Cobol - How to validate SSN

Author

How to validate SSN

jim.steelman@gmail.com

2005-02-28, 3:55 pm

Does anyone know how to validate a US Social Security Number? I know
how to handle Canada's Social Insurance Number but not the US version.

Thanks,
Jim

Michael Mattias

2005-02-28, 3:55 pm

<jim.steelman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109597126.424606.116000@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Does anyone know how to validate a US Social Security Number? I know
> how to handle Canada's Social Insurance Number but not the US version.

You mean "is" a valid number, or "could be" a valid number.

All US SSNs are 9 numeric digits, usually provided in format 123-45-6789.

But you cannot demand from anyone a U.S SSN; that number is "for Social
Securuty and Tax Purposes only Not for Identification." (Not that this
prohibition is respected by many; but anyone 'may' refuse to provide that
number and at least in US, do so without prejudice to anything - in theory.
In practice, it's impossible to get a credit approval without supplying your
SSN).

--
Michael Mattias
Tal Systems, Inc.
Racine WI
mmattias@talsystems.com

James J. Gavan

2005-02-28, 3:55 pm

Michael Mattias wrote:
> <jim.steelman@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1109597126.424606.116000@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> You mean "is" a valid number, or "could be" a valid number.
>
> All US SSNs are 9 numeric digits, usually provided in format 123-45-6789.
>
> But you cannot demand from anyone a U.S SSN; that number is "for Social
> Securuty and Tax Purposes only Not for Identification." (Not that this
> prohibition is respected by many; but anyone 'may' refuse to provide that
> number and at least in US, do so without prejudice to anything - in theory.
> In practice, it's impossible to get a credit approval without supplying your
> SSN).
>
Michael, I think he's asking is there a check-digit routine. There is
one on the Canadian number. (From memory the Canuck one is a Mod 10 with
weightings 1,2, 1, 2 etc.)

Jimmy, Calgary AB

Jim

2005-02-28, 3:55 pm

I'm looking for the "could be" case.

I have a file that users sometimes keyed SSN as an invoice number
(sometimes as 999-99-9999 and sometimes as 999999999). I have written a
routine to find the patterns. I was trying to come up with a way to
discard values like 123-45-0000 which can not be a valid SSN since none
of the three parts can be all zeros.

Thanks

Howard Brazee

2005-02-28, 3:55 pm

On 28-Feb-2005, "Jim" <jim.steelman@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have a file that users sometimes keyed SSN as an invoice number
> (sometimes as 999-99-9999 and sometimes as 999999999). I have written a
> routine to find the patterns. I was trying to come up with a way to
> discard values like 123-45-0000 which can not be a valid SSN since none
> of the three parts can be all zeros.

Are you asking what criteria are available for validating SSNs?

Russell

2005-02-28, 8:55 pm

"Jim" <jim.steelman@gmail.com> wrote in news:1109616250.040922.149120
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

> I'm looking for the "could be" case.
>
> I have a file that users sometimes keyed SSN as an invoice number
> (sometimes as 999-99-9999 and sometimes as 999999999). I have written a
> routine to find the patterns. I was trying to come up with a way to
> discard values like 123-45-0000 which can not be a valid SSN since none
> of the three parts can be all zeros.
>
> Thanks
>

I saw an article that mentioned the very first person in the
social security system. Her number was 000-00-0001.

William M. Klein

2005-02-28, 8:55 pm

There are LOTS of "disclaimers" (and I have no PERSONAL knowledge of whether
any/all of this is true) but from:
http://www.codeproject.com/useritems/ssnvalidator.asp

"I used the information available on the SSA website to determine the rules for
SSN validity. This information includes:

1.. All SSN's are exactly 9 digits long, and are in the format "xxx-xx-xxxx"
or "xxxxxxxxx", where "x" is a numeric digit (0 through 9). In either form the
first three digits are referred to as the "Area Number", the middle two digits
are the "Group Code" and the final four digits are the "Serial Number".

2.. The first three digits ("Area Number") indicate the geographic location
which assigned the SSN. The Area Number has several restrictions:

1.. The Area Number "666" (for obvious reasons) will never be used,

2.. The Area Number "000" will never be assigned.

3.. All numbers between "900" and "999" will not be assigned. Various
government agencies have used Area Numbers "900" through "999" for internal
management purposes; but for our purposes, these are considered invalid.

3.. The middle two digits ("Group Code") are dependent on the Area Number.
This number indicates the highest group of numbers assigned to an area. The
assignment of these numbers, however, is strange (see below). The "High" Group
Codes are updated monthly and can be viewed at
http://www.ssa.gov/employer/highgroup.txt .
Group Codes are assigned according to the following pattern:

1.. For each Area Number, odd numbered Group Codes between 01 and 09 are
assigned first.

2.. Next, even numbers between 10 and 98 are assigned.

3.. When the 98 Group is used up, we drop back and use up the even numbers
between 02 and 08.

4.. Finally, we use up all the odd numbers between 11 and 99.
As an example, for Area Number "277" (an Ohio code), the High Group Code is
currently "08". This means that all odd numbers between 01 and 09, all even
numbers between 10 and 98, and all even numbers between 02 and 06 are used up.
New SSN's assigned from this area will have the format: 277-08-xxxx.

4.. The last 4 digits ("Serial Number") of a SSN will never be "0000". It will
always be a number between "0001" and "9999". Serial Numbers are assigned in
sequential order from "0001" to "9999".

5.. There are some complete SSN's that will never be issued by the SSA. Some
of these SSN's were used in media campaigns or otherwise mis-used. One example
is the number "078-05-1120" which was used by the E.H. Ferree Company in an
advertising campaign, circa 1938. Over 40,000 people have claimed this number as
their own since then so the SSA invalidated it. "

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
<jim.steelman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109597126.424606.116000@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Does anyone know how to validate a US Social Security Number? I know
> how to handle Canada's Social Insurance Number but not the US version.
>
> Thanks,
> Jim
>

Howard Brazee

2005-02-28, 8:55 pm

On 28-Feb-2005, Russell <rws0203nospam@comcast.net> wrote:

> I saw an article that mentioned the very first person in the
> social security system. Her number was 000-00-0001.

