Pronunciation of "Amen"
Areff
When I was growing up, and I was raised Catholic, my understanding was
that Catholics said "ay-men" /eI'mEn/, Protestants said "ah-men", and Jews
said "oh-main" /oU'meIn/, rhyming with lo mein. Let's focus on the ay-men
vs. ah-men thing.
Is there indeed a Catholic/Protestant split of this sort? Seems too
simple, and, moreover, whenever one hears AmE "amen" in a non-religious
context (e.g. "Amen to that!"), it's always "ay-men", and there must be
lots of Prots saying "ay-men to that", and none saying "ah-men to that".
I can definitely think of contexts (e.g. religious settings attended by a
mixture of known Catholics and Prots) where it was definitely the case
that the Catholics all said "ay-men" and the Prots all said "ah-men".
However, there may have been other factors at work (geography, social
class, sect of Protestantism, regional or ethnic variety of Catholicism).
I can well believe that many American Protestants must say "ay-men". But
are there numerous American Catholics who say "ah-men" in religious
contexts, and they've just been under my radar all this time?
Any word on this from the Otherpondians?
R J Valentine
I can't speak for them, but there's a tendency at my church to go
Protestant or something. They're doing all sorts of stuff that I just
don't knoow where it came from. For instance, at The Great Amen they tend
to sing it. They used to do the Sydney Poitier song from _Lilies of the
Field_ from time to time, which is the Standard American "ay-men". But
now it tends to be all "ah-men" (= SparkE "aw-men"), if you pay any
attention to the choir, which I do about as much as I do to people who use
software that can't handle the standard diversity of quote-indentation
characters. And there's this holding hands during the "Our Father" that I
just don't get, though I've read stories about Protestants who used to do
that sort of thing (or like for grace at meals). Myself, I've got no
interest in holding guys' hands while praying, and the interest I might
have in holding chicks' hands isn't necessarily compatible with praying
(or at least with the sort of praying they'd approve of while I was doing
so). And there are a bunch of other gestures I see the people in the
choir doing at the et-cum-spiritu-tuo spots. We never did that stuff back
in the old days, and I don't know who's teaching it nowadays.
I don't mind saying "ah-men" when the prayers are in Latin, but it's like
strange in English. And I don't think Protestants in general can be
blamed, because the "Let me have an amen" people seem to be all "ay-men".
I think it's just the Episcopalians, and it may be like Latin envy for
them.
Of course back in the old days in (public) high school they'd say the "Our
Father" during assemblies, and everyone would be doing their own thing,
with Jews standing reasonably respectfully and atheists cracking wise and
public-school Catholics saying "ay-men" after "deliver us from evil" and
stopping while the parochial-school Catholics popped a sign of the cross
and the Protestants would continue on with the "for thine is the kingdom"
while the Catholics cracked wise. I think some of them would end with
"ah-men" and some not.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@theWorld.com>
Raymond S. Wise
Both Webster's Third and *The Century Dictionary* decades earlier show
the [eI] version as the usual pronunciation for usage outside rituals
or song.
This is the first time that I've heard the suggestion that there is a
difference between Catholics and Protestants in how this word is
pronounced.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Charles Riggs
<r...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>I don't mind saying "ah-men" when the prayers are in Latin, but it's like
>strange in English. And I don't think Protestants in general can be
>blamed, because the "Let me have an amen" people seem to be all "ay-men".
>I think it's just the Episcopalians, and it may be like Latin envy for
>them.
The few times I've been in a church to listen to the proceedings, they
were generally Episcopalian ones when a lad. People in them, from the
preacher man on down, invariably said ah-men, as you said, not ay-men.
In the redneck Virginia church where I married a woman, I believe I
heard ay-mens. I'm not certain since I was in it only that one time.
So that may be the divide Areff was seeking: redneck vs relatively
sophisticated.
--
Charles Riggs
the Omrud
From the singing point of view, at least in the UK, it's always Ah-
men. Can't imagine Messiah with a whole chorus of Ay-men.
I am neither Protestant nor Catholic but I suppose I was brought up
in a Protestant culture, and I always say Ah-men. I don't know if
it's different in UK Catholic circles.
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the
John Holmes
> What's the deal with the pronunciation of "amen", at least in AmE?
>
> Any word on this from the Otherpondians?
In AusE in my observation, ah-men outnumbers ay-men by a fair margin and
it doesn't seem to be a denominational split.
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au
Joe Fineman
> What's the deal with the pronunciation of "amen", at least in AmE?
As an atheistic upper-middle-class Jewish American with a year's
residence in Scotland (1958-9), I have almost always heard the "ah"
pronunciation, except when people were making fun of revivalists.
Scottish students, when burlesquing a hymn, followed the "ah" up with
"so" or, worse, "souls".
However, I was chastened by reading in Gowers's MEU the following
quotation from D. M. Low (1960):
_Ahmen_ is probably a comparatively modern Anglican innovation of
about a hundred years' standing. Roman Catholics, one is glad to
note, on the whole retain the English _amen_ [long a].
As a long-standing opponent of deAnglicization, I have since switched
over to aymen.
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: The roots of wit and charm tap :||
||: Secret springs of sorrow. :||
Mike Lyle
> Areff wrote:
>> What's the deal with the pronunciation of "amen", at least in AmE?
>>
>> When I was growing up, and I was raised Catholic, my understanding
>> was that Catholics said "ay-men" /eI'mEn/, Protestants said
>> "ah-men", and Jews said "oh-main" /oU'meIn/, rhyming with lo mein.
>>
>> Any word on this from the Otherpondians?
>
>
> Both Webster's Third and *The Century Dictionary* decades earlier
show
> the [eI] version as the usual pronunciation for usage outside
rituals
> or song.
>
> This is the first time that I've heard the suggestion that there is
a
> difference between Catholics and Protestants in how this word is
> pronounced.
My impression is that the difference exists in UK, too; but, as David
says, there are contexts which would prohibit "ay-men". Arabic, both
Christian and Muslim, is "ah-meen", which I've heard used in Muslim
chorus to the bloke praying in the corner of the room, with the
meaning "Yeah, yeah! Enough from the prayers, already!"
--
Mike.
Paul Wolff
<mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> writes
Roman, without a doubt. Masses of evidence.
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo!
Pat Durkin
"R J Valentine" <r...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:dcf525$2oq$2...@pcls4.std.com...
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 04:23:20 +0000 (UTC) Areff <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> } What's the deal with the pronunciation of "amen", at least in AmE?
> }
> } When I was growing up, and I was raised Catholic, my understanding was
> } that Catholics said "ay-men" /eI'mEn/, Protestants said "ah-men", and
Jews
> } said "oh-main" /oU'meIn/, rhyming with lo mein. Let's focus on the
ay-men
> } vs. ah-men thing.
> }
> } Is there indeed a Catholic/Protestant split of this sort? Seems too
> } simple, and, moreover, whenever one hears AmE "amen" in a non-religious
> } context (e.g. "Amen to that!"), it's always "ay-men", and there must be
> } lots of Prots saying "ay-men to that", and none saying "ah-men to that".
You left out (Prots=>Prods in HibernE) didn't you, Areff?
> }
> } I can definitely think of contexts (e.g. religious settings attended by
a
> } mixture of known Catholics and Prots) where it was definitely the case
> } that the Catholics all said "ay-men" and the Prots all said "ah-men".
> } However, there may have been other factors at work (geography, social
> } class, sect of Protestantism, regional or ethnic variety of
Catholicism).
It hasn't been enough to warrant a war, but I always found it jarring to
hear prayers in public in which people bowed their heads during the prayer
(usually lead by a minister. . .a very strange thing for me) and then ended
with "ah-men".
Heck, even that song had the long "a" /ei/ repeated 3 times, twice before
getting to the double "a" version. And then there was the emphatic long "a"
for the last two repeats of the word.
>
> I can't speak for them, but there's a tendency at my church to go
> Protestant or something. They're doing all sorts of stuff that I just
> don't knoow where it came from. For instance, at The Great Amen they tend
> to sing it. They used to do the Sydney Poitier song from _Lilies of the
> Field_ from time to time, which is the Standard American "ay-men". But
> now it tends to be all "ah-men" (= SparkE "aw-men"), if you pay any
> attention to the choir, which I do about as much as I do to people who use
> software that can't handle the standard diversity of quote-indentation
> characters. And there's this holding hands during the "Our Father" that I
> just don't get, though I've read stories about Protestants who used to do
> that sort of thing (or like for grace at meals). Myself, I've got no
> interest in holding guys' hands while praying, and the interest I might
> have in holding chicks' hands isn't necessarily compatible with praying
> (or at least with the sort of praying they'd approve of while I was doing
> so). And there are a bunch of other gestures I see the people in the
> choir doing at the et-cum-spiritu-tuo spots. We never did that stuff back
> in the old days, and I don't know who's teaching it nowadays.
Blame it on Ecumenism. You never mentioned the icky Communion "kiss of
peace", which has deteriorated into a handshake. People looking around
desperately to make sure no one will feel slighted.
Actually, I must have stopped attending before the hand-held Lord's Prayer
happened. Sounds like a hippy-dippy thing, like guitar masses, etc.
However, I did notice the Protestant "power and glory" phrase. Many
Catholics now say this part.
>
> I don't mind saying "ah-men" when the prayers are in Latin, but it's like
> strange in English. And I don't think Protestants in general can be
> blamed, because the "Let me have an amen" people seem to be all "ay-men".
You and RF have covered most of the differences that I perceived between
Catholics and Protestants. (I don't really think Anglicans can be called
Protestants, can they?)
Another sectarian difference which has fallen by the wayside, is the use of
"Holy Ghost" now replaced by "Holy Spirit". In fact, the last time I heard
"Holy Ghost" in prayer, it was spoken in an Anglican service.
> Of course back in the old days in (public) high school they'd say the "Our
> Father" during assemblies, and everyone would be doing their own thing,
> with Jews standing reasonably respectfully and atheists cracking wise and
> public-school Catholics saying "ay-men" after "deliver us from evil" and
> stopping while the parochial-school Catholics popped a sign of the cross
> and the Protestants would continue on with the "for thine is the kingdom"
> while the Catholics cracked wise. I think some of them would end with
> "ah-men" and some not.
Prayers in a public school? Whew! Since the H S baccalaureate exercises
were considered religious, and since our local ministers were fighting about
whose turn it was to give the benediction, the entire ceremony was cancelled
in 1954. Mom, thinking baccalaureate something required for graduation,
lugged me over to the neighboring town, which had a Catholic church. (No
other Catholics in our town, you see.) Anyway, the priest had already
participated in that town's baccalaureate, but at least he had a blessing
for the graduates in a separate peace. That was to assuage the shocked
feelings of the Catholics who didn't feel comfortable participating in a
non-Catholic religious service.
