What do you know? Heb. Eli becomes Julius in Latin

a reply to: TerryDon79

Oh dear, since I write English and Modern Latin, and your concerns are completely arbitrary, you brood of twisting vipers!

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: TerryDon79

Oh dear, since I write English and Modern Latin, and your concerns are completely arbitrary, you brood of twisting vipers!

That's nice.

But why would you use a language to try and connect 2 people as one, when the language didn't exist at the time? That's making a connection where there isn't one.

It can't possibly be true because of the date of the person existing and the date of the language existing.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Not of that supports your premise.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
In my OP I speak English, and rendering my Latin using modern Latin alphabet and orthography. There! Satisfied?

Nope.

You still tried to compare two different letters in your highly erroneous Original Post, 'E' and 'I', that are different in both languages.

Because I am a nice person and overall wonderful human being I will overlook your mistake when claiming the letter 'J' existed in Latin. The other stuff, not so much.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Because I am a nice person and overall wonderful human....

That made me giggle.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Julius in Latin as is my premise. To ask Aristotle for some help you may also notice how I say Heb. Eli ==> becomes ==> Julius in Latin. I never claimed IVLIVS became Eli, that part is implicit, since Modern Latin follows the same rules of philology as does Classical Latin. I could have had a weird headline using a mix of mixed Hebrew, different stages of Latin and English, but instead I naturally used the language used here, mixed British/US English which is so common in the Internets these days.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
Julius in Latin as is my premise.

Sweet mother of Jesus and the Baby Jesus, do I have to explain your Original Post to you now too?

Your premise is that 'Julius' (Ivlivs in Latin) is the same as 'Eli'. It is not.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Dude. BMOC. I'm pretty sure he's just #ing with you.

originally posted by: breakingbs
Dude. BMOC. I'm pretty sure he's just #ing with you.

The thought crossed my mind.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You need a crash course in linguistics before trying to make even remotely sense here. Are you saying I should have used foreign orthography in the headline of the OP? Strictly speaking everything we write in foreign languages here must be done with an adequate explanation and/or translation. Instead I wrote everything in English transliteration, which is the only fair way to comply to the terms and conditions here on this forum. I write in English here for an English speaking audience. And to your information both Eli and Julius are transliterated into English. Please find some other tree to bark up against.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
You need a crash course in linguistics before trying to make even remotely sense here.

Says the guy who thinks 'Ivlivs' is the same as 'Eli'.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

There were no minuscules in Classical Latin. You keep twisting my words. I never sai Ivlivs did or means anything. Classical Latin IVLIVS (that is Julius in English) ==> Hebro-Aramaic עלי (that is Eli in English) ==> Modern Latin Julius (which is identical to its English variant). I ask you again: Would you rather have me make a headline out of that bloody mess?

Furthest I would go would be to moderate the headline and say "Lat. Julius is a valid translation of Heb. Eli" instead of what I wrote, but you wouldn't have seen the difference anyway.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
I never sai Ivlivs did or means anything.

Orly? Here is the title of your thread incase you got a touch of the Alzheimer's:

Heb. Eli becomes Julius in Latin

Yes, Julius is Modern Latin AKA Latin. You keep dragging in Classical, even pre-Vulgar Latin. That ain't fair!

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
You keep dragging in Classical, even pre-Vulgar Latin. That ain't fair!

Why? Because you do not understand it or because that is what they would have used in Jesus' and Caesar's time thereby shooting a hole in your premise?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Giddyup, and good luck if you ever try to turn your Latin skills into anything worth its value at some university.

Julius is a valid translation into Latin of the Hebrew name Eli. That is my sentiment and the foundation of this here shambles you've managed to turn this bleeding mess into for the pride of your archaic pseudo-Latin which is ARBITRARY and would be HISTORICAL ANACHRONISM had I said what you want me to say!

Lat. Julius is a valid translation of Hebrew Eli. When can you get that into your wee pseudo-Latin mind?

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
Julius is a valid translation into Latin of the Hebrew name Eli. That is my sentiment...

Your sentiment is irrelevant. The facts state otherwise:

Julius in Hebrew: יוליוס
Eli in Hebrew: אלי

Notice something? They are different.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
Julius is a valid translation into Latin of the Hebrew name Eli. That is my sentiment...

Your sentiment is irrelevant. The facts state otherwise:

Julius in Hebrew: יוליוס
Eli in Hebrew: אלי

Notice something? They are different.

You do realise you are using a direct transliteration into Hebrew here? Not a translation? Do you even know the difference?

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I do. Since you brought it up show me a Latin or Hebrew text where the Hebrew Eli is transliterated into the Latin Julius.

Or vice versa. Your choice. I wont hold my breath though, you seem to be light on evidence.

Just to make matters worse for you the name Eli, which is short for Elijah, means something completely different than Julius:

From the Hebrew name אֱלִיָּהוּ ('Eliyyahu) meaning "my God is YAHWEH". Source

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Fr. Eugene or IPA /jug'i:n/ is a common name that comes from the Greek eugenes (Greek- ευγενής, "Noble" ). Now what happens if you transliterate Gr. ευ-γεν-ής into Paleo-Hebrew? And may I remind you that Hebrew is an Abjad language? And how would Mod. Heb. transliteration יוג'ין make any sense as a first century Hebro-Aramaic name? Hm. Will anyone even know the differences involved or would any of you even care?