I saw that too. But that doesn't gibe with what I have seen about SSNs.
Either they changed the rules later, or the person who wrote that news article
didn't do his homework. (I am not sold on the accuracy of the news) - or my
memory is faulty.

Howard Brazee

2005-02-28, 8:55 pm

We used various "impossible" SSAN ranges for special programming and testing
purposes. But we also recently went through a project to replace SSANs by
Student Numbers. Privacy and security reasons have caused us to replace SSANs.

Figure you might have the same need sooner rather than later.

Tukla Ratte

2005-02-28, 8:55 pm

jim.steelman@gmail.com wrote:

> Does anyone know how to validate a US Social Security Number? I know
> how to handle Canada's Social Insurance Number but not the US version.

There's no straightforward mathematical scheme like with credit cards,
unfortunately. And the rules posted by W. Klein probably require
someone to maintain the SSN criteria.

--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347

Russell

2005-02-28, 8:55 pm

Tukla Ratte <tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote in news:38hk2cF5lkn4aU1
@individual.net:

> jim.steelman@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> There's no straightforward mathematical scheme like with credit cards,
> unfortunately. And the rules posted by W. Klein probably require
> someone to maintain the SSN criteria.
>

It sounds like the most useful validation would be the "nevers"
listed in Mr Klein's list of rules. It would be nice if you could get your
hands on the offical list of "never to be issued" numbers.

JerryMouse

2005-02-28, 8:55 pm

jim.steelman@gmail.com wrote:
> Does anyone know how to validate a US Social Security Number? I know
> how to handle Canada's Social Insurance Number but not the US version.

The SSN does not have a check digit, so there is no mathematical validation.

Jim

2005-03-01, 3:55 am

Yes and Mr. Klein's later response echoed my research and filled in a
couple of blanks.

Thanks

Jim

2005-03-01, 3:55 am

Thank you, I'll add your items to my list of criteria. Using these
rules I can discard the obvious false positives I find while scanning
the data and focus the users on the more likely data needing review.

jce

2005-03-01, 8:55 am

http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssnmyth.html

Apparently due to the fact that the middle digits of the SSN are referred to
as the "group number," some people have misconstrued this to mean that the
"group number" refers to racial groupings. So a myth goes around from
time-to-time that encoded in a person's SSN is a key to their race. This
simply is not true.

As should be clear from the explanation of the SSN numbering scheme, the
"group number" refers only to the numerical groups 01-99. For filing
purposes, the "area numbers" are broken down into these numerical subgroups.
So, for example, for area numbers starting with 527 there would be 98
subgroups, one for every number starting with 527-01, and one for every
number starting with 527-02, and so on. This was done back in 1936 because
in that era there were no computers and all the records were stored in
filing cabinets. The early program administrators needed some way to
organize the filing cabinets into sub-groups, to make them more manageable,
and this is the scheme they came up with.

So the "group number" has nothing whatever to do with race. [Allegedly].

JCE

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:ZMKUd.3652224$f47.652088@news.easynews.com...
> There are LOTS of "disclaimers" (and I have no PERSONAL knowledge of
> whether any/all of this is true) but from:
> http://www.codeproject.com/useritems/ssnvalidator.asp
>
> "I used the information available on the SSA website to determine the
> rules for SSN validity. This information includes:
>
> 1.. All SSN's are exactly 9 digits long, and are in the format
> "xxx-xx-xxxx" or "xxxxxxxxx", where "x" is a numeric digit (0 through 9).
> In either form the first three digits are referred to as the "Area
> Number", the middle two digits are the "Group Code" and the final four
> digits are the "Serial Number".
>
> 2.. The first three digits ("Area Number") indicate the geographic
> location which assigned the SSN. The Area Number has several restrictions:
>
> 1.. The Area Number "666" (for obvious reasons) will never be used,
>
> 2.. The Area Number "000" will never be assigned.
>
> 3.. All numbers between "900" and "999" will not be assigned. Various
> government agencies have used Area Numbers "900" through "999" for
> internal management purposes; but for our purposes, these are considered
> invalid.
>
> 3.. The middle two digits ("Group Code") are dependent on the Area
> Number. This number indicates the highest group of numbers assigned to an
> area. The assignment of these numbers, however, is strange (see below).
> The "High" Group Codes are updated monthly and can be viewed at
> http://www.ssa.gov/employer/highgroup.txt .
> Group Codes are assigned according to the following pattern:
>
>
> 1.. For each Area Number, odd numbered Group Codes between 01 and 09
> are assigned first.
>
>
> 2.. Next, even numbers between 10 and 98 are assigned.
>
>
> 3.. When the 98 Group is used up, we drop back and use up the even
> numbers between 02 and 08.
>
>
> 4.. Finally, we use up all the odd numbers between 11 and 99.
> As an example, for Area Number "277" (an Ohio code), the High Group Code
> is currently "08". This means that all odd numbers between 01 and 09, all
> even numbers between 10 and 98, and all even numbers between 02 and 06 are
> used up. New SSN's assigned from this area will have the format:
> 277-08-xxxx.
>
>
> 4.. The last 4 digits ("Serial Number") of a SSN will never be "0000". It
> will always be a number between "0001" and "9999". Serial Numbers are
> assigned in sequential order from "0001" to "9999".
>
> 5.. There are some complete SSN's that will never be issued by the SSA.
> Some of these SSN's were used in media campaigns or otherwise mis-used.
> One example is the number "078-05-1120" which was used by the E.H. Ferree
> Company in an advertising campaign, circa 1938. Over 40,000 people have
> claimed this number as their own since then so the SSA invalidated it. "
>
> --
> Bill Klein
> wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
> <jim.steelman@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1109597126.424606.116000@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>

LX-i

2005-03-01, 8:55 pm

Michael Mattias wrote:
>
> But you cannot demand from anyone a U.S SSN; that number is "for Social
> Securuty and Tax Purposes only Not for Identification." (Not that this
> prohibition is respected by many; but anyone 'may' refuse to provide that
> number and at least in US, do so without prejudice to anything - in theory.
> In practice, it's impossible to get a credit approval without supplying your
> SSN).

Privacy Act of 1973... (Coincidentally, also the year I was born) My
last run-in with this was my promotion test this past Thursday.

