|
Post by joustos on Oct 1, 2020 22:24:45 GMT
Page 1
On different days, weather and health permitting, I am going to write a tract (small treatise) about the field of study or investigation called "Logology" (= the study of Discourse or Speeches). What I call Philology used to be called, on occasions, Philology, and it was believed that the divine Hermes was the father of Philology or the first philologist (and the father of instrumental music, succeeded in music by the divine Apollo). {Notice how I have been packing information and realize that you are doing philology. This speaking/writing style of mine is not poetic and is not pleasant.} I have never taken courses in linguistics or etymology. So, I will not regurgitate things I learned formally. However, for years I have been doing etymology of words of many languages such as my native language, Anglo-Saxon (Old English), Basque, Eblaite (Canaanitic Syriac), and obscure Etruscan (which I translated -- made clear -- by doing the etymology of many of its words). What is an etymology and how is it done? This is one thing I will discuss and exemplify, so that some readers can become apprendices of the art of etymology and practise it for their native language, if so they wish.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Dec 9, 2021 20:30:50 GMT
Amazing research. Unfortunately I haven't read everything, but from a first glance the work impresses its details and step by step methodologically accuracy. The linguists are tough guys with no doubt. What about the sense (German: Sinn)? Is it possible to find some equivalent to it? I mean the next one: a) two words share the same sense; b) two phrases have the same sense; c) for two sentences the sense is coincide? Unlike the meaning, which is for me mote formally, i.e. one linguistic element shares with the other linguistic element are tied or closed (logically) with another one element. Generally, there are such triplets in a language (mainly, formal ones, but not necessary) which have a kind of relationship I've mentioned above. By G. Frege the sense is something really close to so understanding so thinking. Let me introduce an example (can't say it's a good one): for Parmenides there are the being and the existence. If the latter is what can be felt or perceived by feelings, the former is what can be grasped only by our rational ability, or by our mind.in other words, there's no access to the being except for trying to get in using mind skills. P.S. Apologizes for violating the main theme, or for flood. About Frege: He is right in distinguishing the reference and the sense [= meaning] of a linguistic expression [locution; sentence; word], but he is not clear about the Reference; I like the Medieval British theory of "Suppositio" [= referencing, standing for, of a word used in speaking]. There are three types of referencing, which I think I have already mentioned: Personal, Material, and Formal. Consider what the word DOG refers to in these spoken sentences: (1) That DOG [brown barking animal] cannot be quite for five minutes. (2) DOG is a three letter word, but it doesn't sound like LOG. (3) A DOG is a small quadruped that can guard and hunt. So, DOG respectively refers to a living animal; a spoken name; and a concept. My scribing/writing invention: "/dog/" = the concept which {in English} is expressed by "dog" -- since we cannot write concepts down. Here "dog" supposits formally, as in #3. // The personal supposition, or implicit denotation, is not an assertion that the named thing exists; it may be fictitious.// See also thread "The Creation of the word God."
