Well, it's not a lonely solo. The forum is a rather tightly-knit group, with more-or-less a single motivation. Even those who are not known to me are, by virtue of that not strangers to me in their purposes or intents. The silent interlocutors in the shadows beyond the soliloquy's well-lit circle.Wes Wood wrote: Whether you are aware of it or not, I have enjoyed most of your solo posts.
It is generally thought that higher order thinking and advancement of knowledge comes engagement with others, employing a conceptually rich and well-patterned metalanguage. An ever more finely variegated system of description is thought to allow for seeing things more clearly, but there is another side to that. By adding further definitional clarity to an existing system of classification we actually entrench and assume that the previous categorisations by using them as the basis for subclassification. That of course is not a novel observation of mine - in your field, species and genera are reclassified or differently arranged as the need arises or as different researchers determine. Analysis of large corpora of texts to determine meaning, more-or-less assumes that one or more meanings are there to be found. The meaning of ἐπικείμενος is only listed as "lie upon" "in contact with a surface", but I would need to have the hint that the meaning was possibly "be placed over" (as opposed to "in contact with". The other glosses given for the word are sort of worked out from this pseudo-etymological basis too. If we were looking for the gap between the thing lain "upon" and the thing laid "upon", it is too difficult to find. It is not in the text - words, etc., it is in the nature of the things. Here is [url]flicker image[/url] of one possible cooking arrangement. The LSJ entry gives an example of islands being not in contact. Storms (χειμών) are up in the air, and the attempts by Paul and the others to see the heavenly bodies suggest that the storm was "looming over" them, at least it was in the region of the atmosphere were storms have their natural place, blocking their view, not immanently down with them making them uncomfortable.Wes Wood wrote: What I actually had in mind when I made that comment was that you would be more likely to reap some benefit if someone else interacted with your thoughts. However, since it was I who responded, maybe I should say, "you were infinitesimally more likely to reap some benefit."
The same could be said of the "missing" third category of meaning in φιλέω, ie "to be in a relationship of mutual benefit or reciprocal advantage" could only be found in a search, if one was looking for it. With the current two meanings (one being the extension of the other), "like / love", and "express ones feelings of liking / loving by affection" that we read in BDAG, we are left thinking in the realm of personal emotions and affectations. Φιλέω is manifestly a social word in it's basic meaning - part of the interrelatedness of society. The compounds like φιλότεκνος etc. also appear to be emotional, affectionate or internal in the present glossing. "Loving" or "hugging and kissing" one's husband and children, is quite different from "putting their interests before or one an equal footing with her own". To explicate the socially defined expectations of φίλος / φιλέω, the meaning of a word like φιλοφρόνως could be scaffolded as "having in mind to put our interests before his own, as social mores dictate one should do for a φίλος." The (physical) "gap" between the (bed of) coal(s) and the fish comes from a knowledge of how cooking is done, and how coals are extinguished by dropping a lump of bread drough onto them - experience with something, and the cause and effect reasoning are we might call "common sense". The "gap" of the assumed or unstated common knowledge of where a φίλος fits into one's life and what the social expectations of what the verb φιλέω involved, both form the "common sense" background to the word. We haven't undergone the socialisation processes to "instinctively" what should or shouldn't be done for a φίλος, but we could assume that what is described in the New Testament at least forms a subset of what constitutes φιλία. Some of those reciprocal things in a φίλος - φίλος relationship evidenced in the New Testament are ξενίζειν "to show hospitality / to 'mi casa es su casa' somebody" (Acts 28:7), ἐπιμελείας τυχεῖν "to care for the needs of ones φίλος" (Acts 27:3), χρῆσόν τίνι τί "to do somebody a favour (cf. δανείζειν which takes place outside a φίλος - φίλος relationship) and lend him something" (Luke 11:5), παρατίθημι τίνι τί, "to set something before somebody as a meal" (Luke 11:6). In John 21:15-19 applying the concept of φιλία as socially structured reciprociety or mutual obligation, we might get a conversation that could be recomposed spelling out the relationship of mutual umposition, in terms that avoid imposing, something like:Acts 27:20 wrote: Μήτε δὲ ἡλίου μήτε ἄστρων ἐπιφαινόντων ἐπὶ πλείονας ἡμέρας, χειμῶνός τε οὐκ ὀλίγου ἐπικειμένου,
- J: Hey Shimon, we're best mates, right?
- P: Yeah, you've seen for yourself that I've got your back.
- J: Ay. If you do one thing for me, do this, see that the lambs get enough to eat.
- J (after a time of silence): We are mates, right, aren't we?
- P: Yeah, just think about how many times I've stuck my neck out for you.
- J: Well, keep an eye on the sheep, if you could do that for me.
- J (after a while longer): You do look out for my interests, don't you?