=-=

ROUTINE USES: Tests are scored and files by SSN.

DISCLOSURE: Voluntary. However, failure to disclose will render you
ineligible for promotion this cycle, and, if your enlistment expires
before the next testing cycle, ineligible for reenlistment as well.

=-=

Voluntary my @#$@#... :)

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

James J. Gavan

2005-03-01, 8:55 pm

LX-i wrote:
> Michael Mattias wrote:
>
>
>
> Privacy Act of 1973... (Coincidentally, also the year I was born) My
> last run-in with this was my promotion test this past Thursday.
>
> =-=
>
> ROUTINE USES: Tests are scored and files by SSN.
>
> DISCLOSURE: Voluntary. However, failure to disclose will render you
> ineligible for promotion this cycle, and, if your enlistment expires
> before the next testing cycle, ineligible for reenlistment as well.
>
> =-=
>
> Voluntary my @#$@#... :)
>
>
Catch-22 situation, Daniel.

The RAF is controlled by QR's and ACIs (Queen's Regulations and Air
Council Instructions) - or at least that's what they were called some
forty years ago. (R.N. and Army have something parallel). Those
regulations are very specific, no ambiguity, about how 'Officers and
Gentlemen' will conduct themselves and you may NOT <REPEAT> NOT -
discuss women/sex, religion or politics in an officers' mess, or
elsewhere in a military environment, for that matter.

Scenario # 1 - Young Pilot Officer Jones having finished his flying
training, joins his first squadron. Within very short order the station
commander says they will have an officers' dining-in-night. Young
Jonesey is delighted to attend. Has a few more whiskies than he should
and blurts out, "Oh. I voted for Harold Wilson's Labour Government".
Deathly hush. Jonesey - his career rapidly disappears down between his
legs and finishes up in his rectum.

Scenario # 2 - using same QRs and ACIs. While in Germany at a NATO unit
with R.Neth.A.F and Luftwaffe, my immediate boss was a squadron leader
(major). A miner's son with no pretensions of 'gentility, and like me
was an ex-apprentice. (He was an airframe mechanic, I think). Along
comes WW2 and he becomes a bomber pilot, got the DFC and lost hearing in
one ear from shell explosion.

There was a General Election in UK in '60 or '61. Don't even recall who
won. The next morning following the election he comes in steamin', just
steamin'. The Hossifers and Gentlefolk had a tote board up in the
Officers' Mess to list the results. (Absolutely VERBOTEN I would have
thought). There were a group of civilian teachers living in the
Officers' Mess - presumed logic - they had 'degrees', couldn't possibly
house them with the serfs in the Sergeants' Mess. Trouble was this
bunch, like a lot of teachers, had concluded there was more to socialism
than conservatism. So each time a Labourite won - big CHEERS from this
group.

My squadron leader - absolutely hopping mad, "They SHOULDN'T be in the
Officers' Mess". Never occurred to him that the sergeant he was talking
to, ONLY EVER ONCE voted for the Conservatives - more as hero worship,
but it was Winnie Churchill.

Since that first vote I've always voted Liberal, regardless - and yeah I
know Liberal is a sneaky way of saying 'Democrat' :-)

I assume Michael's reference above technically prohibits the military
from storing your SSN in your computerized personnel record ? But the
buggers still want it, regardless of federal legislation. Our Charter of
Rights (replacing the BNA and English Common Law), prohibits what
employers may ask. It's only a w

ago on TV I saw somebody state our
Charter of Rights was based on yours - no bloody wonder we have
problems !

PS: How churlish of me before, I should have written "Congrats Mommy and
Daddy".

Jimmy

LX-i

2005-03-02, 3:55 am

James J. Gavan wrote:
>
> Since that first vote I've always voted Liberal, regardless - and yeah I
> know Liberal is a sneaky way of saying 'Democrat' :-)

Heh - you're not going to drag me into *that* again... ;)

> I assume Michael's reference above technically prohibits the military
> from storing your SSN in your computerized personnel record ?

Oh no - it's my primary key, as well as the primary key of all my
dependents, which they use for health care and such.

> But the
> buggers still want it, regardless of federal legislation. Our Charter of
> Rights (replacing the BNA and English Common Law), prohibits what
> employers may ask. It's only a w

ago on TV I saw somebody state our
> Charter of Rights was based on yours - no bloody wonder we have
> problems !

Our Bill of Rights is fine - just when people start trying to say that
the meaning of words "morphs" over time, and what the people wrote and
what they *meant* are different things.

(darnit - you *did* drag me into that again... ;> )

> PS: How churlish of me before, I should have written "Congrats Mommy and
> Daddy".

Mommy doesn't care about COBOL (outside of being grateful for my being
able to make a living using it), so she wouldn't have seen it in here
anyway. I'll certainly pass along the sentiment, though. :)

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

William M. Klein

2005-03-03, 3:55 am

Howard Brazee

2005-03-03, 3:55 am

Tukla Ratte

2005-03-03, 3:55 am

JerryMouse

2005-03-03, 3:55 am

Howard Brazee

2005-03-03, 3:55 pm

On 1-Mar-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

> Our Bill of Rights is fine - just when people start trying to say that
> the meaning of words "morphs" over time, and what the people wrote and
> what they *meant* are different things.

But if that argument works for the parts I disagree with, I shouldn't be
surprised when the other guys use it for parts that they disagree with.

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-03-03, 3:55 pm

In article <d07bdv$5r4$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>On 1-Mar-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>But if that argument works for the parts I disagree with, I shouldn't be
>surprised when the other guys use it for parts that they disagree with.

From
<http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?s...m&output=gplain> :

--begin quoted text:

.... the words of Thomas Jefferson:

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/w...brf/jefl246.htm

--begin quoted text:

But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the
progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more
enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and
manners and opinions changewith the change of circumstances, institutions
must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as require a
man to wear still the coat which fitted him as a boy, as civilized society
to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

--end quoted text

DD

jce

2005-03-03, 3:55 pm

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d07d2n$8sl$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <d07bdv$5r4$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
> Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> From
> <http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?s...m&output=gplain>
> :
>
> --begin quoted text:
>
> ... the words of Thomas Jefferson:
>
> http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/w...brf/jefl246.htm
>
> --begin quoted text:
>
> But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the
> progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more
> enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and
> manners and opinions changewith the change of circumstances, institutions
> must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as require a
> man to wear still the coat which fitted him as a boy, as civilized society
> to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
>
> --end quoted text
>
> DD

That's why in Florida the bullet train was added to the constitution.
That's why in Florida the class size was added to the constitution

Those are the reasons why in Florida the constitution is now "optional" for
the state to stick to.

