Koine Greek was just simple, ordinary Greek. It was not a "dialect" or a slang language. Koine Greek would be to Classical Attic the way modern, proper, grammatical English would be to Elizabethan English.
"Dude", "brother", "awesome": what do you think?
- Thread starter cris
- Start date
- Status
kvanlaan
Puritan Board Doctor
Thank you, Pastor Greco!
So Koine was the common language of the great unwashed? I read that was the standard language from Egypt to Mesopotamia - thus I don't think we can compare ebonics to it, correct?
Also, the language of the day is one thing, the language of the hour is another. Dropping the F-bomb to emphasize the degree of Christ's love for us may be entirely culturally appropriate, but I don't think anyone would argue for that as worthy of keeping in one's evangelism 'toolbox'.
So Koine was the common language of the great unwashed? I read that was the standard language from Egypt to Mesopotamia - thus I don't think we can compare ebonics to it, correct?
Also, the language of the day is one thing, the language of the hour is another. Dropping the F-bomb to emphasize the degree of Christ's love for us may be entirely culturally appropriate, but I don't think anyone would argue for that as worthy of keeping in one's evangelism 'toolbox'.
Last edited:
We cannot compare it at all. Koine is Attic with a lesser range of vocabulary and less complex grammar. It bears no relationship to Ebonics - which I won't speak about here to be polite.
steadfast7
Puritan Board Junior
Well, "hell" pops up in many places: just now I was on the train and saw someone brandishing a can of beer called "hell's gate." there are place names with the word "hell" in it; I've heard Paul Washer call young people "hellions"; Jesus called people "son of hell" (although they probably were). I agree with you that perhaps that that word shouldn't be used flippantly by Christians, because it's a serious matter.
Good discussion on Singlish, I know it well. When I was there, the sh* word was common speech whereas here it's highly offensive. Singlish is certainly a dialect, as catalogued by linguists, not sure whether it has gained creole status yet - but it's sure on its way. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate it if someone said that you weren't speaking a real language, or that it was corrupt English.
Standardization is really on a continuum, with "pure" dialect being theoretical, in my opinion. No one actually uses a pure dialect of anything, except computer programmers!
Lawrence, there may be regional differences in ebonics, but there is also a lot of consistency. Apparently it's widespread and consistent enough that they are considering using it in schools, right? If I'm not mistaken, I believe there is a translation of the Bible in Ebonics as well. I agree with you that standard language is more profitable, but it's only because most of high society is still anglo-saxon, white collar. if you lived in parts of the US, standard speech could get you killed. Although you might not take offence at your dialect being denigrated as stupid talk, but others might, and that's my point; especially those who use it natively and do not have many opportunities to learn the standard forms. We might need to disagree on the matter of standards, but just to point out: you Americans spell "color" wrong.
jayce475
Puritan Board Freshman
At least that's what the linguistics world in Singapore considers it (as a creole).
One of the instances whereby crude language is used. Believers ought to shun such usage. And no it is definitely not used more in Singapore compared to other places like Australia, so please don't paint it as some sort of distinctive of Singlish. Unless you have indeed had extensive exposure to the Singapore or have studied it thoroughly, please refrain from claiming familiarity with it and misrepresenting it.
Yes it is a real language simply because an unlimited amount of ideas can be communicated using it, just as how sign languages are languages. Whether it is a dialect, creole, or variation of English is inconsequential. On the other hand, if someone claims that it's not "real English", he may be right. And yes it is corrupt English when the sense of containing errors is used. But no there is nothing intrinsically immoral about this corrupted language.
Paul Washer and our Lord weren't using the words flippantly. They were calling a spade a spade. Even when the word is used flippantly by the world we ought not to accept it. It is a serious matter for everyone, not just believers.