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Dec 9, 2021 21:30:43 GMT
Amazing research. Unfortunately I haven't read everything, but from a first glance the work impresses its details and step by step methodologically accuracy. The linguists are tough guys with no doubt. What about the sense (German: Sinn)? Is it possible to find some equivalent to it? I mean the next one: a) two words share the same sense; b) two phrases have the same sense; c) for two sentences the sense is coincide? Unlike the meaning, which is for me mote formally, i.e. one linguistic element shares with the other linguistic element are tied or closed (logically) with another one element. Generally, there are such triplets in a language (mainly, formal ones, but not necessary) which have a kind of relationship I've mentioned above. By G. Frege the sense is something really close to so understanding so thinking. Let me introduce an example (can't say it's a good one): for Parmenides there are the being and the existence. If the latter is what can be felt or perceived by feelings, the former is what can be grasped only by our rational ability, or by our mind.in other words, there's no access to the being except for trying to get in using mind skills. P.S. Apologizes for violating the main theme, or for flood. About Frege: He is right in distinguishing the reference and the sense [= meaning] of a linguistic expression [locution; sentence; word], but he is not clear about the Reference; I like the Medieval British theory of "Suppositio" [= referencing, standing for, of a word used in speaking]. There are three types of referencing, which I think I have already mentioned: Personal, Material, and Formal. Consider what the word DOG refers to in these spoken sentences: (1) That DOG [brown barking animal] cannot be quite for five minutes. (2) DOG is a three letter word, but it doesn't sound like LOG. (3) A DOG is a small quadruped that can guard and hunt. So, DOG respectively refers to a living animal; a spoken name; and a concept. My scribing/writing invention: "/dog/" = the concept which {in English} is expressed by "dog" -- since we cannot write concepts down. Here "dog" supposits formally, as in #3. // The personal supposition, or implicit denotation, is not an assertion that the named thing exists; it may be fictitious.// See also thread "The Creation of the word God." The Fact That Aloof Cats Are Loved Shows How Dangerous Rats and Mice AreThe fact that DOG comes from a word for "pointer" (DIGITUS, PARADIGM what is pointed to that connects everything) describes its original main function and must be pre-agricultural. It saved many hunter-gatherers from starvation.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Dec 9, 2021 22:08:40 GMT
Eugene, first of all, I hope that Ukraine is not being induced to start a war against Russia, since in a {modern} war there are no winners. May there be peace in the whole world. Your example about Being an Existence is appropriate, but it raiss innumerable questions.I would say that the two words are not synonymous (do not have the same sense/meaning), yet they share a sense. The difference you point to has to do with our manners of apprehension or understanding of the words, for they do not denote two independent things or sustances which we might compare.Are such non-denotative words what they used to call Transcendental ideas? For the moment: We say that something exists when it becomes present and is therefore perceived or felt. Being, the objective or objectified condition of that which becomes present, not the act of presence, can only be intuited (can only be the object of an insight into what exists).However, Parmenides' descriptions of Being are made by a comparison with physical things (which are generated, have a beginning, are mutable, etc.} The mental proceess is quite complicated and include logical arguments.// What becomes present = a phenomenon. Considered as something that goes on, occurs, it exists on its own -- a noumenon/substance, not a fantasy. So, an existent is ipso facto a being. The investigation will continue.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Dec 10, 2021 16:54:50 GMT
Eugene, first of all, I hope that Ukraine is not being induced to start a war against Russia, since in a {modern} war there are no winners. May there be peace in the whole world. Your example about Being an Existence is appropriate, but it raiss innumerable questions.I would say that the two words are not synonymous (do not have the same sense/meaning), yet they share a sense. The difference you point to has to do with our manners of apprehension or understanding of the words, for they do not denote two independent things or sustances which we might compare.Are such non-denotative words what they used to call Transcendental ideas? For the moment: We say that something exists when it becomes present and is therefore perceived or felt. Being, the objective or objectified condition of that which becomes present, not the act of presence, can only be intuited (can only be the object of an insight into what exists).However, Parmenides' descriptions of Being are made by a comparison with physical things (which are generated, have a beginning, are mutable, etc.} The mental proceess is quite complicated and include logical arguments.// What becomes present = a phenomenon. Considered as something that goes on, occurs, it exists on its own -- a noumenon/substance, not a fantasy. So, an existent is ipso facto a being. The investigation will continue. Some of the above views may be confusing to readers. What is the difference between a being and an existent? Going back to Parmenides: he speaks of Being [to On/ontos] in the same sense of "that which is" [to ti esti]. The latter linguistic expression is the same as our "what exists; the existent". So he seams to say: Being = Existence. On the contrary, judging from his discourse on Being, I think that by "Being", he means "the totality [the whole] of what is /exists or of what is real". He assumes a multiplicity of things/beings,, but the Whole and the particular things do not have the same properties. E.g., things have a beginning, whereas the Whole cannot have a beginning; it simply is. //Etc.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Dec 10, 2021 17:18:58 GMT