Those were the days!
And contemporaneously with that abandonment of brotherly love, (1954) the US
Congress was approving the addition of "under God" to the Pledge of
Allegiance.
the Omrud
> You and RF have covered most of the differences that I perceived between
> Catholics and Protestants. (I don't really think Anglicans can be called
> Protestants, can they?)
They surely can.
Harvey Van Sickle
> Pat Durkin spake thusly:
>
>> You and RF have covered most of the differences that I perceived
>> between Catholics and Protestants. (I don't really think
>> Anglicans can be called Protestants, can they?)
>
> They surely can.
Yup. And also "catholic and apostolic" and all that.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canada for 30 years; S England since 1982.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van)
Pat Durkin
"the Omrud" <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d55b2d9d...@news.ntlworld.com...
> Pat Durkin spake thusly:
>
> > You and RF have covered most of the differences that I perceived between
> > Catholics and Protestants. (I don't really think Anglicans can be
called
> > Protestants, can they?)
>
> They surely can.
>
Lutheranism, and I thought that Elizabeth followed suit, up to a point. You
know, prohibiting importation of bibles or unauthorized translations of
such.
Maria Conlon
> What's the deal with the pronunciation of "amen", at least in AmE?
>
> When I was growing up, and I was raised Catholic, my understanding was
> that Catholics said "ay-men" /eI'mEn/, Protestants said "ah-men", and
> Jews said "oh-main" /oU'meIn/, rhyming with lo mein. Let's focus on
> the ay-men vs. ah-men thing.
>
> Is there indeed a Catholic/Protestant split of this sort? [...]
Not that I can see. Having been both (starting out as Protestant and
converting to Catholicism when I married), I can say that "ay-men"
was/is used by both. Singing "amen" is the exception. Then it's
generally "ah-men."
All this could be regional, I suppose.
Maria Conlon
rban...@shaw.ca
<jo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Areff <m...@privacy.net> writes:
>
>> What's the deal with the pronunciation of "amen", at least in AmE?
>
>As an atheistic upper-middle-class Jewish American with a year's
>residence in Scotland (1958-9), I have almost always heard the "ah"
>pronunciation, except when people were making fun of revivalists.
>Scottish students, when burlesquing a hymn, followed the "ah" up with
>"so" or, worse, "souls".
>
>However, I was chastened by reading in Gowers's MEU the following
>quotation from D. M. Low (1960):
>
> _Ahmen_ is probably a comparatively modern Anglican innovation of
> about a hundred years' standing. Roman Catholics, one is glad to
> note, on the whole retain the English _amen_ [long a].
>
>As a long-standing opponent of deAnglicization, I have since switched
>over to aymen.
RJ's suspicion that Anglican AHMEN is Latin-envy did not seem
just, but with a Roman Catholic mother I naturally grew up
with AYMEN and (and unlike Areff said nothing about it) was
sometimes startled to find my bray differed from that of
fellow Anglicans who stood close by me. I have become used to
the difference and now understand (from David TO's choir
explanation) that the CofE switched because of the music. A
long gargle will convince all that AH is a voicing superior to
AY. Does your doctor say 'say AY', Joe?
Areff
> However, I was chastened by reading in Gowers's MEU the following
> quotation from D. M. Low (1960):
>
> _Ahmen_ is probably a comparatively modern Anglican innovation of
> about a hundred years' standing. Roman Catholics, one is glad to
> note, on the whole retain the English _amen_ [long a].
Aha, that's useful. I do think that most of the American Protestant users
of "ah-men" I've heard in real-life contexts may have been Episcopalians,
perhaps of the higher-church sort.
Areff
Right. I'm pretty sure I've heard singing "ah-men" in Catholic contexts
(the "A-men, A-men, A-a-a-a-a-men" thing), but that's a whole nother
thing -- a Greco-Latin holdover.
Areff
> RJ's suspicion that Anglican AHMEN is Latin-envy did not seem
> just, but with a Roman Catholic mother
I'm not sure I can believe that.
> I naturally grew up
> with AYMEN and (and unlike Areff said nothing about it) was
> sometimes startled to find my bray differed from that of
> fellow Anglicans who stood close by me. I have become used to
> the difference and now understand (from David TO's choir
> explanation) that the CofE switched because of the music. A
> long gargle will convince all that AH is a voicing superior to
> AY. Does your doctor say 'say AY', Joe?
Chances are Joe's doctor says "say AH", but Sparky's doctor says "say AW",
from what I understand.
credoquaabsurdum
easily check this out in Merriam-Webster or Oxford -- it would take
about fifteen seconds) the word is listed as being pronounced as
"ah-MEEN."
What these dictionaries won't tell you is that our best guess on the
original pronunciation of Greek is based on a system of educated
guesses that Erasmus began the work of putting together hundreds of
years ago. However, "amen" has of course survived in a big way in the
worship of the Greek Orthodox Church, and "ah-MEEM" is how you will
hear it pronounced during the various liturgies of that church.
The basis of this discussion, given the above evidence, is which of the
two Anglicized pronunciations presented creolizes the word less.
Alan Jones
"Areff" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:dcevbo$93q$1...@news.wss.yale.edu...
Speaking as an English choirmaster (currently for a C of E church, but I was
brought up Methodist and have played for services in RC, Baptist and
Congregationlist churches) I associate Ay-men with RC worshippers at the end
of spoken prayers, though some RC individuals or even congregations do use
Ah-men. All the other denominations agree on spoken Ah-men. After hymns or
anything else sung, it's Ah-men for everyone, Catholic or Protestant - I've
never heard a sung Ay-men.
Is the RC Ay-men a survival from the traditional English pronunciation of
Latin, I wonder? (I mean, the sort that makes us say "Te Deum" as
tee-dee-um rather than tay day-oom.)
Alan Jones
Murray Arnow
>
>RJ's suspicion that Anglican AHMEN is Latin-envy did not seem
>just, but with a Roman Catholic mother I naturally grew up
>with AYMEN and (and unlike Areff said nothing about it) was
>sometimes startled to find my bray differed from that of
>
>
Latin got nothin' to do with it. The Hebes were saying "awmayn" long before
the heathen learned to mispronounce the word.
rban...@shaw.ca
L'il Ole Urdum says Erasmus just fiddled with a Hebrew word
borrowed by Greek, which is true. Now it's borrowed by English
and is thoroughly English.
I am sure God is not offended however we prononounce it. In
any case, who is to say how Aramaic or Hebrew was pronounced
way back then?
May one say 'back in the day', a horrid interviewerese
expression I hear now and rhen, there? I think it is American.
Matthew Huntbach
> Is the RC Ay-men a survival from the traditional English pronunciation of
> Latin, I wonder? (I mean, the sort that makes us say "Te Deum" as
> tee-dee-um rather than tay day-oom.)
I always thought of that as an Anglican thing. RC pronunciation of "Te
Deum" would be "ta day-oom". Where RC pronunciation of Latin retains a
distinct RC-ness is where it pronounces it in an Italian way, so 'c'
before 'e' and 'i' is prounced as English "ch" for example.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach
Pat Durkin wrote:
> > > You and RF have covered most of the differences that I perceived between
> > > Catholics and Protestants. (I don't really think Anglicans can be
> > > called Protestants, can they?)
> > They surely can.
> Ok. Just wondering. The Henry VIII story indicated such opposition to
> Lutheranism, and I thought that Elizabeth followed suit, up to a point. You
> know, prohibiting importation of bibles or unauthorized translations of
> such.
Henry VIII started as an ardent supporter of the Pope and an opponent
of Lutheranism. But once the break with Rome had been made, even if he
had intended it to be merely a matter of authority, it was siezed on by
Protestant-minded reformers in England to introduce thoroughly
Protestant reforms. For example, invocations of the Mary or the saints
was banned - rosaries and statues of Mary were burnt by the public
hangman - is this a thing Catholics would do? The communion service was
changed so that the host was eaten as soon as it was consecrated to
avoid any sort of veneration of the consecrated elements. Prayers for
the dead were banned, as they assume the Popish concept of purgatory.
It seems that Henry was kept in the dark over some of this, and court
services were kept up in a Catholic-like way. As soon as he died, the
Church of England went through a thoroughly Calvinist period during the
reign of Edward VI. The 39 Articles of the Church of England, which are
still its official statement of doctrine, speak of the "blasphenous
fable of the mass".
The idea that the Church of England is not a "Protestant" Church was an
invention of the 19th century Anglo-Catholics.
Matthew Huntbach
Pat Durkin
"Matthew Huntbach" <mhun...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122764287.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Pat Durkin wrote:
> > "the Omrud" <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Pat Durkin spake thusly:
>
> > > > You and RF have covered most of the differences that I perceived
between
> > > > Catholics and Protestants. (I don't really think Anglicans can be
> > > > called Protestants, can they?)
>
> > > They surely can.
>
> > Ok. Just wondering. The Henry VIII story indicated such opposition to
> > Lutheranism, and I thought that Elizabeth followed suit, up to a point.
You
> > know, prohibiting importation of bibles or unauthorized translations of
> > such.
>
> Henry VIII started as an ardent supporter of the Pope and an opponent
> of Lutheranism. But once the break with Rome had been made, even if he
> had intended it to be merely a matter of authority, it was siezed on by
> Protestant-minded reformers in England to introduce thoroughly
> Protestant reforms. For example, invocations of the Mary or the saints
> was banned - rosaries and statues of Mary were burnt by the public
> hangman - is this a thing Catholics would do? The communion service was
> changed so that the host was eaten as soon as it was consecrated to
> avoid any sort of veneration of the consecrated elements. Prayers for
> the dead were banned, as they assume the Popish concept of purgatory.
Wow, these were all new concepts to me.
> It seems that Henry was kept in the dark over some of this, and court
> services were kept up in a Catholic-like way. As soon as he died, the
> Church of England went through a thoroughly Calvinist period during the
> reign of Edward VI. The 39 Articles of the Church of England, which are
> still its official statement of doctrine, speak of the "blasphenous
> fable of the mass".
Yes, but there is High Church and Low Church, right? And one of them uses
more Latin that the RCs do nowadays. Popery, indeed!
>
> The idea that the Church of England is not a "Protestant" Church was an
> invention of the 19th century Anglo-Catholics.
Well, you have half-way admitted to the non-Protestantism of Anglicans. It
doesn't bother me much, you know.
I associate Methodism and Presbyterianism with Protestantism. However, I
wonder if someone will clear up the matter (maybe it is only in the US) of
Anglican vs Episcopalian.
credoquaabsurdum
> L'il Ole Urdum says Erasmus just fiddled with a Hebrew word
> borrowed by Greek, which is true. Now it's borrowed by English
> and is thoroughly English.
