Great moments in textual transmission.

[Ben C. Smith]

Another thing I wonder about is this (composite image):

Crum, Page 353.png (246.28 KiB) Viewed 6930 times

This image is from a copy of Crum, of course, for which the link was helpfully given in the second post. The first instance ("first milk, butter") of the headword ⲥⲓⲣ is enlarged. The third ("hair") and fourth ("jar") instances are also enlarged. But the second ("leaven") is not. In a typical lexicon, this kind of distinction in headwords happens when the second word is an etymological example of the first, which is the root word. (In the LSJ, for example, the distinction is between root words in all caps and boldfacing and derivatives in boldfacing alone. Hebrew does not distinguish between uppercase and lowercase, so Brown-Driver-Briggs, as another example, make the primary words stand out from secondary words with their size and lack of indentation.) If this is what Crum means by not upsizing that second instance, then the second ⲥⲓⲣ and the first ⲥⲓⲣ are actually the same word; the second simply bears an extended meaning of the same root, much like "run" in "to run a company" and "run" in "to run a race." Same word, different application of meaning.

[Ben C. Smith]

The same idea surfaces in J. Černý's etymological dictionary of Coptic:

Černý, Page 160.png (81.78 KiB) Viewed 6959 times

Indentation is what marks the second instance as subsidiary to the first in this case. Černý contends, then, that ⲥⲓⲣ as milk/butter and ⲥⲓⲣ as leaven are almost certainly the same word, which is the impression I get from Crum's layout in column a of page 353, to which Černý explicitly points.

[mlinssen]

Another thing I wonder about is this (composite image):


Crum, Page 353.png


This image is from a copy of Crum, of course, for which the link was helpfully given in the second post. The first instance ("first milk, butter") of the headword ⲥⲓⲣ is enlarged. The third ("hair") and fourth ("jar") instances are also enlarged. But the second ("leaven") is not. In a typical lexicon, this kind of distinction in headwords happens when the second word is an etymological example of the first, which is the root word. (In the LSJ, for example, the distinction is between root words in all caps and boldfacing and derivatives in boldfacing alone. Hebrew does not distinguish between uppercase and lowercase, so Brown-Driver-Briggs, as another example, make the primary words stand out from secondary words with their size and lack of indentation.) If this is what Crum means by not upsizing that second instance, then the second ⲥⲓⲣ and the first ⲥⲓⲣ are actually the same word; the second simply bears an extended meaning of the same root, much like "run" in "to run a company" and "run" in "to run a race." Same word, different application of meaning.

So what you seem to be implying is that the root is first milk, and its derivation leaven?
Making first milk - regardless of spelling I suppose - be the first choice, and leaven the second?

[Ben C. Smith]

Another thing I wonder about is this (composite image):


Crum, Page 353.png


This image is from a copy of Crum, of course, for which the link was helpfully given in the second post. The first instance ("first milk, butter") of the headword ⲥⲓⲣ is enlarged. The third ("hair") and fourth ("jar") instances are also enlarged. But the second ("leaven") is not. In a typical lexicon, this kind of distinction in headwords happens when the second word is an etymological example of the first, which is the root word. (In the LSJ, for example, the distinction is between root words in all caps and boldfacing and derivatives in boldfacing alone. Hebrew does not distinguish between uppercase and lowercase, so Brown-Driver-Briggs, as another example, make the primary words stand out from secondary words with their size and lack of indentation.) If this is what Crum means by not upsizing that second instance, then the second ⲥⲓⲣ and the first ⲥⲓⲣ are actually the same word; the second simply bears an extended meaning of the same root, much like "run" in "to run a company" and "run" in "to run a race." Same word, different application of meaning.

So what you seem to be implying is that the root is first milk, and its derivation leaven?
Making first milk - regardless of spelling I suppose - be the first choice, and leaven the second?

Root and derivative do not inherently imply which semantic meaning a writer intended. (Most writers are not even necessarily aware of which is the root and which the derivative; nor, in their writing, would they usually have any reason to care.)

