Gamera

You "think" Bauer does?

It appears you've compounded a mistranslation of the Greek "eti", with a misinterpretation of the English "yet".

The entry "even, yet" for eti, does not refer to "yet" in the sense of "nonetheless," as a review of Webster's or any other English lexicon will confirm.

"Yet" has numerous senses in English, but the sense of "even" refers to degree, as in "He hasn't phoned nor yet written," meaning "to the same extent he hasn't phoned, he hasn't written either" (i.e., not at all).

"Yet" in the sense of "nonetheless" is a totally separate meaning, and a totally separate definitional entry.

Eti clearly has the sense of degree in koine corresponding to English "still" in the sense of "yet" in the sense of "even," "even as" and "even so." But there is no evidence that it ever means "yet" or "still" in the sense of "nonetheless."

So again, for all your handwaving and bruised ego, you have not made the case.

Here's what you need to do: fill in the blank. Eti has the sense of "nonetheless" in the following passages from the following Greek texts: ______________________.

If you can't do that, then reliance on what you "think" Bauer meant is hardly helpful. Maybe you can do it. But you haven't as "yet" Just as you failed to investigate the semantic field of "appear", you have "yet" to do so for "eti." The fact that you are proposing an unusual translation without doing the semantic legwork is telling indeed.

Gamera

By the way, Thayer also disagrees with Doherty, and does not include "nonetheless" in his entry translating "eti."


http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/l...m?Strongs=2089

PhilosopherJay

Hi Gamera,


Here is the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition for "even so"
Since you have told us that ετι means "even so" and Merriam-Webster tells us that "even so" means "Nevertheless," it is hard to see the crime in Earl suggesting that Ετι means something like "nevertheless" in a particular Greek sentence.

Semantic fields tend to grow and shrink depending on the translator. A translator may decide that the meaning of a passage is best expressed using a term that is not normally in the semantic field of a word in the original language. It is the right of the translator to stretch the semantic field if he or she determines that it helps to understand the overall meaning of a passage. The fact that one may find a dozen or more quite different translations of almost every sentence in the New Testament is testimony to the stretchability of semantic fields.As semantic fields never match exactly between two languages. good translators worry more about conveying the sense of terms than if the semantic fields match exactly.

My wife often tells me "μην πας μεσω Ινδιασ" which literally means "don't go through India." Since she sometimes says this when I am going to the local supermarket, a literal translation would make little sense to most English speakers. A better translation would be "Don't take a long time," or even "Hurry back." These would be good translations although the English words do not match the semantic fields of any of the Greek words.

It is important to note that a translated word may not match standard dictionary definitions, but that does not necessarily make the translation incorrect or inadequate.

In this case, it seems the stretching of the semantic field for ετι that Earl has done is quite slight, if at all.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay



[QUOTE=Gamera;4771658]

Gamera

Sorry, you're quibbling. "Even so" is my locution. It is not Bauer's. I meant it in the sense of "to such an extent," which is what the entry for eti means under "even, yet". Here "yet" is not used as "nonetheless," which is a separate entry in Websters and every other English dictionary discussing "yet." You have gone on a wild goose chase now, defining "even so," when that is a separate semantic ambiguity.

The point is the nontemporal use of eti does not seem to ever mean "nonetheless" but only "to such an extent" (which includes "even so" in that sense). This has nothing to do with the stylistic choices of Bauer or Thayer, but rather (hopefully) the result of extensive research on the semantic field of the word in order to support their lexicon entries. Bauer and Thayer aren't doing translations per se; they are doing lexography, a somewhat more rigorous scholarly pursuit, one would hope (and one that takes into consideration the use of idioms of the type you mentioned, for purposes unclear to me).

As to using lexicons, why are you lecturing me about it? Doherty is the one who admitted he based this unusal translation of eti on a lexical entry, not on an actual review of usage to determine the semantic field of the Greek word itself. I think that's an amateurish mistake, but there it is. My point is simply, even using the lexical entry Doherty uses, he has misunderstood the English equivalent of "even, yet," which is distinct from the use of "yet" as "nonetheless.

If Doherty is correct, he doesn't need your quibbles. He just needs to fill in this blank:

Eti is used in the sense of "nonetheless" in the following passage of the following Greek text: ___________________

So less quibbling, more philology.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Gamera.


