Got sea monsters?
Cathy Purchis-Jefferies
incidental wildlife, but who knows, if I get the right incidental
wildlife, maybe it will clue me in to what's going on in the year and
half dead space in the middle of my story.
I have a kid who's stowed away on a ship, and he's hoping to see some
kind of mythological sea creatures. Mermaids as a concept (the
half-woman/half-fish kind, not manatees) would work, but the name
mermaid doesn't seem right for this world. Can you folks give me names
of some mythological sea creatures? I'm basically looking just for names
right now, because I don't really think he's going to find any, but if
you could give me a 10-words-or-less description of any obscure ones,
just in case something does cause inspiration.
Also, does someone with an OED know the etymology of selkie? There are
selkies in my world, but they're dolphins, not seals, and I can't decide
what to call them.
--
"George" Cathy Purchis cat...@value.net
The Peregrine Hacker Interpretive Web sites
http://pwp.value.net/catpur/hacker.htm
slee...@gmx.co.uk
> I have a kid who's stowed away on a ship, and he's hoping to see some
> kind of mythological sea creatures. Mermaids as a concept (the
> half-woman/half-fish kind, not manatees) would work, but the name
> mermaid doesn't seem right for this world. Can you folks give me names
> of some mythological sea creatures?
'Nereid' refers to a variety of sea nymph, though I can't
remember at the moment whether they have tails. Their freshwater
counterparts are called 'naiads'. There's also 'siren', which has
a somewhat different connotation. I've seen 'triton', originally
the name of the son of some sea-god -- Poseidon? -- used to refer
to mermen in general.
As for other names: the hydra (a nine-headed water serpent), the
hippocampus (a part of the brain that moonlights as a horse with
a fish's tail; ridden by Neptune), and the kraken (a giant squid
or colossal octopus [I'm not making this up; google for 'colossal
octopus'] with a taste for boats) are all fairly traditional. The
sea monk (http://www.eaudrey.com/myth/images/seamonk.gif, because
I can't do it justice; later suspected to be a fanciful rendition
of a squid) is less so. You might try looking at various Jenny
Hanivers, and possibly Pliny. Actual extinct sharks and modern
deep-sea animals, many of which are surpassing strange, may also
be of use to you.
--Squid
Boudewijn Rempt
> I am probably cat vacuuming, since at the moment I'm just looking for
> incidental wildlife, but who knows, if I get the right incidental
> wildlife, maybe it will clue me in to what's going on in the year and
> half dead space in the middle of my story.
> I have a kid who's stowed away on a ship, and he's hoping to see some
> kind of mythological sea creatures. Mermaids as a concept (the
> half-woman/half-fish kind, not manatees) would work, but the name
> mermaid doesn't seem right for this world. Can you folks give me names
> of some mythological sea creatures? I'm basically looking just for names
> right now, because I don't really think he's going to find any, but if
> you could give me a 10-words-or-less description of any obscure ones,
> just in case something does cause inspiration.
Well, there's always the leviathan.
--
Boudewijn Rempt | http://www.valdyas.org
Irina Rempt
> Well, there's always the leviathan.
Now you mention it: I'm collecting versions of Psalm 103:26 in which
the leviathan is mentioned. This is the King James version:
There go the ships; there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to
play therein.
Up to now, about half the versions I've seen have the leviathan
playing, and the other half have God playing with the leviathan. I
don't know any Hebrew, and my Greek is thoroughly rusty, but the
Septuagint seems to have "that dragon, that you have made to play
with it" (but it might be "in it" for all I know; and yes, I know
that my English translation of the Greek is ambiguous, I intended it
that way).
I like the idea that God made the leviathan *for the leviathan's
enjoyment*.
Please, any of you who have a different bible handy than the King
James or the New International (which incidentally has "which you
formed to frolic there", could you tell me which one it is in yours?
If you have a Protestant bible, it's probably Psalm 104.
Wildly off-topic (though it might help me tangentially with some
moral issues in the WIP), but, um, thanks :-)
Irina
--
ir...@valdyas.org
http://www.valdyas.org/irina/index.html (English)
http://www.valdyas.org/irina/backpage.html (Nederlands)
Angie
news:5573581.C2pHGDlbCD@turenay...
> Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
>
> > Well, there's always the leviathan.
>
> Now you mention it: I'm collecting versions of Psalm 103:26 in which
> the leviathan is mentioned. This is the King James version:
>
> There go the ships; there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to
> play therein.
>
> Up to now, about half the versions I've seen have the leviathan
> playing, and the other half have God playing with the leviathan. I
> don't know any Hebrew, and my Greek is thoroughly rusty, but the
> Septuagint seems to have "that dragon, that you have made to play
> with it" (but it might be "in it" for all I know; and yes, I know
> that my English translation of the Greek is ambiguous, I intended it
> that way).
>
> I like the idea that God made the leviathan *for the leviathan's
> enjoyment*.
>
> Please, any of you who have a different bible handy than the King
> James or the New International (which incidentally has "which you
> formed to frolic there", could you tell me which one it is in yours?
> If you have a Protestant bible, it's probably Psalm 104.
>
> Wildly off-topic (though it might help me tangentially with some
> moral issues in the WIP), but, um, thanks :-)
>
My Darby has something similar to the King James:
Psalm 103v26
There go the ships; [there] that leviathan, which thou hast formed to play
therein.
Angie
Graham Edwards
> Also, does someone with an OED know the etymology of selkie?
Selkie (or silkie, selchie, sealchie and probably several other
spellings) is the diminutive of the Scottish 'selch', meaning 'seal'.
Derived, I think, from the English word 'seal'. In the west of
Scotland they're known as the 'roane', from the gaelic word 'ron'
(also meaning seal). In the Shetland Isles they're 'sea-trows'.
Richard Horton
wrote:
>Please, any of you who have a different bible handy than the King
>James or the New International (which incidentally has "which you
>formed to frolic there", could you tell me which one it is in yours?
>If you have a Protestant bible, it's probably Psalm 104.
Here's the New American Bible version (Catholic). It's Psalms 104:26:
"And where ships move about with Leviathan, which you formed to make
sport of it."
And the Revised English Bible (my favorite modern version) (also 104):
"Here ships sail to and from; here is Leviathan which you have made to
sport there."
I think in context the NAB also means for Leviathan to be doing the
sporting -- the "it" being the sea.
Incidentally, though both those quotes are from my own Bibles, there
is a nice site called the Bible Gateway, which allows lookups to a
number of different translations:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=english&version=NASB .
(Including a number of non-English translations.)
Unfortunately it doesn't have some important ones, like the REB and
NAB which I quoted. But it does have the KJV, NIV, and RSV.
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.tangentonline.com)
Anna Mazzoldi
Cathy Purchis-Jefferies <cat...@value.net> wrote:
> Also, does someone with an OED know the etymology of selkie? There are
> selkies in my world, but they're dolphins, not seals, and I can't decide
> what to call them.
The OED doesn't have "selkie", but it does have
sealchie, -kie (and lists "selkie" as one variant spelling)
What it says about it is [my note in square brackets]:
---- quote ----
dim. form of sealgh (seal n.1) [that is, "sealgh" is itself a
variant form of "seal"]
= seal n.1 Also, in folklore, a creature or spirit having the
appearance of a seal; spec. one able to assume human form.
---- end quote ----
So I'm afraid you're out of luck: not only it's etymologically
related to "seal", it is in fact the same thing...
Ciao,
Anna
--
Anna Mazzoldi writing from Dublin, Ireland
Current soundtrack: Baraban, _Il valzer dei disertori_;
De Andre', _1991 Concerti_; Guccini, _Amerigo_
Brenda W. Clough
> I am probably cat vacuuming, since at the moment I'm just looking for
> incidental wildlife, but who knows, if I get the right incidental
> wildlife, maybe it will clue me in to what's going on in the year and
> half dead space in the middle of my story.
>
> I have a kid who's stowed away on a ship, and he's hoping to see some
> kind of mythological sea creatures. Mermaids as a concept (the
> half-woman/half-fish kind, not manatees) would work, but the name
> mermaid doesn't seem right for this world. Can you folks give me names
> of some mythological sea creatures? I'm basically looking just for names
> right now, because I don't really think he's going to find any, but if
> you could give me a 10-words-or-less description of any obscure ones,
> just in case something does cause inspiration.
>
I have a weakness for the kraken, a giant squid. Consider the roots of any
mythical creature you choose; tritons and nereids are inevitably Greek, for
instance. Whereas something like the Great Sea Serpent (see THE VOYAGE OF
THE DAWN TREADER) is more generic.
Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough
Read my novella "May Be Some Time"
Complete at www.analogsf.com
My web page is at http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/
Charlie Stross
as <cat...@value.net> declared:
> I am probably cat vacuuming, since at the moment I'm just looking for
> incidental wildlife, but who knows, if I get the right incidental
> wildlife, maybe it will clue me in to what's going on in the year and
> half dead space in the middle of my story.
If you want sea monsters why not throw in a real one, just to have fun
with your readers? Megalodon only went extinct a couple of million years
ago and they're truly scary. (One marine biologist, on being asked if he'd
like to see one -- by a documentary crew -- smiled and said: "yeah. From
a big ship -- something like an aircraft carrier. Or a helicopter. But
not _too_ low.")
-- Charlie
Irina Rempt
> http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=english&version=NASB .
>
> (Including a number of non-English translations.)
I never even thought of looking online. I think it's because to my
mind, a Bible is something that people have. Even though I maintain a
church web page and a churches' council's web page and link to the
Online Bible there :-)
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
> Please, any of you who have a different bible handy than the King
> James or the New International (which incidentally has "which you
> formed to frolic there", could you tell me which one it is in yours?
> If you have a Protestant bible, it's probably Psalm 104.
My Revised Standard says, "There go the ships, and Leviathan which thou
didst form to sport in it."
The margin translation in my Septuagint says, "There go the ships, and
this dragon whom thou hast made to play in it."
My Greek functions aren't sufficiently online that I feel capable of
having a go at the translation myself, though I do think I see the
nuance that had you amused.
