what is etymology? (linguistics and biology)

Franz Gnaedinger

unread,

Jan 23, 2006, 2:47:27 AM1/23/06

to

Charles Darwin believed in gradual evolution, a slow shifting
of one species toward the next one in line. However, his
explanation of the origin of species does not go along with
the fossil record, and so Nils Eldrege and Stephen Jay Gould
proposed a new model of evolution. A species forms within
a relatively short period of time, and can then persist basically
unchanged for eons. The mechanism of evolution described
by Darwin does not really explain the origin of species, but
the biological mechanism of generating variety required for
successful adaptations of a species to changing conditions
of life.

Lynn Margulis explained the eukariotic cell from a fusion
of prokariotic cells. The mitochondrium (energy plant) in
our body cells represents a bacterium that once had been
incorporated into another bacterium, and the same goes
for the gametes of the sperm.

Another original idea comes from Richard Dawkins.
Genes are not the only replicators, there are also memes,
replicators of the mind ('meme' being a merger of gene
and memory).

Recent biological insights reveal that viruses, most of them
harmless, are inventors of new genes and must play an
essential role in evolution. If so, the taxonomical metaphor
of evolution would neither be a tree of life (Darwin) nor
a bacteria bush (Gould) but some sort of a web, containing
not only vertical but also horizontal connections.

Linguists working in the field of etymology encounter much
the same problems as biologists working in the field of
taxonomy. Both of them may profit from each other and
their respective insights.

What is etymology? In the light of the new insights on
evolution I'd say that a word resembles a biological species:
it arises rather quickly, and then persists for a shorter or
longer or even very long period of time. A word has a range
of meanings around a stable and firm central meaning -
as there are very different people who, nevertheless, belong
to the same species Homo sapiens sapiens.

I invite Ekkehard Dengler to join me here, others too. If I should
get no reply, I shall explain my understanding of etymology in
the cases of tabby (an example brought up by Ekkehard), and
of quark: what do curd / nonsense / croak / particles of modern
physics named by Murray Gell-Mann in 1963 after a word in
a line in Finnegan's Wake by James Joyce - "three quarks for
master Mark" - have in common?

Regards Franz Gnaedinger www.seshat.ch

Jukka K. Korpela

unread,

Jan 23, 2006, 3:03:35 AM1/23/06

to

Franz Gnaedinger wrote:

> Charles Darwin believed - -

You are not getting to the point very fast, are you? Last time I
checked, Darwin was not a linguist and didn't write much about language
(even as regards to the origin of language).

> Linguists working in the field of etymology encounter much
> the same problems as biologists working in the field of
> taxonomy.

Well, they must make their living somehow, they should publish their
results, and they need useful hypotheses and ways to test them. This
applies to assyriologists and topologists, too.

> What is etymology?

Try checking a dictionary, or an elementary book on linguistics.

> In the light of the new insights on
> evolution I'd say that a word resembles a biological species:

Please tell me this is an attempt at a joke, or a parody.

> A word has a range
> of meanings around a stable and firm central meaning -
> as there are very different people who, nevertheless, belong
> to the same species Homo sapiens sapiens.

Well, _now_ it is obvious. Next time, please try to make your jokes
shorter. Written jokes, as almost all texts, get better and better when
shortened (properly). Thank you in advance.

Franz Gnaedinger

unread,

Jan 23, 2006, 3:39:13 AM1/23/06

to

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

> Try checking a dictionary, or an elementary book on linguistics.

Well, I had looked up my Webster's Encylopedic Unabridged
Dictionary of the English Language for etymology, and it says
that etymology ponders the true meaning and value of a word,
coming from ancient Greek etymos and logos, etymos meaning
true, and logos meaning word, reasoning. So etymology cares
about the true meaning and value of a word. Several people in
sci.lang contradict: no, a word has no meaning; etymology
cares for the history of a word, and the meanings it had in
earlier times, while the same words can have a new and
very different meaning now, in the present usage.

My opening message was no joke, not at all, but I sure
hope we can have some fun in this thread. So I ask you
the same question I asked Brian M. Scott in another thread
this morning: tell me a word that had a different meaning
in a former time, and I shall tell you the true meaning that
embraces both the former obsolete and the present valid
meaning.

Franz Gnaedinger www.seshat.ch

gnenian

unread,

Jan 23, 2006, 4:04:51 AM1/23/06

to

Franz Gnaedinger wrote:

Entomology.

Nathan Sanders

unread,

Jan 23, 2006, 4:14:33 AM1/23/06

to

In article <1138005553.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Franz Gnaedinger" <fr...@bluemail.ch> wrote:

> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>
> > Try checking a dictionary, or an elementary book on linguistics.
>
> Well, I had looked up my Webster's Encylopedic Unabridged
> Dictionary of the English Language for etymology, and it says
> that etymology ponders the true meaning and value of a word,

Your dictionary is broken. None of mine say any such thing. Nothing
about pondering, true meanings, or values.

> Several people in
> sci.lang contradict: no, a word has no meaning;

Citation please. Who said that?

Nathan

--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams College
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/

Ekkehard Dengler

unread,

Jan 23, 2006, 6:15:52 AM1/23/06

to

Franz Gnaedinger schrieb:

> What is etymology? In the light of the new insights on
> evolution I'd say that a word resembles a biological species:
> it arises rather quickly, and then persists for a shorter or
> longer or even very long period of time. A word has a range
> of meanings around a stable and firm central meaning -
> as there are very different people who, nevertheless, belong
> to the same species Homo sapiens sapiens.
>
> I invite Ekkehard Dengler to join me here, others too.

I honestly appreciate your invitation, Franz, but I don't suppose I have
much to contribute. By now you should have seen enough evidence to conclude
that your assumption is false. John has given you two very clear-cut
counterexamples.

Just one quick remark: I don't think it makes much sense to talk about the
original meaning of a word unless you know when that word came into
existence, and that's rarely the case.

Regards,
Ekkehard

Heidi Graw

unread,

Jan 23, 2006, 6:21:19 AM1/23/06

to

>"Franz Gnaedinger" <fr...@bluemail.ch> wrote in message
>news:1138005553.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
(snip)

>Franz wrote:
> tell me a word that had a different meaning
> in a former time, and I shall tell you the true meaning that
> embraces both the former obsolete and the present valid
> meaning.

John came up with a good one:

"nice: ignorant (latin ne scire) > foolish > strange, rare > fastidious,
over-precise > dainty > delightful, agreeable > kind."

Give it your best shot. ;-)

Heidi

>
> Franz Gnaedinger www.seshat.ch
>

izzy

unread,

Jan 23, 2006, 6:24:14 AM1/23/06

to

Franz wrote:
>> I sure hope we can have some fun in this thread ... So tell me a word that had a different meaning in a former time, and I shall tell you the true meaning that embraces both the former obsolete and the present valid meaning. <<

Let's try several of these, even though the "former" meanings are still
valid.

Case 1: bag. Its standard meaning is a "sack, container". But it
sometimes means "to betray or be betrayed", as in
a - "let the cat out of the bag" = to betray the truth or betray by
telling the truth [cf. "cat out" and Aramaic KiSHoT]
b - (X was) "left holding the bag" = everyone else got away but X was
caught / betrayed

Case 2: beans. Its standard meaning is "legumes". But it sometimes
means "meaning, knowledge, wisdom, understanding", as in
a - "spill the beans" = to reveal the meaning, to tell information
[compare "spill" and (a long) spiel]
b - (X doesn't) "know beans about" = (he has no) understanding of or
information about

Case 3: dog. Its standard meaning is a canine with 4 legs, OE docga.
Sometimes it means "to descend".
a - (his life went) to the dogs
c - raining [pole]cats and dogs = a torrent of rain is descending
Hint: The Pennsylvania Dutch say "raining cats and ducks" (because
their usual word for dog is Hund).

Case 4: cleave. It has two standard meanings that are semantically
almost opposites:
a - to adhere, hold fast to
b - to split

To say that any of these expressions is an idiom, the meaning of which
cannot be derived from the words that compose it, is simply a tautology
that provides no data about the derivation/origin/meaning of the word
or the idiom. Hint: Examine the etymology of the word "idiom" (from the
Greek).

Spoiler / Answer:
item # 5 in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_idioms_in_the_English_language#Idioms.2C_etymology_of
or
http://www.musicalenglishlessons.org/contributors/izzycohen.htm

Best regards to all,

izzy (in a challenging mood)
Israel "izzy" Cohen
BPMaps moderator
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BPMaps/

Franz Gnaedinger

unread,

Jan 23, 2006, 7:19:03 AM1/23/06

to

izzy wrote:

> Case 1: bag. Its standard meaning is a "sack, container". But it
> sometimes means "to betray or be betrayed", as in
> a - "let the cat out of the bag" = to betray the truth or betray by
> telling the truth [cf. "cat out" and Aramaic KiSHoT]
> b - (X was) "left holding the bag" = everyone else got away but X was
> caught / betrayed

Lure and coo a cat into a bag and drown it - it will surely
feel betrayed for the short time he or she has to live on.

Bags are such a central object of daily life that many
meanings have formed around them and settled in language.

> Case 2: beans. Its standard meaning is "legumes". But it sometimes
> means "meaning, knowledge, wisdom, understanding", as in
> a - "spill the beans" = to reveal the meaning, to tell information
> [compare "spill" and (a long) spiel]
> b - (X doesn't) "know beans about" = (he has no) understanding of or
> information about

The wonder of a bean and any seed is: how can that big plant
grow out of such a tiny thing? there is wisdom in it, that bean
or seed knows what all our scholars do not know: how to
grow a plant. Surely there is wisdom in it. But we call it only
wisdom when we can write it in our books. Yet poets can
see wisdom in a bean, or in a seed.

Been also has the meaning of little, then it's derogatory:
not even a bean. Words have many many meanings around
a firm and stable center. Beens are known to every human,
and so they are a good starting point for metaphors.

> Case 3: dog. Its standard meaning is a canine with 4 legs, OE docga.
> Sometimes it means "to descend".
> a - (his life went) to the dogs
> c - raining [pole]cats and dogs = a torrent of rain is descending
> Hint: The Pennsylvania Dutch say "raining cats and ducks" (because
> their usual word for dog is Hund).

Metaphors again. Dogs are our first tamed animals,
held in high and very high, in low and very low esteem.
No wonder there are all kinds of metaphors around them.
You can understand a metaphor even if you can't explain
it, as you can laugh to a joke even if you could never
really explain what is so funny.

> Case 4: cleave. It has two standard meanings that are semantically
> almost opposites:
> a - to adhere, hold fast to
> b - to split

Easy peasy. One and the opposite belong to the same
range of meanings. Two things that adhere well, or badly.

> Best regards to all,
>
> izzy (in a challenging mood)
> Israel "izzy" Cohen
> BPMaps moderator
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BPMaps/

Regards Franz Gnaedinger www.seshat.ch

Franz Gnaedinger

unread,

Jan 23, 2006, 7:23:23 AM1/23/06

to

Heidi Graw wrote:

> John came up with a good one:
>
> "nice: ignorant (latin ne scire) > foolish > strange, rare > fastidious,
> over-precise > dainty > delightful, agreeable > kind."
>
> Give it your best shot. ;-)
>
> Heidi

Mongoloids are usually very nice people, delightful, easily
delighted and pleased, "happy when they get a dish with
a gold rim" my mother explained to me when I was a boy,
agreeable, good mediators, and yet utter fools when it
comes to our school system.

Regards Franz Gnaedinger www.seshat.ch

Heidi Graw

unread,

Jan 23, 2006, 8:26:56 AM1/23/06

to

>"Franz Gnaedinger" <fr...@bluemail.ch> wrote in message

>news:1138019003.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

I gave the word nice and its origin from Latin nescio (I don't
know) some more thought. People we consider nice are
simple and natural. Sophisticated people, smart alecks
and wisenheimers, pretenders and dogmaticians are rarely
called nice. Yet a famous scientist (for example) who
remained modest, can still be astonished and amazed,
is aware of the limits of our knowledge, recognizes talents
in other people, and be it the gardening skills of a neighbour,
isn't haughty but considers other people his or her equal,
even when socially standing above them -- such a scholar
will also be considered nice. The word nice, or the idea
behind it, implies modesty, simple and natural behaving,
and ignorance in a positive way: not pretending knowledge
where we lack it, still gazing at the world with the eyes
of a wondering child ...

I find wisdom and poetry in words.

Regards Franz Gnaedinger www.seshat.ch

Franz Gnaedinger

unread,

Jan 24, 2006, 3:07:55 AM1/24/06

to

izzy wrote:

> In all of the cases above, the "extraneous" or non-standard meaning is
> simply a foreign word or phrase borrowed into English and re-spelled to
> look like common English words. Unlike "bon appetit" and "Gesundheit",
> the result has the look-and-feel of native English and the foreign
> origin is not obvious.

This would then be cases of horizontal transfer of meanings,
comparable to horizontal gene transfer in biology. Viruses
generate new genes and must have played a crucial role
in evolution. They are no longer considered lifeless, they
belong to the web of life. Considering them as essential
to evolution (anticipating further discoveries in biology and
genetics), Darwin's metaphor of a tree of life, and Stephen
Jay Gould's metaphor of a bacteria bush, dont hold any
longer, we really must speak of a web of life.

Words can be assimilated from another language in sort
of a horizontal meaning transfer. I am interested in such
cases, which is one of the reasons why I started this thread.
If you could concentrate on one single case you would make
it easier for me to follow. I didn't expect such an avalanche
of replies, and must concentrate myself on a few messages
and cases.