>
> I am sure God is not offended however we prononounce it. In
> any case, who is to say how Aramaic or Hebrew was pronounced
> way back then?
No, that's not what I said. However, it is obvious that in your youth
you were repeatedly kicked about the head by the kine down on the farm,
severely impairing those basic mental facilities that were God's
original gift to you.
Therefore, I must make allowances.
Now assume the position: down on your knees with your mouth open and
your tongue out. Now don't open your eyes...just listen for it...here
it comes...
I asserted in my earlier post that "amen" was a Greek loanword. If you
look it up in the Compact Oxford, you see that its Greek root is
attributed there to a Hebrew word that means "truth, certainly."
The first of my many allowances.
In Merriam Webster's Collegiate, 11th edition, there is no mention of
the Hebrew root. In Merriam-Webster's On-Line, there is.
The second of my many allowances.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary (You'll have to look it up all by
your lonesome on that service.)
Now, I happen to disagree with both etymological opinions. I have no
problem with the word going back to Latin, and on to Greek, but I'm not
sure that it comes from a common Hebrew root. This is why.
I am sitting in my study in Athens, Greece, and I have before me a book
entitled _Lexico Tis Koinis Neoellinikis_ (EU conventions for Latinized
spelling here) published by the Institute of Modern Greek Studies at
the University of Salonika. By and large, this book is considered to be
to the Greek language what the OED is to the English language. Granted,
you'll have to take my word for it, unless you want to hit a university
and expose your woeful lack of breeding to your betters.
"Amen" means "oh, might it be so."
Of course, the book does not say that. The actual entry is:
amin: epif. efxetiko. yia kati pou efxetai o omilitis no yinei sto
mellon.
(Amen: adjective of hope, for something which the speaker wishes might
happen in the future.)
I'm sure that someone in this group knows enough basic modern Greek to
tentatively verify that translation. If you plug it into a translator,
well, you'll need the original spelling. I can't help you there, but I
can lead you to the dictionary's main site.
http://ins.phil.auth.gr/lexikaonline.htm (Allowance three, to reach the
total number of fingers you still have, rban...@shaw.ca)
"Amen," in Greek, has no connotations of emphatic agreement with
someone else. It is not an ancient cognate of "uh-huh" or "hell, yes."
It is, quite simple, a wish. The wish had religious overtones
then...and no one in their right mind believes that the word is in
common usage outside of religious or semi-religious usages.
I therefore believe that the Hebrew root indicated in both Oxford and
MW was put in there by scholars desperately hoping to appear
politically correct and give the Hebrew language its proper due in the
evolution of the English language. I may be wrong on this, but it seems
logical.
Since my Oxford Online access is down, I cannot verify Oxford's full
etymological record on this. I've already asked Merriam-Webster, Inc.
about it.
As to how the word is pronounced in a Greek Orthodox church, well,
rban...@shaw.ca, you can watch _My Big Fat Greek Wedding_ and listen
closely. The pause button on your DVD remote has those two vertical
bars on it, that is, if your woman hasn't managed to rub it off in her
search for the gratification that you can't give her.
----
Now check my earlier post for what I actually said about Erasmus. Try
subvocalizing as you read. If you want to follow along with one of
those three fingers, well, it's all good. What are doing with the other
hand? What the...with two fingers and no thumb? STOP THAT! You'll go
blind!
----
Unlike some in this group, I am all for Anglicizing foreign words and
not putting on bullshit accents to approximate the "proper"
pronunciation of a word. Then again, time and circumstances have forced
me to master a second language in some depth, so my views on
multilingual posers are a bit harsh. But in looking at "amen," and
wondering how to properly pronounce something that has significantly
changed from its original form, it is curious that in this discussion,
quite a number of people have attempted to claim pride of place for
either the one or the other of fully Anglicized pronunciations, neither
of which approximate the original one.
The only other alternative to these two pronunciations, brought up by a
single poster, is how Muslims pronounce it in their worship. That
pronunciation is far more historically accurate than what English
speakers use (even if you believe that "amen" is ultimately Hebrew, in
point of fact). I thought it was curious, and decided to speak up.
And now, rban...@shaw.ca, I'm done. You may feel free to swallow and
go wash your face now.
Bob Cunningham
<m...@privacy.net> said:
[...]
> Chances are Joe's doctor says "say AH", but Sparky's doctor says "say AW",
> from what I understand.
"Ah" or "aw", same sound. But I would write "Say Ah"
because I understand that to be the conventional spelling.
Areff
> I associate Methodism and Presbyterianism with Protestantism. However, I
> wonder if someone will clear up the matter (maybe it is only in the US) of
> Anglican vs Episcopalian.
Episcopalians are Prots. The sole exception are those Episcopalians who
are affiliated with The Church of St. Mary the Virgin in New York's
theatre district. Check it out:
http://www.stmvirgin.org/
That place is more Romishly Papistic than all the Roman Catholic churches
in the US put together.
Robert Bannister
But not back then. As far as I can make out, the Church of England
really came into being under Elizabeth. There had been so many deaths
and burnings under previous governments, that an attempt was made to
create a religion that would have some appeal to all. In fact, it was
rejected by most, so more harsh measures were adopted to enforce it.
The entire history of the CofE is bound up with the attempts by the RC
superpowers of the times (Spain, France, Austria) to take over or
destroy England, history covering the reigns of Henry VIII (maybe even
before) to James II. None of the bloodshed and religious changes (and
the fear of RCs even today among some people) make sense without bearing
this in mind.
--
Rob Bannister
Raymond S. Wise
Pat Durkin wrote:
[...]
> I associate Methodism and Presbyterianism with Protestantism. However, I
> wonder if someone will clear up the matter (maybe it is only in the US) of
> Anglican vs Episcopalian.
It's all the same church. As Laurie Goodstein put it in an article in
the New York Times, "An Anglican Church commission rebuked the
Episcopal Church USA yesterday [October 18, 2004] for ordaining an
openly gay bishop in New Hampshire and for blessing same-sex unions,
and called for a moratorium on both practices 'until some new consensus
in the Anglican Communion emerges.'"
See
http://www.all-angels.com/Episcopal%20news.htm
I take it for granted that Episcopalians (and thus Anglicans) are
Protestants. The Mormons aren't, though.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
rban...@shaw.ca
<credoqua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
What a _lot_ of rubbish, urdum! I am perfectly willing to
have you waste your time (we both know it's valueless) and
since I have a fast computer and connexion, and very little
altruism--plus a conviction that the web can stand your
incredibly long-winded messages--I'll just leave you in (I'm
sure) mid-gobble.
But do continue, if you must-- sensibly if possible.
CDB
"credoquaabsurdum" <credoqua...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1122768413....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> rban...@shaw.ca wrote:
>
>> L'il Ole Urdum says Erasmus just fiddled with a Hebrew word
>> borrowed by Greek, which is true. Now it's borrowed by English
>> and is thoroughly English.
>>
>> I am sure God is not offended however we prononounce it. In
>> any case, who is to say how Aramaic or Hebrew was pronounced
>> way back then?
[gravity-reducing persiflage snipped passim]
> No, that's not what I said.
> "Amen," in Greek, has no connotations of emphatic agreement with
> someone else. It is not an ancient cognate of "uh-huh" or "hell,
> yes."
> It is, quite simple, a wish. The wish had religious overtones
> then...and no one in their right mind believes that the word is in
> common usage outside of religious or semi-religious usages.
>
> I therefore believe that the Hebrew root indicated in both Oxford
> and
> MW was put in there by scholars desperately hoping to appear
> politically correct and give the Hebrew language its proper due in
> the
> evolution of the English language. I may be wrong on this, but it
> seems
> logical.
>
> Since my Oxford Online access is down, I cannot verify Oxford's full
> etymological record on this. I've already asked Merriam-Webster,
> Inc.
> about it.
>
> As to how the word is pronounced in a Greek Orthodox church, well,
> you can watch _My Big Fat Greek Wedding_ and listen
> closely.
> Now check my earlier post for what I actually said about Erasmus.
> Unlike some in this group, I am all for Anglicizing foreign words
> and
> not putting on bullshit accents to approximate the "proper"
> pronunciation of a word. Then again, time and circumstances have
> forced
> me to master a second language in some depth, so my views on
> multilingual posers are a bit harsh. But in looking at "amen," and
> wondering how to properly pronounce something that has significantly
> changed from its original form, it is curious that in this
> discussion,
> quite a number of people have attempted to claim pride of place for
> either the one or the other of fully Anglicized pronunciations,
> neither
> of which approximate the original one.
>
> The only other alternative to these two pronunciations, brought up
> by a
> single poster, is how Muslims pronounce it in their worship. That
> pronunciation is far more historically accurate than what English
> speakers use (even if you believe that "amen" is ultimately Hebrew,
> in
> point of fact). I thought it was curious, and decided to speak up.
As far as the meaning of "amen" is concerned. I don't think anyone
would deny that it is used to mean "let it be so", among other things.
Some languages translate the word instead of borrowing it: Anglo-Saxon
used "sothlice", truly, to end prayers that I have seen.
Apart from the assurances of scholars, what convinces me of the Hebrew
origins of "amen" is its productiveness in that language. Whereas
Greek, according to your research, has it (only?) as an "adjective of
hope" (puzzling in itself -- I would have thought it some kind of
particle), it exists in Hebrew as part of a constellation of related
words, including "omen", faithfulness; "ne'eman", to be faithful,
true; "he'emin", to trust, believe in; and "amenah", truly. This last
word and other related words ("aman", "immen", hithammen") also have
meanings related to education and training. The root verb appears to
be "aman", to rear, nurse.
In an attempt to avoid accusations of multilingual posing, I will
state here that my knowlege of Hebrew is far more limited than my
interest in it, and that my interest in ancient and many foreign
languages is chiefly related to the light they can furnish to my
understanding of English. I can read a dictionary, though.
Transcriptions above are my own, and do not adequately reflect the
Hebrew spelling. If you should want to look it up, the root verb is
spelled ALEPH (qamets) MEM (pathach) NUN.
As for the pronunciation of "amen" in English, rbaniste has made the
only valid point: the choice is between the two current
pronunciations, and the way Romans or Greeks, or even the Israelites
who originated it, pronounced the word in their own languages at the
time of borrowing, while of interest, is not relevant to the English
pronunciation of an English word; still less so is its modern
pronunciation in those languages. Even for English, God doesn't rule
on the question, and neither (as you will find if you check) do we.
