| 12:22 am on Jan 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
found it ..avoués ..or avöués ..dates to 1100 "protector of the vassals"...even means mod' in the 13th century ..been here before? ;)
| 9:14 pm on Jan 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"Threw" was used instead of "through" on the BBC news site earlier this week, as in
"... flew threw the window, striking the woman ..."
They don't talk or spell proper on the Beeb these days ;)
My other pet hate is "pressurised" instead of "pressured". I hear the word used a lot in football (soccer) commentary. Aircraft cabins are pressurised, as are aerosol cannisters. Footballers are not. If they were, they'd explode.
| 3:31 pm on Jan 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|"Scapegoat" . . . used . . . to mean "one who is blamed" when in fact the scapegoat . . . was the animal who was used (still is in some places) to lead the other animals into the slaughter house. . . the goat is of course not killed and so for him "this place" is not personally threatening |
Where exactly do you get this explanation of "scapegoat"? I can't find it anywhere.
The English word was coined by William Tyndale in his 1530 Bible translation to render a difficult Hebrew word in Leviticus 16; the French expression is, similarly, used in French. The word refers to a goat used on the Day of Atonement. The sins of the people were confessed over him and he was sent out into the desert to "carry away the sins" of the people.
There is some debate about exactly how this goat was seen as functioning (and the related question of how best to translate the Hebrew), but no debate about whether Tyndale used (indeed coined) the word for this biblical passage. Since the traditional idea of a "scapegoat" taking/carrying the blame for others wrong deeds has most certainly long been a prominent interpretation of the biblical passage where's the problem?
As for the French term -- I cannot speak to the question of whether this term has a more complex history than the English one, a history that might include some sort of connection to the slaughterhouse image you describe. But if it is indeed derived (as 'scapegoat' was) from the Latin Vulgate's translation of Leviticus 16 (the Vulgate uses caper emissarius), this would seem to undermine your overall contention about the slaughterhouse image being the proper meaning & usage of the term.
| 4:52 pm on Jan 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Had the reply ready and hit the wrong button :( closed the page ..
The french version came from around the 17th century the century ..translation of the same bible text ..
The problem being that in the original text there are two goats in the ritual ..one is sacrificed and one is sent out .. ( the "sent out goat" being the "emissaire" ..no problem if the common usage of french or english referred to this one..) ..however both languages tend to use the "scapegoat" or "bouc emissaire" to mean either the goat who is sacrificed or the person who is sacrificed as opposed to being cast out..
"caper emissarius" was the one sent out ..so scapegoat cannot apply to the sacrificed animal ..
There is a wiki ( for what wiki's are worth ;)at #1 in "G" for search "bouc emissaire" here [fr.wikipedia.org] that is closest to the original ..( and that also shows as does the original hebrew text that one goat does indeed escape certain death ..this goat being the emissaire /emissary ..
There is also at #2 in "G" the following page [philophil.com] which distorts the original meaning into the goat which is immediately killed being the "emissaire"
note the use of the word "sacrifice" for the wrong goat ..
|Dans la litanie du rite, le sacrifice du bouc émissaire est destiné à calmer la colère des dieux, en réalité il apaise les pulsions agressives des hommes. |
The french have taken this latter distortion as being the definitive meaning ..
In modern french ..one searches for a "bouc emissaire" to punish them physically or even kill them ..in the stead of the truly guilty ..not in order to cast them out or towards ( emissaire ) an imagined deity ( azazel ) to live and take their chances ..
The english also tend to make the confusion ..albiet to a lesser degree ..
The origin of the explanation I used is simple ..in farming communities such as the one I grew up in in Ireland taking two animals ( or more ) to the place of slaughter and killing all except one had obvious parallels with the correct rendition of the original text ..and so the animal was named in many country slaughter houses in both Ireland and England ..How far back this usage goes I could not say ..many generations certainly ..