Regards Franz Gnaedinger www.seshat.ch

Franz Gnaedinger

unread,

Jan 24, 2006, 3:32:55 AM1/24/06

to

Ekkehard Dengler wrote:

> Just one quick remark: I don't think it makes much sense to talk about the
> original meaning of a word unless you know when that word came into
> existence, and that's rarely the case.
>
> Regards,
> Ekkehard

Luckily we know when quarks have been named, by whom,
and how it happened. In 1963 the physicist Murray Gell-Mann
looked out for a name for a new class of subnuclear particles,
opened Finnegan's Wake by James Joyce, and read the line
"three quarks for master Mark" - and he got a name for his
particles: quarks.

Now what is quark? James Joyce lived for quite some time
in Zurich. His favorite place was the confluence of the rivers
Limmat and Sihl (just where I live). The family was poor, so
I guess they ate a lot of potatoes and curd, which are cheap
and nutritious. Our word for curd is Quark. Joyce adopted
words from here, for example sexaloiten, referring to the
bells that ring at six o'clock in the evening on a spring day
that marks the end of winter. He may also have adopted
'quark' from here.

Quark has a second meaning: nonsense, rubbish, trash,
used in order to put down someone else's opinion: what
you are saying here is nonsense, rubbish, Quark.

In English, quark as a verb means croak.

Did Murray Gell-Mann look up a dictionary when he came
across that line by Joyce? did he look up possible meanings
of quark? and find curd? I assume so. For it goes along well
with those particles. - Curd, especially meagre curd, is of
a sticky consistence. Take a mouthful of meagre curd and
try to speak: you can't but quark, croak. And you can't get
rid of some nonsense. it sticks, much like meagre curd
sticks to the teeth. And that special stickiness of curd
may have appealed to Murray Gell-Mann when he looked
out for a name for those particles, which consist of three
'colors' that stick together very very very firmly.

The 'meme' behind quark would then be that special
stickiness of curd everyone remembers well, keeping
a physiological memory of it.

Having quarked enough for this morning

Franz Gnaedinger www.seshat.ch

Heidi Graw

unread,

Jan 24, 2006, 4:16:05 AM1/24/06

to

>"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:43D4F8...@worldnet.att.net...
(snip)

>Peter wrote:
> So maybe you'll reconsider taking advice from someone who calls them
> "Mongoloids"?

I'm bearing in mind the country that Franz is posting from. I know in that
country that term is still widely used. In Germany it is still common to
refer to people with Down's and/or low IQ's as "behindert"...retarded.

Here in BC we call them "people with developmental disabilities" or "people
with developmental delays." It's hard to try to keep up with whatever new
terminology people want to be refered as. <sigh>

Heidi

Ekkehard Dengler

unread,

Jan 24, 2006, 5:05:08 AM1/24/06

to

Heidi Graw schrieb:

>
> >"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >news:43D4F8...@worldnet.att.net...
> (snip)
>
> >Peter wrote:
> > So maybe you'll reconsider taking advice from someone who calls them
> > "Mongoloids"?
>
> I'm bearing in mind the country that Franz is posting from. I know in
that
> country that term is still widely used. In Germany it is still common to
> refer to people with Down's and/or low IQ's as "behindert"...retarded.

Just for the record: "behindert" means "disabled", not "retarded".

Regards,
Ekkehard

Heidi Graw

unread,

Jan 24, 2006, 5:41:52 AM1/24/06

to

>>"Ekkehard Dengler" <ED...@t-online.de> wrote in message
>>news:dr4u4l$ddd$00$1...@news.t-online.com...

>
> Heidi Graw schrieb:
>>
>> >"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> >news:43D4F8...@worldnet.att.net...
>> (snip)
>>
>> >Peter wrote:
>> > So maybe you'll reconsider taking advice from someone who calls them
>> > "Mongoloids"?

>>Heidi wrote:
>> I'm bearing in mind the country that Franz is posting from. I know in
>> that
>> country that term is still widely used. In Germany it is still common to
>> refer to people with Down's and/or low IQ's as "behindert"...retarded.

> Ekkard wrote:
> Just for the record: "behindert" means "disabled", not "retarded".

Koerperlich or geistlich?

Wouldn't "geistlich behindert" mean retarded? Retarded is in reference to
slow or limited mental, emotional and acedemic development.

Heidi

>
> Regards,
> Ekkehard
>
>

John Atkinson

unread,

Jan 24, 2006, 6:01:10 AM1/24/06

to

"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote...

> Heidi Graw wrote:
>>
>> >"Franz Gnaedinger" <fr...@bluemail.ch> wrote...

>> > Mongoloids are usually very nice people, delightful, easily
>> > delighted and pleased, "happy when they get a dish with
>> > a gold rim" my mother explained to me when I was a boy,
>> > agreeable, good mediators, and yet utter fools when it
>> > comes to our school system.
>>
>> Foolish, but wise. ;-)
>>
>> Franz, have you ever actually talked with someone who has Down's
>> Syndrome?
>>
>> I have through my association with Special Olympics. They constantly
>> surprise me with their keen observations. More than a few of these
>> people
>> think that "normal" people are foolish and that they do all too many dumb
>> things. I can't help but agree with them. Some of the dumbest people
>> I've
>> known in my life were those with exceptionally high IQ's! ;-)
>
> So maybe you'll reconsider taking advice from someone who calls them
> "Mongoloids"?
>
> And it's Down Syndrome

It's either in English. However in Google "Down" wins 4 to 1 over "Down's".

Most other languages prefer "Down's". Portuguese "sindrome de Down", French
"syndrome de Down", Czech "Downova syndromu", Danish and Swedish "Downs
syndrom", Finnish "Downin oirevyheyma"", Icelandic "Downs-helkenni", Italian
"sindrome di Down", Dutch "Down's syndroom", Slovakian "Downovho syndro'mu"

OTOH, German has "Down-Syndrom" and Turkish "Down sendromu" (I think)

Spanish has "sindrome de Down" in Spain and Latin America, but "sindrome
Down" in Puerto Rico (due to US influence?).

> -- Mr. Down didn't have it.

No, but Dr. J L Down first described the characteristic features of
Trisomy-21.

Just as Isaac Newton didn't have Newton's Laws, he just thought of them.
No one insists that they should be "Newton Laws".

And, although Dr Alois Alzheimer didn't have his disease, nearly everyone
calls it "Alzheimer's disease". The form "Alzheimer disease" does occur, but
it's rare. Why? People with Alzheimer's are hardly better off than those
with Down.

Perhaps weird PC rationalizations based on phoney grammatical arguments are
more characteristic of conditions mainly affecting children than of
conditions mainly occuring in the elderly?

John.

Ekkehard Dengler

unread,

Jan 24, 2006, 6:15:00 AM1/24/06

to

Heidi Graw schrieb:

> > Ekkehard wrote:
> > Just for the record: "behindert" means "disabled", not "retarded".
>
> Koerperlich or geistlich?

Just "disabled". "Geistig behindert" means "mentally disabled/handicapped",
and "körperlich behindert/körperbehindert" means "physically
disabled/handicapped". "Behindert" is not an offensive word.

Regards,
Ekkehard

Heidi Graw

unread,

Jan 24, 2006, 6:42:10 AM1/24/06

to

>"Ekkehard Dengler" <ED...@t-online.de> wrote in message

>news:dr527k$5e7$02$1...@news.t-online.com...

>
>> Heidi Graw schrieb:
>> > Ekkehard wrote:
>> > Just for the record: "behindert" means "disabled", not "retarded".
>>
>> Koerperlich or geistlich?

> Ekkehard wrote:
> Just "disabled". "Geistig behindert" means "mentally
> disabled/handicapped",
> and "körperlich behindert/körperbehindert" means "physically
> disabled/handicapped". "Behindert" is not an offensive word.

In the past, the word "retarded" wasn't an offensive word either. Yet, for
some reason it ended up that way. So, retarded changed to mentally
handicapped, and now to developmentally delayed.

I think the word "retarded" got a bad rap when people began to use the word
against "normal" people as a way to denigrate *them.* Then advocates for
people with mental disabilities got upset and vied for a name change. Then
the word "disabled" fell out of favour because people with disabilities like
to view themselves as having abilities, however limited those might be. And
to be considered developmentally delayed lets those with mental handicaps at
least feel there's still some hope for them. They may be slow, but they are
able! ;-)

Ah...it's hard to keep up with these sorts of things. Oh well... ;-)

Heidi

>
> Regards,
> Ekkehard
>
>

Ekkehard Dengler

unread,

Jan 24, 2006, 7:24:22 AM1/24/06

to

Heidi Graw schrieb:

> I think the word "retarded" got a bad rap when people began to use the
word
> against "normal" people as a way to denigrate *them.*

That's indeed likely.

Regards,
Ekkehard

Paul J Kriha

unread,

Jan 24, 2006, 7:42:08 AM1/24/06

to

John Atkinson <john...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:WNnBf.225733$V7.9...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Just some minor comments to the above list:

Some of the entries (specifically Czech and Slovak , maybe
others?) are not nominatives. Listing words in miscellaneous
declensions is risky, it may trick people into making wrong
conclusions. Here, the Czech form "-ova -u" and Slovak "-ovho -u"
indicate genitive noun.

The Cz noun-in-nominative, "Downúv syndrom" or "Syndrom Downa"
usually corresponds to English "Down syndrom".
BTW, both forms, adj+noun and noun+adj (adjective in genitive,
noun in nominative) are equally valid, the latter being slightly
formal/archaic.

However, the English "Down's syndrom" will end up translated
into Czech in exactly the same way. The possesive "Down's"
ends up translated as the same Cz genitive form of adjective.
Usually, it is clear from the context, but if it were necessary
to stress "Down's" as opposed to "Down", the sentence
would be recast with some extra word(s) to make it explicit.

(Note: "ú" is a long "u", printed as "u" with a little circle above it.)

pjk

Peter T. Daniels

unread,

Jan 24, 2006, 9:21:00 AM1/24/06

to

Heidi Graw wrote:
>
> >"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >news:43D4F8...@worldnet.att.net...
> (snip)
>
> >Peter wrote:
> > So maybe you'll reconsider taking advice from someone who calls them
> > "Mongoloids"?
>
> I'm bearing in mind the country that Franz is posting from. I know in that
> country that term is still widely used. In Germany it is still common to
> refer to people with Down's and/or low IQ's as "behindert"...retarded.

What country do you think Franz is posting from, and what do you know of
its language?

> Here in BC we call them "people with developmental disabilities" or "people
> with developmental delays." It's hard to try to keep up with whatever new
> terminology people want to be refered as. <sigh>

Down Syndrome is not synonymous with "developmental disability." It is
one specific type.

John Atkinson

unread,

Jan 24, 2006, 9:31:14 AM1/24/06

to

"Paul J Kriha" <paul.nos...@paradise.net.nz> wrote ...
>
> John Atkinson <john...@bigpond.com> wrote...

Right, I should have been more careful about that! I got all that from a
big list of the various national societies for the condition -- e.g.,
"Spolecnost Downova syndromu" for Czech.

I don't know any Czech, but I do know some Russian, and if I'd bothered to
think about it I would have realised that that "-u" was unlikely to be a
nominative. In Russian it would have to be dative, which doesn't make much
sense. But now, checking a Czech textbook, I see that inanimate masculines
have the same ending "-u" for genitive as well as dative, as you say.

As for the other languages, it's definitely "Down's" in the Romance and
Germanic languages I mentioned (except German and PR Spanish). In
Icelandic, I got it from "um Downs-helkenni", "with Down's syndrome", and
"um" governs the accusative -- in the nominative it would be "-kennir", I
think -- but Brian will no doubt sort me out there! But "Downs" is genitive
of course.

The Finnish and Turkish I gave undoubtedly have the translation of
"syndrome" in a non-nominitive case too.

> The Cz noun-in-nominative, "Downúv syndrom" or "Syndrom Downa"
> usually corresponds to English "Down syndrom".
> BTW, both forms, adj+noun and noun+adj (adjective in genitive,
> noun in nominative) are equally valid, the latter being slightly
> formal/archaic.
>
> However, the English "Down's syndrom" will end up translated
> into Czech in exactly the same way. The possesive "Down's"
> ends up translated as the same Cz genitive form of adjective.
> Usually, it is clear from the context, but if it were necessary
> to stress "Down's" as opposed to "Down", the sentence
> would be recast with some extra word(s) to make it explicit.

As you say, "Downuv" is an adjective, so could equally well translate
English "Down" or "Down's", but "Downa", being genitive of the noun, would
have to be literally "Down's", wouldn't it?

John.

>
> (Note: "ú" is a long "u", printed as "u" with a little circle above it.)
>

Franz Gnaedinger

unread,

Jan 24, 2006, 10:00:08 AM1/24/06

to

Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> What country do you think Franz is posting from, and what do you know of
> its language?

