Classicist who needs German material

Is Jannach still the best book to learn literary/scholarly German, or are there better ones now?

Also, is it a long process to build “academic German” into “speaking German”?

How does heroin turn a completely honest, forthright, dependable, hardworking person with his/her shit reasonably well together.

Into a

Totally dishonest (can't even be honest with him/herself and the truth rarely comes into the equation), secretive, sneaky, can't be depended on to remember to put water in his dogs bowl every day, lazy to the point my house is slowly looking like a dam in an Indian River and navigating my way around it is like the Lazer scene Resident Evil game/movie and who takes 3 weeks to open a letter or pay a bill that would normally be done in 5 minutes after opening it up.

Appreciate your input whether an experience user, new user, those still using and those in recovery. Hope to see more people in the recovery camp soon but I guess when you have a government that doesn't give a fuck about you, that's a bit much to ask for. Republican, Democrat or othwrwise, they're all controlled by the same clique. Thanks for reading if you made it this far and feel free to be as concise or elaborate as you want!

This is one of my personal observations after only a few months or use. I been trying to quit. I had been off a few days but someone gave me a big today which I accepted. I called my friend immediately. He begged me to promise not to touch it and flush it down the toilet over the phone. Well I go get a bag of dry garlic, throw it in the toilet and flush). He said "I'm so proud of you man". I feel like a fucking fraud. I guess this is how this question arose in my mind.

(edited for spelling mistakes and to add the last paragraph).

I run a DND campaign with a bunch of word-nerds.

We all study ancient languages and some flavor of history and linguistics. One of our group, a first-time dnd-er, playing a sprightly little gnome, recently asked if there were any rules regarding gnomish languages in the game, "because I've got some ideas," he told me. An hour later, he presented me with Tinscvil-Tsipenalas, or Onion-Gift, A Song in Gnomish, along with his annotations and explanations. I was blown away and wanted to present it to you all, for your singing, reading, or studying. (Apologies if I've messed up the flair system -- first post here.)

Tinscvil-Tsipenalas: Onion-Gift, a Gnomish Song

This brief, sprightly tune is a kawell (pronounced χa-welχ, and meaning “basket-song”), a type of repetitive melody which gnomes are wont to sing whilst engaged in gardening, foraging, or food preparation. Kawell is the gnomish word for “basket,” alluding both to the assiduous efforts of the hungry gnome-gatherers as they scour the forest floor for the thickest, roundest onion-bulbs they can find and haul off in their stout wicker baskets, and to the custom of exchanging onion-gift-baskets (tinscvil) between friends, loved ones, and random passersby on gnomish holidays. Nota bene: fully 177 out of the 354 days of the common gnomish lunar year are holidays, and gnomes by no means limit the free flow of onions to these flimsy parameters!

Gnomes often supplement their dairy-heavy diets with tubers, forest plants, and especially wild onions, a rare delicacy among their kind and a particular source of joy. Onion-gatherings serve as much of a recreational purpose as they do a purely utilitarian one: it is not uncommon for entire gnomish families to set out in search of their quarry, often competing for the choicest pick, and sometimes even playing harmless pranks on one another in order to hamper their rivals’ efforts. The text of the song, roughly transliterated from Gnomish script and then translated, reads as follows below:

>“Tsipenalas thu zal chi
>
>Tsipenalas sa mach huthni
>
>Tsipenalas thu zal chi
>
>Tsipenalas, tsipenalas!
>
>
>
>
>
>Canachcalala canachcalala
>
>Canach-canach-cala
>
>Canachcalala canachcalala
>
>Canach-canach-cala!
>
>Tsipenalas thu zal chi
>
>Tsipenalas sa mach huthni
>
>Tsipenalas thu zal chi
>
>Tsipenalas, tsipenalas!
>
>M

During the bulk of his lifetime Nietzsche was far better known for his philology, and not especially known for his philosophy. Today things are flipped around. His philosophy is of lasting relevance, but was any of his philological work especially notable?

Unfair comparison I suppose since philology isn't the field it once was, have largely ceded ground to the fields it gave birth to, but I figure Nietzsche's work might instead be relevant to those offspring.

