spin

You are still not dealing with the problem. How do you distinguish between slavish translation and substratum???

Answer: you cannot.

Stop wasting people's time with this stupidity.


spin

judge

Look Spin, instaed of hypothesising and making up examples give me an example from real life.

Does one exist...

If there actually is a real life example from historical texts then let's see it.

If there is no real life example ever from historical texts then this makes your case very weak.

judge

Spin, it is not stupidity to look at how one thing came about, see the exact same thing in another place and conclude it is probable it came about by the same means.

What is questionable is to see the exact same thing and insist it did not come about by the same means.

spin

I don't have to demonstrate how things happened: you have to distinguish between translation artefacts and substratum. You haven't been able to do that. You haven't acknowledged the inevitable acceptance of the fact that people speaking in another language have substratum artefacts. This is so basic, I don't understand your difficulty.

Stop wasting people's time with this stupidity.


spin

Vorkosigan

What spin said. Please explain how you tell the difference between something slavishly translated and a writer thinking in another language.

judge

You know Michael, the irony here is that with your quite fascinating analysis and interest in chiasms, structures and literary devices in the NT and particularly Mark you don't have closer look at the Aramaic.

You can probably accept that in a translation something is always lost. The original always displays the device in it's original creative luminescence.

So it is with the Aramaic NT.

The peshitta has been so little studied by westeners, ignored in fact. Some day someone will detail the literary devices in Aramaic and your work will inevitably look pale.
This is not to criticise your work but it is unavoidable.

But to answer your question there is no reason to assume the writer was just thinking in another language.
If this was the case you would easily be able to show us an example from real life, not one you were forced to invent.

If the phenomenon of retaining the redundant preposition happned as the result of a person thinking semitically but writing in greek then why have you no actual real life example.

Surely Josephus was a semitic thinker. Look and see if his greek is like Mark's.

No...Mark's is like the LXX, a translation.

spin

There is no need to think in another language. All you need do is maintain a few habits from that other language. Many European speakers of English will say "I have seen him yesterday" because they haven't learnt the subtleties of English verbs, not because they were thinking in their own languages. People living in English speaking countries for 50 years will make many well-known substratum mistakes despite the fact that they probably can't speak their own language any more.


spin

spin

judge's self-disception marks the sum total of his lack of content. Asked numerous times to explain how he can distinguish between translation artefacts and substratum, unable to do this, he refuses every time. The status quo has long dealt with the subject of Marcan syntax and grammar on the basis of the writer's substratum, yet judge refuses even to acknowledge the position, unaccustomed as he is to the issues.

Looking at part of his initial outlandish claim:

The Greek must be derived from the Aramaic whether you've got the unnecessary preposition or not -- having it both ways.

Using judge's both ways approach we can guarantee that the Peshitta Luke was translated from Greek, because behold:

Lk 10:21

The father ... hid these things from the wise and the prudent

apo sofwn kai sunetwn

mn xkym) wskwltn)

And everyone knows that good Aramaic is spotted with those redundant prepositions and so should look like the following right?

mn xkym) wmn skwltn)

This sort of naive linguistics is no help whatsoever and judge apparently can't bring himself to admit it.


spin

judge

Glad to see you have changed your tune.

Spin previously write on this forum about the gospels here

:devil3:

Ted Hoffman

So, what is the contradiction? You still dont grasp what a language, a background and a substratum are?