--
Heather Anne Nicoll - Darkhawk - http://aelfhame.net/~darkhawk/
When the day is long and the night, the night is yours alone
When you're sure you've had enough of this life. . . .
--REM, "Everybody Hurts"
Brooks Moses
> Now you mention it: I'm collecting versions of Psalm 103:26 in which
> the leviathan is mentioned. This is the King James version:
>
> There go the ships; there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to
> play therein.
>
> Up to now, about half the versions I've seen have the leviathan
> playing, and the other half have God playing with the leviathan. I
> don't know any Hebrew, and my Greek is thoroughly rusty, but the
> Septuagint seems to have "that dragon, that you have made to play
> with it" (but it might be "in it" for all I know; and yes, I know
> that my English translation of the Greek is ambiguous, I intended it
> that way).
Let's see ... so far, you've got KJV, Darby, New American, Revised
English, and Revised Standard quoted. Let's see what I've got....
The New International Version has "the leviathan, which you formed to
frolic there." The New English Bible has, "here is Leviathan whom thou
hast made thy plaything," with a footnote of "'thy plaything', or 'that
it may sport in it.'"
- Brooks
Brian M. Scott
[...]
>Also, does someone with an OED know the etymology of selkie?
OED2 s.v. <sealchie> says that it's a diminutive of <sealgh>
'seal'. The Old English is <seolh>, which explains the <gh>
in this and other spelling variants.
[...]
Brian
cd skogsberg
>Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
>> Well, there's always the leviathan.
>Now you mention it: I'm collecting versions of Psalm 103:26 in which
>the leviathan is mentioned. This is the King James version:
>There go the ships; there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to
>play therein.
[...]
>I like the idea that God made the leviathan *for the leviathan's
>enjoyment*.
>Please, any of you who have a different bible handy than the King
>James or the New International (which incidentally has "which you
>formed to frolic there", could you tell me which one it is in yours?
>If you have a Protestant bible, it's probably Psalm 104.
Modern "Official" Swedish translation:
"There the ships go, there is Leviathan, whom thou hast made for
tumbling[1] in the deeps."
Modern Swedish translation from "the people's bible":
"There the ships go, there plays Leviathan, whom thou hast made."
1917 Swedish translation:
"There the ships go their way, Leviathan, whom thou hast made to play
therein."
All translations by me, hence I can't promise exactitude.
/cd
[1]: or possibly "gamboling" or "frolicing"
--
Confidence: a feeling peculiar to the stage just before full
comprehension of the problem.
Tim S
> From: Irina Rempt <ir...@valdyas.org>
> Organization: Valdyas
> Reply-To: ir...@valdyas.org
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.composition
> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:34:37 +0100
> Subject: Re: Got sea monsters?
>
> Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
>
>> Well, there's always the leviathan.
>
> Now you mention it: I'm collecting versions of Psalm 103:26 in which
> the leviathan is mentioned. This is the King James version:
>
> There go the ships; there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to
> play therein.
>
> Up to now, about half the versions I've seen have the leviathan
> playing, and the other half have God playing with the leviathan. I
> don't know any Hebrew, and my Greek is thoroughly rusty, but the
> Septuagint seems to have "that dragon, that you have made to play
> with it" (but it might be "in it" for all I know; and yes, I know
> that my English translation of the Greek is ambiguous, I intended it
> that way).
>
> I like the idea that God made the leviathan *for the leviathan's
> enjoyment*.
>
> Please, any of you who have a different bible handy than the King
> James or the New International (which incidentally has "which you
> formed to frolic there", could you tell me which one it is in yours?
> If you have a Protestant bible, it's probably Psalm 104.
>
> Wildly off-topic (though it might help me tangentially with some
> moral issues in the WIP), but, um, thanks :-)
>
As far as I can make out from my very very meagre knowledge of Hebrew and
the aid of a dictionary, the Hebrew (Masoretic text) is ambiguous as to who
is doing the playing/jesting/sport, but I think it looks more like the
leviathan. The final prepositional phrase is 'in it', not 'with it', though.
It says something like 'Leviathan which thou hast formed/created to
sport/play/jest/dance/make merry in it.' So unless God is laughing at
leviathan (which seems improbable) it seems more likely that leviathan is
playing.
The translation I have has 'There is leviathan, whom thou hast formed to
sport therein.'
Tim
Randy Money
>
[...]
> I have a weakness for the kraken, a giant squid. Consider the roots of any
> mythical creature you choose; tritons and nereids are inevitably Greek, for
> instance. Whereas something like the Great Sea Serpent (see THE VOYAGE OF
> THE DAWN TREADER) is more generic.
>
> Brenda
Cecil?
Randy M.
Chad Ryan Thomas
> Unfortunately it doesn't have some important ones, like the REB and
> NAB which I quoted. But it does have the KJV, NIV, and RSV.
It probably doens't have several of the newer translations because they're
still under copyright. Technically, NIV and RSV are copyrighted, too, but
whoever owns the copyright is rather free with permissions.
Incidentally, the NASB--"New American Standard Bible"--is supposed to be one
of the worst translations in recent memory. I don't know how it relates to
the NAB you quoted, though.
****** Chad Ryan Thomas *********** crth...@asu.edu ******
/ "I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be\
\ content." -- St. Paul (Phil. 4:11, KJV) /
*********** http://www.public.asu.edu/~crthomas ***********
WooF
Always has been -- always will be -- just the one.
George H Scithers of owls...@netaxs.com
Neil
<BMS...@stratos.net> writes
>
>OED2 s.v. <sealchie> says that it's a diminutive of <sealgh>
>'seal'. The Old English is <seolh>, which explains the <gh>
>in this and other spelling variants.
I don't know how seriously to take the "Orkney & Shetland"
label, which may just be an autopilot reaction to the fact
that Scott uses it in The Pirate, but if it's genuine then
we're in Norn country, and deriving it from Old English with
no further comment isn't entirely satisfactory.
The specialist Scottish dictionaries may have something
useful: I'll see what I can find out.
Neil
Catja Pafort
[Psalm 103:26]
>There go the ships; there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to
>play therein.
> Please, any of you who have a different bible handy than the King
> James or the New International (which incidentally has "which you
> formed to frolic there", could you tell me which one it is in yours?
> If you have a Protestant bible, it's probably Psalm 104.
CIV 26. Not sure what, exactly, mine qualifies as...
"Yno yr a y llongau: _yno y mae_ y lefiathan, _yr hwn_ a luniaist i
chwarae ynddo."
I'll leave the translation to someone else!
Are you sorry you asked yet?
Catja
Source: Yr Bibl; inscribed 1896. AFAIK the translation is much older,
though. Interestingly enough; the inscription is in English...
Ok, it's somebody else's family bible, but I felt one should have *one*
bible in the house, and for the amount of reading I do, it doesn't
really matter what language it is. It just looked *very* lonely on that
shelf...
Wilson Heydt
Chad Ryan Thomas <crth...@imap3.asu.edu> wrote:
>
>Incidentally, the NASB--"New American Standard Bible"--is supposed to be one
>of the worst translations in recent memory. I don't know how it relates to
>the NAB you quoted, though.
If that's the one I think it is, the quality of translation has a
lot to do with where you sit. IIRC, that's the one where the
translators have attempted to use gender-neutral language. Some
people object to that practice, regardless of how good or bad the
translation may be otherwise.
--
Hal Heydt
Albany, CA
My dime, my opinions.
Wilson Heydt
cd skogsberg <d97...@dtek.chalmers.se> wrote:
>
>Modern "Official" Swedish translation:
>
>"There the ships go, there is Leviathan, whom thou hast made for
>tumbling[1] in the deeps."
>
You may want to stick to one of your alternative translations to
English, as the first suggests the possibility of a savior for the
fishes, and by somewhat more ordinary means that the one for
humans....
Richard Horton
wrote:
I'm not sure the NASB is one of those. It's a revision of the
American Standard Version (1901), which does not, as far as I recall,
have a good reputation. The NAB is an entirely different translation,
for Catholics.
Chad Ryan Thomas
Richard Horton <rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote in
news:KxWc8.8193$%w7.122...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com:
> wrote:
>>If that's the one I think it is, the quality of translation has a
>>lot to do with where you sit. IIRC, that's the one where the
>>translators have attempted to use gender-neutral language. Some
>>people object to that practice, regardless of how good or bad the
>>translation may be otherwise.
>
> I'm not sure the NASB is one of those. It's a revision of the
> American Standard Version (1901), which does not, as far as I recall,
> have a good reputation. The NAB is an entirely different translation,
> for Catholics.
I didn't think the NAB and the NASB were related, but I wasn't sure.
I do recall, now that I think on it, that one of the complaints against the
NASB is it's treatment of gendered language.[1] The original Greek
throughout much of the NT makes strategic use of gendered versus gender-
neutral language. However, the NASB translators used gender-neutral
English even when it was clear that the Greek authors had intended the
passage to apply to only one gender. This, of course, can really change
the context and content of a passage.
[1] Unless, that is, my whole memory of the issue is fundamentally flawed.
I encountered all this about 6 years ago while studying New Testament-era
Greek literature. We dealt with five or six different translations of the
NT and talked about the translation strategies of each. It's possible that
I'm confusing the NASB with another one, but I don't think so.
--
Zeborah
> I have a kid who's stowed away on a ship, and he's hoping to see some
> kind of mythological sea creatures. Mermaids as a concept (the
> half-woman/half-fish kind, not manatees) would work, but the name
> mermaid doesn't seem right for this world. Can you folks give me names
> of some mythological sea creatures?
Taniwha are a kind of dragonish thing that live in the sea, rivers and
lakes in NZ Maori mythology. They can be dangerous and scary, and/but
are generally respected; at least sometimes I think they're guardian to
a place.
Zeborah
--
Semper ad eventum festinet. -- Horace
"Always party hard at social events." <eg>
http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz2000
Brian M. Scott
>In article <a50ng...@drn.newsguy.com>, Brian M. Scott
><BMS...@stratos.net> writes
>>In article <3C732B7A...@value.net>, Cathy says...
