tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 17 02:57:34 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: god (was: Re: a word is needed?)
- From: "Rohan Fenwick" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: god (was: Re: a word is needed?)
- Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 07:46:28
jatlh Sean:
>Well, 'great lord' doesn't seem much better than 'great god'. It seems to
>me to mean (for example) an earl who has a bunch of baronets as his
>vassals.
>He is a great lord compared to them.
Your reasoning is correct. However, let's not forget that <<-'a'>> doesn't
simply mean "great". AFAIK, <<joH'a'>> was used simply to circumlocute the
term "Lord" you can find in many Bibles, which, in older texts, is even
capitalised to make it obvious that we're not talking about "a lord", but
"the LORD".
>But if I remember correctly, when reading the Torah aloud, early Jews said
>'Adonai' instead of 'Jehovah' when the tetragrammaton (the four-letter
>combination JHVH, or however you want to spell it in Latin letters - vowels
>are not indicated on the earliest Hebrew texts) was encountered, because
>they believed it was not good to say the name of their god aloud. 'Adonai'
>means 'lord' or 'ruler'. So you would seem to have Jewish tradition on
>your
>side if you use {joH'a'} for the monotheistic god of the
Jews/Christians/Muslims.
Again, I believe you do remember correctly. As I said earlier, earlier
Christian tradition also doesn't see it proper to use "God" and substitute
"LORD". This is another reason why I prefer using this - that and the fact
that it's what I see most, so I assume it's what other people will easiest
recognise. I'm not really likely to talk about God except in a religious
debate, so context would possibly make this clearer as well.
Qapla' 'ej Satlho'
ro'Han
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com