brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at lojban.org
Tue Sep 3 15:26:05 EST 2002


"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
>> > Note that Jehudi was a son [read: descendant] of the Cushi:
>>
>> No, John look back at your own quote. It is not "the Cushi" which would
>> probably indicate membership in the tribe, but simply Cushi, used as a
>name.
>
>First you argue that "Yhudiy" is just another way to spell "Yhudah",

No it is not "just another way".  It is in particular THE way that the
word is spelled when used as a patronymic.

>even though it has two different Strong's numbers

Strong's numbers reflect differences in the English at least as much
as they represent differences in the Hebrew or Greek.

>and represents two entirely different and separate races,

No evidence of that.

>and now you have "Cushi" which even Strong's
>states is a patronymic from "Cush", and you deny the relationship?

Oh certainly it is a patronymic of Cush.  

But 

1) you can't use the one patronymic and ignore the other, as you try
to do.
2) the patronymic when applied to an entire people clearly indicates
the ancestry of the people. When applied as an individual's given name
it could have many other explanations, including a matronymic or
adoptive relationship.

The inability to figure individual names is why you will have trouble
explaining "Cushi the Benjaminite" from Psalms.

>> Now the person would probably not have gotten this name, if there were not
>> some reference intended to the Cushites, but that could simply be that
>> someone had kidded him about being "as dark as a Cushite", or talking like
>a
>> Chsuite or anything else, and the name stuck.If the author had intended to
>> say that this servant of the king was a Cushite, he would have done so,
>
>First you argued that Mordecai's genealogy was listed because "genealogy was
>always important in this region", and now you're arguing that it's
>meaningless.

Genealogy is important; etymology of individual names is usually
unexplained.  Etymology of group names is easier - being based EITHER
on patronyms (Jehudi = biblical Jews) or geographical (Ashkenazi =
dwellers in the land of Ashkenaz).  I find it hilarious that you
insist on interpreting Ashkenazi as a patronymic when there is a known
alternative explanation, and you interpret Cushi as a patronymic, when
not preceded by "the", but refuse to consider Jehudi as a patronymic
under the same conditions, EVEN WHEN CENTURIES OF BIBLICAL
UNDERSTANDING HAVE ACCEPTED THAT AS THE INTENT.

>If they had intended to call him a "Cushi" [the equivalent to calling Colin
>Powell a nigger]

More likely it is like those fellow students who last weeked called my
daughter African-American because of how dark her tan got last summer.

We're still waiting for your explanation of Cushi the Benjaminite.

lojbab



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list