Do atheists read the primary sources?

[Melchior]

So if "else" admits a degree then "other" admits a degree too, dumbass.

Something else or something other can differ a lot or not so much from something else.

What "sounds good" in English is an entirely different story.

We need to translate whole sentences or utterances from one language to another.
And try to pick two idiomatic versions in both languages.

'Something else altogether' is an idiom of long standing:

https://books.google.com/books?id=8utHA ... 22&f=false

'Wholly other' is a barbarism of the illiterate.

[duszek]

Language is not fixed once and for all, it keeps changing.

If we use a new expression and other people like it and do it too the new expression becomes idiomatic.

You are completely and entirely right if you tell me that an expression is of long standing.
Whether it will remain so in the future is an entirely and wholly different matter.

[Melchior]

Language is not fixed once and for all, it keeps changing.

If we use a new expression and other people like it and do it too the new expression becomes idiomatic.

You are completely and entirely right if you tell me that an expression is of long standing.
Whether it will remain so in the future is an entirely and wholly different matter.

'Wholly other' is so rare as to be remarkable for its oddity:

'Utterly alien' gets 10,000 hits on google-books search limited to the 19th century:

https://www.google.com/#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_ ... y+alien%22

'Wholly different' gets 200,000 hits:

https://www.google.com/#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_ ... fferent%22

'Wholly other' gets a mere 2,000, and many of them are apparently from translations of Plato or religious texts, where the translator allowed the foreign language to interfere with idiomatic English:

https://www.google.com/#q=%22wholly+oth ... s&start=10

'Wholly different' is 200 times commoner, and 'wholly other' is closely associated with translations, where the translator allowed himself to be influenced by the original language, which leads to an awkward and stilted translation.

[ReliStuPhD]

'Something else altogether' is an idiom of long standing:

https://books.google.com/books?id=8utHA ... 22&f=false

'Wholly other' is a barbarism of the illiterate.

Look. If you want to double down on your position, you're welcome to, but you won't be able to convince me that my 25 years of study across 5 languages, combined with an appeal to over 100 years of usage on this point is somehow "illiterate." If you want to be the internet upstart who shows all those German scholars over the past 100+ years how they were wrong to translate "ganz andere" as "wholly other," be my guest. I'll look forward to your publication in a peer-reviewed journal. In the meantime, in an effort to keep your undies from getting anymore in a bunch than they already are, I'm perfectly happy to use "something else altogether" since there's no qualitative difference between the two phrases.

So, getting off this red herring and back to the original discussion (at least as I remember it, since the scrolly thing at the bottom isn't letting me get all the way back to my original point): God is ganz andere—"something else altogether"—and simply beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. Science simply cannot prove or disprove God, which is why we have to go to metaphysics to get at the "problem."

[Melchior]

'Something else altogether' is an idiom of long standing:

https://books.google.com/books?id=8utHA ... 22&f=false

'Wholly other' is a barbarism of the illiterate.

Look. If you want to double down on your position, you're welcome to, but you won't be able to convince me that my 25 years of study across 5 languages, combined with an appeal to over 100 years of usage on this point is somehow "illiterate." If you want to be the internet upstart who shows all those German scholars over the past 100+ years how they were wrong to translate "ganz andere" as "wholly other," be my guest. I'll look forward to your publication in a peer-reviewed journal. In the meantime, in an effort to keep your undies from getting anymore in a bunch than they already are, I'm perfectly happy to use "something else altogether" since there's no qualitative difference between the two phrases.

So, getting off this red herring and back to the original discussion (at least as I remember it, since the scrolly thing at the bottom isn't letting me get all the way back to my original point): God is ganz andere—"something else altogether"—and simply beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. Science simply cannot prove or disprove God, which is why we have to go to metaphysics to get at the "problem."

'Utterly alien', 'something else altogether', or 'wholly different' are acceptable translations of ganz andere. 'Wholly other', though it does occur (but rarely) in older texts, has such an odd feel to it that it calls attention to itself, but most importantly it is not an accurate translation to begin with! I was surprised to find it at all outside of translations, but it is very rare as such (outside of translations). Many of the hits are duplicates. Here is a non-religious usage from 1831, which is, as I said, quite rare:

https://books.google.com/books?id=6ydEA ... 22&f=false

I was quite surprised to find it at all. If you want to use it, beware that it is quite archaic-sounding and not idiomatic. I would not use it. It is illiterate just to translate it straight from the German, word-for-word.

