Chris Weimer

I think the same as it does in "happy holidays" or "merry christmas" or "good night". Note the longer form, "Have a happy birthday."

I thought I did. Happy doesn't have the popular support for "fortunate" or "auspicious". If I recall correctly, spin, it was you who said that a word should be literally read unless there was context denoting otherwise. Well, I already have shown the primary definitions for μακαριος, which better match what I said. Are you denying that happy isn't a synonym for "blithe" or that the dictionaries I provided are not reliable?

But note that bene dicere and eulogew have also left its original meaning, that of "to speak well [of]" and instead has come to the antonym of "curse". So when someone says that they're blessed, we don't think that they mean they are spoken well of, but rather, they are the subject of some divine goodness.

I don't see how either a) my argument founders or b) any of this is relevant to my argument.

Please do elucidate.

DMW

You guys are doing great, so far. Some of the answers here have helped me in my search. What I haven't seen in this thread, yet, is much about Luke (other than in one post). What mistakes in "things Jewish" does he make?

DMW

spin

Or even longer form "may your birthday be happy". Doesn't change the wish for an auspicious birthday. This is an archaism in English. There's no sense in trying to read the modern significance of "happy" into a formal phrase which contains, is there?

Not any more.

A stunning doubt decontextualization, first of "happy" then of my comment. But of course you should read "happy" literally, as YLT used the term. To do otherwise would be reprehensible, wouldn't it, Chris?

How would you deal with "shuffle off this mortal coil"?

Yes, you need to know how the writer used the term. In this case, you know how YLT used it, seeing as you have what it translates and what the English term meant in previous centuries.

Nobody uses blithe in ordinary speech these days. We are not dealing with today's English but the archaizing YLT and what it was communicating.

I have no trouble with the way today's dictionaries render either word. It is of course irrelevant to my comments.

OK.

When we deal with what YLT says, we have to deal with the English the translation uses. I think you may make a good case that Koy wasn't.

I never claimed that "language is determined not only by it's etymological and historical origins"

But for some reason you are trying to read a modern understanding of "happy" into YLT which is simply unjustified. The following statement is irrelevant in this case: As far as I can tell, no one in modernity uses happy to mean fortunate anymore, and certainly if one would do so, it wouldn't just appear archaic, but too archaic. As I said, it's had it's modern meaning for hundreds of years now.

If you want to use YLT you have to know how the language of the text works, not what the modern meanings of its terms are. These latter, against those of the original language meanings of YLT, will only make YLT useless to you.

My only complaint has basically been, don't turn something like YLT into a worthless text by invalidating its langauge through retrojecting modern meanings into an analysis of it.

[Sorry, moderators, if you think it wisest, please remove this thread deviation.]


spin

Chris Weimer

Or better yet, "May your birthday be a happy one." To me, that still sounds like enjoyment, not auspicity.

When was the earliest attestation of "happy birthday" or something similar? What was the surrounding usage at the time?

Sure. I still don't find happy the right word.

Please explain.

And you seriously think the average person knows this? I didn't say it was wrong, spin. I said it was misleading.

What?

It really ceases to be "English".

No! No! Au contraire! I know how the YLT is using the word, but that's immaterial to the argument, that is, the argument I was using against Koy. And the argument that Ben was advocating. I wonder how many people know the etymology of the term "happy"? It's misleading to say that the text is "literal" when the literal sense is dependent on current usage. As Ben pointed out, using "happy" will conjure up images of bunnies and frolicking in Strawberry Fields. Well, perhaps not Strawberry... Frolicking nonetheless.

Ay caramba, spin! I didn't use the YLT! Koy did!!!

It was worthless for the discussion we were having. As I said just two of my posts ago, and I quote, "Young's Literal Translation is good for so much, but not in the way that Koy is trying to (ab)use it."

Please don't take that in any way except it's literal meaning.

Cheers, amice.

spin

You're just letting the modern folk understanding confuse you. What does "happy" in the context of "happy coincidence" or "happy hunting" mean? Or better still, look in a decent dictionary. Neither are to do with enjoyment.

18th c. The usage is still current, the wish of an auspicious birthday.

Would you like a few language lessons? :angel:

You know what all the words mean. So you can explain, can't you? Or will you accept that you need to know the language of the text?

The expression is a very famous line from Shakespeare's Hamlet. It is also a cliche which bears the meaning "die"

Not to those who are aware of the language of YLT. That is what I was talking about. You vainly advocated that one cut a term out of the translation rather than help someone to get to know the tool they were trying to use. Your approach on the subject is strictly useless. It will have no effect, won't change anything, won't help clarify the problem. Young's is as it is. So, live with it. If people misuse it, whinging about removing terms is like urinating in the breeze.

As a response to what I said, the expression doesn't make its content understandable.

No. Just not current English.

You haven't noticed that you're arguing with me over something else.