Badly translated biblical texts that enter into history as the definitive version have lead to many delusions as to what was originally in the hebrew or more accurately the Arameic..
sorry more errors than usual ..the heating is again broken ..very cold fingers typing at 4°c
[edited by: Leosghost at 5:08 pm (utc) on Jan. 9, 2006]
| 4:58 pm on Jan 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|The french have taken this latter distortion as being the definative meaning .. |
<snicker> see first post </snicker> ;)
| 5:00 pm on Jan 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Brain is cold too especially when reading in one language and typing in another ..you should be asleep ..not snickering ;))
gonna put some logs on and light the fire this is getting silly and it's getting dark here ..used "gonna" just ta rile ya Mr Earp
| 4:52 am on Jan 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It appears that your complaint is NOT with people misunderstanding the use of the term "scapegoat", but with the misunderstanding of some Bible translators centuries ago. In fact, whatever their misunderstanding of this rather obscure Hebrew word, it did in fact result in an English word "scapegoat". Indeed the historical roots of a word or term are in a sense irrelevant. Even if the meaning in this case was derived from a misunderstanding of Hebrew, the resulting meanings you complain about ARE the "definitive meanings" of these words! (That's why these are the meanings you will find in any dictionary.)
Actually, you are totally misreading the text if you think the goat that because the goat was not sacrificed but "set loose into the desert that it was somehow "off the hook" and free of danger. Quite the contrary, whatever the precise meaning of Azazel, the text explicitly states that this goat is for making atonement, and that the people's sins are put on it (by the priest's confessing their sins over it). Whether or not the goat dies (or how or when it dies)is irrelevant. We are specifically told that it is carrying someone ELSE'S guilt. This, of course, is the main point even of the extended use of "scapegoat" to people. (In fact, it is scarcely surprising that people should think of THIS goat as 'carrying the sins' of others more than the goat slain on the altar, for it is THIS goat that the text explicitly makes exactly that point about!)
On the other hand, the story you tell of a goat used to lure others to their doom may well be a genuine practice is some parts. And perhaps in such places the residents have decided to call this animal a "scapegoat". But I see no reason to regard that as "the" proper or original meaning of the word, especially since the early history of the word --via Tyndale's translation-- is clearly attested. (I do NOT see this alternate meaning in any dictionary.) My guess is that this use is a much later regionalism that borrowed from (and altered the sense of) the established expression.
| 5:32 am on Jan 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I often see "lost leader" when the writer intends the retail phrase "loss leader". Recently that misspelling got trumped by "lost litre". Oh my, that's so creative.
Funny thing -- I know the person who made that error and he is a very thirsty person. So I guess it makes a bit of poetic sense.
| 7:46 am on Jan 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Well I think this whole thread is rediculous ;)
| 8:08 am on Jan 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Back to miss uses and or miss spellings ( not always on websites ).. |
Please tell me this was intentional ;)
Isn't "miss" a young lady?
| 10:20 am on Jan 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Isn't "miss" a young lady? |
If you listen to the P. C. lobby, 'miss' only refers to a 'deferred hit'. All ladies, I am told, are to be referred to as 'Ms.', whatever that is. Personally I'd rather use red text on a green background than offer Ms. as an option on a form.
| 12:11 pm on Jan 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Actually, you are totally misreading the text if you think the goat that because the goat was not sacrificed but "set loose into the desert that it was somehow "off the hook" and free of danger. |
given the choice betwixt free and dead ..I would rather be free ..doubtless the goats would concur;)
attributing comments to me which I actually didn't make and then refuting them is convoluted to say the least ..
|somehow "off the hook" and free of danger |
|(In fact, it is scarcely surprising that people should think of THIS goat as 'carrying the sins' of others more than the goat slain on the altar, for it is THIS goat that the text explicitly makes exactly that point about!) |
Wrong ..Presumably you cant read this..
|celui du sacrifice de substitution, Lévitique IV:22-26, propose un sacrifice d'expiation propre au péché d'un chef, lequel rejaillit sur l'ensemble de la communauté : |
Si c'est un chef qui a péché, en faisant involontairement contre l'un des commandements de l'Éternel, son Dieu, des choses qui ne doivent point se faire et en se rendant ainsi coupable, et qu'il vienne à découvrir le péché qu'il a commis, il offrira en sacrifice un bouc mâle sans défaut. Il posera sa main sur la tête du bouc, qu'il égorgera dans le lieu où l'on égorge les holocaustes devant l'Éternel. C'est un sacrifice d'expiation. Le sacrificateur prendra avec son doigt du sang de la victime expiatoire, il en mettra sur les cornes de l'autel des holocaustes, et il répandra le sang au pied de l'autel des holocaustes. Il brûlera toute la graisse sur l'autel, comme la graisse du sacrifice d'actions de grâces. C'est ainsi que le sacrificateur fera pour ce chef l'expiation de son péché, et il lui sera pardonné.
