Cato's Grammar Grumble

[ritter]

Another question (not grammatical, but rather re. pronunciation): when did some American politicians start deliberately mispronouncing Iran and Iraq? Instead of "EE-ran" and "EE-raq", I started hearing "Aye-ran" ad "Aye-raq). Was that a thing of George W. Bush, or did it start earlier?

[JBS]

Thanks for the discussion above!

In our neo-Byzantine era, it has unfortunately become common to choose polysyllabic words, when the mono-or-duosyllable word would suffice, and in fact be clearer, or to use two or three words to replace one.

We have seen monstrosities e.g. "The Saint John Community Worship Center" instead of "Church." *

"The Avondale Health and Wellness (What is the difference?) Complex" = Hospital!   

Instead of a "park" we now have a "civic recreation space."

Other examples are welcome! 


* Here in Ohio, there is a store-front "church" (i.e. it is in a former 1890's grocery) in Columbus called, as I recall, "The St. Matthew Whole-Bible Fire-Baptized Holiness Church of God of the Americas"  (SIC!)

I always liked that last part to punctuate that they are serious, even if the building is an 1890's grocery store! 😇

Because I'm on jury duty and therefore have nothing better to do, I went looking.

Fire Baptized Holiness Church of God of the Americas is the name of the denomination, in this case, one that is historically Black.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_Baptized_Holiness_Church_of_God_of_the_Americas

So the only local contribution to that name is "St Matthew Whole Bible".

[ritter]

...
So the only local contribution to that name is "St Matthew Whole Bible".

I'm no theologian, of course, but...why "Whole Bible"? Is there such a thing as "Partial Bible"? 

Enjoy your jury duty!

[JBS]

I'm no theologian, of course, but...why "Whole Bible"? Is there such a thing as "Partial Bible"? 

Enjoy your jury duty!

Apparently it signifies belief that Christians should obey the kosher food laws, holy days, and other practices enjoined in the Torah, which Christianity historically rejected under the label of "Judaizing", and is linked to Pentecostalism.

[Mandryka]

I'm no theologian, of course, but...why "Whole Bible"? Is there such a thing as "Partial Bible"? 

Enjoy your jury duty!

Jewish Bible < Protestant Bible < Catholic Bible -- I think.  So from the point of view of Catholics, Protestants and Jews have a partial bible, maybe.

[steve ridgway]

Jewish Bible < Protestant Bible < Catholic Bible -- I think.  So from the point of view of Catholics, Protestants and Jews have a partial bible, maybe.

But they're missing the Book of Mormon .

[ritter]

Jewish Bible < Protestant Bible < Catholic Bible -- I think.  So from the point of view of Catholics, Protestants and Jews have a partial bible, maybe.

But I doubt that the Fire Baptized Holiness Church of God of the Americas has anything to do with the Roman catholic Church...

[Cato]

But I doubt that the Fire Baptized Holiness Church of God of the Americas has anything to do with the Roman catholic Church...

True!

The term "whole-Bible", which I have seen used by other Protestant groups, usually independent churches with a charismatic pastor, is perhaps emphatic, i.e. that for the believers of that particular church the Old Testament still has legitimacy.

It might also mean that they do not agree with the reorganization of the Bible by Martin Luther, but I am not sure.

[Florestan]

I'm no theologian, of course, but...why "Whole Bible"? Is there such a thing as "Partial Bible"? 

It's funny and ironic but only too logical that the Sola Scriptura principle begat God knows how many different denominations, each claiming that theirs is the only correct interpretation of the Bible.

[Cato]

Jewish Bible < Protestant Bible < Catholic Bible -- I think.  So from the point of view of Catholics, Protestants and Jews have a partial bible, maybe.

Perhaps you mistyped: From the point of view and Catholics and Protestants, Jews have a partial Bible.  ?

To be sure, I have heard Catholics say that Luther removed books from the Bible, and therefore any Bible based on his version is incomplete.

From what I have read, Luther re-organized the Bible, placing certain Old and New Testament books in an appendix, with his opinions why those books did not have the same weight or authority.

[Karl Henning]

Another question (not grammatical, but rather re. pronunciation): when did some American politicians start deliberately mispronouncing Iran and Iraq? Instead of "EE-ran" and "EE-raq", I started hearing "Aye-ran" ad "Aye-raq). Was that a thing of George W. Bush, or did it start earlier?

That's been colloquial in many parts of the States for as long as I remember. 

[Karl Henning]

Perhaps you mistyped: From the point of view and Catholics and Protestants, Jews have a partial Bible.  ?

To be sure, I have heard Catholics say that Luther removed books from the Bible, and therefore any Bible based on his version is incomplete.