Amazing research. Unfortunately I haven't read everything, but from a first glance the work impresses its details and step by step methodologically accuracy. The linguists are tough guys with no doubt. What about the sense (German: Sinn)? Is it possible to find some equivalent to it? I mean the next one: a) two words share the same sense; b) two phrases have the same sense; c) for two sentences the sense is coincide? Unlike the meaning, which is for me mote formally, i.e. one linguistic element shares with the other linguistic element are tied or closed (logically) with another one element. Generally, there are such triplets in a language (mainly, formal ones, but not necessary) which have a kind of relationship I've mentioned above. By G. Frege the sense is something really close to so understanding so thinking. Let me introduce an example (can't say it's a good one): for Parmenides there are the being and the existence. If the latter is what can be felt or perceived by feelings, the former is what can be grasped only by our rational ability, or by our mind.in other words, there's no access to the being except for trying to get in using mind skills. P.S. Apologizes for violating the main theme, or for flood. About Frege: He is right in distinguishing the reference and the sense [= meaning] of a linguistic expression [locution; sentence; word], but he is not clear about the Reference; I like the Medieval British theory of "Suppositio" [= referencing, standing for, of a word used in speaking]. There are three types of referencing, which I think I have already mentioned: Personal, Material, and Formal. Consider what the word DOG refers to in these spoken sentences: (1) That DOG [brown barking animal] cannot be quite for five minutes. (2) DOG is a three letter word, but it doesn't sound like LOG. (3) A DOG is a small quadruped that can guard and hunt. So, DOG respectively refers to a living animal; a spoken name; and a concept. My scribing/writing invention: "/dog/" = the concept which {in English} is expressed by "dog" -- since we cannot write concepts down. Here "dog" supposits formally, as in #3. // The personal supposition, or implicit denotation, is not an assertion that the named thing exists; it may be fictitious.// See also thread "The Creation of the word God." Thank you for answering, and clarifying this question. I see now. And I got about the thread "The Creation...". Answering 9'x about how he'd been using the word God. In logic a supposition usually means the next: a major premise: All dogs are barking a conclusion: Pluto is barking So, a supposition in this syllogism is the minor premise, and it is: Pluto is a dog In other sense, it was presented as a transcendental though, like in this example: 1) I doubt in any proposition 2) "I doubt in any proposition" is also a proposition 3) I doubt in ""I doubt in any proposition" is also a proposition" The third here is a transcendental proposition, or the supposition. But this example is quite rough. Sorry for not bringing a good one. I'll try another one, but my skills and language... a) Panta Rei
b) A certain principle must be behind this Panta Rei for this principle to work c) That certain principle is a contradiction to Panta ReiDespite the fact that (a)-(c) must be broken logically, if (b) is a transcendental premise, i.e. a supposition in one of the transcendental argments, it allows this argument to be accepted transcendentally. Perhaps, you expect me to bring some links about the sources I've taken this info. I'd give, but all of them are Ukrainian or Russian textbooks. The idea of the transcendental suppositions was accepted by me, so I might only guess about it. I believe I'm not wrong, here, but I cannot be certain about this moment either. Also, what do you think about any language to have different number of References. Because those three examples are inductive. It's not impossible to have some other examples. (Along with it, I can't invent any for now.) Why for me that differentiation is seemed to be not unimportant? For this reason: there are different groups of words. Mathematically we can have xn possible words, where x - the number of letters, and n - is the length of the word. So, in a certain language there are xn-k different words. But a certain word can have more, than one meaning. So, that language, perhaps, has (xn-k)y summary words xmeanings. However, as you've said, there are at least three type of reference: (i) to some perceptions or a sum of them (a material thing, etc): that quick-breathing brown round of fur
(ii) to the word: those letters in order the 4th, the 15th, and the 7th
(iii) to a concept behind: a prototype for Cerberus.