[ReliStuPhD]

I was quite surprised to find it at all. If you want to use it, beware that it is quite archaic-sounding and not idiomatic. I would not use it. It is illiterate just to translate it straight from the German.

That's a misuse of "illiterate," but fair enough. ganz andere as "wholly other" in the study of religion is quite common, but it is grounded in late 19th/early 20th-century usage (Otto, Buber, Heidegger, etc, etc, etc.). In the field of religion, we use it enough for it to be "current," but I've no objection to your point that it's considered archaic in other contexts. I am happy to qualify future uses of "wholly other" when translating ganz andere with something like the statement "It would be better to translate this as 'utterly alien', 'something else altogether', or 'wholly different.'" In fact, I'll make sure I do the next time I lecture on Rudolph Otto. The undergrads will have no idea I took it from an internet forum.

So, just in case I was unclear (which happens a good deal), I am not maintaining that "wholly other" is the best—or even the only—translation. I am simply holding that Henry Quirk was incorrect in saying "'ganz andere' is not 'wholly other.'" But I am certainly fine with shifting to the translation you both consider to be more appropriate, and will do so going forward.

[henry quirk]

"I am simply holding that Henry Quirk was incorrect in saying "'ganz andere' is not 'wholly other."

Wasn't me who said that but Melchior.

Seems there was some incorrect quoting up-thread.

[ReliStuPhD]

My apologies, Henry. I saw this and didn't realize you were quoting Melchior above. I admit I was a bit confused why you would put the first line of your own post in quotes. Now I know.

"ganz andere is not 'wholly other' but.......'completely different'"

[ReliStuPhD]

Wasn't expecting to, just wanted to propose a 3rd possibility.

The problem is that it's not a possibility. Nothing comes from nothing.

Ah, not so Grasshopper!

Oops! I missed this reply, Mechior.

You'll need to explain how you get around Parmenides. And just in case you're thinking of the "nothing" of modern physics, the quantum vacuum is not actually nothing, but something.

[Melchior]

I was quite surprised to find it at all. If you want to use it, beware that it is quite archaic-sounding and not idiomatic. I would not use it. It is illiterate just to translate it straight from the German.

That's a misuse of "illiterate," but fair enough. ganz andere as "wholly other" in the study of religion is quite common, but it is grounded in late 19th/early 20th-century usage (Otto, Buber, Heidegger, etc, etc, etc.). In the field of religion, we use it enough for it to be "current," but I've no objection to your point that it's considered archaic in other contexts. I am happy to qualify future uses of "wholly other" when translating ganz andere with something like the statement "It would be better to translate this as 'utterly alien', 'something else altogether', or 'wholly different.'" In fact, I'll make sure I do the next time I lecture on Rudolph Otto. The undergrads will have no idea I took it from an internet forum.

So, just in case I was unclear (which happens a good deal), I am not maintaining that "wholly other" is the best—or even the only—translation. I am simply holding that Henry Quirk was incorrect in saying "'ganz andere' is not 'wholly other.'" But I am certainly fine with shifting to the translation you both consider to be more appropriate, and will do so going forward.

Regardless of whether 'wholly other' is unidiomatic, it is not a proper, accurate translation of ganz andere. Andere here means 'different', 'alien', etc. 'Other' is not quantifiable. It cannot be 'more or less', or 'somewhat', or 'wholly'. Nietzsche's wir andere has often been translated as 'we others' and that is also incorrect. It is 'the rest of us'.

[ReliStuPhD]

Regardless of whether 'wholly other' is unidiomatic, it is not a proper, accurate translation of ganz andere. Andere here means 'different', 'alien', etc.

Sorry, but you're wrong again.

other: "used to refer to people or things that are additional or different to people or things that have been mentioned or are known about"
Origin

Old English ōther, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch and German ander, from an Indo-European root meaning 'different'.

At this point, it's clear that my actual point is no longer being debated, and you're just expressing your opinions on what words don't mean, despite their established etymology and more or less every accepted guideline of translation. I'm now highly skeptical that you really have the training in linguistics you appear to claim. But anyway, this is now a debate between you and Oxford, so I'll leave you to it.