I am living in Switzerland, and Heidi knows that well. I grew up
with the word Mongoloids, it was the official term, and is still
getting used informally by people of my ageing generation.
The derogative term is Moenghy, used by schoolchildren for
each other (nota bene: by children who are not affected by
the Down's Syndrome and for children who are not affected
by the Down's Syndrome), especially by boys, and often
as kind of a pet name, for boys must show affection in
funny ways. What do you think will happen if all those
children were forced to say: someone affected with the
Down's Syndrome? It would soon degenerate into downey,
you downey, with the meaning of down, for children here
learn ever more English. We also have a movement against
too strict a form of political correctness. Feminists are
calling themselves Weiber, also Hexen (witches, bitches),
and Schlampen (sluts). I once heard that some blacks in
America call themselves nigger again, and deliberately.
The word comes from Latin niger, the Greek word is
melas (or so) and simply means black, the black stuff
melanin we got in our skin - blacks and whites, Indians
and Chinese. I got that black stuff in my skin, hence
I am a nigger. And Homo sapiens sapiens originated
in Africa between 230,000 and 150,000 years ago, so
I am an African, and proud of it. I am also an Inuit, for
Inuit means human being. I am also a Roma, for Roma
means human being. You are neither Inuit nor Roma?
In that case I fear you are no human being.

Sorry, very sorry, for I estimate you, yes, I really do

Franz Gnaedinger www.seshat.ch

Heidi Graw

unread,

Jan 24, 2006, 12:00:55 PM1/24/06

to

>"Franz Gnaedinger" <fr...@bluemail.ch> wrote in message

>news:1138114808....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>> What country do you think Franz is posting from, and what do you know of
>> its language?

>Franz wrote:
> I am living in Switzerland, and Heidi knows that well. I grew up
> with the word Mongoloids, it was the official term, and is still
> getting used informally by people of my ageing generation.

I came across this word being used in Switzerland while I was doing some
research a few years ago about how children with special needs are being
educated in other parts around the globe. I was somewhat surprised to find
Mongoloids being mentioned in official education documents. We've dropped
that term long ago!

> The derogative term is Moenghy, used by schoolchildren for
> each other

I remember that term being used in Germany when I was still there in 1966.
Do children still call each other that in Switzerland?

>(nota bene: by children who are not affected by
> the Down's Syndrome and for children who are not affected
> by the Down's Syndrome), especially by boys, and often
> as kind of a pet name, for boys must show affection in
> funny ways. What do you think will happen if all those
> children were forced to say: someone affected with the
> Down's Syndrome? It would soon degenerate into downey,
> you downey, with the meaning of down, for children here
> learn ever more English. We also have a movement against
> too strict a form of political correctness. Feminists are
> calling themselves Weiber,

...that's not so bad. At least ein Weib carries some level of authority.
;-)

>also Hexen (witches, bitches),

...and that's just plain out silly.

> and Schlampen (sluts).

...and that's awful!

>I once heard that some blacks in
> America call themselves nigger again, and deliberately.

Yes...heard it, too.

A friend of my husband's once called down to Texas to inquire about some
heavy duty equipment. He asked the fellow, "Have you got any 2,000 pound
niggers you can send up here?" LOL....

I can't remember just exactly what that piece of equipment was, but up here
in Canada it is typically called "nigger" in the logging industry. The Texan
explained to this Canadian that they don't grow niggers that large, but he'd
be happy to ship up a few that add up to 2,000 lbs. ;-)

So, then they had a hearty laugh and the Canadian found out what that piece
of equipment is actually called in Texas. Why he'd be phoning down to Texas
about logging equipment, I have no idea. But, anyways, it did make for a
funny story. ;-)

Heidi

Franz Gnaedinger

unread,

Jan 24, 2006, 12:52:56 PM1/24/06

to

Joachim Pense wrote:

> Fuß
> old meaning: leg
> new meaning: foot

I boycott German since the Schreibreform. Poor
Ballettänzerin who must stumble over her disgracious
club foottt. If Tollpatsch why not also Schpatziergang
and Schpeckdackel? Before: Aufwand aufwenden
aufwendig Aufwendung; now: Aufwand aufwenden
aufwändig (but pronounced aufwendig) Aufwendung.
If a must become ä, why not also aufwänden?
Schprache schprächen, Schtand Schtänder
schtändig schtänden, Gang gängig gängen,
Lage lägen Lägeschtuhl, Krabbe Kräbbs,
mare Määr (Adria) Määär (Pacific). And so on.
I sent them five pages with further improvements
in their sense: arterioscleortic increase of
consonants, ä as ä can, and of coarse
Vielologe for a German philologist of plenty logic.

As I boycott German I will only consider one of
your examples, the one above that I can also
handle in ancient Greek, where it has even more
meanings. Hope I remember them all:

POUS - foot (also as a measure), leg, hoof, claw;
course, walk; pod (of a ship), steering rope;
metric foot.

>From these meanings you can easily guess the
central meaning, or the meme behind the word:
a functional extension, its function, and traces
left by it.

Regards Franz Gnaedinger www.seshat.ch

Franz Gnaedinger

unread,

Jan 24, 2006, 12:58:09 PM1/24/06

to

Sorry for a typo. Ballettänzerin (ballet dancer) is now
written with a triple t, Balletttänzerin

Jim Heckman

unread,

Jan 24, 2006, 10:42:09 PM1/24/06

to

On 24-Jan-2006, "John Atkinson" <john...@bigpond.com>
wrote in message <SSqBf.225897$V7.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>:

> "Paul J Kriha" <paul.nos...@paradise.net.nz> wrote ...
>
> > John Atkinson <john...@bigpond.com> wrote...

[...]

> >> Most other languages prefer "Down's". Portuguese "sindrome de Down",
> >> French
> >> "syndrome de Down", Czech "Downova syndromu", Danish and Swedish "Downs
> >> syndrom", Finnish "Downin oirevyheyma"", Icelandic "Downs-helkenni",
> >> Italian
> >> "sindrome di Down", Dutch "Down's syndroom", Slovakian "Downovho
> >> syndro'mu"

[...]

> The Finnish and Turkish I gave undoubtedly have the translation of
> "syndrome" in a non-nominitive case too.

No, the Finnish is nominative, but you misspelled it rather badly.
It should be "Downin oireyhtymä"; the latter word is a compound
"oire+yhtymä" whose parts mean roughly 'symptom+group' (surprise!).

I'm pretty sure Turkish "Down sendromu" is nominative, too. If I'm
right, the -u is a possessive suffix marking "sendrom" as being
governed by "Down". Maybe Yusuf can confirm.

[...]

--
Jim Heckman

Franz Gnaedinger

unread,

Jan 25, 2006, 2:35:39 AM1/25/06

to

Heidi Graw wrote:

> ...and that's awful!

Schlampen is actually not so bad when women call it
themselves. Pronounce it our way, shlaampa, con gusto,
and think of active younger women who write novels,
work for TV, rear children, and just don't bother hoovering
their flat every day.

As for children who call each others moenghy. If I were
their teacher I would explain some basic biology to them.
A cell resembles a town, where plenty of things are going
on. There is an energy plant called mitochondrium. There
are workers called ribosomes who fabricate proteins,
and they do it according to plans or blue prints they get
from the central library. In this library are kept the books
of life called genes, chromosomes, DNA. Plenty librarians
copy these books, hand out blue prints, comment on the
books, and repair mistakes. Alas, there are some mistakes
that can't really be repaired, and these result in syndromes
as for example the Down Syndrome, also Trisomy 21,
known to the fossils among us - and since you all are
very young I am the fossil here - as mongolism. Why do
some people get such a syndrome, and others don't?
Why is life so unfair? I think it has to do with variety
that is required for surviving. We need all kinds of people,
especially strong ones, especially bright ones, especially
kind ones, especially daring ones, in order to master all
the tasks in our complicated human life, and to cope with
challenges we know, others we can foresee, and still
others we can't even foresee. Therefore life is generating
a wide variety, and the cost for this variety, from which
we profit so much, is the occurence of such syndromes.
Consider this when you next meet a moenghy, I mean
someone who is actually affected by the Down Syndrome.

What would happen if I just forbid the word moenghy and
obliged my young pupils to say "someone affected by the
Down Syndrome" ? They would probably call each other
downey, hey downey, go away downey. And when learning
their first English they might even be pleased by the
meaning of down, which would add momentum to their
invective: thumb down for you, downey. Telling them that
the term Down Syndrom is named for a physician would
not help: shut up, downey.

By the way: this merely hypothetical and freely invented
case would be an example of a horizontal transfer of
meaning. Are there actual examples of such a transfer
in English? Quack etymology is a persistent phenomenon,
so very persistent that I begin to wonder whether it may be
a side effect of an important mechanism in the evolution
of language we have not yet discovered.

Izzie, how about an intellectual adventure?

Regards Franz Gnaedinger www.seshat.ch

Heidi Graw

unread,

Jan 25, 2006, 3:43:45 AM1/25/06

to

>"Franz Gnaedinger" <fr...@bluemail.ch> wrote in message

>news:1138174539.1...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
>> Heidi Graw wrote:
>
>> ...and that's awful!

> Franz wrote:
> Schlampen is actually not so bad when women call it
> themselves. Pronounce it our way, shlaampa, con gusto,
> and think of active younger women who write novels,
> work for TV, rear children, and just don't bother hoovering
> their flat every day.

Ah...o.k...thanks for clearing that up. I'm still remembering German
Schlampen to be those slovenly, unkempt and lazy women. I think it's time
for me to make another trip to Germany so I can reaquaint myself with the
lingo while talking to people other than my own relatives and friends. ;-)

Last time my aunt was here from Germany my sister engaged her in a serious
disccussion regarding the word Funzel vis a vis Fussel. My sister thought
Funzel was a little piece of fuzz, but it was explained to her it was
actually a dim light. Perhaps a little light on a candle?

Well...we ended up laughing our heads off when we found out why my sister
was so fascinated with the word Funzel. She decided to declare herself to
be a born again Christian...she's got the light! She declared herself to be
"ein Funzelchen!" Hallellujah, glory be! Praise the Lord! My sister is
now "ein Funzelchen!" Chalk one up for Jesus. LOL.... ;-)

Oh dear.... I have to admit, though, she does a darn good job impersonating
charismatic Christian Fundamentalists. The sermons we had to listen to as
we travelled all across Canada...I told her she should emigrate to one of
those southern states in the US. She could make some serious money down
there. Ah well....I gotta love my sister! ;-)

(snip)

>Franz wrote:
> By the way: this merely hypothetical and freely invented
> case would be an example of a horizontal transfer of
> meaning. Are there actual examples of such a transfer
> in English?

Whew...off hand, I can't really think of one. I'll have to give it some
thought and get back to you.

Btw. I still haven't heard back from the British Museum. The "collection's
inquiry" desk that I e-mailed recommended another department to get in touch
with, which I did. Oh well...I guess I'll just have to wait a bit longer.
I find those sculptures too intriguing to let go. I'm determined to find
out more about them.

>Quack etymology is a persistent phenomenon,
> so very persistent that I begin to wonder whether it may be
> a side effect of an important mechanism in the evolution
> of language we have not yet discovered.

It's worth persuing further. A while back I came across some information
about "free radicals." A British Journal of some sort wrote about a study
in which they concluded that it's not the "free radicals" that do the
damage, but rather enzymes. I don't have enough knowledge about this to get
into deeper details and I haven't kept the on-line link. I don't know if I
can even find that article again.

I've always had a particular liking for those free radicals. I think they
exist in more ways than one. I believe free radicals have a role to play
and I believe it can be a positive one. It is those conformists who hate
free radicals and it is those conformists who give free radicals a bad rap.
;-)

Heidi

John Atkinson

unread,

Jan 25, 2006, 4:29:55 AM1/25/06

to

"Jim Heckman" <wnzrfe...@lnubb.pbz.invalid> wrote...

>
> "John Atkinson" <john...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>> > John Atkinson <john...@bigpond.com> wrote...
>
> [...]
>
>> >> Most other languages prefer "Down's". Portuguese "sindrome de Down",

> [...]

>
>> The Finnish and Turkish I gave undoubtedly have the translation of
>> "syndrome" in a non-nominitive case too.
>
> No, the Finnish is nominative, but you misspelled it rather badly.
> It should be "Downin oireyhtymä"; the latter word is a compound
> "oire+yhtymä" whose parts mean roughly 'symptom+group' (surprise!).
>
> I'm pretty sure Turkish "Down sendromu" is nominative, too. If I'm
> right, the -u is a possessive suffix marking "sendrom" as being
> governed by "Down".

If so, it corresponds to English "Down's syndrome", as opposed to "Down
syndrome", no? So we should move it out of the group of languages whose
normal term doesn't involve a possessive.

So German (and more-often-than-not English) seem to be the only ones left in
that group..

John.

Franz Gnaedinger

unread,

Jan 25, 2006, 6:47:11 AM1/25/06

to

Heidi Graw wrote:

> Well...we ended up laughing our heads off when we found out why my sister
> was so fascinated with the word Funzel. She decided to declare herself to
> be a born again Christian...she's got the light! She declared herself to be
> "ein Funzelchen!" Hallellujah, glory be! Praise the Lord! My sister is
> now "ein Funzelchen!" Chalk one up for Jesus. LOL.... ;-)

A Funzel is an oil lamp, a Funzelchen a small one. Your born again
sister may feel like a small oil lamp the early Christians used in
the underground of Rome.

> Oh dear.... I have to admit, though, she does a darn good job impersonating
> charismatic Christian Fundamentalists. The sermons we had to listen to as
> we travelled all across Canada...I told her she should emigrate to one of
> those southern states in the US. She could make some serious money down
> there. Ah well....I gotta love my sister! ;-)

Tell her that the Bible is a great book, very great, indeed,
anticipating Charles Darwin by over two millennia. Darwin
needed 490 pages to explain his idea of evolution, and his
book is just a summary of a far bigger book he was planning
to write, whereas the Bible says it all within a couple of lines
at the very begin of the Genesis, first book of the Holy Bible,
where God creates the world within six days. God could have
created the world at once, but no, God created the world step
by step, the very idea of evolution, and since a second is a year
for God, and a day an eon, the six days of creation cover the four
and a half million years of our planet, and the some twelve million
years of the universe ... The Bible is full of symbols. You need
inspiration for understanding them properly, inspiration coming
from the Holy Spirit, or at least (which I fear is true in my case)
from one of the wacky assistants fooling around in the office of
the Holy Ghost.

