Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
574
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 183:
Line 183: +
→Thoughts
:Many languages use such particles, and different ones in different times: There is no ἰδού in [[Homer]]'s [[Iliad]] for instance (the use of ἰδού in the [[Gospel]]s shows an Aramaic influence). I argued earlier that ''wow'' fulfills a similar function in todays spoken English, but I would not say that ἰδού and ''wow'' (or же) are interchangeable.
:Many languages use such particles, and different ones in different times: There is no ἰδού in [[Homer]]'s [[Iliad]] for instance (the use of ἰδού in the [[Gospel]]s shows an Aramaic influence). I argued earlier that ''wow'' fulfills a similar function in todays spoken English, but I would not say that ἰδού and ''wow'' (or же) are interchangeable.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:18, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:18, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
:: Indeed no, I'm sure they're not interchangeable; my point is really just that emphatic particles are very difficult to translate idiomatically, often requiring a different translation in each context. This is especially true translating into English, and even more so when translating Scripture, where we must assume that the author used words in the most apt and expressive way, rather than just as decorations or out of habit or error. Therefore in this case, it's important to look at the passage in context and appreciate very thoroughly what it's saying in order to get that one word right. A simple comparison of dictionary definitions won't do at all. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:47, 22 June 2011 (EDT)