ὁ Ἰησοῦς· The article with proper names

Re: ὁ Ἰησοῦς· The article with proper names

Postby Stephen Carlson » January 19th, 2012, 9:14 pm

David Lim wrote:I think even in English word order is still very flexible so that it may sometimes not bear any meaning at all. For example:
"him alone you will serve"
"you will serve him alone"
Is there a difference between the two in modern English? Some will use the former (probably because they read the scriptures) but others will use the latter. And neither of them are trying to make a distinction from the other alternative.


Yes, there is a difference, and there is an entire book about it: Betty J. Birner and Gregory Ward, Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English (Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1988).

Stephen
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke)
Post-Doctoral Fellow, Faculty of Theology, Uppsala
Stephen Carlson
 
Posts: 1681
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Uppsala University

Re: ὁ Ἰησοῦς· The article with proper names

Postby RandallButh » January 20th, 2012, 3:38 am

David,
Stephen already answered you with an excellent book. there is another set of ideas that need to be brought into the discussion as well, and that is Relevance Theory. Meaning/communication is negotiated between coder and decoder. They do not always have to make the best choices or the right guesses about the effects on the other and communication often breaks down, nevertheless, meaning negotiation is taking place.

If a friend walks in and says, How are you?
and on another occasion walks in and says 'How do you do?'
there will be alot of unspoken processing going on to sort out the difference. (Hey, what'd I do? where are we going with this?)
The person may even respond, "What do you mean?" even though the greeting is as clear as can be.
A choice was made, and it is interpreted accordingly.
RandallButh
 
Posts: 533
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: ὁ Ἰησοῦς· The article with proper names

Postby David Lim » January 20th, 2012, 4:25 am

Stephen Carlson wrote:
David Lim wrote:I think even in English word order is still very flexible so that it may sometimes not bear any meaning at all. For example:
"him alone you will serve"
"you will serve him alone"
Is there a difference between the two in modern English? Some will use the former (probably because they read the scriptures) but others will use the latter. And neither of them are trying to make a distinction from the other alternative.


Yes, there is a difference, and there is an entire book about it: Betty J. Birner and Gregory Ward, Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English (Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1988).

Stephen


Oh my goodness. I do not interpret any difference if I were to hear a stranger saying it. Even if I knew the speaker well, if he often uses both kinds of constructions, I would not be likely to ascribe any meaning to the difference, intentional or otherwise. Now, I am sure that many others will agree with me by simply understanding language the way I do, even if they do not want to admit it. Unless one insists that most users of a language never fully understand one another because they are rarely aware of such differences, an equivalent insistence that there is always a difference in meaning between these two example phrases cannot be considered valid at all. Consider more:
"him only you will serve" , "him only you shall serve"
"only him you will serve" , "only him you shall serve"
"only him will you serve" , "only him shall you serve"
"you will serve him only" , "you shall serve him only"
"you will serve only him" , "you shall serve only him"
Any good English grammar or dictionary will mention that the distinction between such alternatives are not observed by a significant proportion of English users. And there are too many such references to list.

RandallButh wrote:David,
Stephen already answered you with an excellent book. there is another set of ideas that need to be brought into the discussion as well, and that is Relevance Theory. Meaning/communication is negotiated between coder and decoder. They do not always have to make the best choices or the right guesses about the effects on the other and communication often breaks down, nevertheless, meaning negotiation is taking place.

If a friend walks in and says, How are you?
and on another occasion walks in and says 'How do you do?'
there will be alot of unspoken processing going on to sort out the difference. (Hey, what'd I do? where are we going with this?)
The person may even respond, "What do you mean?" even though the greeting is as clear as can be.
A choice was made, and it is interpreted accordingly.


Your example demonstrates that exactly the same sentence may mean different things when spoken/written by different people and when heard/read by different people and when communicated at different times. That is precisely why I said that linguistics can only suggest "explanations" for communication after communication. The meaning is not dependent on any fixed rules (even unknown rules) alone, but always depends on individual style and situation. Moreover, your example is flawed because everyone I know use different phrases for greeting and often arbitrarily. Whether there is an unconscious choice does not matter. The fact remains that there can often be absolutely no difference in meaning. Many times also I have seen a miscommunication take place when the hearer assumes that there was a reason for an apparent change in the way the speaker said something, and on clarifying, realises that nothing was meant.

Now to make it clear, I am not saying that we should always ascribe everything to style, but that if there is significant variation then it is unwise to attempt to find reason for it that is independent of the language user.
δαυιδ λιμ
David Lim
 
Posts: 822
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: ὁ Ἰησοῦς· The article with proper names

Postby RandallButh » January 20th, 2012, 10:26 am

so to be clear, always ask why the writer/speaker said whatever they said. We do that unconsciously, anyway.
RandallButh
 
Posts: 533
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: ὁ Ἰησοῦς· The article with proper names

Postby Mike Baber » February 29th, 2012, 4:51 pm

Jason Hare wrote:This is your opinion, since the Greek name Ἰησοῦς was used throughout the Septuagint to translate יהושע (Yehoshua), and ישוע (Yeshua) appeared late in the Tanach and is also translated in the same way. There's certainly no way to be sure what Jesus' Hebrew or Aramaic name may have been, so this should be stated as an opinion for the sake of those who read the forum and would come away with the impression of authority from our posters' contributions.