>>>Also, does someone with an OED know the etymology of selkie?
>>OED2 s.v. <sealchie> says that it's a diminutive of <sealgh>
>>'seal'. The Old English is <seolh>, which explains the <gh>
>>in this and other spelling variants.
>I don't know how seriously to take the "Orkney & Shetland"
>label, which may just be an autopilot reaction to the fact
>that Scott uses it in The Pirate, but if it's genuine then
>we're in Norn country, and deriving it from Old English with
>no further comment isn't entirely satisfactory.
I thought about that, but OWScand. 'seal' is <selr> -- not
a good starting point, and I doubt that any influence from
it would be visible. I don't know about possible dialect
forms, though, especially diminutives.
>The specialist Scottish dictionaries may have something
>useful: I'll see what I can find out.
Thanks; I do have the Concise Scots Dictionary, but it's at
home, and I'm not.
Brian
Rachael Lininger
> [Concerning the NASB translation of the Bible]
> I do recall, now that I think on it, that one of the complaints against the
> NASB is it's treatment of gendered language.[1] The original Greek
> throughout much of the NT makes strategic use of gendered versus gender-
> neutral language. However, the NASB translators used gender-neutral
> English even when it was clear that the Greek authors had intended the
> passage to apply to only one gender. This, of course, can really change
> the context and content of a passage.
>
> [1] Unless, that is, my whole memory of the issue is fundamentally flawed.
> I encountered all this about 6 years ago while studying New Testament-era
> Greek literature. We dealt with five or six different translations of the
> NT and talked about the translation strategies of each. It's possible that
> I'm confusing the NASB with another one, but I don't think so.
Could you look that up? I'm not sure where one would--web searches
find mostly evangelical sites, not scholarly--I'm curious. When I was
stuck in Georgia, and required to go to church, I hated hated hated the
omnipresent NIV. I also wanted something other than the KJV because I
like comparing translations, and I settled on the NASV as a
well-respected translation that felt less dumbed-down than the NIV and
seemed to be very careful with language. Not nearly as much fun as the
KJV, though.
I remember doing a certain amount of research, but I can't remember
what I looked up, or what the constraints on my choice were. But I
certainly would have remembered if any of the information on the NASV
included monkeying with gendered language. I specifically picked it
because I was wanted something literal, even if it was considered a
bit wooden.
However, the sources I had at the time were limited and my memory
ain't so good either.
Rachael
--
Rachael From the Dilbert Newsletter:
Lininger "You should talk to her.
rachael@ She is a minefield of information."
clue-server.net
Rachael Lininger
> [Concerning the NASB translation of the Bible]
>
> I do recall, now that I think on it, that one of the complaints against the
> NASB is it's treatment of gendered language.[1] The original Greek
> throughout much of the NT makes strategic use of gendered versus gender-
> neutral language. However, the NASB translators used gender-neutral
> English even when it was clear that the Greek authors had intended the
> passage to apply to only one gender. This, of course, can really change
> the context and content of a passage.
>
> [1] Unless, that is, my whole memory of the issue is fundamentally flawed.
> I encountered all this about 6 years ago while studying New Testament-era
> Greek literature. We dealt with five or six different translations of the
> NT and talked about the translation strategies of each. It's possible that
> I'm confusing the NASB with another one, but I don't think so.
I did some more checking--I find looking up stuff I just asked someone
else to look up irresistable, especially if I also said I couldn't find
it--and found a page that indicates you _might_ be thinking of the New
Revised Standard Version (NRSV):
http://www.firstpresb.org/translations.htm
New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) - published in 1989 by the
National Council of Churches, revises the Revised Standard Version
of 1952. While following the literal tradition of the RSV, the
NRSV eliminates much of the archaic language. One distinctive is
the use of gender inclusive pronouns to replace male pronouns when
the original writers meant both men and women. The NRSV does not
change masculine pronouns referring to God, however.
vs.
New American Standard Bible (NASB) - completed in 1971, was produced
by 54 conservative Protestant scholars sponsored by the Lockman
Foundation. This version is very literal in vocabulary and word
order, although the resulting English is quite wooden. It often is
preferred by those who want an English version that reflects the
grammar of the original. An Update was published in 1995 which
seeks to use more modern English while preserving the literal
nature of the translation.
Maybe I'm boring, but I didn't find the NASB wooden--just formal. I
preferred the very careful language of (an attempt at) literal
translation to the NIV, which I felt sucked all the grandeur out of
it. I don't think it's _just_ that I equated grandeur with the higher
reading level (11th grade vs 7th).
Now that I know what to look for, a few other pages confirm that it's
the NRSV with the gender-neutral stuff. And now there's a new version
of the NIV (TNIV) with inclusive language.
Chad Ryan Thomas
news:ktit8r5...@gw.dd-b.net:
> else to look up irresistable, especially if I also said I couldn't
> find it--and found a page that indicates you _might_ be thinking of
> the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV):
[SNIP comparisons of various translations of the Bible]
You know, having read your post, I'm now thoroughly confused myself. If I
hadn't been wading through far too much anthropological ethnicity theory
this evening, I would go back to my notes from that class, but I don't
think I have the mental energy to spare tonight.
> Maybe I'm boring, but I didn't find the NASB wooden--just formal. I
> preferred the very careful language of (an attempt at) literal
> translation to the NIV, which I felt sucked all the grandeur out of
> it. I don't think it's _just_ that I equated grandeur with the higher
> reading level (11th grade vs 7th).
The NIV, as I understand it, is widely acknowledged as the best modern
English translation commercially available today. Much of the original
text is written at a 7th grade level, after all. (Consider, for example,
that most of the New Testament was the equivalent of "A&E's Biography.")
> And now there's a new version of the NIV (TNIV) with inclusive language.
Yes, the new NIV did raise quite a stink, especially with a couple very
specific verses (which, of course, I'm forgetting now) where proposed
changes would've made a big change in meaning. I thought it ultimately got
shot down, though. Is it in print with an "NIV" label?
Cathy Purchis-Jefferies
which is good to know but, as noted, not at all helpful in my situation.
Dolphin is Greek-derived? And does it mean anything other than dolphin?
Ideally, I'd like to call my dolphin-selkies something that makes people
think of a dolphin version of seal-people without having to explain what
exactly they are, but so far I haven't come up with anything.
--
"George" Cathy Purchis cat...@value.net
The Peregrine Hacker Interpretive Web sites
http://pwp.value.net/catpur/hacker.htm
Cathy Purchis-Jefferies
> The
> sea monk (http://www.eaudrey.com/myth/images/seamonk.gif, because
> I can't do it justice
I'm not sure what, but I really want to do SOMETHING with this.
slee...@gmx.co.uk
> Thanks to the folks who have told me selkie more or less means seal,
> which is good to know but, as noted, not at all helpful in my situation.
> Dolphin is Greek-derived? And does it mean anything other than dolphin?
m-w.com (because I'm too cheap to subscribe to the OED) claims
that 'dolphin' is from Greek 'delphin-, delphis' by way of half a
dozen other languages, and that it's a relative of Greek
'delphys' womb.
> Ideally, I'd like to call my dolphin-selkies something that makes people
> think of a dolphin version of seal-people without having to explain what
> exactly they are, but so far I haven't come up with anything.
I keep turning this over in my head and getting stuck on the
phrases 'ship-ghosts' and 'luck fish'; this is probably no help.
There's 'cetacean', from Cetacea, the order that dolphins, whales
and their ilk belong to, from Latin 'cetus', from Greek 'kEtos',
which might be slightly more useful.
--Squid
Lori Selke
Graham Edwards <grahamed...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Cathy Purchis-Jefferies <cat...@value.net> wrote in message
>news:<3C732B7A...@value.net>...
>
>> Also, does someone with an OED know the etymology of selkie?
>
>spellings)
But *not* Selke.
Lori
--
se...@io.com, se...@mindspring.com, http://www.io.com/~selk
"Tentacles are my favorite!"
Neil Barnes
<6ue0aCAB...@hapax.demon.co.uk>:
As an option, I came across something years ago: a creature which is a horse
on land and leads travellers by sound (in the fog, naturally) to a suitable
loch, at which point it jumps in - taking the travellers with it.
Oddly enough I heard about it in the Cairngorms, home of the Grey Man of Ben
McDubh. I just can't remember its name.
--
I have a quantum car. Every time I look at the speedometer I get lost...
barnacle
http://www.nailed-barnacle.co.uk
slee...@gmx.co.uk
> As an option, I came across something years ago: a creature which is a horse
> on land and leads travellers by sound (in the fog, naturally) to a suitable
> loch, at which point it jumps in - taking the travellers with it.
I think that's called a kelpie. ... or a nixie. I can never keep
them straight.
--diuqS
Irina Rempt
> "Yno yr a y llongau: _yno y mae_ y lefiathan, _yr hwn_ a luniaist i
> chwarae ynddo."
"There go the ships; [there is] the leviathan, [that] thou hast made
to play in it."
> I'll leave the translation to someone else!
Glad to be of service :-)
> Are you sorry you asked yet?
No, I'm starting to like this more and more, especially now it's
spawned a discussion about gender-inclusive language. It's an issue
for my WIP, because the language those people speak doesn't mark
gender except in the pronouns. And not even always then; there's an
epicene third-person pronoun to use if it's not known or not relevant
whether someone is a man or a woman, like "when the doctor comes,
tell him/her...". A sort of "singular they".
I don't want to use PC^Wexplicitly gender-inclusive language in
English when that hinders the flow, and it almost always does -
somehow "guardsperson" doesn't cut it, and no, they're not "guards",
they're "guardsmen and/or guardswomen", members of the Royal Guards
who may or may not be on guard duty.
I can easily call a specific person "a guardswoman" if that's what
she is, but I prefer calling a non-specific people "a guardsman" even
if some of them are women. It would be more jarring, at least for me,
if some guardswomen turned out to be male, than what I have now, that
some guardsmen turn out to be female (and the physical requirements
for the Guards, which are the same for men and women, make for about
70% men anyway).