Scottish Lass
Puritan Board Doctor
What's your source for this? I've never heard this seriously suggested.
steadfast7
Puritan Board Junior
I'm not "painting" anything brother, stop reading things into my posts. I lived in Singapore for 5 years, did seminary there, and heard that word enough times from solid Christian brethren and society at large to know that it's not considered as vulgar as it here in north America. That was my only point. Remember that where English conventions and culture is concerned, especially Christian culture, Singapore (and Asia at large) is HIGHLY influenced by the west (and that's ok!). but I do agree with you, it would be great for our witness if Christians stopped using the word.
well, there are some on this thread who would argue that "corrupt" languages should not be recognized as distinct languages. And no one is saying there's anything immoral about languages. I just don't think it's helpful to attach negative labels to them, especially when they're good enough to be studied as linguistic phenomenon.
jayce475
Puritan Board Freshman
I'm not reading anything into your post beyond what you have typed. Fair enough that you have had a good amount of exposure to Singlish. However, I do beg to differ that a word as crude as that is commonplace in Singapore and do believe that it is a misrepresentation. I've not heard it used a single time by my Christian brethren in Singapore (unless of course one is actually referring to feces or defecation) and the usage of such a word would earn a serious rebuke from teachers and parents around me. Yes it is very vulgar. Just that unfortunately these days there are some people who are very crude in their language as well. Interesting how a cultural gap exists between us even in terms of our experiences of Singapore though.
The word "corrupt" may have a moral aspect to it and I needed to make it clear that I don't consider it intrinsically immoral.
LawrenceU
Puritan Board Doctor
Not me
I also spell cheque, flavour, humour, and many other words correctly. Some of us Southrons were taught Oxford grammar and spelling.
steadfast7
Puritan Board Junior
Nice! You Southerners have definitely gone up a notch or two in my books!
Not me
---------- Post added at 08:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:46 AM ----------
It's true, it's becoming less common as S'pore becomes more metropolitan. I imagine in your Bible Presbyterian circles, you would have not heard it in church settings - but then your standards of behaviour have always been looked upon as a cut above the rest - admirable! But I did hear my BP seminary prof use it in a coffee shop setting. wa piang eh!!
bravo, Lawrence
Not me
and do you really speak Scots...? I wish I could hear you!
AThornquist
Puritan Board Doctor
For the most part I am mimicking (to use your wording) the caricature of "hood" talk, or a certain caricatured vernacular, in direct response to the opening post which asserted that the evangelical community adopts certain vernacular from the ghetto. The assertion itself was humorous to me because I thought it was kind of silly. There is not a specific group of people in mind in the sentence you highlighted. To be candid, I find no problem with it when done in good nature, and I find no biblical argument against it; so yes, it can be appropriate and godly to do this. Although I will say that I apologize if I offended you, sister; however, I do believe that whatever fault you seem to find with my statement is either because of a misunderstanding, such as not knowing my motives, or an issue of personal preference.
Have a blessed Lord's day.
LawrenceU
Puritan Board Doctor
Aye, Ah dae spick Scots. But, written will hae tae dae fur noo.
I'm sure native Scots will think me daft, and I'm sure that I butcher the language. But, I can carry on with my family and friends from Scotland just fine.
he beholds
Puritan Board Doctor
Not me
Then I will say, you spell those words incorrectly! In America, our words are color, check, flavor, humor...
You would fail your 1st grade spelling unit were you to use those on the test.
Scottish Lass
Puritan Board Doctor
Granted, I generally teach high school, not elementary grades, but I accept either spelling. Why not?
he beholds
Puritan Board Doctor
You don't think if these were on a spelling test, the teacher would want the "correct" way? I am of the opinion that either work, but clearly in America we see one as being the correct way. I just found it funny that we're arguing over correct vs. incorrect and the examples given prove that language is so messed up anyway! If you were teaching a first grade American how to spell color and she wrote "colour" you would want to correct her, so she spells it correctly for her American audience. Language mastery is about knowing the right language for the audience. (In my opinion, that is one of the very few places where post-modernism helps and doesn't hinder the truth.)
LawrenceU
Puritan Board Doctor
Jessica, I know what you are saying. I do adjust my spelling for the audience. But, that doesn't change the fact that I was taught Oxford spelling at the outset and then was switched to American. It hearkens back to the fact that at one time Americans did not spell in Websterian fashion and that the South was the last place where it began to change. It still has not completely changed. You will see the words grey, and the -our endings every now and then. If you read much Southern lit. you will also see those marks, as well as 's' rather than 'z' in suffixes. Language study is cool.
