most notably when he called me a Chomskyan, which, as it turns
> out, was intended to mean that I support Chomskyan theories and/or
> support anti-Chomskyan theories.
assumptions that underlie them. Do you suppose that Jim McCawley and
George Lakoff were not Chomskyans, because they espoused an approach
that derived but diverged from his?
Nathan Sanders
May 9, 2013, 12:30:13 PM5/9/13
to
In article
<a51af461-00ad-4857...@m4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
So, is Juliette Blevins a Chomskyan? Bjorn Lindblom? Because those
are the linguists whose theories best represent what I believe in.
<a51af461-00ad-4857...@m4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
are the linguists whose theories best represent what I believe in.
Peter T. Daniels
May 9, 2013, 4:22:20 PM5/9/13
to
> <a51af461-00ad-4857-a30f-fcfa91932...@m4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Answer the question. Were Generative Semanticists Chomskyans or not?
> So, is Juliette Blevins a Chomskyan?
Yes (I'm hoping to meet her one of these days).
> Bjorn Lindblom?
No idea.
> Because those
> are the linguists whose theories best represent what I believe in.
So it's a faith thing.
> So, is Juliette Blevins a Chomskyan?
> Bjorn Lindblom?
No idea.
> Because those
> are the linguists whose theories best represent what I believe in.
Nathan Sanders
May 9, 2013, 4:34:12 PM5/9/13
to
In article
<fd2d0c51-541c-4f66...@m2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> >�Bjorn Lindblom?
>
> No idea.
Then you don't know the first thing about my theoretical leanings.
<fd2d0c51-541c-4f66...@m2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> > So, is Juliette Blevins a Chomskyan?
>
> Yes
Hahahahaha!
>
> Yes
> >�Bjorn Lindblom?
>
> No idea.
Then you don't know the first thing about my theoretical leanings.
DKleinecke
May 9, 2013, 8:27:59 PM5/9/13
to
> <fd2d0c51-541c-4f66-91c2-87bced51b...@m2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
As nearly as I can tell Lindblom has never published outside of
phonology. We were discussing grammar not phonology. I don't think
there is enough substance left in Chomskian phonology for anyone to be
other than a non-Chomskian phonologist. You have made it clear that
you are a phonologist and not a grammarian. However when you do speak
about grammar what you say is quite Chomskian.
phonology. We were discussing grammar not phonology. I don't think
there is enough substance left in Chomskian phonology for anyone to be
other than a non-Chomskian phonologist. You have made it clear that
you are a phonologist and not a grammarian. However when you do speak
about grammar what you say is quite Chomskian.
Nathan Sanders
May 9, 2013, 8:31:17 PM5/9/13
to
In article
<5af8093c-21b1-44d5...@j2g2000pbx.googlegroups.com>,
Did you mean "syntax"?
> I don't think
> there is enough substance left in Chomskian phonology for anyone to be
> other than a non-Chomskian phonologist.
Finally!
> You have made it clear that
> you are a phonologist and not a grammarian.
Okay, yeah, I think you meant "syntax" above and "syntactician" here.
A grammarian is something else entirely.
> However when you do speak
> about grammar what you say is quite Chomskian.
Like when I advocate ternary structures for coordinations and double
object verbs?
<5af8093c-21b1-44d5...@j2g2000pbx.googlegroups.com>,
> As nearly as I can tell Lindblom has never published outside of
> phonology. We were discussing grammar not phonology.
Phonology is part of the grammar.
> phonology. We were discussing grammar not phonology.
Did you mean "syntax"?
> I don't think
> there is enough substance left in Chomskian phonology for anyone to be
> other than a non-Chomskian phonologist.
> You have made it clear that
> you are a phonologist and not a grammarian.
A grammarian is something else entirely.
> However when you do speak
> about grammar what you say is quite Chomskian.
object verbs?
DKleinecke
May 10, 2013, 8:08:35 PM5/10/13
to
> <5af8093c-21b1-44d5-9a87-ad83bf059...@j2g2000pbx.googlegroups.com>,
I believe the standard notion is that grammar consists of lexicon,
morphology and syntax and excludes phonology and semantics. However I
observe that Wikipedia does include phonology in grammar. There seems
to be some difference in usage. For example, consider the title of
Loos' book that I mentioned recently - The Phonology of Capanahua and
its Grammatical Basis. This seems to separate them. (After an
introduction the next three chapters are (2) Phrase Structure Rules
(3) Transformational rules and (4) The Phonological Rules which seems
to me to make a clear distinction.)
Since the morphology of English is trivial (outside the lexicon) I
should have said syntax instead of grammar. I will try to make that
switch permanent.
As Peter and I have tried to make clear - discussing things in terms
of Chomskian preoccupations makes you a Chomskian even if you disagree
with Chomsky's own theories. The split here between syntax and
phonology is clear here - Chomskian has opinions about syntax that
matter to people but his opinions, assuming he still has them, about
phonology are ignored.
I do not have any idea about how one goes from bare phrase structure
to real utterances but if I were doing it I would allow {Jack, Jill}
to map (or whatever the jargon) to "Jack and Jill". This is still not
perfect because further extension involves a different map {Bob,
{Jack, Jill}} maps to "Bob, {Jack, Jill}". And this second mapping can
be iterated in the most common structure. The first mapping can, of
course. also be iterated - but that is much less common in usage.
morphology and syntax and excludes phonology and semantics. However I
observe that Wikipedia does include phonology in grammar. There seems
to be some difference in usage. For example, consider the title of
Loos' book that I mentioned recently - The Phonology of Capanahua and
its Grammatical Basis. This seems to separate them. (After an
introduction the next three chapters are (2) Phrase Structure Rules
(3) Transformational rules and (4) The Phonological Rules which seems
to me to make a clear distinction.)
Since the morphology of English is trivial (outside the lexicon) I
should have said syntax instead of grammar. I will try to make that
switch permanent.
As Peter and I have tried to make clear - discussing things in terms
of Chomskian preoccupations makes you a Chomskian even if you disagree
with Chomsky's own theories. The split here between syntax and
phonology is clear here - Chomskian has opinions about syntax that
matter to people but his opinions, assuming he still has them, about
phonology are ignored.
I do not have any idea about how one goes from bare phrase structure
to real utterances but if I were doing it I would allow {Jack, Jill}
to map (or whatever the jargon) to "Jack and Jill". This is still not
perfect because further extension involves a different map {Bob,
{Jack, Jill}} maps to "Bob, {Jack, Jill}". And this second mapping can
be iterated in the most common structure. The first mapping can, of
course. also be iterated - but that is much less common in usage.
Nathan Sanders
May 11, 2013, 12:41:31 AM5/11/13
to
In article
<7eee4237-f456-491c...@j2g2000pbx.googlegroups.com>,
A grammar tells us what the possible utterances of a language are.
Utterances are pronounced. Ergo, phonology is part of the grammar.
It is standard practice for a work called "Grammar of X" to include
phonology as a primary section (i.e., not as part of the extra
material such as geography, culture, etc.). See, for example:
<http://www.degruyter.com/viewbooktoc/product/10997>
<http://victoria.linguistlist.org/~lapolla/downloads/Post_PhD_A_Grammar
_of_Galo_As_Submitted.pdf>
<http://www.famsi.org/reports/96072/grammar/>
<http://www.amazon.com/Grammar-Meithei-Mouton-Library/dp/3110143216>
<https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/11998/A%2Bgramm
ar%2Bof%2BAbui.pdf?sequence=1>
<http://www-01.sil.org/silepubs/Pubs/928474552170/ebook_52_van_den_Berg
_Muna_12-11-12.pdf>
<http://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110291421/9783110291421.ix/978
3110291421.ix.xml>
<http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/9789004190092>
<http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/plc/tamilweb/book.html>
<7eee4237-f456-491c...@j2g2000pbx.googlegroups.com>,
DKleinecke <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 9, 5:31�pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > In article
> > <5af8093c-21b1-44d5-9a87-ad83bf059...@j2g2000pbx.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > �DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > As nearly as I can tell Lindblom has never published outside of
> > > phonology. �We were discussing grammar not phonology.
> >
> > Phonology is part of the grammar.
> >
> > Did you mean "syntax"?
> >
> On May 9, 5:31�pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > In article
> > <5af8093c-21b1-44d5-9a87-ad83bf059...@j2g2000pbx.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > �DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > As nearly as I can tell Lindblom has never published outside of
> > > phonology. �We were discussing grammar not phonology.
> >
> > Phonology is part of the grammar.
> >
> > Did you mean "syntax"?
> >
> > > You have made it clear that
> > > you are a phonologist and not a grammarian.
> >
> > Okay, yeah, I think you meant "syntax" above and "syntactician" here.
> >
> > A grammarian is something else entirely.
>
> > > you are a phonologist and not a grammarian.
> >
> > Okay, yeah, I think you meant "syntax" above and "syntactician" here.
> >
> > A grammarian is something else entirely.
>
> I believe the standard notion is that grammar consists of lexicon,
> morphology and syntax and excludes phonology and semantics.
Since when do you use the "standard notion"?
> morphology and syntax and excludes phonology and semantics.
A grammar tells us what the possible utterances of a language are.
Utterances are pronounced. Ergo, phonology is part of the grammar.
It is standard practice for a work called "Grammar of X" to include
phonology as a primary section (i.e., not as part of the extra
material such as geography, culture, etc.). See, for example:
<http://www.degruyter.com/viewbooktoc/product/10997>
<http://victoria.linguistlist.org/~lapolla/downloads/Post_PhD_A_Grammar
_of_Galo_As_Submitted.pdf>
<http://www.famsi.org/reports/96072/grammar/>
<http://www.amazon.com/Grammar-Meithei-Mouton-Library/dp/3110143216>
<https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/11998/A%2Bgramm
ar%2Bof%2BAbui.pdf?sequence=1>
<http://www-01.sil.org/silepubs/Pubs/928474552170/ebook_52_van_den_Berg
_Muna_12-11-12.pdf>
<http://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110291421/9783110291421.ix/978
3110291421.ix.xml>
<http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/9789004190092>
<http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/plc/tamilweb/book.html>
Franz Gnaedinger
May 11, 2013, 4:26:23 AM5/11/13
to
On May 6, 1:23 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> What is "tension"?
If you hold back the important part for a long time
you raise tension. In the case of Rupert Ruhstaller's
grammar, tension is raised when the word order
is turned around, when the main functor and main
argument are given toward the end of a sentence
instead of at the beginning. His natural word order,
by the way, goes along with the natural order in early
language proposed recently, 'early' in this case meaning
almost two million years ago: What? Who? Where? How?
or so, in any case What? making the beginning.
>
> What is "tension"?
If you hold back the important part for a long time
you raise tension. In the case of Rupert Ruhstaller's
grammar, tension is raised when the word order
is turned around, when the main functor and main
argument are given toward the end of a sentence
instead of at the beginning. His natural word order,
by the way, goes along with the natural order in early
language proposed recently, 'early' in this case meaning
almost two million years ago: What? Who? Where? How?
or so, in any case What? making the beginning.
Peter T. Daniels
May 11, 2013, 7:20:32 AM5/11/13
to
> <7eee4237-f456-491c-948d-721b5dc76...@j2g2000pbx.googlegroups.com>,
The word "grammar" has _three_ senses within linguistics: a
description of a language; a description of a language's morphology
and syntax; a book containing a description of a language.
Now stop evading the issues, and either have a serious discussion with
David or get out of his thread.
> DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 9, 5:31 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <5af8093c-21b1-44d5-9a87-ad83bf059...@j2g2000pbx.googlegroups.com>,
> > > DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > As nearly as I can tell Lindblom has never published outside of
> > > > phonology. We were discussing grammar not phonology.
>
> > > Phonology is part of the grammar.
>
> > > Did you mean "syntax"?
>
> > > > You have made it clear that
> > > > you are a phonologist and not a grammarian.
>
> > > Okay, yeah, I think you meant "syntax" above and "syntactician" here.
>
> > > A grammarian is something else entirely.
>
> > I believe the standard notion is that grammar consists of lexicon,
> > morphology and syntax and excludes phonology and semantics.
>
> Since when do you use the "standard notion"?
>
> A grammar tells us what the possible utterances of a language are.
> Utterances are pronounced. Ergo, phonology is part of the grammar.