(Now I've typed "guard" so often that I'm sure I must have spelt it
wrong)
> I felt one
> should have *one* bible in the house,
No more than one? We'll have to give a lot of bibles away, then :-)
Irina
--
ir...@valdyas.org
http://www.valdyas.org/irina/index.html (English)
http://www.valdyas.org/irina/backpage.html (Nederlands)
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Rachael Lininger) wrote:
[...]
> New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
[...]
>One distinctive is the use of gender inclusive pronouns to
>replace male pronouns when the original writers meant both
>men and women. The NRSV does not change masculine pronouns
>referring to God, however.
I wonder why not?
Mary
Sion Arrowsmith
> Mermaids as a concept (the
>half-woman/half-fish kind, not manatees) would work, but the name
>mermaid doesn't seem right for this world.
Melusine?
--
\S -- si...@chiark.greenend.org.uk -- http://www.chaos.org.uk/~sion/
___ | "Frankly I have no feelings towards penguins one way or the other"
\X/ | -- Arthur C. Clarke
her nu becomeþ se bera eadward ofdun hlæddre heafdes bæce bump bump bump
Julian Flood
I've got a melusine. I needed the buttocks. For a friend, you understand.
jf
Chad Ryan Thomas
> I can easily call a specific person "a guardswoman" if that's what
> she is, but I prefer calling a non-specific people "a guardsman" even
> if some of them are women. It would be more jarring, at least for me,
> if some guardswomen turned out to be male, than what I have now, that
> some guardsmen turn out to be female
You can feel better about your decision. The "-man" ending in "guardsman,"
"chairman," "mailman," etc. is from Latin "manus" meaning hand (as in "to
do X with one's hands"), rather than "man" meaning male.
Chad Ryan Thomas
news:a52hri$k4t$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk:
Because it's obvious that the original writers intended for God to be
masculine, not gender neutral, and only very few scholars believe
differently. The controversies arise when scholars disagree about the
intentions of the original authors.
Incidentally, this is not a new debate. The original KJV actually uses
inclusive language where appropriate; its just that the translation
strategies of the 17th century had different ideas about when it was
appropriate.
Irina Rempt
> You can feel better about your decision. The "-man" ending in
> "guardsman," "chairman," "mailman," etc. is from Latin "manus"
> meaning hand (as in "to do X with one's hands"), rather than "man"
> meaning male.
Source, please! I'm interested!
So the person at the gate can't be a guardswoman? If I call her a
guardsman, everybody will think the "she" in the next sentence is a
typo.
Boudewijn Rempt
> So the person at the gate can't be a guardswoman? If I call her a
> guardsman, everybody will think the "she" in the next sentence is a
> typo.
I've cleverly coded around the same problem by not having guardsmen,
but soldiers. On the other hand, a priest is a priest, and a god
is a god, whether male, female or animal.
An interesting related problem is degrees of respectfulness. I would
like to subtly show the difference between the way important people
speak of themselves, and how others speak to them. For now, I use
caps -- it _looks_ effective to me:
"Don't call me sir! I'm not a sir, I'm a Most Holy Reverence."
"As you wish, most holy reverence."
Oh, well, it's not really important for the first draft to have made
a final decistion.
--
Boudewijn Rempt | http://www.valdyas.org
Brian M. Scott
>nailed_...@NOSPAMhotmail.com (Neil Barnes) wrote:
Kelpie.
Brian
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>Irina Rempt <ir...@valdyas.org> wrote in news:1212037.q0lBPeGtti@turenay:
>> I can easily call a specific person "a guardswoman" if that's what
>> she is, but I prefer calling a non-specific people "a guardsman" even
>> if some of them are women. It would be more jarring, at least for me,
>> if some guardswomen turned out to be male, than what I have now, that
>> some guardsmen turn out to be female
>You can feel better about your decision. The "-man" ending in "guardsman,"
>"chairman," "mailman," etc. is from Latin "manus" meaning hand (as in "to
>do X with one's hands"), rather than "man" meaning male.
OED1 disagrees with you. It interprets <guardsman> as 'guard's man',
i.e., 'man of the guard'. Merriam-Webster Online also appears to take
the literal view. <Guardsman> and <mailman> are 19th c. creations,
and <chairman> in the modern sense seems to go back only to the 17th
c. (16th c. for the bearer of a sedan chair); I see no reason to
suppose that they aren't exactly the English compounds that they
appear to be.
Brian
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
It gives <selch> 'seal' and other (unlisted) forms from the 12th c. to
the present, noting that it is now Northeast Scots; the spelling
<selk> is found from the first half of the 16th c. From the late 19th
c. the term has also meant 'a fat clumsy person'; this usage is
apparently now limited to Banffshire. The derivative <selchy> is
found in the first half of the 19th c., <selkie> etc. from the 19th c.
on; it's labelled as occurring in the Shetlands, Orkney, Caithness,
and Northeast Scots and is cross-referenced to the OED's entry for
<seal>. In short, it doesn't seem to mind the derivation from OE
<seolh>.
Brian
Brian M. Scott
<cat...@value.net> wrote:
>Thanks to the folks who have told me selkie more or less means seal,
>which is good to know but, as noted, not at all helpful in my situation.
>Dolphin is Greek-derived? And does it mean anything other than dolphin?
>Ideally, I'd like to call my dolphin-selkies something that makes people
>think of a dolphin version of seal-people without having to explain what
>exactly they are, but so far I haven't come up with anything.
In view of <selkie>, <kelpie>, <nixie>, etc., what about <delphie>?
(The Latin and Greek have <e>, and <dolphie> sounds too much like a
pet name for <Adolf> or <Adolphus>.)
Brian
Stewart Robert Hinsley
<nailed_...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> writes
>
>As an option, I came across something years ago: a creature which is a horse
>on land and leads travellers by sound (in the fog, naturally) to a suitable
>loch, at which point it jumps in - taking the travellers with it.
>
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
Heather Rose Jones
>
> In article <a5a94c8e.02022...@posting.google.com>,
> Graham Edwards <grahamed...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Cathy Purchis-Jefferies <cat...@value.net> wrote in message
> >news:<3C732B7A...@value.net>...
> >
> >> Also, does someone with an OED know the etymology of selkie?
> >
> >Selkie (or silkie, selchie, sealchie and probably several other
> >spellings)
>
> But *not* Selke.
Ah, but have we ever seen you to stray very far from the ocean? And
what _do_ you keep in that locked box under the bed?
--
*********
Heather Rose Jones
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
*********
Anna Mazzoldi
Chad Ryan Thomas <crth...@asu.edu> wrote:
> You can feel better about your decision. The "-man" ending in "guardsman,"
> "chairman," "mailman," etc. is from Latin "manus" meaning hand (as in "to
> do X with one's hands"), rather than "man" meaning male.
The OED disagrees with you. Also, while I might just see the
possibility of that etymology for "guardsman", I find it less
plausible for "chairman" and quite implausible for "mailman" (the
word is too modern)[1].
There is also no trace in the OED of a "man" derived either from
Latin "manus" or French "main".
So I'll join Irina in asking for a source... if true, it's
interesting, and if untrue, it's still interesting (that is, it
would be interesting to know who made it up and why)!
Ciao,
Anna
[1] I could also go on about the importance or otherwise of the
true etymology of a word when *every* speaker of a language
believes in a different etymology -- but I'll leave that for
later... ;-)
--
Anna Mazzoldi writing from Dublin, Ireland
Current soundtrack: Baraban, _Il valzer dei disertori_;
De Andre', _1991 Concerti_; Guccini, _Amerigo_
Chad Ryan Thomas
> >You can feel better about your decision. The "-man" ending in "guardsman,"
> >"chairman," "mailman," etc. is from Latin "manus" meaning hand (as in "to
> >do X with one's hands"), rather than "man" meaning male.
>
> OED1 disagrees with you. It interprets <guardsman> as 'guard's man',
> i.e., 'man of the guard'. Merriam-Webster Online also appears to take
> the literal view. <Guardsman> and <mailman> are 19th c. creations,
> and <chairman> in the modern sense seems to go back only to the 17th
> c. (16th c. for the bearer of a sedan chair); I see no reason to
> suppose that they aren't exactly the English compounds that they
Creations of the 17th century on, though, are precisely the period one would
expect new English words to have all sorts of Latinate roots, since that's
when the Latin-worshipping grammarians really started going, and every
educated man was expected to speak Latin.
Anyway, there's always going to be some doubt in etymologies. If I'm
recalling the obscure reference I found this in, though, the usage of
"-man" to mean "a person engaged in a particular activity" enters
English with French influence. (The Germanic alternative would be "-er" of
course.) In French, "male human being" is "homme" (or whatever--I don't speak
French), but the Latin root for "to perform a particular activity" is
conveniently "manus", and therefore this particular source was convinced that
the ending should properly be considered gender neutral.
The source, unfortunately, is one that I couldn't possibly hope to
recall. I happened across it years ago on an unrelated research project, and
it just seemed nifty. It was an analysis of the early-80's Political
Correctness movement, and how folk etymologies are the controlling factor in
whether a term is "PC," not real etymologies.
Brian M. Scott
<crth...@imap3.asu.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> >You can feel better about your decision. The "-man" ending in "guardsman,"
>> >"chairman," "mailman," etc. is from Latin "manus" meaning hand (as in "to
>> >do X with one's hands"), rather than "man" meaning male.
>> OED1 disagrees with you. It interprets <guardsman> as 'guard's man',
>> i.e., 'man of the guard'. Merriam-Webster Online also appears to take
>> the literal view. <Guardsman> and <mailman> are 19th c. creations,
>> and <chairman> in the modern sense seems to go back only to the 17th
>> c. (16th c. for the bearer of a sedan chair); I see no reason to
>> suppose that they aren't exactly the English compounds that they
>Creations of the 17th century on, though, are precisely the period one would
>expect new English words to have all sorts of Latinate roots, since that's
>when the Latin-worshipping grammarians really started going, and every
>educated man was expected to speak Latin.