And I charge for translation of long passages ..
Suffice it to say that does not mean "without blame" ..but means .with no physical defects ..the sacrificed goat is killed in place of he who is at fault ...the "emissaire" walks free ..
Strangely or ( maybe not so strangely ) enough in english.. bouc emissaire has been corrupted to "beau comissar" ..even further from the original meaning ;)..( what would a handsome communist party political manager have to do with it? )
However much as I find a certain amusement in this sort of discussion ..I feel it would be better if we let the thread return to it's original topic as it is somewhat futile for the two of us to be discussing any particular point ..You are of course at perfect liberty to decide that I am missunderstanding the examples which I present .. But for myself , your refutations would carry more weight if I knew you could actually read in the original french and understand them,the selfsame examples which I present ..I would not wish to tell a german speaker that they are missunderstanding a german text if I did not speak german myself ..that would be at best ..silly :)
[edited by: Leosghost at 12:23 pm (utc) on Jan. 10, 2006]
| 12:19 pm on Jan 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
vincevincevince ..presumably you would be in favour of the return to the practice of referring to young men under the age of 18 as master..in order to keep things equal ..and married women as madam ..or even goodwife or goody ..
"titles" on forms are so ridiculous anyway ..and so pompous ..
Women ( married or otherwise ) here are still required for many online ( and other ) forms ..to give their fathers name and or husbands name ..( in order for the forms to be legally acceptable .."valeur juridique"
Again we have a phrase which translates as "what do you call yourself " ..stupid idea ..I call myself me or I ..
| 12:40 pm on Jan 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|You are of course at perfect liberty to decide that I am missunderstanding the examples which I present |
You did it again ;)
I once worked in a drawing office and the senior draughtsman (UK!) asked me to make up the following notice.
I couldn't tell him because he was the boss :)
| 12:47 pm on Jan 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Oh my, that's so creative. |
Spoonerisms when combined with freudian slips are amazing ;)
| 1:01 pm on Jan 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The chinese beleive one should leave perfection to the gods ;)..
Air hostesses / Airhostesses? ..also have a phrase for it ;)
for some mysterious reason the system won't let me put a space in between "Airhostesses" and the? question mark ..?
[edited by: Leosghost at 1:14 pm (utc) on Jan. 10, 2006]
| 1:06 pm on Jan 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
OK instead of okay..
| 1:46 pm on Jan 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Popular consensus tends to lean to the origin as being "all correct" ..and that OK is the phonetic contraction of the phrase .."okay" couldn't therefore be "OK" as the contraction ..:) because it would be longer than was OK ..for a contraction :)
| 2:09 pm on Jan 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|your refutations would carry more weight if I knew you could actually read in the original french and understand them,the selfsame examples which I present |
A couple of points of clarification may be in order.
First, I am sorry if I implied or seemed to imply that you viewed the scapegoat in Lev 16 as simply getting "off the hook". I see that was an overstatment. But I don't think that changes the point I was making.
Second, about the French text. You presume incorrectly. I did briefly peruse it... and I see that there may be some "issues" there. But you misunderstand ME if you think I was responding to THAT text. In fact, I was at no point attempting to respond to that text, much less to refute your understanding of it. When I wrote "it is THIS goat that the text explicitly makes exactly that point about" the TEXT I was referring to was Leviticus 16 itself.
I thought the central point you were concerned from the start was with was how folks had misunderstood the BIBLICAL passage. So I spoke to that, rather than to what any particular commenatator may have said about it. It would probably be fruitless to start citing numerous commentators who clearly do NOT confuse the two goats, but I don't think the confusion of one or many have much to do with the original issue of whether people are using an English expression correctly.
