How is Keneh Bosem translated in different versions of the Greek old testament?

So the passage in question is Exodus 30:23.

The place to look up the other Ancient Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion) is the Hexapla, a collation by the Christian theologian Origen.

A modern edition has been coming for over a decade, so the edition to consult is still Origen Hexapla : Field, Frederick from 1875.

The Septuagint translates the verse as:

Do thou also take sweet herbs, the flower of choice myrrh five hundred shekels, and the half of this two hundred and fifty shekels of sweet-smelling cinnamon, and two hundred and fifty shekels of sweet-smelling calamus,

(Exodus 30:23 – LXX – Do thou also take sweet herbs, the flower of ch…)

The sweet-smelling calamus is the herb kaneh bosem whose translation is contentious.

The Hebrew word בשמים (bosemim, right?) has the note: Οʹ. ἡδύσματα. Ἀ. ἀρώματα. That is, the Septuagint translates it as “sweeteners” and Aquila as “perfumes”. But that’s the word rendered above as “sweet herbs”. The next divergence noted in the Hexapla is the reference to cassia in the next verse. Kassia is noted as an alternate reading; the Septuagint’s reading is ἴρεως, refering to the genus Iris (plant).

Because Origen did not supply an alternate translation for Kaneh bosem, it is likely that the other three translations rendered it the same way as the Septuagint.

The other translations, btw, were often more accurate than the Septuagint, but they were also later. If the knowledge of what the kaneh bosem was, whether calamus or cannabis or chamomile, had already been lost, then the other translations could well have just copied the Septuagint.

How do I fathom the 3rd declension?

And I weigh in too, though my answer is not really different to Desmond’s.

The way to fathom the 3rd declension is via proto-Greek. That’s what the grammars do, whether it’s the most useful thing to do or not.

Focus on the recurring endings: -(ς) -ος -ι -α -Ø, -ες -ων -σι -ας -ες (or -α -ων -σι -α -α in the neuter).

Focus on the genitive singular, because that always clues you in to how the noun’s declension actually works. ἅρπαγ-ος > *ἅρπαγ-ς > ἅρπαξ.

Don’t focus on each distinct pattern of the third declension. For passive recognition, it isn’t worth it.

Resign yourself to the fact that the nominative singular will be strange.

Treat the dirty vowel stems (3, 4, 5 in your list) as separate declensions. You can, with enough concentration, discern the recurring endings there too; but you might as well not; there’s been too much intervening sound change to make it worthwhile.

Do not even bother learning the highly irregular patterns, like ναῦς and ἀνήρ and γυνή. They’ll be frequent enough that you’ll pick them up from context anyway.

Does the use of line breaks in text incentivize (critical) thinking?

I think you could argue the reverse, if anything, though I still think that linebreaks are preferable anyway.

Let me take an historical approach to this.

We use space and punctuation and typography to chop up written discourse into digestible units. Once we have these units, we use our thinking to build up a model of how those units fit into a rhetorical structure: what is a major point and what is minor, what is a supporting point, what is incidental, and so on.

Those devices are specific to written discourse. Spoken discourse has its own devices—including volume, gestures, eye contact, and pitch—to make the structure of what is spoken clear; written discourse did not have access to those devices, and has had to put up its own equivalents.

In antiquity, those devices of writing were rare to non-existent. There were no italics in Ancient Greek; everything was in all caps; punctuation was invented late and used grudgingly. Several ancient scripts used mechanisms to break up words; Greek and Latin were not originally among them. Recall the new-fangled fancy grammatical terminology that Euripides uses in Aristophanes’ Frogs, including sentences. To his old adversary Aeschylus, there are only epea, utterances, which can be as short as a word or as long as the Iliad.

All this made reading laborious. And that was OK: the number of literate people was small enough that reading could be an elite skill, and the culture of literate people was homogeneous enough that they could fill in the blanks (actually, the non-blanks).