Look at the first elements of those compounds. The sort of neologism
you have in mind would probably not waste an obscure Latinism on a
bog-standard English root. (Yes, I know that <guard> and <chair> are
not of Gmc. origin and that <mail> comes from Gmc. via OFr.)
Moreover, what you say is probably considerably less true of the 19th
c. than of the 17th.
>Anyway, there's always going to be some doubt in etymologies. If I'm
>recalling the obscure reference I found this in, though, the usage of
>"-man" to mean "a person engaged in a particular activity" enters
>English with French influence.
<Lawman> is from OE <lahmann>, which is probably a borrowing of ON
<lögmaðr>. <Wakeman> is moderately common by 1200 and appears in
Orrm; it wouldn't surprise me a bit, given its geographical
distribution, if it were from or heavily influenced by ON <vökumaðr>
'watchman'. <Steersman> is from OE <stéoresmann> and roughly parallel
to ON <stýrimaðr>. I don't know how common such compounds are in OE,
but in ON they're not at all unusual, and Scand. influence on English
predates French influence.
If there are 13th or 14th c. coinages influenced by French usage, I'd
expect them to be translations of phrases of the type <homme de X> (to
use the modern spelling), not borrowings of some unidentified French
derivative of Latin <manus> 'hand'. As for 19th c. and later
creations, the idea that they are based on anything but <-man>
'person' or at least on that understanding of the <-man> element in
existing compounds strikes me as simply silly.
> (The Germanic alternative would be "-er" of
>course.)
With the qualification that English agentive <-er> is also very
frequently from French, from Latin <-ârius>.
> In French, "male human being" is "homme" (or whatever--I don't speak
>French), but the Latin root for "to perform a particular activity" is
>conveniently "manus",
I'm no Latinist, but I can't think of such a verb; the ones that come
to mind are <facere> and <agere>.
>and therefore this particular source was convinced that
>the ending should properly be considered gender neutral.
>The source, unfortunately, is one that I couldn't possibly hope to
>recall. I happened across it years ago on an unrelated research project, and
>it just seemed nifty. It was an analysis of the early-80's Political
>Correctness movement, and how folk etymologies are the controlling factor in
>whether a term is "PC," not real etymologies.
Nifty, perhaps, but I think just plain wrong on this particular point.
Brian
Jonathan L Cunningham
said:
>Irina Rempt <ir...@valdyas.org> wrote:
>
>> So the person at the gate can't be a guardswoman? If I call her a
>> guardsman, everybody will think the "she" in the next sentence is a
>> typo.
>
>I've cleverly coded around the same problem by not having guardsmen,
>but soldiers. On the other hand, a priest is a priest, and a god
Actually, I think you are both wrong. The correct word is "guard".
I don't see a gender problem with guard. Do you?
"We couldn't enter, the guard refused us."
In my ideolect, there is no word "guardswoman" nor "guardsman" only
"guards".
--
Jonathan L Cunningham
Neil
<BMS...@stratos.net> writes
>In article <6ue0aCAB...@hapax.demon.co.uk>, Neil says...
>
>>In article <a50ng...@drn.newsguy.com>, Brian M. Scott
>><BMS...@stratos.net> writes
>>>In article <3C732B7A...@value.net>, Cathy says...
>
>>>'seal'. The Old English is <seolh>, which explains the <gh>
>>>in this and other spelling variants.
>
>>I don't know how seriously to take the "Orkney & Shetland"
>>label, which may just be an autopilot reaction to the fact
>>that Scott uses it in The Pirate, but if it's genuine then
>>we're in Norn country, and deriving it from Old English with
>>no further comment isn't entirely satisfactory.
>
>I thought about that, but OWScand. 'seal' is <selr> -- not
>a good starting point, and I doubt that any influence from
>it would be visible. I don't know about possible dialect
>forms, though, especially diminutives.
Well de Vries has an entry for "selki" in the Altnordisches
Etymologisches Woerterbuch, claiming it's used as a nickname,
but he doesn't say where. I can't find any trace of it in
Cleasby-Vigfusson, and quite frankly, who trusts de Vries? (He
does claim it also leaves traces in Manx and Old Irish, but
I'll put money on his being wrong. I'm slightly less sceptical
about his comment on the absence of breaking - one might have
expected it to be <sjalr>, after all - but I think Noreen is
probably right that it's just analogical.)
>>The specialist Scottish dictionaries may have something
>>useful: I'll see what I can find out.
>
>Thanks; I do have the Concise Scots Dictionary, but it's at
>home, and I'm not.
SND and DOST don't have a lot to add, but DOST in particular
had started following OED by this point in the alphabet. It's
much more interesting in the earlier volumes, where they often
disagree. Jakobsen doesn't have anything in his book on
Shetland Norn, and Marwick's book on Orkney Norn mentions it
explicitly as an example of a word imported from the mainland.
So the odd geographical distribution looks like a coincidence.
One thing I would do to the current OED entry is split it into
separate entries for "seal" and "selch". Apart from a single
instance of "selk" in Middle English, there's been a clear
England/Scotland isogloss for 800 years, which seems worth
recognising.
Neil
Mary K. Kuhner
Jonathan L Cunningham <Jonathan....@tesco.net> wrote:
>Actually, I think you are both wrong. The correct word is "guard".
>I don't see a gender problem with guard. Do you?
>"We couldn't enter, the guard refused us."
>In my ideolect, there is no word "guardswoman" nor "guardsman" only
>"guards".
Locally, at least, "guard" means "person who is guarding something"
and "guardsman" means "Member of the Guard." They are not
interchangable at all. People who stand around at rock concerts
are guards, not guardsmen; people who join the National Guard
are Guardsmen, not guards.
(Gosh, Irina is right; the word looks very funny if you use it
a dozen times in quick succession.)
This is one of those word drift situations, like "salon" and
"saloon" or "conscious" and "conscience." The root is inarguably
the same, but current usage is not.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Chad Ryan Thomas
news:3c756e95....@enews.newsguy.com:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 14:18:48 -0700, Chad Ryan Thomas
><crth...@imap3.asu.edu> wrote:
>>Creations of the 17th century on, though, are precisely the period one
>>would expect new English words to have all sorts of Latinate roots,
>>since that's when the Latin-worshipping grammarians really started
>>going, and every educated man was expected to speak Latin.
>
> Look at the first elements of those compounds. The sort of neologism
> you have in mind would probably not waste an obscure Latinism on a
> bog-standard English root.
I wasn't too serious about that last passage of mine. It was just an
opportunity to take a jab at Latin grammarians. (I seldom get enough
opportunities to jab Latin grammarians.)
> Nifty, perhaps, but I think just plain wrong on this particular point.
I'm no linguist, let alone an historical linguist. At the time I
encountered the original argument, it was convincing enough to satisfy me,
but I really don't have the expertise to judge it critically.
At the very least, there are etymologists out there who don't consider the
term "-man" to be gender specific, which makes it an available option to
writers.
--
Neil
Ryan Thomas <crth...@asu.edu> writes
>At the very least, there are etymologists out there who don't consider the
>term "-man" to be gender specific, which makes it an available option to
>writers.
I am not an etymologist, but I do play one in Real Life, so
perhaps I should be the one to remind you that although
etymologists can tell you what a word *meant*, their opinions
on what words *mean*, here and now, are not necessarily worth
any more than anyone else's.
In the case of "man", it's well known that the word started
out being gender-neutral ("homo" as against "vir", if you feel
like bringing Latin into it). But it's equally well known that
this is no longer the case.
Neil
Richard Horton
wrote:
>Yes, the new NIV did raise quite a stink, especially with a couple very
>specific verses (which, of course, I'm forgetting now) where proposed
>changes would've made a big change in meaning. I thought it ultimately got
>shot down, though. Is it in print with an "NIV" label?
Incidentally, the New English Bible, immediate predecessor to my
preferred modern versoin, the Revised English Bible, also, I
understand, came under fire for some perhaps overenthusiastic use of
gender neutral phraseology.
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.tangentonline.com)
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>b.s...@csuohio.edu (Brian M. Scott) wrote in
>news:3c756e95....@enews.newsguy.com:
>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 14:18:48 -0700, Chad Ryan Thomas
>><crth...@imap3.asu.edu> wrote:
>>>Creations of the 17th century on, though, are precisely the period one
>>>would expect new English words to have all sorts of Latinate roots,
>>>since that's when the Latin-worshipping grammarians really started
>>>going, and every educated man was expected to speak Latin.
>> Look at the first elements of those compounds. The sort of neologism
>> you have in mind would probably not waste an obscure Latinism on a
>> bog-standard English root.
>I wasn't too serious about that last passage of mine. It was just an
>opportunity to take a jab at Latin grammarians. (I seldom get enough
>opportunities to jab Latin grammarians.)
Oh, well, for goodness' sake don't let me stand in the way of such a
praiseworthy endeavor! <g>
>> Nifty, perhaps, but I think just plain wrong on this particular point.
>I'm no linguist, let alone an historical linguist. At the time I
>encountered the original argument, it was convincing enough to satisfy me,
>but I really don't have the expertise to judge it critically.
>At the very least, there are etymologists out there who don't consider the
>term "-man" to be gender specific, which makes it an available option to
>writers.
If etymologists have opinions about current meaning and usage, those
opinions are (or should be) independent of their etymological
expertise. Indeed <man(n)> was once neutral, corresponding more or
less to Latin <homo> as opposed to <vir>, but that hasn't been true
for a long time. (Not even for those of us who really do understand
generic <he> as a neutral pronoun!)
Brian
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
[...]
>Well de Vries has an entry for "selki" in the Altnordisches
>Etymologisches Woerterbuch, claiming it's used as a nickname,
>but he doesn't say where.
Ah, that helps. It's noted in E.H. Lind, Norsk-Isländska Personbinamn
från Medeltiden. He notes <IvaR selki>, died 1177, mentioned in Esp,
Fms, and as <I. silki> in Flb, Hs 81a, Fms. Another <IvaR selki>,
died 1190, is mentioned in Esp, Flb, Fms, and as <silki> in Flb, Fms,
Hs 81a. Lind takes <selki> to be a diminutive of <selr> and <silki>
to be the less correct form.