יֵשׁוּעַ (Yeshua) is simply the contracted form of יְהֹושֻׁעַ (Yehoshua), just like יוֹחָנָן (Yochanan) is the contracted form of יְהוֹחָנָן (Yehochanan) (1 Chr. 6:10 cp. 2 Chr. 28:12).

Here, this person is called יְהֹושֻׁעַ בִּן־נוּן (Yehoshua bin Nun), and in Greek, Ἰησοῖ υἱῷ Ναυη (dative).

Here, this same person is called יֵשׁוּעַ בִּן־נוּן (Yeshua bin Nun), and in Greek, Ἰησοῦ υἱοῦ Ναυη (genitive).

Both correspond to the same Greek name.

In the LXX, is Ἰησοῦς ever used to transliterate any other Hebrew or Aramaic name besides יֵשׁוּעַ and יְהֹושֻׁעַ ?
Mike Baber
 
Posts: 96
Joined: May 30th, 2011, 11:25 pm
Location: Texas

Re: ὁ Ἰησοῦς· The article with proper names

Postby RandallButh » February 29th, 2012, 5:36 pm

deut 32.44 הושע is called Ιησους.
that is because Joshua is called Hoshea in Num 13.8, 16, and Deut 32.44.

From a strictly philological viewpoint, hoshea and yehoshu` are not from the same verbal root.
y.sh.`. against sh.w.`.
PS: the root to Hoshea y.sh.`. was not Aramaic, but Hebrew.

Anyway, why is Yehoshua/Yeshua` called an Aramaic name? the Aramaic would have been y.th.w.`.
(When you come up with the answer, you can apply the same analogy to Golgotha and you will find John's Gospel correct in calling Golgotha Hebrew. Actually, John was more correct because golgolet actually meant skull in Hebrew, while y.sh.`. never really penetrated into Aramaic as a loan verb.)
And then muse over the fact that the Judean Aramaic NT lectionaries (aka ChristianPalestinianAramaic) use Y.s.w.s. rather than Y.sh.w.` for the name Yeshua`.
RandallButh
 
Posts: 533
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: ὁ Ἰησοῦς· The article with proper names

Postby Mike Baber » February 29th, 2012, 7:07 pm

RandallButh wrote:deut 32.44 הושע is called Ιησους.
that is because Joshua is called Hoshea in Num 13.8, 16, and Deut 32.44.

From a strictly philological viewpoint, hoshea and yehoshu` are not from the same verbal root.
y.sh.`. against sh.w.`.


You don't mind if I ask for some evidence to support your assertion, do you?
Mike Baber
 
Posts: 96
Joined: May 30th, 2011, 11:25 pm
Location: Texas

Re: ὁ Ἰησοῦς· The article with proper names

Postby RandallButh » March 1st, 2012, 3:38 am

Evidence? The Hebrew language.
The Yeho- part of names is a prefix, like yehoshafat, where shafat is the word/root.
yehoyaqim, where yaqim is a word.
While Yehoshua` has the root shua` (with `ayin) cf. Gen 38.2, 12.

hoshea` on the other hand is a hif`il formation and the 'o' is from the root. y.sh.`.
like hosha`-ya Jer 42.1 (the suffix 'ya' refers to the Lord),
originally the root was *w.sh.`.in the history of western semitic languages.
cf. hodaw-ya,hodiy-ya from y.d.y. originally *w.d.w/y.
hotir 1Chr25.4 y.t.r., *w.t.r.
RandallButh
 
Posts: 533
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: ὁ Ἰησοῦς· The article with proper names

Postby Mike Baber » March 1st, 2012, 6:01 pm

RandallButh wrote:Evidence? The Hebrew language.
The Yeho- part of names is a prefix, like yehoshafat, where shafat is the word/root.
yehoyaqim, where yaqim is a word.

Not always. Compare יְהֹושִׁיעַ (yehoshia) in Psalms 116:6, "he saved me."
Mike Baber
 
Posts: 96
Joined: May 30th, 2011, 11:25 pm
Location: Texas

Re: ὁ Ἰησοῦς· The article with proper names

Postby RandallButh » March 1st, 2012, 6:29 pm

Ps 116.6 isn't a name, is it?
And it isn't yehoshua, either. So what's your point?

yehoshia` is a normal verb where the 'he' hasn't dropped out.
RandallButh
 
Posts: 533
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

PreviousNext

Return to Pragmatics and Discourse

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest