stephan huller

Judas thoma
Simon and andrew
John and james
Half of the company just happen to be "brothers"
Curious

judge

Doesn't work, as LOM just noted its a kinship construction.

spin

Making comments that are all over the place, doesn't make for good communication.

"Formula"... "construction"... "Let's call the whole thing off."

I think people get what I mean by "formula", he wantsta try to sell this snake oil. He needs to try harder.

Hmm, working hard to make it relevant,... but it ain't.

Still talking out of the side of his mouth trying to get people to buy his product.

In reality what we have is

"James the brother of the lord"

What LOM has is:

X is the Y of Z
X (Paul), Y (father), Z (Sally))"

We note what his Z is, a person's name. "James is the brother of Bertie" might fit. That's closer to the formula, but instead we have "James the brother of the lord" and ο κυριος doesn't meaningfully allow the shoehorning of Gal 1:19 into the formula in order to convert Paul's non-biological use of "brother" into the real thing.

I've got a nice phonebook if anyone wants to read it as a way to get off topic just as meaningfully.

Dickey doesn't help LOM's efforts to resuscitate his little formula by injecting a little academic wool over the reader's eyes. He can say people that don't understand what he is talking about, when he is having difficulty communciating, but when asked to show the relevance of his tangent, he talks out of the side of his mouth.

This guy just isn't really serious here. It's all drama. He quotes this with a straight face, knowing that it has nothing to do with the sort of thing that fits his formula.

:hysterical:

It is not sufficient that it uses the relevant terms: LOM is trying to sell his formula with a construction that is just plain different. And κυρια μου αδελφη (my lady [female of "lord"], sister) turns out not to be using "sister" literally--which LOM needs--, but refers to a wife.

Two strikes off topic. 1) titular use of κυρι- and 2) non-literal use of αδελφ-. Song and dance, but the audience is unimpressed.

What I said here,

The Marcan reference του θεου is closer to the Galatian than anything in Dickey's article.

is correct. του θεου fits the LOM formula where του κυριου does and nothing in Dickey (including κυρια μου αδελφη) is similar.

Being ecological again, you know,... recycling. But she doesn't deal with the construction in Galatians, where LOM's Z is the non-titular κυριος.

Relevant examples in Dickie's paper??

Ecological yet again. I cited the fact that Dickey does omit non-literal examples. She chooses not to deal with certain non-literals.

Obviously, LOM still doesn't get it. Of course it is personal. Those characteristics are what analysts of Elizabethan plays use to identify the individual writers of a collaborative play.

Let's turn this deliberate rubbish off.

The only way I might be making myself look foolish is continuing to communicate with someone who so obviously has nothing to say, but says it with such wind.

LOM is confused. But that's understandable, given his confusion about Paul's "personal idiom". I pointed out the fact that Dickie omitted non-literal uses, though I didn't say all non-literal uses. He just assumed it. My point was that there was a choice of what to include and what not to...

...and Dickie chose not to cite Paul at all.

LOM long ago left his pretense of trying to show the relevance of his formula and has gone to lengths to shift in to whatever rot he can try to regain some mileage with. This sad abuse of Dickie's paper is just an example. He has got no closer to making his round hole formula fit Paul's square peg expression, "James the brother of the lord", unable, despite muscling Dickie, to show that "brother" is biological in implication and unprepared to deal meaningfully with the non-titular use of κυριος.

We end up with "X the Y of Z" as LOM's snake oil formula.

LegionOnomaMoi

I provided it as an example of a non-literal use, and compared it to another non-literal sibling use from Paul (concerning Titus) which you said was equivalent to galatians

Without any reference or use of construction grammar, Dicky distinguishes this type of usage from literal usage.

Whereas both the example from Paul (concerning Titus) and the example I used concern a writer who uses a sibling term which connects that writer to the "sibling," Galatians does not. It connects a third party to another third party. According to Dicky, this is the one use of adelphos which always refers to a literal sibling. Not the way Paul calles Titus "my brother" or the way the writer in the example from Dicky refers to his wife.

In other words, it is exactly "what I need." It explains (without recourse to construction grammar) why the use of Τιτον τον αδελφον μου is consistent with other non-literal uses (such as the example from Dicky I gave: κυρία μου ἀδελφή), but Ιακοβον τον αδελφον του κυριου is literal. The first two do not fit into the category of "a person mentioned as being the brother or sister of someone other than the writer or addressee." That's the category for which Dicky concludes we have no evidence that "it can be a spouse or anything else other than a sibling."

Along with the vast majority of her corpus of almost 5,000 letters. However, she is quite explicit about christian usage.

This is what you stated:
Now, if you are actually concerned with (or honest communication), and your intention by saying "Dickey happily omits non-literal examples" and that this is "interesting considering Paul so frequently uses αδελφος in a non-literal sense" and thus I am "talking bullshit" was actually just that "there was a choice of what to include" why did you not just say so?

More importantly, if what you meant was that "there was a choice of what to include and what not to include," how is it relevant? What did she "exclude" that, due to Paul's frequent use of "αδελφος in a non-literal sense", somehow means that I was "caught talking bullshit"?



Amusing.


Probably.




It's an instance of an XYZ construction. It's also a kinship construction. I am, however, talking about kinship identification constructions. It's no coincidence the one place Dicky concludes that letters using "kinship terms" which are "unambiguous" when it comes to literal vs. non-literal is when the term relates "the person mentioned to someone who is neither the writer nor the addressee." It's because most are used to identify. She explicitly says this in one of her literal examples concerning a certain 'Apollonios": "since Apollonios is a widely-used name and does not in itself serve to identify the person involved, the kinship term and the father's name are added for clarification. The kinship term must be taken literally, otherwise it would provide no clarification."