'Other' is not quantifiable. It cannot be 'more or less', or 'somewhat', or 'wholly'.

You still don't understand the usage, do you? Oh well, I've pointed you to the authors, so you can argue with them. So now it's you against the Oxford University Press, Rudolph Otto, Martin Heidegger, and a whole host of others. Have fun with that.

Well, at least there's now one less thread to bother with. Thanks to all those stayed on topic.

[Melchior]

Regardless of whether 'wholly other' is unidiomatic, it is not a proper, accurate translation of ganz andere. Andere here means 'different', 'alien', etc.

Sorry, but you're wrong again:

other: "used to refer to people or things that are additional or different to people or things that have been mentioned or are known about"
Origin

Old English ōther, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch and German ander, from an Indo-European root meaning 'different'.

At this point, it's clear that my actual point is no longer being debated, and you're just expressing your opinions on what words don't mean, despite their established etymology and more or less every accepted guideline of translation. I'm now highly skeptical that you really have the training in linguistics you appear to claim. But anyway, this is now a debate between you and Oxford, so I'll leave you to it.

'Other' is not quantifiable. It cannot be 'more or less', or 'somewhat', or 'wholly'.

You still don't understand the usage, do you? Oh well, I've pointed you to the authors, so you can argue with them. So now it's you against the Oxford University Press, Rudolph Otto, Martin Heidegger, and a whole host of others. Have fun with that.

Well, at least there's now one less thread to bother with. Thanks to all those stayed on topic.

Even if they are etymologically related, the point remains that 'other' is not quantifiable. I cannot be more 'other' than you. Got it? Thus something cannot be 'wholly' other. The sense Oxford is referring to is used in a different construction, not as a prepositional adjective (for example 'other than').

But still: 'This work-horse is very different from a race horse.' You cannot replace the words in this way: 'This work-horse is very other from a race horse.' There work horses and 'other' kinds, but 'other' cannot be a matter of degree.

Got it yet, dumbass? Categorically, absolutely, and once and for all: Ganz andere cannot be translated as 'wholly other'. It is incorrect. Correct translations include:

'utterly alien', 'something else altogether', or 'wholly different

[ReliStuPhD]

Even if they are etymologically related, the point remains that 'other' is not quantifiable. I cannot be more 'other' than you. Got it? Thus something cannot be 'wholly' other. The sense Oxford is referring to is used in a different construction, not as a prepositional adjective. Got it yet, dumbass?

How cute. Deficient reasoning capped with name-calling.

Anyway, have fun with OUP and Heidegger.

[Obvious Leo]

his own pet god was invented by a bunch of illiterate post-neolithic goat-herders in the desert.

A point of historical interest. The mono-god which so enslaved the minds of the goat-herders was actually the confection of an Egyptian pharoah by the name of Amenhotep IV, who later changed his name to Akhenaten on the advice of a shrewd PR agent. Akhenaten was a fruitloop of rare calibre, even by the lofty standards of Egyptian inbred royalty, so his nutty new religion never really caught on with his own people, who already had gods coming out of their ears. However the priesthood of Aten survived as a minority cult for quite a few centuries after Amenhotep's death and it became the preferred religion of a minority population of Judeans who had been marched across the Sinai in chains for making pricks of themselves with the neighbours. In those days Egypt was the regional superpower, and thus the world's policeman in much the same way as the US is today. Eventually the Egyptians got sick of having these quarrelsome folk within their ranks so they chucked them out again. The Judeans dutifully marched their way back across the Sinai, taking their new god with them, and got straight back into the serious business of making pricks of themselves with the neighbours, an honourable tradition which they have managed to maintain right up until the present day.

Akhenaten was reputed to have had the most beautiful wife in Egypt, a sheila who went by the name of Nefertiti. By all accounts she was famous for them.

[ReliStuPhD]

"...what are "water bugs" "

Little buggers that skitter along the surface tension of puddles like speedboats.

#

"and what do you do with them once you find them?"

Catch 'em, look at 'em, comment on them...try to make 'em race each other (which is dumb on our part, but we try anyway).

Reminds me of my childhood. Well done!