Page 5 of 6

### Re: ἐς φῶς σὸν

Posted: March 21st, 2014, 11:13 pm
Mike Burke wrote:Finally, were you trying to point out something important (context wise) here?
Shirley Rollinson wrote: BTW, the example as given shows you that σὸν describes (goes with) βίον = "thy (your, singular) life"[\quote]

If that helps explain why πάλιν isn't used or needed, I missed your point, and would appreciate it if you could elaborate
There is no real need to supply a small context indication of repetition, because the large context of the story makes it clear to us.

It is redundant to say "large" in the sentence, "It took 5 minutes to walk from the back to the front of his large house."

### Re: ἐς φῶς σὸν

Posted: March 21st, 2014, 11:41 pm
Stephen Hughes wrote:
Mike Burke wrote:Finally, were you trying to point out something important (context wise) here?
Shirley Rollinson wrote: BTW, the example as given shows you that σὸν describes (goes with) βίον = "thy (your, singular) life"[\quote]

If that helps explain why πάλιν isn't used or needed, I missed your point, and would appreciate it if you could elaborate
There is no real need to supply a small context indication of repetition, because the large context of the story makes it clear to us.

It is redundant to say "large" in the sentence, "It took 5 minutes to walk from the back to the front of his large house."
So E.Alc.362 is an instance of contextual repetition?

If I wrote a story where a dog was run over by a car, and a visitor from another planet brought him back to life, I wouldn't really need the word "back" to tell the story.

After saying the dog was run over by a car, my meaning would be perfectly clear if I just said "he brought him to life" (even though there's nothing in the word "brought" itself that suggests repetition.)

That's what you mean by contextual repetition, isn't it?

So there's nothing in the word "καταστήσω" that really suggests repetition ("replacement," "restoration") either, is there?

Which might be why you said (a few pages back) that "ἀποκαθιστάναι is the word that explicitly means 'reinstate', 'return to the state of being'."

I think I understand now, Thank you.

### Look back at those 3 verses again

Posted: March 22nd, 2014, 2:01 am
Yes. You've got my meaning.

The three verses that I put up for discussion about possibly meaning "re-"s would be what I'm calling big context. That is to say that the meaning of "again" could perhaps come from the big (general) context.

### Re: ἐς φῶς σὸν

Posted: March 22nd, 2014, 7:03 am
Repetition to me means an action is done repeatedly. In Eur.Alc. 368, Admetus is talking about bringing back Alcestis from the underworld as a one time event, not something that he does repeatedly.

### Re: Look back at those 3 verses again

Posted: March 22nd, 2014, 8:54 am
Stephen Hughes wrote:Yes. You've got my meaning.

The three verses that I put up for discussion about possibly meaning "re-"s would be what I'm calling big context. That is to say that the meaning of "again" could perhaps come from the big (general) context.
Thank you.

### Re: ἐς φῶς σὸν

Posted: March 22nd, 2014, 9:26 am
Mike Burke wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:Mounce is a popular textbook in seminaries.
Thank you.

Dr. Rollinson's online textbook looks like it could be very helpful, and anyone able to access it online owe her a debt of gratitude for making it available free of charge (as do her students), but I think I'll need that CD to get the Koine pronunciation of Zeta.

Saying it's pronunced "adze" makes no sense to me, but then I'm still trying to roll my r's properly when I pronounce certain Spanish words (and I took Spanish as an elective, and heard them rolled properly in class.)
You can probably get a good feel for that from this video:

Listen for the word καθίζω. Incidentally, you might find watching the entire series helpful:

### Re: ἐς φῶς σὸν

Posted: March 22nd, 2014, 12:31 pm
Jonathan Robie wrote:
Mike Burke wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:Mounce is a popular textbook in seminaries.
Thank you.

Dr. Rollinson's online textbook looks like it could be very helpful, and anyone able to access it online owe her a debt of gratitude for making it available free of charge (as do her students), but I think I'll need that CD to get the Koine pronunciation of Zeta.

Saying it's pronunced "adze" makes no sense to me, but then I'm still trying to roll my r's properly when I pronounce certain Spanish words (and I took Spanish as an elective, and heard them rolled properly in class.)
You can probably get a good feel for that from this video:

Listen for the word καθίζω. Incidentally, you might find watching the entire series helpful:

Thank you.

### Re: Look back at those 3 verses again

Posted: March 22nd, 2014, 1:02 pm
Stephen Hughes wrote:Yes. You've got my meaning.

The three verses that I put up for discussion about possibly meaning "re-"s would be what I'm calling big context. That is to say that the meaning of "again" could perhaps come from the big (general) context.
Thanks again.

But I do have one question.

This is from a review of a movie called "Starman."

During their journey, when the two stop at a restaurant, Starman sees a dead deer strapped to a hunter's car...Later, Jenny glances out of the window of the resteraurant and sees Starman bringing the deer to life...

It's obvious from the context that the deer was alive before it was dead, and Starman is bringing it back to life.

But if I were translating this into Spanish, would that observation entittle me to translate "bringing the deer to life" "con lo que el ciervo de vuelta a la vida" (i.e. "back to life") instead of "con lo que el ciervo a la vida" ("to life")?

Would the former not be more of a paraphrase than a translation (even if it's a good and useful paraphrase)?

And if the context makes it perfectly clear that the deer was alive before it was dead, and the Starman is actually bringing it "back" to life, why would I (as a translator) need to add the word "back" to the text?

Even if suggested by the context, the verb "bring" (of and by itself) doesn't contain the idea of repetition, restoration, or reparation.

So if the author didn't feel that a more explicite word or phrase was needed to convey his meaning within the context of a dead deer strapped to a hunter's car (because it's obvious the deer was alive before it was dead), why am I entittled to add a word he didn't write?

### Re: ἐς φῶς σὸν

Posted: March 22nd, 2014, 3:11 pm
Different languages handle things in different ways.

To handle those three verses as "re-", the first thing would be to work out from the context if they do mean "again".

If it appears that they do, then we would have to see whether the language we are translating into means that without the added word. Generally speaking simple is best.

You commented earlier that no other translations translate in the way that I did. I was giving you a nuanced translation - like a mixed convex / concave mirror in the Hall of Mirrors. That type of translation would never be published.

### Re: ἐς φῶς σὸν

Posted: March 23rd, 2014, 3:04 am
Mike Burke wrote: Thank you.

Dr. Rollinson's online textbook looks like it could be very helpful, and anyone able to access it online owe her a debt of gratitude for making it available free of charge (as do her students), but I think I'll need that CD to get the Koine pronunciation of Zeta.

Saying it's pronunced "adze" makes no sense to me, but then I'm still trying to roll my r's properly when I pronunce certain Spanish words (and I took Spanish as an ellective, and heard them rolled properly in class.)
What the textbook says is, pronounce zeta like the "dz" as in "adze" - that means try for a "z" sound and add a slight "d" at the beginning of it. If that give you a problem, just pronounce it like American "z" and don't worry about it.