Hi everyone, I was wondering if you could recommend some solid philological commentaries on the gospel of John (other New Testament books welcome as well). I'm looking for texts that are heavy on language, culture and history and light on theology. I tried tracking a book of this kind down myself but I'm not having any luck. I'm used to the kinds of commentaries written for the works of the great "pagan" authors and am hoping something comparable exists for NT authors.

Hello all,

Have you spotted any more of these 'sound puns' in the legendarium? I know of only two:

Nils-Lennart Johannesson^1 notes 'ain't' for 'Ent':

>[Although] the ‘most widespread pronunciation’ of ain’t in England is [eınt], its ‘most common pronunciation in Warwickshire and Oxfordshire’, two counties central to Tolkien’s life and thought, is [ent] (according to The Linguistic Atlas of England, 1978). From this he observes further that the discussion between Sam Gamgee and Ted Sandyman about the possibility of walking tree-like giants (which we will come later in the story to know as Ents), in which both use ain’t evidently meant to be pronounced [ent], is a ‘low philological jest’ (p. 42), thus:

>‘Your Hal’s always saying he’s seen things; and maybe he sees things that ain’t there.’

>‘But this one was as big as an elm tree, and walking. . . .’

>‘. . . What he saw was an elm tree, as like as not.’

>‘But this one was walking, I tell you; and there ain’t no elm tree on the North Moors.’^2

The second (I suspect) appears when Frodo and Sam are discussing Sam's 'dream' on the Anduin, where 'luggage' plays on 'log' in certain pronunciations.

>‘It wasn’t funny that way, Mr. Frodo. It was queer. All wrong, if it wasn’t a dream. And you had best hear it. It was like this: I saw a log with eyes!’

>‘The log’s all right,’ said Frodo. ‘There are many in the River. But leave out the eyes!’ [. . .]

>[. . .] 'No need to trouble Strider or the others tonight. I’ll keep watch. I can sleep tomorrow, being no more than luggage in a boat, as you might say.’

>‘I might,’ said Frodo, ‘and I might say “luggage with eyes”. (FotR, "The Great River")

^1 ‘Studies in Tolkien’s Language III: Sure as Shiretalk – On Linguistic Variation in Hobbit Speech (Part Two)’, Arda 7 (1992, for 1987).

^2 Hammond, Wayne G. and Christina Scull. 'Addenda and Corrigenda to The Lord of the Rings: A Reader’s Companion (2005, 2008, 2014) Arranged by Date'. Retrieved from https://www.hammondandscull.com/addenda/readers_by_date.html.

(Small edit for clarity.)

http://www.imprimatur-trier.de/2012/imp120406.html

"If the mention of Mecca belongs to the original text, the entire first part of the Sura must be dated well into the second half of the eighth century. However, historical scholarship knows that in the process of copying even sacred texts quite often insertions are made that correspond to the "state of knowledge" of the respective writer. Is the mention of Mecca such a later addition or did it belong to the textual tradition? This question can not be answered at this time because of the lack of a critical edition of the Koran."

                       *************                    

Published in his two-volume, in 2005 Strasbourg dissertation entitled " Le messie et son prophète " [5] , is Edouard-Marie Gallez in section 3.4.2.2. (Vol. II, p. 311 ff.) On the spelling and meaning of makka in the Koran. Although he rightly notes that this word appears in a context in which the confrontation of two groups is reported ("C'est dans un contexte d'affrontement qu'apparatt le mot makkah "), it still does not come up with the idea that this word is not a place called Makka ( mecca ), but just this confrontation referred to, which the Koran clearly describes at this point. It is clear from the context that God intervenes between two groups that have fallen into each other and "averts" their hands from each other . Etymologically, the corresponding Arabic verb kaffa arose secondarily from 'akafa , which means (among others) ' turning around, turning away '. So here it is clearly a " melee ", a " physical confrontation ", as you can still imagine today - not only in the Orient. Gallez could have come to this meaning, especially as he had the word Ma'ka h (Pp. 313 f.) Is etymologically adequately analyzed by assuming an assimilated medial throaty 'ayn , which (according to a semitic phonetic rule) causes the doubling of the following k ( ma'ka> makka) . This corresponds to the Syro-Aramaic verbal root m'ak (squeezing, pushing, pressing ) [6] , which is still common in modern-day Arabic ( ma'ak ), and reflexive ( t-mâ'akû ) ( arguing, they have quarreled ) is dialectally familiar.

