10-12-2003, 11:16 PM
I'd specified the grammatical gender as being masculine, but I was talking about actual usage and meaning--would that be "applied" linguistics? <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s --> I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough. <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="" title="Sad" /><!-- s -->
If I'm now understanding you right, the answers are pretty much all yes--Aramaic, just as old-fashioned English and NT Greek, used "man" and "men," "brothers," and "he," "him," and "his" to refer to both men and women together, when warranted by context. I take it, then, that Zorba and his readers didn't have to worry about that issue.
That's a relief. It sounded like a translator's nightmare. Whew!
Thanks,
Tauf
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s --> I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="" title="Sad" /><!-- s --> If I'm now understanding you right, the answers are pretty much all yes--Aramaic, just as old-fashioned English and NT Greek, used "man" and "men," "brothers," and "he," "him," and "his" to refer to both men and women together, when warranted by context. I take it, then, that Zorba and his readers didn't have to worry about that issue.
That's a relief. It sounded like a translator's nightmare. Whew!
Thanks,
Tauf