John 1:1 makes no sense in Latin

What did they mistranslate?

Please, user, I'm not an idiot, don't serve me with these nebulous and nonsensical "definitions" that an intro to linguistics would show to be false.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/syntax
>Definition of syntax
>1a: the way in which linguistic elements (such as words) are put together to form constituents (such as phrases or clauses)
>b: the part of grammar dealing with this

You have to go back (to your Greek textbook)

Attached: 39184678913743.png (1047x582, 67.82K)

They mistranslated John 1:1

>syntax is encapsulated in grammar

Learn to use your brain. Syntax and grammar are seperate categories. Is well written computer code syntactically correct or grammatically correct?

SYNTAX IS NOT ENCAPSULATED IN GRAMMAR

UGH USE THE BRAIN GOD GAVE YOU

It's capital W Word, not word.

>Proven that he is wrong in his understanding of those terms
>Ugh why don't you agree with my personal perception of these terms which can be objectively demonstrated as false, just use your hecking brain!!
Go back now (to the other place)

>They mistranslated John 1:1
The thread appears to be about this issue, yet I still do not see why this is supposed to be a mistranslation.
>>syntax is encapsulated in grammar
Whom are you quoting? Who is this faggot using the word "encapsulate" instead of clearly defining what the relation between syntax and grammar is?
>Learn to use your brain.
I've been using it for years learning about linguistics, don't worry.
>Syntax and grammar are seperate categories.
Syntax is a category subordinate to the category of grammar. Do you have a grammar book nearby?

Syntax is indeed a subset of grammar.
>Is well written computer code syntactically correct or grammatically correct?
A grammar defines both the syntax and semantics of a language. Unironically read this.

Attached: 51vQlx7ig3L._SX328_BO1,204,203,200_[1].jpg (330x499, 29.25K)

Is computer code syntax or grammar?

see

>instead of clearly defining what the relation between syntax and grammar is?

I already did, syntax is function, grammar is form.

>Whom are you quoting? Who is this faggot using the word "encapsulate" instead of clearly defining what the relation between syntax and grammar is?

See

>A grammar defines both the syntax and semantics of a language

A grammar does not define the syntax.

That's like saying the culture decides who makes the rules. Violence decides the ruler, not the culture.

This is the unsolvable problem of Northern and Southern Egypt.

Attached: 20220507_042740.png (720x723, 441.81K)

also
>Is well written computer code syntactically correct or grammatically correct?
We're talking about language, not programming. Programming has a separate terminological repertoire.
Do books have bones? I guess they do, because they have spines.

That is hardly a definition. Function of what, form of what? Why do you think anyone should care about your denial of linguistic terminology that has been in use for centuries?

Attached: Ben Jonson - English Grammar (1640).jpg (1517x2500, 376.72K)

>syntax is function, grammar is form
This is not a clear definition.
>function
Of what? Words? Parts of speech? That would be semantics.
>form
You mean the form (permutations of parts of speech) constituting a gramatically correct sentence? That would be syntax. Both of these together make up a grammar.
>Violence decides the ruler, not the culture.
I'm going to attempt to make sense of this. Based on your previous sentence, the ruler is syntax and culture is grammar in this analogy. What is violence? In any case, there is no causal relationship between grammar and syntax. A grammar is just the formal structure of a language. It consists of definitions of the language's syntax and semantics. A sentence that is 'gramatically correct' is one that adheres to these definitions.

>Function of what, form of what? Why do you think anyone should care about your denial of linguistic terminology that has been in use for centuries?

Here's the trick; if I say that the syntax is the purpose of the expression, then it validates the claim that syntax is nested in grammar, however, if I say that syntax is the function or purpose of the mind, and grammar is the way we express ourselves to others, then it perfectly severs syntax from grammar.

>the Latin and Hebrew no syntax
Interesting

Yes. Logos is a causal connecting principle.