But, honestly, I think that the list of references is able to continued: (iv) to a certain perception (or a group of perception): that smelly creature...
(v) to a certain symbolic representation: a word that has a reversed symmetry to one religious word(vi) to an idea: a conjuction of forms that forms a concept of dog.So, generally speaking, the reference (I might be wrong; it's all I'm thinking about it) is some kind of a function of a word and a meaning. This explanation of mine, about this function, is rough, and isn't clear enough. I know. But anyway, I believe this relation between the references and the words to be similar to the meaning's.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Dec 25, 2021 22:10:00 GMT
A DOUBLE-HEDJED ANALYSIS Seemingly kindred words: Kephas,Kephalos, Kephale, Kephalon(ia). The first word looks like a Greek noun (like Hellas ); the next three words look like the relative adjective in its three forms: masculine, feminine, and neuter, except for the fact that the neuter adjective is turned into a noun by adding "-ia" so as to designate a land or territory [*Kephalon-land]. Indeed, "Kephalonia"is is the name of an Ionian island off the western part of the Peloponnese, that is, facing eastern Italy. UNfortunately we do not know what "keph-" means and I cannot find its possible source. However, some Gospels may provide us with what we are looking for.
The Wikipedia article on Saint Peter reports an anecdote, a conversation between Jesus and Simon, which is found in the Matthew Gospel and in the John Gospel word for word in Greek,even though John's G. is not one of the synoptic gospels
dote
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Dec 26, 2021 15:42:18 GMT
Revision and continuation of the above (yesterday) post:
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Dec 26, 2021 22:33:32 GMT
Revision and continuation of the above (yesterday) post: DOUBLE-HEDGED ANALYSIS Apparently kindred words: KEPHas, KEPHalos, KEPHale, KEPHalon(ia). "Kephalonia" is actually the name of an Ionian island. "Kephale" is an attested Greek word that means/denotes "head [of humans or animals]" and may denote the headland of a promontory, or the capital of a column, and is the basis of the English "Cephalic" [that is, pertaining to the head or the skull. // To note the cognate nature of "capital" and the Latin "capit-alis", which is coined from Caput [=head]+alis[an adjective former]. So, one may tempted to interpret Gr. Keph- to mean "head" or, metaphorically, "chief, principal".// "Kephalos" is an attested Greek word that means"fish with a big head [Cf. Bailly Grec Francais Dictionnaire]. In a corrupt form, "cefalu", it exists in my native language [which comprises original Greek, Latin, and Italian words with some modifications]. Here we have again the Head meaning of Keph-. However, we have also a different meaning, according to a Biblical interpretation.// The Gospels according to Matthew and to John report a conversation between Jesus and the apostle Simon/Peter. WhenJesus asked, And who do you think I am? Simon promptly reeplies,You are the son of the living God. And Jesus: You are Simon, but you will be called Kephas, which [John wrote] means Petros [Gr. = stone; pebble; boulder] and on this petra [Gr. = rock; ?stone material; my lang.: stone] I will build my ecclesia [Gr.= Assembly/People -- presumably " just as my Father built/raised it through Abraham]. // Both Simon and Jesus were Galileans and would be conversing in Aramaic [a language akin to the Hebrew of Judea.John the evangelist from Ephesus [where he must have leaned about the HeracliteanLogos which is central in his own theology] must have understood Aramaic [whether he witnessed the conversation or learned of it from other apostles] and translated it into Greek for his Greek audience or readers: Khephas = Stone, which is obviously unrelated to Kephale and to Kephalos. Jesus' play on words [petros\petra] implies that either that conversation was in Greek, or it was invented by some Greek person and was accepted by some evengelists. [If John the evangelist were the beloved disciple of Jesus who sat next to him the last supper, this evangelist would have included the last supper episode in his Gospel so as to add authority to his message. It is unkown whether John the evangelist ever knew Jesus personally or ever was in Palestine.