Best one of all, is that now 8 (I think) businesses in Miami Dade have
constitutional amendment to allow slot machines. Whoopeee....

Unfortunately the choices we have here are:

Leave people wearing a rather ill fitting boys coat, or have common people
decide that it would be nice if we gave everyone the mandate to wear the
latest mink fur boa with it.

You then get either a coat that doesn't fit, and something that you neither
have nor want so you ignore it.

Where'd all the sensible people go if they ain't in Florida?

JCE

LX-i

2005-03-03, 8:55 pm

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 1-Mar-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> But if that argument works for the parts I disagree with, I shouldn't be
> surprised when the other guys use it for parts that they disagree with.

It doesn't work for *any* parts. You may disagree with what the words
say, but they say what they say. :) I don't mind folks wanting to
change the substance of what it says (though I've seen few worthy of a
change at that level), but changing the substance by redefining the
original words is, IMO, wrong.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chuck Stevens

2005-03-03, 8:55 pm

"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:6c440$422796be$45491f85$1924@KNOLOG
Y.NET...

> It doesn't work for *any* parts. You may disagree with what the words
> say, but they say what they say. :) I don't mind folks wanting to
> change the substance of what it says (though I've seen few worthy of a
> change at that level), but changing the substance by redefining the
> original words is, IMO, wrong.

I don't think it's worthwhile to disagree with what the words are, but the
controversy is over what the words, in controversy, meant when they were
written, and whether what they meant then is meaningful or appropriate
*now*. I've written at length about my *constitutional* right to own a
fully-armed nuclear attack submarine and a stealth bomber (regardless of
whether I actually want to do so or not)!

-Chuck Stevens

LX-i

2005-03-03, 8:55 pm

LX-i

2005-03-04, 3:55 am

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-03-04, 3:55 am

In article <6c440$422796be$45491f85$1924@KNOLOGY.NET>,
LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

[snip]

>It doesn't work for *any* parts. You may disagree with what the words
>say, but they say what they say. :) I don't mind folks wanting to
>change the substance of what it says (though I've seen few worthy of a
>change at that level), but changing the substance by redefining the
>original words is, IMO, wrong.

Word-definitions change over the centuries, last I looked... or do you
still refer to a piano's tuning as 'well-tempered'?

DD

Robert Wagner

2005-03-04, 3:55 am

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 16:43:15 GMT, "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net>
wrote:

>I have to admit that I often wish it was easier to change programming shop
>standards, so I have more power to do things the way I think they should be
>done!!! But I'm glad they aren't so easy to change so that if my shops hired
>Mr. Wagner, he couldn't easily change them to the way he thinks they should be
>done.

You'd be wrong. Your shop would benefit from adopting modern
standards, and more importantly, encouraging programmers to be
creative rather than reactionary.

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-03-04, 8:55 am

In article <IWPVd.41174$kz6.775547@news20.bellglobal.com>,
Donald Tees <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>Technical terms do not change. Yes indeed, the piano still uses a
>tempered scale.

Hmmmmm... I wonder how a term becomes 'technical'. Are evaluations of
'bilious' or 'choleric' medical diagnoses ('technical') or otherwise?

DD

rpl

2005-03-04, 3:55 pm

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>
> Hmmmmm... I wonder how a term becomes 'technical'. Are evaluations of
> 'bilious' or 'choleric' medical diagnoses ('technical') or otherwise?
>
> DD

It was more difficult to keep a piano in tune for any length of time,
prior to the introduction of cast iron frames.

The further away you get from the original tempering sweet spot the more
discordant a piece sounds.

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-03-04, 3:55 pm

In article <p6qdnUziCOilxLXfRVn-uw@rogers.com>,
rpl <plinnane3REMOVE@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>It was more difficult to keep a piano in tune for any length of time,
>prior to the introduction of cast iron frames.

Hey, if it were easy then *everyone* would have been doing it!

>
>The further away you get from the original tempering sweet spot the more
>discordant a piece sounds.

Ow... perhaps it is time to draw a line and add the label 'Here Be
Dragons'... and refrain from crossing it. How something 'sounds', as how
something 'looks', might best be left to Trained And Certified
Aestheticians; it might be readily argued that no matter how close to the
original tempering sweet spot an instrument was it might have sounded
discordant to some who were trained/accustomed/prone by... temperment to
other systems of tuning.

DD

rpl

2005-03-04, 3:55 pm

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <p6qdnUziCOilxLXfRVn-uw@rogers.com>,
> rpl <plinnane3REMOVE@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hey, if it were easy then *everyone* would have been doing it!
>
>
>
>
> Ow... perhaps it is time to draw a line and add the label 'Here Be
> Dragons'... and refrain from crossing it.

Nobody minds dragons (except for the obvious fire-breathing stuff), it's
the stepping in dragon droppings that are annoying.

> How something 'sounds', as how
> something 'looks', might best be left to Trained And Certified
> Aestheticians; it might be readily argued that no matter how close to the
> original tempering sweet spot an instrument was it might have sounded
> discordant to some

Well, you're not going to find a perfect tuned piano or organ... maybe a
really simple piece that hit on the "just right" notes. Sorta neat that
the composers wrote for however the pieces sounded on their instruments,
though.

rpl

> who were trained/accustomed/prone by... temperment to
> other systems of tuning.
>
> DD
>

Donald Tees

2005-03-04, 3:55 pm

rpl wrote:
> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>
> It was more difficult to keep a piano in tune for any length of time,
> prior to the introduction of cast iron frames.
>
> The further away you get from the original tempering sweet spot the more
> discordant a piece sounds.

"Well tempered" refers to adjusting the scale in a very specific way.
The harps are not well tempered as is the piano, they are mainline
tempered, while fret instruments are not tempered at all.

The term has nothing to do with iron frames. It is a mathmatically
precise term refering to a specific adjustment of specific frequencies
within the 88 notes of a piano.