From what I have read, Luther re-organized the Bible, placing certain Old and New Testament books in an appendix, with his opinions why those books did not have the same weight or authority.

Did the designation of the apocrypha not predate Luther? Somehow, if so, that would mildly surprise me. Could just be my muddled recollection.  Whatever I once knew of biblical textual criticism was long ago, probably at its clearest while I was at Wooster.

[Cato]

Did the designation of the apocrypha not predate Luther? Somehow, if so, that would mildly surprise me. Could just be my muddled recollection.  Whatever I once knew of biblical textual criticism was long ago, probably at its clearest while I was at Wooster.

Yes, the term at least was used in late ancient or medieval times, even when there was disagreement on which books should be considered "apocryphal."

Then we have the term "non-canonical" for things like The Gospel of Thomas, one of my favorites and a candidate for being "Q," (from the German word Quelle "source") i.e. the source for many things found in the Four Gospels.

That's been colloquial in many parts of the States for as long as I remember.

In my education, the "i" was always short with the accent on "-RAN" and "-RAQ."

But yes, EYE-ran and EYE-raq are colloquial: I suspect they are Southernisms, because of the accented first syllable.  One hears Southerners say things like IN-surance, FY-nance (or FA-nance, with the "a" of "apple"), REE-deem, rather than "in-SUR-ance," "fi-NANCE," and "re-DEEM."

Saying "Arab" to rhyme with "Ahab" (as in Captain Ahab) is also not unknown: this might have been catalyzed by Ray Stevens    in the following song:

[ritter]

So it's a bit like the pronunciation of "theatre" as "THE-ay-ter", then...

[JBS]

As I understand it, the Apocrypha are those books accepted as part of the Old Testament by Catholics and Eastern Orthodox but not accepted as canonical among Jews. Luther chose to follow Jewish practice in this (odd, considering his overall antisemitism). Besides entire books such as Maccabees, it includes additions inserted into the books of Daniel and Esther. The official Catholic term is "Deuterocanonical".

Apocrypha is sometimes used by extension for noncanonical Christian works such as the Gospel of Thomas.

[Karl Henning]

And then there's pseudepigrapha....

[Cato]

So it's a bit like the pronunciation of "theatre" as "THE-ay-ter", then...

I heard that pronunciation from Southern migrants to Ohio in the 1950's and beyond: it sounded so odd!

They also pronounced "Ohio" as "Ah-ha-ya" with the middle "a" using the "a" from "apple."   

And then there's pseudepigrapha....

That is a whole field of study by itself, in both Patristics and Ancient Literature!

For those who do not want to research the word, it refers to writings attributed to certain famous authors, but were forgeries.

They have some value in that they show points of view about Judaism or Christianity current at the time of their creation.

[Wanderer]

As I understand it, the Apocrypha are those books accepted as part of the Old Testament by Catholics and Eastern Orthodox but not accepted as canonical among Jews. Luther chose to follow Jewish practice in this (odd, considering his overall antisemitism). Besides entire books such as Maccabees, it includes additions inserted into the books of Daniel and Esther. The official Catholic term is "Deuterocanonical".

Apocrypha is sometimes used by extension for noncanonical Christian works such as the Gospel of Thomas.

Protestants call ψευδεπίγραφα the books characterized as απόκρυφα by the Orthodox and Roman Catholics. All απόκρυφα by Orthodox and Roman Catholic definition are non-canonical (and are further subcategorized as being either by anonymous authors -ανώνυμα- or falsely attributed -ψευδεπίγραφα).

Protestants call απόκρυφα the books called δευτεροκανονικά by the Orthodox and Roman Catholics (which are canonical).

I've provided the terms in Greek, so that those interested might copy/paste them in Google translate and listen to how they're pronounced.

[Wanderer]

And then there's pseudepigrapha....

The ψευδ- compound in ψευδεπίγραφα comes from the verb ψεύδομαι, to lie (το ψεύδος, a lie). It is used in a wide range of words such as ψευδορκία ("lying under oath", perjury), ψευδοροφή ("false ceiling"), ψευδάργυρος ("false silver", the Greek word for zinc).

[Wendell_E]

Another question (not grammatical, but rather re. pronunciation): when did some American politicians start deliberately mispronouncing Iran and Iraq? Instead of "EE-ran" and "EE-raq", I started hearing "Aye-ran" ad "Aye-raq). Was that a thing of George W. Bush, or did it start earlier?

I check a dictionary from the 1960s, and it pronounces both like "if", but gives "EE" as the Persian pronunciation. It does offer "aye" as an alternative pronunciation for Iran, but not Iraq. Another dictionary, probably about the same vintage, but it's a paperback with the first pages missing, so I'm not sure, gives the "aye", then the "ee" pronunciation as an alternative for both countries.