// one more thing The same Wikipedia article informs us that John's Gospelwas translated into Syriac and that the Greek-looking name "Kephas" [meaning Stone] was translated into Aramaic Jesus' language and now transliterated as "kepa" or "keepa". I can see why the heta in Kephas should be transliterated into the Roman alphabet by a double E [since the heta sound is that of a long E] rather than by the traditional ancient AE. And today we can easily see how that Aramaic word could be heard by a Greek as "keepa", that is, by a shift from P toPH or the Roman F. We assume that the Greek Kephas was derived from Aramaic, but I, having dealt with Canaanite words, have found that many of these words derive from Greek or specifically from Doric, since ancient Peloponesian Dorians migrated south to Palestine [long before the invasions by thr desert People or Semites], and to Crete, Rhodes, and elsewhere. So, my view is that Keepa or the like is a derivative of an ancient Gr. word like *Kephas or *Kaphas or the variant Kaiphas [the name of the high priest in Jesus' times. //If Jesus really wanted to institute a People to worship him, then he was a renegade Jew, since had been circumcised, wherely he had become a member of the Holy People./ Did such a man really exist in Palestine, or was he a fictitious character in Greek literature? Yes, Simon [upward turned or bent],who do you think he is?
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Dec 28, 2021 16:31:51 GMT
I think that any reader of the Gospels that preserve the originally written Greek words, "petros... petra", is puzzled by what seems to be a play on those two words. I read an explanation somewhere: Since Petra is a feminine noun and Jesus was addressing a male [Simon], Jesus used the masculine word "Petros", which is essentially similar in meaning. However, others claim that Petra as the foundation of the Ecclesia/Church is Jesus himself. (Why then did he call Simon "Petros" at all?) Granting that the native language of John of Ephesus was Greek, and unless he copied the conversation, he may have used those two words interchangeably, or he might have used a different word instead of Petra: Petroma [= a mass of stone, Cf. Liddell-Scott, though I prefer "stone stuff" as in "hemotoma"].{Petroma = petro-oma -- that is, omega is equivalent to two consecutive lexical omicrons, not today's variants of Coronavirus. }
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Dec 28, 2021 23:42:13 GMT
A DOUBLE-HEDJED ANALYSISSeemingly kindred words: Kephas,Kephalos, Kephale, Kephalon(ia). The first word looks like a Greek noun (like Hellas ); the next three words look like the relative adjective in its three forms: masculine, feminine, and neuter, except for the fact that the neuter adjective is turned into a noun by adding "-ia" so as to designate a land or territory [*Kephalon-land]. Indeed, "Kephalonia"is is the name of an Ionian island off the western part of the Peloponnese, that is, facing eastern Italy. UNfortunately we do not know what "keph-" means and I cannot find its possible source. However, some Gospels may provide us with what we are looking for. The Wikipedia article on Saint Peter reports an anecdote, a conversation between Jesus and Simon, which is found in the Matthew Gospel and in the John Gospel word for word in Greek,even though John's G. is not one of the synoptic gospels dote THE PREVIOUS EUROPEANS WERE NEANDERTHAL HYBRIDS Just like Massachusetts and Milwaukee, some place names come from the indigenous people (Old Europeans) who lived in Greece before the Indo-Europeans arrived. Oedipus is also a non-Greek name. He was some pre-Greek resistance leader whom the Greeks wanted to slander by saying he married his own mother.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Dec 29, 2021 21:43:29 GMT