.
credoquaabsurdum
> As for the pronunciation of "amen" in English, rbaniste has made the
> only valid point: the choice is between the two current
> pronunciations, and the way Romans or Greeks, or even the Israelites
> who originated it, pronounced the word in their own languages at the
> time of borrowing, while of interest, is not relevant to the English
> pronunciation of an English word; still less so is its modern
> pronunciation in those languages. Even for English, God doesn't rule
> on the question, and neither (as you will find if you check) do we.
I have already clearly pointed out that rbaniste couldn't find his ass
with both hands, a flashlight, and a hung dog to help him. That's the
valid point he's made.
You, on the other hand, in another thread, have shown that you have
pervasive difficulties understanding that verbs have a habit of
appearing in subordinate clauses in both Latin and English.
But let us sail past the monster of deficient character and the
whirlpool of limited mental capacity, and move on to the business at
hand.
Clearly, you have more faith in the scholars working at Oxford than a
priest has in Christ, but the fact remains, people do make mistakes.
The term "amen" is traced in etymological research through liturgical
worship. I believe that I have shown that the Greek version of "amen"
has little in common with the Hebrew false cognate, unlike what has
been published by the scholars you revere. You have conveniently
ignored this in your post.
I have stated that in my view, the research seems to be wrong. You
can't read Greek, none of your Hebrew variants even remotely mean the
same thing as the etymological line drawn by Oxford and M-W, and I
cannot ask you to believe that I am not lying to you, so the matter
stops there...at least until we hear from the people at M-W.
Your argument that we need not take the language of origin into account
when choosing how we pronounce its loanwords in English is spurious,
though. As well say you believe "hotel" should stressed on its first
syllable and "determine" should end with a long "i" sound. Why doesn't
"blood" rhyme with "food" and "dog" with "bog"? What happened to the
"z" in "baptise" and the "v" in "April"? Loanwords don't work that way:
language is not something that can be robbed from other sources and
twisted until it crudely fits a simplified model of pronunciation,
except by barbarous churls. People object.
I remember living in Paris and being at the Cite Metro station one fine
summer day. A older woman and a younger woman marked right up to the
window. "Excuse me," the older woman squealed to the clerk in a
pronounced Midwestern accent. "Can you tell me where I can find Noter
Dame?" Her pronunciation of the second word rhymed with "name."
The younger woman signed resignedly behind her. "It's Noter Dom, Mom."
I still remember the poisonous look the clerk flashed at the two ladies
as they marched off to the big church to get themselves some good ole
Par-ee culture for the Evening Stars back in Bloomington.
While there is apparently a mechanism in English that does work to
Anglicize pronunciation, attempting to determine the proper
pronunciation of a word based on false historical principles (as has
been done in this thread), is a almost always thinly veiled attempt to
assert primacy of culture in one form or another.
In this thread, this has taken many different forms: Catholocism vs.
Protestantism, British vs. American, educated vs. ignorant, but mostly,
marked by few exceptions, in a tone of supercilious hauteur that
privileges one version and disdains the other as inferior. The use of
the word in the worship of Muslims, despite their far more
etymologically sound pronunciation (be the word in real origin either
Hebrew or Greek), has been disdained.
Mike Lyle has never done anything to show me that he is a racist, and I
do not believe that is indeed what lay behind his post, but the post is
still there, and it would be doubly offensive to a Muslim: first,
because no one commented on it until I came along, and second, because
the Arabic pronunciation of the word shows far more respect to the
culture from which it was borrowed (once again, be it either Hebrew or
Greek). I don't think it's a matter of Arab-Americans/British
Arabs/Commonwealth Arabs growing a thicker skin, either as has been
suggested elsewhere in this group.
'Snails, people are murdering us on the basis that "Islam is the
culture of manners" and we haven't woken up yet.
In the 1800s, in a little town in Texas, a debate was held regarding
the idea of bilingual education. One group argued that the educational
process wouldbe greatly helped if the many Spanish students could be
taught the basics of Christianity in their own language. Another group
adamantly opposed this. The problem was solved by the town Judge, who
held up a King James Bible and proclaimed, "If English was good enough
for Jesus, it's good enough for us."
Those were my points when I addressed this thread. rbaniste provided a
little comic relief for an English teacher on vacay in August, just as
you did elsewhere, and I thank you for it. The AUE community, packed as
it is with fastidious compugeek weenies who desperately wish to show
off their greasy patinas of linguistic refinement, is always good for a
laugh when you need it.
Credo, qua absurdum...est. That's the r-est, CDP.
credoquaabsurdum
rban...@shaw.ca wrote:
> What a _lot_ of rubbish, urdum! I am perfectly willing to
> have you waste your time (we both know it's valueless) and
> since I have a fast computer and connexion, and very little
> altruism--plus a conviction that the web can stand your
> incredibly long-winded messages--I'll just leave you in (I'm
> sure) mid-gobble.
Don't forget to wipe your mouth!
Steve Hayes
>What's the deal with the pronunciation of "amen", at least in AmE?
>
>When I was growing up, and I was raised Catholic, my understanding was
>that Catholics said "ay-men" /eI'mEn/, Protestants said "ah-men", and Jews
>said "oh-main" /oU'meIn/, rhyming with lo mein. Let's focus on the ay-men
>vs. ah-men thing.
>
>Is there indeed a Catholic/Protestant split of this sort? Seems too
>simple, and, moreover, whenever one hears AmE "amen" in a non-religious
>context (e.g. "Amen to that!"), it's always "ay-men", and there must be
>lots of Prots saying "ay-men to that", and none saying "ah-men to that".
In my experience Anglicans say "ah-men", Pentecostals say "ay-men" (both with
the stress on the first syllable) and Eastern varieties of Christianity say
"a-MEEN", with the stress on the second syllable.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
rban...@shaw.ca
<credoqua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
As I suspected, mon pauvre p'tit dindon, you have (not quite
finished your gobble. I can wait....
R J Valentine
The proof is in the tongue depressor. An effective "ah" doesn't need one.
Tony Cooper may have greater insight into where tongue depressors sell
big. Could be Utah is the tongue-depressor capital of America. Utah so
"aw" they make corn dogs with tongue depressors, then wonder why they keep
falling apart. Utah so "aw" the warnings on the tongue-depressor box say
"Do not insert in ear canal." Utah so "aw" they were the first to switch
from those little spoons McDonald's used to give away to tongue
depressors.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@theWorld.com>
Steve Hayes
wrote:
That means that you are AIA (ah is aw), and not AINA (ah is not aw).
AINA speakers would say that aw-men is very unusual.
Jess Askin
"Alan Jones" <a...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2ERGe.41595$dN6....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Except, as has been pointed out, in the spiritual "Amen" (as heard in the
movie Lilies of the Field). In fact, I don't think anybody has mentioned
African-American churches, mostly Protestant, who typically use the Aymen
pronunciation. The expression "the amen corner" would sound strange with the
ah pronunciation.
P. S. One online dictionary says the expression "amen corner" is used
chiefly in "midland and Southern Protestant churches." Who knew we had a
midland?
Jess Askin
<rban...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:a3vne1l6co58vqm2k...@4ax.com...
You have our permission to use any horrid expression you choose.
Jess Askin
"Pat Durkin" <durk...@nothome.com> wrote in message
news:AkOGe.2115$iM7....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "the Omrud" <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d55b2d9d...@news.ntlworld.com...
> > Pat Durkin spake thusly:
> >
> > > You and RF have covered most of the differences that I perceived
between
> > > Catholics and Protestants. (I don't really think Anglicans can be
> called
> > > Protestants, can they?)
> >
> > They surely can.
> >
> Ok. Just wondering. The Henry VIII story indicated such opposition to
> Lutheranism, and I thought that Elizabeth followed suit, up to a point.
You
> know, prohibiting importation of bibles or unauthorized translations of
> such.
"The illustrious house of Hanover, and Protestant succession, to them I do
allegiance swear whilst they maintain possession" says the Vicar of Bray.
Jess Askin
> The word "Amen" is a Greek loanword. In that language (and you can
> easily check this out in Merriam-Webster or Oxford -- it would take
> about fifteen seconds) the word is listed as being pronounced as
> "ah-MEEN."
Beware of Greeks lending words they borrowed themselves in the first place,
in this case from Hebrew.
>
> What these dictionaries won't tell you is that our best guess on the
> original pronunciation of Greek is based on a system of educated
> guesses that Erasmus began the work of putting together hundreds of
> years ago. However, "amen" has of course survived in a big way in the
> worship of the Greek Orthodox Church, and "ah-MEEM" is how you will
> hear it pronounced during the various liturgies of that church.
Why should we care how the Greeks pronounced it? Either pronounce it the way
it's normally pronounced in English, or go all the back to the Hebrew
(actually you'd have to go back even further, because they may have borrowed
from an earlier Semitic language).
>
> The basis of this discussion, given the above evidence, is which of the
> two Anglicized pronunciations presented creolizes the word less.
The basis of whose discussion? The idea that English is a creole dialect of
Greek boggles the mind, to say the least.
John Holmes
> "Matthew Huntbach" <mhun...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1122764287.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> an invention of the 19th century Anglo-Catholics.
>
> Well, you have half-way admitted to the non-Protestantism of
> Anglicans. It doesn't bother me much, you know.
>
> I associate Methodism and Presbyterianism with Protestantism.
> However, I wonder if someone will clear up the matter (maybe it is
> only in the US) of Anglican vs Episcopalian.
In the 1640s, the whole population had to swear that they were
protestant and supported the King:
http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/community/the_county/record_office/family_
history_3/pro_returns.htm
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au
CDB
[this time I snipped the faux scholarship]
> Those were my points when I addressed this thread. rbaniste provided
> a
> little comic relief for an English teacher on vacay in August, just
> as
> you did elsewhere, and I thank you for it. The AUE community, packed
> as
> it is with fastidious compugeek weenies who desperately wish to show
> off their greasy patinas of linguistic refinement, is always good
> for a
> laugh when you need it.
Your reference to a hung dog makes me wonder if you are not in fact
Spanish, or at least living in Spain. Do you ever post under the name
of "Ranolki"? Your style of invective seems similar to his, although
you sail a little farther from innuendo and closer to simple
squalling.
mUs1Ka
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 00:23:16 GMT, Bob Cunningham
> <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 18:49:42 +0000 (UTC), Areff
>> <m...@privacy.net> said:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Chances are Joe's doctor says "say AH", but Sparky's doctor says
>>> "say AW", from what I understand.
>>
>> "Ah" or "aw", same sound. But I would write "Say Ah"
>> because I understand that to be the conventional spelling.
>
> That means that you are AIA (ah is aw), and not AINA (ah is not aw).
>
> AINA speakers would say that aw-men is very unusual.
But quite unremarkable in the singular.