Scottish Lass
Puritan Board Doctor
Like I said, I generally teach high school lit/grammar/writing, and it matters much less there. Like Lawrence says, growing up in the South affects (I almost typed "colored") my spelling and pronunciations. I've always preferred "grey," for example--it seems more like the color than gray. I blithely ignore Firefox's red squiggly line and type away.
Jesus is my friend
Puritan Board Junior
Gnarly comment Bud-dy!
he beholds
Puritan Board Doctor
Jessica, I know what you are saying. I do adjust my spelling for the audience. But, that doesn't change the fact that I was taught Oxford spelling at the outset and then was switched to American. It hearkens back to the fact that at one time Americans did not spell in Websterian fashion and that the South was the last place where it began to change. It still has not completely changed. You will see the words grey, and the -our endings every now and then. If you read much Southern lit. you will also see those marks, as well as 's' rather than 'z' in suffixes. Language study is cool.
That must be a Southern thing. I have never thought that anyone in America would first learn the English way of spelling things!! I wonder if my husband sees that a lot with his high schoolers. I know he sees "ur" for "your" and other atrocious things! And even though I tend to think grammar should be descriptive, I still think it only benefits people to learn the way to write and speak that the greatest number of people would recognize/understand. I think there is nothing immoral with "ur" inherently, but being that it is usually done in laziness could be a matter of morality, and it is not the way that the greater population considers correct at this time so it would at least be immoral for the teacher to not correct. (I am actually thankful for this because I do happen to love English and love words--I just totally accept that language is fluid and that we once spoke English completely differently than we do now, and I don't think that is a morality issue, either!) I do have my own language pet-peeves, based on aesthetics, but I prefer to think of them as aesthetic issues.
I actually use the spelling grey, too. But I just thought that both were correct. (And on google chrome, there is no squiggly line for grey!)
Like I said, I generally teach high school lit/grammar/writing, and it matters much less there. Like Lawrence says, growing up in the South affects (I almost typed "colored") my spelling and pronunciations. I've always preferred "grey," for example--it seems more like the color than gray. I blithely ignore Firefox's red squiggly line and type away.
So, you will not teach Grace that there is a correct way for her to write the word color/colour or flavor/flavour, etc? You will let her decide?
LawrenceU
Puritan Board Doctor
It was, and it may be making a resurgence. After the War there was a concerted effort to standardise American English. It impacted schools in every state, but especially those of the South. In the South Oxford English was still the rule. There is more to that than mere spelling. There are also differences in punctuation, which actually make more sense; especially the use of quotation marks and commas.
PuritanZealot
Puritan Board Freshman
Sorry to wade in here, but I find it astonishing (and slightly pleasing) that the South still holds so vigorously onto those kinds of remnants of their independent heritage. It's almost like the few Scots who still speak properly. Dialect is an amazing thing and it is a sad day when a grandchild turns to their parent and asks 'what does granny mean' when she's talking, I know, I've been there, and watched my grandmothers Northumbrian dialect slowly perish.
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
I think what Ruben was trying to say (in my language) was . . .