*Despite this etymological insight Gallez remains in the conventional idea that the dispute in question , in a (alleged)valley (Arabic batn , actually " belly, lap, inside ") has taken place named Makka , but its location quite to look elsewhere than in today's mecca . Looking for this valley he prefers the traditional misreadi

There's a short description on Wikipedia, which I assume is at least somewhat accurate but I would love to have a more detailed explanation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenzo_Valla#On_the_Donation_of_Constantine

My problem with ( Dane - lets call him ) is that he has serious anger and frustration issues, The reason being is Due to some form of traumatic event in childhood he was neglect and abuse from his parents.

I lived with him before at the end of a tenancy and we had little to no problems, I think the reason why no problem happened with him in the last house was because he was at "war" with the girls and simply not me. I was almost like an ally in the last home of his. Now that the girl's have left ( and tease him at the same time ) it's like he has automatically pointed his frustration at us. I am now somewhat having sympathy for the girl's because It's not the fact it was "The Bins" but the fact he has legit anger issues and "The Bins" or insert problem is just an excuse to blow some steam.

I know he had a traumatic upbringing and he is clearly defensive, The problem is that he is driving me away and making myself almost in fear of his rages. I have tried to talk to him about his attitude and he accepts its not "the bins" but he is taking his issues out on the small things - He accepts this. The problem is that he will inevitably make me explode when I'm having a bad day ( their is only so much I can tolerate of rude and bad behaviour )

Basically I want to call him out on his behaviour because how can I when their is clearly something else going on which explains why he is like the way he is, I do have a lot of empathy but he is really upsetting me and I am biting snapping at him.

He also has a huge problem with rejection, but the way he is going I will have no choice but to reject him and move out which I know will crush him.

Any advice would be much needed.

So books on the evolution and history of nomenclature, various logic systems and their utilization for notation.

When arguing with people who defend Mosaic authorship of the Torah, I often wonder where they stand on matters related to the form of Hebrew that we see in the pentateuch, only to find that they tend not to know much about it. But then again neither do I, although I am a linguist and I'm profoundly interested in these matters.

I am familiar with Ron Hendel, but I wonder if anyone here who might be a Hebrew philologist has anything to say about what Hebrew looked like during the late Bronze Age and what it looked like during the Iron Age.

Is the prose that we see from Genesis to Deuteronomy (I'm excluding the poetry of Ex 15, Gn 49 and Dt 32-33) in any credible way prose written in a form of the language from 12-14th centuries BCE?

(Note: there's at least once fairly recent study that appears to address one of the main issue raised in this post: Vogels, W., "The Tree(s) in the Middle of the Garden (Gn 2:9; 3:3)," Science et Esprit 59 (2007), 129-42. Don't have access to it, though.)

MT Genesis 2.9:

>וַיַּצְמַח יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים מִן־הָאֲדָמָה כָּל־עֵץ נֶחְמָד לְמַרְאֶה וְטֹוב לְמַאֲכָל וְעֵץ הַֽחַיִּים בְּתֹוךְ הַגָּן וְעֵץ הַדַּעַת טֹוב וָרָֽע

(Modified) NRSV:

>Out of the ground the LORD God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, and the tree of life in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

While comparing translations of this verse, I noticed something curious about the way that the Hebrew וְעֵץ הַֽחַיִּים בְּתֹוךְ הַגָּן וְעֵץ הַדַּעַת טֹוב וָרָֽע is translated in a couple of modern Bibles. While several of the more acclaimed versions (and LXX) handle it fairly literally:

• NJPS: with the tree of life in the middle of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and bad.

• NASB (identical to NRSV here): the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

• LXX: καὶ τὸ ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς ἐν μέσῳ τῷ παραδείσῳ καὶ τὸ ξύλον τοῦ εἰδέναι γνωστὸν καλοῦ καὶ πονηροῦ (and the tree of life in the middle of the paradeisos, and the tree of comprehending knowledge of good and evil)

...in several other versions, בְּתֹוךְ הַגָּן is taken and, in the translation, placed as if it describes both trees:

• NET: (Now the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were in the middle of the orchard.)

