correction on hebrew translation [Archive]

Hooahguy

11-24-2008, 21:25

apparently, according to a pic a friend who took for me,
http://screenshot.xfire.com/screenshot/large/fd8d6da00a3ceaf27fef9f0427779abe705eef7d.jpg (http://www.xfire.com/screenshots/celticpunk/ss_file-fd8d6da00a3ceaf27fef9f0427779abe705eef7d.jpg)

the translation for the holy temple in jerusalem is wrong. "Habait Haquados", assuming you meant Habait hakadosh, should be "Bait Hamikdash."

unless the ever exalted EB team, has it correct and i am wrong, i think the translation Bait Hamikdash is correct, not Habait hakadosh.

Foot

11-24-2008, 21:32

That was a very old piece of work, I don't know when it was last checked. Your friend may be right.

Foot

Ibrahim

11-24-2008, 21:36

IIRC, shouldn't Hebrew's adjectives agree with what they're describing (gender, number, case (if any), and definetness? Ha means "the", and the rest is cognate with arabic, so the literal meaning "the house the holy" makes sense accordingly.

It works kind of like arabic: al-bayt al-maqdis lit: "the house the holy"

I took a crash course in ancient hebrew, and happen to remember that part.:book:

EDIT: i'm right-just checked it again. Its even like the modern version

Hooahguy

11-24-2008, 21:42

Ibrahim

11-24-2008, 21:51

well actually its my correction. he (celtic punk) supplied the pic b/c i no longer have much time to play EB nor do i have the latest version. all i know is that according to judaism, its "Beit hamikdash."

wait, it just donned on me:

beit might in this particular case be treated as a definite (like a name of a person), hence negating the need for ha-, which might explain why you have beit hamiqdash.

inevitable conclusion: we're both right. If beit is meant to be indefinate, then ha-beit works. if beit is supposed to be definite by default (like a person's name), then beit also works.

I'm assuming the EB team thought it was naturally indefinite (beit afterall means house):beam:

this might explain the discreptincy. again, Arabic was a helper :wink:

Hooahguy

11-24-2008, 21:57

well if the aim was to put in the correct hebrew translation, then "beit hamikdash" is correct.

gamegeek2

11-24-2008, 22:05

I agree with Beit HaMiqdash as the correct translation. I'm no expert, listen to Shigawire or an expert on Ancient Hebrew (not Modern Hebrew).

FYI, I got bored one day and learned the Phoenician alphabet. Typical EB-inspired behavior, right? And ditto on the Greek alphabet, and Cyrillic after that. The explanation is not that I'm Jewish, it's that I play EB.

Ibrahim

11-24-2008, 22:05

well if the aim was to put in the correct hebrew translation, then "beit hamikdash" is correct.

then it should be changed.

problem is, EB 1.2 is already out, and they are switching totally to EB2. my suggestion is that you have to change it yourself. or I could do it for you if you want, once I get a hold of my laptop.:2thumbsup:

Hooahguy

11-24-2008, 22:17

speaking of which, it's been shown that, in Phoenician inscriptions, "holy" is qoph-dalet-shin, qdsh, not qoph-dalet-samekh, qds. Wouldn't Mqds (Miqdas) be Mqdsh (Miqdash) as well? And same for the HaParasim HaQdosim, shouldn't it be HaQdoshim? (eg. the horsemen the sacred/holy)

I agree with Bet HaMiqdash as the correct translation. The temple mound is Har HaBayit, and the inner sanctuary is the Qodesh HaQodashim.

FYI, I got bored one day and learned the Phoenician alphabet. Typical EB-inspired behavior, right? And ditto on the Greek alphabet, and Cyrillic after that. The explanation is not that I'm Jewish, it's that I play EB.
not "bet hamikdash"
"bet" is the 2nd letter of the hebrew alphabet.
if you truly want the correct translation, leve out those "q"s. i have never seen any transliteration of that word with "q"s.

Shigawire

11-24-2008, 22:58

speaking of which, it's been shown that, in Phoenician inscriptions, "holy" is qoph-dalet-shin, qdsh, not qoph-dalet-samekh, qds. Wouldn't Mqds (Miqdas) be Mqdsh (Miqdash) as well? And same for the HaParasim HaQdosim, shouldn't it be HaQdoshim? (eg. the horsemen the sacred/holy)

I agree with Bet HaMiqdash as the correct translation. The temple mound is Har HaBayit, and the inner sanctuary is the Qodesh HaQodashim.

FYI, I got bored one day and learned the Phoenician alphabet. Typical EB-inspired behavior, right? And ditto on the Greek alphabet, and Cyrillic after that. The explanation is not that I'm Jewish, it's that I play EB.