[Ben C. Smith]

So what you seem to be implying is that the root is first milk, and its derivation leaven?
Making first milk - regardless of spelling I suppose - be the first choice, and leaven the second?

Root and derivative do not inherently imply which semantic meaning a writer intended. (Most writers are not even necessarily aware of which is the root and which the derivative; nor, in their writing, would they usually have any reason to care.)

As a handy example, right there as I was writing that post, I used the term "root" to mean the etymological or lexical source unit of a word, without even thinking about how the primary meaning of "root," to which the etymological usage is secondary, is the underground portion of a plant.

[mlinssen]

Root and derivative do not inherently imply which semantic meaning a writer intended. (Most writers are not even necessarily aware of which is the root and which the derivative; nor, in their writing, would they usually have any reason to care.)

I'm puzzled now. Didn't you just make a case for ⲥⲓⲣ - a word that certainly not is in the text - being best translated with colostrum over leaven, given the fact that the latter is a derivative of the former?

Regardless, does this change anything to the claim that ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ very, very likely means human milk in the context of Thomas, even though the version we found out that, Mary's milk, was spelled ⲥⲁⲓⲣⲉ, not ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣⲉ as Crum suggested it was? In the 1913 version of the book we consulted, I'm unsure we got the right one by the way, but still it's close and an awful lot closer than the ⲥⲉⲉⲣⲉ (closest variant of the second I think) that would mean leaven?

[Ben C. Smith]

Root and derivative do not inherently imply which semantic meaning a writer intended. (Most writers are not even necessarily aware of which is the root and which the derivative; nor, in their writing, would they usually have any reason to care.)

I'm puzzled now. Didn't you just make a case for ⲥⲓⲣ - a word that certainly not is in the text - being best translated with colostrum over leaven, given the fact that the latter is a derivative of the former?

No, not at all. Root and derivative are (normally) completely independent of which meaning an author intended.

Regardless, does this change anything to the claim....

I am not sure that it does; nor am I sure that it does not. I am collecting data.

[Ben C. Smith]

Regardless, does this change anything to the claim that ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ very, very likely means human milk in the context of Thomas....

Since you bring it up, though, what about a thought experiment? What if this saying was not discovered in a gospel of Thomas? What if, in fact, the gospel of Thomas remained unknown to us except for this lone saying, discovered all by itself on some papyrus scrap? Which meaning for ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ would you select from the available options? And why would you select that one?

[mlinssen]

Regardless, does this change anything to the claim that ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ very, very likely means human milk in the context of Thomas....

Since you bring it up, though, what about a thought experiment? What if this saying was not discovered in a gospel of Thomas? What if, in fact, the gospel of Thomas remained unknown to us except for this lone saying, discovered all by itself on some papyrus scrap? Which meaning for ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ would you select from the available options? And why would you select that one?

Did I bring up a thought experiment? I merely pointed out that all your most recent arguments about root and derivative only strengthen the case. Not that it needs to be strengthened, because the case simply is that the text says ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ, which can only be translated with colostrum, not leaven.
Which is what Crum says, and Westendorf too by the way. And I can't argue with either, nor do I wish to

There can only be one single meaning for the word. And somehow it seems that you are uncomfortable with that, is it not?

[Ben C. Smith]

Regardless, does this change anything to the claim that ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ very, very likely means human milk in the context of Thomas....

Since you bring it up, though, what about a thought experiment? What if this saying was not discovered in a gospel of Thomas? What if, in fact, the gospel of Thomas remained unknown to us except for this lone saying, discovered all by itself on some papyrus scrap? Which meaning for ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲣ would you select from the available options? And why would you select that one?

Did I bring up a thought experiment?

No, you brought up the context in Thomas, and I am bringing up a thought experiment.

There can only be one single meaning for the word. And somehow it seems that you are uncomfortable with that, is it not?

Not in any way, nor am I sure what would suggest such a thing to you.

If you do not wish to respond to my thought experiment, that is fine! Your call completely. But no, I was not suggesting it was your idea; it was definitely mine. (The "it" in my sentence was supposed to refer to the part of your response that I highlighted; sorry that was not clearer.)