Re: Not quite your father's Babel text - UPDATE!!!
|From:||Wesley Parish <wes.parish@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, October 20, 2004, 8:34|
I just assumed that since it is a text that exists in multiple languages
already, it would be understood as such.
I can always retract the statement if people find it too confusing. (I'm not
wedded to the bound phrase "Babel text" - technically this is a religious
text that could also exist natively in the relevant conculture's culture, and
in the conhistory is actually the result of a missionary's tireless efforts,
which are respected, though completely without effect.)
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 04:30, Jeffrey Henning wrote:
> So am I to take it from the subject line that the old definition of Babel
> 1. A translation of Genesis 11:1-9, the story of the breaking of the Tower
> of Babel, into a language for purposes of comparison to other language.
> ...has been expanded to include...
> 2. Any source text intended to be translated into multiple languages.
> Best regards,
* * *
Clinersterton beademung - in all of love. RIP James Blish
* * *
Mau e ki, "He aha te mea nui?"
You ask, "What is the most important thing?"
Maku e ki, "He tangata, he tangata, he tangata."
I reply, "It is people, it is people, it is people."