Except the letter Shin has a different pronunciation in Punic than in Hebrew.

gamegeek2

11-25-2008, 03:04

blitzkrieg80

11-25-2008, 05:20

all i know is that according to judaism, its "Beit hamikdash."
you are seriously claiming that as your one and only source, yet claiming to know about the language? :inquisitive:
can you even claim a date on that based on your 'teachings'?

cmacq

11-25-2008, 08:06

The site of the temple, or temple mound, is called Har Habayit, in the Latin script of modern Hebrew. The 2nd temple, which falls well into the EB time frame, was called Beit Ha-mikdash (House of the Holy), in ancient Hebrew. However, there are some that make their living writting this in differing ways, in the Latin script (see beth-bet-beit-bait, meaning house [the building, not the doctor). In contrast I think the above is the modern Ha-bait Ha-(mi)qua/k-do/a-s(h), again meaning, 'House Holy?'

CmacQ

Hooahguy

11-25-2008, 13:09

you are seriously claiming that as your one and only source, yet claiming to know about the language? :inquisitive:
can you even claim a date on that based on your 'teachings'?
considering i am jewish, well versed in hebrew, well versed in the 5 books of the torah, plus versed in the history of my people, i think i am qualified to say that.

Hooahguy

11-25-2008, 13:21

Question: Is the word for "house" spelled with a Yud or not? If so, it should be "beit", if not, "bet". That's just my advice, though.

it is spelled with one in hebrew.

blitzkrieg80

11-25-2008, 18:22

considering i am jewish, well versed in hebrew, well versed in the 5 books of the torah, plus versed in the history of my people, i think i am qualified to say that.
which is completely subjective.
an appeal to authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority) is no real argument at all, but nonetheless does not trump factual evidence, or at least evidence with an attempt at objectivity. i do not claim that the teachings of Judaism are wrong, but what are their sources? they have writing by EB's timeline but are there any Egyptian/Persian/other contemporary writers/records to help date the name in context?

Hooahguy

11-25-2008, 18:38

i dont get whats so difficult about this.
as of now, in EB, the description of the temple tells us that the temple, according to the jews, was "Habait Haquados," which is wrong, because i can bring sources from the Mishnah and Gemarah (the halachic sources for us jews) that says otherwise. if you truly want i will scan the pages from the mishnah/gemarah where it says that and show them to you......
egyptian/persian records wont say that it was called Biet Hamikdash, b/c it was called different things by different people. if you are aiming to have what JEWS called it, then Biet Hamikdash is correct. i dont get whats so difficult about this.

MarcusAureliusAntoninus

11-25-2008, 19:39

I difficulty is that you are simply saying we should trust you on your word only. Not that you shouldn't be trusted or that you are wrong. Saying you know for simple reasons it just something that gets under the skin of people who base their collection of knowledge on hard facts and lists of sources. Scanning those pages would be a good step to providing proof. Though you may not really need to. Nobody is really disagreeing with you directly.

And on general terms to everybody: Don't think that we are saying that just because an EB team member says something that it is absolute. Within the internal forums there are plenty of arguments about sources and proving an idea. For all things added to the game, historians on the team are required to show sources and evidence before their idea can be included. And with EB2, all that information is being stored in one place so that it can be referenced later.

Hooahguy

11-25-2008, 21:09

oh, now i get it. i will provide the scans on it ASAP.

Hooahguy

11-26-2008, 13:11

well, here it is:
i underlined the words Beit Hamikdash in this pic i took of a english-hebrew Mishnah.
https://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa73/hooahguy14/mishnah.jpg

gamegeek2

11-26-2008, 15:17

Yup, that's Beit HaMiqdash alright. Note that it's a Qup, not a Kap.

Hooahguy

11-26-2008, 15:26

nope. its a kuf, like as you would say mickey

Sir_Lysander

11-27-2008, 00:47

OK, that makes sense Shigawire.

@hooahguy, in modern Hebrew the letters quph/kuf are pronounced the same, as /k/, so you're right, 'k' would be the correct transliteration for modern Hebrew. However, we need Ancient Hebrew, and Shigawire's advice.

Question: Is the word for "house" spelled with a Yud or not? If so, it should be "beit", if not, "bet". That's just my advice, though.
Except, Shigawire mentions the Shin, not the Kuf or Kaf.

Yup, that's Beit HaMiqdash alright. Note that it's a Qup, not a Kap.

nope. its a kuf, like as you would say mickey
Somewhere about 10 years ago or so (no more than 15) is when I started seeing any use of a "q" in Hebrew transliteration. No transliterated text I have seen published before then uses it. I also remember sitting in Hebrew School, and having Cantor Asher reminding us "There is no 'Q' in Hebrew."