This is the construction I am describing. A particular XYZ kinship construction used to identify indivuals.




Because it doesn't matter. The purpose of the construction is to identify the particular "James" in question. Paul's use Jesus' title to his audience is just as clear as when Josephus uses Jesus' name. Both unambiguously identify the James in question.

spin

That's called divine fiat. Just one thing missing.

Doesn't work, because the construction doesn't fit the formula, unless you overlook the fact that the Z is not a name.

It's not Jesus' title. This is a non-titular use of κυριος. Paul generally refers to god with the non-titular κυριος, as was the custom of the culture of his era, not Jesus. Hence the appropriate comparison with Ιησου υιου του θεου.

Rubbish. The facts don't fit the formula. Dickey didn't help, providing nothing equivalent to "the brother of the lord", and merely asserting that the formula must be applicable might just convince one's goldfish. This is just a mathematician fouled by real life.

LegionOnomaMoi

Luckily, though, I'm not working with a formula, but a construction. Apart from basic research in metonymy, we actually see the kin identification construction used in greek where something else is used in place of the name. For example, Diodorus Siculus (14.12), while speaking about Clearchus, introduces a new person whom Clearchus becomes acquainted simply with Κύρῳ τῷ τοῦ βασιλέως ἀδελφῷ/Cyrus, the brother of the King.



Right. So apart from the frequent use of "lord Jesus" and Jesus christ our lord", when Paul uses "brothers of the lord" in 1 Cor 9:5, having gone from "Jesus the Lord" in 9:1, to just "the lord" in 9:2, now all of the sudden he means YHWH?


That would be quite a feat. Making a goldfish understand abstract concepts.
'I sent a message to the fish:
I told them "This is what I wish."

The little fishes of the sea,
They sent an answer back to me.

The little fishes' answer was
"We cannot do it, Sir, because —"'

Your answer as to why my use of this "formula" (which is, alas, not a formula but a construction) is just a mathematician fouled by real life (despite the fact that notational devices like X the Y of Z are used by linguists and only appear like math to someone unacquainted with syntactical research) is almost informative as the one supplied by the fishes in Dodgson's rhyme quoted above.

spin

No apple. One can say who the king is, but you can't say who the lord is. So far it has merely been assumed. The king is certainly a biological entity.

We got another one who can't tell the difference between the two usages of κυριος in "the lord said to my lord" (Ps 110:1). I've made this clear when talking of the titular versus non-titular (usage of) κυριος.

But then LOM's having difficulty applying abstract concepts meaningfully with half-assed applications of mathematical formulae.

"I say to-may-to..."

LOM gets kudos for dragging in Carroll's nonsense. Quite appropriate from him, of course, covering up the fact that his snake oil formula has no buyers.

judge

LOM seems a very good communicator. He has continued through this thread to build upon his early posts ina logical and intelligent fashion.
You on the other hand have become more and more unitelligible with more and more hand waving and emotional outbursts.

LOM has and is taking time to try to explain and has addressed points and linked to many references for those interested.

You posts have decended into one line dismissals and are becoming increasingly obscure and erratic, almost as if you are doing it on purpose.

One can't really learn much from your posts except how to dismiss witha word, how to sneer, how to insult.
LOM may or may not be right, but at least he takes time to explain and links to references where those interested can see for themselves.

Personally I welcome this on a forum supposedly for rational thought, but its hard to see much value in your avoidance, , sneering and insulting. Why not at the very least read the actuall papers before insulting. Its clear you haven't read even Dicky's paper or you wouldn't have to ask the questions you did.
Is that supposed to somehow be alligned with rational thought?

LegionOnomaMoi

You mean the "usages" you made up. Interesting. I refer to construction grammar, a model of syntax widely accepted in linguistic theory, and you call it snake oil. You don't bother to back up your claims with references to syntactical theory or models or research, or with any suggestion that you have any idea what construction grammar is. Yet (somehow) you have no problem creating artificial distinctions between usages of κυριος. There are distinctions of course, but none that support the reading you suggest here.

You refer to my application of modern linguistics as snake oil because you lack the background in linguistics to understand what I'm saying. However, I do not lack the background in greek grammar or textual analysis to know when your little "distinctions" are actually "snake oil."


Out of curiosity, have you studied mathematics at all? I realize the above rhetoric is yet another attempt to divert attention away from the fact that you have no background which enables you to intelligently address any argument concerning syntax in modern linguistics, but I'm beginning to wonder if you associate the use of variables as notational devices with mathematics because you never studied anything beyond high school calculus.


Probably because I'm not selling. You can get the information for free. I've provided the refences so that you can educate yourself when it comes to construction grammar. I've provided examples of the construction I'm talking about. But as soon as we entered into the realm of actual linguistic research, you switched from argument to rhetoric. From second person address to this amusing little third person thing you have going on. It was fun to watch the switch from "your amiss about the linguistics" type statements to the pure rhetoric. I'm sure you have convinced everyone who was already convinced in the first place, and who also lack the expertise to judge.

Duvduv

I guess the bottom line in Galatians 1 is that the writer did not want to reveal where Paul was persecuting Christians outside of Judea a mere couple of years after the crucifixion in Jerusalem, and redactors after the author of Acts who placed it in Jerusalem didn't notice any contradictions or discrepancies.