There’s also a problem with translation from the vulgate to English. “In principio” is not so much “in the beginning” but “the entry point,” or “the root,” or “the fundamental.”

The root of all things was the causal connecting principle, and the causal connecting principle was god, and god was the causal connecting principle.

It establishes the fundamental monism at the heart of Christianity, whereas most today interpret it as a kind pf poetic call to evangelize the scriptures.

>language, not programming
Programming is language with function, "speech" is language without function.
>expression vs syntax

>I'm going to attempt to make sense of this. Based on your previous sentence, the ruler is syntax and culture is grammar in this analogy.

Correct

>What is violence? In any case, there is no causal relationship between grammar and syntax. A grammar is just the formal structure of a language.

A grammar is a handed down tradition, correct.

>It consists of definitions of the language's syntax and semantics.

According to who? Syntax and semantics are not the same thing.

>A sentence that is 'gramatically correct' is one that adheres to these definitions.

Who decides the definitions?

>causal connecting principle.
This is the secret to reading heiroglyph.

>the causal connecting principle was god, and god was the causal connecting principle.

If you asked an ancient egyptian who they worship, they would say "God is in the words."

>Here's the trick; if I say that the syntax is
No need for tricks. If you say something, just make sure it's true.
>the syntax is the purpose of the expression, then it validates the claim that syntax is nested in grammar, however, if I say that syntax is the function or purpose of the mind, and grammar is the way we express ourselves to others, then it perfectly severs syntax from grammar
However, both statements are not true.
>>the Latin and Hebrew [have] no syntax
They do. Do you think the Romans poured out every word of a sentence at the same moment, simultaneously?

>Programming is language
About as much as traffic lights.
>pee vs poo
This is your brain on chr*stianity.

>both statements are not true.

Explain this.

>the Latin and Hebrew [have] no syntax
>They do. Do you think the Romans poured out every word of a sentence at the same moment, simultaneously?

You have to think in terms of audio syntax and visual syntax

You think every language is glyphs representing sounds? Some written languages have no phonetic element.

If a written language has no phonetic component, how would you define the "syntax" of that language vs. the "grammar" of that language?

Which Latin word do you think better relates logos? I can only imagine ratio as scratching at what the logos is. I was hoping to find with what term Latin stoics communicated the Greek logos in stoic metaphysics, but so far, there natura is used rather than ratio (e.g. nature has ordained that ... nature has ordered it such) as the closest in the text I've looked through

Yeah, words are what have given us the ability to comprehend the causality. A dog may learn to predict an action but it cannot build upon it. Our capacity to use words is what allows us to tap into the informational realm of ideals, out of which our own physical world was formed, and also providing us to a clear path towards the first cause.

>pee vs poo

This is your brain in a female school.

>According to who?
According to whom.
>Syntax and semantics are not the same thing.
Correct. I already explained what each of these is.
>Who decides the definitions?
Doesn't matter. If a language is syntactically or semantically undefined, it isn't a language.

Whichever Latin word means "foundational causality."

What does newton's cradle model?

What do you mean user

Logos means hundreds of different things depending on the time period. Have you never handled a Greek dictionary? The entry for Logos is huge and "word" or "speech" usually appears at the bottom.

I'm struggling to remember the name of the physics term that represents the type of force such as when a billiard ball strikes another.

That is what logos means in a sense. "Conservation of energy" isn't quite the right term,

"transference of motion and the underlying rules governing the transfer" perhaps?

The logos is the laws of physics, as created by God, but dictated in the way we describe God's laws of physics in a linguistic fashion.

You could say it means "logic," but once the girls are allowed in school, "logos" as such ceases to exist.

>The entry for Logos is huge and "word" or "speech" usually appears at the bottom.

Modern Greeks can't even read their own language when it gets too old (ancient greek).

Heiroglyphs were designed to prevent this.

>If a language is syntactically or semantically undefined, it isn't a language.

Is a baby crying or a woman screaming a "language?"