Wif a mighty limited vocabulary, it is impostible t'make, o' at least t'express, impo'tant distinckshuns an' t'examine enny quesshun wif cornceppual care. Mah patients offen had no wo'ds t'dexcribe whut they were feelin', 'cept in th' crudess postible way, wif expostulashuns, exclamashuns, an' physical displays of emoshun. Offen, by guesswawk an' mah experience of other patients, ah c'd put thin's into wo'ds fo' them, wo'ds thet they grasped at eagerly. Ev'rythin' was on th' tip of their tongue, rarely o' nevah retchin' th' stage of expresshun out loud, cuss it all t' tarnation. They struggled even t'dexcribe in a cornsecutive an' logical fashion whut had happened t'them, at least wifout a great deal of promppin'. Complex narrative an' most abstrackshuns were closed t'them, dawgone it. In their dealin's wif autho'ity, they were at a huge disadvantage—a disaster, on account o' so menny of them depended upon various public bureaucracies fo' so menny of their needs, fum their housin' an' health care t'their income an' th' ejoocayshun of their chillun. ah w'd find mahse'f dealin' on their beha'f wif them bureaucracies, which were offen simultaneously bullyin' an' incompetent; an' whut officialdom had claimed fo' months o' even years t'be impostible suddenly, on mah intervenshun, became postible wifin a week. Shet mah mouth! Of course it was not mah mastery of language along thet prodooced this hyar result; rather mah mastery of language signaled mah capacity t'make serious trouble fo' th' bureaucrats eff'n they did not does as ah axed, cuss it all t' tarnation. ah do not reckon it is a coincidence thet th' offices of all them bureaucracies were increasin'ly installin' security barriers aginst th' physical attacks on th' staff by inraged but inarticulate dependents. (...) Beginnin' in th' 1950s, Basil Bernstein, a London Unyversity researcher, demonstrated th' difference between th' speech of middle- an' wawkin'-class chillun, corntrollin' fo' whutevah it is thet IQ measures. Wawkin'-class speech, tethard closely t'th' har an' now, lacked th' mighty aspecks of stan'ard English needed t'express abstrack o' juneral ideas an' t'place varmintal experience in tempo'al o' enny other perspeckive. Thus, unless Pinker's despised skoomarms were t'take th' wawkin'-class chillun in han' an' deliberately larn them t'other speech code, they were doomed t'remain whar they were, at th' bottom of a society thet was itse'f much th' poreer fo' not takin' full advantage of their abilities, an' thet indeed'd pay a steep penalty fo' not doin' so. An intellyjunt man who kin make no cornstruckive use of his intellyjunce is likely t'make a destruckive, an' se'f-destruckive, use of it.
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Or, as we used to say on the playground . . .
Ithway ayay eryvay imitedlay ocabularyvay, ityay isyay impossibleyay otay akemay, oryay atyay eastlay otay expressyay, importantyay istinctionsday andyay otay examineyay anyyay uestionqay ithway onceptualcay arecay. Ymay atientspay oftenyay adhay onay ordsway otay escribeday atwhay eythay ereway eelingfay, exceptyay inyay ethay udestcray ossiblepay ayway, ithway expostulationsyay, exclamationsyay, andyay ysicalphay isplaysday ofyay emotionyay. Oftenyay, ybay uessworkgay andyay ymay experienceyay ofyay otheryay atientspay, Iyay ouldcay utpay ingsthay intoyay ordsway orfay emthay, ordsway atthay eythay aspedgray atyay eagerlyyay. Everythingyay asway onyay ethay iptay ofyay eirthay onguetay, arelyray oryay evernay eachingray ethay agestay ofyay expressionyay outyay oudlay. Eythay uggledstray evenyay otay escribeday inyay ayay onsecutivecay andyay ogicallay ashionfay atwhay adhay appenedhay otay emthay, atyay eastlay ithoutway ayay eatgray ealday ofyay omptingpray. Omplexcay arrativenay andyay ostmay abstractionsyay ereway osedclay otay emthay. Inyay eirthay ealingsday ithway authorityyay, eythay ereway atyay ayay ugehay isadvantageday—ayay isasterday, incesay osay anymay ofyay emthay ependedday uponyay ariousvay ublicpay ureaucraciesbay orfay osay anymay ofyay eirthay eedsnay, omfray eirthay ousinghay andyay ealthhay arecay otay eirthay incomeyay andyay ethay