Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 12-31-2006, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Ummm...er....ok...
I show Aphrahat who started writing his demonstartions around 330 C.E. quoting the peshitta word for word. But this is not evidence that he used the peshitta.

If I demonstrate that someone cites the NKJV word for word 200 years ago, would you be convinced? Would you claim that the NKJV was not a new work but older than the person I cited? Or would you realize that the NKJV is a revamping of the old KJV?

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

You show Ahprahat not quoting the Vetus Syra word for word but with some minor agreements
and this is evidence Ahprahat used the Vetus Syra?

All you had to do was work from the examples I gave to reconstruct all the versions. What was important was to see the differences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

I really appreciate your doggedness...:devil1:

Well, I don't appreciate your vapid approach to the issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Happy new year, I hope 2007 has much in store for you...I really do. I dont know why but I like you.

It's called masochism.

And the top of the year to you! :wave:

spin

spin · 01-01-2007, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

No Spin, the reading is correct, the word for woman is there and the word for coin. The problem is not the source but merely that you are not familiar with the script used.
The script used is known as Estrangelo (V1.1)

But the transliteration is known as crap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

I know yoy have said here before you dont have much experience with Syriac or Aramaic so I suppose it is understandable you are not familiar with it.
Literally it reads....
"or what (female) woman who's ten coins loses one of them not does lights lamp and sweep house and search it diligently till she locates it."

Added in edit:
The word for coins or "zuzin", is the seventh word.

Yeah, I eventually saw it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

I'm not sure how you missed this.

It's the f**king inane transliteration. If I have to struggle through the Estrangelo and the Serto (which are both one sound for one symbol), I don't want to wade through a representation which is so silly it's unhelpful. Just look at the crap and tell me, without consulting anything, what the capital F is and tell me how that fits the logical notion of one sound for one symbol.

spin

spin · 01-01-2007, 05:27 PM

Just to explain, judge, Estrangelo are the squiggles and dots and loops that look nothing like Roman letters. The transliteration you cut and paste are things like:

0rs9

Normally, when you transliterate, you write the result as in the language you normally use, in our case left to right. You also use common symbols for the sounds, as in those used by scholars, where commonly ")" = alef and "(" = ayin [or perhaps ' = alef and ` = ayin, or even the antiquated a = alef and e = ayin]. Now this stuff -- that you pour onto the screen unknowingly -- uses yet other, more obscure, symbols in its transliteration. That's why, if you are wondering, I gripe over the crud.

spin

01-01-2007, 05:27 PM	#113
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Just to explain, judge, Estrangelo are the squiggles and dots and loops that look nothing like Roman letters. The transliteration you cut and paste are things like: 0rs9 Normally, when you transliterate, you write the result as in the language you normally use, in our case left to right. You also use common symbols for the sounds, as in those used by scholars, where commonly ")" = alef and "(" = ayin [or perhaps ' = alef and ` = ayin, or even the antiquated a = alef and e = ayin]. Now this stuff -- that you pour onto the screen unknowingly -- uses yet other, more obscure, symbols in its transliteration. That's why, if you are wondering, I gripe over the crud. spin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.