[B-Greek] 1 Pet 2:17: Knowing when a noun is gender-inclusive
vunzndi at vfemail.net
vunzndi at vfemail.net
Sun Apr 20 22:45:06 EDT 2008
Quoting Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>:
>
> On Apr 19, 2008, at 8:39 PM, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> Message: 2
>>> Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 05:47:45 -0400
>>> From: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] 1 Pet 2:17: Knowing when a
>>> noun is
>>> Gender-inclusive
>>> To: B-Greek B-Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
>>> Message-ID:
>>> <04264092-B4A6-4652-9522-E59608A01F96 at mac.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
>>> format=flowed; delsp=yes
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 19, 2008, at 12:18 AM, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In short as far as Greek is concerned such terms
>>> are
>>>>> inclusive - the
>>>>> question is context, since both men and women are
>>>>> the receivers of the
>>>>> letter it suggests the brotherhood includes both
>>> mem
>>>>> and women. Those
>>>>> who would use brotherhood just to mean men would
>>> not
>>>>> according to
>>>>> rabbinacal tradition "waste their time" by
>>> talking
>>>>> to addressing women.
>>>>>
>>>>> From memory the book of Aboth starts with "Rabbi
>>> so
>>>>> and so told Rabbi
>>>>> so and so ... not to waste time talking with
>>> women"
>>>>> The commentator
>>>>> the adds "If that was what was said about talking
>>> to
>>>>> ones wife, then
>>>>> talking to women in gemeral is even more of a
>>> waste
>>>>> of time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> John Knightley
>>>>
>>>> John,
>>>>
>>>> While there are instructions to wives in six
>>> verses
>>>> (3:1-6), that does not seem like sufficient data
>>> to
>>>> show that Peter was addressing both men and women
>>>> throughout and it does not really tell us what a
>>>> first-century reader/hearer would think when he OR
>>> she
>>>> encountered "brothers," e.g., James 1:2, or
>>>> "brotherhood," 1 Pet 2:17. We need something more
>>> to
>>>> know what people would have thought sucha
>>> masculine
>>>> noun could have meant, I would think.
>>>
>>>
>>> The abstract noun is formed from the adjective
>>> ADELFOS/H/ON. Why is it
>>> to be supposed that it is "such a masculine noun"?
>>>
>>>
>>> Carl W. Conrad
>>> Department of Classics, Washington University
>>> (Retired)
>>>
>> Given that the word is formed from a word with a
>> masculine ending that has a masculine referent,
>> "brother,"
>
> But that is precisely the assumption you're making that, in my
> opinion, is not warranted. The abstract noun ADELFOTHS is NOT derived
> from a noun with a masculine ending but from an adjective that can
> take any gender. In fact the words ADELFOS and ADELFH should be seen
> not as self-subsistent nouns but rather as substantive forms of the
> adjective ADELFOS/ADELFH/ADELFON. I think that you are formulating the
> question on the basis of an assumption that is dubious: that it must
> be the masculine noun ADELFOS from which the abstract noun ADELFOTHS
> is formed.
>
Carl is very correct here- to put things in a less grammatical way -
there is a root ADELF which means sibling - rather than say
"Brotherhood" one should say this means "Siblings" (or siblinghood if
one wishes to make up new words). So the question is does sibling
include both brothers and sisters and the answer is of course yes.
Now when refering to a group of siblings some groups of siblings only
have males, and some only females, though most include both. When
some-one says "siblings" refering to a particular group of siblings,
then one needs to know who is in the particular group they are
refering to to know if that group has both males and females (most
groups hae both) [this is what I mean by context].
If this root is used to form a noun - then what in grammars we call
masculine plural means a plural group with at least one nominal male,
or more exactly any plural group that is not definitely either 100%
female [or 100% neuter].
It is important to realise that words a language have a range of
meanings. It is good that you wish to understand what the writer
wanted to say. To do that one needs to understand there is seldom a
one to one match, that is seldom a word in one language that has
exactly the same range meanings as a word in a second language.
Regards
John Knightley
>> perhaps the word "such" in my response is a
>> bit hyperbolic but the fact remains that I am looking
>> for a way to know if the author would have also had
>> ADELFAI/KASIGNHTAI in mind. That is the whole point
>> of my post. Is there any way to know what a
>> first-century author thought these sorts of words
>> meant, given that they did not sem ot feel the need to
>> be geneder-inclusive he way we do? Let me be very
>> clear. I would like to have data to support the view
>> that the word for brotherhood was regularly used in
>> Greek by multiple authors with an obvious multi-gender
>> referent. I'd like to read it that way. I am,
>> however, trying to ascertain what the text is really
>> saying, rather than what I might want it to say, if
>> those are different. Thanks.
>>
>> Ken Litwak
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________________________________
>> Be a better friend, newshound, and
>> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
>> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>> ---
>> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
>> B-Greek mailing list
>> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
>
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
>
>
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
-------------------------------------------------
This message sent through Virus Free Email
http://www.vfemail.net
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list