Everyone has significant events that shape their lives and lots of people have rather strange ones. This morning I was thinking of three weird events that contributed to my becoming a research scholar. They all happened over a four-year period, from ages 14-17. There were: getting bored with 9th grade Latin; getting hepatitis; and going to a fundamentalist Bible college.
First, the Latin. In grade school we all took Spanish. I wasn’t any good at it and I didn’t much like it. I had no particular interest in languages, at all. Then in 9th grade we had to take a language and the choices, as I recall, were Spanish, German, French, and Latin. I was the kind of kid who liked to do things differently from everyone else; most kids were heading to Spanish, but I knew I didn’t do well there. German and French – kind of the same thing, modern languages I wasn’t interested in. I thought, well, Latin’s a bit unusual: maybe I’ll do that.
I rather enjoyed it, but as it got harder, I got bored and frustrated. In large part that was from not working much at it. Once we got past manus manum lavit and vestis virum facit, I was pretty much uninterested and unmotivated.
But this was 1972 and some of you remember what American education was like back then. My school had a late 60s early 70s model of education, and, as a result, there was a program called Quest, where, if you chose, you could design your *own* course (forget about having someone who has any expertise tell you what you might want to learn about or need to know!). It was a kind of self-motivated independent study. It required you to strike out on your own, design a class, get a teacher to agree to direct your work, and then spend a semester doing it. It was supposed to be related to some other academic topic, usually one that you were getting out of in order to do it.
So to get out of doing Latin, I proposed a Quest. It was to invent an international space language. The rationale for the course (you had to have a rationale), was that with space exploration still in its heyday, it would not be long until we colonized the moon and possibly other planets, and it would be an international effort. We would need some kind of international language. Esperanto wasn’t going to work (I knew nothing about Esperanto, but I claimed it wasn’t going to work) and so we needed something designed for the purpose. That’s what I was going to do.
I knew NOTHING about linguistics, philology, or anything else of much relevance, just what I knew from speaking English at a solid 9th grade level, having some very slight sense of a Romance language (Spanish), and knowing a little bit about how an inflected language worked (Latin).
The one thing I had always found frustrating in those few semesters of language I had taken were all the irregularities. Of course when it came to English it was “common sense” that the plural of “ball” would be “balls” BUT the plural of “child” would be “children,” the plural of “mouse” would be “mice,” and the the plural of “trout” would be “trout.” What could be more obvious? Or that the past tense of “work” would be “worked” BUT the past tense of “be” would be “was” and of “swim” “swam” and of “cut” “cut.” But why such irregularities in *other* languages? We should get rid of those!
And so I wanted to design a language with no irregularities.
And since it was international, it should use word roots widely recognized throughout the world. My world, at the time, of course, was the Western World.
And so I proposed my one-semester Quest to be to design the language Relunar Relingua. The Moon Language.
It would be governed by word order, like English (not that disrespect for order you get in some other languages, like Latin!). It would not be inflected. There would be no irregularities. It would have easy to recognize parts of speech. And it would contain words with Indo-European roots.
And so, among the highlights (!)
- Every noun was to begin with “Re.” Why RE? I have no idea. But it certainly made nouns recognizable, even though, I came to realize, sentences were, as a result, somewhat less than esthetically pleasing.
- There were similar markers, perfectly consistent with no exceptions, for every ambiguous part of speech (is this an adjective or an adverb?)
- Every verb had a consistent pattern of past, present, and future (etc.)
I asked my Latin teacher to direct the project, since, well, she was good with languages. She pretty much left me to my own devices, and we consulted periodically for her to give some guidance.
I constructed the grammar. And then I made a dictionary. (This sounds sophisticated, but trust me, it was very much on the 9th grade level, by someone who had no knowledge of linguistics). For the dictionary: I went through European-language dictionaries (French, German, Spanish, and Italian, along with English of course) for all the words in the dictionary, and went with the most common root – that is, the one found in most of the languages.
There was only one thing that my teacher refused to let me do. Looking back, this is kind of funny. She pointed out that every language has irregular verbs – especially for the most common ones (“to be,” “to do,” etc.) She flat out insisted I have irregular verbs. So I had to create them! The reason that’s funny is because – as I intuited at the time and later came to realize more fully (maybe she missed that bit in college?) — the reason these verbs are consistently irregular is precisely because they get used so much. So many people using the same word will lead to slight differences in pronunciation which leads to variant forms. But this was a language no one had spoken yet!
Anyway, Relunar Relingua changed my life. In one sense, it would have been much, much better for me to have gotten good at Latin (I regret that to this day; now, as a 65-year-old I *still* have to work on my Latin and almost every day and wish it were better) (though actually working on it is terrifically satisfying). In another sense, that little project started me thinking about how language actually works. The process of thinking about language came to be incredibly handy when I first started taking a language seriously, in college when I took Greek. I doubt I could have become good at it if I hadn’t already had the wiring to understand a language. The wiring started with this crazy Quest. Without it, I would not have become intrigued by Greek, and would probably not have become a research scholar. Go figure.