Donald

Donald Tees

2005-03-04, 3:55 pm

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <p6qdnUziCOilxLXfRVn-uw@rogers.com>,
> rpl <plinnane3REMOVE@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hey, if it were easy then *everyone* would have been doing it!
>
>
>
>
> Ow... perhaps it is time to draw a line and add the label 'Here Be
> Dragons'... and refrain from crossing it. How something 'sounds', as how
> something 'looks', might best be left to Trained And Certified
> Aestheticians; it might be readily argued that no matter how close to the
> original tempering sweet spot an instrument was it might have sounded
> discordant to some who were trained/accustomed/prone by... temperment to
> other systems of tuning.
>
> DD
>

"original tempering sweet spot?". Doc, perhaps yopu should look up the
meaning of the term. Try google, under "tempered scale".

Donald

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-03-04, 3:55 pm

In article <rIZVd.44371$kz6.829691@news20.bellglobal.com>,
Donald Tees <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>"original tempering sweet spot?". Doc, perhaps yopu should look up the
>meaning of the term. Try google, under "tempered scale".

Mr Tees, I was using the term 'well-tempered' to convey the sense of 'a
system of tuning in which the distance between notes are equal in terms of
frequency ratios' (as opposed, say, to Pythagorean tuning-by-fifths)...
but I was sloppy in not quoting the phrase 'original tempering sweet
spot', a use I have seen only in the posting to which I was responding.
My error and apologies.

DD

Howard Brazee

2005-03-04, 3:55 pm

On 3-Mar-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

>
> It doesn't work for *any* parts. You may disagree with what the words
> say, but they say what they say. :) I don't mind folks wanting to
> change the substance of what it says (though I've seen few worthy of a
> change at that level), but changing the substance by redefining the
> original words is, IMO, wrong.

I was more concerned about it being dangerous.

Howard Brazee

2005-03-04, 3:55 pm

On 3-Mar-2005, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:

>
> You'd be wrong. Your shop would benefit from adopting modern
> standards, and more importantly, encouraging programmers to be
> creative rather than reactionary.

Modern can be good. It appears that you have strong standards which can be
considered modern by some. Your standards appear to be at least as strong as
standards I see elsewhere, stronger than most. But since they are yours, they
are by definition "right", and won't need any review to see it they fit my
environment.

Creativity is often very good. Sometimes it can be dangerous and costly.
It isn't the goal of ISS, but it is just a tool.

Howard Brazee

2005-03-04, 3:55 pm

On 3-Mar-2005, Donald Tees <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> Technical terms do not change.

Sure they do.

rpl

2005-03-04, 3:55 pm

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <rIZVd.44371$kz6.829691@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> Donald Tees <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> Mr Tees, I was using the term 'well-tempered' to convey the sense of 'a
> system of tuning in which the distance between notes are equal in terms of
> frequency ratios' (as opposed, say, to Pythagorean tuning-by-fifths)...
> but I was sloppy in not quoting the phrase 'original tempering sweet
> spot', a use I have seen only in the posting to which I was responding.
> My error and apologies.

Look up a bit, you quoted what was necessary.

>
> DD
>

Donald Tees

2005-03-04, 3:55 pm

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <rIZVd.44371$kz6.829691@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> Donald Tees <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> Mr Tees, I was using the term 'well-tempered' to convey the sense of 'a
> system of tuning in which the distance between notes are equal in terms of
> frequency ratios' (as opposed, say, to Pythagorean tuning-by-fifths)...
> but I was sloppy in not quoting the phrase 'original tempering sweet
> spot', a use I have seen only in the posting to which I was responding.
> My error and apologies.
>
> DD
>

Technical terms ... ;< )

I live with a string player of world class, and got a two hour
conversation on the topic last night. Prior to that my only explanation
was from a friendly piano tuner a few years back, so the time was not
wasted.

Donald

Donald Tees

2005-03-04, 3:55 pm

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 3-Mar-2005, Donald Tees <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Sure they do.

Not to technicians ... though you may be right when the ad types get
into the act.

Regardless ... "well-tempered" refers to a specific method of tuning,
always has, and still does. If used in the sense of "a good sound, or
'nicely adjusted'" then it is not being used correctly. It is not a
matter of style, it is a matter of using a technical term incorrectly.
Such things change much more slowly than simple phraseology.

Donald

LX-i

2005-03-04, 3:55 pm

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <6c440$422796be$45491f85$1924@KNOLOGY.NET>,
> LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
>
> Word-definitions change over the centuries, last I looked... or do you
> still refer to a piano's tuning as 'well-tempered'?

I might... It still fits, IMO.

This is going to seem like it comes from nowhere, but it does have a
point. Growing up, we attended churches where the King James Version of
the Bible was THE translation, and all others were a violation of
Revelation 22:18-19 (adding to or taking away from the words of this Book).

I'm not sure I agree with all of their reasoning, but one of the ones
they used was that this translation was done when English was at the
height of its usage, and the average number of words in an
English-speaker's vocabulary was quite high. Now, a scant 100-150 years
later, we have these founding documents. Lots of words, lots of words
that have meaning, and also lots of principles contained in those words.
There were very learned men who wrote these documents - doctors,
scientists, etc.

For someone to take a new definition of their words and say "well, I
know that's what they wrote, but what they *meant* was..." is dishonest.
They meant what they *wrote*, no more, no less. If we as a nation are
not happy with that, there is a process to clarify and/or change what
was written - redefining the existing words should not be one of them.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

rpl

2005-03-04, 3:55 pm

LX-i wrote:
> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
<blahblahblah>

First there was just "just". But "just" just wasn't just enough; some
people thought "just" did injustice so then there was "mean", but "mean"
just sounded too mean if you know what I mean so then there was "equal".
There were all kinds of "equal" that weren't equal. But eventually
there was an "equal" that was equal. Well, what we now call "well" used
to be "equal" until an "equal" became really equal, then the "equal"s
that weren't equal just became "well" and, well, the "equal" that really
was equal remained "equal".