Unfortunately, I've never been able to discover exactly when, and exactly why, "modern" transliteration began using the Q. It makes no sense to me, as the few I have seen still seem to use a K when spelling Kaddish - yet that would "violate" the rule of using a Q.

gamegeek2

11-27-2008, 00:57

it does make the /k/ sound, and it never makes the /kw/ sound, but it's different from the Kap, which comes from Aramaic K, but the Kuf/Quf comes from the Aramic Q. They make the same sound, but they're different letters. Like C and K in English (with exceptions in front of i, e, and y for 'C'). Originially they were different sounds, but they have evolved to be the same. I'm fairly sure that they would have been different in Ancient Hebrew (which wouldn't have had the thousand years or so of European influence that Modern Hebrew has). Nowadays, there is no difference between the letters, but they are still different letters, and should be translated as such. Why do you think us EB people complain about 'Themistokles' being written as 'Themistocles' in English? It's the same idea.

Hooahguy

11-30-2008, 01:42

so is the EB team accepting my evidence?

blitzkrieg80

11-30-2008, 03:09

what is the publishing data on that scanned reference? (just curious) not all editions are created equal.

IrishHitman

11-30-2008, 04:04

How much is it worth to demolish?

cmacq

11-30-2008, 04:08

Not to offend anyone, nor to draw too fine a point, yet within the EB time frame, Hebrew was more or less a dead language, and either Aramaic, Samaritan Aramaic, or Greek were commonly used in the secular life of the street and state. Hebrew continued to be used to a limited degree, along with both Greek and Aramaic in a various polities that comprised Palestine among adherents of Samaritanism and Judaism, as well as the various associated sects, much as Latin was applied in Medieval Europe. However, as these communities, again in the EB time frame, were few and far between, its use was extremely limited, which runs somewhat contrary to the more popular misconceptions.

CmacQ

IrishHitman

11-30-2008, 04:14

Not to offend anyone, nor to draw too fine a point, yet within the EB time frame, Hebrew was more or less a dead language, and either Aramaic, Samaritan Aramaic, or Greek were commonly used in the secular life of the street and state. Hebrew continued to be used to limited degree, along with both Greek and Aramaic in a various polities that comprised Palestine among adherents of Samaritanism and Judaism, as well as the various associated sects, much as Latin was applied in Medieval Europe.

CmacQ

If people get offended by historical fact, then they need to take a break from being such a tight ass.

MarcusAureliusAntoninus

11-30-2008, 10:25

EB v1.2 was the last version of EB1 and EB2 will use a different wonder system with completely redone descriptions. The Jewish temple description may only exist a couple sentences or something and not even use any regional language name. This is one of those issues that is too late to change for EB1 and too early to know what is going to happen for EB2.

As for the accuracy, etc for the EB1 description:

That was a very old piece of work, I don't know when it was last checked. Your friend may be right.

Foot

antisocialmunky

11-30-2008, 15:38

Well, since it doesn't seem like its going to be changed officially in EB1, why not just go edit the text yourself? I'm pretty sure its in the descr_building.txt or something like that.

Like they said, they don't know how its going to work in EB2 yet. :book:

Hooahguy

12-01-2008, 03:19

what about a hotfix or something?

Celtic_Punk

12-01-2008, 03:37

woo, Honourable mention!

Hooahguy

12-01-2008, 15:50

can someone post on rapishare the latest descr_building.txt?

Bluefire

12-01-2008, 19:31

Just to make it clear, it should be Bet Hamikdash or Bet Hamiqdash, depends on the most suitable English counterpart for Kuf (the correct pronounciation has the throat involved). The Yud in this case is there to make the 'e' sound to a long vowel instead of a medium vowel, and not to turn it into an 'ee'.

Blazing141

12-01-2008, 21:07

FWIW, my vote is to ditch the "Q". Realism not an issue here as it is a transliteration and I'm not sure there is any one "officially correct" way to do this. Numerous sources write it with a "K", I'm sure some do it with a "Q" (though I can't recall ever seeing it that way) -- but I don't think it is very important as long the phoneme is correct.

Blazing141

12-01-2008, 21:09

Also, I'm not sure that a "Q" is glotal (i.e. gets the throat involved)--or at least not in English or Latin...

abou

12-01-2008, 21:12

There is kapf (back of mouth and similar to Latin C and Greek Kappa) and there is qoph (within the throat) - at least as far as the Punic voice mod was concerned. Considering the relation of those two languages, if we ever get the chance to correct this and release it we would use a K or Q accordingly for those sounds as transliterations.