A DOUBLE-HEDJED ANALYSISSeemingly kindred words: Kephas,Kephalos, Kephale, Kephalon(ia). The first word looks like a Greek noun (like Hellas ); the next three words look like the relative adjective in its three forms: masculine, feminine, and neuter, except for the fact that the neuter adjective is turned into a noun by adding "-ia" so as to designate a land or territory [*Kephalon-land]. Indeed, "Kephalonia"is is the name of an Ionian island off the western part of the Peloponnese, that is, facing eastern Italy. UNfortunately we do not know what "keph-" means and I cannot find its possible source. However, some Gospels may provide us with what we are looking for. The Wikipedia article on Saint Peter reports an anecdote, a conversation between Jesus and Simon, which is found in the Matthew Gospel and in the John Gospel word for word in Greek,even though John's G. is not one of the synoptic gospels dote THE PREVIOUS EUROPEANS WERE NEANDERTHAL HYBRIDS Just like Massachusetts and Milwaukee, some place names come from the indigenous people (Old Europeans) who lived in Greece before the Indo-Europeans arrived. Oedipus is also a non-Greek name. He was some pre-Greek resistance leader whom the Greeks wanted to slander by saying he married his own mother. I disagree on some points; however, even if you are completely right, what you say does not resolve the current issue, sincewe have no record of any language that may have been spoken by Pre-Greek Europeans. My latest point was that possibly Jonn the evngelis and/pr others, may have used the words Petros and Petra interchangeably, or that Petroma may have been used instead of Petra. [We do not have a history of the scribes/copyists of the original writings.] In this line of thought, I can see another alternative:using "Petraios" instead of Petros. Petraios would be an epithet which could be translated as "stone/rock-related" [ not as Stoney], since it was used by various Greeks for the Centaurs who lived in rocky caves, for fishes that live among or hide by stones/rocks, and the like. {You are Simon but will be called Kephas, which means Petraios, and upon this Petra I shall build....} What would be the point of using Petraios [later converted into Petros]? You will be living in an abode against which not even the gates of Hades/Hell shall prevail; that is, Petra is understood as a fortress rather than a foundation. [This may be an unnecessary exegesis, since it seems impossible to derive Aram. K eph/Keepa from Gr. Petr-(aios) -- which was a project in the back of my mind.]
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Dec 29, 2021 22:16:10 GMT
THE PREVIOUS EUROPEANS WERE NEANDERTHAL HYBRIDS Just like Massachusetts and Milwaukee, some place names come from the indigenous people (Old Europeans) who lived in Greece before the Indo-Europeans arrived. Oedipus is also a non-Greek name. He was some pre-Greek resistance leader whom the Greeks wanted to slander by saying he married his own mother. I disagree on some points; however, even if you are completely right, what you say does not resolve the current issue, sincewe have no record of any language that may have been spoken by Pre-Greek Europeans. My latest point was that possibly Jonn the evngelis and/pr others, may have used the words Petros and Petra interchangeably, or that Petroma may have been used instead of Petra. [We do not have a history of the scribes/copyists of the original writings.] In this line of thought, I can see another alternative:using "Petraios" instead of Petros. Petraios would be an epithet which could be translated as "stone/rock-related" [ not as Stoney], since it was used by various Greeks for the Centaurs who lived in rocky caves, for fishes that live among or hide by stones/rocks, and the like. {You are Simon but will be called Kephas, which means Petraios, and upon this Petra I shall build....} What would be the point of using Petraios [later converted into Petros]? You will be living in an abode against which not even the gates of Hades/Hell shall prevail; that is, Petra is understood as a fortress rather than a foundation. [This may be an unnecessary exegesis, since it seems impossible to derive Aram. K eph/Keepa from Gr. Petr-(aios) -- which was a project in the back of my mind.] Slavish Professors Will Always Come Up With Examples of False Etymologies to "Prove" That Anything Their Department Heads Disagree With Is False, Tooe Russian GOLOVA is cognate with KEFALE, by transposition and change of phi to the related v. Another transposition is English SPILL and SLIP, both cognate with Greek SFALES. Another clue is why we don't say "slippy" instead of SLIPPERY. Same in Greek SFALEROS instead of "sfaleis." There are many transpositions that appear in common life, which academics have no interest in. Another could be COW and Latin VACCA, pronounced "wocka."