--
Ray
gvell...@gmail.com
Paul Wolff wrote:
> In message <3l1f5eF...@individual.net>, Mike Lyle
> <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> writes
> >Raymond S. Wise wrote:
> >> Areff wrote:
> >>> What's the deal with the pronunciation of "amen", at least in AmE?
> >>>
> >>> When I was growing up, and I was raised Catholic, my understanding
> >>> was that Catholics said "ay-men" /eI'mEn/, Protestants said
> >>> "ah-men", and Jews said "oh-main" /oU'meIn/, rhyming with lo mein.
> >>>
> >>> Any word on this from the Otherpondians?
> >>
> >>
> >>show the [eI] version as the usual pronunciation for usage outside
> >>rituals or song. This is the first time that I've heard the
> >>suggestion that there is a difference between Catholics and
> >>Protestants in how this word is
> >> pronounced.
> >
> >My impression is that the difference exists in UK, too; but, as David
> >says, there are contexts which would prohibit "ay-men". Arabic, both
> >Christian and Muslim, is "ah-meen", which I've heard used in Muslim
> >chorus to the bloke praying in the corner of the room, with the
> >meaning "Yeah, yeah! Enough from the prayers, already!"
> >
> This otherpondian agrees with Areff. Ah-men is Anglican, Ay-men is
> Roman, without a doubt. Masses of evidence.
I didn't know that there were Protestant masses.
Any way, in the '50s of the last century, when I attended Catholic
parochial school in the NYC suburbs, the Catholics said ay-men when
praying in English, ah-men when praying in Latin. It was rumored that
Protestants falsely said ah-men even in English.
G
Paul Wolff
writes
>In fact, I don't think anybody has mentioned
>African-American churches, mostly Protestant, who typically use the Aymen
>pronunciation. The expression "the amen corner" would sound strange with the
>ah pronunciation.
>
There's an African church in Kinshasa (Congo) where a man described as
the pastor by a BBC reporter distinctly says Ah-men. As one of the
principal businesses of the church is the casting out of evil spirits
from witches, it seems to be somewhat distanced from mainstream Roman or
Episcopalian. I'd expect Belgian Catholicism, whatever that is, to have
been an influence in the past.
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4_aod.shtml?radio4/bh> currently
leads to the programme if anyone wants to check; the interview is at
about 51 minutes in.
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo!
Alan Jones
Yes, but I wonder whether that Italianate Latin is a 19th century
innovation, dating from the expansion of the RC Church in Britain following
Emancipation. It seems, to me anyway, that the old English recusant
Catholics may have been responsible for maintaining the English "ay-men"
pronunciation which was what (probably) everyone, Catholic or Protestant,
used in the time of Byrd and Tallis.
As a choral singer I've rarely heard the tay day-oom pronunciation of Te
Deum used for the _title_ of the settings by e.g. Verdi or Bruckner, though
the same words are of course always sung that way.
Alan Jones
Mike Lyle
[...] [re _amen_]
> use of the word in the worship of Muslims, despite their far more
> etymologically sound pronunciation (be the word in real origin
either
> Hebrew or Greek), has been disdained.
>
> Mike Lyle has never done anything to show me that he is a racist,
and
> I do not believe that is indeed what lay behind his post, but the
> post is still there, and it would be doubly offensive to a Muslim:
> first, because no one commented on it until I came along, and
second,
> because the Arabic pronunciation of the word shows far more respect
> to the culture from which it was borrowed (once again, be it either
> Hebrew or Greek). I don't think it's a matter of
> Arab-Americans/British Arabs/Commonwealth Arabs growing a thicker
> skin, either as has been suggested elsewhere in this group.
Huh? Did somebody say something I missed? You mean the bit about the
lads using the word in rather mocking tones to one of their number?
That wasn't even taken as offensive by the victim at the time, so I
don't see why I shouldn't refer to the incident forty years later.
Kindly refer me, ya sheikh, to some shred of evidence that I
disdained the Arabic pronunciation, and I'll take your word on my
eyes and on my head.
--
Mike.
Mike Lyle
[...]
> P. S. One online dictionary says the expression "amen corner" is
used
> chiefly in "midland and Southern Protestant churches." Who knew we
> had a midland?
I always assumed North America didn't have Midlands because the
middle bit was for so long the West. England, Ireland, and Scotland
all have them, of course; but Wales seems to have only "Mid-Wales".
--
Mike.
K. Edgcombe
the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Areff spake thusly:
>
>> What's the deal with the pronunciation of "amen", at least in AmE?
>
>men. Can't imagine Messiah with a whole chorus of Ay-men.
>
>I am neither Protestant nor Catholic but I suppose I was brought up
>in a Protestant culture, and I always say Ah-men. I don't know if
>it's different in UK Catholic circles.
I agree that in the UK one always sings "ah-men". I am fairly sure that our
local Catholic church (where I sometimes sing for weddings) in the same, even
in speech. Indeed I am not sure that I have ever heard "ay-men" used in any
church.
Singing in French or German or Latin pronounced French-style or German-style, I
think the "ah" is much the same, perhaps a bit shorter, but the "e" is a schwa.
Quite difficult to do till you get used to it.
Katy
Pat Durkin
"Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3l40fjF...@individual.net...
> Jess Askin wrote:
> [...]
> > P. S. One online dictionary says the expression "amen corner" is
> used
> > chiefly in "midland and Southern Protestant churches." Who knew we
> > had a midland?
>
> I always assumed North America didn't have Midlands because the
> middle bit was for so long the West.
But your assumption was corrected after the election of GWB, right?
Mike Lyle
Maybe. But, harking back (a hunting exression, by the bye: cf "hark
forrard!"), I didn't know about amen corners till this thread, apart
from the one in London -- cf. Paternoster Row.
--
Mike.
Frances Kemmish
My husband used to work at Paternoster Square, so we were familiar with
"Amen Corner" at about the same time that we were aware of the pop group
"Amen Corner". We assumed that there must be some connection.
Fran
rban...@shaw.ca
<ne...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
><rban...@shaw.ca> wrote
[-]
>> I am sure God is not offended however we prononounce it. In
>> any case, who is to say how Aramaic or Hebrew was pronounced
>> way back then?
>>
>> May one say 'back in the day', a horrid interviewerese
>> expression I hear now and rhen, there? I think it is American.
>
>You have our permission to use any horrid expression you choose.
>
Alan Jones
[...]
> [In Elizabeth's Church of England,] Prayers for
> the dead were banned, as they assume the Popish concept of purgatory.
[...]
Years ago I had to look into the matter of prayers for the dead in some
detail, in connection with the discontinuous history of a school founded
(1556) under Mary. The founder had made only one demand as to the conduct of
the school: that the pupils should pray for his soul and the souls of all
Christian men. If the school ceased to meet, the building and endowment were
to become the property of a local family. That's what happened, and I was
trying to discover whether the reason was the unwillingness of the new
Protestant vicar, installed in 1558, to comply with the prayers-for-the-dead
condition. I found, much to my surprise, that there seemed never to have
been an explicit ban, local or national, on such prayers, though much later
the bishop (ominously?) asked his officers carrying out a visitation to
enquire whether any parishioners prayed for the dead; alas, their report
doesn't survive. There may have been other reasons for the school's closure,
though I could find no hint of what they might have been - money problems,
perhaps. It was re-founded in 1612, by the family into whose hands the
property had come by default and who now returned it with a generous
endowments; and no mention was then made of any religious requirement.
Your point about the connection between prayers for the dead and "the Popish
doctrine of Purgatory" may not quite stand up. The Articles actually say:
"22. The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and
Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is
a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture,
but rather repugnant to the Word of God. " So a non-Romish doctrine of
Purgatory may be acceptable, certainly if it is not tied up with the
medieval practices mentioned here along with it. There was such a doctrine,
as would have been well known to those drafting the Articles. I found a
Latin version of the Articles (but now can't find my notes about it) where
the expression for the "repugnant" version is "scholastica doctrina" i.e.
the medieval doctrine. A more primitive "patristic" doctrine would not come
under Article 22.
>The 39 Articles of the Church of England, which are
>still its official statement of doctrine, speak of the "blasphenous
>fable of the mass".
Well, not quite. The relevant article says "The Offering of Christ once made
is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins
of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other
satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in
the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the
quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous
fables, and dangerous deceits". So what is condemned is not "the mass"
itself, but the idea that each celebration of mass (NB the plurals) is a
fresh and individual sacrifice made by the priest with Christ as the
sacrificial victim, and that the saying of each mass grants remission which
would otherwise have been withheld. I have no doubt that the exact wording
was carefully chosen.
Alan Jones
Areff
American dialectologists speak of a Midland, however, and I think the
term should be extended beyond language to describe other aspects of
culture. Our own Tony Cooper is a Midlander, for example.
Isabelle Cecchini
I've always sung "Amen" and heard it sung, be it in French or in Latin,
as "ah-men", never with a schwa in the last syllable.
--
Isabelle Cecchini
Robert Bannister
> Why should we care how the Greeks pronounced it? Either pronounce it the way
> it's normally pronounced in English, or go all the back to the Hebrew
> (actually you'd have to go back even further, because they may have borrowed
> from an earlier Semitic language).
But we've already discovered that there is no "normal" pronunciation in
English. I've only ever heard "ahmen".
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> Your argument that we need not take the language of origin into account
> when choosing how we pronounce its loanwords in English is spurious,
> though. As well say you believe "hotel" should stressed on its first
> syllable and "determine" should end with a long "i" sound. Why doesn't
> "blood" rhyme with "food" and "dog" with "bog"? What happened to the
> "z" in "baptise" and the "v" in "April"? Loanwords don't work that way:
> language is not something that can be robbed from other sources and
> twisted until it crudely fits a simplified model of pronunciation,
> except by barbarous churls. People object.
This is the paragraph that puzzled me. "Hotel" often is stressed on the
first syllable when used as an adjective and the H is pronounced, unlike
the French word.
"Determine" is not pronounced "daytermeen".
The "oo" pronunciation varies considerably from region to region, and as
far as I can make out, originally it did rhyme with "food" in English.
"Dog" is an exact rhyme with "bog" in most non-American dialects.
None of the above pronunciations have got anything to do with the source
language of the words, but more to do with the time when the words were
borrowed: contemporary pronunciation of English, knowledge of the
languages borrowed from, familiar patterning with similar words.
--
Rob Bannister
rban...@shaw.ca
GottaGetOutMore, Rob. Lots of people would say 'aymen to
that', Pentecostals, even.
Robert Bannister
Jess Askin
How does it differ from other designations, eg the Midwest, the Heartland,
the Bible Belt, etc.?