>
> It is standard practice for a work called "Grammar of X" to include
> phonology as a primary section (i.e., not as part of the extra
> material such as geography, culture, etc.). See, for example:
Did you skip the first day of Linguistics 101, or something?
> > On May 9, 5:31 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <5af8093c-21b1-44d5-9a87-ad83bf059...@j2g2000pbx.googlegroups.com>,
> > > DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > As nearly as I can tell Lindblom has never published outside of
> > > > phonology. We were discussing grammar not phonology.
>
> > > Phonology is part of the grammar.
>
> > > Did you mean "syntax"?
>
> > > > You have made it clear that
> > > > you are a phonologist and not a grammarian.
>
> > > Okay, yeah, I think you meant "syntax" above and "syntactician" here.
>
> > > A grammarian is something else entirely.
>
> > I believe the standard notion is that grammar consists of lexicon,
> > morphology and syntax and excludes phonology and semantics.
>
> Since when do you use the "standard notion"?
>
> A grammar tells us what the possible utterances of a language are.
> Utterances are pronounced. Ergo, phonology is part of the grammar.
>
> It is standard practice for a work called "Grammar of X" to include
> phonology as a primary section (i.e., not as part of the extra
> material such as geography, culture, etc.). See, for example:
The word "grammar" has _three_ senses within linguistics: a
description of a language; a description of a language's morphology
and syntax; a book containing a description of a language.
Now stop evading the issues, and either have a serious discussion with
David or get out of his thread.
Peter T. Daniels
May 11, 2013, 7:23:10 AM5/11/13
to
Again, how can there be SVO, SOV, and VSO languages if there is such a
thing as "natural word order"?
That sort of thing was abandoned 150 years ago as Europeans became
familiar with non-European languaegs.
Nathan Sanders
May 11, 2013, 2:52:16 PM5/11/13
to
In article
<61e4a2d0-4408-4d7d...@k8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
Did you ask David the same thing when he insisted that "grammar" only
had one meaning? Or that he called a syntactician a "grammarian"?
> The word "grammar" has _three_ senses within linguistics: a
> description of a language;
Yes, this is clearly, the meaning I'm advocating, which is the
standard notion, as evidenced by the most common structure of work
containing such descriptions.
> a description of a language's morphology and syntax;
Clearly, the meaning David's advocating, which of course exists, but
is not the standard notion and is a distinctly minority usage (most
likely, because people who bother to think hard enough about it
realize that a linguistic system isn't perfectly modular, and that you
simply can't fully describe syntax and morphology without reference to
phonology; see, for example, English "a/an", "more X"/"X-er",
intonation differences between declaratives and uninverted polarity
questions, etc.).
I find that the only people who tend to use "grammar" this way are
syntacticians and non-linguists.
> a book containing a description of a language.
This is obvious metonymy for the description, and thus, is intimately
linked to the definition of "grammar" used for the description.
> Now stop evading the issues, and either have a serious discussion with
> David or get out of his thread.
That's pretty difficult to do, since half the time I can't even tell
what the "issues" are because he masks them in misused vocabulary, and
by the time he explains himself, the "issues" have been long forgotten.
Next time he wants to discuss "issues", I suggest that he either use
linguistics jargon with its standard meaning, or (less preferred, but
still better than his S.O.P.) he explain upfront what all of his
non-standard terms mean.
<61e4a2d0-4408-4d7d...@k8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
had one meaning? Or that he called a syntactician a "grammarian"?
> The word "grammar" has _three_ senses within linguistics: a
> description of a language;
standard notion, as evidenced by the most common structure of work
containing such descriptions.
> a description of a language's morphology and syntax;
is not the standard notion and is a distinctly minority usage (most
likely, because people who bother to think hard enough about it
realize that a linguistic system isn't perfectly modular, and that you
simply can't fully describe syntax and morphology without reference to
phonology; see, for example, English "a/an", "more X"/"X-er",
intonation differences between declaratives and uninverted polarity
questions, etc.).
I find that the only people who tend to use "grammar" this way are
syntacticians and non-linguists.
> a book containing a description of a language.
linked to the definition of "grammar" used for the description.
> Now stop evading the issues, and either have a serious discussion with
> David or get out of his thread.
what the "issues" are because he masks them in misused vocabulary, and
by the time he explains himself, the "issues" have been long forgotten.
Next time he wants to discuss "issues", I suggest that he either use
linguistics jargon with its standard meaning, or (less preferred, but
still better than his S.O.P.) he explain upfront what all of his
non-standard terms mean.
alien8er
May 11, 2013, 2:53:43 PM5/11/13
to
On May 11, 4:23 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On May 11, 4:26 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
>
> > On May 6, 1:23 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > What is "tension"?
>
> > If you hold back the important part for a long time
> > you raise tension. In the case of Rupert Ruhstaller's
> > grammar, tension is raised when the word order
> > is turned around, when the main functor and main
> > argument are given toward the end of a sentence
> > instead of at the beginning. His natural word order,
> > by the way, goes along with the natural order in early
> > language proposed recently, 'early' in this case meaning
> > almost two million years ago: What? Who? Where? How?
> > or so, in any case What? making the beginning.
>
> Who is to decide what "the important part" is?
You did, when you asked "What is 'tension' "?
> On May 11, 4:26 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
>
> > On May 6, 1:23 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > What is "tension"?
>
> > If you hold back the important part for a long time
> > you raise tension. In the case of Rupert Ruhstaller's
> > grammar, tension is raised when the word order
> > is turned around, when the main functor and main
> > argument are given toward the end of a sentence
> > instead of at the beginning. His natural word order,
> > by the way, goes along with the natural order in early
> > language proposed recently, 'early' in this case meaning
> > almost two million years ago: What? Who? Where? How?
> > or so, in any case What? making the beginning.
>
> Who is to decide what "the important part" is?
It's the emotional sense of the word, meaning a weak sort of
anxiety. You want something but can't have it right away, making you a
bit anxious.
As a trivial example I'll rewrite the first sentence of Franz'
response to:
"You raise tension if you hold back the important part for a long
time."
In context, the definition of "tension" was important *to you* and
my rewrite got to the point immediately creating no tension, whereas
Franz's version held it back, creating tension.
> Again, how can there be SVO, SOV, and VSO languages if there is such a
> thing as "natural word order"?
"natural word order" in context to Rupert Ruhstaller and an uncited
proposal re: very early languages.
(BTW I'd like a link to that proposal please, Franz.)
> That sort of thing was abandoned 150 years ago as Europeans became
> familiar with non-European languaegs.
down the stairs his shoes" Germanic-speakers?
I'd suggest that "natural word order" has become a matter of
consensus; you and I and Franz are using standard English conventions
here. In other groups populated by non-English speakers "natural word
order" will be different.
Dr. HotSalt
Peter T. Daniels
May 11, 2013, 7:34:25 PM5/11/13
to
Subject-Verb-Object word order.
> I'd suggest that "natural word order" has become a matter of
> consensus; you and I and Franz are using standard English conventions
> here. In other groups populated by non-English speakers "natural word
> order" will be different.
DKleinecke
May 11, 2013, 8:17:34 PM5/11/13
to
On May 11, 11:52 am, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> I find that the only people who tend to use "grammar" this way are
> syntacticians and non-linguists.
What made you think I was not a syntactician? I do also do historical
> I find that the only people who tend to use "grammar" this way are
> syntacticians and non-linguists.
linguistics - but that was not under discussion.
Robert Bannister
May 11, 2013, 8:30:10 PM5/11/13
to
different from the usual. If "important last" is the normal word order
then it won't have any effect at all.
>
>> Again, how can there be SVO, SOV, and VSO languages if there is such a
>> thing as "natural word order"?
>
> Depends on who's defining it, doesn't it? Franz clearly attributes
> "natural word order" in context to Rupert Ruhstaller and an uncited
> proposal re: very early languages.
>
> (BTW I'd like a link to that proposal please, Franz.)
>
>> That sort of thing was abandoned 150 years ago as Europeans became
>> familiar with non-European languaegs.
>
> Which Europeans do you mean; English-speakers, or "throw my father
> down the stairs his shoes" Germanic-speakers?
language perhaps?
>
> I'd suggest that "natural word order" has become a matter of
> consensus; you and I and Franz are using standard English conventions
> here. In other groups populated by non-English speakers "natural word
> order" will be different.
--
Robert Bannister
Nathan Sanders
May 11, 2013, 9:06:11 PM5/11/13
to
In article
<715d4152-d7c8-461c...@oy6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
<715d4152-d7c8-461c...@oy6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
DKleinecke <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 11, 11:52�am, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > I find that the only people who tend to use "grammar" this way are
> > syntacticians and non-linguists.
>
> What made you think I was not a syntactician?
I didn't mean all, only some.
> On May 11, 11:52�am, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > I find that the only people who tend to use "grammar" this way are
> > syntacticians and non-linguists.
>
> What made you think I was not a syntactician?
DKleinecke
May 11, 2013, 9:24:32 PM5/11/13
to
On May 11, 5:17 pm, DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
I never gave minimalism much thought before this recent exchange. Now
I have much firmer ideas.
I think the basic flaw in minimalism, as Chomsky presents it, is that
it does not acknowledge exocentric constructions. This, generally
speaking, is a flaw of all head-centric syntax. If one has exocentric
merges then one can handle conjunction like this -
{and, N} -> and-N; {N, and-N} -> N
where these are the only references to and-N. The second step, is of
course, endomorphic.
In his 1959 preface to his 1943 thesis - A Synopsis of English Syntax
- Nida reworked his syntax into binary form and marked each binary
action as endocentric and exocentric. I'm not about to do it but it
looks to me as though Nida could be changed <math jargon>
isomorphically </math jargon> into good minimalist jargon - except for
those pesky exocentric constructions. The first example Nida gives is
the well known (says Wikipedia) case of {NP VP} -> Sentence. His
second examples are "was chased" and "by the men". Then "or so it
seems to me" which contains three exocentric constuctions - "or, ..."
"it , so seems to me" "to me" and, yes, he inserts "it" - subject
second - into "so seems to me" making the later discontinuous. I
don't know that this matters - consider it a contribution to the
history of linguistics.
It seems to me that minimalism could be more minimal by adding
exocentric construction - all that is required is to remove the
restriction that C must be either A or B in {A, B} -> C. In the spirit
of the reasoning style Chomsky has been using forever (not to mention
the ontological proof of the existence of god) - surely a theory with
one less restriction is more minimal.
That in turn suggests a syntax (?) in terms of a collection of triples
- {A, B, C} interpreted as {A, B} -> C. Currently Chomsky demands that
the following hold: If {A, B, C} belongs to the syntax then so does
{B, A, C}. This is another disposable restriction and by dropping it
we get even more minimal.
The resulting collection reduces syntax to a set of triples. I don't
think it is an accident that this looks exactly like a triplestore
database such as RDF. This comparison would get even closer were we
to re-intoduce heads and call the first member of the triple the head,
the second the attribute and the third the value (mostly the
nomenclature used in databases)
This is as far as I have gotten so I must stop.
I never gave minimalism much thought before this recent exchange. Now
I have much firmer ideas.
I think the basic flaw in minimalism, as Chomsky presents it, is that
it does not acknowledge exocentric constructions. This, generally
speaking, is a flaw of all head-centric syntax. If one has exocentric
merges then one can handle conjunction like this -
{and, N} -> and-N; {N, and-N} -> N
where these are the only references to and-N. The second step, is of
course, endomorphic.
In his 1959 preface to his 1943 thesis - A Synopsis of English Syntax
- Nida reworked his syntax into binary form and marked each binary
action as endocentric and exocentric. I'm not about to do it but it
looks to me as though Nida could be changed <math jargon>
isomorphically </math jargon> into good minimalist jargon - except for
those pesky exocentric constructions. The first example Nida gives is
the well known (says Wikipedia) case of {NP VP} -> Sentence. His
second examples are "was chased" and "by the men". Then "or so it
seems to me" which contains three exocentric constuctions - "or, ..."
"it , so seems to me" "to me" and, yes, he inserts "it" - subject
second - into "so seems to me" making the later discontinuous. I
don't know that this matters - consider it a contribution to the
history of linguistics.
It seems to me that minimalism could be more minimal by adding
exocentric construction - all that is required is to remove the
restriction that C must be either A or B in {A, B} -> C. In the spirit
of the reasoning style Chomsky has been using forever (not to mention
the ontological proof of the existence of god) - surely a theory with
one less restriction is more minimal.
