View previous topic | View next topic

Jews

Page 7 of 8
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

mckeonj
865181.  Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:54 pm Reply with quote

I have an honest question for 'Nob Hill Bachelor', prompted by the above.
Do some Dutch speakers 'show off' by using archaic or scholarly speech, or the opposite, by using dialect?

 
CB27
865183.  Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:36 pm Reply with quote

I'm guessing the language of the Bible is seen as traditional. Having said that, you can get some very different modern versions of the Bible which are created to appeal to the yoof :)

 
'yorz
865185.  Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:49 pm Reply with quote

mckeonj wrote:
I have an honest question for 'Nob Hill Bachelor', prompted by the above.
Do some Dutch speakers 'show off' by using archaic or scholarly speech, or the opposite, by using dialect?


That, and there can be some display of gasbaggery to show their presumed understanding of foreign languages and/or cultures.

 
Gooische Vrijgezel
865188.  Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:22 pm Reply with quote

'yorz wrote:
mckeonj wrote:

Do some Dutch speakers 'show off' by using archaic or scholarly speech, or the opposite, by using dialect?


That, and there can be some display of gasbaggery to show their presumed understanding of foreign languages and/or cultures.


Or think they are special (I am a famous knee surgeon from Sweeter Lake and you, Canadian tourists too polite to stop me, have to listen to my story that Frisian is like English, so you'll unsterstand what a skūtsje is). Or there's a lack of shame, happily telling everybody where the red light district is. But that's off-topic.

 
'yorz
865192.  Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:32 pm Reply with quote

Am puzzled about something, GV: why did you pick a username in a language that practically none of the others forummers will be able to understand or pronounce?

 
Gooische Vrijgezel
865197.  Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:49 pm Reply with quote

mckeonj wrote:
Do some Dutch speakers 'show off' by using archaic or scholarly speech, or the opposite, by using dialect?


I'm not suddenly talking about a Dutch tradition. Old works are used there too, like "Gij zijt" instead of "U bent" of "Jij bent" (You are).

Of course "Jesus" or "Jesus Christ" are used most often, but sometimes "Christ Jesus" is used. It sounds like an attempt to add a headache to a brain-washing procedure. Hence the question: why are old words, or a "Christ Jesus", used? Even if you're not quoting.

I'm certainly not assuming an underlying system. It sounds more like some techniques used in technical analysis or astrology. The message is crap and based on fried air, but the use of the "pseudo-scientific" words make it look like you know what you're talking about. No matter if the crowd cannot really rate the skills of the speaker.

At the moment I'm actually staying in the (unofficial) "capital" of the Dutch bible belt. A lot of dialect too. Of course they don't use "gij" in public, unless they quote their (old) Bible. But if you would go to some meeting which starts with a prayer, you may hear a "Christ Jesus". Not can you normal talk? I cannot recall ever having heard it being used intentionally, i.e. to refer to the Paul-section of the Bible. As far as I know Muslims don't use the technique. Instead of old words you may hear some specific new ones, like "I am speaking of Jesus" instead of "I am speaking about Jesus".

Is there a reason for the "of"? Is there a reason for the use of "Christ Jesus" (or Jesus the Christ)? It should be international, but I may be wrong there...

 
Spud McLaren
865198.  Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:56 pm Reply with quote

Gooische Vrijgezel wrote:
Is there a reason for the "of"?
The reason is that it's still good (and current) English. There's a subtle difference; speaking of Jesus would be used when merely referring to Jesus, but speaking about Jesus would be used when further facts or opinions have been or are about to be expressed.

Or something like that. As to the other questions, can't help you there, I'm afraid.

 
exnihilo
865210.  Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:13 pm Reply with quote

Christ is a title and not part of the name, it means 'the anointed one', so it's perfectly valid to put it at the start rather than the end. And while it may only appear once in the KJV (I have no idea) it is not that uncommon in usage as you make out. It's certainly not pseudo scientific, nor designed to cause headaches, it's just one of many ways people can, and do, refer to that person.

 
suze
865213.  Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:24 pm Reply with quote

The Gospels use JC exclusively; CJ is found only in Acts and in some of the Epistles. A source I found via Google - and whose word I shall for now take, since I don't intend to count - asserts that JC is used 196 times in the KJV and CJ 57.

As far as I've ever understood the difference in usage (which is isn't all that far), JC is a sort of "present tense name", and is used in the Gospels to refer to Jesus, the man who is among us and who is the Christ. CJ is used to refer to the Christ, who previously walked among us in human form and went by the name of Jesus.

 
CB27
866460.  Tue Nov 22, 2011 8:22 pm Reply with quote

When were George Best and Danny La Rue Jewish?

The answer is 1974 and 1970 respecively.

OK, there's a slight cheat here. If Stephen were to ask this out loud, it would sound like Danny La Rue, but the person I'm thinking of is Daniel Le Roux. Le Roux is a South African former footballer who spent some time in 1970 playing for a team called Jewish Guild, a leading South African team in the 1970s.

George Best also played for Jewish Guild in 1974.

 
plinkplonk
871864.  Tue Dec 20, 2011 9:46 am Reply with quote

CB27 wrote:
OK, there's a slight cheat here. If Stephen were to ask this out loud, it would sound like Danny La Rue, but the person I'm thinking of is Daniel Le Roux.


Sadly Danny Le Roux would like Danny Le (not La) Rue...

 
swot
881255.  Sat Jan 28, 2012 7:30 am Reply with quote

I read an interesting interview in New Scientist this week, in which the interviewee (Greg Feist) suggests that Jewish people are more likely than others to become scientists:

New Scientist wrote:
I understand that certain people - Jewish people, for example - are more likely than average to become scientists. Why?
I was brought up Catholic and I married a Jewish woman. I spoke to my wife's rabbi and asked him this question. He said that in Judaism there is no hierarchy. No one person who has more access to the "truth" than anyone else. And there is a healthy tradition of debate. That way of critical thinking and debate is more congruent with the scientific attitude than Catholicism, say, which is based on dogma and hierarchy.

In the US, only 2 per cent of the population is Jewish, yet about 30 per cent of the members of the National Academy of Science and 30 per cent of the Nobel prize recipients are from a Jewish background. That's no coincidence.

 
CB27
881383.  Sat Jan 28, 2012 9:35 pm Reply with quote

As a Jew I'd say that's open to debate.

 
bobwilson
881396.  Sun Jan 29, 2012 12:49 am Reply with quote

As a non-Jew (and indeed as a non every arbitrary and meaningless categorisation) I'd agree with CB.

Actually, the question is back to front. It's not why Jews are more likely to be members of the NAS - it's why are Catholics less likely to be members. I blame the Pope, and the Jesuits, and the paedophiliac priests - but that's just me.

 
AlmondFacialBar
881426.  Sun Jan 29, 2012 6:54 am Reply with quote

Hmmmm... IF indeed, looking at the world as a whole, there are proportionally more Jews involved in scientific endeavour than members of other communities, I dare say that mostly has historical reasons. as in if you're not allowed to take up agriculture or trades as a way of making a living, you can either take up intellectual pursuits or starve.

:-)

AlmondFacialBar

 

Page 7 of 8
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group