Re: Ignorant people & diacritics
From: | Steg Belsky <draqonfayir@...> |
Date: | Saturday, December 4, 2004, 20:24 |
On Dec 4, 2004, at 5:46 PM, caeruleancentaur wrote:
> Speaking in an historical context you may be right about the
> corvée. But speaking in the Biblical context (which I believe we
> are doing), "slave" is the word to use. The word "`ebed"
> means "slave" pure and simple and that is the word used in the
> Bible and so understood for several millennia. Under the Mosaic Law,
> slaves had certain rights. As I read the story in Exodus the
> Egyptian rulers didn't give any rights to their "day laborers." This
> is only one example of many in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures of a
> theological concept overriding an historical fact.
> Charlie
I respectfully disagree. In my experience, _`eved_ covers all of the
semantic range of the English terms "slave", "servant", and "indentured
servant". And in the compound _`eved hamelekh_, 'servant of the king',
it denotes a high government official.
-Stephen (Steg)
"verbing weirds language"
~ calvin (& hobbes)