> It's worth persuing further. A while back I came across some information
> about "free radicals." A British Journal of some sort wrote about a study
> in which they concluded that it's not the "free radicals" that do the
> damage, but rather enzymes. I don't have enough knowledge about this to get
> into deeper details and I haven't kept the on-line link. I don't know if I
> can even find that article again.
>
> I've always had a particular liking for those free radicals. I think they
> exist in more ways than one. I believe free radicals have a role to play
> and I believe it can be a positive one. It is those conformists who hate
> free radicals and it is those conformists who give free radicals a bad rap.
> ;-)
>
> Heidi

Interesting idea. Let me tell you about the solution to my question.
I pondered that question this morning upon returning from the library,
and at home I found the solution. Very simple, really. Words form
around memes (a term coined by Richard Dawkins). A meme,
I propose now, is a very specific experience of body, soul and mind,
kept in the memory, not only in the memory of the brain, but also in
the memory of the entire body, perhaps extending to the inhabited
surroundings (will have to clear that point). Now memes gather
a sphere of meanings around them. There can be plenty of meanings,
only condition is: they have to form a well equilibrated sphere or
cloud
around the meme in the center. If a part of that sphere or cloud is
lacking, new words can be assimilated in order to fill the gap. And
so I dare say that the mechanism of quack etymology is the actual
and very mechanism of word forming! Will have to explain this at
length - oh my, all that work, imposed on me by a pagan, for Heidi
surely comes from Heide meaning pagan. Poor sister of yours.
Poor me. And poor Peter T. Daniels who must not only endure
my spamming of sci.lang but also your presence, and you make it
so hard for him by being so very nice!

Just tooo much ;-) Franz Gnaedinger www.seshat.ch

Peter T. Daniels

unread,

Jan 25, 2006, 8:23:43 AM1/25/06

to

Franz Gnaedinger wrote:

> What would happen if I just forbid the word moenghy and
> obliged my young pupils to say "someone affected by the
> Down Syndrome" ? They would probably call each other
> downey, hey downey, go away downey. And when learning
> their first English they might even be pleased by the
> meaning of down, which would add momentum to their
> invective: thumb down for you, downey.

Or, you could teach them that insulting each other, no matter what word
is used, isn't a nice way to play.

"Downy" happens to be a very nice word in English.

(BTW this may be the first time I've ever read all the way to the bottom
of a posting of Franz's.)

Peter T. Daniels

unread,

Jan 25, 2006, 8:26:00 AM1/25/06

to

Franz Gnaedinger wrote:

> Tell her that the Bible is a great book, very great, indeed,
> anticipating Charles Darwin by over two millennia. Darwin
> needed 490 pages to explain his idea of evolution, and his
> book is just a summary of a far bigger book he was planning
> to write, whereas the Bible says it all within a couple of lines
> at the very begin of the Genesis, first book of the Holy Bible,
> where God creates the world within six days. God could have
> created the world at once, but no, God created the world step
> by step, the very idea of evolution, and since a second is a year
> for God, and a day an eon, the six days of creation cover the four
> and a half million years of our planet, and the some twelve million
> years of the universe ...

Your astrophysics is off by a factor of more than a thousand. The planet
is some 4.5 billion years old, and the universe over 14 billion
(American billions).

Peter T. Daniels

unread,

Jan 25, 2006, 8:27:03 AM1/25/06

to

John Atkinson wrote:

> >> >> Most other languages prefer "Down's". Portuguese "sindrome de Down",
>
> > [...]
> >
> >> The Finnish and Turkish I gave undoubtedly have the translation of
> >> "syndrome" in a non-nominitive case too.
> >
> > No, the Finnish is nominative, but you misspelled it rather badly.
> > It should be "Downin oireyhtymä"; the latter word is a compound
> > "oire+yhtymä" whose parts mean roughly 'symptom+group' (surprise!).
> >
> > I'm pretty sure Turkish "Down sendromu" is nominative, too. If I'm
> > right, the -u is a possessive suffix marking "sendrom" as being
> > governed by "Down".
>
> If so, it corresponds to English "Down's syndrome", as opposed to "Down
> syndrome", no? So we should move it out of the group of languages whose
> normal term doesn't involve a possessive.
>
> So German (and more-often-than-not English) seem to be the only ones left in
> that group..

I really don't see what the usage in _any_ other language has to do with
the correct form in English.

Paul J Kriha

unread,

Jan 25, 2006, 8:16:46 AM1/25/06

to

John Atkinson <john...@bigpond.com> wrote in message

news:SSqBf.225897$V7.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Okay, bingo! "Spolecnost ...." = "Society (of) ...."
That explains the genitives in Cz and Sk.

> I don't know any Czech, but I do know some Russian, and if I'd bothered to
> think about it I would have realised that that "-u" was unlikely to be a
> nominative. In Russian it would have to be dative, which doesn't make much
> sense.

After some decades of total neglect my Russian is seriously
rusty. Dative? I would also plumb for a genitive, i.e. "syndroma".
Oh! I guess, there'll be something like "Obshchestvo po.."
or "...dlya.." with a R. dative "syndromu".

> But now, checking a Czech textbook, I see that inanimate masculines
> have the same ending "-u" for genitive as well as dative, as you say.

Yes, inanimate masculine, but, mind you, only the ones with
"hard" consonant endings. :-)
The same singular noun marker "-u" shows up in genitive, dative,
and also in locative. However, the combination of both (adjective
and noun) declension markers "-ova -u" makes it uniquely genitive.
So, I was certain we were looking at a genitive construct even
though I didn't see the context.
The dative markers would be "-ovu -u" and locative "-ove^ -u".

> As for the other languages, it's definitely "Down's" in the Romance and
> Germanic languages I mentioned (except German and PR Spanish). In
> Icelandic, I got it from "um Downs-helkenni", "with Down's syndrome", and
> "um" governs the accusative -- in the nominative it would be "-kennir", I
> think -- but Brian will no doubt sort me out there! But "Downs" is genitive
> of course.
>
> The Finnish and Turkish I gave undoubtedly have the translation of
> "syndrome" in a non-nominitive case too.
>
>> The Cz noun-in-nominative, "Downúv syndrom" or "Syndrom Downa"
>> usually corresponds to English "Down syndrom".
>> BTW, both forms, adj+noun and noun+adj (adjective in genitive,
>> noun in nominative)

Correction. This should read:
BTW, both forms, adj+noun (adjective in genitive, noun in nominative),
and noun+noun (1st noun in nominative, 2nd in genitive)

>> are equally valid, the latter being slightly
>> formal/archaic.
>>
>> However, the English "Down's syndrom" will end up translated
>> into Czech in exactly the same way. The possesive "Down's"
>> ends up translated as the same Cz genitive form of adjective.
>> Usually, it is clear from the context, but if it were necessary
>> to stress "Down's" as opposed to "Down", the sentence
>> would be recast with some extra word(s) to make it explicit.
>
> As you say, "Downuv" is an adjective, so could equally well translate
> English "Down" or "Down's", but "Downa", being genitive of the noun, would
> have to be literally "Down's", wouldn't it?

Literally? Yes.

However, the expressions "Downúv syndrom" and "Syndrom Downa"
are used interchangeably. If I were translating "Syndrom Downa"
into English I would not make it "Down's syndrome" without looking
at the context first to see if it's really just some syndrome suffered
by a patient called Down.

pjk

> John.

[...]

Heidi Graw

unread,

Jan 25, 2006, 11:45:03 AM1/25/06

to

>"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message

>news:43D77C...@worldnet.att.net...

>> Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
>
>> Tell her that the Bible is a great book, very great, indeed,
>> anticipating Charles Darwin by over two millennia. Darwin
>> needed 490 pages to explain his idea of evolution, and his
>> book is just a summary of a far bigger book he was planning
>> to write, whereas the Bible says it all within a couple of lines
>> at the very begin of the Genesis, first book of the Holy Bible,
>> where God creates the world within six days. God could have
>> created the world at once, but no, God created the world step
>> by step, the very idea of evolution, and since a second is a year
>> for God, and a day an eon, the six days of creation cover the four
>> and a half million years of our planet, and the some twelve million
>> years of the universe ...
>

(snip)

> Peter wrote:
> Your astrophysics is off by a factor of more than a thousand. The planet
> is some 4.5 billion years old, and the universe over 14 billion
> (American billions).

Peter, Franz made an error in translating Milliarden into million.
Milliarden is a thousand million. It's a common enough error for German
speaking people to make. I, however, being aware of this, knew that the 4.5
million Franz was talking about is actually those 4.5 billion.

Heidi

Peter T. Daniels

unread,

Jan 25, 2006, 11:59:45 AM1/25/06

to

No, the (British) English for Milliard is ... milliard!

Whether _you_ know is immaterial. Whether Franz knows how to express
himself is relevant. (He recently claimed he's just a few years older
than I am; from his writing, I had the impression that he's in his 80s.
Contrariwise, Herman Rubin _is_, but from his writing sounds like a
typical middle-aged professor. Like Brian.)

Ekkehard Dengler

unread,

Jan 25, 2006, 12:09:18 PM1/25/06

to

Peter T. Daniels schrieb:

> No, the (British) English for Milliard is ... milliard!

No, the British English word for "Milliarde" is "billion".

Regards,
Ekkehard

Heidi Graw

unread,

Jan 25, 2006, 12:39:25 PM1/25/06

to

>"Franz Gnaedinger" <fr...@bluemail.ch> wrote in message

>news:1138189631....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
(snip)

>Franz wrote:
> Tell her that the Bible is a great book, very great, indeed,
> anticipating Charles Darwin by over two millennia. Darwin
> needed 490 pages to explain his idea of evolution, and his
> book is just a summary of a far bigger book he was planning
> to write, whereas the Bible says it all within a couple of lines
> at the very begin of the Genesis, first book of the Holy Bible,
> where God creates the world within six days. God could have
> created the world at once, but no, God created the world step
> by step, the very idea of evolution, and since a second is a year
> for God, and a day an eon, the six days of creation cover the four
> and a half million years of our planet, and the some twelve million
> years of the universe ... The Bible is full of symbols. You need
> inspiration for understanding them properly, inspiration coming
> from the Holy Spirit, or at least (which I fear is true in my case)
> from one of the wacky assistants fooling around in the office of
> the Holy Ghost.

<chuckle> I find the Bible to be among the world's finest pieces of Middle
Eastern literature. I prefer the King James version. I also keep it next
to my Eddas, Grimm's Fairy Tales, and assorted other books dealing with
legends and mythology from around the world.

(snip)

>Franz wrote:
> Interesting idea. Let me tell you about the solution to my question.
> I pondered that question this morning upon returning from the library,
> and at home I found the solution. Very simple, really. Words form
> around memes (a term coined by Richard Dawkins). A meme,
> I propose now, is a very specific experience of body, soul and mind,
> kept in the memory, not only in the memory of the brain, but also in
> the memory of the entire body, perhaps extending to the inhabited
> surroundings (will have to clear that point). Now memes gather
> a sphere of meanings around them. There can be plenty of meanings,
> only condition is: they have to form a well equilibrated sphere or
> cloud
> around the meme in the center. If a part of that sphere or cloud is
> lacking, new words can be assimilated in order to fill the gap. And
> so I dare say that the mechanism of quack etymology is the actual
> and very mechanism of word forming!

Instead of a cloud with a nucleus in the middle, I see it more like a parent
meaning which has its assorted offspring, or spin-offs. These offspring, or
spin-off meanings can also have their own offspring. Yet, in some way, the
parent meaning is passed along to these other generations of meanings until,
in some cases, the original meaning is virtually unrecognizable. So, rather
than a meaning collecting itself out of a void to become something of it's
own to fill in any gaps, it is actually related in some way to already
existing meanings. I see it like building on something that already exists.

>Will have to explain this at
> length - oh my, all that work, imposed on me by a pagan, for Heidi
> surely comes from Heide meaning pagan.

My Grade 4 teacher dubbed me Heidi. My actual name is Heiderose
(Heath-Rose). I was also born in the Lueneburger Heide in a small village
called Guelden (Golden). I truly am a heathen in every sense of the word.
I used to be a heretical Christian and I simply couldn't take that Christian
nonsense anymore. So, I set about to reclaim who I truly am...an agnostic
heathen. That label fits me so much better and is much closer to the truth
that I am.

There's also a line drawn between pagan (Wiccan) and heathen. The following
is an essay that attempts to make clear this distinction.

http://ansuz.worldash.org/asatru/articles/intro/wicca_compar.html

>Poor sister of yours.
> Poor me. And poor Peter T. Daniels who must not only endure
> my spamming of sci.lang but also your presence, and you make it
> so hard for him by being so very nice!

Heathens are no worse and no better than anyone else in the world. You'll
find nice ones and unkind ones....rule of thumb I use... focus on the
individual and their deeds, their actions. ;-)

Take care,
Heidi

Richard Herring

unread,

Jan 25, 2006, 12:41:28 PM1/25/06

to

In message <dr8bbu$aqm$00$1...@news.t-online.com>, Ekkehard Dengler
<ED...@t-online.de> writes

>
>Peter T. Daniels schrieb:
>
>> No, the (British) English for Milliard is ... milliard!