educationyay ofyay eirthay ildrenchay. Iyay ouldway indfay yselfmay ealingday onyay eirthay ehalfbay ithway osethay ureaucraciesbay, ichwhay ereway oftenyay imultaneouslysay ullyingbay andyay incompetentyay; andyay atwhay officialdomyay adhay aimedclay orfay onthsmay oryay evenyay yearsay otay ebay impossibleyay uddenlysay, onyay ymay interventionyay, ecamebay ossiblepay ithinway ayay eekway. Ofyay oursecay ityay asway otnay ymay asterymay ofyay anguagelay alongyay atthay oducedpray isthay esultray; atherray ymay asterymay ofyay anguagelay ignaledsay ymay apacitycay otay akemay erioussay oubletray orfay ethay ureaucratsbay ifyay eythay idday otnay oday asyay Iyay askedyay. Iyay oday otnay inkthay ityay isyay ayay oincidencecay atthay ethay officesyay ofyay allyay osethay ureaucraciesbay ereway increasinglyyay installingyay ecuritysay arriersbay againstyay ethay ysicalphay attacksyay onyay ethay affstay ybay enragedyay utbay inarticulateyay ependentsday. (...) Eginningbay inyay ethay 1950say, Asilbay Ernsteinbay, ayay Ondonlay Universityyay esearcherray, emonstratedday ethay ifferenceday etweenbay ethay eechspay ofyay iddle-may andyay orking-classway ildrenchay, ontrollingcay orfay ateverwhay ityay isyay atthay IQyay easuresmay. Orking-classway eechspay, etheredtay oselyclay otay ethay erehay andyay ownay, ackedlay ethay eryvay aspectsyay ofyay andardstay Englishyay eedednay otay expressyay abstractyay oryay eneralgay ideasyay andyay otay aceplay ersonalpay experienceyay inyay emporaltay oryay anyyay otheryay erspectivepay. Usthay, unlessyay Inker'spay espisedday oolmarmsschay ereway otay aketay ethay orking-classway ildrenchay inyay andhay andyay eliberatelyday eachtay emthay anotheryay eechspay odecay, eythay ereway oomedday otay emainray erewhay eythay ereway, atyay ethay ottombay ofyay ayay ocietysay atthay asway itselfyay uchmay ethay oorerpay orfay otnay akingtay ullfay advantageyay ofyay eirthay abilitiesyay, andyay atthay indeedyay ouldway aypay ayay eepstay enaltypay orfay otnay oingday osay. Anyay intelligentyay anmay owhay ancay akemay onay onstructivecay useyay ofyay ishay intelligenceyay isyay ikelylay otay akemay ayay estructiveday, andyay elf-destructivesay, useyay ofyay ityay.
Ithway ayay eryvay imitedlay ocabularyvay, ityay isyay impossibleyay otay akemay, oryay atyay eastlay otay expressyay, importantyay istinctionsday andyay otay examineyay anyyay uestionqay ithway onceptualcay arecay. Ymay atientspay oftenyay adhay onay ordsway otay escribeday atwhay eythay ereway eelingfay, exceptyay inyay ethay udestcray ossiblepay ayway, ithway expostulationsyay, exclamationsyay, andyay ysicalphay isplaysday ofyay emotionyay. Oftenyay, ybay uessworkgay andyay ymay experienceyay ofyay otheryay atientspay, Iyay ouldcay utpay ingsthay intoyay ordsway orfay emthay, ordsway atthay eythay aspedgray atyay eagerlyyay. Everythingyay asway onyay ethay iptay ofyay eirthay onguetay, arelyray oryay evernay eachingray ethay agestay ofyay expressionyay outyay oudlay. Eythay uggledstray evenyay otay escribeday inyay ayay onsecutivecay andyay ogicallay ashionfay atwhay adhay appenedhay otay emthay, atyay eastlay ithoutway ayay eatgray ealday ofyay omptingpray. Omplexcay arrativenay andyay ostmay abstractionsyay ereway osedclay otay emthay. Inyay eirthay ealingsday ithway authorityyay, eythay ereway atyay ayay ugehay isadvantageday—ayay isasterday, incesay osay anymay ofyay emthay ependedday uponyay ariousvay ublicpay ureaucraciesbay orfay osay anymay ofyay eirthay eedsnay, omfray eirthay ousinghay andyay ealthhay arecay otay eirthay incomeyay andyay ethay educationyay ofyay eirthay ildrenchay. Iyay ouldway indfay yselfmay ealingday onyay eirthay ehalfbay ithway osethay ureaucraciesbay, ichwhay ereway oftenyay imultaneouslysay ullyingbay andyay incompetentyay; andyay atwhay officialdomyay adhay aimedclay orfay onthsmay oryay evenyay yearsay otay ebay impossibleyay uddenlysay, onyay ymay interventionyay, ecamebay ossiblepay ithinway ayay eekway. Ofyay oursecay ityay asway otnay ymay asterymay ofyay anguagelay alongyay atthay oducedpray isthay esultray; atherray ymay asterymay ofyay anguagelay ignaledsay ymay apacitycay otay