That in turn suggests a syntax (?) in terms of a collection of triples
- {A, B, C} interpreted as {A, B} -> C. Currently Chomsky demands that
the following hold: If {A, B, C} belongs to the syntax then so does
{B, A, C}. This is another disposable restriction and by dropping it
we get even more minimal.
The resulting collection reduces syntax to a set of triples. I don't
think it is an accident that this looks exactly like a triplestore
database such as RDF. This comparison would get even closer were we
to re-intoduce heads and call the first member of the triple the head,
the second the attribute and the third the value (mostly the
nomenclature used in databases)
This is as far as I have gotten so I must stop.
Peter T. Daniels
May 11, 2013, 11:06:17 PM5/11/13
to
"Pennsylvania Dutch," i.e. Amish, -themed restaurants in the
Lancaster, PA, area -- or at least it was 50+ years ago when we took a
couple of summer vacations there.
> > I'd suggest that "natural word order" has become a matter of
> > consensus; you and I and Franz are using standard English conventions
> > here. In other groups populated by non-English speakers "natural word
> > order" will be different.
>
> Have you counted the ratio of English to non-English speakers "here"?
Franz Gnaedinger
May 12, 2013, 4:52:15 AM5/12/13
to
On May 11, 8:53 pm, alien8er <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Depends on who's defining it, doesn't it? Franz clearly attributes
> "natural word order" in context to Rupert Ruhstaller and an uncited
> proposal re: very early languages.
>
> (BTW I'd like a link to that proposal please, Franz.)
Heard it on a science show on the radio, either BBC
>
> Depends on who's defining it, doesn't it? Franz clearly attributes
> "natural word order" in context to Rupert Ruhstaller and an uncited
> proposal re: very early languages.
>
> (BTW I'd like a link to that proposal please, Franz.)
world program, or Public Radio International, so I can't
give a link, but I can tell you more about word order
in the Rupert Ruhstaller diagram. Look at the following
sentences containing the same words in different order:
Also
because of the more natural word order
over German
in the USA
English prevailed.
English prevailed over German in the USA
also because of the more natural word order.
'English' being the main argument and 'prevailed' being
the main functor in the grammar of Rupert Ruhstaller
they come first in the natural word order, whereas,
when they come last, tension is raised, a ridge of
tension letting 'because of the natural word order'
hang in the air, so to say.
But you better begin with short sentences in a language
of free word order, like Latin, for example
vita brevis est life (vita) is (est) short (brevis)
There are six possible word orders
vita est brevis veb natural word order
brevis vita est bve
est brevis vita ebv
brevis est vita bev
vita brevis est vbe
Draw a square grid 2 by 2, each side marked by
3 points, two coinciding with corners of the square,
one in the middle of a side. Write the words in the
natural order veb under the three points of the bottom
line, from left to right, then the actual order next to
the right side of the grid, from top to bottom. Then
mark the points where the horizontal and vertical
lines of the same words cross each other. Then
connect the points you marked with straight lines,
beginning from the top left corner of the square,
proceeding step by step downward. (Quite simple,
really.) If the actual word order coincides with
the natural word order, veb vita est brevis, the
resulting line is the diagonal from the left top
to the right bottom corner of the square,
line of flat tension in the Ruhstaller diagram.
In the other cases you obtain zigzag lines.
Peaks to the right side indicate high tension,
valleys to the left side low tension, tension relieved.
The highest tension is obtained when your sentence
begins with brevis 'short', while the the best version,
dynamical but not dramatic, is found in the most
pleasing vita brevis est, which you can't say in English
- life short is -, English has life is short, natural order
of no emphasis, high emphasis in the exclamation
How short life is!, conveyed not only by the melody
and exclamation mark but also by the word order.
Peter T. Daniels
May 12, 2013, 8:37:53 AM5/12/13
to
On May 12, 4:52 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
> On May 11, 8:53 pm, alien8er <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Depends on who's defining it, doesn't it? Franz clearly attributes
> > "natural word order" in context to Rupert Ruhstaller and an uncited
> > proposal re: very early languages.
>
> > (BTW I'd like a link to that proposal please, Franz.)
>
> Heard it on a science show on the radio, either BBC
> world program, or Public Radio International, so I can't
(that's his usual story)
> On May 11, 8:53 pm, alien8er <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Depends on who's defining it, doesn't it? Franz clearly attributes
> > "natural word order" in context to Rupert Ruhstaller and an uncited
> > proposal re: very early languages.
>
> > (BTW I'd like a link to that proposal please, Franz.)
>
> Heard it on a science show on the radio, either BBC
> world program, or Public Radio International, so I can't
> give a link, but I can tell you more about word order
> in the Rupert Ruhstaller diagram. Look at the following
> sentences containing the same words in different order:
>
> Also
> because of the more natural word order
> over German
> in the USA
> English prevailed.
>
> English prevailed over German in the USA
> also because of the more natural word order.
There is nothing more or less "natural" about putting the "because"
clause either before or after the main clause. The only significant
difference is that German puts the adverbial phrases first and English
puts them later. This is the perfectly normal concomitant of the
difference between OV (German) and VO (English) word order.
German has been using that "mixed" word order -- differing between
main and subordinate clauses, inter alia -- for at least half a
millennium (probably more). If there were any question of
"naturalness" or "prevailing," it would have changed by now.
English prevailed over German in the USA because the vast majority of
European settlers in the area that became the USA were English-
speakers. German-speakers were limited to a small area of inland
Pennsylvania. There were apparently a few families in New York that
continued to speak Dutch for almost a century after The Netherlands
ceded the city to the English in 1664. The Swedish colony near the
mouth of the Delaware River lasted only a few years. But up north, in
what would become Canada, there were sufficient French-speaking
settlers that English did not "prevail" over French in Quebec.
Ruhstaller's native language.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
May 12, 2013, 4:52:39 PM5/12/13
to
became the official language of the USA. The kernel of historical fact
which grew into this myth is explained here (despite the page title):
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/955/did-hebrew-almost-become-the-official-u-s-language
Of course word order never had anything to do with it.
BTW, in addition to those Pennsylvania Dutch restaurants you
mentioned, you could have added the 1950s popular song "Throw Mama
From The Train (A Kiss)", which played on this word order -- and its
various parodies. I think I picked it up as "Throw Mama from the train
a knish", via MAD magazine.
Brian M. Scott
May 12, 2013, 4:56:27 PM5/12/13
to
On Sun, 12 May 2013 13:52:39 -0700 (PDT),
"benl...@ihug.co.nz" <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in
<news:291660b8-48d8-4f36...@lr6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang,alt.english.usage,alt.usage.english:
[...]
> BTW, in addition to those Pennsylvania Dutch restaurants
> you mentioned, you could have added the 1950s popular
> song "Throw Mama From The Train (A Kiss)", which played
> on this word order -- and its various parodies. I think I
> picked it up as "Throw Mama from the train a knish", via
> MAD magazine.
'Throw the cow over the fence some hay' used to be a common
joke example of rural Wisconsin English.
Brian
"benl...@ihug.co.nz" <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in
<news:291660b8-48d8-4f36...@lr6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang,alt.english.usage,alt.usage.english:
[...]
> BTW, in addition to those Pennsylvania Dutch restaurants
> you mentioned, you could have added the 1950s popular
> song "Throw Mama From The Train (A Kiss)", which played
> on this word order -- and its various parodies. I think I
> picked it up as "Throw Mama from the train a knish", via
> MAD magazine.
joke example of rural Wisconsin English.
Brian
Helmut Richter
May 12, 2013, 5:51:58 PM5/12/13
to
On Sun, 12 May 2013, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On May 12, 4:52�am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
> > Look at the following
> > sentences containing the same words in different order:
> >
> > � Also
> > � because of the more natural word order
> > � over German
> > � in the USA
> > � English prevailed.
This is certainly neither English nor German word order.
> On May 12, 4:52�am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
> > Look at the following
> > sentences containing the same words in different order:
> >
> > � Also
> > � because of the more natural word order
> > � over German
> > � in the USA
> > � English prevailed.
Translated into German that would be:
Auch
wegen der nat�rlicheren Wortstellung
gegen das Deutsche
in den USA
das Englische setzte sich durch.
This is no possible German sentence. Correct would be
Auch
wegen der nat�rlicheren Wortstellung
setzte sich das Englische
in den USA
gegen das Deutsche durch.
> > � English prevailed over German in the USA
> > � also because of the more natural word order.
> There is nothing more or less "natural" about putting the "because"
> clause either before or after the main clause. The only significant
> difference is that German puts the adverbial phrases first and English
> puts them later. This is the perfectly normal concomitant of the
> difference between OV (German) and VO (English) word order.
And it is not at all mandatory in German. The word order
> clause either before or after the main clause. The only significant
> difference is that German puts the adverbial phrases first and English
> puts them later. This is the perfectly normal concomitant of the
> difference between OV (German) and VO (English) word order.
Das Englische setzte sich
in den USA
auch
wegen der nat�rlicheren Wortstellung
gegen das Deutsche durch.
is absolutely fine.
> German has been using that "mixed" word order -- differing between
> main and subordinate clauses, inter alia -- for at least half a
> millennium (probably more). If there were any question of
> "naturalness" or "prevailing," it would have changed by now.
verb-last order in German subordinate clause is seldom found in Luther's
German Bible (1545):
Luther:
Wenn du Almosen gibst, sollst du nicht lassen vor dir posaunen, wie die
Heuchler tun in den Schulen und auf den Gassen, auf da� sie von den Leuten
gepriesen werden.
Today's German word order (archaic wording left as is):
Wenn du Almosen gibst, sollst du nicht vor dir posaunen lassen, wie die
Heuchler in den Schulen und auf den Gassen tun, auf da� sie von den Leuten
gepriesen werden.
On the other hand, when I read the King James Bible, the word order often
appears German to me, although I have no example handy.
--
Helmut Richter
Peter T. Daniels
May 12, 2013, 6:06:54 PM5/12/13
to
encountered the myth are in lists of myths.
> http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/955/did-hebrew-almost-become...
Indeed it's not impossible that I first read it in the Straight Dope
column, which originated at the Chicago Reader. (Though by January 21,
1994, I was only reading the Reader sporadically.)
> Of course word order never had anything to do with it.
>
> BTW, in addition to those Pennsylvania Dutch restaurants you
> mentioned, you could have added the 1950s popular song "Throw Mama
> From The Train (A Kiss)", which played on this word order -- and its
> various parodies. I think I picked it up as "Throw Mama from the train
> a knish", via MAD magazine.
Vito) was an allusion!
Peter T. Daniels
May 12, 2013, 6:13:30 PM5/12/13
to
On May 12, 5:51 pm, Helmut Richter <hh...@web.de> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2013, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On May 12, 4:52 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
> > > Look at the following
> > > sentences containing the same words in different order:
>
> > > Also
> > > because of the more natural word order
> > > over German
> > > in the USA
> > > English prevailed.
>
> This is certainly neither English nor German word order.
>
> Translated into German that would be:
>
> Auch
> wegen der nat rlicheren Wortstellung
> gegen das Deutsche
> in den USA
> das Englische setzte sich durch.
>
> This is no possible German sentence. Correct would be
Well ,,, maybe the good Pater wasn't thinking of a separable-prefix
> On Sun, 12 May 2013, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On May 12, 4:52 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
> > > Look at the following
> > > sentences containing the same words in different order:
>
> > > Also
> > > because of the more natural word order
> > > over German
> > > in the USA
> > > English prevailed.
>
> This is certainly neither English nor German word order.
>
> Translated into German that would be:
>
> Auch
> wegen der nat rlicheren Wortstellung
> gegen das Deutsche
> in den USA
> das Englische setzte sich durch.
>
> This is no possible German sentence. Correct would be
verb.
capitalized? I only have a modern German Bible, which has been
modernized a bit.)
> Today's German word order (archaic wording left as is):
> Wenn du Almosen gibst, sollst du nicht vor dir posaunen lassen, wie die
> Heuchler in den Schulen und auf den Gassen tun, auf da sie von den Leuten
> gepriesen werden.
>
> On the other hand, when I read the King James Bible, the word order often
> appears German to me, although I have no example handy.
vocabulary than anything else. (The spelling has been modernized a
couple of times over the centuries -- though not recently; it still
has <Syriack> at Daniel 2:4a (1611 spelling: <Syriacke>).
