spin

While Stephen deserves a :notworthy: for his Cyrillic comment...
...Jeffrey should have been put on guard by it and should have been alerted that, with the N as an eta in the transliteration, the PH acted as a digraph for the phi, which is written for some reason with a "ph" and not an "f". In good practice of one sign representing one symbol, "f" is preferable, but digraphs are certainly not unusual. There is no reason to suspect that "Earl seems to think... [there is] a second P (or "pi") in those words." For this misguided nitpicking, Jeffrey earns a .


spin

jgibson000

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree that what I noted was "nitpicking", especially in the light of Earl's "glee" and -- as is shown by his use elsewhere within his excoriating and off topic message of a conventional transliteration scheme -- his apparent familiarity (though see his use of capital "h" for rough breathing) with the way that Greek is ordinarily transliterated on Biblical discussion lists.

But perhaps we can agree that what is needed on IIDB is the posted recommendation of a standard transliteration scheme (e.g., that of Perseus or that of B-Greek) that those who wish to reproduce Greek vocabulary or Greek texts, and who have no Greek fonts available to them, should always try to use.

Jeffrey

spin

Certainly it would be useful to have a recommended transliteration system, though a lot of people are not domesticated for such things. The forum is open to everyone, so, along with such a scheme, a certain amount of tolerance is necessary and a healthy dose of pedagogy.


spin

jgibson000

Leaving aside the question of whether you've just insulted the intelligence of the IIDB membership, let's note that many of those you refer to as "undomesticated" still (and often) want not only to make claims about the NT texts and the meaning of Greek words, but for us to view those claims as authoritative. Why would an insistence that when they do so, they do so in a standard way something that violates peoples' independence. We expect posters to abide by the canons of rational discourse from everyone, don't we?. Why is this not viewed as an intolerable shackle and an unreasonable demand or an illegitimate attempt to "domesticate" IIDB members?

There are a lot of open forums on matters Biblical, and yet they expect that if people want to talk about Greek, they adopt a standard/posted method of transliteration.

And wouldn't the recommendation of, or the directive to learn, a particular transliteration scheme be a dose of the pedagogy you mention?

JG

EarlDoherty

Since Jeffrey is so exercised about 'incorrect' usages of various transliteration schemes, I would think he might have the grace to provide us all with the best one (the one he prefers). After all, he has in the past not hesitated to supply us with reams of Lexiconal quotes and other material, surely this one would not take up nearly as much time and space. Then he could save himself (and us) all the 'nitpicking' posts. I think it was quite clear in the posting I made that I was adopting on the spot his particular method of transliteration, which I am not thoroughly familiar with, and I warned that there might be 'typos'.

May I ask who actually said that "archons" was a word in Greek spelled with those letters? Even I don't come up with "strawmen" like that.

My only comment on some of the foregoing discussion is that a world without a sense of humor, and a zero tolerance for it, is a dismal world indeed. I don't envy those who live in such a one.

All the best,
Earl Doherty

spin

No, let's not leave it aside. I have been posting here for numerous years and I have a good idea of the knowledge of many posters. I in no sense indicate any insult to the intelligence of anyone when I make a description of what I have noted. Many people just don't have much knowledge regarding the language side of discussion here and many people are happy to declare the same. The forum features people with mixed and varied skills.

True, but irrelevant.

The use of "many" here is not true. But let us continue with those that do.

It is usually clear what a writer knows on a subject by what they write. You can take various positions regarding those who show insufficient knowledge according to your standards:

1. You can ignore their further postings;
2. You can take a relatively gentle pedagogical approach; and amongst others
3. You can slash and burn.

One can also try more than one.



It's more a hope than an expectation. You can recommend, you can stimulate, you can badger towards what you think is a worthy scholarly approach. But you can't expect something that may be outside a person's intellectual training. This should be obvious, given the vast diversity of backgrounds of people posting around the internet. BC&H is not a purely scholarly forum. In fact it has never made any claims of being such. You must be prepared to deal with all comers and to take a healthy approach with those you choose to dialogue with based on their willingness to participate.

They are the ones doing any domestication. You are the one providing some of the opportunity.


Have you been on those open forums and seen what actually happens? You comments suggest that you haven't been on the truly "open" forums.

Certainly, though I'd take such a cheme as indicative rather than proscriptive. I don't necessarily find such schemes to be linguistically sound when dealing with diverse languages, so some logical latitude is necessary. (For example, in common Hebrew transliteration a X is used to represent a CHET, though some might want to use that in Greek for xi; to be consistent with the phonemic content of the letter, as it is an affricate in Greek to my understanding, I'd think a xi should be represented as ks, while a chi be reresented as the single sound it is, being the same as the CHET, ie x.) One could of course just use, say, upper case for Semitic transliterations and lower for Greek, though this is slightly less useful linguistically.

One can also supply a little extra background material to aid in understanding issues being dealt with, as a dose of said pedagogy. And I'm sure you can think of other ways!


spin

jgibson000

Please note that I am not the only one, let alone the first, to have noted that you use a scheme that no one else with some knowledge of Greek uses. So why single me out?

And so far as I can see, I didn't say anything about an "incorrect usage" of (as you imply) an established transliteration scheme or schemes. So again you are excoriating me and holding me up as an object of derision for something I did not do.

And here's another accusation of how bad I am (I lack "grace", I haven't provided something I should have provided some time ago) that has no basis in facts as is shown by this post.

Really, Earl, your appeal to and citation of things I haven't done or said as a justification to attack me, grows tiresome.

You said that you were adopting "my method" of transliterating "chi" and only for demonstrating how ARXWN/ARCWN) is declined.

So please don't blame me for your mistakes in your tralsiterations of προφητης or προφηται (PROFHTAI). Nothing I have ever said or indicated about "my method", let alone how I've been carrying out transliteration here, could be appealed to as the cause of, or the justification for, you transliterating προφητης and προφηται, let alone ὥσπερ and οἱ and ὑμῶν in the way you did (please show me where I have ever used (a) a capital "h" to indicate rough breathing{ I have consistently used it for "eta"] and "PH" for "phi" {I have always used 'F"]?).

O come one, Earl. It's a little strained to claim that your consistent use of "N" for "eta" and "PH" for "phi" and "H" for rough breathing are really only "typos", don't you think?

Spelled in Greek with English letters? No one. But if you are asking who said that in transliteration the nominative plural of ἄρχων is ARXONS rather than, as you noted and I stated on other occasions, ARXONTES then the answer is Ted Hoffman and "Malachi151".

Of course you don't. Yours are of another kind. See above.

Are you actually saying that the post in which you poured derision on me was meant to be seen as humorous???

And Moderators, isn't Earl's message exactly what you said should not be posted? How on earth does it deal with the OP?


Jeffrey Gibson

Toto

Split from here.

Amaleq13

Personal digressions have been sent to Elsewhere


Doug aka Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

squiz

To get back to the original digression from the original discussion (ie. to whether archons is acceptable in English) I just thought I would google for a few other "pretentious plurals". I wonder which is acceptable and which barbaric: octopuses, octopi or octopodes? Campuses or campi? How should I pronounce restaurant in English? Should I use bonus or boni?

BTW. Not many people know it, but the original pronunciation of Van Gogh in his home town dialect is "Van Wheef". I suggest we all say it like that from now on.