Howard Brazee

2005-03-04, 3:55 pm

On 4-Mar-2005, Donald Tees <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>
> Not to technicians

Technology changes. Not only in time, but in location. Technical jargon
changes for useful and political reasons. Terms such as "database", and
"network database" and "atomic power", and "font", and "destroyer", and
"astrology" and "law" (as in law of gravity) change.

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-03-04, 3:55 pm

In article <8U_Vd.45066$kz6.838853@news20.bellglobal.com>,
Donald Tees <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>Technical terms ... ;< )

But... Music's an Art!

>
>I live with a string player of world class, and got a two hour
>conversation on the topic last night. Prior to that my only explanation
>was from a friendly piano tuner a few years back, so the time was not
>wasted.

A... few decades back I made a presentation to my college music-class
about the shift to equal temperment; I used the example of Pythagorean
tuning to show that while it was perfect in terms of geometry and ratios
the octave that resulted from it was (by modern standards) a about a
half-tone wrong... that's why I remembered it.

DD

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-03-04, 3:55 pm

In article <FcadnTyI95Df5rXfRVn-gQ@rogers.com>,
rpl <plinnane3REMOVE@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>Look up a bit, you quoted what was necessary.

Necessity, in this case, just might be in the mind of the beholder; Mr
Tees - for whatever reason - questioned my use of a term and I supplied
what I believed to be clarification.

DD

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-03-04, 3:55 pm

In article <2f0f4$422882eb$45491f85$22993@KNOLOGY.NET>,
LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>I might... It still fits, IMO.
>
>This is going to seem like it comes from nowhere, but it does have a
>point. Growing up, we attended churches where the King James Version of
>the Bible was THE translation, and all others were a violation of
>Revelation 22:18-19 (adding to or taking away from the words of this Book).

Quite right... if King Jim's English was good enough for God to speak then
it should be good enough for anyone!

One might not go so far as saying, as the Swedes used to, 'Traduttori,
traditori' ('translators are traitors') but in my experience it is...
difficult, to say the least, to translate from Hebrew and Ancient Gr

to
English and *not* add to or take away; my favorite example of this is the
ambiguity in Luke II:14.

>
>I'm not sure I agree with all of their reasoning, but one of the ones
>they used was that this translation was done when English was at the
>height of its usage, and the average number of words in an
>English-speaker's vocabulary was quite high.

Ahhhh, for the Oldene Dayse... when an English-Speaker had a vocabulary
such as *ten* English-Speakers cannot, today! I do not know how the
'they' you cite came to this conclusion about a primarily illiterate
society but quantity does not equal quality... it might be that a goodly
chunk of this vocabulary was devoted to words describing the different
kinds of

dles appropriate to various feast-days or the textures of
various kinds of fertiliser.

>Now, a scant 100-150 years
>later, we have these founding documents. Lots of words, lots of words
>that have meaning, and also lots of principles contained in those words.

Here we must disagree. The words do *not* 'have meaning', 'meaning' is
the result of interpretation. Consider the sentence:

'There he founded his wold.'

What might this mean, and to whom? It might mean, to one, that in a
certain place he established an unforested, rolling plain or it might
mean, to another, that someone with a curious sense of verb conjugation
was trying to say 'there he discovered (find/found/founded) his yellow
dye'... or it might mean nothing at all to someone who speaks no English.

> There were very learned men who wrote these documents - doctors,
>scientists, etc.

Don't forget the lawyers... not as many then as now, true, but
nevertheless skilled in the manipulation of language.

>
>For someone to take a new definition of their words and say "well, I
>know that's what they wrote, but what they *meant* was..." is dishonest.

I cannot speak of honesty here but, once again, given that meaning is the
result of interpretation then they wrote what they wrote and its meaning
comes from how it is interpreted.

> They meant what they *wrote*, no more, no less.

The authors had their intentions, they did their best (one hopes) to
convey these intentions by what they wrote... but the meaning comes from
the one who reads.

DD

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-03-04, 3:55 pm

In article <W9KdnS96G4edFLXfRVn-hA@rogers.com>,
rpl <plinnane3REMOVE@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>LX-i wrote:
><blahblahblah>

Oh, I *cannot* resist...

.... it was good of you to have so prominently place a warning-label.

DD

rpl

2005-03-04, 3:55 pm

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <W9KdnS96G4edFLXfRVn-hA@rogers.com>,
> rpl <plinnane3REMOVE@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Oh, I *cannot* resist...
>
> ... it was good of you to have so prominently place a warning-label.
>

I didn't think anybody would care that much about language etymology. A
number of years ago I wanted to read a 12c Latin document which came in
two versions; the original and a 15c English translation. It was easier
to laboriously translate the Latin.

Donald Tees

2005-03-04, 3:55 pm

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <8U_Vd.45066$kz6.838853@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> Donald Tees <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> But... Music's an Art!

Playing is. Theory is a XXXXX.

Donald
;< )

Howard Brazee

2005-03-04, 3:55 pm

On 4-Mar-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>
> Ahhhh, for the Oldene Dayse... when an English-Speaker had a vocabulary
> such as *ten* English-Speakers cannot, today! I do not know how the
> 'they' you cite came to this conclusion about a primarily illiterate
> society but quantity does not equal quality... it might be that a goodly
> chunk of this vocabulary was devoted to words describing the different
> kinds of

dles appropriate to various feast-days or the textures of
> various kinds of fertiliser.

At various times, the literate person was a conqueror who might have Norman
French as his primary language, and anglo-saxon as the language he used with the
serfs. After a few generations of this, languages merge with twice as many
words. The clergy who also spoke Latin contributed as well. The serfs didn't
write much so we don't have a good count of their vocabulary. Maybe if we
could find ancient reality TV shows.

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-03-04, 3:55 pm

In article <Ef-dnSJ3seZCA7XfRVn-vA@rogers.com>,
rpl <plinnane3REMOVE@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>I didn't think anybody would care that much about language etymology.

In comp.LANG.cobol (emphasis added)? There's a thread where folks spent a
bit of time debating the propriety of using 'dialog' as a variant of
'dialogue' and whether 'dialogue' is a verb... and that's just the
iceberg's tip.

>A
>number of years ago I wanted to read a 12c Latin document which came in
>two versions; the original and a 15c English translation. It was easier
> to laboriously translate the Latin.