• NIV: In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (followed by NLT)

Is there any translational precedent/warrant for this placement – or is it only possible as a sort of interpretive translation?

In arguing for the former, the vav at the beginning of וְעֵץ would be understood as “attaching a fresh subj. (or obj.) to a clause already grammatically complete" (BDB): that is, something like “...the tree of life (was) in the middle of the garden with the tree of the knowledge.” BDB cites a few other proposed examples of this construction – e.g. Num 16.18, וַיִּקְחוּ אִישׁ מַחְתָּתֹו . . . וַֽיַּעַמְדוּ פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מֹועֵד וּמֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹֽן (“So they each took his censer . . . and they stood at the doorway of the tent of meeting with Moses and Aaron”). (They certainly didn't stand before th

The history of philosophy, unlike the history of other (scientific/mathematical) disciplines in the the research of those disciplines, forms a substantial chunk of philosophical research (just see philpapers). Why? (in both senses, i.e., what's the motivating and the normative reason why this is the case?)

E.g. why devote resources to interpreting (say) Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil or debating what Nietzsche's epistemology is rather than just tackling the philosophical problems, issues, and theories involved?

A philosophical claim is either plausible (1) as a philosophical claim or (2) as an interpretation of some particular philosopher, e.g. Nietzsche.

But the arguments, reasons and evidence counting for/against (1) and (2) are completely unrelated and distinct! Spending time/energy on 2 is quite distracting and at the opportunity cost of spending all of it on 1. And it seems to me like 1 concerns philosophy proper (simpliciter) whereas 2 concerns history/philology. What 1 needs is philosophical evidence while what 2 needs is textual and historical evidence.

Of course, one might dismiss this question and simply answer "Well because that's what folks are interested in". To which I respond, well, please answer the normative question, then. The "should" part.

Thick smoke floated above the rooftops of golden buildings as people walked through the busy streets of Piltover. A lean figure flashed above the heads of pedestrians followed by a gust of wind – a tall woman with blades instead of legs and hookshots imbedded into her metal hips roamed above the city. The Grey Lady, as people call her, was on the hunt.

She landed on a tower of a tall castle-looking building and looked through the window. A hunched man with additional arms installed onto his metal ribs traded with another man dressed in a white suit. These were her targets.

She broke the window along with its frame as she flew into the room. The men jumped in fear when she performed a quick spin above their heads. The hunched man shot lasers from his metal arms, but as her eyes flashed with blue light, an electric field formed around her body and blocked the attack. She dashed towards him and slashed his abdomen with her bladed legs. The man fell to the ground with a loud thud and the sound of breaking metal. The other man had already fled the room but he was too slow. The Grey Lady shot through his leg with her hookshot and pulled herself closer. With a quick spin she beheaded her enemy.

As she leaves the tower, she doesn’t look back. She has no time to ponder on her actions as she follows her motto that helps her protect her city from the ill will of barons – morality is a beautiful servant… and a dangerous master.

______________________________________________________

Obviously, English isn't my first language, but my dream is to get better and eventually work with fictional universes, perhaps as a writer or quest designer. Any feedback is very much welcome to help me achieve my dream! :D

Do any of you happen to know the current copyright status of Philology: General Works, 1923-1925 and Tolkien's 2-page obituary for Henry Bradley (1923), and if they have been republished anywhere more recently?

Hi there! I’m currently doing a translation degree but the uni is astronomically expensive, so I found another one that’s like waaaay cheaper, but only has english studies, no translation. I wonder if I could work as a translator doing that? It’s my dream and I’m really stressed thinking I could finish a degree and find myself with no options to work…

edit: my first language is spanish btw!

Good Evening. I am currently a student in my second year in university, double majoring in French and Linguistics. I would like to know whether or not the MA in Ancient Philology at the Polis Institute would be a good enough program to acquire proficiency in ancient greek and Latin in order to undertake a second MA or MPhil in Classics/Latin or Ancient Greek philology/studies in the UK, France or Belgium? Thank you! I am also curious about the experience from other students who did this program!