No. Neither are those things syntactically or semantically defined. What's your point?

So if language isn't to communicate

>a baby crying, a woman screaming

And it isn't to serve a purpose

>syntax, "programming"

Then why do we have words or "language?"

>the physics term that represents the type of force such as when a billiard ball strikes another.
elastic collision? Kinetic energy remains the same

I don't see what the teleology of language has to do with whether syntax is distinct from or a subset of grammar, but anyway:
Is a hydraulic press a hammer? No? So if a hammer isn't to apply force by striking an object, then why do we have hammers?
Is a bicycle a car? No? So if a car isn't to travel across land, then why do we have cars?
More than one thing can serve the same purpose.
>And it isn't to serve a purpose
Extremely vague, what do you mean by "serve a purpose"? Anyway, I'm not the user who said programming isn't language. Programming languages and natural languages are all languages.

Perhaps motus? Descartes wrote about how the total quantitas motus in the universe was eternally conserved. Otherwise maybe impetus is what you mean, for the force that is imparted onto an object by its predecessor in a linear relationship.

>Kinetic energy remains the same

The logos should have been translated "syntax" not "word."

Kinetic energy is how I visualize syntax.

>the teleology of language
I hate you people

>the teleology of language

>the study of the purpose of why we make noises with our vocal chords.

Fuck you

The user I replied to (OP, I assume based on the style and vague statements like "serve a purpose") made a digression from the discussion of the relationship between grammar and syntax to ask about the purpose of language. I said this was irrelevant. What's the problem?

I mean it was kinda a weird constrained problem there with the translation, logos means word plus a fuckton other things and obviously the latter is what the passage is about deep down, latin didn't have an equivalent all encompassing word with such rich nuanced meanings not easily contained in the bare-bone etymology, so the translator, who was constrained both by needs of being literal enough, but also get the message across, couldn't do miracles.
That's why a church and tradition is needed and one of the reasons sola scriptura is an insult.

As an interesting note, in Sebastian Castellio's renaissance era classical Latin rendition of the Vulgate, he used "sermo" instead of verbum, which carrier another of the meanings of logos e.g conversation/speech.

You mistake the trees for the forest, grammar is the logos of a language, syntax relates to specific areas of that linguistic logic

>and obviously the latter is what the passage is about deep down
Why? I don't mean to be combative with you, because I really don't know of that which we speak, but my first thought was that the 'logos' was as the philosophical logos, as a kind of rational divine essence

>what's the problem

The teleology of language? Huh?

Syntax and grammar are structural categories, but the "teleology of language?"

You don't see the problem with that sentence? Do you hate children or women?

>latin didn't have an equivalent all encompassing word
What is "syntax" in latin?

>Huh? What? Like, seriously? For real?
>You don't see the problem with that sentence?
Obviously not. The poster I replied to said "why do we have words or 'language'?" after mentioning two possible purposes of language (to communicate and simply to "serve a purpose," whatever that means). Is this not a teleological question?

>grammar is the logos of a language, syntax relates to specific areas of that linguistic logic

Grammar is the traditional structure; such as "how do we know what sounds the letters make?"

Syntax is the rules which govern coherent sentences vs incoherent sentences. These syntactical rules are not passed down by tradition, but governed based on how God structured our minds to make sense of things, something of a child trying to square a circle block

yeah but that's the point of the thread isn't it, you know that there is such a thing as "philosophical logos" because you are immersed in a cultural background that prepared you for this concept so when you read it you already know how to understand it, but the translator was asked to convey this in a language that by itself did not have a specific word with an approximately 1to1 meaning, plus trying to remain close to literal, so what could he do otherwise
I'm not blaming the translator btw, at that point it's tacitly understood that you need a background going back to the ancient Greeks to understand also the Latin translation in its depth, since they are the ones who gave "logos" this philosphical meaning, while bare Latin "verbum" remains more rustic/literal

Is a baby crying a "language" teleologically speaking?