Oog... pre-Elisabethan can be a bit of a tough row to hoe, aye; it's a bit
more than Moe Howard crying out 'Shempeth, Larryeth! Helpeth me!'

DD

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-03-04, 3:55 pm

In article <d0a8oj$1o1$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>On 4-Mar-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>At various times, the literate person was a conqueror who might have Norman
>French as his primary language, and anglo-saxon as the language he used with the
>serfs. After a few generations of this, languages merge with twice as many
>words.

Folks have noted before how animals have Anglo-Saxon names before they
reach the table and French ones once they get there... cow, beef, swine,
porc, sheep, mutton, etc.

>The clergy who also spoke Latin contributed as well. The serfs didn't
>write much so we don't have a good count of their vocabulary.

As noted above with 'I do not know how the 'they' you cite came to this
conclusion about a primarily illiterate society...'

>Maybe if we could find ancient reality TV shows.

Survivor MCCCXLVIII... The Black Death!

DD

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-03-04, 3:55 pm

In article <Va1Wd.47132$kz6.854935@news20.bellglobal.com>,
Donald Tees <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>Playing is. Theory is a XXXXX.

Oh, I *cannot* resist...

.... you tell that world-class string player I said you should leave her
out of this!

DD

Donald Tees

2005-03-04, 3:55 pm

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 4-Mar-2005, Donald Tees <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Technology changes. Not only in time, but in location. Technical jargon
> changes for useful and political reasons. Terms such as "database", and
> "network database" and "atomic power", and "font", and "destroyer", and
> "astrology" and "law" (as in law of gravity) change.

Yes, but the names of specific theories tend not to. The Pythagorian
theorm, for example, has not changed an iota in a few thousand years.
You can name it something else, but what it refers to stays the same. A
well-tempered scaled fits into that class perfectly ... in fact there is
a pythagorean tempered scale that pre-dates the well tempered scale, and
it has not changed either.

Donald

Donald Tees

2005-03-04, 3:55 pm

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <Va1Wd.47132$kz6.854935@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> Donald Tees <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> Oh, I *cannot* resist...
>
> ... you tell that world-class string player I said you should leave her
> out of this!
>
> DD
>

I will indeed tell *him*. He will be anused.

Donald

Richard

2005-03-04, 3:55 pm

> but the meaning comes from the one who reads.

No. No. You can't have that happen, people will be making up all sorts
of stuff and arguing over it, and then going off and starting their own
organised church. They may start thinking independently, they may start
thinking, or even deciding that its all bunkum anyway.

They must be _told_ what the meaning is and if they disagree they must
be 'corrected' by the inquisition (or the Committee for Unamerican
Activities or Homeland Security or somesuch).

Howard Brazee

2005-03-04, 3:55 pm

On 4-Mar-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>
> Oh, I *cannot* resist...
>
> ... you tell that world-class string player I said you should leave her
> out of this!

I thought Theory was a boy's name.

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-03-04, 3:55 pm

In article <M12Wd.47609$kz6.860232@news20.bellglobal.com>,
Donald Tees <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>I will indeed tell *him*.

Ah well... I figured I had a fifty-fifty shot at it, not the first
coin-toss I lost.

>He will be anused.

In public?

DD

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-03-04, 3:55 pm

In article <d0ac5g$424$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>On 4-Mar-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>I thought Theory was a boy's name.

So Mr Tees tells it, aye.

DD

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-03-04, 8:55 pm

In article <1109963782.427149.132610@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Richard <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:

[snip]
[color=darkred]
>They must be _told_ what the meaning is and if they disagree they must
>be 'corrected' by the inquisition (or the Committee for Unamerican
>Activities or Homeland Security or somesuch).

Which inquisition... Chathar, Spanish or Roman?

DD

Richard

2005-03-04, 8:55 pm

> Which inquisition... Chathar, Spanish or Roman?

They may start a new one for you.

LX-i

2005-03-04, 8:55 pm

rpl wrote:
> LX-i wrote:
>
> <blahblahblah>
>
> First there was just "just". But "just" just wasn't just enough; some
> people thought "just" did injustice so then there was "mean", but "mean"
> just sounded too mean if you know what I mean so then there was "equal".
> There were all kinds of "equal" that weren't equal. But eventually
> there was an "equal" that was equal. Well, what we now call "well" used
> to be "equal" until an "equal" became really equal, then the "equal"s
> that weren't equal just became "well" and, well, the "equal" that really
> was equal remained "equal".

I don't really like Equal - I much prefer Sweet 'N Low.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chuck Stevens

2005-03-04, 8:55 pm

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d0a5ms$r3t$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <2f0f4$422882eb$45491f85$22993@KNOLOGY.NET>,

> One might not go so far as saying, as the Swedes used to, 'Traduttori,
> traditori' ('translators are traitors') ...

Swedes???? Must be bilingual ones ...

> difficult, to say the least, to translate from Hebrew and Ancient Gr

to
> English and *not* add to or take away; my favorite example of this is the
> ambiguity in Luke II:14.

Ambiguity is among the Gr

manuscripts, too. The appropriate translation
of this verse is dependent on what one takes the original text in Gr

to
be.

More specifically, it depends on whether the last word of the verse is
"eudokia" or "eudokias". I don't have a recent Nestle-Aland handy (my
copy's at home), but the edition of the TR I have handy shows the former
according to Stephanus 1554 (with Elzevir 1624), but notes that Lachman
(1850), Tischendorf (1872), Tregelles (1872) and Alford (1870) all prefer
the latter. I seem to recall that at least three of the Great Uncial
Codices (Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) from the fourth/fifth
century AD agreed with the Vulgate (of about the same time) and earlier
Latin recensions in reflecting the latter form, and that argues strongly for
it as more likely to be the original form.

Then, of course, one could argue that the TR *really was* the text that God
intended all along, and that it took fifteen centuries for Him to correct
all those errors from earlier texts ...

