Wrong Again

Actually, after looking into the matter more I think I'm mostly incorrect.

I asked a few language scholars the summary is:

"Ancient Greek had a very extensive vocabulary. It was also very precise. English however has blended Latin, Greek, Germanic and many other languages. Our language is gigantic and over the past 50 years especially, we have created thousands of words for technological and other purposes.

Since English blends these three roots we see double meanings for nearly everything (chair, and seat).

Ancient Greek gave many words to english though.

Kyrie Eleison

Christe Eleison

Kyrie Eleison

DRP

Clarification

Kenny- thanks for the comments, I realized my ambiguous classifications so let me clarify.

1. First of all, no it was Fr. Gadenz and Dr. Korn (Latin proff but I think he knows Greek as well).

2. What Class did you take with Fr. Doug? He's awesome.

--

1. Ancient Greek has a more precise (and more extensive) vocabulary. For example, in english we have "Love". The Greeks have agape, eros, philios etc all different expressions of love. In Greek they have a dozen "philes" bibliophile, anglophile (lover of something). Also "phobia". Aracnophobia etc (the list is endless). Their language is much more precise in these instances.

2. Translation is a separate issue. In some outlines, Fr. Gadenz will occasionally add the literal translations as a sidenote. In reading some examples of "literal translations" I realized how much more powerful the translation seems to be. To me, Jesus saying "Be muzzled" or even "silence" would be more powerful then "quiet". He is commanding a demon and taking authority over a dark force so a stronger verb would be more appropriate.

I think this is similar to what will happen over the next two years in the english translation of the mass. We are going back to the more literal and accurate translation of the Latin instead which I hope will heighten people's sense of mystery and transendence. Example:

Instead of, "and with the angels we sing a song of praise...holy holy holy"

It will be

And with the Seraphim, cherubim, dominions, principlaties, angels and archangels, let us sing....

I think that's the translation anyway...

Thoughts?

Ancient Greek

Danny -

Is that Fr. Milewski with the Greek stuff? He told me and the other students in the class who got an A to take "New Testament Greek". I never did.

I'm not sure about your argument that ancient Greek is a more powerful and precise language. You give an English word--like "quiet"--and say that it is not as powerful and precise as another English word--like "be muzzled". But comparing two English words doesnt show that Greek is more powerful or precise, only that one translation is more powerful and precise than another. Is it that "Be muzzled" doesn't work in intelligible English grammar or something? Or is it that ancient Greek had more potent language in common usage?

Re-Union

This is very interesting. It even made first page CNN. There is a lot of debate, but I like the direction of unity. "that the church may be one".

In my lifetime I hope to see the following churches come back to the apostolic church of Peter:

1. Anglican and Episcopalian
2. Eastern Orthodox
3. Evangelical

http://www.zenit.org/article-27281?l=english

http://www.zenit.org/article-27275?l=english

http://www.zenit.org/article-27274?l=english

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=4384

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/20/vatican.anglican.church/index.html

Language

I am taking a class on the Synoptic Gospels. The professor, a very good priest, is a language scholar. He often gives us the Greek translation of some key words. It is very interesting to read, or understand the literal translation of the Greek words because they are so much more powerful.

For example:

When Jesus rebukes the demons and says, "quiet" (Mark 4 -I think) the Greek very literally means, "be muzzled". "Be muzzled" is a much more powerful command, and brings to mind strong images. Even "be silent" is better then quiet.

Another example is the word "coming" in the sense of the "Kingdom of God will come...or is at hand". Some Greek translations means "come near" which indicates that "the Kingdom" is talking about a person. Coming near, means the messiah-- the anointed one, is "coming near" instead of just coming by or coming along.

There are other examples too, but my point is that ancient Greek is a fore more precise and powerful language then our own.

Stuff

Kenny: I'm in VA visiting my parents and I realized that my dad had recorded the entire National Park series on the DVR thing and is planning on putting them on to discs. I watched part of the first one and over the next few weeks I plan to watch them in their entirety.

At first I thought all of your post was on the parks which made me really confused, then I realized Zombieland was something different.

--

EVERYONE:

I was thinking of doing a 3-4 day trip to vermont over Christmas break for snowboarding, recreation, praying, relaxing, hiking, eating, and things of the sort...If people go on the trip they can do their own things during the day (ie snowboarding, or skiing, hiking, or whatever-we don't have to all do the same things). Ya know? But, I was hoping to stay a monastery for cheaper. I'm looking into it.

Any takers?

National Parks plus Zombieland Review

First, in terms of the recent concern about science, I'd like to recommend the National Parks documentary recently aired on PBS. You might be able to catch reruns or download it or something. In it, the scientists featured are inspiring--their work, findings and writings as well as their characters. Lone scientists seem to be running through the Parks throughout its history like hermits or fawns. Their writings, filled with poetry and themes of transcendency as well as remarkable empirical findings and observations, were scattered throughout the nation, and found good earth in the ears of various presidents, whom we now have to thank for "america's best idea" - the National Parks.

Zombieland Review

Although this movie didn't do anything really special, it accomplished what I think it set out to do, and that can be best expressed in its motif, you have to "enjoy the little things." That is exactly what this movie has you do. It is a movie of small enjoyments, built off of the standard features of the zombie genre. All the little enjoyable things that the apocalyptic zombie comedy offers were freshly presented: the simplification of life to survival and the few people around you, the ability to not have to worry about breaking anything around you, the guiltless violence towards the zombies, the ease of romance with the providentially cute girl your age, the availability of all kinds of guns and weapons, etc. And if you're just kind of using the zombie genre to have fun, why not throw in Bill Murray as himself? Why not have your main character play ghostbusters ("Don't cross the streams!") with Bill Murray, and follow that with having your main character hit a bong with Bill?

The movie doesn't bite off more than it can chew. For the most part, it knew what it wanted to do and be and delivered on its simple goals. It just had fun. And to put it in a more formal way, it had a kind of identity of form with content in terms of the "enjoy the little things" theme.