In case anyone asks: unfortunately, I don’t remember much more about Relunar Relingua. Also I don’t have the grammar or dictionary any more. Really wish I did. Think the got thrown out years ago when my parents moved house. To bad: it would be a good laugh.
I’ll talk about hepatitis and my fundamentalist college later. But here I’ll just point out that they too are not typically along the path to an academic career.
You ought to publish Relunar Relingua. You never know, it could end up replacing Esperanto as the putative international language or at least take its place among other artificial languages, like Klingon and Tolkien’s Elvish.
I feel sorry for Esperanto. It had a lot going for it but somehow English just seemed more popular internationally.
I studied Latin from age 11 to age 18 and loved it but it was a continuous struggle to master it. I did ancient Greek for 2 years (age 14-15) and just took to it like a duck to water, and I have no natural talent for foreign languages. So I know what you mean. (? Perhaps I was Socrates in a past life ?)
Please forgive another query from me relating to Luke’s genealogy.
Luke 3:23 says
καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν Ἰησοῦς ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα
now Jesus was beginning when He was about thirty years (old)
ὢν υἱός ὡς ἐνομίζετο
being (the) son as was supposed
Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἠλὶ
of Joseph the son of Eli
However, I have recently read the following interpretation of the way this SHOULD be translated:
The name “Joseph” in Luke 3:23 is the only name in the list without the definite article. (Each name In Matthew’s genealogy also has the article.) This is compelling evidence that this name ought not be read as part of Luke’s genealogical list; rather, it is part of the parenthetical statement inserted in that verse.
Thus, the verse should read, “Jesus Himself . . . being the son (as was supposed of Joseph) of Eli.”
It is not Joseph who is “the son of Eli,” but Jesus. Eli is best identified as the father of Mary.
Please can you comment on this alternative translation and say if the Greek allows it.
Ha! OK, so Jesus the son of Eli. And where is Eli identified as the father of Mary? And if he is the father of Mary and the father of Jesus was it a case of incest?
Yes, Joseph is the only name without an article, but the article in the other cases is used as a genitive or relationship needed because the entire list never says “son of ” (υἰος). The last one does, apparently because it is the last one in the list. So with “son of” there is no need for the article. Yes, Matthew does have the article with Jospeh but the construction is completely different; it wouldn’t make sense there to leave out the article because then the following article used in attribution to ανδρα would seem weird. That’s a long way of saying it’s a huge stretch that seems a bit desperate. 🙂
May I ask who is making this interpretation?
Further to my query re the translation of Luke 3:23 the alternative view was suggested by A.T. Robertson (Archibald Thomas Robertson (November 6, 1863 – September 24, 1934) who you may know was a Southern Baptist preacher and biblical scholar at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS), Louisville, Kentucky (Th. M., 1888), where he was thereafter instructor and professor of New Testament interpretation whose work focused on the New Testament and Koine Greek.(Wikipedia)
I actually read of this suggested translation following an Internet search on the following site:
biblestudytools.com › robertsons-word-pictures
http://www.biblestudytools.com › robertsons-word-pictures
Cached
“Read Luke 3:23 commentary using Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament. Study the bible online using commentary on Luke 3:23 and more!”
Thank you for answering my query. I’m in debate with my oldest (fundamentalist friend) and when I came across Robertson’s translation suggestion I felt it was only intellectually honest of me to tell him about it (as it appears to support his case) and to pursue it further.
He says he is looking for reasons for the differences in the genealogies but I fear that that is not so and that he will only hearken to people he believes are ‘safe’. I feel I must try however!
Yes, Robertson was a fine scholar in many ways; but like so many others, he sometimes drew conclusions or made assertions that were based on his beliefs more than on the evidence. That’s not a good way to go about translating Greek.
I had to take Latin 2 in summer school. And when I got to biblical Hebrew in grad school, it bent my brain.. Reading from right to left, without vowels or punctuation — a single string of nonRoman letters! (Studying biblical Hebrew at Div.School caused me to drop out.)
So, a language question on theodicy for Bart:
One day years later, while pondering Psalm 22 v.1, it hammered me that English renderings in all translations begged the question: My God, my God WHY have you forsaken me?
The WHY in English does not seem to appear in Hebrew. My personal rendering would be “My God, my God, HAVE you forsaken me?” – following up with an emphatic NO! – David seems to be saying “HELLO, are You still with me, Lord?” Instead of asking an accusatory question: “Hey, why did You dump me?” Further along in the psalm, David revisits the many times he has been delivered by the Lord.
