About perceiving flames. Was Addendum

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Brown" <ray.brown@...>


> On Saturday, December 4, 2004, at 01:55 , caeruleancentaur wrote:
> [snip]
>> BTW (not to you, Ph.D.), neither the Matthean annunciation story
>> (1:24) nor the Lucan (1:35) mention The Holy Spirit/Ghost.  In those
>> verses the definite article is not used, so the translation would
>> be "a holy spirit."
Ray wrote:
> That IMNSHO is a dogmatic statement and contrary to linguistic evidence -
> see above.
A brief note about our rule concerning "no cross no crown."  I don't really
know where it is that we seem to cross the line in a linguistic or
historical discussion of scripture into inflammation.  Is it when we get
into issues of doctrine?  In a conlang, issues of doctrine and translation
of them seems relevent.  I think it depends entirely on how people receive
postings. Case in point: my extremely MINOR irk was the "BTW (not to you,
Ph.D.)"   Father Charlie, whom I respect tremendously, could not remember me
or he chose not to name me, but his correction felt a little backhanded and
rude, especially when I was agreeing with him.  It moved me, as perversity
is my middle name, to investigate the use of the definite article, which has
led to this big mess that Ray has put the capstone on.   So please, Charlie.
It is bad netiquette to write "not to you, Ph.D."  How easy it is to go back
and review the prior messages and find out who it is that you ARE
addressing.  As a woman, I have often felt left out of men's discussions or
unacknowledged. I too have a Ph.D.  ;) For twenty one years, now.  And I
have even taught "Classical and Scriptural Backgrounds."  I am not to be
withered by someone telling me that I am wrong.  I WANT to be corrected, but
please do it more directly and kindly.  My investigation into the matter of
the definite article in the Vulgate and the responses it has received have
proved that you, Charlie, need to clarify your remarks a little better, and
maybe rethink them.

> Likewise to insert "a" is to paraphrase, and it most certainly adds a
> theological nuance not found in the text.
Well exactly.  I agree with Ray here.  But not below:

Ray writes:
> I am saddened that Charlie has chosen to use the list to
> make a not very subtle snipe at traditional trinitarian belief. I can make
> a reasonable guess which religious group he adheres to - but I have no
> wish to go down that path.
Now Ray, forgive me, but this was not only dogmatic and inflammatory, but an
ill-informed ad hominem attack.  It has turned a relatively low-keyed
dispute about a linguistic matter into a true flame.  You may not remember
Thursday, 30 of September, when Charlie Brickner introduced himself to the
list:

"I am a 63-year-old Catholic priest and the pastor of 3 small parishes in
the Blue Ridge Mtns. of VA.  I have had a love of languages &
linguistics since I was a child.  I can remember checking out grammar books
from the library as early as the fifth grade.  My first formal
contact was with Latin in high school.  I was an R.N. before entering the
seminary & "did time" in the army (Germany) and the Peace Corps
(Honduras).  I now hold a B.A. in English, a B.A. in natural science, an
M.A. in comparative religions, & TONS of theology credits.  I have
credits in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, German, French, Italian, & a minor in
Spanish.  I can also read Portuguese.  My serious dabblings
include Dutch, Japanese, Swahili, & Malay."

Never jump to conclusions, Ray.  And if you don't wish to go down that path,
as you *say,* please don't make such incendiary statements about what you
perceive to be someone's theological backgrounds.  Charlie's error was of a
linguistic nature, and had you left it at that, I wouldn't be writing.  You
are perceiving "subtle snipes" where there are none.

> I have been on this list for many years and during that time have got to
> know the religious persuasion or otherwise of several members. Even tho I
> do not agree with all their views, I respect them and would never use this
> list to offend them.
I really don't think that's what Father Charlie was after.  He simply didn't
remember who had mentioned the Holy Ghost to him in a thread about how to
translate a Biblical passage into a conlang and conculture that has no
animals.

> PS - Whatever has happened to our "no cross, no crown" convention in the
> past couple of weeks?
It was FINE, until certain people started letting ill-informed linguistic
information get them all het up.

It's a pity that such an interesting thread can become so volatile.
Sally