I think the only place I've ever seen it used is in translations of
Jules Verne.

>
>No, the British English word for "Milliarde" is "billion".
>

No, it's best avoided, since it provokes this kind of argument.
"Thousand million" (or, for scientists, "tentothenine") is at least
unambiguous.

--
Richard Herring

Brian M. Scott

unread,

Jan 25, 2006, 1:33:41 PM1/25/06

to

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:59:45 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in sci.lang:

[...]

> Whether Franz knows how to express himself is relevant. (He
> recently claimed he's just a few years older than I am; from
> his writing, I had the impression that he's in his 80s.
> Contrariwise, Herman Rubin _is_, but from his writing sounds
> like a typical middle-aged professor. Like Brian.)

^^^^^^^
!!!

Brian

Brian M. Scott

unread,

Jan 25, 2006, 1:35:48 PM1/25/06

both, but it's "geistig". "Geistlich" means "clerical", "theologically".

Joachim

Heidi Graw

unread,

Jan 25, 2006, 4:58:13 PM1/25/06

to

>"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:43D7CF...@worldnet.att.net...

>> Heidi Graw wrote:
>
>> <chuckle> I find the Bible to be among the world's finest pieces of
>> Middle
>> Eastern literature. I prefer the King James version.

> Peter wrote:
> Why is it not surprising that you don't care that over 400 years we've
> learned a significant amount about Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, so that,
> however well written, the KJV is not exactly an accurate rendition of
> the original?

I'm aware of it. I just like its language. To me, the KJV has literary
value. It's not central to my life either.
So, if a few things here and there are not translated properly, I can always
look up a more modern version of the Bible.

Heidi

Heidi Graw

unread,

Jan 25, 2006, 5:01:22 PM1/25/06

to

>"Joachim Pense" <spam-co...@pense-online.de> wrote in message
>news:dr8q0e$dkh$00$6...@news.t-online.com...

>> Heidi Graw:
>
>>
>>> Ekkard wrote:
>>> Just for the record: "behindert" means "disabled", not "retarded".

>> Heidi wrote:
>> Koerperlich or geistlich?
>>

> Joachim offered this correction:

> both, but it's "geistig". "Geistlich" means "clerical", "theologically".

<chuckle>...Thanks, Joachim! Next time I hear an idiotic sermon by some
two-bit pastor, I can tell myself, "Er ist geistlich behindert!" ;-)

Heidi

António Marques

unread,

Jan 25, 2006, 4:43:37 PM1/25/06

to

John Atkinson wrote:

> Most other languages prefer "Down's". Portuguese "sindrome de Down"

Portuguese usually does that. There is no other grammatical way to
associate the words without turning one into a derivate.
For some stuff you can use 'a' - _a pilhas_ 'battery powered' but it's
not very productive.
--
am

laurus : rhodophyta : brezoneg : smalltalk : stargate

António Marques

unread,

Jan 25, 2006, 4:46:56 PM1/25/06

to

Brian M. Scott wrote:

>> Whether Franz knows how to express himself is relevant. (He
>> recently claimed he's just a few years older than I am; from
>> his writing, I had the impression that he's in his 80s.
>> Contrariwise, Herman Rubin _is_, but from his writing sounds
>> like a typical middle-aged professor. Like Brian.)
> ^^^^^^^
> !!!

As they say over here 'Is it for this that one rears their young!?' (The
reared one in question, in this case, would be Peter. Is there any
similar saying in english? It's similar in intent to 'I did ... and all
I got was this lousy ...' but stronger.)

Peter T. Daniels

unread,

Jan 25, 2006, 5:19:48 PM1/25/06

to

But how would you _know_ to look up any particular passage?

I trust you know the great soprano aria "I know that my Redeemer liveth"
from Handel's *Messiah*. Those few verses happen to belong to one of the
most corrupted texts in the entire Bible, and at least half the words
are total guesses -- look at any recent version to find other guesses.

Heidi Graw

unread,

Jan 25, 2006, 5:36:47 PM1/25/06

to

>"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message

>news:43D7F9...@worldnet.att.net...
(snip)

>> Heidi wrote:
>> I'm aware of it. I just like its language. To me, the KJV has literary
>> value. It's not central to my life either.
>> So, if a few things here and there are not translated properly, I can
>> always
>> look up a more modern version of the Bible.

> Peter wrote:
> But how would you _know_ to look up any particular passage?

...I'd look it up whenever a discussion would come up regarding various
verses. If the difference it significant enough, I put a note in the Bible
that I do have.

I do the same with my Eddas. Whenever a particular word is being
scrutinized, I might make notes in my book about it.

> Peter wrote:
> I trust you know the great soprano aria "I know that my Redeemer liveth"
> from Handel's *Messiah*. Those few verses happen to belong to one of the
> most corrupted texts in the entire Bible, and at least half the words
> are total guesses -- look at any recent version to find other guesses.

So? That aria still remains as beautiful as ever, does it not? I can
appreciate it for what it is and not for what it should be. Btw, most of
those Christian songs I've heathenized for myself. So, while the song is
playing I'm thinking along totally different lines within my own head. ;-)

"Ave Frigga." ;-)

Heidi

Peter T. Daniels

unread,

Jan 25, 2006, 5:42:43 PM1/25/06

to

Heidi Graw wrote:
>
> >"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >news:43D7F9...@worldnet.att.net...
> (snip)
>
> >> Heidi wrote:
> >> I'm aware of it. I just like its language. To me, the KJV has literary
> >> value. It's not central to my life either.
> >> So, if a few things here and there are not translated properly, I can
> >> always
> >> look up a more modern version of the Bible.
>
> > Peter wrote:
> > But how would you _know_ to look up any particular passage?
>
> ...I'd look it up whenever a discussion would come up regarding various
> verses. If the difference it significant enough, I put a note in the Bible
> that I do have.

But how would you come across such a "discussion"? I don't have the
impression that you read Bible commentaries or scholarly journals.

> I do the same with my Eddas. Whenever a particular word is being
> scrutinized, I might make notes in my book about it.
>
> > Peter wrote:
> > I trust you know the great soprano aria "I know that my Redeemer liveth"
> > from Handel's *Messiah*. Those few verses happen to belong to one of the
> > most corrupted texts in the entire Bible, and at least half the words
> > are total guesses -- look at any recent version to find other guesses.
>
> So? That aria still remains as beautiful as ever, does it not? I can
> appreciate it for what it is and not for what it should be. Btw, most of
> those Christian songs I've heathenized for myself. So, while the song is
> playing I'm thinking along totally different lines within my own head. ;-)

I am not talking about the music. I am talking about the text.

Add ADD to your list of problems?

Heidi Graw

unread,

Jan 25, 2006, 6:00:41 PM1/25/06

to

>"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message

>news:43D7FE...@worldnet.att.net...
(snip)

>> > Peter wrote:
>> > But how would you _know_ to look up any particular passage?

>> Heidi wrote:
>> ...I'd look it up whenever a discussion would come up regarding various
>> verses. If the difference it significant enough, I put a note in the
>> Bible
>> that I do have.

> Peter wrote:
> But how would you come across such a "discussion"?

Usenet. ;-)

>I don't have the
> impression that you read Bible commentaries or scholarly journals.

Good grief! I've read tons of that stuff... and it was precisely because of
all those discussions, books and articles that I made a solid decision to
become that agnostic heathen. ;-)

>> I do the same with my Eddas. Whenever a particular word is being
>> scrutinized, I might make notes in my book about it.
>>
>> > Peter wrote:
>> > I trust you know the great soprano aria "I know that my Redeemer
>> > liveth"
>> > from Handel's *Messiah*. Those few verses happen to belong to one of
>> > the
>> > most corrupted texts in the entire Bible, and at least half the words
>> > are total guesses -- look at any recent version to find other guesses.

>> Heidi wrote:
>> So? That aria still remains as beautiful as ever, does it not? I can
>> appreciate it for what it is and not for what it should be. Btw, most of
>> those Christian songs I've heathenized for myself. So, while the song is
>> playing I'm thinking along totally different lines within my own head.
>> ;-)

> Peter wrote:
> I am not talking about the music. I am talking about the text.

When I listen to a song, I hear both the music and the words. I can
appreciate it for what it is at that moment. I don't have that pressing
need to scrutinize what is sung about to see whether or not what is sung is
true.

As for those Christmas Carols or even Christian Rock I have no trouble
heathenizing those songs. I can appreciate for what those songs are, but at
the same time I can take those and change them to something much more
meaningful to me personally.

>
> Add ADD to your list of problems?

Peter, *you* really do have a reading comprehension problem. It isn't that
uncommon and there is help out there so you can remedy the situation for
yourself. I recommend you to a remedial reading class. ;-)

Heidi

Peter T. Daniels

unread,

Jan 25, 2006, 6:10:19 PM1/25/06

to

Heidi Graw wrote:
>
> >"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >news:43D7FE...@worldnet.att.net...
> (snip)
>
> >> > Peter wrote:
> >> > But how would you _know_ to look up any particular passage?
>
> >> Heidi wrote:
> >> ...I'd look it up whenever a discussion would come up regarding various
> >> verses. If the difference it significant enough, I put a note in the
> >> Bible
> >> that I do have.
>
> > Peter wrote:
> > But how would you come across such a "discussion"?
>
> Usenet. ;-)
>
> >I don't have the
> > impression that you read Bible commentaries or scholarly journals.
>
> Good grief! I've read tons of that stuff... and it was precisely because of
> all those discussions, books and articles that I made a solid decision to
> become that agnostic heathen. ;-)

With what sort of comprehension could you have read them, with no
conception of the meanings of "etymology," "definition," and "meaning"?
And, I daresay, no familiarity with Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek?

> >> I do the same with my Eddas. Whenever a particular word is being
> >> scrutinized, I might make notes in my book about it.
> >>
> >> > Peter wrote:
> >> > I trust you know the great soprano aria "I know that my Redeemer
> >> > liveth"
> >> > from Handel's *Messiah*. Those few verses happen to belong to one of
> >> > the
> >> > most corrupted texts in the entire Bible, and at least half the words
> >> > are total guesses -- look at any recent version to find other guesses.
>
> >> Heidi wrote:
> >> So? That aria still remains as beautiful as ever, does it not? I can
> >> appreciate it for what it is and not for what it should be. Btw, most of
> >> those Christian songs I've heathenized for myself. So, while the song is
> >> playing I'm thinking along totally different lines within my own head.
> >> ;-)
>
> > Peter wrote:
> > I am not talking about the music. I am talking about the text.
>
> When I listen to a song, I hear both the music and the words. I can
> appreciate it for what it is at that moment. I don't have that pressing
> need to scrutinize what is sung about to see whether or not what is sung is
> true.

So if I had simply said, I trust you're familiar with Job NN:NN, you
would have immediately recognized the passage I was referring to? And
not veered into a discussion of musical esthetics?

Whether the words are "true" is also utterly beside the point. The point
is that there is no particular reason to suppose that the original text
is remotely accurately translated "though worms destroy this body."

Heidi Graw

unread,

Jan 25, 2006, 6:35:49 PM1/25/06

to

>"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message

>news:43D805...@worldnet.att.net...
(snip)

>Peter wrote:
> So if I had simply said, I trust you're familiar with Job NN:NN,

Since I haven't committed the whole of the Bible to memory, I would have
looked it up. Then I would have asked you, "So? What about it?"

Heidi

António Marques

unread,

Jan 25, 2006, 6:20:06 PM1/25/06

to

Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> So if I had simply said, I trust you're familiar with Job NN:NN, you
> would have immediately recognized the passage I was referring to? And
> not veered into a discussion of musical esthetics?
>
> Whether the words are "true" is also utterly beside the point. The
> point is that there is no particular reason to suppose that the
> original text is remotely accurately translated "though worms destroy
> this body."

Even after this, I doubt she'll understand that what you are pointing
out is that, no matter the cultural worth of the KJB, some passages are
so removed from the original that she won't be able to locate it.

Brian M. Scott

unread,

Jan 25, 2006, 7:00:45 PM1/25/06

to

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 21:46:56 +0000, António Marques
<m....@sapo.pt> wrote in
<news:43d7f1e2$0$1813$a729...@news.telepac.pt> in sci.lang:

[...]

> As they say over here 'Is it for this that one rears their young!?' (The
> reared one in question, in this case, would be Peter. Is there any
> similar saying in english? It's similar in intent to 'I did ... and all
> I got was this lousy ...' but stronger.)

I can't think of any standard expression for that idea.

Brian

Heidi Graw

unread,

Jan 25, 2006, 7:07:04 PM1/25/06

to

>"António Marques" <m....@sapo.pt> wrote in message
>news:43d80739$0$19167$a729...@news.telepac.pt...
(snip)

>>Peter wrote:
>> Whether the words are "true" is also utterly beside the point. The
>> point is that there is no particular reason to suppose that the
>> original text is remotely accurately translated "though worms destroy
>> this body."

>Antonio wrote: Even after this, I doubt she'll understand that what you are

>pointing
> out is that, no matter the cultural worth of the KJB, some passages are
> so removed from the original that she won't be able to locate it.

...unless someone else points it out.

So, give me an example: Point to a biblical verse in theKJV that you
believe is so removed from the original. Provide what you believe is the
original. I'll make a note of it.

