Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [GTh] Logion 68 (B)

Expand Messages
  • Michael Grondin
    ... Not _related_; it IS the Greek word topos . There is in fact a Coptic word ( MA ) which is also translated place and occurs 19 times. In general, TOPOS
    Message 1 of 9 , Nov 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Frank McCoy wrote:
      > To summarize, in GTh, the Coptic word translated as "place" appears to be
      > related to the Greek word "topos".

      Not _related_; it IS the Greek word 'topos'. There is in fact a Coptic word
      ('MA') which is also translated 'place' and occurs 19 times. In general,
      TOPOS and MA are synonyms, but in 68B the two are used together in an odd
      sort of way:

      "TOPOS won't be found in the MA where you were persecuted."

      (Or: "They won't find TOPOS in the MA where they persecuted you.")

      Note that here, TOPOS occurs without a singularizing particle. In 4, it's
      "THE place of Life". In 24, it's "THE place where you (JS) are". In 60, it's
      "A place for yourselves". In 64, it's "THE places of my Father". But in 68,
      it's simply TOPOS; no 'a', 'the', or even 'any'. Furthermore, within the
      range of English synonyms for TOPOS that I'm familiar with, there's no word
      that seems to capture both the unsingularized usage in 68B and the
      singularized usage in the other four occurrences. 'Area' or 'space' don't
      seem to quite do it, so it remains a minor translational problem.

      In general, one should be alert to the fact that Coptic uses many Greek
      "loan-words". Sometimes also (as in this case), the Thomas text employs both
      a Greek word and its Coptic equivalent.

      Mike Grondin
    • sarban
      ... From: Michael Grondin To: Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 3:34 PM Subject: Re: [GTh] Logion 68 (B)
      Message 2 of 9 , Nov 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Michael Grondin" <mwgrondin@...>
        To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 3:34 PM
        Subject: Re: [GTh] Logion 68 (B)


        >
        <SNIP>

        > In general, one should be alert to the fact that Coptic uses many Greek
        > "loan-words". Sometimes also (as in this case), the Thomas text employs
        both
        > a Greek word and its Coptic equivalent.
        >
        > Mike Grondin
        >
        The 1959 Coptic text and English translation of Thomas,
        (published E J Brill, editors A Guillaumont, H-CH Puech,
        G Quispel, W Till & Yassah Abd Al Masih), explicitly
        marks Greek loan-words.
        This was the original English translation of Thomas
        as far as I know it is not on-line.

        Andrerw Criddle
      • Michael Grondin
        ... been originally written in Greek? No. Nor does it indicate that the Coptic GTh was translated from Greek. The use of Greek loan-words was simply a feature
        Message 3 of 9 , Nov 2, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          > Does the existence of Greek loan words indicate that Thomas might have
          been originally written in Greek?

          No. Nor does it indicate that the Coptic GTh was translated from Greek. The
          use of Greek loan-words was simply a feature of the Coptic language at the
          time - due no doubt to the enormous influence of Greek throughout the
          region. By way of comparison, English borrows words from all over the
          place - thereby adding 'burro' (Spanish) and 'bureau' (French) to what I
          believe is our native 'burrow'. We don't normally think much of it, but it's
          not clear to me that the average literate Copt of the time would have been
          so blind as we are to the existence of foreign words that creep into the
          native language. The situation may be more like the French - who seem to be
          quite cognizant of English words that enter into their vocabulary. But this
          is just my impression; perhaps Maurice or another French-speaker can correct
          me there.

          Mike Grondin
          Mt. Clemens, MI
        • Tom Saunders
          Does the existence of Greek loan words indicate that Thomas might have been originally written in Greek? Tom Saunders Platter, OK [Non-text portions of this
          Message 4 of 9 , Nov 2, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Does the existence of Greek loan words indicate that Thomas might have been originally written in Greek?