Robert Bannister
May 12, 2013, 9:17:41 PM5/12/13
to
order with verb last even though this is not common to Germanic
languages at all.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
May 12, 2013, 9:20:54 PM5/12/13
to
the end of the period. I once read that this is why it was introduced
into German, but I can't find confirmation of this.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
May 12, 2013, 9:31:14 PM5/12/13
to
John 8:59
Then took they up stones to cast at him
- not verb last, which only occurs in German subordinate clauses, but
verb second which is much more common.
Luther:
Da hoben sie Steine auf, um auf ihn zu werfen.
- that's from an online search. My own Luther-in-the-original is Old
Testament only so I can't compare the spelling.
--
Robert Bannister
Franz Gnaedinger
May 13, 2013, 3:23:46 AM5/13/13
to
On May 12, 2:37 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On May 12, 4:52 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
>
> > Also
> > because of the more natural word order
> > over German
> > in the USA
> > English prevailed.
>
> > English prevailed over German in the USA
> > also because of the more natural word order.
>
> "Also" has no place in that sentence in English.
There are many reasons why English prevailed over German
> On May 12, 4:52 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
>
> > Also
> > because of the more natural word order
> > over German
> > in the USA
> > English prevailed.
>
> > English prevailed over German in the USA
> > also because of the more natural word order.
>
> "Also" has no place in that sentence in English.
in the USA, a l s o because of the more natural word order.
My first sentence does not render German word order, it is an
example of free word order, as possible in Latin, and in poetry.
Adam Funk
May 13, 2013, 8:41:14 AM5/13/13
to
On 2013-05-12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On May 12, 5:51 pm, Helmut Richter <hh...@web.de> wrote:
>> And word order has changed in *both* languages. For instance the strong
>> verb-last order in German subordinate clause is seldom found in Luther's
>> German Bible (1545):
>>
>> Luther:
>> Wenn du Almosen gibst, sollst du nicht lassen vor dir posaunen, wie die
>> Heuchler tun in den Schulen und auf den Gassen, auf da sie von den Leuten
>> gepriesen werden.
>
> Could that reflect the Greek?? (and are the posaunen really not
> capitalized? I only have a modern German Bible, which has been
> modernized a bit.)
Isn't "posaunen" a verb there?
> On May 12, 5:51 pm, Helmut Richter <hh...@web.de> wrote:
>> And word order has changed in *both* languages. For instance the strong
>> verb-last order in German subordinate clause is seldom found in Luther's
>> German Bible (1545):
>>
>> Luther:
>> Wenn du Almosen gibst, sollst du nicht lassen vor dir posaunen, wie die
>> Heuchler tun in den Schulen und auf den Gassen, auf da sie von den Leuten
>> gepriesen werden.
>
> Could that reflect the Greek?? (and are the posaunen really not
> capitalized? I only have a modern German Bible, which has been
> modernized a bit.)
Mine has almost exactly what Helmut cited, except "Wenn du nun
Almosen" & "auf daß sie voe den Leuten". The title page says "nach
der deutschen übersetzung D. Martin Luthers / Neu durchgesehen nach
dem vom Deutschen Evangelischen Kirchenausschuß genehmigten Text", but
"neu" is 1954. (It's in Fraktura, too.)
--
They do (play, that is), and nobody gets killed, but Metallic K.O. is
the only rock album I know where you can actually hear hurled beer
bottles breaking against guitar strings. --- Lester Bangs
Peter T. Daniels
May 13, 2013, 10:34:23 AM5/13/13
to
On May 13, 8:41 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2013-05-12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > On May 12, 5:51 pm, Helmut Richter <hh...@web.de> wrote:
> >> And word order has changed in *both* languages. For instance the strong
> >> verb-last order in German subordinate clause is seldom found in Luther's
> >> German Bible (1545):
>
> >> Luther:
> >> Wenn du Almosen gibst, sollst du nicht lassen vor dir posaunen, wie die
> >> Heuchler tun in den Schulen und auf den Gassen, auf da sie von den Leuten
> >> gepriesen werden.
>
> > Could that reflect the Greek?? (and are the posaunen really not
> > capitalized? I only have a modern German Bible, which has been
> > modernized a bit.)
>
> Isn't "posaunen" a verb there?
I only know it as a noun -- in the Brahms Requiem it's always fun to
> On 2013-05-12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > On May 12, 5:51 pm, Helmut Richter <hh...@web.de> wrote:
> >> And word order has changed in *both* languages. For instance the strong
> >> verb-last order in German subordinate clause is seldom found in Luther's
> >> German Bible (1545):
>
> >> Luther:
> >> Wenn du Almosen gibst, sollst du nicht lassen vor dir posaunen, wie die
> >> Heuchler tun in den Schulen und auf den Gassen, auf da sie von den Leuten
> >> gepriesen werden.
>
> > Could that reflect the Greek?? (and are the posaunen really not
> > capitalized? I only have a modern German Bible, which has been
> > modernized a bit.)
>
> Isn't "posaunen" a verb there?
sing about "At the last trombone."
> Mine has almost exactly what Helmut cited, except "Wenn du nun
> Almosen" & "auf daß sie voe den Leuten". The title page says "nach
> der deutschen übersetzung D. Martin Luthers / Neu durchgesehen nach
> dem vom Deutschen Evangelischen Kirchenausschuß genehmigten Text", but
> "neu" is 1954. (It's in Fraktura, too.)
the NRSV was mostly to degenderize rather than rewrite.
I like the modern Fraktur of the Bible -- obviously it's too serious
to be consigned to that newfangled roman type. (Those recent faces are
a lot more legible than even 19th-c. ones; we learned it from Erich
Kaestner's *Emil und die Detektive*, but then we moved on to Storm's
*Immensee* (both student editions with full glossaries), which wasn't
set nearly as nicely.)
Leslie Danks
May 13, 2013, 10:57:24 AM5/13/13
to
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On May 13, 8:41 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> On 2013-05-12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>> > On May 12, 5:51 pm, Helmut Richter <hh...@web.de> wrote:
>> >> And word order has changed in *both* languages. For instance the
>> >> strong verb-last order in German subordinate clause is seldom found in
>> >> Luther's German Bible (1545):
>>
>> >> Luther:
>> >> Wenn du Almosen gibst, sollst du nicht lassen vor dir posaunen, wie
>> >> die Heuchler tun in den Schulen und auf den Gassen, auf da sie von den
>> >> Leuten gepriesen werden.
>>
>> > Could that reflect the Greek?? (and are the posaunen really not
>> > capitalized? I only have a modern German Bible, which has been
>> > modernized a bit.)
>>
>> Isn't "posaunen" a verb there?
>
> I only know it as a noun -- in the Brahms Requiem it's always fun to
> sing about "At the last trombone."
Duden gives "posaunen" as a verb meaning "die Posaune blasen", which would
> On May 13, 8:41 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> On 2013-05-12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>> > On May 12, 5:51 pm, Helmut Richter <hh...@web.de> wrote:
>> >> And word order has changed in *both* languages. For instance the
>> >> strong verb-last order in German subordinate clause is seldom found in
>> >> Luther's German Bible (1545):
>>
>> >> Luther:
>> >> Wenn du Almosen gibst, sollst du nicht lassen vor dir posaunen, wie
>> >> die Heuchler tun in den Schulen und auf den Gassen, auf da sie von den
>> >> Leuten gepriesen werden.
>>
>> > Could that reflect the Greek?? (and are the posaunen really not
>> > capitalized? I only have a modern German Bible, which has been
>> > modernized a bit.)
>>
>> Isn't "posaunen" a verb there?
>
> I only know it as a noun -- in the Brahms Requiem it's always fun to
> sing about "At the last trombone."
explain the non-capitalisation and the word order.
>> Mine has almost exactly what Helmut cited, except "Wenn du nun
>> Almosen" & "auf daß sie voe den Leuten". The title page says "nach
>> der deutschen übersetzung D. Martin Luthers / Neu durchgesehen nach
>> dem vom Deutschen Evangelischen Kirchenausschuß genehmigten Text", but
>> "neu" is 1954. (It's in Fraktura, too.)
>
> The RSV is the same age, and we don't find anything archaic about it;
> the NRSV was mostly to degenderize rather than rewrite.
>
> I like the modern Fraktur of the Bible -- obviously it's too serious
> to be consigned to that newfangled roman type. (Those recent faces are
> a lot more legible than even 19th-c. ones; we learned it from Erich
> Kaestner's *Emil und die Detektive*, but then we moved on to Storm's
> *Immensee* (both student editions with full glossaries), which wasn't
> set nearly as nicely.)
Les (BrE)
"... be skeptical of government guidelines. The Indians learned not to trust
our government and neither should you." (Fallon & Enig)
Helmut Richter
May 13, 2013, 11:23:53 AM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013, Adam Funk wrote:
> Isn't "posaunen" a verb there?
It is.
> Isn't "posaunen" a verb there?
> Mine has almost exactly what Helmut cited, except "Wenn du nun
> Almosen" & "auf daß sie voe den Leuten".
text in my web article with an overview of the history of German
(http://hhr-m.userweb.mwn.de/de-history/) but it is not *exactly* the text I
find in the printed Bible. I do not remember where I got the text when I
composed that Web article. I'll check again and correct that if necessary.
> The title page says "nach
> der deutschen übersetzung D. Martin Luthers / Neu durchgesehen nach
> dem vom Deutschen Evangelischen Kirchenausschuß genehmigten Text", but
> "neu" is 1954. (It's in Fraktura, too.)
In the last century there have been two major revisions of the Luther text:
1912 with a lot of minor changes in vocabulary but keeping the general archaic
style which was no longer in use already then, and later (IIRC finalised in
1984) a much more radical change where they tried to combine the virtues of a
modern translation with an attempt to still preserve Luther's wording wherever
compatible with that goal. It is often not, I do not particularly like the
outcome. Luther's text shares with the English KJV text that many people
remember verses in the archaic wording so that editors are reluctant to change
too much -- I find the solution of 1912 (archaic text but *grossly*
misunderstandable words replaced) a better one than the 1984 one (new text
with as many reminiscences to Luther's text as possible).
There may have been intermediate versions of the 1984 text which were
published but nowadays only the 1984 is actually used. Well into the 1970ies
the 1912 text was the most common one.
In the internet you should find all texts somewhere. I take bibleserver.com
for a reliable source of the 1984 Luther text and for a number of other
translations, and
http://www.zeno.org/Literatur/M/Luther,+Martin/Luther-Bibel+1545 for the 1545
version. Other Web pages are purporting to contain the 1545 version but
obviously have been edited today -- I would not trust these; some have an
agenda analogous to the KJV-only movement.
In Germany, the religious belief in a particular translation is still much
more fringe than in the USA. People from all denominations often use
translations from all denominations -- if they read the Bible at all. I, not
being Catholic, prefer the Catholic Einheitsübersetzung: a simple fair
translation in simple fair language.
--
Helmut Richter
Peter T. Daniels
May 13, 2013, 12:14:15 PM5/13/13
to
On May 13, 11:23 am, Helmut Richter <hh...@web.de> wrote:
> In the internet you should find all texts somewhere. I take bibleserver.com
> for a reliable source of the 1984 Luther text and for a number of other
> translations, and
I doubt you'll find most of the recent English versions on line,
> In the internet you should find all texts somewhere. I take bibleserver.com
> for a reliable source of the 1984 Luther text and for a number of other
> translations, and
because publishers are very jealous of their copyrights, and there's
huge competition between versions, especially, of course, those aimed
at the fundamentalists.
> http://www.zeno.org/Literatur/M/Luther,+Martin/Luther-Bibel+1545
> for the 1545
> version. Other Web pages are purporting to contain the 1545 version but
> obviously have been edited today -- I would not trust these; some have an
> agenda analogous to the KJV-only movement.
>
> In Germany, the religious belief in a particular translation is still much
> more fringe than in the USA. People from all denominations often use
> translations from all denominations -- if they read the Bible at all. I, not
> being Catholic, prefer the Catholic Einheitsübersetzung: a simple fair
> translation in simple fair language.
version.
The Jerusalem Bible (based on the French version) is perhaps the most
"literary" English version, because they consulted with a variety of
poets and such.
The New English Bible was controversial because of some idiosyncratic
philological choices in establishing the text to be used, and they've
been toned down a lot in the Revised English Bible.