Jess Askin
"John Holmes" <see sig> wrote in message news:42ec...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Pat Durkin wrote:
> > "Matthew Huntbach" <mhun...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1122764287.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> The idea that the Church of England is not a "Protestant" Church was
> >> an invention of the 19th century Anglo-Catholics.
> >
> > Well, you have half-way admitted to the non-Protestantism of
> > Anglicans. It doesn't bother me much, you know.
> >
> > I associate Methodism and Presbyterianism with Protestantism.
> > However, I wonder if someone will clear up the matter (maybe it is
> > only in the US) of Anglican vs Episcopalian.
>
> In the 1640s, the whole population had to swear that they were
> protestant and supported the King:
For all the good it did him.
Areff
>
> "Areff" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:dcj04t$coa$3...@news.wss.yale.edu...
>>
>> term should be extended beyond language to describe other aspects of
>> culture. Our own Tony Cooper is a Midlander, for example.
>
> How does it differ from other designations, eg the Midwest, the Heartland,
> the Bible Belt, etc.?
Those designations have no relevance to dialects. ErkE has more in
common with, say, DanburE than with TCE, while TCE has more in common,
arguably, with SparkE than with ErkE.
Alan Jones
"Isabelle Cecchini" <isabelle...@wanadooINVALID.fr> wrote in message
news:42ed38ad$0$73138$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
> K. Edgcombe a écrit :
[...]
>> I agree that in the UK one always sings "ah-men". I am fairly sure that
>> our
>> local Catholic church (where I sometimes sing for weddings) in the same,
>> even
>> in speech. Indeed I am not sure that I have ever heard "ay-men" used in
>> any
>> church.
>>
>> Singing in French or German or Latin pronounced French-style or
>> German-style, I
>> think the "ah" is much the same, perhaps a bit shorter, but the "e" is a
>> schwa.
>> Quite difficult to do till you get used to it.
>>
>
> I've always sung "Amen" and heard it sung, be it in French or in Latin, as
> "ah-men", never with a schwa in the last syllable.
There are some German choral works where the stress is clearly on the A-,
and recordings by German choirs do have the schwa for the unstressed -men.
An example is the conclusion of Bach's cantata 106, "Gottes Zeit".
Alan Jones
K. Edgcombe
Isabelle Cecchini <isabelle...@wanadooINVALID.fr> wrote:
>>
>> Singing in French or German or Latin pronounced French-style or German-style, I
>> think the "ah" is much the same, perhaps a bit shorter, but the "e" is a schwa.
>> Quite difficult to do till you get used to it.
>
>I've always sung "Amen" and heard it sung, be it in French or in Latin,
>as "ah-men", never with a schwa in the last syllable.
Ah, perhaps it's only German, then. Though I am sure I have been instructed to
use a schwa when singing in ostensibly-French Latin, but my instructor may have
been mistaken too.
Katy
Charles Riggs
<isabelle...@wanadooINVALID.fr> wrote:
>I've always sung "Amen" and heard it sung, be it in French or in Latin,
>as "ah-men", never with a schwa in the last syllable.
But then you are not an African-American nor a resident of the South,
white or black. When a Southern church gathering really gets hopping,
they'll sing a succession of ay-mens, if movies can be believed.
--
Charles Riggs
John Dean
I suppose singing and speaking should be treated differently, but I
nevertheless point you in the direction of the only film for which
Sidney Poitier got an Oscar - Lilies of the Field - in which he teaches
the nuns to sing Ay-men.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Richard R. Hershberger
Areff wrote:
> Pat Durkin wrote:
> > I associate Methodism and Presbyterianism with Protestantism. However, I
> > wonder if someone will clear up the matter (maybe it is only in the US) of
> > Anglican vs Episcopalian.
>
> are affiliated with The Church of St. Mary the Virgin in New York's
> theatre district. Check it out:
> http://www.stmvirgin.org/
>
> That place is more Romishly Papistic than all the Roman Catholic churches
> in the US put together.
That is hardly the sole exception. It is an Anglo-Catholic parish.
Most (every?) large city has at least one of these: St. Clement's in
Philadelphia, Grace and St. Peter in Baltimore, and so on. Google on
"Anglo-Catholic" or "Oxford Movement" if you want to know more. They
put on terrific ecclesiastical theater, if you enjoy that sort of thing
(which I do, on occasion). They are part of the Episcopal Church, but
a distinct wing. They tend not to associate with the conservative wing
of the church. This is initially counter-intutive, but the reason
should be apparent given a moment's thought.
Richard R. Hershberger
ceceliaa...@yahoo.com
I was brought up Roman Catholic in Midwest America. In Latin, it's
ah-men; in English, it's ay-men.
BTW, dog does rhyme with bog.
Cece
Areff
> I was brought up Roman Catholic in Midwest America.
Oy?
> In Latin, it's ah-men; in English, it's ay-men.
>
> BTW, dog does rhyme with bog.
Are you speaking as a CIC or as a CINC? If the latter, do you use 'caught'
for dog/bog or 'cot'?
In my CINC accent, 'dog' (and, yes, 'dogma') have the 'caught' vowel, and
all other -og words have the 'cot' vowel.
Matthew Huntbach
> > > Ok. Just wondering. The Henry VIII story indicated such opposition to
> > > Lutheranism, and I thought that Elizabeth followed suit, up to a point.
> > > You know, prohibiting importation of bibles or unauthorized
> > > translations of such.
> > Henry VIII started as an ardent supporter of the Pope and an opponent
> > of Lutheranism. But once the break with Rome had been made, even if he
> > had intended it to be merely a matter of authority, it was siezed on by
> > Protestant-minded reformers in England to introduce thoroughly
> > Protestant reforms. For example, invocations of the Mary or the saints
> > was banned - rosaries and statues of Mary were burnt by the public
> > hangman - is this a thing Catholics would do? The communion service was
> > changed so that the host was eaten as soon as it was consecrated to
> > avoid any sort of veneration of the consecrated elements. Prayers for
> > the dead were banned, as they assume the Popish concept of purgatory.
>
> Wow, these were all new concepts to me.
>
> > It seems that Henry was kept in the dark over some of this, and court
> > services were kept up in a Catholic-like way. As soon as he died, the
> > Church of England went through a thoroughly Calvinist period during the
> > reign of Edward VI. The 39 Articles of the Church of England, which are
> > still its official statement of doctrine, speak of the "blasphenous
> > fable of the mass".
> Yes, but there is High Church and Low Church, right? And one of them uses
> more Latin that the RCs do nowadays. Popery, indeed!
The Book of Common Prayer, which was the authorised text for Church of
England services, did not use Latin. The Anglo-Catholic movement of the
19th century re-introduced into the Church of England many practices
which had been abolished, often with legal force, in the Church of
England from the time of Henry VIII. "High Church" refers to those
Church of England parishes which are influenced by the ideas of the
Anglo-Catholic movement. There is not a defined "High Church" and "Low
Church", it is more a matter of a spectrum.
Sure, at the extreme High Church end, you will find Church of England
churches whose services are very ritualistic, more so than the average
Roman Catholic Church. However, if you look back in history, and at its
founding documents, such as the 39 Articles, the Church of England is
thoroughly Protestant. A moderate sort of Protestant, true, but it is
undoubtedly in the Protestant tradition. It seems to me that
Anglo-Catholicism involves a denial of history. If they think all these
ritualistic practices are good, why remain part of a Church which was
founded on violently ending them?
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach
Robert Bannister wrote:
> Pat Durkin wrote:
> > "Matthew Huntbach" <mhun...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>It seems that Henry was kept in the dark over some of this, and court
> >>services were kept up in a Catholic-like way. As soon as he died, the
> >>Church of England went through a thoroughly Calvinist period during the
> >>reign of Edward VI. The 39 Articles of the Church of England, which are
> >>still its official statement of doctrine, speak of the "blasphenous
> >>fable of the mass".
> > Yes, but there is High Church and Low Church, right? And one of them uses
> > more Latin that the RCs do nowadays. Popery, indeed!
> But not back then. As far as I can make out, the Church of England
> really came into being under Elizabeth. There had been so many deaths
> and burnings under previous governments, that an attempt was made to
> create a religion that would have some appeal to all. In fact, it was
> rejected by most, so more harsh measures were adopted to enforce it.
Eamon Duffy's "The Stripping of the Altars"
http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=0300108281
is recognised as the authoritative guide to the foundation of the
Church of England. Now, Duffy *is* a Roman Catholic, and this book was
shocking when first published as it debunked a lot of the established
myths about the Reformation in England. However, it has been accepted
by historians who have no religious axe to grind as the most thorough
study of the subject there is. Duffy painstakingly went through such
things as individual records to show, pretty conclusively, that a small
clique of Protestant-minded people in positions of power imposed their
ideas of religion on a largely reluctant population, and it was a
thorough-going destruction of Catholicism, not just a change in
authority as the Anglo-Catholics try to pretend.
Mary's attempt to reimpose Roman Catholicism was so inept as to work
mainly to build some sympathy for Protestantism. Under Elizabeth, yes,
the Church of England established a compromise position, but oine that
was firmly in the Protestant camp. The sort of things seen in the
average Anglo-Catholic church in the 20th century would have landed
those practising them in prison had they been done in Elizabeth's
reign.
Matthew Huntbach
Mike Lyle
[...]
> Sure, at the extreme High Church end, you will find Church of
England
> churches whose services are very ritualistic, more so than the
average
> Roman Catholic Church. However, if you look back in history, and at
> its founding documents, such as the 39 Articles, the Church of
> England is thoroughly Protestant. A moderate sort of Protestant,
> true, but it is undoubtedly in the Protestant tradition. It seems
to
> me that Anglo-Catholicism involves a denial of history. If they
think
> all these ritualistic practices are good, why remain part of a
Church
> which was founded on violently ending them?
Because it's five hundred years later, perhaps?
I have what feels like a distinct memory of Cantuar telling the Queen
at her coronation to uphold "the Protestant Reformed Religion", but I
won't swear to it.
--
Mike.
Don Aitken
<mhun...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Or, indeed, even in Archbishop Laud's time, for all the accusations
that he was a Papist.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Areff
> However, if you look back in history, and at its
> founding documents, such as the 39 Articles, the Church of England is
> thoroughly Protestant. A moderate sort of Protestant, true, but it is
> undoubtedly in the Protestant tradition. It seems to me that
> Anglo-Catholicism involves a denial of history. If they think all these
> ritualistic practices are good, why remain part of a Church which was
> founded on violently ending them?
Maybe they think the music's better?