The Alexandrians came up with punctuation and paragraphs, though there wasn’t much spacing involved originally. The notion of the punctuated sentence and phrase, and the spaced word, were stable in mediaeval times; the paragraph reinvented via the pilcrow (¶). By the mid-Renaissance, the tools we now use to chop up written discourse into digestible units were all in place.

Those tools made reading less laborious; and with the advent of first printing and then universal education, reading became more widespread.

But stylistic convention still favoured the long, periodic sentence, by emulation of the Classics. Partly this emulated a time when an elite could take the time to pore over the long sentence, and work out how its bits fit together. Partly this emulated languages which had mechanisms for chaining sentences together, which made much more sense in Greek and Latin than they did in French and English. But the sentences are at least supposed to be periodic—meaning, with identifiable subunits and structure that fits together. If you just take the time to concentrate on the connectives, as both the links between the phrases, and (too often) the separators between the phrases, in the absence of generous commas.

If we fast forward from the 1700s to the 2100s, we are now in a time when long periodic sentences are avoided, in favour of short choppy sentences; when long paragraphs are avoided, and indeed criticised as unreadable, particularly online; and when the internal structure of paragraphs and sentences is often made blatant through dot points and indentation.

This is partly fashion, driven I suppose by Hemingway and modernism. Partly, it is that we have to read more than ever before, we have to read stuff we don’t read for fun and leisure, we need to skim, and we don’t have the patience to wrestle with long Dickensian sentences.

So. In the olden days, there was less white space. People had to look carefully for connectives and punctuation, be conversant with rhetorical strategies, and have a decent amount of cultural preparation, in order to make sense of the structure of written text.

Nowadays, there is a lot more white space. The building blocks of the rhetorical structure are much more obvious; conversely, there is much less signalling of what the connection is between the building blocks, via connectives.

I think this means that the vertical space gives people room to think about what the connections are—and they need the room to think, because some of the other structural cues are no longer used or presupposed. I also think this still causes less of a strain than the olden day long sentences and paragraphs did.

The malefaction of initials

Some of you may know that Jeremy Markeith Thompson got name-blocked last month, for failing to expand his middle initial in Jeremy M. Thompson.

Some of you may know that L.D. Ulrich was recently edit-blocked.

I have only ever seen him with initials.

The following sequence of edits appears in his log:

User status changed by Quora Moderation.

Quora Moderation blocked Quora User from editing on Quora

Comment: Blocked from editing due to an unverified name. For more information, see Quora’s policy on using real names: https://www.quora.com/Do-I-have-….

#263557002 · Thank · Report · 26 Jun 2017 2:52 PM

User status changed by Quora Moderation.

Quora Moderation restored Quora User’s privileges on Quora

Comment: Unblocked from editing pending review of name change.

#264415158 · Thank · Report · 28 Jun 2017 4:14 PM

Quora User

User name edited.

LD > L.D. Ulrich

#264415159 · Thank · Report · 28 Jun 2017 4:14 PM

User status changed by Quora Moderation.

Quora Moderation blocked Quora User from editing on Quora

Comment: Blocked from editing due to an unverified name. For more information, see Quora’s policy on using real names: https://www.quora.com/Do-I-have-….

#264418496 · Thank · Report · 28 Jun 2017 4:24 PM

If Quora wants initials spelled out, it should spell out its Real Name Policy: Quora’s answer to Do I have to use my real name on Quora? What is Quora’s ‘real names’ policy?“On Quora, you are required to use your real, full name for your account.” If first initials are not acceptable ever, and that is what “full name” means, then a lot of users are already in trouble; and Quora should be using some of its vaunted bot resourcing on initial signup of users, rather than a year in to their posting activity.

If the edit name facility has with the acute risk of instablocking, then some sort of warning should be accompanying the button, rather than reactive bans.

I’ve quoted elsewhere this Greek proverb, with regard to my reactions to Quora shenanigans:

“I’m trying to be a saint. And they won’t let me!”

