[B-Greek] Semnatic domain of SARX
Steven Lo Vullo
themelios at charter.net
Sun Dec 5 14:26:48 EST 2004
On Dec 5, 2004, at 5:45 AM, Remington186 at aol.com wrote:
> This is not helpful.
I think it IS helpful, actually.
> And now you seem to be saying that a English lexicon of Greek words is
> "a
> **definition** [...] rather than a **translation**. [**After all**,
> that is what
> a lexicon is for.]
I didn't say that a lexicon IS a definition. A good lexicon CONTAINS
definitions. A lexicon is a DICTIONARY, which by its very nature
DEFINES words. If it is a true lexicon, it does not simply list a
string of words that one might use in translating a respective Greek
word. These are GLOSSES. In a good lexicon you will find a DEFINITION
normally FOLLOWED by glosses. But the glosses are only illustrative of
the DEFINITION (see below).
> **How do Greek words get Englished without a translation?** Aren't the
> lexicons you use, Greek words *translated* into English?
No, in fact they are NOT primarily that at all. Look at any good,
modern lexicon (such as BDAG and L-S). You will find a DEFINITION of
the word followed by some illustrative glosses. I happen to be in Gal
2.6 right now, so off the cuff I will illustrate what I am saying with
the word DIAFERW. Note the following definitions:
1. to carry someth. through a place or structure
2. to cause to move from one locality to another
3. to be unlike
4. differ to one's advantage fr. someone or someth.
These are NOT TRANSLATIONS, they are DEFINITIONS. Then after each
definition a gloss or glosses ILLUSTRATE the definition and SUGGEST how
the word may be translated. This is why people on this list have so
often criticized the use of Strong's and things like it, because it
does not DEFINE words, only gives glosses. One must have a definition
before one can accurately gloss or translate a word. Even L-N, which
was prepared largely for translators, has this to say:
"For many persons the most distinctive and helpful feature of this
lexicon is the fact that meanings are indicated by DEFINITIONS and NOT
simply by GLOSSES, as in most dictionaries. The definitions are based
upon the distinctive features of meaning of a particular term, and the
glosses only SUGGEST ways in which such a term with a particular
meaning may be represented in English, but the DEFINITIONS are the
SIGNIFICANT elements. For example, ERHMOOMAI (20.41) is defined as 'to
suffer destruction, with the implication of being deserted and
abandoned,' but in English one may readily gloss such a term as 'to be
destroyed' or 'to suffer destruction' or 'to suffer desolation.'
Similarly, KINDUNOS (21.1) may be defined as 'a state of dangerous and
threatening circumstances' and glosses may include 'danger,' 'peril,'
and 'risk.
"Without definitions, some glosses may be quite misleading. For
example, one may gloss PARISTAMAI (17.3) as 'to stand near.' In Jn
19:26, however, there is a friendly intent, but in Ac 4:26 there is
clearly a hostile intent, and so a definition should read 'to stand
near or alongside of someone, either with a friendly or hostile
intent.' In the case of Ac 4:26, therefore, there is a further
statement in 17.3 to indicate that in some instances it may be relevant
to translate part of this verse as 'the kings of earth prepared
themselves' or even 'the kings of earth armed themselves.'"
So the bottom line is that a good lexicon focuses on DEFINITIONS, with
illustrative glosses suggestive for translation.
> The **definition** for what you're saying here ... rather than the
> translation ... is a word other than helpful.
I think this only illustrates your confusion. A single word is NOT a
definition, it is a gloss. So a WORD other than helpful does not
qualify as a definition.
When I suggested that Ken consult English Bibles for translations, I
was not being a smart-ass. Where better to look FOR translation that TO
translations? So I think this advice IS "of service or assistance :
USEFUL" (Miriam-Webster Online Dictionary).
============
Steven Lo Vullo
Madison, WI
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list