At any rate, to explain my earlier points, I guess I need to cite THE text --Lev 16 itself (in English translation, though I'm prepared to discuss the Hebrew if necessary). For brevity's sake, I here cite only the key verses: 5 And he shall take from the congregation of the people of Israel TWO male goats for a SIN OFFERING, and one ram for a burnt offering.
8 And Aaron shall cast lots over the two goats, one lot for the Lord and the other lot for Azazel [traditionally 'scapegoat']. 9 And Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for the Lord and use it as a sin offering, 10 but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the Lord TO MAKE ATONEMENT OVER IT, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel.
21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and CONFESS OVER IT ALL THE INIQUITIES of the people of Israel, and ALL THEIR TRANSGRESSIONS, ALL THEIR SINS. And he SHALL PUT THEM ON THE HEAD OF THE GOAT and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who is in readiness. 22 THE GOAT SHALL BEAR ALL THEIR INIQUITIES ON ITSELF to a remote area, and he shall let the goat go free in the wilderness.
The words in capitals summarize the ROLE of the "scapegoat" (now understood as the goat "for Azazel"). Now there is a partial parallel in the role of the two goats (BOTH are called "sin offering"), and perhaps that has led some to confuse them. But that's a separate discussion, and has little to do with the original question of the meaning of English words. The only point germane to the present discussion is whether the "SCAPEGOAT" was in some way made to bear someone else's guilt. I think the words of the biblical text itself make that conclusion inescapable.
Finally, let me underline what has really been my main point all along. You brought this term up as an example of people making an English language mistake. I disagree. When folks use "scapegoat" in precisely the sense recorded in all the English dictionaries they are not misusing the English language! As far as the "original biblical meaning" issue, you are certainly free to accept or reject my argument that the use of the English term "scapegoat" is based on a CORRECT understanding of the biblical passage as regards the main issue (viz., carrying someone else's guilt). But I fail to see how a debate about the translation and interpretation of this Hebrew text determines what is "accepted English usage". (I also am still a bit perplexed about your point in introducing another scenario-- an alternate explanation of the term? -- which I can find in NO dictionary.)
| 2:44 pm on Jan 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Gimme a break! What are you guys on about? Wosn't this supposed to be a lite hearted thread?
| 2:50 pm on Jan 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
As Leosghost mentions, it is "okay" that is derviative. The short form is the original one.
The debate about the precise origins of this particular term is fascinating, with all sorts of stories attributing it to Andrew Jackson's spelling problems, etc. In fact, there are TWO pieces to the explanation --and unless they had come together it's very unlikely the term would be around today.
The story goes something like this:
The word was first used as an abbreviation for "Oll Korrect", NOT by Andrew Jackson, but in jest in newspapers of that time period (late 1830s), apparently first in the Boston area, where it became popular. This was just one example of many comical abbreviations of the period, part of a fad.
Shortly after this, Jackson' VP, Martin VanBuren, ran to succeed him as President. His supporters, who had dubbed him "Old Kinderhook", knew of the abbreviation and took advantage, making a deliberate wordplay as they started up "OK Clubs" for their man. This politically fortunate timing was key. Very likely, the original abbreviation would, like many others of its time, have been quickly forgotten. But its widepread use during the Presidential campaign gave it the chance to catch on across the country (gaining a popularity that long outlasted that of the unfortunate candidate, who upon his election was immediately saddled with a serious depression... the result of Jackson's foolish decision to destroy the Second National Bank!)