            Tom Saunders
            Platter, OK



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • jmgcormier
            ... have been originally written in Greek? ... Greek. The use of Greek loan-words was simply a feature of the Coptic language at the time - due no doubt to the
            Message 5 of 9 , Nov 2, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Grondin" <mwgrondin@c...>
              wrote:
              > > Does the existence of Greek loan words indicate that Thomas might
              have been originally written in Greek?
              >
              > No. Nor does it indicate that the Coptic GTh was translated from
              Greek. The use of Greek loan-words was simply a feature of the Coptic
              language at the time - due no doubt to the enormous influence of Greek
              throughout the region. By way of comparison, English borrows words
              from all over the place - thereby adding 'burro' (Spanish) and
              'bureau' (French) to what I believe is our native 'burrow'. We don't
              normally think much of it, but it's not clear to me that the average
              literate Copt of the time would have been so blind as we are to the
              existence of foreign words that creep into the native language. The
              situation may be more like the French - who seem to be quite cognizant
              of English words that enter into their vocabulary.

              But this is just my impression; perhaps Maurice or another
              French-speaker can correct me there.
              >
              > Mike Grondin
              > Mt. Clemens, MI

              -----------------------------

              I would say that this is a pretty fair appraisal, Mike. As you
              know, in the English speaking world, the dictionary publishers seem to
              be the true guardians of the language ... enforcing this "role" by way
              of what they thus allow to creep into "accepted use". It seems that
              "usage" is the principal criterion for inclusion ("arm candy" for
              example to describe a young "lady" hanging onto the arm of a "sugar
              daddy" ... I just love that one ...).

              In the French language, however, life is not so simple. It is not the
              dictionary publishers who decide which words will creep into the
              language and which ones will not, but rather it is the "Academie
              Francaise" which historically has does the official deciding. This
              body of learned linguists allows and rejects words based on a bit more
              than mere usage, and often carry out painstaking work and study before
              accepting or rejecting words be they French or "creeper in" words
              from other languages. For example, the closest one can come to the
              word "marketing" in French is the word "commercialization". Soooo ...
              because "marketing" (in English) is more than mere
              "commercialization", the Academie allows for "marketing" to be of
              correct usage in French. In contrast, the French word "entreprenneur"
              has no equivalency in English (except prehaps for the word "promotor")
              so "entreprenneur" simply becomes an o.k. word for the Dictionary
              publishers and thus becomes "accepted" for usage.

              My own bias is that usage will ultimately decide which words we use,
              but in fairness to the French system, if nobody (or no "body") is
              watching for word creepage into a language, pretty soon (not sure at
              which point) the language in question loses much of its authenticity.

              As for Copt and Greek, I am not sure how hostile the Copts might have
              been to "word creepage". As you know, Greek became very widespread
              after Alexander's conquests and as a minimum, I expect neighbouring
              languages made use of it "as required" ... especially in the case of
              technical words where their might not have been equivalencies. In
              fact, western languages still do this now (e.g. "Pyromaniac" is
              widespread in both English and French usage, although the "pyro" part
              comes to us from Alexandrian/Greek origins. However, as a follow-up,
              the English more readily uses "fire bug" to describe a "pyromaniac"
              because (I think) it better describes the idea (an arson
              "enthusiast") and is mor colorful. Don't hold out on the Academie
              following suit with some "fire bug" equivalent word, however ... well,
              at least not in the near future I suspect.


              Maurice Cormier
            • David C. Hindley
              ... use, but in fairness to the French system, if nobody (or no body ) is watching for word creepage into a language, pretty soon (not sure at which point)
              Message 6 of 9 , Nov 5, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "jmgcormier" <cobby@n...> wrote:

                >>My own bias is that usage will ultimately decide which words we
                use, but in fairness to the French system, if nobody (or no "body")
                is watching for word creepage into a language, pretty soon (not sure
                at which point) the language in question loses much of its
                authenticity.<<

                "Language is what language does," as the movie character Forrest Gump
                might say. The koine of the 1st century CE was quite different than
                the Attic of classical Greek times (slightly simpler grammer, full of
                new words created from a variety of sources - not all of which were
                of "pure" Greek origin).

                The upper classes were quite aware of this, as they were tutored in
                Attic literature and spoke that form of the language among
                themselves. I cannot recall the source off hand (I am on vacation in
                Texas) but one critic quotes (in English translation) a writer from
                around the 1st century who was very critical of other elites who
                stooped to speak or make use of elements of the Greek koine dialect.

                Of course, that kind of attitude among the elite classes does not
                stop his baker or lower level retainer or slave from using the
                somewhat simpler and more "colorful" koine for everyday business.

                Dave Hindley
                Cleveland, Ohio USA
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.