¿Am I being presumptuous in observing that the reigning renderings are faulty? Jesus quotes David from the cross. Did he really believe he had been abandoned?
Thanks! ~eric @ MeridaGOround.
The Hebrew uses LaMaH — “for what reason” — no? My God, my God, for what reason have you abandoned me?
“Relingua” must be “language,” right? So shouldn’t “Relunar” be an adjective, ie, the “lunar” language? But “Relunar” has the Re-marker for a noun. Is this two nouns or an adjective modifying a noun?
Nouns do sometimes get used as adjectives, no? At least with man-speak. But if you’re criticizing the syntactical skills of a ninth-grader … well, OK then! (I wonder if that’s how some nouns originally come into existence? E.g., sun beam; sun spot; sun day. (!)
No, I’m not criticizing ninth-grade Bart. Moon Language is indeed a cute and very catchy way of saying it! I think I was thrown off by the fact that Relunar already seems to contain the English adjective lunar. Perhaps it’s just one of the many faux amis that exist between English and Relunar Relingua.
Thank you very much for this post! I have three questions, all pertaining to areas which your scholarship touches on. I totally understand if you’re busy and eagerly anticipate your book on Revelation. These are minor things I’m curious about.
1. I’m reading Popper’s “Open Society”, he asserts that “soul” and “race” are linked in antiquity. This view would be substantially more expansive than that given by you, that it was more or less like “breath”. I disagree with aspects of Popper’s text (I lean towards Kropotkin), particularly his take on Crito, but don’t speak Greek so can’t really assess either way. If there’s somewhere I can go to read further I’d appreciate it.
2. Someone I know asserted the “Blood Libel” myth arose from pagan persecution of Christian Jews in Lyon in CE 160, where I always thought it developed substantially later and among Christians rather than pagans. When asked for a source they linked to the following: “https://brill.com/view/book/9789004332836/B9789004332836-s015.xml” but libraries are shut at the moment. Any thoughts?
3. Did you consider Enoch 10 when writing Heaven and Hell? I’ve yet to read it but have seen talks you’ve given, it seems to speak of eternal imprisonment.
Thanks once again!
1. I really don’t know what he means; I guess because I don’t know what he means by “race” — especially in an ancient context; 2. I don’t know about that either. I do know about the persecution in Lyon quite well (it’s discussed in a letter from the church of Lyon quoted in Eusebius) but I can’t think of anything related to blood libel off hand; 3. I do talk about 1 Enoch, but mainly the two journeys, and especially the description of the pits containing the souls of the dead in book 22.
I was always fascinated as a kid hearing that Tolkien made up languages for his world. Didn’t realize he had a little bit of training in that field.
Any suggestions/resources for novices wanting to try their hand at learning Greek?
Oh yes, he was quite a linguist. My only suggestion is that if you find any online or hard copy resources, you have someone who really does know the language help you. It is extremely easy to get really important things wrong….
I wish I would have taken education seriously. In our day it was tough to take education seriously and listen to the Beatles White album or The Doors.
You had the discipline to forge ahead and educate yourself. I had to go into the military three times. The academic……and military world was no better off having had me involved with them. Good work surviving “ our generation “ “ Dazed and Confused “ ha
Ah, I listened to the Beatles all the time. Still do. And the Doors, though I found them a bit dark for my taste…. Still, on occasion these days, still….
Spelling, pronunciation and grammar could be so much simpler in the English language. I wonder what would be the result if we didn’t have to devote so much of our gray matter to memorize all the rules as well as all the exceptions to the rules!
Yeah, English is a horribly difficult language. On the other hand, lots of English speakers seem to have plenty of brain space to come up with flat out amazing scientific and humanist discoveries. Maybe learning language helps rather htan holds us back? (Not just English of course; I find German very difficult, e.g., even though I have to read it all the time; French is much, much easier — for me at least.)
And a few decades later, you came up with a language called Bartish,
a language for the poor in spirit and for academics. And for those few who cares.
Using Google Translate on Bible Gateway to translate foreign language Bibles yields some funny results.
For example the Luther Bible (1545)
“You are the salt of the earth. Now where the salt becomes stupid, what should one salt it with?”
Steaks are good and tender, but the cocktails are second rate. (The flesh is willing but the spirit is weak)
Ah, you were a conlanger … of sorts … cool. Albeit on the wrong side of the artlang/auxlang divide. (A conlang is a constructed, i.e. invented, language. If it is approached as form of art it’s an artlang, and if it is approached as a solution for social ills, like Esperanto, it’s an auxlang. Artlangers love irregularities, auxlangers don’t.)
I dabbled in conlanging back in the day. It was fun and also a great way to learn a little linguistics. I was especially interested in quirky grammars, but not so interested in fleshing out details.