He also has s.v. <Silki> a <Ion silki>, died 1239, mentioned in Esp,
Flb, CFr. He glosses it <Silke>, which I understand to be 'silky',
but he does invite comparison with <selki>.
CFr: Codex Frisianus
Esp: Eirspennill
Flb: Flateyjarbók
Fms: Fornmanns sögur
Hs 81a: Det Arnamagn. Haandskr. 81a Fol. (Skalholtsbók yngsta)
Brian
Cathy Purchis-Jefferies
>
> I've got a melusine. I needed the buttocks. For a friend, you understand.
Assuming this is actually referring back to the sea monster topic as
opposed to Bible translations, I REALLY need a new dictionary.
--
"George" Cathy Purchis cat...@value.net
The Peregrine Hacker Interpretive Web sites
http://pwp.value.net/catpur/hacker.htm
Rachael Lininger
> You know, having read your post, I'm now thoroughly confused myself. If I
> hadn't been wading through far too much anthropological ethnicity theory
> this evening, I would go back to my notes from that class, but I don't
> think I have the mental energy to spare tonight.
That's fine.
> > Maybe I'm boring, but I didn't find the NASB wooden--just formal. I
> > preferred the very careful language of (an attempt at) literal
> > translation to the NIV, which I felt sucked all the grandeur out of
> > it. I don't think it's _just_ that I equated grandeur with the higher
> > reading level (11th grade vs 7th).
>
> The NIV, as I understand it, is widely acknowledged as the best modern
> English translation commercially available today. Much of the original
> text is written at a 7th grade level, after all. (Consider, for example,
> that most of the New Testament was the equivalent of "A&E's Biography.")
I've realized why I hated it, though: it's very much beloved of
evangelicals. Even a few of the sites I was looking it up at noted
such. I loathe being evangelized; the fundie Baptists in particular
seemed to train their schoolkid evangelists in hypocrisy. So the NIV,
for me, has got very bad associations with fundamentalism, which is
very much dumbed-down Christianity.
Rachael
--
Rachael From the Dilbert Newsletter:
Lininger "You should talk to her.
rachael@ She is a minefield of information."
clue-server.net
David Given
Rachael Lininger <rac...@dd-b.net> writes:
[...]
> Could you look that up? I'm not sure where one would--web searches
> find mostly evangelical sites, not scholarly--I'm curious. When I was
> stuck in Georgia, and required to go to church, I hated hated hated the
> omnipresent NIV. I also wanted something other than the KJV because I
> like comparing translations, and I settled on the NASV as a
> well-respected translation that felt less dumbed-down than the NIV and
> seemed to be very careful with language. Not nearly as much fun as the
> KJV, though.
The NIV can't be much worse than the Good News Bible, a.k.a Today's
English Version. It's so horribly idiomatic it's almost incomprehensible.
Interesting, the verse in question is Psalm 104, not 103:
"The ships sail on it, and in it plays Leviathan, that sea monster
which you made."
(another good online comparative bible site.)
But for true awfulness, you need to turn to John 1. Okay, it's poetry and
is pretty tough to translate at the best of times, but at least the King
James does it with dignity and a certain amount of majesty. The Good News
Bible, however, manages:
"In the beginning the Word already existed; the Word was with God, and
the Word was God. From the very beginning the Word was with God.
Through him God made all things; not one thing in all creation was
made without him. The Word was the source of life, and this life
brought light to people. The light shines in the darkness, and the
darkness has never put it out."
Like, ew. (As you might have guessed, the Good News Bible was my school
bible, and I hated it with a passion.)
[plays with web site a bit]
Young's literal translation: "There do ships go: leviathan, That Thou hast
formed to play in it."
Hebrew names version: "There the ships go, And livyatan, whom you formed
to play there."
GOD'S WORD version(sic): "Ships sail on it, and Leviathan, which you
made, plays in it."
The Bible in Basic English: "There go the ships; there is that great
beast, which you have made as a plaything."
Now, that last one's interesting. The sense has been changed considerably.
If I was immortal and so had infinite free time, I'd learn classical Greek
so I could find out what the Bible *actually* says...
--
+- David Given --------McQ-+ "What appears to be a sloppy or meaningless use
| Work: d...@tao-group.com | of words may well be a completely correct use of
| Play: d...@cowlark.com | words to express sloppy or meaningless ideas."
+- http://www.cowlark.com -+ --- Anonymous Diplomat
Neil Barnes
$u5m$1...@nntp3.u.washington.edu>:
> In article <3c758462....@News.CIS.DFN.DE>,
> Jonathan L Cunningham <Jonathan....@tesco.net> wrote:
>
>> Actually, I think you are both wrong. The correct word is "guard".
>
>> I don't see a gender problem with guard. Do you?
>
>> "We couldn't enter, the guard refused us."
>
>> In my ideolect, there is no word "guardswoman" nor "guardsman" only
>> "guards".
>
> Locally, at least, "guard" means "person who is guarding something"
> and "guardsman" means "Member of the Guard." They are not
> interchangable at all. People who stand around at rock concerts
> are guards, not guardsmen; people who join the National Guard
> are Guardsmen, not guards.
>
Indeed, over here (UK) 'guard' refers to a function - whether it's guarding
the crown jewels or the local icecream shop, the person doing the guarding
is a guard.
Guardsman is a title - not a function, and not consistently used. The chaps
in red who stand outside Buck House are members of the Household Cavalry,
not Gaurdsmen. And I believe that someone who is in the Coldstream Guard
regiment is called a Coldstream Gaurd - though what they are called by their
sargeants I don't know!
--
I have a quantum car. Every time I look at the speedometer I get lost...
barnacle
http://www.nailed-barnacle.co.uk
Lori Selke
Neil Barnes <nailed_...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>As an option, I came across something years ago: a creature which is a horse
>on land and leads travellers by sound (in the fog, naturally) to a suitable
>loch, at which point it jumps in - taking the travellers with it.
>
>Oddly enough I heard about it in the Cairngorms, home of the Grey Man of Ben
>McDubh. I just can't remember its name.
I believe you're referring to the kelpie.
Lori
--
se...@io.com, se...@mindspring.com, http://www.io.com/~selk
"Tentacles are my favorite!"
Irina Rempt
> In article <3c758462....@News.CIS.DFN.DE>,
> Jonathan L Cunningham <Jonathan....@tesco.net> wrote:
>
>>Actually, I think you are both wrong. The correct word is "guard".
>
>>I don't see a gender problem with guard. Do you?
I don't see a gender problem with "guard". There is no gender problem
in the in-world language either; "guard" (someone guarding something)
is "shalan" ("watch+person-who-does-something") and "guards(wo)man"
is "nafalan" ("not+danger+person-who-does-something", but it's taken
on the meaning of "member of the [Royal] Guards"). Both are
completely gender neutral. Of the English words I use to represent
the terms, only "guard' is gender neutral.
>>"We couldn't enter, the guard refused us."
"She went to the Guard house and had supper with the..." what? With
the guards? They're probably not at supper, because they're on watch.
With the Guard? All forty-something of them, even those who happen to
be on guard duty? With the Guard people? With the people of the
Guard? All equally silly.
Here I need "guards(wo)men", and I prefer to refer to them as
"guardsmen" when it doesn't matter whether an individual one is in
fact male or female.
>>In my ideolect, there is no word "guardswoman" nor "guardsman" only
>>"guards".
That's *your* idiolect, not identical with mine, or, as it turns out,
Mary's.
> Locally, at least, "guard" means "person who is guarding something"
> and "guardsman" means "Member of the Guard." They are not
> interchangable at all. People who stand around at rock concerts
> are guards, not guardsmen; people who join the National Guard
> are Guardsmen, not guards.
What she said. That was exactly my issue.
> (Gosh, Irina is right; the word looks very funny if you use it
> a dozen times in quick succession.)
It does, doesn't it?
Boudewijn Rempt
> If I was immortal and so had infinite free time, I'd learn classical Greek
> so I could find out what the Bible *actually* says...
But that wouldn't help you much -- there's a huge gap between classical
Greek (whichever dialect) and the Greek of the Septuagint. And the
greek of the New Testament is different again. I like New Testament
Greek -- it's easy to read.
Catja Pafort
> Chad Ryan Thomas wrote:
>
> > You can feel better about your decision. The "-man" ending in
> > "guardsman," "chairman," "mailman," etc. is from Latin "manus"
> > meaning hand (as in "to do X with one's hands"), rather than "man"
> > meaning male.
>
> Source, please! I'm interested!
>
> So the person at the gate can't be a guardswoman? If I call her a
> guardsman, everybody will think the "she" in the next sentence is a
> typo.
Call her a guard. Venna is a border guard who just happens to be female
(and doesn't want to be treated as anything else) - her friend Shina (a
nickname) is definitely male. It's all about the context.
I'd rather be a chairman than a chairperson or a chair, myself.
Catja
Catja Pafort
> As an option, I came across something years ago: a creature which is a horse
> on land and leads travellers by sound (in the fog, naturally) to a suitable
> loch, at which point it jumps in - taking the travellers with it.
Kelpie. I think you get to keep it if you have the appropriate bridle
for it.
Now if I could only remember what the deal was with the Welsh mare that
was made of bones...
Catja
Irina Rempt
> Irina Rempt <ir...@valdyas.org> wrote:
>> So the person at the gate can't be a guardswoman? If I call her a
>> guardsman, everybody will think the "she" in the next sentence is a
>> typo.
>
> Call her a guard.
Correct, but not enough; she isn't only a guard in that she is
guarding the gate, she's also a member of the Royal Guards, and
that's important in context. They're -well- somewhere between a
religious knighthood and a town militia. Gate guards in other towns
the protagnist has seen weren't that high up; they were just
common-or-garden town guards.
> I'd rather be a chairman than a chairperson or a chair, myself.