I myself find something attractively quaint about US Episcopal churches
(architecture, decor, details of services, terminology, etc.) that is
absent from any of the Catholic ones. I think it's that the Catholic
Church in the US is, by and large, too modern, outside of a few
places like Maryland.
rban...@shaw.ca
Cantuar indeed! You posturing, useless little prick; you know
you were too poor to have even a wireless set then, let alone
be present at the ceremony--and just see what your equally
useless newsreader has done to the Englishman's message.
That unformatting is the only contribution your meaningless
interjection has added to the disscussion.
Jess Askin
For some things at least, we have to make an exception for the Chapel Royal.
Because it was not under episcopal jurisdiction, but answerable only to the
Queen, the music and ritual there were far more elaborate and "Popish" than
that seen anywhere else. (This may have partly been to reassure foreign
visitors that Calvinism had not won a total victory in the English church.)
And William Byrd continued to compose music for it even though everybody
knew he was Catholic. He also published books of church music in Latin,
although no composer's name appeared on the title page.
Jess Askin
Evelyn Waugh, after his conversion to Catholicism, wrote somewhere that
English Catholics were often accused of joining the Church only for its
magnificent buildings and elaborate ritual, when in fact, the C of E had
long since appropriated the great cathedrals and the RC's gathered only in
drab modern red-brick buildings.
Matthew Huntbach
> "Areff" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>> I myself find something attractively quaint about US Episcopal churches
>> (architecture, decor, details of services, terminology, etc.) that is
>> absent from any of the Catholic ones. I think it's that the Catholic
>> Church in the US is, by and large, too modern, outside of a few
>> places like Maryland.
> Evelyn Waugh, after his conversion to Catholicism, wrote somewhere that
> English Catholics were often accused of joining the Church only for its
> magnificent buildings and elaborate ritual, when in fact, the C of E had
> long since appropriated the great cathedrals and the RC's gathered only in
> drab modern red-brick buildings.
Indeed. Most Catholic churches in England were built in the 20th century,
in most cases on the cheap because the English Catholic Church was mainly
the church of a poor immigrant community, the Irish. Also, remember the
Irish had little tradition of elaborate ritualistic services. Their
background was of rushed masses said quietly in secret during penal times.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach
> Matthew Huntbach wrote:
>> Sure, at the extreme High Church end, you will find Church of
>> England churches whose services are very ritualistic, more so than the
>> average Roman Catholic Church. However, if you look back in history, and at
>> its founding documents, such as the 39 Articles, the Church of
>> England is thoroughly Protestant. A moderate sort of Protestant,
>> true, but it is undoubtedly in the Protestant tradition. It seems
>> to me that Anglo-Catholicism involves a denial of history. If they
>> think all these ritualistic practices are good, why remain part of a
>> Church which was founded on violently ending them?
> Because it's five hundred years later, perhaps?
Yes, so why maintain the division? If you feel the things that the reformers
hated about Catholicism are now ok, why not just go back to one Catholic Church?
Which, of course, is the conclusion many Anglo-Catholics *are* coming to.
> I have what feels like a distinct memory of Cantuar telling the Queen
> at her coronation to uphold "the Protestant Reformed Religion", but I
> won't swear to it.
Yes, it is there. Which indicates that at the time these words were
introduced it was not a matter of controversy to call the Church of
England "Protestant".
Matthew Huntbach
Joe Fineman
> Are you speaking as a CIC or as a CINC? If the latter, do you use
> 'caught' for dog/bog or 'cot'?
>
> In my CINC accent, 'dog' (and, yes, 'dogma') have the 'caught'
> vowel, and all other -og words have the 'cot' vowel.
Among CINC speakers, the distribution before g is highly variable, and
I suspect that my own actually fluctuates for some words. It is, more
or less:
Cot: cog agog jog eggnog
Caught: bog dog fog hog log wog*
*A guess; I can't remember ever actually saying "wog" out loud.
If anyone else here has an identical list, I shall be much surprised.
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: It is tasteless to recommend one's own taste, but scarcely :||
||: honest to recommend any other. :||
Alan Jones
"Matthew Huntbach" <m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.61.05...@frank.dcs.qmul.ac.uk...
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Mike Lyle wrote:
>> I have what feels like a distinct memory of Cantuar telling the Queen
>> at her coronation to uphold "the Protestant Reformed Religion", but I
>> won't swear to it.
>
> Yes, it is there. Which indicates that at the time these words were
> introduced it was not a matter of controversy to call the Church of
> England "Protestant".
But what in this context does "Protestant" mean?
The Coronation Oath was introduced with the Bill of Rights 1689, which was
intended to put an effectual end to the claims of the Stuart dynasty, its
last reigning member (James II) having been forced into exile. The object of
the Bill is hammered home in two places. One welcomes the new King William
III as "the Prince of Orange, whom it hath pleased Almighty God to make the
glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from popery and arbitrary
power". Later we have the oath required of members of the Parliament: I,
A.B. do swear, That I from my heart abhor, detest, and abjure as impious and
heretical, that damnable doctrine and position, That princes excommunicated
or deprived by the pope, or any authority of the see of Rome, may be deposed
or murdered by their subjects, or any other whatsoever. And I do declare,
That no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought
to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority,
ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm, So help me God."
So no mention of doctrine or ritual or corruption: the "protest" of
Protestants was against the _power _of the Pope. It has to be remembered
that until Italy came into political existence in the 19th century the
Papacy was an extensive and powerful state with armies and so forth, and
with political and military allies. Julius II (Michelangelo's pope) donned
armour to lead his troops into battle, and Pius V excommunicated Elizabeth,
freeing her subjects from their allegiance. The danger of a Roman Catholic
monarch leading the country into, first, an alliance with foreign Catholic
powers and then into subjection was regarded as very real: the last RC
monarch before James II (Mary I) had been married to the King of Spain, who
for some years was therefore King of England (though I was never taught that
at school), when laws were enacted in the joint names of Philip and Mary. If
Mary had lived another ten or twenty years, there would have been no need of
the 1588 Armada.
Alan Jones
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
The dialect Midlands are between North and South, unlike (as you know)
the Midwest. In my very limited knowledge, I think of the Midlands as
where people say "warsh".
--
Jerry Friedman
Matthew Huntbach
> "Matthew Huntbach" <m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > Yes, it is there. Which indicates that at the time these words were
Sure, there was a political dimension to it, one which those trying to
enforce Protestantism on England were keen to exploit. But if that's
*all* there was to the foundation of the Church of England, how do you
explain the smashing up of Walsingham and all the other shrines, the
destruction of monasticism, and the stream of legislation from Henry
VIII's Parliament which gradually changed the theology of the Church of
England?
The Papacy had temporal power in the 16th and 17th century, though not
a great deal of it, it was just another Italian state. And Catholic
powers frequently went to war with the Papcy as a temporal power.
Thomas More had to warn Henry VIII, when Henry was still in his
ultramontane stage, that the time might arise when he would have to go
to war with the Pope. The papacy was in war against the major Catholic
temporal powers in both the 16th and 17th century, which is why the
aforementioned King Billy had the blessing of the Pope, and Te Deums
were sung in Rome to rejoice at his victory at the Boyne.
Matthew Huntbach
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 19:30:07 -0500, "Jess Askin"
> <ne...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> >
> ><rban...@shaw.ca> wrote
> [-]
> >> I am sure God is not offended however we prononounce it. In
> >> any case, who is to say how Aramaic or Hebrew was pronounced
> >> way back then?
> >>
> >> May one say 'back in the day', a horrid interviewerese
> >> expression I hear now and rhen, there? I think it is American.
> >
> >You have our permission to use any horrid expression you choose.
Gilbert, right?
> I promise not to wear it out.
Too late. "Back in the day" became popular in the mid '80s, largely
associated with rap. You can read information from Ben Zimmer at
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usage.english/browse_frm/thread/dc966bdbf30deee5/acac68f54cf9ad3d?lnk=st&q=alt.usage.english+%22back+in+the+day%22+%22old+school%22&rnum=3#acac68f54cf9ad3d>
or <http://makeashorterlink.com/?T22221B8B> and in a thread he links
to, in which a naive question from me started things off.
My high-school and community-college students use "back in the day". I
have no objection except that for them, it seems to have replaced all
its synonyms. I'm not answering your question about what one may use,
only providing some context.
Hm. Until now, I hadn't connected the ellipsis of "back in the day"
(when Kurtis Blow, or whoever, was on the radio) with that of "way back
when".
--
Jerry Friedman
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
[snip with pleasure]
> Of course, the book does not say that. The actual entry is:
>
> amin: epif. efxetiko. yia kati pou efxetai o omilitis no yinei sto
> mellon.
>
> (Amen: adjective of hope, for something which the speaker wishes might
> happen in the future.)
This is the original meaning in Hebrew, which I strongly suspect
predates the Greek. The Hebrew word appears in the Bible, for
instance, Num. 5:22 (you can see the Hebrew at
<http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1123018133-8548.html#22>,
with a transliteration), and repeatedly in Deut. 27. It appears to
mean "so be it", in other words, the same as the Greek meaning. A
particularly clear example of that meaning is 1 Kings 1:36.
> "Amen," in Greek, has no connotations of emphatic agreement with
> someone else. It is not an ancient cognate of "uh-huh" or "hell, yes."
> It is, quite simple, a wish. The wish had religious overtones
> then...
Same as in Biblical Hebrew.
> and no one in their right mind believes that the word is in
> common usage outside of religious or semi-religious usages.
>
> I therefore believe that the Hebrew root indicated in both Oxford and
> MW was put in there by scholars desperately hoping to appear
> politically correct and give the Hebrew language its proper due in the
> evolution of the English language. I may be wrong on this, but it seems
> logical.
Not to anybody who knows that Greek had very little, if any, influence
on Biblical Hebrew. The influence of Hebrew on religious and
semi-religious modern Greek and English is a lot more logical.
[snip again]
--
Jerry Friedman
Mike Lyle
> Alan Jones wrote:
[...]
>> So no mention of doctrine or ritual or corruption: the "protest"
of
>> Protestants was against the _power _of the Pope.
>
> Sure, there was a political dimension to it, one which those trying
to
> enforce Protestantism on England were keen to exploit. But if
that's
> *all* there was to the foundation of the Church of England, how do
you
> explain the smashing up of Walsingham and all the other shrines,
the
> destruction of monasticism, and the stream of legislation from
Henry
> VIII's Parliament which gradually changed the theology of the
Church
> of England?
It's all extremely interesting and profoundly significant for British
and American history right up to the present day. The authorities had
to be so appallingly destructive because what they wanted to change
was so very powerful: it was a Cultural Revolution. (And, of course,
the national finances were so badly managed that the monasteries'
wealth was need to plug the leaks. The poor went on to pay for it for
centuries.) Nonetheless, I think Alan's points miss out the native
tendency to several not unrelated things such as Primitivism,
Puritanism, anti-authoritarianism, legalism, and democracy; Wycliffe
and later the Presbyterians, and the Diggers.