Can we exclude that in the not so distant past Tsakonian was familiar to those from North of Sparta to South East of the Arcadian capital Tripoli?

We can’t exclude it.

Tsakonian is an absurdly archaic variant of Greek, and that speaks to long-term isolation from the rest of the Greek speaking world. It would have to be longer-term isolation than Old Athenian, the cover-term for the enclaves of Greek (Athens, Aegina, Megara, Kyme) blocked off from the rest of the Greek-speaking world by the arrival of ethnic Albanians after the Black Death.

Modern day Tsakonia (the blue bit in this 1890 map) has a coastal bit in Leonidio, but it was cut off from the north through mountains, and the coastal approach required porters to wade out and carry luggage in 1895. You’ll notice that the surrounding areas are purple, not pink (Arvanitika-speaking); the ethnic Albanians were not the reason for Tsakonian being isolated.

We have a few pieces of evidence about Tsakonia formerly. We know from Mazaris’ Journey to Hades, written in the 1400s, that some people in the Peloponnese spoke unintelligible gibberish; earlier on scholars thought that was a reference to Tsakonian, but the surmise is now that it refers to Mani, a (less) archaic variant of Greek spoken in the Middle Finger of the Peloponnese.

We know that when Evliya Çelebi recorded some words of Tsakonian in the 1660s, he was in an area far to the south of Modern Tsakonia. (I don’t remember, but I think it was near Monemvasia.)

And we know that Vatika, at the bottom of the right southern finger of the Peloponnese and near Monemvasia, has almost the same name as Vatka (in Turkish, Misakça), where there was a Tsakonian colony up until 1915. (They were deported to the interior of Anatolia because of WWI, before the 1922 population exchanges.)

What would a native Greek speaker differ in if they spoke French, dialect, tone, or accent? Would there be a difference?

… You know, I’ll take the challenge.

I have a PhD in linguistics and I know the IPA backwards, but my accent in foreign languages is horridly Greek.

From Nick Nicholas’ answer to What does Genesis 1:1-3 sound like in your language? : Vocaroo | Voice message

Don’t assume that polyglots always have a great accent. I know a polyglot prodigy who has recently showed up on this site, so I won’t name him: he knows a dozen languages, and he sounds Bulgarian in all of them. You have to be immersed in a country for a fair while to pick up the accent with some fluency.

As both other answerers have pointed out, there would be shibboleths. The uvular [ʀ] would end up a velar [ɣ] or a trilled [r] (the former is likelier unless the speaker had never heard anyone speak French). The rounded front vowels, the [œ, y], would be way too close to /e/ and /i/. They’d have trouble with the [ɥ]. (Doesn’t everyone?) I think they’d do a passable [ʃ, ʒ], but their nasals would be hit and miss. And of course, they’d have the rat-tat-tat of a language without vowel length distinctions.

You know how Spanish speakers speak French? It’d be close to that.

Answered 2017-07-06 · Upvoted by

Steve Rapaport, Linguistics PhD candidate at Edinburgh. Has lived in USA, Sweden, Italy, UK.

SHUT UP QCR

Hello hellions.

Where does the Greek quote “βίᾳ ἤρχεσαν οἱ τριάκοντα τῶν Ἀθηναίων και τὸν δῆμον ἤδη κατελελύκεσαν” come from?

[Originally: Where does this come from?]

Not a very informative question, I trust you will agree. I have taken the this out of question details, and changed it to:

Where does this quote “βίᾳ ἤρχεσαν οἱ τριάκοντα τῶν Ἀθηναίων και τὸν δῆμον ἤδν κατελελύκεσαν” come from?

Which, one would have thought was the helpful thing to do.

QCR reverted me. I reverted it back.

QCR reverted me again. I reported it for vandalism, and reverted it again.

QCR reverted me once again. “However, the question has been flagged as possibly violating policy and will be reviewed.”

No shit, Sherlock.