Heidi

Jim Heckman

unread,

Jan 25, 2006, 9:50:44 PM1/25/06

to

On 25-Jan-2006, "John Atkinson" <john...@bigpond.com>
wrote in message <nyHBf.226582$V7.3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>:

> "Jim Heckman" <wnzrfe...@lnubb.pbz.invalid> wrote...
> >
> > "John Atkinson" <john...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > John Atkinson <john...@bigpond.com> wrote...
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> >> Most other languages prefer "Down's". Portuguese "sindrome de Down",
>
> > [...]

> >
> >> The Finnish and Turkish I gave undoubtedly have the translation of
> >> "syndrome" in a non-nominitive case too.
> >

> > No, the Finnish is nominative, but you misspelled it rather badly.
> > It should be "Downin oireyhtymä"; the latter word is a compound
> > "oire+yhtymä" whose parts mean roughly 'symptom+group' (surprise!).
> >
> > I'm pretty sure Turkish "Down sendromu" is nominative, too. If I'm
> > right, the -u is a possessive suffix marking "sendrom" as being
> > governed by "Down".
>
> If so, it corresponds to English "Down's syndrome", as opposed to "Down
> syndrome", no? So we should move it out of the group of languages whose
> normal term doesn't involve a possessive.

Not really. Turkish uses that suffix on the head of both 'general'
and 'specific' (there may be better or more traditional terms for
these) possessive NPs. So if I were to translate "Down's syndrome"
I'd go with <Downun sendromu> with Down in the genitive. Of course
Turkish 'general' vs. 'specific' doesn't correspond exactly to
English apposition vs. possession, but it's the closest I can think
of. (I hope Yusuf, Aslan or Nigel will correct me if I've got this
substantially wrong...)

On the other hand, I'm having a hard time thinking of a way to
distinguish "Down syndrome" from "Down's syndrome" in Finnish.
Certainly just juxtaposing "Down oireyhtymä" or "oireyhtymä Down"
feels very un-Finnish to me. Again, maybe one of our resident
native speakers or someone else better versed in Finnish than I am
will have more insight.

> So German (and more-often-than-not English) seem to be the only ones left
> in that group..

--
Jim Heckman

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Jan 26, 2006, 1:00:45 AM1/26/06

to

OK.

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Jan 26, 2006, 1:08:35 AM1/26/06

to

John Atkinson wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote...
>
> > Heidi Graw wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Franz Gnaedinger" <fr...@bluemail.ch> wrote...
>
> >> > Mongoloids are usually very nice people, delightful, easily
> >> > delighted and pleased, "happy when they get a dish with
> >> > a gold rim" my mother explained to me when I was a boy,
> >> > agreeable, good mediators, and yet utter fools when it
> >> > comes to our school system.
> >>
> >> Foolish, but wise. ;-)
> >>
> >> Franz, have you ever actually talked with someone who has Down's
> >> Syndrome?
> >>
> >> I have through my association with Special Olympics. They constantly
> >> surprise me with their keen observations. More than a few of these
> >> people
> >> think that "normal" people are foolish and that they do all too many dumb
> >> things. I can't help but agree with them. Some of the dumbest people
> >> I've
> >> known in my life were those with exceptionally high IQ's! ;-)
> >
> > So maybe you'll reconsider taking advice from someone who calls them
> > "Mongoloids"?
> >
> > And it's Down Syndrome
>
> It's either in English. However in Google "Down" wins 4 to 1 over "Down's".
>
> Most other languages prefer "Down's". Portuguese "sindrome de Down", French
> "syndrome de Down", Czech "Downova syndromu", Danish and Swedish "Downs
> syndrom", Finnish "Downin oirevyheyma"", Icelandic "Downs-helkenni", Italian
> "sindrome di Down", Dutch "Down's syndroom", Slovakian "Downovho syndro'mu"
>
> OTOH, German has "Down-Syndrom" and Turkish "Down sendromu" (I think)
>
> Spanish has "sindrome de Down" in Spain and Latin America, but "sindrome
> Down" in Puerto Rico (due to US influence?).
>
> > -- Mr. Down didn't have it.
>
> No, but Dr. J L Down first described the characteristic features of
> Trisomy-21.
>
> Just as Isaac Newton didn't have Newton's Laws, he just thought of them.
> No one insists that they should be "Newton Laws".

incidentally, here is a link with the syndrome in various languages:

http://www.siblings.it/english/link/

what is interesting is that the Brits, in opposition to the rest of the
English-speaking world, have "Down's Syndrome":

http://www.43green.freeserve.co.uk/uk_downs_syndrome/ukdsinfo.html

to add to the confusion "Down Syndrome" is also occasionally used by
the website.

>
> And, although Dr Alois Alzheimer didn't have his disease, nearly everyone
> calls it "Alzheimer's disease". The form "Alzheimer disease" does occur, but
> it's rare. Why? People with Alzheimer's are hardly better off than those
> with Down.
>
> Perhaps weird PC rationalizations based on phoney grammatical arguments are
> more characteristic of conditions mainly affecting children than of
> conditions mainly occuring in the elderly?
>
> John.

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Jan 26, 2006, 1:13:30 AM1/26/06

to

Yusuf B Gursey wrote:

> incidentally, here is a link with the syndrome in various languages:
>
> http://www.siblings.it/english/link/
>
> what is interesting is that the Brits, in opposition to the rest of the
> English-speaking world, have "Down's Syndrome":
>
> http://www.43green.freeserve.co.uk/uk_downs_syndrome/ukdsinfo.html
>
> to add to the confusion "Down Syndrome" is also occasionally used by
> the website.

Down's Syndrome Association
This is the main British organisation for DS.

but:

Down Syndrome Educational Trust/ Sarah Duffen Centre
The Down Syndrome Educational Trust (DownsEd) (formerly known as the
Portsmouth Down Syndrome Trust)

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Jan 26, 2006, 1:19:36 AM1/26/06

to

Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:

> >
> > > -- Mr. Down didn't have it.
> >
> > No, but Dr. J L Down first described the characteristic features of
> > Trisomy-21.
> >
> > Just as Isaac Newton didn't have Newton's Laws, he just thought of them.
> > No one insists that they should be "Newton Laws".
>
> incidentally, here is a link with the syndrome in various languages:
>
> http://www.siblings.it/english/link/
>
> what is interesting is that the Brits, in opposition to the rest of the
> English-speaking world, have "Down's Syndrome":
>
> http://www.43green.freeserve.co.uk/uk_downs_syndrome/ukdsinfo.html
>

incl. Scotland:

Down's Syndrome Scotland
Scotland is covered by its own association. You will find more info
about what they offer on their web site.

Down's Syndrome Scotland
158-/160 Balgreen Road
Edinburgh

Franz Gnaedinger

unread,

Jan 26, 2006, 2:12:11 AM1/26/06

to

> ...unless someone else points it out.
>
> So, give me an example: Point to a biblical verse in theKJV that you
> believe is so removed from the original. Provide what you believe is the
> original. I'll make a note of it.
>
> Heidi

The original of the Bible was written in Aramaic, there are no
vowels, just consonants. An example in English: n th wtr.
How do you read this? There are two possibilities: in the water,
on the water. A similar thing occured when the lost originals
of the Gospels were translated into Greek. An Aramaic word
consisting of one single consonant - just now I don't remember
which one - can be linked with two vowels, and then means
either toward, or on. Jesus walked toward the lake, Jesus
walked on the lake. The second version is more appealing
and mysterious, and voilà, there was another wonder ...

;-) Franz Gnaedinger www.seshat.ch

John Atkinson

unread,

Jan 26, 2006, 2:34:57 AM1/26/06

to

"Heidi Graw" <heid...@shaw.ca> wrote...

>
>>"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote...

>>> Franz Gnaedinger wrote:

>> [...] God could have
>>> created the world at once, but no, God created the world step
>>> by step, the very idea of evolution, and since a second is a year
>>> for God, and a day an eon, the six days of creation cover the four
>>> and a half million years of our planet, and the some twelve million
>>> years of the universe ...
>
> (snip)
>
>> Peter wrote:
>> Your astrophysics is off by a factor of more than a thousand. The planet
>> is some 4.5 billion years old, and the universe over 14 billion
>> (American billions).
>
> Peter, Franz made an error in translating Milliarden into million.
> Milliarden is a thousand million. It's a common enough error for German
> speaking people to make. I, however, being aware of this, knew that the
> 4.5 million Franz was talking about is actually those 4.5 billion.

No, Franz did actually mean a million, more or less. He said "a second is a
year for God". Now there are 31 536 000 seconds in a year, so, to God, 6
days is 31 536 000*6/365 = 518 thousand years, which is actually only about
half a million.

John.

Franz Gnaedinger

unread,

Jan 26, 2006, 2:48:26 AM1/26/06

to

Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> (BTW this may be the first time I've ever read all the way to the bottom
> of a posting of Franz's.)

> --
> Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net

So you got my question whether quack etymology hints
at word building. Meanwhile I consider both mechanisms
identical. Words form around memes which hold meanings
on various orbits. Allow me a cosmic metaphor. A solar
system may be compared with a word. The sun would be
like a meme, and the planets, asteroids and gas clouds
revolving around the sun would represent various meanings
of the same word. Our sun has a couple of regular planets,
plus an irregular one, Pluto, escapee from another solar
system, captured by the gravity of our sun.

Please consider a case of the German Schreibreform.
The word Quentchen comes from Latin quintus, one fifth
of a measure of grain, a relatively small quantity. Now
the top linguists of German speaking countries, well paid
scholars, responsible for the Schreibreform, wrongly link
the word to Latin quantum and impose their official quack
etymology on everybody by the force of the law.

Quentchen, once belonging to quintus, does now officially
belong to quantum, and must be written Quäntchen. This
reminds me of Pluto, the irregular planet in our solar system,
once belonging to another sun, now revolving around our sun.

How many examples of official quack etymology are inscribed
into our languages? Can we really discern good etymology
from quack etymology? The same gravity attracts both regular
and irregular planets ...

Regards Franz Gnaedinger www.seshat.ch

PS. Of course I meant French / American billions
(1,000,000,000) and not millions (1,000,000)

PPS. Do I really sound like someone in his 80s?
Well, if this lends my voice more authority I don't mind

John Atkinson

unread,

Jan 26, 2006, 2:52:14 AM1/26/06

to

"António Marques" <m....@sapo.pt> wrote in message

news:43d7f119$0$1813$a729...@news.telepac.pt...

> John Atkinson wrote:
>
>> Most other languages prefer "Down's". Portuguese "sindrome de Down"
>
> Portuguese usually does that. There is no other grammatical way to
> associate the words without turning one into a derivate.
> For some stuff you can use 'a' - _a pilhas_ 'battery powered' but it's
> not very productive.

I presume that it's the same for Spanish. That is, the Puertorican
"sindrome Down" is not really grammatical -- probably calqued from American
English by someone who didn't want to think too hard.

John.

Ruud Harmsen

unread,

Jan 26, 2006, 2:43:29 AM1/26/06

to

25 Jan 2006 23:12:11 -0800: "Franz Gnaedinger" <fr...@bluemail.ch>: in
sci.lang:

>The original of the Bible was written in Aramaic,

Parts, but most in Hebrew, of Greek in the case of the New Testament.

>there are no vowels, just consonants. An example in English: n th wtr.

But note that in Arabic, and probably similarly in Hebrew, initial
vowels ARE indicated (just not which vowel it is, but its presence can
be seen), and that long vowels are indicated too. That makes examples
in a language like English difficult to get accurate.

>How do you read this? There are two possibilities: in the water,
>on the water. A similar thing occured when the lost originals
>of the Gospels were translated into Greek. An Aramaic word
>consisting of one single consonant - just now I don't remember
>which one - can be linked with two vowels, and then means
>either toward, or on. Jesus walked toward the lake, Jesus
>walked on the lake. The second version is more appealing
>and mysterious, and voilà, there was another wonder ...

--
Ruud Harmsen - http://rudhar.com

Franz Gnaedinger

unread,

Jan 26, 2006, 2:58:11 AM1/26/06

to

John Atkinson wrote:

> No, Franz did actually mean a million, more or less. He said "a second is a
> year for God". Now there are 31 536 000 seconds in a year, so, to God, 6
> days is 31 536 000*6/365 = 518 thousand years, which is actually only about
> half a million.
>
> John.

You are implying that God is thinking in linear ways,
ergo the relation one second / one year must hold in
the case one year / one eon, and thus you get an eon
of roughly half a million years. Please take notice that
linear thinking fails when understanding the cosmos.
God is obvioulsy preferring non-linear dynamics.

;-) Franz Gnaedinger

Heidi Graw

unread,

Jan 26, 2006, 3:41:06 AM1/26/06

to

>"Franz Gnaedinger" <fr...@bluemail.ch> wrote in message
>news:1138259531.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

>> ...unless someone else points it out.
>
>> So, give me an example: Point to a biblical verse in theKJV that you
>> believe is so removed from the original. Provide what you believe is the
>> original. I'll make a note of it.
>
>> Heidi

>Franz wrote:
>The original of the Bible was written in Aramaic, there are no
>vowels, just consonants. An example in English: n th wtr.
>How do you read this? There are two possibilities: in the water,
>on the water.

LOL...

>A similar thing occured when the lost originals
>of the Gospels were translated into Greek. An Aramaic word
>consisting of one single consonant - just now I don't remember
>which one - can be linked with two vowels, and then means
>either toward, or on. Jesus walked toward the lake, Jesus
>walked on the lake. The second version is more appealing
>and mysterious, and voilà, there was another wonder ...

