http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2206 A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog Sun, 23 Nov 2008 13:46:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2206#comment-53974 Parableman: Adam Knew His Wife Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:11:33 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2206#comment-53974 <!--%kramer-ref-pre%-->[...] http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2206 [...]<!--%kramer-ref-post%--> [...] http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2206 [...]]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2206#comment-51053 Happy Catholic: 02.2006 Tue, 06 Nov 2007 04:18:03 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2206#comment-51053 <!--%kramer-ref-pre%-->[...] come from? And how do we know the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus?IT'S ALL ABOUT YOU KNOW WHO.Ales Rarus scratches the surface of the complexities involved in Biblical translation. Specifically, [...]<!--%kramer-ref-post%--> [...] come from? And how do we know the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus?IT'S ALL ABOUT YOU KNOW WHO.Ales Rarus scratches the surface of the complexities involved in Biblical translation. Specifically, [...]]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2206#comment-9102 Jeremy Pierce Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:33:42 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2206#comment-9102 Actually, the parallel between "gotten" and Cain's name isn't preserved in any of these. She'd have to say "I've Cained a man" or name him Gotten or something if you wanted to preserve that. (Either would be inaccurate anyway, since Cain's name means something like metal-working, and it just sounds like the word for "gotten". It's a wordplay, not an etymology in the modern sense.) On "who" vs. "whom", Jordan is simply wrong. Funky is right. The supposedly right "whom" used to be correct, but it's just not English anymore. There are some places where it could be ok to do either. The word isn't dead yet. But "about whom you know" is just not correct grammar anymore in most dialects, English teachers and archaists like William Safire notwithstanding. I agree that something is lost in terms of clarity, but that's how things go. We've lost clarity before, and we'll keep doing so as language chances.
On "who" vs. "whom", Jordan is simply wrong. Funky is right. The supposedly right "whom" used to be correct, but it's just not English anymore. There are some places where it could be ok to do either. The word isn't dead yet. But "about whom you know" is just not correct grammar anymore in most dialects, English teachers and archaists like William Safire notwithstanding. I agree that something is lost in terms of clarity, but that's how things go. We've lost clarity before, and we'll keep doing so as language chances.]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2206#comment-8659 Tamilda Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:17:34 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2206#comment-8659 Oh, I think the nuances have always been there, at least I hope they have! I think you have the correct interpretation of the word "know" and that the question rather is why it was used in the rape cases (instead of "lie with", for example). I don't know the answer to that, but I do see how a translator might choose to use another word for having sex in order to use the same English word each time the Hebrew word "know" was used in a sexual way. I don't think the Hebrew approach to sexuality was like the Greek one. From what I've gathered, the Hebrew view seems to focus more on body (as seen in Songs, for example), whereas the Greek is focused more on mind, on "elevating" sex beyond the physical. There are bound to be differences in interpretation and the resulting translations.
I don't know the answer to that, but I do see how a translator might choose to use another word for having sex in order to use the same English word each time the Hebrew word "know" was used in a sexual way.

I don't think the Hebrew approach to sexuality was like the Greek one. From what I've gathered, the Hebrew view seems to focus more on body (as seen in Songs, for example), whereas the Greek is focused more on mind, on "elevating" sex beyond the physical.

There are bound to be differences in interpretation and the resulting translations.]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2206#comment-8658 Funky Dung Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:14:19 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2206#comment-8658 My understanding is that the word was more concretely associated with carnal knowledge early in its use and gradually accumalated more nuanced uses. I'm no linguist or philologist, but it seems to me that by the time the gospels and epistles were written, the word would have evoked more complex and altruistic notions than mere copulation. http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2206#comment-8657 Tamilda Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:08:23 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2206#comment-8657 There is certainly some beautiful midrash about "knowing" and the connection with good marital sex. I don't know that I would be too hard on translators, though (despite my love for a literal translation), because the same verb is used for rape (Judges 19:25) and rape by sodomy (Genesis 19:5). I think the word simply means to know someone carnally, as much as we might wish for it to have a more spiritual and uplifting definition.
I don't know that I would be too hard on translators, though (despite my love for a literal translation), because the same verb is used for rape (Judges 19:25) and rape by sodomy (Genesis 19:5). I think the word simply means to know someone carnally, as much as we might wish for it to have a more spiritual and uplifting definition.]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2206#comment-8650 Funky Dung Mon, 27 Feb 2006 01:26:35 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2206#comment-8650 1) While I tend to be a fan of "whom", it's falling into disuse. 2) Lot's of people have heard that phrase in its grammatically incorrent form. 3) I'm moving DSA's comment to the NFP post (seems to fit better there). 2) Lot's of people have heard that phrase in its grammatically incorrent form.
3) I'm moving DSA's comment to the NFP post (seems to fit better there).]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2206#comment-8649 Jordan Mon, 27 Feb 2006 00:46:40 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2206#comment-8649 Not to put a damper on DSA's post by introducing trivialities, but I must observe that "it's all about <i>whom</i> you know," old boy, not "<i>who</i>". The advantage of using this construction, lest you accuse me of antiquarianism, is that it makes clear that "who" is the direct object. In this case, that's not so difficult to figure out, but in other cases it is, and so a habit of using "whom" will serve you well in your writing. Pip pip. whom you know," old boy, not "who". The advantage of using this construction, lest you accuse me of antiquarianism, is that it makes clear that "who" is the direct object. In this case, that's not so difficult to figure out, but in other cases it is, and so a habit of using "whom" will serve you well in your writing. Pip pip.]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2206#comment-8643 Jordan Sun, 26 Feb 2006 21:44:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2206#comment-8643 This is one of the most important linguistic features, as "knowing" the Lord is the goal of life: at the end we shall know him even as we are known. This intimacy which you have explained so well is a central theme of the Christian theological tradition.