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jan 11, 2022 18:21:00 GMT
I am still baffled by the Jesus-and-Simon conversation and by its report on the Gospel according to John. To resume: My initial five words [Kephas etc.] seem to share the root "keph-" whose meaning (suggested by those very words) has to do with "head", whereas,by John's text, Kephas = Petros (= Stone,boulder) in his contemporary Greek language. But, I ask, why didn't he use the Gr. word "Lithos" [=stone]? Probably because he could not have performed the play on words [petros... petra] which he already had in mind, whether he is the inventor of that play, or he copied it from a real proto-Gospel (which 19th century German scholars postulated on the basis of the identities in the 3 synoptic Gospels). Anyway, was John a Greek from Ephesus or did he go to Ephesus as an apostle, after Jesus' death? He and his brother James were Palestinian fishermen [like Peter & brother] and he may have learned Greek and about the Heraclitean Logos anywhere, though we wander where! (there are various legends about his residences: a lake in Palestine, Ephesus, Rome, Patmos). He is the mighty Chistian eschatologist: He posited the Logos as prior to the creation of the world, and he described [in the Apocalypse] the end of the world -- probably according to the secret teachings of Jesus, the Essene who even preached the imminent end of the world.// John's "Kephas" = Petros, which the Syrian translators equated with Kepa a Canaanite/Aramaic word that certainly cannot be derived from either Petros or Lithos;it is a cognate of Kephas. What older Greek/Doric word could be -- if at all -- the source of Kepa? A guess: Kep-phos. but this has nothing to do with stones; it means "fishing bird; seagull" or, metaphorically "simpleton; easily deceived" [Cf. Liddell-Scott lexicon]. Accordingly, Jesus is portrayed as saying, You are Simon, the son of John, but you shall be called the simpleton and upon this belief of yours [that I am the son of God] I will build my Ekklesia/Church/Assembly of followers. // Somebody else must have thought of the same word, Kep-phos , for some years ago I read that Simon-Peter, a fisherman, now was being made by Jesus a fisher of men. I think Jesus and Simon spoke Aramaic [kephas] but not unadulterated Greek [kep-phos]. Today's evangelicals insist that everybody in Palestine, including Jesus, spoke Greek in addition to Aramaic and Hebrew. (I think the three-language inscriptions on the cross-tag were in Hebrew, Greek and Latin: Jesus Nazarene king of the Judeans).
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jan 12, 2022 21:10:15 GMT
Editing my above post/ The problematic words I introduced in my post [RE: A Double-Hedjed Analysis] were four, not five, but it does not matter. // In the above post, I gave the Emglish translation of the Latin (alleged) inscription on the cross: JESUS NAZARENUS REX JUDEORUM. This is an ironical phrase since Jesus was never a king of a people or nation. However, judging from ancient ideologies, he was the de jure king of the Jews, since, as Matthew's genealogy shows, he was the son of Joseph in the bloodline of David, the king of Jerusalem and Judea. Of course, according other gospels, he was the son of God -- as Simon-Peter declared in John's Gospel. [ A nice contradiction for the believers in the historical reality of Jesus. If cloning is possible, his prepuce from the circumcision is still preserved in a dozen European churches!]
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Feb 6, 2022 17:22:58 GMT
DREAMING UP WORDS, literally --a new post. Last night I dreamt I was dealing with some written Greek words, one of which was Arktos, which happens to be the name of this website. I realized I knew its meaning [i.e., Great Bear, the constellation]. For no reason, I scrambled some words and ended up with a word I remembered orally as I woke up: Akrologos. Now I realized ididn't know the meaning of this word but planned on finding out. At the computer, the Liddell-Scott lexicon has only its relative verb, Acrologeo = to gather at the top). The Bailly grec francais dictionnaire is more elaborate: Akrologos = that which gathers [juice] at the surface [of flowers]. That's the word I coined in my dream; it is an attested ancient Greek word!
|
|