Lysias 23 feedback
Posted: August 17th, 2014, 3:12 pm
1) The omission is due to a "scribal" error. I copied the greek onto notebook paper to save my phone's battery and missed that phrase.
2) "stone" Brief explanation: I don't envision the placement of toaster sized rocks. Extensively Boring Explanation: I wholeheartly agree with you that something else would be better for the translation. "Pebble" would be excellent for the purpose! My particular usage of "stone" may be a colloquialism or a general quirk of American English. If I were talking about two places that are geographically close, I might say, "they are within a stone's throw of each other." Obviously, the stone under consideration is small enough to be easily thrown, even if the distance it could be thrown is exaggerated. This is another one of those things that I hadn't thought about, but I would be more likely to call something a "stone" based on its characteristics . For instance, I would be far more likely to call rocks or boulders that have been shaped or smoothed by people "stones" regardless of their size. Also, I find the phrase "smooth stone" in the Biblical narrative of David and Goliath (I Sam. 17) strange. I don't misunderstand what is meant, but I am 100 percent certain I would have written smooth rock. In this passage, I think of "pebbles" that have been shaped somehow, but this is only my imagination at work. Ergo, "stone."
3) I was looking at my English translation when I asked myself what "this" referred to and will admit I was lazy and did not go back and look at the text itself. Your humor is appreciated and the sting is deserved.
4) I have struggled throughout these readings with the flexibility of tugxanw. (Please, excuse the transliteration). I am not sure if it has the idea of obtaining a vote or if it needs an object to be supplied. I don't know if eithe1) The omission is due to a "scribal" error. I copied the greek onto notebook paper to save my phone's battery and missed that phrase.
2) "stone" Brief explanation: I don't envision the placement of toaster sized rocks. Extensively Boring Explanation: I wholeheartly agree with you that something else would be better for the translation. "Pebble" would be excellent for the purpose! My particular usage of "stone" may be a colloquialism or a general quirk of American English. If I were talking about two places that are geographically close, I might say, "they are within a stone's throw of each other." Obviously, the stone under consideration is small enough to be easily thrown, even if the distance it could be thrown is exaggerated. This is another one of those things that I hadn't thought about, but I would be more likely to call something a "stone" based on its characteristics . For instance, I would be far more likely to call rocks or boulders that have been shaped or smoothed by people "stones" regardless of their size. Also, I find the phrase "smooth stone" in the Biblical narrative of David and Goliath (I Sam. 17) strange. I don't misunderstand what is meant, but I am 100 percent certain I would have written smooth rock. In this passage, I think of "pebbles" that have been shaped somehow, but this is only my imagination at work. Ergo, "stone."
3) I was looking at my English translation when I asked myself what "this" referred to and will admit I was lazy and did not go back and look at the text itself. Your humor is appreciated and the sting is deserved.
4) I have struggled throughout these readings with the flexibility of tugxanw. (Please, excuse the transliteration). I am not sure if it has the idea of obtaining a vote or if it needs an object to be supplied. I don't know if this helps to clarify what I have done, but let me try to restate the idea. "For what cause is there that I should obtain a vote against me from people like you."
Edited once to remove a typo I just couldn't live with.
2) "stone" Brief explanation: I don't envision the placement of toaster sized rocks. Extensively Boring Explanation: I wholeheartly agree with you that something else would be better for the translation. "Pebble" would be excellent for the purpose! My particular usage of "stone" may be a colloquialism or a general quirk of American English. If I were talking about two places that are geographically close, I might say, "they are within a stone's throw of each other." Obviously, the stone under consideration is small enough to be easily thrown, even if the distance it could be thrown is exaggerated. This is another one of those things that I hadn't thought about, but I would be more likely to call something a "stone" based on its characteristics . For instance, I would be far more likely to call rocks or boulders that have been shaped or smoothed by people "stones" regardless of their size. Also, I find the phrase "smooth stone" in the Biblical narrative of David and Goliath (I Sam. 17) strange. I don't misunderstand what is meant, but I am 100 percent certain I would have written smooth rock. In this passage, I think of "pebbles" that have been shaped somehow, but this is only my imagination at work. Ergo, "stone."
3) I was looking at my English translation when I asked myself what "this" referred to and will admit I was lazy and did not go back and look at the text itself. Your humor is appreciated and the sting is deserved.
4) I have struggled throughout these readings with the flexibility of tugxanw. (Please, excuse the transliteration). I am not sure if it has the idea of obtaining a vote or if it needs an object to be supplied. I don't know if eithe1) The omission is due to a "scribal" error. I copied the greek onto notebook paper to save my phone's battery and missed that phrase.
2) "stone" Brief explanation: I don't envision the placement of toaster sized rocks. Extensively Boring Explanation: I wholeheartly agree with you that something else would be better for the translation. "Pebble" would be excellent for the purpose! My particular usage of "stone" may be a colloquialism or a general quirk of American English. If I were talking about two places that are geographically close, I might say, "they are within a stone's throw of each other." Obviously, the stone under consideration is small enough to be easily thrown, even if the distance it could be thrown is exaggerated. This is another one of those things that I hadn't thought about, but I would be more likely to call something a "stone" based on its characteristics . For instance, I would be far more likely to call rocks or boulders that have been shaped or smoothed by people "stones" regardless of their size. Also, I find the phrase "smooth stone" in the Biblical narrative of David and Goliath (I Sam. 17) strange. I don't misunderstand what is meant, but I am 100 percent certain I would have written smooth rock. In this passage, I think of "pebbles" that have been shaped somehow, but this is only my imagination at work. Ergo, "stone."
3) I was looking at my English translation when I asked myself what "this" referred to and will admit I was lazy and did not go back and look at the text itself. Your humor is appreciated and the sting is deserved.
4) I have struggled throughout these readings with the flexibility of tugxanw. (Please, excuse the transliteration). I am not sure if it has the idea of obtaining a vote or if it needs an object to be supplied. I don't know if this helps to clarify what I have done, but let me try to restate the idea. "For what cause is there that I should obtain a vote against me from people like you."
Edited once to remove a typo I just couldn't live with.