Scholars tend to take their glosses from the NRSV, which is the
degenderized Revised Standard Version, which was a cooperation of many
Protestant denominations beginning in the late 1940s; as the name
suggests, it was intended to preserve as much as possible the familiar
phraseology of the KJV. It was a reaction to the pair of late-19th-
century failures the Revised Version (British) and the American
revision of that one (it's either ARV or RAV).
So were a number of independent versions. Edgar J. Goodspeed's The
Bible: An American Translation kept the University of Chicago Press
alive during the Depression and WWII because it was the version chosen
to be handed to every serviceman (there were Protestant, Catholic, and
Jewish editions.)
The one that seems to be most often used by evangelical (=/= Ger.
"evangelisch") devotional literature is the New International Version.
Also very well regarded is the current Jewish Publication Society
version, which takes into account recent scholarship including
epigraphic discoveries.
Adam Funk
May 13, 2013, 12:12:29 PM5/13/13
to
On 2013-05-13, Helmut Richter wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013, Adam Funk wrote:
>
>> Isn't "posaunen" a verb there?
>
> It is.
>
>> Mine has almost exactly what Helmut cited, except "Wenn du nun
>> Almosen" & "auf daß sie voe den Leuten".
>
> The "nun" is indeed in my printed 1912 edition, "voe" is a typo. I cited the
Yes, it's my typo for "von".
> On Mon, 13 May 2013, Adam Funk wrote:
>
>> Isn't "posaunen" a verb there?
>
> It is.
>
>> Mine has almost exactly what Helmut cited, except "Wenn du nun
>> Almosen" & "auf daß sie voe den Leuten".
>
> The "nun" is indeed in my printed 1912 edition, "voe" is a typo. I cited the
> text in my web article with an overview of the history of German
> (http://hhr-m.userweb.mwn.de/de-history/) but it is not *exactly* the text I
> find in the printed Bible. I do not remember where I got the text when I
> composed that Web article. I'll check again and correct that if necessary.
>
>> The title page says "nach
>> der deutschen übersetzung D. Martin Luthers / Neu durchgesehen nach
>> dem vom Deutschen Evangelischen Kirchenausschuß genehmigten Text", but
>> "neu" is 1954. (It's in Fraktura, too.)
>
> Not "nach dem *1912* vom Deutschen ..."?
bottom of the title page says (in Latin type) "FOR THE AMERICAN BIBLE
SOCIETY, NEW YORK / PUBLISHED BY / PRIVILEG. WÜRTT. BIBELANSTALT,
STUTTGART". The bottom of the back of the title page says (again in
Latin type) "Printed in Germany", the name of the printer, & "1954".
> In the last century there have been two major revisions of the Luther text:
> 1912 with a lot of minor changes in vocabulary but keeping the general archaic
> style which was no longer in use already then, and later (IIRC finalised in
> 1984) a much more radical change where they tried to combine the virtues of a
> modern translation with an attempt to still preserve Luther's wording wherever
> compatible with that goal. It is often not, I do not particularly like the
> outcome. Luther's text shares with the English KJV text that many people
> remember verses in the archaic wording so that editors are reluctant to change
> too much -- I find the solution of 1912 (archaic text but *grossly*
> misunderstandable words replaced) a better one than the 1984 one (new text
> with as many reminiscences to Luther's text as possible).
> There may have been intermediate versions of the 1984 text which were
> published but nowadays only the 1984 is actually used. Well into the 1970ies
> the 1912 text was the most common one.
>
> In the internet you should find all texts somewhere. I take bibleserver.com
> for a reliable source of the 1984 Luther text and for a number of other
> translations, and
> http://www.zeno.org/Literatur/M/Luther,+Martin/Luther-Bibel+1545 for the 1545
> version. Other Web pages are purporting to contain the 1545 version but
> obviously have been edited today -- I would not trust these; some have an
> agenda analogous to the KJV-only movement.
>
> In Germany, the religious belief in a particular translation is still much
> more fringe than in the USA. People from all denominations often use
> translations from all denominations -- if they read the Bible at all. I, not
> being Catholic, prefer the Catholic Einheitsübersetzung: a simple fair
> translation in simple fair language.
--
A lot of people never use their intiative because no-one
told them to. --- Banksy
Christian Weisgerber
May 13, 2013, 10:56:52 AM5/13/13
to
Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >> � Luther:
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
> >> � Luther:
> >> � Wenn du Almosen gibst, sollst du nicht lassen vor dir posaunen, wie die
> >> � Heuchler tun in den Schulen und auf den Gassen, auf da sie von den Leuten
> >> � gepriesen werden.
> >
> > Could that reflect the Greek?? (and are the posaunen really not
> > capitalized?
>
> >> � Heuchler tun in den Schulen und auf den Gassen, auf da sie von den Leuten
> >> � gepriesen werden.
> >
> > Could that reflect the Greek?? (and are the posaunen really not
> > capitalized?
>
> Isn't "posaunen" a verb there?
Yes.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
Adam Funk
May 13, 2013, 12:17:41 PM5/13/13
to
On 2013-05-13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> The Jerusalem Bible (based on the French version) is perhaps the most
> "literary" English version, because they consulted with a variety of
> poets and such.
I'm surprised: I thought you didn't like the Jerusalem Bibles, or is
> The Jerusalem Bible (based on the French version) is perhaps the most
> "literary" English version, because they consulted with a variety of
> poets and such.
it just the New one?
Christian Weisgerber
May 13, 2013, 1:02:29 PM5/13/13
to
Leslie Danks <leslie...@aon.at> wrote:
> >> >> Luther:
> >> >> Wenn du Almosen gibst, sollst du nicht lassen vor dir posaunen, wie
> >>
> >> >> Luther:
> >> >> Wenn du Almosen gibst, sollst du nicht lassen vor dir posaunen, wie
> >>
> >> Isn't "posaunen" a verb there?
> >
> > I only know it as a noun -- in the Brahms Requiem it's always fun to
> > sing about "At the last trombone."
>
> Duden gives "posaunen" as a verb meaning "die Posaune blasen", which would
> explain the non-capitalisation and the word order.
Also, metaphorically, "to trumpet something", which I assume is the
> >
> > I only know it as a noun -- in the Brahms Requiem it's always fun to
> > sing about "At the last trombone."
>
> Duden gives "posaunen" as a verb meaning "die Posaune blasen", which would
> explain the non-capitalisation and the word order.
intended meaning here.
Leslie Danks
May 13, 2013, 2:35:14 PM5/13/13
to
similar associations.
John Briggs
May 13, 2013, 3:18:44 PM5/13/13
to
posted it here in 2004:
"So deeply was it rooted, that in the rebellion of the colonies a member
of that State seriously proposed to Congress the putting down of the
English language by law, and decreeing the universal adoption of the
Hebrew in its stead." (Cunningham (ed), Jonson's Works, vol. 2, p. 33)
The editor, Francis Cunningham (1871), is annotating a line in "The
Alchemist" (1610): Ananias [the deacon]: "All's heathen but the Hebrew."
Ben Zimmer added this:
The following quote is from "The Story of English" by Robert McCrum,
William Cran, and Robert MacNeil. I have the "first American edition",
published in 1986 by Viking Penguin Inc. ISBN 0-670-80467-3
pg. 239:
According to the Marquis de Chastellux, who traveled with
George Washington in the 1780s, some Americans "propose
introducing a new language; and some persons were desirous,
for the convenience of the public, that _Hebrew_ should be
substituted for English..." Other patriots proposed to
revenge themselves on England by adopting French. One or
two hot-headed legislators even toyed with the idea of
adopting Greek. This proposal was rejected on the grounds
that "it would be more convenient for us to keep the
language as it was, and make the English speak Greek."
--
John Briggs
Peter T. Daniels
May 13, 2013, 3:29:57 PM5/13/13
to
On May 13, 12:17 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2013-05-13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > The Jerusalem Bible (based on the French version) is perhaps the most
> > "literary" English version, because they consulted with a variety of
> > poets and such.
>
> I'm surprised: I thought you didn't like the Jerusalem Bibles, or is
> it just the New one?
No, that wasn't me.
> On 2013-05-13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > The Jerusalem Bible (based on the French version) is perhaps the most
> > "literary" English version, because they consulted with a variety of
> > poets and such.
>
> I'm surprised: I thought you didn't like the Jerusalem Bibles, or is
> it just the New one?
What I don't like about the JB is that it (or the early printings?) is
filled with typos, making it very dangerous to use as the pulpit
Bible.
But the NAB is the easiest to follow and has useful notes.
Peter T. Daniels
May 13, 2013, 3:33:08 PM5/13/13
to
On May 13, 3:18 pm, John Briggs <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/955/did-hebrew-almost-become...
Erasmus!
>
> Here's a reference to the Hebrew proposal. We had a spat about it when I
> posted it here in 2004:
>
> "So deeply was it rooted, that in the rebellion of the colonies a member
> of that State seriously proposed to Congress the putting down of the
> English language by law, and decreeing the universal adoption of the
> Hebrew in its stead." (Cunningham (ed), Jonson's Works, vol. 2, p. 33)
>
> The editor, Francis Cunningham (1871), is annotating a line in "The
> Alchemist" (1610): Ananias [the deacon]: "All's heathen but the Hebrew."
>
> Ben Zimmer added this:
>
> The following quote is from "The Story of English" by Robert McCrum,
> William Cran, and Robert MacNeil. I have the "first American edition",
> published in 1986 by Viking Penguin Inc. ISBN 0-670-80467-3
>
> pg. 239:
>
> According to the Marquis de Chastellux, who traveled with
> George Washington in the 1780s, some Americans "propose
> introducing a new language; and some persons were desirous,
> for the convenience of the public, that _Hebrew_ should be
> substituted for English..." Other patriots proposed to
> revenge themselves on England by adopting French. One or
> two hot-headed legislators even toyed with the idea of
> adopting Greek. This proposal was rejected on the grounds
> that "it would be more convenient for us to keep the
> language as it was, and make the English speak Greek."
They were already making Greek sound like English, anyway. Vivat
> Here's a reference to the Hebrew proposal. We had a spat about it when I
> posted it here in 2004:
>
> "So deeply was it rooted, that in the rebellion of the colonies a member
> of that State seriously proposed to Congress the putting down of the
> English language by law, and decreeing the universal adoption of the
> Hebrew in its stead." (Cunningham (ed), Jonson's Works, vol. 2, p. 33)
>
> The editor, Francis Cunningham (1871), is annotating a line in "The
> Alchemist" (1610): Ananias [the deacon]: "All's heathen but the Hebrew."
>
> Ben Zimmer added this:
>
> The following quote is from "The Story of English" by Robert McCrum,
> William Cran, and Robert MacNeil. I have the "first American edition",
> published in 1986 by Viking Penguin Inc. ISBN 0-670-80467-3
>
> pg. 239:
>
> According to the Marquis de Chastellux, who traveled with
> George Washington in the 1780s, some Americans "propose
> introducing a new language; and some persons were desirous,
> for the convenience of the public, that _Hebrew_ should be
> substituted for English..." Other patriots proposed to
> revenge themselves on England by adopting French. One or
> two hot-headed legislators even toyed with the idea of
> adopting Greek. This proposal was rejected on the grounds
> that "it would be more convenient for us to keep the
> language as it was, and make the English speak Greek."
Erasmus!
Adam Funk
May 13, 2013, 3:37:47 PM5/13/13
to
On 2013-05-13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On May 13, 12:17 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> On 2013-05-13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>> > The Jerusalem Bible (based on the French version) is perhaps the most
>> > "literary" English version, because they consulted with a variety of
>> > poets and such.
>>
>> I'm surprised: I thought you didn't like the Jerusalem Bibles, or is
>> it just the New one?
>
> No, that wasn't me.
>
> What I don't like about the JB is that it (or the early printings?) is
> filled with typos, making it very dangerous to use as the pulpit
> Bible.
Well, there was the "adulterers' Bible" edition of the KJV!
> On May 13, 12:17 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> On 2013-05-13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>> > The Jerusalem Bible (based on the French version) is perhaps the most
>> > "literary" English version, because they consulted with a variety of
>> > poets and such.
>>
>> I'm surprised: I thought you didn't like the Jerusalem Bibles, or is
>> it just the New one?
>
> No, that wasn't me.
>
> What I don't like about the JB is that it (or the early printings?) is
> filled with typos, making it very dangerous to use as the pulpit
> Bible.
> But the NAB is the easiest to follow and has useful notes.
in the NJB, as well as the fact that the deuterocanonical bits are
woven into the traditional sequence (but clearly marked) rather than
moved to an "Apocrypha" appendix.
--
Destiny is what you are supposed to do in life. Fate is what kicks
you in the ass to make you do it. --- Henry Miller
Adam Funk
May 13, 2013, 4:00:47 PM5/13/13
to
On 2013-05-13, John Briggs wrote:
> Here's a reference to the Hebrew proposal. We had a spat about it when I
> posted it here in 2004:
>
> "So deeply was it rooted, that in the rebellion of the colonies a member
> of that State seriously proposed to Congress the putting down of the
> English language by law, and decreeing the universal adoption of the
> Hebrew in its stead." (Cunningham (ed), Jonson's Works, vol. 2, p. 33)
>
> The editor, Francis Cunningham (1871), is annotating a line in "The
> Alchemist" (1610): Ananias [the deacon]: "All's heathen but the Hebrew."
>
> Ben Zimmer added this:
>
> The following quote is from "The Story of English" by Robert McCrum,
> William Cran, and Robert MacNeil. I have the "first American edition",
> published in 1986 by Viking Penguin Inc. ISBN 0-670-80467-3
>
> pg. 239:
>
> According to the Marquis de Chastellux, who traveled with
> George Washington in the 1780s, some Americans "propose
> introducing a new language; and some persons were desirous,
> for the convenience of the public, that _Hebrew_ should be
> substituted for English..." Other patriots proposed to
I wonder what kind of Modern Hebrew that would have produced.
> Here's a reference to the Hebrew proposal. We had a spat about it when I
> posted it here in 2004:
>
> "So deeply was it rooted, that in the rebellion of the colonies a member
> of that State seriously proposed to Congress the putting down of the
> English language by law, and decreeing the universal adoption of the
> Hebrew in its stead." (Cunningham (ed), Jonson's Works, vol. 2, p. 33)
>
> The editor, Francis Cunningham (1871), is annotating a line in "The
> Alchemist" (1610): Ananias [the deacon]: "All's heathen but the Hebrew."
>
> Ben Zimmer added this:
>
> The following quote is from "The Story of English" by Robert McCrum,
> William Cran, and Robert MacNeil. I have the "first American edition",
> published in 1986 by Viking Penguin Inc. ISBN 0-670-80467-3
>
> pg. 239:
>
> According to the Marquis de Chastellux, who traveled with
> George Washington in the 1780s, some Americans "propose
> introducing a new language; and some persons were desirous,
> for the convenience of the public, that _Hebrew_ should be
> substituted for English..." Other patriots proposed to
--
To live without killing is a thought which could electrify the world,
if men were only capable of staying awake long enough to let the idea
soak in. --- Henry Miller
Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
May 13, 2013, 4:50:34 PM5/13/13
to
On May 13, 5:57 pm, Leslie Danks <leslie.da...@aon.at> wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On May 13, 8:41 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >> On 2013-05-12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >> > On May 12, 5:51 pm, Helmut Richter <hh...@web.de> wrote:
> >> >> And word order has changed in *both* languages. For instance the
> >> >> strong verb-last order in German subordinate clause is seldom found in
> >> >> Luther's German Bible (1545):
>
> >> >> Luther:
> >> >> Wenn du Almosen gibst, sollst du nicht lassen vor dir posaunen, wie
> >> >> die Heuchler tun in den Schulen und auf den Gassen, auf da sie von den
> >> >> Leuten gepriesen werden.
>
> >> > Could that reflect the Greek?? (and are the posaunen really not
> >> > capitalized? I only have a modern German Bible, which has been
> >> > modernized a bit.)
>
> >> Isn't "posaunen" a verb there?
>
> > I only know it as a noun -- in the Brahms Requiem it's always fun to
> > sing about "At the last trombone."
>
> Duden gives "posaunen" as a verb meaning "die Posaune blasen", which would
> explain the non-capitalisation and the word order.
Of course posaunen is a verb, and because it is stressed on the "au",
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On May 13, 8:41 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >> On 2013-05-12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >> > On May 12, 5:51 pm, Helmut Richter <hh...@web.de> wrote:
> >> >> And word order has changed in *both* languages. For instance the
> >> >> strong verb-last order in German subordinate clause is seldom found in
> >> >> Luther's German Bible (1545):
>
> >> >> Luther:
> >> >> Wenn du Almosen gibst, sollst du nicht lassen vor dir posaunen, wie
> >> >> die Heuchler tun in den Schulen und auf den Gassen, auf da sie von den
> >> >> Leuten gepriesen werden.
>
> >> > Could that reflect the Greek?? (and are the posaunen really not
> >> > capitalized? I only have a modern German Bible, which has been
> >> > modernized a bit.)
>
> >> Isn't "posaunen" a verb there?
>
> > I only know it as a noun -- in the Brahms Requiem it's always fun to
> > sing about "At the last trombone."
>
> Duden gives "posaunen" as a verb meaning "die Posaune blasen", which would
> explain the non-capitalisation and the word order.
it does not take ge- in perfect participle: er posaunt, er posaunte,
er hat posaunt. This is why it was especially pointed out as an
exceptional verb in my schoolbooks.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
May 13, 2013, 5:01:27 PM5/13/13
to
On May 14, 2:34 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On May 13, 8:41 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2013-05-12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > > On May 12, 5:51 pm, Helmut Richter <hh...@web.de> wrote:
> > >> And word order has changed in *both* languages. For instance the strong
> > >> verb-last order in German subordinate clause is seldom found in Luther's
> > >> German Bible (1545):
>
> > >> Luther:
> > >> Wenn du Almosen gibst, sollst du nicht lassen vor dir posaunen, wie die
> > >> Heuchler tun in den Schulen und auf den Gassen, auf da sie von den Leuten
> > >> gepriesen werden.
>
> > > Could that reflect the Greek?? (and are the posaunen really not
> > > capitalized? I only have a modern German Bible, which has been
> > > modernized a bit.)
>
> > Isn't "posaunen" a verb there?
>
> I only know it as a noun -- in the Brahms Requiem it's always fun to
> sing about "At the last trombone."
Likewise, I knew it only as German for "trombone". But just yesterday
> On May 13, 8:41 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2013-05-12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > > On May 12, 5:51 pm, Helmut Richter <hh...@web.de> wrote:
> > >> And word order has changed in *both* languages. For instance the strong
> > >> verb-last order in German subordinate clause is seldom found in Luther's
> > >> German Bible (1545):
>
> > >> Luther:
> > >> Wenn du Almosen gibst, sollst du nicht lassen vor dir posaunen, wie die
> > >> Heuchler tun in den Schulen und auf den Gassen, auf da sie von den Leuten
> > >> gepriesen werden.
>
> > > Could that reflect the Greek?? (and are the posaunen really not
> > > capitalized? I only have a modern German Bible, which has been
> > > modernized a bit.)
>
> > Isn't "posaunen" a verb there?
>
> I only know it as a noun -- in the Brahms Requiem it's always fun to
> sing about "At the last trombone."
I was listening to something described as a "Posaunenchor", recorded
in a German church, which was audibly an entire brass ensemble, not
just trombones. (de.wikipedia confirms this usage) And today I find
it's also a verb! Thanks, sci.lang!
Peter T. Daniels
May 13, 2013, 5:18:12 PM5/13/13
to
On May 13, 4:00 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2013-05-13, John Briggs wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Here's a reference to the Hebrew proposal. We had a spat about it when I
> > posted it here in 2004:
>
> > "So deeply was it rooted, that in the rebellion of the colonies a member
> > of that State seriously proposed to Congress the putting down of the
> > English language by law, and decreeing the universal adoption of the
> > Hebrew in its stead." (Cunningham (ed), Jonson's Works, vol. 2, p. 33)
>
> > The editor, Francis Cunningham (1871), is annotating a line in "The
> > Alchemist" (1610): Ananias [the deacon]: "All's heathen but the Hebrew."
>
> > Ben Zimmer added this:
>
> > The following quote is from "The Story of English" by Robert McCrum,
> > William Cran, and Robert MacNeil. I have the "first American edition",
> > published in 1986 by Viking Penguin Inc. ISBN 0-670-80467-3
>
> > pg. 239:
>
> > According to the Marquis de Chastellux, who traveled with
> > George Washington in the 1780s, some Americans "propose
> > introducing a new language; and some persons were desirous,
> > for the convenience of the public, that _Hebrew_ should be
> > substituted for English..." Other patriots proposed to
>
> I wonder what kind of Modern Hebrew that would have produced.
A lot like what we got, because Yiddish syntax is more English-like
> On 2013-05-13, John Briggs wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Here's a reference to the Hebrew proposal. We had a spat about it when I
> > posted it here in 2004:
>
> > "So deeply was it rooted, that in the rebellion of the colonies a member
> > of that State seriously proposed to Congress the putting down of the
> > English language by law, and decreeing the universal adoption of the
> > Hebrew in its stead." (Cunningham (ed), Jonson's Works, vol. 2, p. 33)
>
> > The editor, Francis Cunningham (1871), is annotating a line in "The
> > Alchemist" (1610): Ananias [the deacon]: "All's heathen but the Hebrew."
>
> > Ben Zimmer added this:
>
> > The following quote is from "The Story of English" by Robert McCrum,
> > William Cran, and Robert MacNeil. I have the "first American edition",
> > published in 1986 by Viking Penguin Inc. ISBN 0-670-80467-3
>
> > pg. 239:
>
> > According to the Marquis de Chastellux, who traveled with
> > George Washington in the 1780s, some Americans "propose
> > introducing a new language; and some persons were desirous,
> > for the convenience of the public, that _Hebrew_ should be
> > substituted for English..." Other patriots proposed to
>
> I wonder what kind of Modern Hebrew that would have produced.
than German-like.
Helmut Richter
May 14, 2013, 9:11:39 AM5/14/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013, Helmut Richter wrote:
> The "nun" is indeed in my printed 1912 edition, "voe" is a typo. I cited the
> text in my web article with an overview of the history of German
> (http://hhr-m.userweb.mwn.de/de-history/) but it is not *exactly* the text I
> find in the printed Bible. I do not remember where I got the text when I
> composed that Web article. I'll check again and correct that if necessary.
Meanwhile I have found at least two, if not more, *different* texts
> The "nun" is indeed in my printed 1912 edition, "voe" is a typo. I cited the
> text in my web article with an overview of the history of German
> (http://hhr-m.userweb.mwn.de/de-history/) but it is not *exactly* the text I
> find in the printed Bible. I do not remember where I got the text when I
> composed that Web article. I'll check again and correct that if necessary.
purporting to be the 1912 text -- or does "nach dem ... Text" only mean
"based on ..." which is a possible interpretation? The actual differences
are minor and look like a continuous evolution of the text. I'll check.
Is there any interest here to see the results, if any?
--
Helmut Richter
Peter T. Daniels
May 14, 2013, 12:58:47 PM5/14/13
to
(like the C of E in England)? If there is, presumably they'd have
final authority over texts published within their domain. On the
copyright page (probably) you will or won't find a statement about
that sort of thing.
Helmut Richter
May 15, 2013, 4:12:22 AM5/15/13
to
On Tue, 14 May 2013, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> Is there an Established Church in Germany, or in individual states
> (like the C of E in England)?
The Evangelical (i.e. Protestant, not in one of the U.S. senses of the word)
> Is there an Established Church in Germany, or in individual states
> (like the C of E in England)?
Churches are largely independent in their areas which do not coincide with the
contemporal political states. The German Evangelical Church (EKD) is but an
umbrella organisation of the local churches. It is complicated, even with
denominational differences (Calvinist, Lutheran, United/Uniting) between the
churches.
Bibles are edited by the Bible societies which are now both (Protestant and
Catholic) located in Stuttgart. I would not expect local churches to try to
influence their work.
> If there is, presumably they'd have final authority over texts published
> within their domain.
it is the same everywhere, although there have been some modifications after
1984, hopefully properly documented.
What I learnt from the de.wikipedia article (I know this is not a reliable
source but I have no reason to cast doubt on what they are writing on this
topic): The intermediate versions of about 1975 were not intermediate text
forms, but were more radically modernised. Then people complained that they
would not recognise the text passages they knew ever since childhood. So the
1984 version was a step backwards to a more archaic wording.