-Chuck Stevens

jce

2005-03-05, 8:55 am

"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:2f0f4$422882eb$45491f85$22993@KNOLO
GY.NET...
> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
> I might... It still fits, IMO.
>
> This is going to seem like it comes from nowhere, but it does have a
> point. Growing up, we attended churches where the King James Version of
> the Bible was THE translation, and all others were a violation of
> Revelation 22:18-19 (adding to or taking away from the words of this
> Book).
>
> I'm not sure I agree with all of their reasoning, but one of the ones they
> used was that this translation was done when English was at the height of
> its usage, and the average number of words in an English-speaker's
> vocabulary was quite high. Now, a scant 100-150 years later, we have
> these founding documents. Lots of words, lots of words that have meaning,
> and also lots of principles contained in those words. There were very
> learned men who wrote these documents - doctors, scientists, etc.
This would be a fine argument if they were translating from English to
English. One might want to know the quality of their Gr

, Hebew and of
course Latin (when they went to the Latin Vulgate).

> For someone to take a new definition of their words and say "well, I know
> that's what they wrote, but what they *meant* was..." is dishonest. They
> meant what they *wrote*, no more, no less. If we as a nation are not
> happy with that, there is a process to clarify and/or change what was
> written - redefining the existing words should not be one of them.
Some words have no direct translation so you have to come close. A bird in
the hand is worth two in the bush....means one thing to someone equipped
with the knowledge of proverbs and an innocent mind...but entirely another
thing to a Londoner negotiating with a hooker.

JCE

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
> ~ / \/ o ~ ~
> ~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
> ~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
> ~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
> ~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
> ~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

James J. Gavan

2005-03-05, 8:55 am

jce wrote:
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:2f0f4$422882eb$45491f85$22993@KNOLO
GY.NET...
>
>
> Some words have no direct translation so you have to come close. A bird in
> the hand is worth two in the bush....means one thing to someone equipped
> with the knowledge of proverbs and an innocent mind...but entirely another
> thing to a Londoner negotiating with a hooker.

Meself. Born In London but can't recall that ornithological quote :-)

But a real one and 'afters' = "pudding" or "dessert"

This particular youth is shortcutting from Shaftsbury Avenue which leads
down to Piccadilly. So I short cut through the back streets to get me in
a more direct route for Leicester Square.

From out of the shadows comes a young lady of the night. God knows what
she really looked like - can't tell with dimmed street lights.

Usual, "Hello deary. Want some fun ?"

"No", I reply, "I've already had my dinner/supper".

There's a rasping cackle from the shadows as her ugly 'supervisor' surfaces.

"Ha ! Ha !. Wot abaht yer afters ?".

Jimmy

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-03-05, 3:55 pm

In article <1109966479.420116.296050@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Richard <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>
>They may start a new one for you.

Oh, no need for all the bother, really.

DD

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-03-05, 3:55 pm

In article <d0amiv$2jd2$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com>,
Chuck Stevens <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d0a5ms$r3t$1@panix5.panix.com...
>
>
>Swedes???? Must be bilingual ones ...

At the very least.

>
>
>Ambiguity is among the Gr

manuscripts, too. The appropriate translation
>of this verse is dependent on what one takes the original text in Gr

to
>be.
>
>More specifically, it depends on whether the last word of the verse is
>"eudokia" or "eudokias".

What a difference a letter makes. My copy of the Interlinear (Zondervan,
Marshall, 1958/1975) shows the latter and the translation 'of goodwill'.
The Novvm Testamentvm Graece (Oxford, Souter, 1910/1953) has a footnote
about a yard-and-a-half long with Gr

, Hebrew and English (both modern
and gothic alphabets) that I'll wait until I have time to decipher...
evidently -as is Aleph-asterisk ('significant primam scripturam, ubi idem
aut recentior...'), A ('(saec.v):e a p r (deest aliquantum)...')... I'll
stop here.

DD

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-03-05, 3:55 pm

Howard Brazee

2005-03-05, 3:55 pm

Chuck Stevens

2005-03-05, 8:56 pm

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-03-06, 3:55 pm

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-03-06, 3:55 pm

rpl

2005-03-06, 3:55 pm

Donald Tees

2005-03-06, 3:55 pm

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-03-06, 3:55 pm

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-03-06, 3:55 pm

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-03-06, 3:55 pm

Donald Tees

2005-03-06, 3:55 pm

Donald Tees

2005-03-06, 3:55 pm

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-03-07, 8:55 pm

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-03-07, 8:55 pm

Richard

2005-03-07, 8:55 pm

> Which inquisition... Chathar, Spanish or Roman?

They may start a new one for you.

LX-i

2005-03-07, 8:55 pm

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-03-07, 8:55 pm

In article <1109966479.420116.296050@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Richard <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>
>They may start a new one for you.

Oh, no need for all the bother, really.

DD

Richard

2005-03-07, 8:55 pm

Chuck Stevens

2005-03-07, 8:55 pm

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d0cl3m$lpv$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <d0amiv$2jd2$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com>,

> The Novvm Testamentvm Graece (Oxford, Souter, 1910/1953) has a footnote
> about a yard-and-a-half long with Gr

, Hebrew and English (both modern
> and gothic alphabets) that I'll wait until I have time to decipher...
> evidently -as is Aleph-asterisk ('significant primam scripturam, ubi idem
> aut recentior...'), A ('(saec.v):e a p r (deest aliquantum)...')... I'll
> stop here.

I gather that the apparatus in the NTG isn't too bad, but the text is
basically TR. I'd consider trying to get hold of a Nestle-Aland 27th
representing more modern scholarship ...

-Chuck Stevens

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-03-07, 8:55 pm

In article <d0i0qu$1enq$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com>,
Chuck Stevens <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d0cl3m$lpv$1@panix5.panix.com...
>
>
>I gather that the apparatus in the NTG isn't too bad, but the text is
>basically TR. I'd consider trying to get hold of a Nestle-Aland 27th
>representing more modern scholarship ...

Of course... when in doubt, obtain another text!

DD

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-03-07, 8:55 pm

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-03-07, 8:55 pm

LX-i

2005-03-07, 8:55 pm

jce

2005-03-08, 8:55 am

Donald Tees

2005-03-08, 8:55 am

Chuck Stevens

2005-03-08, 8:55 am

to
> English and *not* add to or take away; my favorite example of this is the
> ambiguity in Luke II:14.

Ambiguity is among the Gr

manuscripts, too. The appropriate translation
of this verse is dependent on what one takes the original text in Gr

Chuck Stevens

2005-03-10, 3:55 am

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-03-10, 3:55 am

Sponsored Links