These movements went alongside their contraries, of course: but
sometimes they blended, too. I think of the deep hurt the iconoclasm
caused among many ordinary people, and the extraordinary risks many
took in protesting against it. Many an English village held its
favourite church statue in genuine love: they used to look after
them, make them little socks. (Makes me think of Don Camillo
stories.) A mass protest against authority was a very dangerous thing
in those days, but people did take the risk.
I'm only sketching; but I think I can here see the roots of the
anarchism which lies just below the surface of American thought (look
at those wisecracks of P.J.O'Rourke: they seem emptily witty and
silly, but there's something alarmingly serious underneath).
--
Mike.
Areff
> The dialect Midlands are between North and South, unlike (as you know)
> the Midwest. In my very limited knowledge, I think of the Midlands as
> where people say "warsh".
I think that's right -- "warsh" is a Midland (not "Midlands" -- that's
strictly England) phenomenon -- except that
"warsh" extends into much of the Western dialect (though perhaps not
SparkE). Western U.S. Standard (WUSS) speech is a mishmosh of more
easterly dialects but is principally a child of Midland. I've been told
that many people in Washington State say "Warshington", and I've also
been told of some Southern Californian natives who say "warsh".
I also remember hearing someone in Hamden or New Haven, Connecticut, say
"warsh" once. That's not supposed to happen.
Tony Cooper
<jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > American dialectologists speak of a Midland, however, and I think the
>> > term should be extended beyond language to describe other aspects of
>> > culture. Our own Tony Cooper is a Midlander, for example.
>>
>> How does it differ from other designations, eg the Midwest, the Heartland,
>> the Bible Belt, etc.?
>
>The dialect Midlands are between North and South, unlike (as you know)
>the Midwest. In my very limited knowledge, I think of the Midlands as
>where people say "warsh".
Since Areff has placed me as a "Midlander" (although I thought I was a
Midwesterner), I would appreciate a "some" between "where" and
"people". As I pointed out in a recent post, the "wash" or "warsh"
thing is not a consistent benchmark. I've never said "warsh", but
friends of mine that grew up a clothesline's length away from me do.
I'll say it again: There is no Indiana accent or way or pronouncing
any word.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando FL
Areff
> I'll say it again: There is no Indiana accent or way or pronouncing
> any word.
Oh yeah? Pronounce "caramel".
Mike Lyle
[...]
> Not to anybody who knows that Greek had very little, if any,
influence
> on Biblical Hebrew. The influence of Hebrew on religious and
> semi-religious modern Greek and English is a lot more logical.
>
> [snip again]
But then again (I speak not even as an amateur), by the material
time, the non-Aramaic Jews were pretty well acculturated
Greek-speakers, and had to be dragged back before all was lost.
Perhaps, then, more had been lost than you suggest? I submit in
advance to correction. I reflect that written languages may then have
been perhaps even more artificial that they are today (apart from
anything else, though at present irrelevantly, I have this gnawing
feeling about Arabic).
--
Mike.
Tony Cooper
You've misspelled it. Carmel, Indiana used to be a small town outside
of Indianapolis. It's now a bedroom community for people that work in
Indianapolis. Decidedly upscale now, but I suppose there are still
some pre-sprawl ordinary areas in Carmel.
It's pronounced just the first word in "Karmel Korn". Karmel Korn,
of course, is only good if you purchase it from a vendor at the State
Fair or a County Fair. Like ears of corn, it must be eaten fresh to
enjoy the best possible taste.
Charles Riggs
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I'll say it again: There is no Indiana accent or way or pronouncing
>any word.
Then you are in Pat Durkin's league in that you have no ear. Each
region of the country has a different accent, some more different than
others. Accents even vary county to county, oftentimes, and city to
city. Much the same is true in Ireland and, from what I've heard, the
distinctions that can be made in the UK are even greater. If you can't
believe David Crystal and John Dean, who can you believe?
--
Charles Riggs
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 23:21:47 GMT, Tony Cooper
><tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I'll say it again: There is no Indiana accent or way or pronouncing
>>any word.
>
>Then you are in Pat Durkin's league in that you have no ear. Each
>region of the country has a different accent, some more different than
>others.
For there to be an accent for the area, there would have to be a
predominant accent. This is true in some areas of the country, but
not in others. What you have in most of Indiana is a mix of accents
with no one predominant Hoosier accent.
Narrow the field down to "the Region" (up around Gary, Hammond, and
East Chicago), and you have a predominant speech pattern. Cut down to
southern Indiana and you have another area with a predominant speech
pattern but it's quite different from the Region accent.. Around the
center of the state there is no predominant speech pattern. Add all
of these together, and you have no predominant "Indiana" accent.
You can talk to someone on the telephone for the first time and make a
pretty good guess they are from Wisconsin or from Minnesota. ("from"
being a life-long resident with parents that are life-long residents)
Have that telephone conversation with a Hoosier, though, and you might
guess "Midwest", but nothing specific.
Jess Askin
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Mike Lyle wrote:
> > Matthew Huntbach wrote:
>
> >> Sure, at the extreme High Church end, you will find Church of
> >> England churches whose services are very ritualistic, more so than the
> >> average Roman Catholic Church. However, if you look back in history,
and at
> >> its founding documents, such as the 39 Articles, the Church of
> >> England is thoroughly Protestant. A moderate sort of Protestant,
> >> true, but it is undoubtedly in the Protestant tradition. It seems
> >> to me that Anglo-Catholicism involves a denial of history. If they
> >> think all these ritualistic practices are good, why remain part of a
> >> Church which was founded on violently ending them?
>
> > Because it's five hundred years later, perhaps?
>
> Yes, so why maintain the division? If you feel the things that the
reformers
> hated about Catholicism are now ok, why not just go back to one Catholic
Church?
> Which, of course, is the conclusion many Anglo-Catholics *are* coming to.
The deal-breaker, then as now, is accepting the authority of the Pope.
Alan Jones
>> > religion]. Which indicates that at the time these words were
>> > introduced it was not a matter of controversy to call the Church of
>> > England "Protestant".
>
>> But what in this context does "Protestant" mean?
[quotations from 1689 Bill of Rights]
>> So no mention of doctrine or ritual or corruption: the "protest" of
>> Protestants was against the _power _of the Pope.
[...]
s were> Sure, there was a political dimension to it, one which those trying
to
> enforce Protestantism on England were keen to exploit.
I was (at first!) confining my remarks to the meaning of "Protestant" that
seems to have been central in 1689, when the Oaths were drafted.
> But if that's
> *all* there was to the foundation of the Church of England, how do you
> explain the smashing up of Walsingham and all the other shrines, the
> destruction of monasticism, and the stream of legislation from Henry
> VIII's Parliament which gradually changed the theology of the Church of
> England?
All true, of course, though I want to find out more about the Henrician
legislation you mention. But to what extent was theology the chief
consideration, rather than policy and economics? Was there a great and
socially widespread desire for a radically reformed faith, or were the King
and his friends moved rather more by the power they might gain by
dispossessing or even executing over-influential abbots (e.g of Glastonbury)
and by the opportunity of gaining enormous wealth from plundered shrines and
monasteries - and, as I guess, also by a developing sense of national
identity?
I wonder what would have happened if Henry had not fallen out with the
Papacy - but perhaps he was bound to do so sooner or later, whatever the
pretext.
> The Papacy had temporal power in the 16th and 17th century, though not
> a great deal of it, it was just another Italian state. And Catholic
> powers frequently went to war with the Papcy as a temporal power.
> Thomas More had to warn Henry VIII, when Henry was still in his
> ultramontane stage, that the time might arise when he would have to go
> to war with the Pope. The papacy was in war against the major Catholic
> temporal powers in both the 16th and 17th century, which is why the
> aforementioned King Billy had the blessing of the Pope, and Te Deums
> were sung in Rome to rejoice at his victory at the Boyne.
Quite. Rome was a political force which could form all kinds of alliance but
(a fear clearly asserted in the Oath of Loyalty) could also misuse its
spiritual authority within the territories of both allies and enemies to
achieve its own ends.
Alan Jones
Matthew Huntbach
> "Matthew Huntbach" <mhun...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> But if that's
>> *all* there was to the foundation of the Church of England, how do you
>> explain the smashing up of Walsingham and all the other shrines, the
>> destruction of monasticism, and the stream of legislation from Henry
>> VIII's Parliament which gradually changed the theology of the Church of
>> England?
> All true, of course, though I want to find out more about the Henrician
> legislation you mention. But to what extent was theology the chief
> consideration, rather than policy and economics? Was there a great and
> socially widespread desire for a radically reformed faith, or were the King
> and his friends moved rather more by the power they might gain by
> dispossessing or even executing over-influential abbots (e.g of Glastonbury)
> and by the opportunity of gaining enormous wealth from plundered shrines and
> monasteries - and, as I guess, also by a developing sense of national
> identity?
As I've already said, Eamon Duffy's "The Stripping of the Altars" is the
authoritative text on this. If you want to find out more, get hold of
it and read it, it's a fascinating book. What it suggests is that there
was NOT a "great and socially widespread desire for a radically reformed
faith". There was a desire for it amongst a smallish socially elite
and intellectual group, and they used their dominance of the House of
Commons to push it through. It was sold to Henry on the basis of the
wealth it brought him, which he redistributed to them for their
support of his still dubious claim to the throne. But it was theologically
inspired, and successive revisions of the prayer book gradually pushed
it towards Protestantism.
> I wonder what would have happened if Henry had not fallen out with the
> Papacy - but perhaps he was bound to do so sooner or later, whatever the
> pretext.
Henry only triggered it by falling out with the Papacy, the prime movers
were an elite group amongst the new middle class who took the opportunity
the nreak offered. Had Henry got his annulment, they would possibly had
to wait until he was our of their way - which they did to take their
Protestantism forward to full Calvinism once Edward VI was on the throne.
Matthew Huntbach
Alan Jones
I did at one time read Duffy rather closely, but it was a long time ago. My
perhaps naughtily faux-naif questions about why the English Reformation took
the form it did were, as you may now guess, related to his excellent book.
The "alternative history" question was based on the hypothetical existence
of a healthy son from Henry's first and only marriage, who followed his
father in becoming a champion of the RC church - so no problem over an
annulment, no Edward VI, no "Bloody Mary" and no Elizabeth. Could there then
have been a Reformation in England? Really this is asking whether the
movement towards a Reformation was so powerful that it couldn't ultimately
have been resisted whatever the political circumstances. I doubt it. But
this is perhaps so far OT and beyond aue that we ought not to pursue it
further . . .
Alan Jones