Oh, oh...Franz, maybe you're not remembering correctly. One consonant is
involved. But, take a look at this on-line English/Aramaic dictionary.

http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/searching/engoutlex.html

A search for "on" brings up )gb

A search for "towards" brings up gb

The difference between "on" and "towards" is that one )

When documents are handwritten it is very common to make mistakes when they
are being recopied by hand. So, if the original had merely gb, but later
someone wrote )gb, that could account for the difference.

The biblical verse in question:

Matt:14:25 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them,
walking on the sea.

The following is a site that will bring up the original Aramaic.
Unfortunately, my computer refuses to accept the document I wanted to take a
look at.

http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/friendsearch/aramaic-dictionary.html

Click on "Matti/Matthew". Will your computer accept this document? If so,
can you post the relevant verse here so I can look at it?

Thanks,

Heidi

Heidi Graw

unread,

Jan 26, 2006, 3:46:30 AM1/26/06

to

>"John Atkinson" <john...@bigpond.com> wrote in message

>news:BY_Bf.227415$V7.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
(snip)

>>Heidi wrote:
>> Peter, Franz made an error in translating Milliarden into million.
>> Milliarden is a thousand million. It's a common enough error for German
>> speaking people to make. I, however, being aware of this, knew that the
>> 4.5 million Franz was talking about is actually those 4.5 billion.

> John wrote:
> No, Franz did actually mean a million, more or less. He said "a second is
> a year for God". Now there are 31 536 000 seconds in a year, so, to God,
> 6 days is 31 536 000*6/365 = 518 thousand years, which is actually only
> about half a million.

Why did you skip Franz's comment:

"the six days of creation cover the four
and a half million years of our planet, and the some twelve million
years of the universe ... "

He did mention 4.5 million years. I knew he meant 4.5 billion.

Heidi

>
> John.
>
>

John Atkinson

unread,

Jan 26, 2006, 3:47:55 AM1/26/06

to

"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote ...

> John Atkinson wrote:
>
>> >> >> Most other languages prefer "Down's".

[snip]

>> If so, it corresponds to English "Down's syndrome", as opposed to "Down
>> syndrome", no? So we should move it out of the group of languages whose
>> normal term doesn't involve a possessive.
>>

>> So German (and more-often-than-not English) seem to be the only ones left
>> in
>> that group..
>

> I really don't see what the usage in _any_ other language has to do with
> the correct form in English.

Why do you maintain that there's a single "correct form" in English?
Certainly the rationalisation someone gave before, that "Down's" is wrong
because Dr Down didn't have the condition himself, is nonsensical.

From an article on Alois Alzheimer:

"Alzheimer's baskets
Condensed clumps of filaments between the nerve cells seen in advanced cases
of Alzheimer's disease.

Alzheimer's disease
The most common cause of presenile dementia, Alzheimer's disease is a
chronic, progressive organic, mental disease due to atrophy of the frontal
and occipital lobes.

Alzheimer's sclerosis
Degeneration of the middle and smaller cerebral blood vessels at a cellular
level.

Alzheimer's stain
A staining method for the detection of Negri bodies, a definitive indicator
of rabies.

Pick's disease (Arnold Pick)
A rare and fatal degenerative disease of the nervous system. Clinically
there are major overlaps with Alzheimer's presenile dementia."

Alzheimer suffered from none of these conditions. His death at the age of
51 was the result of cardiac failure following endocarditis.

My mother suffered from Parkinson's disease. My nephew has Crohn's
disease. A friend of mine died of Hodgkin's lymphoma. Woodie Guthrie had
Huntington's disease. (Did he catch it from Henry Huntington?) And then
there's Kaposi's sarcoma, Reye's syndrome, Asherman's syndrome, Hansen's
disease (leprosy), Behçet's syndrome, Wilson's disease, Sjögren's
syndrome, and dozens of others, all named after people who researched them,
and all spelled with <'s>.

The only disease I can think of that's named someone who had it is Lou
Gehrig's disease ( amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), though no doubt there
are others.

John.

Heidi Graw

unread,

Jan 26, 2006, 4:10:48 AM1/26/06

to

>"Franz Gnaedinger" <fr...@bluemail.ch> wrote in message

>news:1138261706.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>>Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>>(BTW this may be the first time I've ever read all the way to the bottom
>>of a posting of Franz's.)
>> --
>> Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net

>Franz wrote:
>So you got my question whether quack etymology hints
>at word building. Meanwhile I consider both mechanisms
>identical. Words form around memes which hold meanings
>on various orbits. Allow me a cosmic metaphor. A solar
>system may be compared with a word. The sun would be
>like a meme, and the planets, asteroids and gas clouds
>revolving around the sun would represent various meanings
>of the same word. Our sun has a couple of regular planets,
>plus an irregular one, Pluto, escapee from another solar
>system, captured by the gravity of our sun.

Ah...good! I was hoping you would mention the solar system. I was going to
suggest a particular super nova, but I couldn't find a proper picture to
post here. So, I held off mentioning anything about space or the great
cosmos. ;-)

The Norse Creation story comes awfully close with it's mention of combining
fire and ice creating a deep fog from which the worlds came to be.

>Please consider a case of the German Schreibreform.
>The word Quentchen comes from Latin quintus, one fifth
>of a measure of grain, a relatively small quantity. Now
>the top linguists of German speaking countries, well paid
>scholars, responsible for the Schreibreform, wrongly link
>the word to Latin quantum and impose their official quack
>etymology on everybody by the force of the law.

Woah! The body politic! Good example of what I mentioned earlier about
linguists having to bear in mind the socio/political climate of the day.

>Quentchen, once belonging to quintus, does now officially
>belong to quantum, and must be written Quäntchen. This
>reminds me of Pluto, the irregular planet in our solar system,
>once belonging to another sun, now revolving around our sun.

>How many examples of official quack etymology are inscribed
>into our languages? Can we really discern good etymology
>from quack etymology?

Good questions to raise.

>The same gravity attracts both regular
>and irregular planets ...

>Regards Franz Gnaedinger www.seshat.ch

>PS. Of course I meant French / American billions
>(1,000,000,000) and not millions (1,000,000)

>PPS. Do I really sound like someone in his 80s?
>Well, if this lends my voice more authority I don't mind

Well, just think: the senile one (you) and the idiotic fool (me) are
engaged in a really productive and interesting discussion. We, at least,
can understand each other! We know what we're talking about! Neither one
of us has any influence. Nobody cares what we say. So, what's to worry
about? ;-)

Heidi

Ekkehard Dengler

unread,

Jan 26, 2006, 4:20:23 AM1/26/06

to

Richard Herring schrieb:
> Ekkehard Dengler writes:
> >
> >Peter T. Daniels schrieb:
> >
> >> No, the (British) English for Milliard is ... milliard!
>
> I think the only place I've ever seen it used is in translations of
> Jules Verne.
> >
> >No, the British English word for "Milliarde" is "billion".
> >
> No, it's best avoided, since it provokes this kind of argument.
> "Thousand million" (or, for scientists, "tentothenine") is at least
> unambiguous.

Most people are happy to take the risk, though, or else "China has a
population of 1.3 billion" wouldn't be more usual than "China has a
population of 1300 million".

Regards,
Ekkehard

John Atkinson

unread,

Jan 26, 2006, 4:39:47 AM1/26/06

to

"Franz Gnaedinger" <fr...@bluemail.ch> wrote...

>
> John Atkinson wrote:
>
>> No, Franz did actually mean a million, more or less. He said "a second
>> is a
>> year for God". Now there are 31 536 000 seconds in a year, so, to God, 6
>> days is 31 536 000*6/365 = 518 thousand years, which is actually only
>> about
>> half a million.
>

> You are implying that God is thinking in linear ways,
> ergo the relation one second / one year must hold in
> the case one year / one eon, and thus you get an eon
> of roughly half a million years.

No I don't. Six days corresponds to half a million years. Thus if a year
corresponds to an eon, then an eon is about 30 million years. Still a bit
short though. The last eon, the Phanerazoic, has lasted 540 million years
so far. The Proterozoic Eon lasted 1.95 billion years. The Archeozoic Eon
lasted 1.4 billion years. And the Hadean Eon lasted 0.7 billion years.

> Please take notice that
> linear thinking fails when understanding the cosmos.
> God is obvioulsy preferring non-linear dynamics.

In that case, I guess we could plot the data you've provided on a log-log
scale and curve-fit it, and then we'd all understand God to a fair degree of
approximation. But maybe you could post the non-linear function involved
here, the one you used to derive the figures you gave, and save us the
trouble. I heard a day or two ago that they reckon the speed of light has
slowed down substantially since the universe started up. It makes sense
that the same function would be involved, no?

John.

Richard Herring

unread,

Jan 26, 2006, 4:59:35 AM1/26/06

to

In message <100ql9m1xn3e3$.7ovmqk9zmmkv$.d...@40tude.net>, Brian M. Scott
<b.s...@csuohio.edu> writes
>On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:41:28 +0000, Richard Herring
><junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in sci.lang:
>
>[...]

>
>> "Thousand million" (or, for scientists, "tentothenine") is at least
>> unambiguous.
>

>I initially read that as [,tEnt@U'TEnin]!
>
You must have been a chemist in a former life ;-)

--
Richard Herring

Toni Keskitalo

unread,

Jan 26, 2006, 6:08:03 AM1/26/06

to

"John Atkinson" <john...@bigpond.com> writes:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote...

>[snip: Down's Syndrome or Down Syndrome]

>> And it's Down Syndrome
>
> It's either in English. However in Google "Down" wins 4 to 1 over "Down's".
>
> Most other languages prefer "Down's". Portuguese "sindrome de Down", French
> "syndrome de Down", Czech "Downova syndromu", Danish and Swedish "Downs
> syndrom", Finnish "Downin oirevyheyma"", Icelandic "Downs-helkenni", Italian
> "sindrome di Down", Dutch "Down's syndroom", Slovakian "Downovho syndro'mu"

> OTOH, German has "Down-Syndrom" and Turkish "Down sendromu" (I think)

[s]

Small correction: Finnish should be "Downin oireyhtymä" but the loanword
(and, in deed, a Fremdwort) "syndrooma" is also used. The children
affected by the syndrome can be called "Down-lapsi".

As is well known, the Finnish genitive can denote also origin. So we
also have "Alzheimerin tauti" and "Newtonin lait".

Toni
--
# NB! You should replace ".invalid" with ".fi" when e-mailing me #

"Jos aivastan, koko seinä kaikuu." (Tommi Liimatta)

jayne.ku...@gmail.com

unread,

Jan 26, 2006, 7:24:19 AM1/26/06

to

Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
> > ...unless someone else points it out.
> >
> > So, give me an example: Point to a biblical verse in theKJV that you
> > believe is so removed from the original. Provide what you believe is the
> > original. I'll make a note of it.
> >
> > Heidi
>
> The original of the Bible was written in Aramaic, there are no
> vowels, just consonants.

Most was written in Hebrew, not Aramaic.

> An example in English: n th wtr.
> How do you read this? There are two possibilities: in the water,
> on the water. A similar thing occured when the lost originals
> of the Gospels were translated into Greek.

[...]

The most common theory of how the Gospels were written is that Mark was
written first (in Koine Greek) and an unknown source, Q. Matthew and
Luke were written (also in Koine) drawing on these two sources and oral
traditions. John was written later and had all the previous sources
available with the addition of the theological reflection of the
author. There is no evidence of "lost originals", unless you are
thinking of Q and I haven't heard anyone claim that it was in Aramaic.
It is possible some of the oral traditions were in Aramaic, but it
doesn't make sense to call this "lost originals".

Jayne

izzy

unread,

Jan 26, 2006, 9:07:29 AM1/26/06

to

>> ... the "extraneous" or non-standard meaning is simply a foreign word or phrase borrowed into English and re-spelled to look like common English words. Unlike "bon appetit" and "Gesundheit", the result has the look-and-feel of native English and the foreign origin is not obvious. /s/ izzy <<

> If you could concentrate on one single case you would make it easier for me to follow. I didn't expect such an avalanche of replies, and must concentrate myself on a few messages and cases. /s/ Franz Gnaedinger <

There are 2 major types of English idioms and at least two sub-types of
each. As a general rule, semantics is more important than phonetics
when analyzing this phenomena.

Type 1: The transliteration of a foreign word/phrase directly into
common English words.

Type 1a: The source is "plain text". Examples: raining cats and dogs,
face the music, an axe to grind.

Type 1b: The source is a metaphor or euphemism. Example: kick the
bucket.

Type 2: The ordinary translation of a foreign idiom into English.
Transliteration occurred into a foreign lang.

Type 2a: Foreign language-1 source + transliteration => foreign
language-1 target + translation to English.
Examples:
by the skin of my teeth (Job 19:20), pillar of salt
(Gen. 19:26)

Type 2b: Foreign language-1 source + transliteration => foreign
language-2 target + translation to English
Examples:
Heb/Aramaic @atSiL= noble + translit. => Latin sal +
translat. => Gk hals/Eng salt => salt of the earth (Matthew 5:13)
Latin Saccharomyces cerevisae = brewer's yeast +
translit. => Heb Sa3aR MiNSHakh KeLeV = hair bite dog =>
hair of the dog that bit you (hangover
remedy)
Latin sopor sond = sleep soundly/deeply + translit. =>
Hebrew S'PoR TSo@N + translation => count sheep!

