From: George Blaisdell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Sep 10 2001 - 18:21:11 EDT
>From: Richard Ghilardi "George Blaisdell" writes:
> > The problems we are encountering all seem to resolve fairly well
> > with a both-and rather than an either-or approach. We do seem to be
> > operating on the premise that it must be EITHER one OR the other, > >
>yes? Why is there such an aversion to both-and?
>In the spirit of George Blaisdell may I offer a "both-and" rendering of
>"The Pharisee stood aloof and, speaking to himself, addressed this prayer
>I believe this translation covers just about everyone's expressed
I think you are right!
And, perhaps less democratically, we could give it a wooden rendering thus:
"The Pharisee, having been stood to himself, prayed to himself these
things:" Or more elegantly, "The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed
within himself these things:"
The western schools seem very wary of inclusionary grammatic approaches to
eastern texts. The idea that one word has only one attribution seems very
strong, and the result, as here, when the evidence is strong in both
directions, is to assign probability... As it is more likely to be one, or
the other. The both-and approach really greases the sticky ways with hot
lard, getting the ship moving, but I sometimes think they would prefer a
Anyhow, ya got my 2 cents!!
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:06 EDT