Re: Heinlein
- From: "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:46:49 -0000
Daniel al-Autistiqui wrote:
[...]
> But, regarding the phrase, do you guys think it is redundant? Can it
> even be taken literally? Could one argue that it is not redundant
> based on the fact that the first "strange" refers to a person and the
> second one refers to a place?
Well, I thought that it probably wasn't redundant, for the reason you
give. The only way to decide is to look at the Hebrew text, and I don't
know Hebrew. But you could be right in suggesting that we shouldn't take
it too literally: these legends do come from back in the Bronze Age or
before, after all. Perhaps those who first wrote down Exodus were only
guessing when they offered the "stranger in a foreign/strange land"
explanation for the name "Gershom".
--
Mike.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Heinlein
- From: Evan Kirshenbaum
- Re: Heinlein
- References:
- Re: What to call American Indians
- From: R H Draney
- Re: What to call American Indians
- From: pointed
- Re: What to call American Indians
- From: the Omrud
- Re: What to call American Indians
- From: pointed
- Re: What to call American Indians
- From: Robert Bannister
- Heinlein
- From: Graeme Thomas
- Re: Heinlein
- From: Daniel al-Autistiqui
- Re: Heinlein
- From: jerry_friedman@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Heinlein
- From: Daniel al-Autistiqui
- Re: Heinlein
- From: Father Ignatius
- Re: Heinlein
- From: Mike Lyle
- Re: What to call American Indians
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: Teatime
- Next by Date: Re: OT: Teatime
- Previous by thread: Re: Heinlein
- Next by thread: Re: Heinlein
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|