akemay erioussay oubletray orfay ethay ureaucratsbay ifyay eythay idday otnay oday asyay Iyay askedyay. Iyay oday otnay inkthay ityay isyay ayay oincidencecay atthay ethay officesyay ofyay allyay osethay ureaucraciesbay ereway increasinglyyay installingyay ecuritysay arriersbay againstyay ethay ysicalphay attacksyay onyay ethay affstay ybay enragedyay utbay inarticulateyay ependentsday. (...) Eginningbay inyay ethay 1950say, Asilbay Ernsteinbay, ayay Ondonlay Universityyay esearcherray, emonstratedday ethay ifferenceday etweenbay ethay eechspay ofyay iddle-may andyay orking-classway ildrenchay, ontrollingcay orfay ateverwhay ityay isyay atthay IQyay easuresmay. Orking-classway eechspay, etheredtay oselyclay otay ethay erehay andyay ownay, ackedlay ethay eryvay aspectsyay ofyay andardstay Englishyay eedednay otay expressyay abstractyay oryay eneralgay ideasyay andyay otay aceplay ersonalpay experienceyay inyay emporaltay oryay anyyay otheryay erspectivepay. Usthay, unlessyay Inker'spay espisedday oolmarmsschay ereway otay aketay ethay orking-classway ildrenchay inyay andhay andyay eliberatelyday eachtay emthay anotheryay eechspay odecay, eythay ereway oomedday otay emainray erewhay eythay ereway, atyay ethay ottombay ofyay ayay ocietysay atthay asway itselfyay uchmay ethay oorerpay orfay otnay akingtay ullfay advantageyay ofyay eirthay abilitiesyay, andyay atthay indeedyay ouldway aypay ayay eepstay enaltypay orfay otnay oingday osay. Anyay intelligentyay anmay owhay ancay akemay onay onstructivecay useyay ofyay ishay intelligenceyay isyay ikelylay otay akemay ayay estructiveday, andyay elf-destructivesay, useyay ofyay ityay.
Which seems to prove Dalrymple's point quite nicely!
he beholds
Puritan Board Doctor
I don't have a problem with using the vernacular. Jesus did.
With one caveat--using outdated slang ("groovy!") ought to be wrong if it's not already.
Right...I think aesthetically some words or phrases are unbearable! (But unfortunately, we all have different preferences and groovy is probably going to stick around--like mom-jeans.)
ryanhamre
Puritan Board Freshman
I think we also need to keep in mind that we're currently using the confines of the English language in thinking there's a potential problem here.
The case could also be made that using terms that are applied to God to apply to things that are not at par with God can sometimes be an unavoidable situation.
How can anything be "beautiful", when God is the essence of beauty?
How can we call a Judge of our court system a "judge", or even "just", when they have a fallen mind? When they are tainted by sin? When they are partial?
How can we call a shirt out of the washer "clean" when only God can truly cleanse?
The other thing to keep in mind is that the terms we use to describe God don't even measure up to the infinitude of his indescribably awesome nature. So even using words that can be attributed to divinity are less than reality. Do we stop using these words to describe God's attributes? No, i think not.
Good question, I hope i answered it. My arm is broken, so one handed typing was a labor of love, i just hope it's not so abrupt that it appears cold or brash. God Bless.
The case could also be made that using terms that are applied to God to apply to things that are not at par with God can sometimes be an unavoidable situation.
How can anything be "beautiful", when God is the essence of beauty?
How can we call a Judge of our court system a "judge", or even "just", when they have a fallen mind? When they are tainted by sin? When they are partial?
How can we call a shirt out of the washer "clean" when only God can truly cleanse?
The other thing to keep in mind is that the terms we use to describe God don't even measure up to the infinitude of his indescribably awesome nature. So even using words that can be attributed to divinity are less than reality. Do we stop using these words to describe God's attributes? No, i think not.
Good question, I hope i answered it. My arm is broken, so one handed typing was a labor of love, i just hope it's not so abrupt that it appears cold or brash. God Bless.
Messala
Puritan Board Freshman
- Status
Similar threads
