Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Fragmentary sentences are a common literary usage for emphasis--which is what McClellan was doing. As an English major and avid reader I am quite familiar with them.
Consider:
In Charles Dickens's The Pickwick Papers (1837), rascally Alfred Jingle tells a macabre tale that today would probably be labeled an urban legend. Jingle relates the anecdote in a curiously fragmented fashion:
"Heads, heads--take care of your heads!" cried the loquacious stranger, as they came out under the low archway, which in those days formed the entrance to the coach-yard. "Terrible place--dangerous work--other day--five children--mother--tall lady, eating sandwiches--forgot the arch--crash--knock--children look round--mother's head off--sandwich in her hand--no mouth to put it in--head of a family off--shocking, shocking!"
Jingle's narrative style calls to mind the famous opening of Bleak House (1853), in which Dickens devotes three paragraphs to an impressionistic description of a London fog: "fog in the stem and bowl of the afternoon pipe of the wrathful skipper, down in his close cabin; fog cruelly pinching the toes and fingers of his shivering little 'prentice boy on deck." In both passages, the writer is more concerned with conveying sensations and creating a mood than in completing a thought grammatically.
I could provide dozens of other examples, but the point is YOU are trying to throw a red herring out to direct attention away from McClellan's arguments. The red herring argument YOU have used about his postings.
Improper! Hypocritical! Back to the subject. Do you understand the those improper fragmentary sentences?
Thank you. I like making my sentences interesting. And what is your line of work?
Funny you should ask. I have a degree in linguistics and can tell you Daniel is, here comes the dialect-dependent summation, whoopin your .....sitter downer.
Last edited by DewDropInn; 11-04-2014 at 03:09 PM..
It's the latest of the three, and don't waste everyone's time pretending to lecture me on textual criticism.
I don't pretend to lecture you on anything. I DO lecture you whether you like it or not because you are a in need of a proper education.
Quote:
It does mean that your original gripe about the NRSV was really just based on your own ignorance and not on any incompetence or impropriety on the part of the translators. You'll no doubt attempt to find a way to make it my fault, though.
No, the NSRV can't even use an adjective properly. Why would I expect them to put in all the words originally written?
Quote:
So any progress on that Greek, or are you really going to pretend to wag your finger at me about Greek despite not being able to translate a sentence any freshman with one semester of Greek under his belt can translate?
Unlike you, I don't wag my finger at anyone.
For one like you who **supposedly** knows Greek, you can't even understand the grammar rule of adjectives.
Daniel, the Bible says if you correct a wise man, he will kiss you. Why? Because he grows in understanding.
"If a wise man seeks judgment with a foolish man, Then the fool rants and ridicules, and there is no rest."
I've received, as have others here, lots of rants and ridicules from you.
Funny you should ask. I have a degree in linguistics and can tell you Daniel is, here comes the dialect-dependent summation, whoopin your .
I guess if not giving answers to pneuma's and my questions is whooping my then you are about as smart as he is. That was a put-down by the way in case you missed it.
Funny you should ask. I have a degree in linguistics and can tell you Daniel is, here comes the dialect-dependent summation, whoopin your .....sitter downer.
When constructing a sentence with eliptical dots one should use three dots when leaving out a word or words, but use four when leaving out a word or words and ending the sentence.
Here is an example of using three dots:
"When constructing a sentence with eliptical dots one should use three . . . when leaving out a word or words, but use four when leaving out a word or words and, at the same time, ending the sentence."
Here is an example of using four dots:
"John goes to the movies every Thursday and then goes home."
"John goes to the movies every Thursday . . . ."
I couldn't help notice, you, being the professional you are, used five elliptical dots and you did not do so to leave out any words or end a sentence.
Funny you should ask. I have a degree in linguistics and can tell you Daniel is, here comes the dialect-dependent summation, whoopin your .....sitter downer.
Dern, Dew. I can't pin a rose on yer nose for that one. Even amateur students of language and literature can see how screwy the idea of one meaning for each word is. What is a heart, for instance?
I guess if not giving answers to pneuma's and my questions is whooping my then you are about as smart as he is. That was a put-down by the way in case you missed it.
You should be so lucky as to be as smart as either one. Language evolves and it's nigh impossible to be certain of how it was used in the past.
I don't pretend to lecture you on anything. I DO lecture you whether you like it or not because you are a in need of a proper education.
Eusebius, my three degrees are in ancient Near Eastern studies, Jewish studies, and biblical studies. I have formally studied over a dozen languages in that time, and I currently work as a scripture translation supervisor. Tell me about your education.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
No, the NSRV can't even use an adjective properly. Why would I expect them to put in all the words originally written?
Pure and utter nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Unlike you, I don't wag my finger at anyone.
For one like you who **supposedly** knows Greek, you can't even understand the grammar rule of adjectives.
Daniel, the Bible says if you correct a wise man, he will kiss you. Why? Because he grows in understanding.
"If a wise man seeks judgment with a foolish man, Then the fool rants and ridicules, and there is no rest."
I've received, as have others here, lots of rants and ridicules from you.
And yet while you sit here and pretend to lecture me about Greek grammar, you cannot translate a simple sentence in Greek from an introductory grammar.
And in a thread asking which version of the Bible* we use. Impressive!
*Current favorite is a Hawaiian Pidgin translation of the New Testament.
You should check out Bislama. I just returned from a trip to Vanuatu. If you know English you should be able to understand a lot of it. Here's John 1:1–3:
Quote:
1 Bifo we bifo olgeta, taem we wol ya i no stap yet, i gat wan man i stap we nem blong hem “Tok blong God”. Tok ya, hem i stap wetem God, mo hem tu i God. 2 Long taem ya we wol ya i no stap yet, hem i stap wetem God, 3 nao taem God i mekem olgeta samting, hem i yusum Tok ya blong mekem. Mo long olgeta samting ya we God i mekem, i no gat wan samting nating we Tok ya i no mekem.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