Well, yes. That's why I'm usually secretary :-)
Chad Ryan Thomas
news:a552oi$c04$1...@news1.xs4all.nl:
> David Given <d...@pearl.tao.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> If I was immortal and so had infinite free time, I'd learn classical
>> Greek so I could find out what the Bible *actually* says...
>
> But that wouldn't help you much -- there's a huge gap between
> classical Greek (whichever dialect) and the Greek of the Septuagint.
> And the greek of the New Testament is different again. I like New
> Testament Greek -- it's easy to read.
And the Psalms were originally in Hebrew (and some Aramaic, maybe? I can't
recall for sure), anyway, so any Greek version is itself a translation.
Zeborah
> m-w.com (because I'm too cheap to subscribe to the OED) claims
> that 'dolphin' is from Greek 'delphin-, delphis' by way of half a
> dozen other languages, and that it's a relative of Greek
> 'delphys' womb.
Anyone got any problems with 'delwhing' as the name of an alien bird: a
medium flying bird, friendly-like, generally nomadic in groups of 2-4,
omnivorous/scavenger type things, larger than a-- huh; didn't notice
that before -- seagull, but smaller than an albatross?
Not that they're seagulls, they really still are a bit closer to
airborne dolphins, sort of, so I'd like to stick with 'delwhing' if I
can.
> I keep turning this over in my head and getting stuck on the
> phrases 'ship-ghosts' and 'luck fish'; this is probably no help.
> There's 'cetacean', from Cetacea, the order that dolphins, whales
> and their ilk belong to, from Latin 'cetus', from Greek 'kEtos',
> which might be slightly more useful.
This is why the name "Cetaganda" keeps nagging at me. What have they
got about whales, exactly?
Zeborah
--
Semper ad eventum festinet. -- Horace
"Always party hard at social events." <eg>
http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz2000
Boudewijn Rempt
>> David Given <d...@pearl.tao.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> If I was immortal and so had infinite free time, I'd learn classical
>>> Greek so I could find out what the Bible *actually* says...
>>
>> But that wouldn't help you much -- there's a huge gap between
>> classical Greek (whichever dialect) and the Greek of the Septuagint.
>> And the greek of the New Testament is different again. I like New
>> Testament Greek -- it's easy to read.
> And the Psalms were originally in Hebrew (and some Aramaic, maybe? I can't
> recall for sure), anyway, so any Greek version is itself a translation.
Hebrew.
Chad Ryan Thomas
Thought so, but the whole OT is kind of grab bag of Levantine languages,
and translations of earlier books, and evidence of langauges influencing
languages, and--well, it's an epigrapher's dream.
Neil Barnes
zeb...@altavista.com>:
> Anyone got any problems with 'delwhing' as the name of an alien bird: a
> medium flying bird, friendly-like, generally nomadic in groups of 2-4,
> omnivorous/scavenger type things, larger than a-- huh; didn't notice
> that before -- seagull, but smaller than an albatross?
>
> Not that they're seagulls, they really still are a bit closer to
> airborne dolphins, sort of, so I'd like to stick with 'delwhing' if I
> can.
Are these human-named animals? To me, delwhing seems hard to visualise as a
word to be used by English speakers. I'm sure they'd drop the h in the
interests of easier pronuciation :) OTOH, it strikes me as an abbreviation
for 'delta-wing' and I get this image of a tame Vulcan bomber!
Wilson Heydt
Neil Barnes <nailed_...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>zeb...@altavista.com (Zeborah) wrote in <1f81cst.1ed81lcwwao72N%
>zeb...@altavista.com>:
>
>> Anyone got any problems with 'delwhing' as the name of an alien bird: a
>> medium flying bird, friendly-like, generally nomadic in groups of 2-4,
>> omnivorous/scavenger type things, larger than a-- huh; didn't notice
>> that before -- seagull, but smaller than an albatross?
>>
>> Not that they're seagulls, they really still are a bit closer to
>> airborne dolphins, sort of, so I'd like to stick with 'delwhing' if I
>> can.
>
>Are these human-named animals? To me, delwhing seems hard to visualise as a
>word to be used by English speakers. I'm sure they'd drop the h in the
>interests of easier pronuciation :) OTOH, it strikes me as an abbreviation
>for 'delta-wing' and I get this image of a tame Vulcan bomber!
DRop the 'h' to be easier to pronouce? Come on...this is *English*
we're talking about, the language that brings you jokes like
"Hen3ry" (the '3' is silent), or my favorite example of how to morph
words to make better passwords: Phred.
--
Hal Heydt
Albany, CA
My dime, my opinions.
Irina Rempt
> bo...@rempt.xs4all.nl (Boudewijn Rempt) wrote in
> news:a561fb$hvm$1...@news1.xs4all.nl:
>
>> Chad Ryan Thomas <crth...@asu.edu> wrote:
>>> And the Psalms were originally in Hebrew (and some Aramaic, maybe?
>>> I can't recall for sure), anyway, so any Greek version is itself
>>> a translation.
>>
>> Hebrew.
>
> Thought so, but the whole OT is kind of grab bag of Levantine
> languages, and translations of earlier books, and evidence of
> langauges influencing languages, and--well, it's an epigrapher's
> dream.
Which is why I'm so grumbly that all our OT teacher does (I go to a
theolog course twice a month) is to enumerate all the books and their
order in different versions, over and over again, each year, for the
three lessons he gives that year. Instead of doing some real text
comparisons, for instance, or the rudiments of epigraphy.
Tim S
> From: Irina Rempt <ir...@valdyas.org>
> Organization: Valdyas
> Reply-To: ir...@valdyas.org
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.composition
> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:35:18 +0100
> Subject: Re: Got sea monsters?
>
> Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
>
>> In article <3c758462....@News.CIS.DFN.DE>,
>> Jonathan L Cunningham <Jonathan....@tesco.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, I think you are both wrong. The correct word is "guard".
>>
>>> I don't see a gender problem with guard. Do you?
>
> I don't see a gender problem with "guard". There is no gender problem
> in the in-world language either; "guard" (someone guarding something)
> is "shalan" ("watch+person-who-does-something") and "guards(wo)man"
> is "nafalan" ("not+danger+person-who-does-something", but it's taken
> on the meaning of "member of the [Royal] Guards"). Both are
> completely gender neutral. Of the English words I use to represent
> the terms, only "guard' is gender neutral.
>
>>> "We couldn't enter, the guard refused us."
>
> "She went to the Guard house and had supper with the..." what? With
> the guards? They're probably not at supper, because they're on watch.
> With the Guard? All forty-something of them, even those who happen to
> be on guard duty? With the Guard people? With the people of the
> Guard? All equally silly.
>
> Here I need "guards(wo)men", and I prefer to refer to them as
> "guardsmen" when it doesn't matter whether an individual one is in
> fact male or female.
>
Maybe Guard, with a capital G, would do the trick? If referred to often
enough?
Tim
Irina Rempt
> Maybe Guard, with a capital G, would do the trick? If referred to
> often enough?
For the institution, yes. For an individual, no. I refuse to make
normal words Special by Capitalizing them.
Tim S
> From: Irina Rempt <ir...@valdyas.org>
> Organization: Valdyas
> Reply-To: ir...@valdyas.org
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.composition
> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 22:34:10 +0100
> Subject: Re: Got sea monsters?
>
> Tim S wrote:
>
>> Maybe Guard, with a capital G, would do the trick? If referred to
>> often enough?
>
> For the institution, yes. For an individual, no. I refuse to make
> normal words Special by Capitalizing them.
>
Well, OK, fair enough, it's your prose. But I didn't quite mean that.
Membership of an institution is often indicated by capitalisation, hence the
distinction between a Fascist and a fascist, or a, um Quaker and a quaker.
That sort of thing. But if you don't like it, you don't like it, I guess.
Tim
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
><slee...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>> m-w.com (because I'm too cheap to subscribe to the OED) claims
>> that 'dolphin' is from Greek 'delphin-, delphis' by way of half a
>> dozen other languages, and that it's a relative of Greek
>> 'delphys' womb.
>Anyone got any problems with 'delwhing' as the name of an alien bird: a
>medium flying bird, friendly-like, generally nomadic in groups of 2-4,
>omnivorous/scavenger type things, larger than a-- huh; didn't notice
>that before -- seagull, but smaller than an albatross?
>Not that they're seagulls, they really still are a bit closer to
>airborne dolphins, sort of, so I'd like to stick with 'delwhing' if I
>can.
It looks like a mistake for <delwing>, and I'm not sure that I'd get
used to it. I'd drop the <h> or perhaps the <g>.
[...]
Brian
Lori Selke
Heather Rose Jones <hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>Lori Selke wrote:
>>
>> In article <a5a94c8e.02022...@posting.google.com>,
>> Graham Edwards <grahamed...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >Cathy Purchis-Jefferies <cat...@value.net> wrote in message
>> >news:<3C732B7A...@value.net>...
>> >
>> >> Also, does someone with an OED know the etymology of selkie?
>> >
>> >Selkie (or silkie, selchie, sealchie and probably several other
>> >spellings)
>>
>> But *not* Selke.
>
>Ah, but have we ever seen you to stray very far from the ocean? And
>what _do_ you keep in that locked box under the bed?
So far as I know, very few rasfc denizens have seen me at all.
Neil Barnes
Seriously: the 'wh' words - which when where and their kin - are often
pronounced with the 'h' aspirated, and depending on accent, either
simultaneously with the 'w' or slightly before it.
Then again, we live in a country where 'ghoti' can be pronounced 'fish'.
Jonathan L Cunningham
Barnes) said:
Coldstream Guardsman would definitely sound wrong.
I wonder if this is a pondian thing? I just tried to find what word
Terry Pratchett uses in "Guards! Guards!" (You'd think he'd use the
word *somewhere*) and couldn't quickly find anything other than "Men"
(used to highlight the non-male and/or non-human members) and
"Officers".
Irina might find the word "officer" an acceptable alternative. I
believe it's acceptable usage to refer to *all* police(men) as
officers. I suspect the -men suffix has been dropped as non PC.
In "Men At Arms" TP refers to Corporal Carrott as a City Guard, not
as a city Guardsman, even though he is not a guard in Mary's sense
but a Night Watchman.