Esteemed hellions, we know that QCR has longstanding problems with non-English, but this is worse than that. What is current best practice for getting QCR, aka Poster Boy about How AI Is Not Ready For Prime Time Yet, to shut the hell up? Reverting it and reporting it for vandalism is clearly no longer working.

Thank you, and SHUT UP QCR.

Lest We Forget about Review of Anonymous Questions…

Nick Nicholas timeline.

18:05

Nick Nicholas’ answer to Are questions on Quora curated? If so, how did “Why did Loretta Lynch call for blood & death in the streets of the US March 2017?” ever get posted?

“Are questions on Quora curated?”

Only post facto.

Get reporting.

18:07

Why don’t we ban or declare war on Islam? [“Why don’t we ban or declare war on Islam?”]

With Christianity being the most persecuted religion, Muslims being most of the terrorists worldwide, and aiming to take over the world by reproducing, I see no reason to criminalize Islam, and maybe even reinstating the death penalty for Muslims as jailing them would make prisons “no-go zones”.

Nick checks Edit Log: https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-w…

Question added by Anonymous.

Of course.

*Reported*

Improvements to Anonymity on Quora by Riley Patterson on The Quora Blog (March 2017)

  • All anonymous content will be reviewed for spam and harassment before receiving distribution

Anonymous Screening (Jack Fraser, June 2017)

So we finally have our answer:

There is human review as we were originally promised.

It just seems like they’re somehow doing it spectacularly badly!

https://insurgency.quora.com/Ano… (comment on Jack’s post)

Nick Nicholas:

—Can’t you see this ain’t good enough?

—I see what you mean.

—Then you give me some half-assed story about some delivery guy busting his arm. Look, Fawlty, if your chef couldn’t find the ingredients from that guy, why didn’t he get them from somebody else?

—Exactly. Hopeless.

—What?

—Completely hopeless.

—Right. You’re the manager, aren’t you? You’re responsible. So what are you going to do about it?

—… I’ll have a word with him.

—Have a word with him? Man, you gotta tell him, lay it on the line! Lay it on the line. Tell him if he doesn’t get on the ball, you’re gonna bust his ass!

(Fawlty Towers: Waldorf Salad)

How to get Quora Content Review to shut up

https://redirectme.quora.com/SHU…

This advice is a bit more precise than what I’d heard, which is “report QCR” (and which I’d been doing):

Christopher VanLang:

For the record, you should not report the QCR since they doesn’t get very far since that review process is drastically different from human reports. Instead, you are best off using the https://www.quora.com/contact link to trigger an event review.

[…]

Might be easier to provide the question log to give the reviewer the full picture. The ultimate goal is to get a review of the QCR human or robot that is causing the problem.

Existentialist Parable

Comment thread starting at https://redirectme.quora.com/SHU…

Kelly Kinkade:

The QCR bot needs to have code in it that detects when it is reverted, disabling it from re-reverting and alerting one of its human masters to review the edit immediately. As far as I can tell, this only happens if one of its human minders happens to notice the situation (that is, reactive rather than proactive supervision), which often doesn’t happen. QCR should definitely not be allowed to revert more than once without human intervention.

However, we (the writers who contribute 100% of the content that appears on Quora) have no say over how QCR behaves. Perhaps one of these days Quora’s administration will remember that without us, they have nothing, and actually pay attention to how weexperience the site.

Robert Thornton:

I can’t think of any commercial reason why they should worry about an individual writer or individual writers. They just need a sufficiently large mass of writers producing a sufficiently large mass of commercially useful content. It doesn’t matter exactly who. They give Top Writer awards and have Top Writer parties not so much, if at all, to keep those Top Writers happy as they do to have a kind of brass ring for those who are interested in acquiring it and to give those who aren’t interested in TW status the impression that Quora is interested in writers as individuals and in the quality of their work that’s other than commercial—so that they will keep producing.

Perfectly reasonable behavior from a certain point of view.

Nick Nicholas:

*applause*

We’re all fungible, and Quora is an existentialist parable.