The text here is still YLT. How does YLT use "happy"? Literally, of course. The problem is that you need to understand the language.

Ummm, "you impersonal". Who was it I was arguing with about being able to say the same with less?

It was worthless for the discussion we were having. As I said just two of my posts ago, and I quote, "Young's Literal Translation is good for so much, but not in the way that Koy is trying to (ab)use it."[/QUOTE]
F*ck, this'll eventually give you RSI, Chris. On the exact subject, have you noticed any dispute? The answer should be, upon careful reading, "no".


spin

Chris Weimer

Spare me your condescend, spin. You and I both know this can be done without that.

I will grant you that in these select phrases, they archaically use "happy" in another meaning apart from "joyful" (or like synonym).

However, as I said, I still don't think that happy is the right word. MAKARIOS derives from MAKAR, -OS which is applied to the fortune of the gods. Divine fortune, in other words. Does happy have that connotation? Not as far as I can tell. But bless does.

Let me clarify. Please explain how this is relevant.

*Sigh* So this is what you've been rambling on. You think I removed terms from Young's? No! I justified using the KJV. Geez, spin, if you had cut all the beating around the bush and just came out and said this, we could have ended this argument a long time ago.

You're treading dangerous waters on what is and what is a language. I'd rather not go there here.

It appears I didn't have a clue as to what you were arguing about. It does help to be a bit more clearer next time round, spin ol' buddy.

I doubt it. While happy may have fortunate connotations while applied in certain circumstances, I'm not so certain that it can be applied here. Can it? Is there evidence that it can? It still sounds too foreign to my ears, which is why I guarded against it using it in the first place.

F*ck, this'll eventually give you RSI, Chris. On the exact subject, have you noticed any dispute? The answer should be, upon careful reading, "no".[/QUOTE]
So what was the purpose of all this, if nothing has changed?

spin

It adds to the flavour.

L&S provides another major meaning for makar, besides the one applied to gods, which you give. "II. of men, blest, fortunate... especially wealthy..."

I've already supplied a such functional alternative meaning of "happy", one that a decent English dictionary with historical indications will also provide you, yet you do not acknowledge that alternative meaning available to the writers of YLT.

Why do you think so many works including numerous translations and dictionaries tie "happy" to makarios? Are they all wrong? And you're right?

These two sentences don't work particularly well together.

Here's what you said:

In fact, YLT is not misleading for anyone who is aware of its language usage. It's an old translation so one should be aware of the older English usages.

Happy yields the meanings of fortunate, eg "happy coincidence", auspicious, eg "happy hunting" and "happy birthday"; these are meanings you can find in an English dictionary and are found in L&S for macarios.

Still you claim unsupportedly that "happy", as used in YLT is misleading.

Utter rubbish, Chris.

Given your difficulties with a fairly simple word such as "happy", you are indicating you may have generic difficulties understanding other things, ie it may be a reflection on you rather than what you are trying to read.

Some people have the happy knack of understanding things the first time they are told.

A note on reason and correct linguistic understanding. YLT is simply translating it as literally as it could in the language of the time. Understand the tool and so work better with it. Language changes in time and users of YLT should be aware of the fact when they use the work.


spin

Chris Weimer

But it's primary meaning is attached to the divine.

No? Where'd you get this little crazy idea?

Happy in what sense? Happy as in joyful? If so, spin, do note that I can smell bait and switch fallacies a mile away.

That doesn't negate that it is misleading to people without Greek, or without Old English, like, I'm assuming, Koy.

No, you still haven't figured out what I was arguing. You took what I said, twisted it to fit what your preconceived notions, and ran with it. All this time I was wondering what the hell you were talking about, and now that I figured it out, spin, you're not talking about anything. Beating a strawman, as they say.

Oh cut the personal crap!

Oh? Because happy meaning full of joy has been in use for centuries before YLT, and has dominated that language. A few archaicisms here or there doesn't prove anything. It's fine for YLT, but it's shit for here, and you know it.

Why bother with the thing at all? The Greek is so much easier. Better to know the history of one language than the history of three.

Johann_Kaspar

My dictionary has 1. happy, 2. rich, opulent...

spin

Given that it is used about gods, not people.

If this tone represents shock, just realize I got it from your ravings.

From the context of the term, "happy" obviously doesn't mean what you are trying to push.

A poor workman blames his tools.

You're squirming too hard.

All you need do is propose a better alternative.

You are simply wrong. Please do consult a decent dictionary. "happy" emerged in Late Middle English according to the NSOxfordED with meanings such as 1. "favoured of good fortune... blessed", 2. "chance or circumstance... involving... good fortune", 3. "pleasantly appropriate... felicitous..." The meaning you are fixated on is Late 18th century.

There is no content here to comment on.

It gives access to some extra meaning unavailable to those who don't get their hands dirty with the vulgar foreign language.


spin