και παλιν αλλον απεστειλεν κακεινον απεκτειναν και πολλους αλλους τους μεν δεροντες τους δε αποκτενοντες
ετι ουν ενα υιον εχων αγαπητον αυτου απεστειλεν και αυτον προς αυτους εσχατον λεγων οτι εντραπησονται τον υιον μου

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Gamera

Mark 12:6. Eti here is universally translated as "yet" in the sense of "in addition," "further," "besides," -- never as "nonetheless"

12:5 And again he sent another; and him they killed, and many others; beating some, and killing some.
12:6 Having yet therefore one son, his wellbeloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son.

And that's because translating "yet" here as "nonetheless" wouldn't even make sense in English.

Neither Thayer, Bauer or Strong cite this as a case where eti means "nonetheless." Why do you think it is, besides the tendentious desire to shore up Doherty's sagging position?

PhilosopherJay

Hi Gamera,

You state that Eti here is universally translated as "yet" in the sense of "in addition," "further," "besides," -- never as "nonetheless"

Here are some translations of the passage:

NASB: "He had one more [to send], a beloved son; he sent him last [of all] to them, saying, 'They will respect my son.' (NASB ©1995)
GWT: "He had one more person to send. That person was his son, whom he loved. Finally, he sent his son to them. He thought, 'They will respect my son.' (GOD'S WORD®)
KJV: Having yet therefore one son, his wellbeloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son.
ASV: He had yet one, a beloved son: he sent him last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son.
BBE: He still had one, a dearly loved son: he sent him last to them, saying, They will have respect for my son.
DBY: Having yet therefore one beloved son, he sent also him to them the last, saying, They will have respect for my son.
WEY: He had still one left whom he could send, a dearly-loved son: him last of all he sent, saying, "'They will treat my son with respect.'
WBS: Having yet therefore one son, his well-beloved, he sent him also last to them, saying, They will reverence my son.
WEB: Therefore still having one, his beloved son, he sent him last to them, saying,'They will respect my son.'
YLT: 'Having yet therefore one son -- his beloved -- he sent also him unto them last, saying -- They will reverence my son;
The Message: Finally there was only one left: a beloved son. In a last-ditch effort, he sent him, thinking, 'Surely they will respect my son.'
Wycliffe: But yet he had a most dear-worthy son, and he sent him last to them, and said [Therefore yet he having one son most dear-worthy, and to them he sent him the last, saying], Peradventure they shall dread [with reverence] my son.

Notice that two of them do not translate the term "Eti", six of them translate it as "yet" and three of them translate it as "still". Wycliffe's "yet" shades toward the meaning of "besides", while the others seem to shade the term "further".

On a cursory examination, it seems that most versions are being influenced by
the King James Bible,which in turn seems influenced by the Latin Vulgate. The Vulgate translates the Greek ουν as ergo (therefore). Strong's dictionary for oun lists this: apparently a primary word; (adverbially) certainly, or (conjunctionally) accordingly:--and (so, truly), but, now (then), so (likewise then), then, therefore, verily, wherefore.


oon: (adverbially) certainly, or (conjunctionally) accordingly -- and (so, truly), but, now (then), so (likewise then), then, therefore, verily, wherefore.

Now if Jerome had chosen "but," " truly" or "wherefore," we would probably see a number of different translations more in line with Wycliffe's.

Let us look for a moment at the word nonetheless.

ethymonline tells us this:

1847, as phrase none the less; contracted into one word from c.1930.

Since the word did not actually come into existence, apparently, as a word till 1930, it seems unlikely that anyone translating the text before then would use the term.

Here's the webster online dictionary definition

however: despite anything to the contrary (usually following a concession); "although I'm a little afraid, however I'd like to try it"; "while we disliked each other, nevertheless we agreed"; "he was a stern yet fair master"; "granted that it is dangerous, all the same I still want to go"

Here are the synonyms: however, nevertheless, withal, still, yet, all the same, even so, notwithstanding.

Note that "Still" and "Yet" are synonyms for "nonetheless." That means they share at least one meaning and may be used interchangeably in some contexts.

The question here is can the word "nonetheless" be substituted in the context of this particular story.