Best regards,
Israel "izzy" Cohen
BPMaps moderator
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BPMaps/

Peter T. Daniels

unread,

Jan 26, 2006, 9:23:37 AM1/26/06

to

John Atkinson wrote:
>
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote ...
>
> > John Atkinson wrote:
> >
> >> >> >> Most other languages prefer "Down's".
>
> [snip]
>
> >> If so, it corresponds to English "Down's syndrome", as opposed to "Down
> >> syndrome", no? So we should move it out of the group of languages whose
> >> normal term doesn't involve a possessive.
> >>
> >> So German (and more-often-than-not English) seem to be the only ones left
> >> in
> >> that group..
> >
> > I really don't see what the usage in _any_ other language has to do with
> > the correct form in English.
>
> Why do you maintain that there's a single "correct form" in English?

Because medical conditions are named with technical terms, which are
either right or wrong. The nontechnical term was indeed "Mongoloid
idiot." I would have hoped that no one younger than me would ever have
heard it, but now it turns out they use it in Switzerland all the time.

Good, gray, Nazi-money-sheltering Switzerland.

Peter T. Daniels

unread,

Jan 26, 2006, 9:26:06 AM1/26/06

to

Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>
> 25 Jan 2006 23:12:11 -0800: "Franz Gnaedinger" <fr...@bluemail.ch>: in
> sci.lang:
>
> >The original of the Bible was written in Aramaic,
>
> Parts, but most in Hebrew, of Greek in the case of the New Testament.
>
> >there are no vowels, just consonants. An example in English: n th wtr.
>
> But note that in Arabic, and probably similarly in Hebrew, initial
> vowels ARE indicated (just not which vowel it is, but its presence can
> be seen),

There are no initial vowels in Arabic. Or in Biblical Hebrew. (In Modern
Hebrew, with no phonemic glottal stop, initial vowels do occur.)

Peter T. Daniels

unread,

Jan 26, 2006, 9:32:55 AM1/26/06

to

Heidi Graw wrote:
>
> >"Franz Gnaedinger" <fr...@bluemail.ch> wrote in message
> >news:1138259531.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> ...unless someone else points it out.
> >
> >> So, give me an example: Point to a biblical verse in theKJV that you
> >> believe is so removed from the original. Provide what you believe is the
> >> original. I'll make a note of it.
> >
> >> Heidi
>
> >Franz wrote:
> >The original of the Bible was written in Aramaic, there are no
> >vowels, just consonants. An example in English: n th wtr.
> >How do you read this? There are two possibilities: in the water,
> >on the water.
>
> LOL...

Jesus Christ. What hath Franz wrought.

> >A similar thing occured when the lost originals
> >of the Gospels were translated into Greek. An Aramaic word
> >consisting of one single consonant - just now I don't remember
> >which one - can be linked with two vowels, and then means
> >either toward, or on. Jesus walked toward the lake, Jesus
> >walked on the lake. The second version is more appealing
> >and mysterious, and voilà, there was another wonder ...
>
> Oh, oh...Franz, maybe you're not remembering correctly. One consonant is
> involved. But, take a look at this on-line English/Aramaic dictionary.
>
> http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/searching/engoutlex.html
>
> A search for "on" brings up )gb
>
> A search for "towards" brings up gb
>
> The difference between "on" and "towards" is that one )

Except that you have it backwards. The first letter is the preposition
b-.

Never mind that looking up prepositions in such glossaries brings
nothing but disaster -- see Dennis Pardee's Chicago dissertation on the
Ugaritic prepositions, which was published in two installments in
Ugarit-Forschungen in the mid 1970s.

> When documents are handwritten it is very common to make mistakes when they
> are being recopied by hand. So, if the original had merely gb, but later
> someone wrote )gb, that could account for the difference.

Heidi, please shut up. You don't have the SLIGHTEST idea what you're
talking about, and you have just proven that in fact you know absolutely
nothing about Semitic languages.

> The biblical verse in question:
>
> Matt:14:25 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them,
> walking on the sea.
>
> The following is a site that will bring up the original Aramaic.

There is no "original Aramaic." Perhaps you're trying to access a Syriac
version.

> Unfortunately, my computer refuses to accept the document I wanted to take a
> look at.
>
> http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/friendsearch/aramaic-dictionary.html
>
> Click on "Matti/Matthew". Will your computer accept this document? If so,
> can you post the relevant verse here so I can look at it?

What good would it do you? I could look it up in the Peshitta, and type
a transliteration (with the correct order of letters!), and what would
you get from it?

Peter T. Daniels

unread,

Jan 26, 2006, 9:34:48 AM1/26/06

to

Heidi Graw wrote:
>
> >"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >news:43D805...@worldnet.att.net...
> (snip)
>
> >Peter wrote:
> > So if I had simply said, I trust you're familiar with Job NN:NN,
>
> Since I haven't committed the whole of the Bible to memory, I would have
> looked it up. Then I would have asked you, "So? What about it?"

I would have said, look it up in a dozen recent Bible versions. You
would not have found remotely the same wording (unless, of course, you
were looking at versions that took the KJV as their basis, rather than
returning to the Hebrew).

izzy

unread,

Jan 26, 2006, 11:41:30 AM1/26/06

to

> How many examples of official quack etymology are inscribed
> into our languages? Can we really discern good etymology

> from quack etymology? ... Franz Gnaedinger

>From a percentage viewpoint, there are not so many false
etymologies in our dictionaries. But ironically, a lot of
etymologies that are likely to be known by non-linguists
are simply ludicrous.

The three etymologies most likely-to-be-known by an
English speaker probably are:

1 - muscle from Latin musculus, a small mouse
2 - sabotage from Old French sabot = a shoe
3 - cabal from Hebrew Kabbalah = esoteric knowledge

1, Muscle is related to mass, massage, and Semitic MiSHKaL
= weight. If you lift weights, you will develop muscles. If you
have a lot of muscle, you can pull/lift a lot of weight. The only
connection to a small mouse is: a small mouse has small
muscles.

This mistake was probably influenced by the Greek homonym
pontiki = mouse; muscle. But the mousy meaning of pontiki is
derived from the phrase "mus Ponticus" = mouse from the
Pontus region (now in Turkey). It is also found in the ancient
name for the Black Sea: Pontus Euxinus.

The pons in pontiki is probably related to Latin pons, as in
a pontoon bridge. The tiki in that word is related to taxis,
to arrange. A muscle stretches from one bone to another
and determines the position of the connected structures.

2. The earliest meaning of sabotage was to stop work and
lay down one's tools. That is, to go on strike by treating a
workday as if it were the Sabbath. Sabotage is derived from
Semitic SHaBaT = the sabbath, the seventh day.

3. Cabal is from a Hebrew word, but it has nothing to do
with Kabbalah, literally, the received tradition. Cabal is related
to het-bet-lamed XaBaL = to plot, to scheme. The modern
Hebrew word for terrorist is based on this root.

Perhaps the most ridiculous standard etymology is the
one for procelain. It seems to be the etymological equivalent
of the Piltdown man. It has nothing to do with a porcine vulva.
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/ABOUT-WORDS/2004-03/1080382614

Heidi Graw

unread,

Jan 26, 2006, 11:47:25 AM1/26/06

to

>"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message

>news:43D8DD...@worldnet.att.net...
(snip)

>>Heidi wrote:
>> Unfortunately, my computer refuses to accept the document I wanted to
>> take a
>> look at.
>>
>> http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/friendsearch/aramaic-dictionary.html
>>
>> Click on "Matti/Matthew". Will your computer accept this document? If
>> so,
>> can you post the relevant verse here so I can look at it?

>Peter wrote:
> What good would it do you? I could look it up in the Peshitta, and type
> a transliteration (with the correct order of letters!), and what would
> you get from it?

I would get a version of that verse written in the Peshitta. I just want to
have a look at it. Do you mind?

Btw, if what Franz and I talk about upsets and annoys you, then put us into
your killfile. You demanding that I shut up is not going to work!

Heidi

Ekkehard Dengler

unread,

Jan 26, 2006, 11:58:13 AM1/26/06

to

Peter T. Daniels schrieb:

I doubt that, since English isn't one of the languages of Switzerland. In
any case, Franz never used the word "idiot" and his comment clearly wasn't
meant in a disparaging way.

You're obviously right in that the use of "mongoloid" in English is now
considered offensive, but I don't think you're in much of a position to
ridicule its use in the varieties of German spoken in Switzerland.

Let me add that if you really feel strongly about derogatory epithets, the
logical thing to do would be to stop calling people things like "idiot",
"twit", "bitch" etc.

Regards,
Ekkehard

Brian M. Scott

unread,

Jan 26, 2006, 12:03:00 PM1/26/06

to

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:47:25 GMT, Heidi Graw
<heid...@shaw.ca> wrote in
<news:x27Cf.449654$ki.79254@pd7tw2no> in sci.lang:

>"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:43D8DD...@worldnet.att.net...
> (snip)

>>> Unfortunately, my computer refuses to accept the

>>> document I wanted to take a look at.

>>> http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/friendsearch/aramaic-dictionary.html

>>> Click on "Matti/Matthew". Will your computer accept
>>> this document? If so, can you post the relevant verse
>>> here so I can look at it?

Your directions are inadequate, as there is no such link on
the page brought up by that URL, the page with the title
'Aramaic Peshitta Bible Repository'. I suspect that you
mean the link that appears at the top of the list after one
clicks first on 'Aramaic NT Tools' and then on 'Original
Eastern Aramaic Peshitta New Testament'. This downloads a
31-page .doc file that requires an Aramaic font from the
font pack available on the same site. In order to read it,
you need only install the Aramaic font and make sure that
you have an application that can read .doc files; if you
don't have and don't want MS Word, OpenOffice.org is free
and works just fine.

[...]

Heidi Graw

unread,

Jan 26, 2006, 12:20:42 PM1/26/06

to

><jayne.ku...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1138278259.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
(snip)

>Jayne wrote:
> The most common theory of how the Gospels were written is that Mark was
> written first (in Koine Greek) and an unknown source, Q. Matthew and
> Luke were written (also in Koine) drawing on these two sources and oral
> traditions.

Yes, that's what seems to be the case.

>John was written later and had all the previous sources
> available with the addition of the theological reflection of the
> author. There is no evidence of "lost originals", unless you are
> thinking of Q and I haven't heard anyone claim that it was in Aramaic.
> It is possible some of the oral traditions were in Aramaic, but it
> doesn't make sense to call this "lost originals".

This is why I'm rather curious to see what the Aramaic version is claiming
about Jesus walking on or towards the water. It would have been translated
from another language into Aramaic.

Using the KJV, I switched the word "on" to "towards" for verses
Matt:14:25-30. It wouldn't make any sense whatsoever.

We'd end up with something like the following:

25. And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking
towards the sea.
26. And when the disciples saw him walking towards the sea, they were
troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out in fear.
27. But straigthway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is
I; be not afraid.
28. And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto
thee towards the water.
29. And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he
walked towards the water, to go to Jesus.
30. But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to
sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.

Sometimes, it's worthwhile to check out some of the claims made about false
translations. I'm wondering if this is done by people who desperately want
to take the miracles out of the Bible as an effort to render it less
ridiculous and more pallatable to the modern masses.

Oh well...can we agree that this "on" vs. "towards" contraversy can be put
to rest? That's it's "on the water" and *not* "towards the water?"

Heidi

Heidi Graw

unread,

Jan 26, 2006, 12:31:13 PM1/26/06

to

>"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in message
>news:kc9y2gvq54ih$.1mu0i1v4n4z4n.dlg@40tude.net...

>>>>Heidi wrote:
>>>> http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/friendsearch/aramaic-dictionary.html
>
>>>> Click on "Matti/Matthew". Will your computer accept
>>>> this document? If so, can you post the relevant verse
>>>> here so I can look at it?

> Brian wrote:
> Your directions are inadequate, as there is no such link on
> the page brought up by that URL, the page with the title
> 'Aramaic Peshitta Bible Repository'. I suspect that you
> mean the link that appears at the top of the list after one
> clicks first on 'Aramaic NT Tools' and then on 'Original
> Eastern Aramaic Peshitta New Testament'. This downloads a
> 31-page .doc file that requires an Aramaic font from the
> font pack available on the same site.

A good! You found it. ;-)

> In order to read it,
> you need only install the Aramaic font and make sure that
> you have an application that can read .doc files; if you
> don't have and don't want MS Word, OpenOffice.org is free
> and works just fine.

Thanks for the instructions, Brian. I'll give it a try.

Heidi

Peter T. Daniels

unread,

Jan 26, 2006, 1:04:23 PM1/26/06

to

Ekkehard Dengler wrote:

> Let me add that if you really feel strongly about derogatory epithets, the
> logical thing to do would be to stop calling people things like "idiot",
> "twit", "bitch" etc.

I don't think the dog community is offended when someone is called
"bitch"; I don't know the background of "twit," though I don't think
it's derived from any run-of-the-mill anthroponym; and "idiot" refers to
a particular level of inability to cope with mental complications that
makes it, in some contexts, quite appropriate.

Peter T. Daniels

unread,

Jan 26, 2006, 1:07:58 PM1/26/06

to

Heidi Graw wrote:

> Oh well...can we agree that this "on" vs. "towards" contraversy can be put
> to rest? That's it's "on the water" and *not* "towards the water?"

Who besides you (on the basis of lack of understanding of how to use a
bilingual dictionary) has engaged in such a "contr[o]versy"?