- P: Quit bugging me with all these questions, you don't need to butter me up to get a favour out of me. Look, you're a thinking kind of guy, and you, you've even had first-hand experience of me looking after things for you.
- J: Right-o, then. Will you please make sure the sheep are well-fed.
Stephen Hughes wrote:Turn taking is a conversational strategy that is familiar to people from English speaking countries being socialised early on, but it is a learnt rather than innate communicative strategy. In some cultures the preference is for talking all at the same time on generally the same topic, but not really listening intently to each other - from (moderator) comments on that style that come up later, it seems that that is not a familiar conversational strategy. Even in a soliloquy there are ways of engaging the reader such as rhetorical questions, statements like "imagine for a moment" or provocative / challenging statements. A monologue evokes negative feelings in an English speaking environment, because it challenges both the turn-taking conversational strategy that has been socialised into us from an early age, and it also appears dogmatic - with dogmatism or any form of restriction of the allowance of individual expression being seen as negative in dominant English speaking cultures. In soliloquy, while not as socially acceptable as turn-taking, never-the-less enables readers are able to identify with one side or other of the "characters" debating a topic in language, that would usually be done conceptually and in parallel using the i-language without the restrictions of the linearity of speech. That linearisation of thought into speech - the communicative style restricted by the organs of artuculation - using several alternating view points in effect panders (actually acquiesces) to turn-taking norms of English. Having somebody else active in a thread relieves the need to politely vacillate to avoid the appearance of dogmatism. In other words, it's great that you have given a form of cultural legitimacy to this thread by participating in it.Wes Wood wrote:At the very least, I imagine any interaction at all is better than a soliloquy
All true.
Whether you are aware of it or not, I have enjoyed most of your solo posts. What I actually had in mind when I made that comment was that you would be more likely to reap some benefit if someone else interacted with your thoughts. However, since it was I who responded, maybe I should say, "you were infinitesimally more likely to reap some benefit."
Statistics: Posted by Wes Wood — January 24th, 2017, 8:44 pm
Turn taking is a conversational strategy that is familiar to people from English speaking countries being socialised early on, but it is a learnt rather than innate communicative strategy. In some cultures the preference is for talking all at the same time on generally the same topic, but not really listening intently to each other - from (moderator) comments on that style that come up later, it seems that that is not a familiar conversational strategy. Even in a soliloquy there are ways of engaging the reader such as rhetorical questions, statements like "imagine for a moment" or provocative / challenging statements. A monologue evokes negative feelings in an English speaking environment, because it challenges both the turn-taking conversational strategy that has been socialised into us from an early age, and it also appears dogmatic - with dogmatism or any form of restriction of the allowance of individual expression being seen as negative in dominant English speaking cultures. In soliloquy, while not as socially acceptable as turn-taking, never-the-less enables readers are able to identify with one side or other of the "characters" debating a topic in language, that would usually be done conceptually and in parallel using the i-language without the restrictions of the linearity of speech. That linearisation of thought into speech - the communicative style restricted by the organs of artuculation - using several alternating view points in effect panders (actually acquiesces) to turn-taking norms of English. Having somebody else active in a thread relieves the need to politely vacillate to avoid the appearance of dogmatism. In other words, it's great that you have given a form of cultural legitimacy to this thread by participating in it. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — January 22nd, 2017, 10:36 pmWes Wood wrote: At the very least, I imagine any interaction at all is better than a soliloquy