(After writing this up I recalled where I first read this explanation --at straightdope.com. Seems the matter was settled back in 1963-64 in a series of articles by Allen Walker Read appearing in the Journal American Speech. If you want more details, search the straightdope archives for "Old Kinderhook")
| 2:55 pm on Jan 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I do not read hebrew myself ( however I have had this passage translated for me into english and french by hebrew scholars ..long time ago ..long been a "bug bear" of mine ) they and I would continue to disagree with you ..
actually the original was in arameic and no-one is 100% sure of the correct translations of arameic ..hebrew texts being in themselves translations of it when relating to this particular time..
|You brought this term up as an example of people making an English language mistake |
No.. I brought it up as an example of people making in my opinion and that of others a mistake in english and particularly in french..you may care to read my original post with less self interest ..
|and I see that there may be some "issues" there. |
there are many issues there ;)..I still wonder if you can understand them ..as you declare
|But you misunderstand ME if you think I was responding to THAT text. In fact, I was at no point attempting to respond to that text, much less to refute your understanding of it. When I wrote "it is THIS goat that the text explicitly makes exactly that point about" the TEXT I was referring to was Leviticus 16 itself. |
Either you were being unclear about the text you were referring to ( not my fault ) or you are now attempting to shift the goalposts ..I do not profess to being a mind reader ..nor am I known to do dishes :)
for which I cannot be held responsible ;)
..in your definition and from your choice of bible translation ;)
I presume the insertion and the parenthesis to be your own ..my bibles do not have this "extra"..thus your following points depend on your "additions" thus
|[traditionally 'scapegoat'] |
is somewhat arrogant in it's assertion ;)
|(now understood as the goat "for Azazel") |
|Finally, let me underline what has really been my main point all along. You brought this term up as an example of people making an English language mistake. |
Again read my original post where you and ( everyone else ..I think "they" did ;) can see that actually what riles me the most about this term is it's misuse by the french far more so than it's occasional misuse by the english ;)) donc
I presume however that I and and everyone else ( they are numerous .. whom you have taken to task in this thread ..things must be "slack" ) can agree on the meaning of pedant ..long time since we regulars here have seen one down here ..mostly we come here for the laughs rather than to seek to impress ..
Like "BEEDEE" says normally "here" is "lighthearted"
now off to do some work ;) fol de rol fol de rol
| 3:06 pm on Jan 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Gimme a break! What are you guys on about? Wosn't this supposed to be a lite hearted thread? |
Wow ..beedee you must have been "ticked" normally you speel far less "other side of the pondish" than that!
Apologies to you and the rest of the regulars for the atmosphere ..used to a different sort of badinage here I am too :)
| 3:23 pm on Jan 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|If you listen to the P. C. lobby, 'miss' only refers to a 'deferred hit'. All ladies, I am told, are to be referred to as 'Ms.', whatever that is |
And however you pronounce it! Used to be I would hear "mizz" a lot. But nowadays it's (or I'm!) confused. It seems that "Ms" has, for many, simply become THE abbreviation for "Miss", and they pronounce it the same way.
That's OK... except that BOTH those who prefer "miss" and those who insist on "mizz" may be insulted if you use the "wrong" abbreviation or pronunciation. If I'm forced to chose without having heard someone's preference, I make my best guess. . . and duck!
| 4:26 pm on Jan 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
A little more light hearted would be the decision to leave off the "g" for "ing" words...thinkin', talkin', speakin'. I notice this because I caught myself saying this to my children! It started as an attempt at being silly..then it became a habit. I'm on the road to recovery ;)
| 4:57 pm on Jan 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It must of been hard breaking the 'abit.
| 7:59 pm on Jan 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
okay ... ohkay ... oh kay ... ocay ... oh cay ... owk aye ... oughk aye ...
Nah, I prefer the original "OK"
| 9:38 pm on Jan 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
| 10:16 pm on Jan 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I was going to add "och aye"
..mae ..dinna hae tha ( liathróidi ) "nerves" ;))..
|okay ... ohkay ... oh kay ... ocay ... oh cay ... owk aye ... oughk aye ... |
OK WTH ;)
| 8:31 pm on Jan 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|All ladies, I am told, are to be referred to as 'Ms.', whatever that is. |
I once heard someone answer that it stood for "maybe single" :)
I'm sure it doesn't, but I liked it, added an air of mystery ;)
| 3:17 am on Jan 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Another one I'm tripping over right and left is "seam" instead of "seem". Sometimes it's used consistently, many times throughout a post.
| This 137 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 137 ( 1 2 3  5 ) > > |