See: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutherbibel
The 1912 text seems to be in the public domain, this might explain that
changes are not always properly documented. The version I compared with others
was printed in 1963, edited by "W�rttembergische Bibelanstalt Stuttgart" which
then was independent but now has joined with other Bible Societies. They had a
leading r�le in Germany already then.
What puzzles me is not the number of different versions and subversions, but
that there is hardly a way to discern them by reading the title page and the
imprint.
--
Helmut Richter
Adam Funk
May 15, 2013, 5:03:14 AM5/15/13
to
--
It would be unfair to detect an element of logic in the siting of the
Pentagon alongside the National Cemetery, but the subject seems at
least worthy of investigation. --- C Northcote Parkinson
Peter T. Daniels
May 15, 2013, 8:28:51 AM5/15/13
to
On May 15, 4:12 am, Helmut Richter <hh...@web.de> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > Is there an Established Church in Germany, or in individual states
> > (like the C of E in England)?
>
> The Evangelical (i.e. Protestant, not in one of the U.S. senses of the word)
> Churches are largely independent in their areas which do not coincide with the
> contemporal political states. The German Evangelical Church (EKD) is but an
> umbrella organisation of the local churches. It is complicated, even with
> denominational differences (Calvinist, Lutheran, United/Uniting) between the
> churches.
No, "established" means a religion recognized by the government as the
> On Tue, 14 May 2013, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > Is there an Established Church in Germany, or in individual states
> > (like the C of E in England)?
>
> The Evangelical (i.e. Protestant, not in one of the U.S. senses of the word)
> Churches are largely independent in their areas which do not coincide with the
> contemporal political states. The German Evangelical Church (EKD) is but an
> umbrella organisation of the local churches. It is complicated, even with
> denominational differences (Calvinist, Lutheran, United/Uniting) between the
> churches.
only or favored one.
It gave rise to the longest actual word in English,
antidisestablismentarianism.
(The longest one in the MW Third International,
pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis, was supposedly invented
for the purpose of being the longest word in the dictionary. ISV of
course allows humongous compounds, but as nonce words they are of
little to no interest.)
> Bibles are edited by the Bible societies which are now both (Protestant and
> Catholic) located in Stuttgart. I would not expect local churches to try to
> influence their work.
>
> > If there is, presumably they'd have final authority over texts published
> > within their domain.
>
> I would expect that the 1984 Luther text is now accepted everywhere, and that
> it is the same everywhere, although there have been some modifications after
> 1984, hopefully properly documented.
or so.
> What I learnt from the de.wikipedia article (I know this is not a reliable
> source but I have no reason to cast doubt on what they are writing on this
> topic): The intermediate versions of about 1975 were not intermediate text
> forms, but were more radically modernised. Then people complained that they
> would not recognise the text passages they knew ever since childhood. So the
> 1984 version was a step backwards to a more archaic wording.
> See:http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutherbibel
>
> The 1912 text seems to be in the public domain, this might explain that
> changes are not always properly documented. The version I compared with others
> then was independent but now has joined with other Bible Societies. They had a
> leading r�le in Germany already then.
>
> What puzzles me is not the number of different versions and subversions, but
> that there is hardly a way to discern them by reading the title page and the
> imprint.
So there is no industry of competing new translations as there is in
> What puzzles me is not the number of different versions and subversions, but
> that there is hardly a way to discern them by reading the title page and the
> imprint.
English.
António Marques
May 15, 2013, 11:15:44 AM5/15/13
to
know-Christ-and-is-doomed-to-hellfire business is restricted to
Evangelicals-in-the-American-sense (not all of whom are American, of
course) and fringes of the Orthodox world. (The latter at least get
their theology from their scripture and faith rather than the
reverse.)
Peter T. Daniels
May 15, 2013, 3:39:33 PM5/15/13
to
Helmut Richter
May 15, 2013, 4:28:36 PM5/15/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> So there is no industry of competing new translations as there is in
> English.
The Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft (Protestant) have on their web site a detailed
> So there is no industry of competing new translations as there is in
> English.
overview of 40 German Bible translations, of which they produce and sell only
very few. The other translations are, as far as I see, treated with the same
fairness as their own. The page is much more informative than a comparison of
text passages alone, as also the underlying Urtext, the translation policy,
the style of the target language and other things are compared.
http://www.die-bibel.de/bibelwissen/bibeluebersetzung/deutsche-uebersetzungen/
--
Helmut Richter
Adam Funk
May 15, 2013, 4:24:57 PM5/15/13
to
On 2013-05-15, António Marques wrote:
> I think the whole this-is-the-one-true-bible-and-everyone-else-doesn't-
> know-Christ-and-is-doomed-to-hellfire business is restricted to
> Evangelicals-in-the-American-sense (not all of whom are American, of
> course) and fringes of the Orthodox world. (The latter at least get
> their theology from their scripture and faith rather than the
> reverse.)
Interesting point. As for the Orthodox bit, don't they use as the
> I think the whole this-is-the-one-true-bible-and-everyone-else-doesn't-
> know-Christ-and-is-doomed-to-hellfire business is restricted to
> Evangelicals-in-the-American-sense (not all of whom are American, of
> course) and fringes of the Orthodox world. (The latter at least get
> their theology from their scripture and faith rather than the
> reverse.)
true-Bible a Greek version that is pretty original at least as far as
the NT is concerned?
I attended a seminar recently about the Quranic Corpus, where the
point was mentioned that Muslims treat only the classical Arabic
original as the real thing to study & learn; translations are
considered potentially imperfectly interpreted aids. OTOH, Christians
argue about the merits of differing translations, whereas Muslims
argue about the merits of differing interpretations of the original.
Oh, here's some linguistic content. Eric Atwell explained that the
corpus [1] displays a hybrid dependency-constituency structure for
each sentence based on formalizations of classical commentaries; &
that he & his colleagues receive a lot of useful feedback (including
corrections) from users. I asked if they'd found that people with
linguistic expertise had suggested corrections to the classical
analyses, & he said no, although users suggested other kinds of valid
corrections.
[1] http://corpus.quran.com/
--
I take no pleasure in being Right in my dark predictions about the
fate of our miiltary intervention in the heart of the Muslim world. It
is immensely depressing to me. Nobody likes to be betting against the
Home team, no matter how hopeless they are. --- Hunter S Thompson
Adam Funk
May 18, 2013, 4:05:33 PM5/18/13
to
On 2013-05-13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On May 13, 12:17 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> On 2013-05-13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>> > The Jerusalem Bible (based on the French version) is perhaps the most
>> > "literary" English version, because they consulted with a variety of
>> > poets and such.
>>
>> I'm surprised: I thought you didn't like the Jerusalem Bibles, or is
>> it just the New one?
>
> No, that wasn't me.
Actually you did make a few complaints the last time we discussed the
> On May 13, 12:17 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> On 2013-05-13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>> > The Jerusalem Bible (based on the French version) is perhaps the most
>> > "literary" English version, because they consulted with a variety of
>> > poets and such.
>>
>> I'm surprised: I thought you didn't like the Jerusalem Bibles, or is
>> it just the New one?
>
> No, that wasn't me.
NJB, but you're entitled to change your mind.
--
The history of the world is the history of a privileged few.
--- Henry Miller
Peter T. Daniels
May 18, 2013, 5:28:34 PM5/18/13
to
On May 18, 4:05 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2013-05-13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > On May 13, 12:17 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >> On 2013-05-13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >> > The Jerusalem Bible (based on the French version) is perhaps the most
> >> > "literary" English version, because they consulted with a variety of
> >> > poets and such.
>
> >> I'm surprised: I thought you didn't like the Jerusalem Bibles, or is
> >> it just the New one?
>
> > No, that wasn't me.
>
> Actually you did make a few complaints the last time we discussed the
> NJB, but you're entitled to change your mind.
What "complaints"?
> On 2013-05-13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > On May 13, 12:17 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >> On 2013-05-13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >> > The Jerusalem Bible (based on the French version) is perhaps the most
> >> > "literary" English version, because they consulted with a variety of
> >> > poets and such.
>
> >> I'm surprised: I thought you didn't like the Jerusalem Bibles, or is
> >> it just the New one?
>
> > No, that wasn't me.
>
> Actually you did make a few complaints the last time we discussed the
> NJB, but you're entitled to change your mind.
I'm not even sure I _have_ an NJB. I do have both French editions.
Adam Funk
May 19, 2013, 3:57:55 PM5/19/13
to
of "Yahweh" was offensive.
--
Carrots continue to suffer from the jibes of people who like to
dispense what H. W. Fowler called "worn-out humor."
--- Joy of Cooking 1975
Peter T. Daniels
May 19, 2013, 4:15:09 PM5/19/13
to
On May 19, 3:57 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2013-05-18, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > On May 18, 4:05 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >> On 2013-05-13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> > On May 13, 12:17 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >> >> I'm surprised: I thought you didn't like the Jerusalem Bibles, or is
> >> >> it just the New one?
>
> >> > No, that wasn't me.
>
> >> Actually you did make a few complaints the last time we discussed the
> >> NJB, but you're entitled to change your mind.
>
> > What "complaints"?
>
> > I'm not even sure I _have_ an NJB. I do have both French editions.
>
> You said the NJB has a Roman Catholic theological bias, & that its use
> of "Yahweh" was offensive.
Why do you attach that to the NJB and not to the JB? The use of the
> On 2013-05-18, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > On May 18, 4:05 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >> On 2013-05-13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> > On May 13, 12:17 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >> >> I'm surprised: I thought you didn't like the Jerusalem Bibles, or is
> >> >> it just the New one?
>
> >> > No, that wasn't me.
>
> >> Actually you did make a few complaints the last time we discussed the
> >> NJB, but you're entitled to change your mind.
>
> > What "complaints"?
>
> > I'm not even sure I _have_ an NJB. I do have both French editions.
>
> You said the NJB has a Roman Catholic theological bias, & that its use
> of "Yahweh" was offensive.
Divine Name does make it problematic for oral readings.
And it is the notes, not the translation, that reflect the theological
bias. How could they be otherwise?
Adam Funk
May 19, 2013, 4:24:13 PM5/19/13
to
On 2013-05-19, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On May 19, 3:57 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> On 2013-05-18, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> > On May 18, 4:05 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> >> Actually you did make a few complaints the last time we discussed the
>> >> NJB, but you're entitled to change your mind.
>>
>> > What "complaints"?
>>
>> > I'm not even sure I _have_ an NJB. I do have both French editions.
>>
>> You said the NJB has a Roman Catholic theological bias, & that its use
>> of "Yahweh" was offensive.
>
> Why do you attach that to the NJB and not to the JB? The use of the
> Divine Name does make it problematic for oral readings.
I'm only familiar with the NJB. Does the JB do the same? That
> On May 19, 3:57 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> On 2013-05-18, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> > On May 18, 4:05 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> >> Actually you did make a few complaints the last time we discussed the
>> >> NJB, but you're entitled to change your mind.
>>
>> > What "complaints"?
>>
>> > I'm not even sure I _have_ an NJB. I do have both French editions.
>>
>> You said the NJB has a Roman Catholic theological bias, & that its use
>> of "Yahweh" was offensive.
>
> Why do you attach that to the NJB and not to the JB? The use of the
> Divine Name does make it problematic for oral readings.
rendering is only problematic for Jews, & the JB & NJB are intended
primarily for Christian use.
> And it is the notes, not the translation, that reflect the theological
> bias. How could they be otherwise?
places: Isaiah 7:14 & the mentions of Jesus's "brothers" in the
Gospels; the text has "young woman" (not "virgin" or "maiden") in
Isaiah, with a note explaining that the traditional English rendering
comes from the LXX; the notes on the gospels explain both
interpretations of "brothers" & do not deprecate the literal one.
--
The internet is quite simply a glorious place. Where else can you find
bootlegged music and films, questionable women, deep seated xenophobia
and amusing cats all together in the same place? [Tom Belshaw]
Peter T. Daniels
May 19, 2013, 11:43:22 PM5/19/13
to
On May 19, 4:24 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2013-05-19, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On May 19, 3:57 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >> On 2013-05-18, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> > On May 18, 4:05 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >> >> Actually you did make a few complaints the last time we discussed the
> >> >> NJB, but you're entitled to change your mind.
>
> >> > What "complaints"?
>
> >> > I'm not even sure I _have_ an NJB. I do have both French editions.
>
> >> You said the NJB has a Roman Catholic theological bias, & that its use
> >> of "Yahweh" was offensive.