Good news / bad news. The bad news is that I didn't have anything useful in my notes. I thought that I might because I remember making note of different ways of saying 'daily bread'. The good news is that I took a few minutes to dig up anything that I could find that I thought you might find useful, though it is likely nothing you haven't done on your own already. At the very least, I imagine any interaction at all is better than a soliloquy Aristoph. Pl. 1135 εἴ μοι πορίσας ἄρτον τιν᾽ εὖ πεπεμμένον δοίης καταφαγεῖν καὶ κρέας νεανικὸν ὧν θύεθ᾽ ὑμεῖς ἔνδον. Xen. Cyrop. 6.2 ὡς οὖν μὴ ἐξαπίνης ἄοινοι γενόμενοι νοσήμασι περιπίπτωμεν, ὧδε χρὴ ποιεῖν: ἐπὶ μὲν τῷ σίτῳ νῦν εὐθὺς ἀρχώμεθα πίνειν ὕδωρ: τοῦτο γὰρ ἤδη ποιοῦντες οὐ πολὺ μεταβαλοῦμεν. καὶ γὰρ ὅστις ἀλφιτοσιτεῖ, ὕδατι μεμαγμένην ἀεὶ τὴν μᾶζαν ἐσθίει, καὶ ὅστις ἀρτοσιτεῖ, ὕδατι δεδευμένον τὸν ἄρτον, καὶ τὰ ἑφθὰ δὲ πάντα μεθ᾽ ὕδατος τοῦ πλείστου ἐσκεύασται. μετὰ δὲ τὸν σῖτον ἐὰν οἶνον ἐπιπίνωμεν, οὐδὲν μεῖον ἔχουσα ἡ ψυχὴ ἀναπαύσεται. Strab. 17.2 ᾿αληθὲς δὲ καὶ τὸ Ἡροδότου καὶ ἔστιν Αἰγυπτιακὸν τὸ τὸν μὲν πηλὸν ταῖς χερσὶ φυρᾶν, τὸ δὲ στέαρ τὸ εἰς τὴν ἀρτοποιίαν τοῖς ποσί. Hp. VM 3 διὰ δὴ ταύτην τὴν αἰτίην καὶ οὗτοί μοι δοκέουσι ζητῆσαι τροφὴν ἁρμόζουσαν τῇ φύσει καὶ εὑρεῖν ταύτην, ᾗ νῦν χρεώμεθα. ἐκ μὲν οὖν τῶν πυρῶν βρέξαντές σφας καὶ πτίσαντες καὶ καταλέσαντές τε καὶ διασήσαντες καὶ φορύξαντες καὶ ὀπτήσαντες ἀπετέλεσαν ἄρτον, ἐκ δὲ τῶν κριθέων μᾶζαν: Hp. VM 13 τὸ μὲν γὰρ βεβαιότατόν τε καὶ προφανέστατον φάρμακον ἀφελόντα τὰ διαιτήματα, οἷς ἐχρῆτο, ἀντὶ μὲν τῶν πυρῶν ἄρτον διδόναι, ἀντὶ δὲ τῶν ὠμῶν κρεῶν ἑφθά, πιεῖν τε ἐπὶ τούτοισιν οἴνου. Statistics: Posted by Wes Wood — January 21st, 2017, 10:52 am
Thanks Wes, The phrases there, that use φυράω firstly in the sense of "mix in water" (ἢ πολλῷ ὕδατι πεφυρημένος ἢ ὀλίγῳ "either mixed with a lot of water or a little"), or secondly in the sense of "knead" (ἢ ἰσχυρῶς πεφυρημένος ἢ ἀφύρητος "kneaded vigorously or left unkneaded"), are things that happen prior to roasting / baking. The passive participle or the passive adjective suggest that it was a previous action, rather than a current one - that the φύραμα (< φυράω) had become ἄρτος after roasting / baking. Just how much roasting / baking is then spelt out - over-cooked or under-cooked bread is still called bread (ἢ ἔξοπτος ἢ ἔνωμος,), i.e. the boundaries of the philosophical opposites for bread are set within the range of "cooked". I'm more familiar with the logos and colours of packaging for bread in the supermarket, than I am with the production process, but it seems that Hippocrates definition of bread - the range within which bread differs is like this: Bread
- can either have the bran sifted out, or have it left in.
- is made from wheat (πυρός) (either winnowed or not).
- is made by mixing in water (whether a little or a lot)
- could be kneaded or not.
- is cooked (either a lot or a little).
At your convenience. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — January 17th, 2017, 4:22 amWes Wood wrote: I may have some other references like this scattered through my "Greek Readings" notebooks.
Having seen the word in several different contexts, I would say that it is used similarly to how we use it. Bread being generally viewed as the finished product, but it could be further warmed or toasted. Here is a reference you may find helpful. After clicking the link, read the Greek text from the beginning and you will find the portion of greatest interest quickly. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0249%3Atext%3Dvm%3Asection%3D14 I may have some other references like this scattered through my "Greek Readings" notebooks. If you are interested, let me know. I keep notes of things that I find interesting or helpful. Hope this helps. Statistics: Posted by Wes Wood — January 17th, 2017, 12:09 am
βλέπουσιν ἀνθρακιὰν κειμένην καὶ ὀψάριον ἐπικείμενον, καὶ ἄρτον. Am I reasonable in imagining this as either a shallow trench scraped out on the beach with the displaced earth rising up a little with embers in the trench, or if it is on solid ground, some rocks around the ember. In any case, the fish is presumably not laid on the coal directly, but might have been skewered with a twig or skewer, and in the absence of a lakeside oven, the bread dough may also have been wrapped around a twig or skewer and set (on the embankment of displaced earth or rocks placed around the coal) roasting over the hot coal. A fish placed on the coal would be burnt and have the charcoal stuck to it and in it - not an inviting breakfast! The point of my question is whether ἄρτος, rather than φύραμα "dough" can refer to "bread" during the cooking process? The meaning of ἐπικείμενον in context here is more or less "cooking over". Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — January 16th, 2017, 8:41 pm