Mendicant: mend I. Kant, men decant
Been reading Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism, and one of the contributors mentioned something sort of interesting. In the NA-28, they went with a reading for Acts 16:12 that goes against the most highly regarded manuscripts (Siniaticus), the Majority Text, and instead they go with a reading that's only in some Vulgate manuscripts, so they had to make a Greek translation themselves.
Not sure what this proves, but it's kind of interesting.
The King James has: "And from thence to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia, and a colony: and we were in that city abiding certain days."
From the Textus Receptus: "εκειθεν τε εις φιλιππους ητις εστιν πρωτη της μεριδος της μακεδονιας πολις κολωνια ημεν δε εν ταυτη τη πολει διατριβοντες ημερας τινας"
The Nestle Aland has: "πρώτη [ς] μερίδος τῆς"
And so the ESV has: "and from there to Philippi, which is a leading city of the district of Macedonia and a Roman colony. We remained in this city some days."
The difference doesn't seem at all meaningful (not sure how you'd translate the difference), but it's strange that they went with a reading with no attestation in Greek manuscripts.
Crossposted with r/classics
Harrison suggests editing 2b.11 'tam gratum est' to 'tam gratum es', in order to continue the hymnic address and make 2a and b into a smoother whole. I think it's an elegant solution. However, I feel like I'm missing something.
Harrison writes est should be amended in part because, 'gratum est would express a factual situation rather than the remote possibility expressed in possem, and removes the natural balance of lines 5-8 and 9-10, in which the puella’s actual ability to assuage her erotic pain through playing with the bird seems to be set against the poet-speaker’s unfulfilled wish to do the same.'
My confusion comes from the fact that the proposed es doesn't fix this problem: it's still an indicative when we want some kind of subjunctive.
Does anyone have any insight into how this could have been overlooked, or have any other suggestions as to how the poem could be unified?
Poem(s) here:
Catullus 2 Passer, deliciae meae puellae, quicum ludere, quem in sinu tenere, cui primum digitum dare appetenti et acris solet incitare morsus, cum desiderio meo nitenti carum nescio quid lubet iocari et solaciolum sui doloris, credo ut tum gravis acquiescat ardor: tecum ludere sicut ipsa possem et tristis animi levare curas!
Catullus 2b Tam gratum est mihi quam ferunt puellae pernici aureolum fuisse malum, quod zonam soluit diu ligatam.
I'm having surgery and anesthetic in the past has triggered a 8 hour vomiting episode. They will give me Emend with Zofran and say that should work. I'm totally terrified of going through an episode after surgery. Any experience with Emend?
emendation: the act of altering for the better, or correcting what is erroneous or faulty
See tree for emendation: http://treegle.xyz/define/emendation
Where do people publish conjectures/emendations on the text of Shakespeare these days? What journals? Which periodicals?
Hey, folks.
Since /r/Asceticism's population continues to grow, I'm reminding you all (or perhaps telling for the first time) that the recommended reading list is open to emendation, and is always so.
Currently, there are two recommended reading lists which you can find in the sidebar: one compiled by myself, and another by the subreddit. The list I compiled could do with its own emendations, I'm sure (I'd probably create a very different list if I compiled it now) but the one currently open to emendation is /r/Asceticism's list, which you can find here.
This means that if you know of any books now that you'd like to add to the list, I shall do so, but also that if you read a book in the future that you'd like to add to the list, comment on this post or message me and it shall be done.
I welcome all recommendations (as long as they pertain to asceticism) because this list is also my to-read list.
All the best!
I've google this to rabidly, see nothing which scares me. Has anyone heard air released from you pee hole? I don't know how air would get trapped in there, I didn't do anything odd. I've never had this before, not once throughout puberty's entirety, not in the years since. I know girls can get air trapped in their genitalia but it doesn't come out the urethra right? No way. Is their some kind of rare occurrence for guys that is the opposite of a queef. I heard it for the second time earlier this evening whilst on the toilet, was when I was peeing. It made a faint but prominent whistle type of sound, lasted just over one second. The first one I had was high-pitched but this one was a bit more.
I don't want to go to a urologist, last time I did a got a cystoscope in my pp hole and it burned like mace in an eye forced white open. I tried emailing some of those Dr.s thought, told them the situation and am hoping they get back to me but doubt they will until next morning if that. Should I be concerned? If this happened to you how long did it last and what did you do about it?
Hello all -
I've been fussing with how to best open this story for a while, and would love some insight if this seems dull/confusing/overwritten etc.
Critiques: 2561 words
Story: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NJ2Uq6ORnYMt38QR0gGLIt6yrzBWp2I24r4_2QIRwO8/edit
Thanks!
Crossposted with r/latin
Harrison suggests editing 2b.11 'tam gratum est' to 'tam gratum es', in order to continue the hymnic address and make 2a and b into a smoother whole. I think it's an elegant solution. However, I feel like I'm missing something.
Harrison writes est should be amended in part because, 'gratum est would express a factual situation rather than the remote possibility expressed in possem, and removes the natural balance of lines 5-8 and 9-10, in which the puella’s actual ability to assuage her erotic pain through playing with the bird seems to be set against the poet-speaker’s unfulfilled wish to do the same.'
My confusion comes from the fact that the proposed es doesn't fix this problem: it's still an indicative when we want some kind of subjunctive.
Does anyone have any insight into how this could have been overlooked, or have any other suggestions as to how the poem could be unified?