--
Jonathan L Cunningham
Pam Phillips
> Chad Ryan Thomas wrote:
>
>> You can feel better about your decision. The "-man" ending in
>> "guardsman," "chairman," "mailman," etc. is from Latin "manus"
>> meaning hand (as in "to do X with one's hands"), rather than "man"
>> meaning male.
>
> Source, please! I'm interested!
I'm also intrigued, but I'm not sure I buy this; if it were from manus,
shouldn't it be getting attached to Latin stems?
On the other hand, I really like this idea. Has anyone tried using
something like "hand" or "head" as a suffix for "one who does"?
Back to lurking,
Pam
Brian M. Scott
>In article <3C754960...@socrates.berkeley.edu>,
>Heather Rose Jones <hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>Lori Selke wrote:
>>> In article <a5a94c8e.02022...@posting.google.com>,
>>> Graham Edwards <grahamed...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> >Cathy Purchis-Jefferies <cat...@value.net> wrote in message
>>> >news:<3C732B7A...@value.net>...
>>> >> Also, does someone with an OED know the etymology of selkie?
>>> >Selkie (or silkie, selchie, sealchie and probably several other
>>> >spellings)
>>> But *not* Selke.
>>Ah, but have we ever seen you to stray very far from the ocean? And
>>what _do_ you keep in that locked box under the bed?
>So far as I know, very few rasfc denizens have seen me at all.
More suspicious yet! (But we'll take your word for it; after all,
would Lori lie?)
Brian
Heather Rose Jones
Neil Barnes
slee...@gmx.co.uk
> >> zeb...@altavista.com (Zeborah) wrote in <1f81cst.1ed81lcwwao72N%
> >> zeb...@altavista.com>:
> >>
> >>> Anyone got any problems with 'delwhing' as the name of an alien bird:
> >>> a medium flying bird, friendly-like, generally nomadic in groups of
> >>> 2-4, omnivorous/scavenger type things, larger than a-- huh; didn't
> >>> notice that before -- seagull, but smaller than an albatross?
> >>>
> >>> Not that they're seagulls, they really still are a bit closer to
> >>> airborne dolphins, sort of, so I'd like to stick with 'delwhing' if I
> >>> can.
> Seriously: the 'wh' words - which when where and their kin - are often
> pronounced with the 'h' aspirated, and depending on accent, either
> simultaneously with the 'w' or slightly before it.
>
> Then again, we live in a country where 'ghoti' can be pronounced 'fish'.
I /defy/ you to find a native English speaker not already
familiar with this specious claim who wouldn't pronounce
<ghoti> approximately [goUti] in the context of English.
(Now that I've issued this challenge, I'm sure they'll start
coming out of the woodwork, but it has to be said. ;) )
Assuming, from the H, the use of Greek and the resemblance to
'wing', that 'delwhing' is a word created by Anglophones, for
Anglophones, I think it looks fine -- like Zeborah locked
'delphin' and 'wing' up in a room together and let them fight it
out. I do tend to slightly pre-aspirate the W in <wh>, but I
don't see why that's necessarily a bad thing (for this particular
word, obviously it's not a bad thing in general).
--Squid
Patricia C. Wrede
M. Scott) writes:
>More suspicious yet! (But we'll take your word for it; after all,
>would Lori lie?)
Ack!
Patricia C. Wrede
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> >So far as I know, very few rasfc denizens have seen me at
>all.
>
> More suspicious yet! (But we'll take your word for it;
>after all, would Lori lie?)
*slap!*
Del Cotter
Neil Barnes <nailed_...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> said:
>whh...@kithrup.com (Wilson Heydt) wrote
>> DRop the 'h' to be easier to pronouce? Come on...this is *English*
>> we're talking about, the language that brings you jokes like
>> "Hen3ry" (the '3' is silent), or my favorite example of how to morph
>> words to make better passwords: Phred.
>
>Seriously: the 'wh' words - which when where and their kin - are often
>pronounced with the 'h' aspirated, and depending on accent, either
>simultaneously with the 'w' or slightly before it.
>
>Then again, we live in a country where 'ghoti' can be pronounced 'fish'.
You and Shaw can speak for yourselves, I don't live in any such country.
Actually Shaw didn't even say that, he said that, if a certain strawman
model of English orthography of his own creation were rigidly adhered
to, then England *would* be a country where such an atrocity could be
perpetrated.
--
. . . . Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk . . . .
JustRead:cLeodCosmonautKeep:JRRTolkienTheFellowshipOfTheRing:ChinaMievil
lePerdidoStreetStation:KatherineBlakeTheInteriorLife:KeithBrookeExpatria
ToRead:CSLewisTheVoyageOfTheDawnTreader:MichaelMarshallSmithOnlyForward:
Catja Pafort
> I wonder if this is a pondian thing? I just tried to find what word
> Terry Pratchett uses in "Guards! Guards!" (You'd think he'd use the
> word *somewhere*) and couldn't quickly find anything other than "Men"
> (used to highlight the non-male and/or non-human members) and
> "Officers".
He does use 'guards' once or twice in Men at Arms - but he also plays a
lot on the 'Men' thingy; what with Cuddy and Detritus and Angua not
really being men, and Carrot being technically a dwarf, and Nobby
carrying a card to say he's a member of the human race...
He also, in direct adress, uses 'members of the night watch' (as opposed
to the day watch, which are a bunch of *hopelessly* incompetents). Maybe
(oh, goodie, an excuse to read another Pratchett, as if I need one)
it'll be better to read the later books which feature far more, and not
always fully named guards.
> Irina might find the word "officer" an acceptable alternative. I
> believe it's acceptable usage to refer to *all* police(men) as
> officers. I suspect the -men suffix has been dropped as non PC.
'officer' in adress will certainly do. I'd still refer to her as a
guard, but then I'm partial, one of my main characters in the previous
attack novel if a border guard. Come to think of it, so is someone else,
and *he* refers to himself and his comrades as 'guards.' No females,
though.
> In "Men At Arms" TP refers to Corporal Carrott as a City Guard, not
> as a city Guardsman, even though he is not a guard in Mary's sense
> but a Night Watchman.
Never trust an author who is fond of punes, or plays on words.
Catja
aka PerditaX (can you tell where I used to hang out?)
sam
> > In article <3c758462....@News.CIS.DFN.DE>,
> > Jonathan L Cunningham <Jonathan....@tesco.net> wrote:
> in the in-world language either; "guard" (someone guarding something)
> is "shalan" ("watch+person-who-does-something") and "guards(wo)man"
> is "nafalan" ("not+danger+person-who-does-something", but it's taken
> on the meaning of "member of the [Royal] Guards"). Both are
> completely gender neutral. Of the English words I use to represent
> the terms, only "guard' is gender neutral.
>
>
> the guards? They're probably not at supper, because they're on watch.
> With the Guard? All forty-something of them, even those who happen to
> be on guard duty? With the Guard people? With the people of the
> Guard? All equally silly.
>
> Here I need "guards(wo)men", and I prefer to refer to them as
> "guardsmen" when it doesn't matter whether an individual one is in
> fact male or female.
refused us" or "She had supper with the Nafalan"?
Irina Rempt
> Irina might find the word "officer" an acceptable alternative.
No, I do not. Not culturally appropriate. I don't know why exactly,
but it jars.
> I
> believe it's acceptable usage to refer to *all* police(men) as
> officers.
But not the members of the Royal Guard. They're elite troops, but
most of them are on the bottom layer of their company. An "officer",
for me, is in command, even if it's of very few underlings.
> I suspect the -men suffix has been dropped as non PC.
I'm not interested in being PC.
Irina Rempt
> Why don't you use "Nafalan"? As in "We couldn't enter, the Nafalan
> refused us" or "She had supper with the Nafalan"?
For the same reason that I use "robe" instead of "feal", "gifted"
instead of "semte", "power" instead of "anie". I don't want to draw
attention to something that's perfectly ordinary to characters with a
word that's foreign to readers when there's an acceptable English
word.
*Especially* not with a capital letter. That makes even English words
special, and I *hate* that device in fantasy I read ("she Saw" for
"she saw by telepathy").
(And a little nitpick: _nafalan_ is the singular, if she had supper
in the Guard house (here I capitalize it because it's used as a name)
it should be "with the nafalin".)
Anna Mazzoldi
zeb...@altavista.com (Zeborah) wrote:
> This is why the name "Cetaganda" keeps nagging at me. What have they
> got about whales, exactly?
I *thought* it had to do with their home system being around a
star in the Cetus constellation -- possibly Tau Ceti? I may be
misremembering (aka "making it up").
Ciao,
Anna
--
Anna Mazzoldi writing from Dublin, Ireland
Current soundtrack: Baraban, _Il valzer dei disertori_;
De Andre', _1991 Concerti_; Guccini, _Amerigo_
Constance Anderson
Pafort) wrote:
>He also, in direct adress, uses 'members of the night watch' (as opposed
>to the day watch, which are a bunch of *hopelessly* incompetents). Maybe
>(oh, goodie, an excuse to read another Pratchett, as if I need one)
>it'll be better to read the later books which feature far more, and not
>always fully named guards.
I just checked Jingo, since I was giving it a reread anyway, and in it
he uses 'watchmen' to describe two men, a man and a woman, and the
whole assembled body of the watch, male and female. (He also uses
'members of the watch.')
Personally, I didn't notice one way or another until I actually went
looking for it, though others might. So I can't say if it's an issue
or not. (Real helpful, yes? ;) )
Connie
Irina Rempt
> I just checked Jingo, since I was giving it a reread anyway, and
> in it he uses 'watchmen' to describe two men, a man and a woman,
> and the whole assembled body of the watch, male and female. (He
> also uses 'members of the watch.')
>
> Personally, I didn't notice one way or another until I actually went
> looking for it, though others might. So I can't say if it's an
> issue or not. (Real helpful, yes? ;) )
Yes. I mean it. If it doesn't seem to be an issue for Real Published
Authors I can go and call men-as-well-as-women "guardsmen" with
impunity.