Author Topic: I hate journalistic writing (Read 100308 times)

Jonathon · « **Reply #175 on:** January 22, 2008, 02:15:02 PM »

But bible just means "book." Why does a generic bible need to be made up of smaller books?

Porter · « **Reply #176 on:** January 22, 2008, 02:21:54 PM »

Really? Well, I guess I was wrong. I thought the word meant a collection of books.

Jonathon · « **Reply #177 on:** January 22, 2008, 02:47:43 PM »

It looks like, strictly speaking, it does not.

The Greek word biblion just meant "book" or "scroll." The phrase ta biblia hagia means "the holy books." Biblia was borrowed into English, but I can't tell just from Etymonline.com whether it was used as a singular or plural. If it was plural, it would have meant "books," not "collection of books," I believe.

But before biblia or biblia hagia was in use in Latin, the common term for the Christian scriptures was bibliotheque, which means "repository of books." And of course, this is the source of the word for "library" in the Romance languages.

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #178 on:** January 22, 2008, 03:07:17 PM »

Using "bible" that way doesn't bother me. Using the word "Torah" in that context would, a lot.

Jonathon · « **Reply #179 on:** January 22, 2008, 03:08:11 PM »

Can I ask why? I'm not sure I see the distinction.

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #180 on:** January 22, 2008, 03:09:29 PM »

Because, like you said, "bible" means "book". "Torah" is something altogether more specific.

Jonathon · « **Reply #181 on:** January 22, 2008, 03:14:40 PM »

Well, etymologically, bible means "book." But that's not what it means now. According to Etymonline.com, Torah is a verbal noun from horah "he taught, showed." I don't see why that's particularly sacred, but I could be missing something.

rivka · « **Reply #182 on:** January 22, 2008, 07:26:55 PM »

Quote

According to Etymonline.com, Torah is a verbal noun from horah "he taught, showed."

Yep. Teacher (moreh/morah) comes from the same root.

Quote

I don't see why that's particularly sacred, but I could be missing something.

I suspect it's a question of the fact that neither Tante nor I consider the word "bible" to have any inherent sanctity, regardless of word origin.

I'm much more blase about how people use the word "god" than terms which are Hebrew (or approximate the Hebrew).

pooka · « **Reply #183 on:** January 23, 2008, 09:48:40 AM »

I think if "bible" were being applied to something particularly non-biblical, it might start to bother me. Like "the crisping pin and stomacher bible" or something.

Jonathon · « **Reply #184 on:** January 23, 2008, 09:53:29 AM »

In the editing world, it's pretty common to refer to your primary usage manual or style guide as a bible.

pooka · « **Reply #185 on:** January 23, 2008, 09:58:24 AM »

But that's because it's considered authoritative, and you do what it says regardless of what might make sense, no?

Jonathon · « **Reply #186 on:** January 23, 2008, 10:03:33 AM »

Pretty much. Unless someone is smart enough to come up with their own house style to override the things in the style guide that they don't like. But then that quickly becomes canonized and declared to be inerrant, too.

pooka · « **Reply #187 on:** January 23, 2008, 12:45:14 PM »

Wow, I'd never seen Google Library before.

Porter · « **Reply #188 on:** February 21, 2008, 08:14:58 AM »

For Rivka.

It's a Reuters story with no less than twelve "scare quotes" in the article.

pooka · « **Reply #189 on:** February 21, 2008, 10:20:27 AM »

But it's an article about word definitions. I don't see that they had a choice, besides possibly using Italics.

Jonathon · « **Reply #190 on:** February 21, 2008, 10:25:39 AM »

A lot of those instances were still not necessary. I think you could do without "war on terror," "crusade," and "holy war." The rest I think are okay.

rivka · « **Reply #191 on:** February 21, 2008, 01:33:24 PM »

Thanks, Porter.

I agree with Jonathon. But even without those it would be pretty quote-heavy.

My favorite quote from the article:

Quote

One shall not target non-combatants, that's a basic rule of humanity that ties us together across religious and national divides.

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #192 on:** February 21, 2008, 01:43:38 PM »

I would have semicoloned instead of commaed there. Poor semicolon, hardly gets to go out unless someone's winking on the internet.

JT · « **Reply #193 on:** April 01, 2008, 11:21:37 PM »

That's hilarious, Tante.

-------------------

From the Sports section of the Times-Picayune two days ago:

"Chris Paul averaged 20 points, 9 assists, and 3 steals in the months of February and December, becoming the first player to ever average those numbers in consecutive months."

>.<

pooka · « **Reply #194 on:** April 02, 2008, 07:01:47 AM »

That is pretty funny, in a scary way.

Porter · « **Reply #195 on:** April 02, 2008, 08:03:51 AM »

I don't get it.

Jonathon · « **Reply #196 on:** April 02, 2008, 08:18:09 AM »

February and December are not consecutive months.

Porter · « **Reply #197 on:** April 02, 2008, 08:21:55 AM »

Jonathon · « **Reply #198 on:** May 16, 2008, 11:00:01 AM »

Am I missing something in this article? First the dietitian says that the eight glasses of water a day rule is not supported by research, and then she says that an active woman should drink nine glasses of liquid a day. Is the point just that it doesn't have to be water?

Neutros the Radioactive Dragon · « **Reply #199 on:** May 16, 2008, 11:23:57 AM »

Yes.

Actually, many animals get their hydration from their food as well. The idea of the article is that the old rule is eight glasses, but has never been properly researched. Also pure water is not necessarily needed.

I remember hearing a great interview with another scientist on this, and she had said the same thing.