What has happened in the story. A vineyard owner has sent serveral servants to collect rent. Despite this, he finally sends his son.

The sense of "yet" or "still" that most of the translations give suggest that it is a natural thing thing that he would send his son. Obviously, it is not natural that someone would send their son into a situation where there servants were killed. The text makes that clear by saying that the vineyard owner will kill the workers.

The text makes little sense in English as currently translated. It makes more sense when we translate Ετι as "nonetheless"

And he sent another, and that one they killed; and so with many others, beating some and killing others.

6 "Nonetheless, wherefore, he had a beloved son; he sent him last of all to them, saying, 'They will respect my son.'

The context itself suggests that translating as something like "despite this" or "nonetheless" gives a better suggestion of the narrator's attitudes towards the text. Since "still" or "yet" is synonymous with "nonetheless".

Finally, in answer to the question of why Thayer and Smith and Strong do not cite "nonetheless" as a meaning for Ετι, the most possible solution is that the word was not used until 1930 and these men wrote in the 19th Century.



Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Gamera

None of these translations translate eti in the sense of "nonetheless." Indeed NO translation does. Which makes my point.

By the way, all of them translate "eti," despite your claim. The sense here is "having a son left" (i.e., after sending all his servants) which is a perfectly good rendition of the sense of eti in this context (and of course excludes its use as "nonetheless")

Regarding Jerome, you've made my point again. Jerome can't get confused, as Doherty did, between the semantic field of Greek "eti" and the semantic field of English "still," because the latin translation of "eti" "adhuc" does not include the sense of "nonetheless" (unlike our "still," "yet") Jerome could not make the same mistake you and Doherty have. So he didn't.

Latin Vulgate
12:6 adhuc ergo unum habens filium carissimum et illum misit ad eos novissimum dicens quia reverebuntur filium meum

My cursory review indicates that Jerome always translated "eti" with adhuc, thus excluding the sense of "nonetheless."

As to your proposed translation, needless to say, it's tendentious. I think a literal translation would exclude your proposal: [The father] still therefore another [or one] son possessed beloved . . ."

The translation of "eti" here as "nonetheless" makes no sense. "Nonetheless [i.e, despite having sent servants who were beaten and killed] he had one son (or another, a son). . ."

This is a nonsequitur. The fact that he sent servants cannot result in a concession that he had a son. What you are hoping for is a bit of cheat -- something like "Despite the fact that he sent sevants, who all got killed, he sent his son . . ." But the grammar doesn't support this use of eti since it clearly modifies εχων not the later απεστειλεν


So your argument here reduces to the claim that Thayer and Bauer and Strong could not write "none the less" if that's what they meant because it's three words? Really?

Gamera

Still waiting for Doherty to provide one example in which "eti" means "nonetheless."

Without this example, his argument falls apart, which suggests he should have found the example before making the argument, rather than desperately searching for it now.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Gamera,

Let me make my argument more explicit. Single compound words that develop out of phrases, such as "none the less," do not become single words until the use of the phrase becomes common. That the word "nonetheless" did not appear until 1930 would suggest that the phrase "none the less" was not in common usage until 1930. It would not make sense in the 19th century to translate a common word like ετι into an uncommon phrase like "none the less". If Strong, Thayer and Bauer, had consulted any dictionary before 1930, it is highly unlikely they would have found any listing for the word "nonetheless". We may assume that only after 1930, when the phrase becomes common enough to be used as a single word, does it appear in any dictionary. We may be reasonably certain that Strong, Thayer and Bauer did not have the ability to predict what phrases would become popular enough to transform into common words in the century after they died. Therefore, we should not expect to find them translating ετι as "nonetheless" or even "none the less"

This does not mean that it is not an appropriate translation of the word. The real question that is important here is not if someone has translated ετι as "Nonetheless" before, but if we can find contexts where ετι can reasonably mean the same thing as "Nonetheless", The example I gave is such a context. We should expect the writer to mean something like "irregardless of that" in this situation. So "nonetheless" does make sense as a translation of ετι in this particular case.

We may take "nonetheless" as a particular case of "yet" or "still". In cases where ετι can be translated as "yet" or "still", and has the sense of "irregardless, or despite what has just been said" the better and more precise translation may be "nonetheless".


Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

[QUOTE=Gamera;4775144]