>
> > Why do you attach that to the NJB and not to the JB? The use of the
> > Divine Name does make it problematic for oral readings.
>
> I'm only familiar with the NJB. Does the JB do the same? That
> rendering is only problematic for Jews, & the JB & NJB are intended
> primarily for Christian use.
Note the remarkable sensitivity displayed by Mister Politically
> On 2013-05-19, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On May 19, 3:57 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >> On 2013-05-18, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> > On May 18, 4:05 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >> >> Actually you did make a few complaints the last time we discussed the
> >> >> NJB, but you're entitled to change your mind.
>
> >> > What "complaints"?
>
> >> > I'm not even sure I _have_ an NJB. I do have both French editions.
>
> >> You said the NJB has a Roman Catholic theological bias, & that its use
> >> of "Yahweh" was offensive.
>
> > Why do you attach that to the NJB and not to the JB? The use of the
> > Divine Name does make it problematic for oral readings.
>
> I'm only familiar with the NJB. Does the JB do the same? That
> rendering is only problematic for Jews, & the JB & NJB are intended
> primarily for Christian use.
Correct.
(What church routinely pronounces the name? It's been "LORD" since
1611 at least, and the likely interpretation as given has only been
around for a short time, relatively speaking. The closest anyone would
ever get was the totally spurious "Jehovah.")
> > And it is the notes, not the translation, that reflect the theological
> > bias. How could they be otherwise?
>
> I don't find that (& I'm not RC). Look at the two most obvious
> places: Isaiah 7:14 & the mentions of Jesus's "brothers" in the
> Gospels; the text has "young woman" (not "virgin" or "maiden") in
> Isaiah, with a note explaining that the traditional English rendering
> comes from the LXX; the notes on the gospels explain both
> interpretations of "brothers" & do not deprecate the literal one.
the "faith vs. works" passages?
Do they include the "snake-handlers" appendix to Mark?
Adam Funk
May 20, 2013, 9:38:52 AM5/20/13
to
On 2013-05-20, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On May 19, 4:24 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> On 2013-05-19, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> > On May 19, 3:57 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> >> On 2013-05-18, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> >> > On May 18, 4:05 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Actually you did make a few complaints the last time we discussed the
>> >> >> NJB, but you're entitled to change your mind.
>>
>> >> > What "complaints"?
>>
>> >> > I'm not even sure I _have_ an NJB. I do have both French editions.
>>
>> >> You said the NJB has a Roman Catholic theological bias, & that its use
>> >> of "Yahweh" was offensive.
>>
>> > Why do you attach that to the NJB and not to the JB? The use of the
>> > Divine Name does make it problematic for oral readings.
>>
>> I'm only familiar with the NJB. Does the JB do the same? That
>> rendering is only problematic for Jews, & the JB & NJB are intended
>> primarily for Christian use.
>
> Note the remarkable sensitivity displayed by Mister Politically
> Correct.
Oh bunk. I did say I don't like it for litugical use --- partly for
> On May 19, 4:24 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> On 2013-05-19, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> > On May 19, 3:57 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> >> On 2013-05-18, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> >> > On May 18, 4:05 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Actually you did make a few complaints the last time we discussed the
>> >> >> NJB, but you're entitled to change your mind.
>>
>> >> > What "complaints"?
>>
>> >> > I'm not even sure I _have_ an NJB. I do have both French editions.
>>
>> >> You said the NJB has a Roman Catholic theological bias, & that its use
>> >> of "Yahweh" was offensive.
>>
>> > Why do you attach that to the NJB and not to the JB? The use of the
>> > Divine Name does make it problematic for oral readings.
>>
>> I'm only familiar with the NJB. Does the JB do the same? That
>> rendering is only problematic for Jews, & the JB & NJB are intended
>> primarily for Christian use.
>
> Note the remarkable sensitivity displayed by Mister Politically
> Correct.
this reason (& because "Yahweh" sounds odd & unfamiliar in English),
but I don't see why it's wrong purely on that basis. All religions
have got at least a few practices or readings that might offend other
ones, if nothing else because each one thinks it's better than the
others. (For example, some rabbis tell their congregations not to
enter churches because Christians are at least strongly suspected of
idolatry.)
> (What church routinely pronounces the name? It's been "LORD" since
> 1611 at least, and the likely interpretation as given has only been
> around for a short time, relatively speaking. The closest anyone would
> ever get was the totally spurious "Jehovah.")
but it's linguistically incorrect, isn't it? The word in question is
a proper noun/name, not something that would take a determiner in
English, & the editors were trying to be faithful to the MT.
--
War is God's way of teaching Americans geography.
[Ambrose Bierce]
Peter T. Daniels
May 20, 2013, 10:14:35 AM5/20/13
to
On May 20, 9:38 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2013-05-20, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On May 19, 4:24 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >> On 2013-05-19, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> > On May 19, 3:57 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >> >> On 2013-05-18, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> >> > On May 18, 4:05 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> Actually you did make a few complaints the last time we discussed the
> >> >> >> NJB, but you're entitled to change your mind.
>
> >> >> > What "complaints"?
>
> >> >> > I'm not even sure I _have_ an NJB. I do have both French editions.
>
> >> >> You said the NJB has a Roman Catholic theological bias, & that its use
> >> >> of "Yahweh" was offensive.
>
> >> > Why do you attach that to the NJB and not to the JB? The use of the
> >> > Divine Name does make it problematic for oral readings.
>
> >> I'm only familiar with the NJB. Does the JB do the same? That
> >> rendering is only problematic for Jews, & the JB & NJB are intended
> >> primarily for Christian use.
>
> > Note the remarkable sensitivity displayed by Mister Politically
> > Correct.
>
> Oh bunk.
Goose, gander, sauce.
> On 2013-05-20, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On May 19, 4:24 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >> On 2013-05-19, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> > On May 19, 3:57 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >> >> On 2013-05-18, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> >> > On May 18, 4:05 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> Actually you did make a few complaints the last time we discussed the
> >> >> >> NJB, but you're entitled to change your mind.
>
> >> >> > What "complaints"?
>
> >> >> > I'm not even sure I _have_ an NJB. I do have both French editions.
>
> >> >> You said the NJB has a Roman Catholic theological bias, & that its use
> >> >> of "Yahweh" was offensive.
>
> >> > Why do you attach that to the NJB and not to the JB? The use of the
> >> > Divine Name does make it problematic for oral readings.
>
> >> I'm only familiar with the NJB. Does the JB do the same? That
> >> rendering is only problematic for Jews, & the JB & NJB are intended
> >> primarily for Christian use.
>
> > Note the remarkable sensitivity displayed by Mister Politically
> > Correct.
>
> Oh bunk.
> I did say I don't like it for litugical use --- partly for
> this reason (& because "Yahweh" sounds odd & unfamiliar in English),
> but I don't see why it's wrong purely on that basis. All religions
> have got at least a few practices or readings that might offend other
> ones, if nothing else because each one thinks it's better than the
> others. (For example, some rabbis tell their congregations not to
> enter churches because Christians are at least strongly suspected of
> idolatry.)
>
> > (What church routinely pronounces the name? It's been "LORD" since
> > 1611 at least, and the likely interpretation as given has only been
> > around for a short time, relatively speaking. The closest anyone would
> > ever get was the totally spurious "Jehovah.")
>
> Yes, & I think that's a good practice to follow for liturgical use,
> but it's linguistically incorrect, isn't it? The word in question is
> a proper noun/name, not something that would take a determiner in
> English, & the editors were trying to be faithful to the MT.
uttered when it is necessary to say it.
"LORD" reflects the vocalization, taken from Adonai 'my lord', of the
MT.
Adam Funk
May 21, 2013, 9:03:13 AM5/21/13
to
read it aloud that way. I'm actually coming around to your point of
view on this, despite your obnoxiousness.
> "LORD" reflects the vocalization, taken from Adonai 'my lord', of the
> MT.
said comes in turn from "Adonai", so the end result is the same ---
but before English translators started working from Hebrew)?
--
I don't quite understand this worship of objectivity in
journalism. Now, just flat-out lying is different from being
subjective. --- Hunter S Thompson
Adam Funk
May 21, 2013, 9:18:05 AM5/21/13
to
Catholic exegetes maintain that these enduring promises hold good
not only for Peter himself but also for Peter's successors. The
inference, not explicitly drawn in the text, is considered
legitimate because Jesus plainly intends to provide for the future
of his community by establishing a structure that ill not collapse
with Peter's death. · Two other texts, Lk 22:31seq. and Jn
21:15seq., on Peter's primacy emphasize that its operation is to be
in the domain of faith; ....
They don't actually mention the See of Rome, but you know that's what
they're thinking. ;-) (Of course, they also don't mention the
competitors for the title of See of Peter.)
> Most theology comes from the Pauline writings. What do they do with
> the "faith vs. works" passages?
doctrine on that (as recently clarified in the "Joint [with Lutherans]
Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification") isn't what everyone
else thinks it is (or used to be).
> Do they include the "snake-handlers" appendix to Mark?
canonically accepted body of inspired scripture" (& AFAICT, most
churches include it in the canon) although it's missing from some
important early MSS, it's written in a different style, &c., so was
probably added to the original (possibly to replace a lost ending).
--
A recent study conducted by Harvard University found that the average
American walks about 900 miles a year. Another study by the AMA found
that Americans drink, on average, 22 gallons of alcohol a year. This
means, on average, Americans get about 41 miles to the gallon.
http://www.cartalk.com/content/average-americans-mpg
Peter T. Daniels
May 21, 2013, 10:40:56 AM5/21/13
to
On May 21, 9:03 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2013-05-20, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On May 20, 9:38 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >> On 2013-05-20, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> > (What church routinely pronounces the name? It's been "LORD" since
> >> > 1611 at least, and the likely interpretation as given has only been
> >> > around for a short time, relatively speaking. The closest anyone would
> >> > ever get was the totally spurious "Jehovah.")
Which BTW M-W says first appeared in writing in 1530.
> On 2013-05-20, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On May 20, 9:38 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >> On 2013-05-20, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> > (What church routinely pronounces the name? It's been "LORD" since
> >> > 1611 at least, and the likely interpretation as given has only been
> >> > around for a short time, relatively speaking. The closest anyone would
> >> > ever get was the totally spurious "Jehovah.")
> >> Yes, & I think that's a good practice to follow for liturgical use,
> >> but it's linguistically incorrect, isn't it? The word in question is
> >> a proper noun/name, not something that would take a determiner in
> >> English, & the editors were trying to be faithful to the MT.
>
> > Then they should say "The Name," because "ha-shem" is how it is
> > uttered when it is necessary to say it.
>
> But that's not what's *written* in the text; people are instructed to
> read it aloud that way. I'm actually coming around to your point of
> view on this, despite your obnoxiousness.
>
> > "LORD" reflects the vocalization, taken from Adonai 'my lord', of the
> > MT.
>
> Wasn't it originally used in English for LXX "Kyrios" (which as you
> said comes in turn from "Adonai", so the end result is the same ---
> but before English translators started working from Hebrew)?
using the Latin, isn't it? That, after all, was the standard text
before them.
Adam Funk
May 21, 2013, 3:22:27 PM5/21/13
to
On 2013-05-21, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On May 21, 9:03 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> On 2013-05-20, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> > On May 20, 9:38 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> >> On 2013-05-20, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>> >> > (What church routinely pronounces the name? It's been "LORD" since
>> >> > 1611 at least, and the likely interpretation as given has only been
>> >> > around for a short time, relatively speaking. The closest anyone would
>> >> > ever get was the totally spurious "Jehovah.")
>
> Which BTW M-W says first appeared in writing in 1530.
Tyndale's Bible, according to the OED, which also has a Latin item
> On May 21, 9:03 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> On 2013-05-20, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> > On May 20, 9:38 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> >> On 2013-05-20, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>> >> > (What church routinely pronounces the name? It's been "LORD" since
>> >> > 1611 at least, and the likely interpretation as given has only been
>> >> > around for a short time, relatively speaking. The closest anyone would
>> >> > ever get was the totally spurious "Jehovah.")
>
> Which BTW M-W says first appeared in writing in 1530.
from 1518 "cited as the first use of the form Iehoua (Jehova)". I'm a
little surprised it's not older.
--
There's a statute of limitations with the law, but not with
your wife. [Ray Magliozzi, Car Talk 2011-36]
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages