Talk:Chai (symbol)/Archive 1

User:AnonMoos continues to revert this page without talking about it. Epson291 07:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are you lying? It hardly creates that mutual confidence which conduces to mutual fruitful collaboration when you lie about the fact that I've been discussing a lot. Furthermore, you're the one who has refused to discuss any of the factual matters involved in your edits, instead dragging in irrelevant red herrings, such as attacking me for what you perceive my religion to be (on the basis of somewhat inadequate evidence). AnonMoos 15:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

He's has also edited my comments on his talk page. Epson291 07:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That's because I don't need personal attacks from you -- attacking me for what you perceive my religion to be (on the basis of somewhat inadequate evidence) -- nor condescending unctuous pointers to Wikipedia policy pages which attempt to cover for the fact that you refuse to address any of the factual matters involved in your edits. What I need is substantial FACTUAL explanations for the problematic features of your edits. AnonMoos 15:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

He wrote this on my talk page: Epson291 07:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Dude, an English translation "The People of Israel Live!" only makes sense if you understand חי to be an imperative verb form, or a form which has optative semantic force, but there's no grammatical analysis of חי which makes this plausible in Biblical or Rabbinical Hebrew. And the words עם ישראל חי simply do not occur in the original Hebrew of Genesis 45:3. Furthermore, you may not like Black Hebrews, but that's no reason why that valid facts about them shouldn't be mentioned on the page. Why don't you confine yourself to areas that you know something about (such as modern history and songs), and just leave aside areas where you apparently know very little (such as ancient Hebrew and linguistics)?? AnonMoos 06:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

---

What that means is that you haven't answered any of the following questions: --

1) In which morphological paradigm slot of Hebrew verb inflection do you place the form חי in עם ישראל חי ?

2) What evidence do you have that this verb inflection can take on imperative or optative semantic value (something which would be required for a translation of the phrase into English as "The people of Israel live!" instead of "The people of Israel lives!")?

3) How can Genesis 45:3 be the source of עם ישראל חי when the original Hebrew of that verse doesn't contain the words `Am or Yisrael?

4) Why is your personal dislike of the Black Hebrews group any valid reason to omit the fact that they spell חי Kai? AnonMoos 15:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

---

He has also written since he created the page and the picture, he isn't going to let "nonsense" put in it, looking at the history of the page, I see he has reverted other user's contributions. I would be happy to discuss what I wrote....... Questioning my knowledge isn't going to get us anywhere. Epson291 07:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Dude, it's a simple fact that so far you HAVEN'T discussed the factual matters involved in the more problematic features of your edits. Whether you're theoretically "happy" to discuss them or not, one of the reasons why the tone of this discussion has gone south is that so far you HAVEN'T discussed them, despite having had ample opportunities to do so. Instead, you prefer to lunch personal attacks on what you perceive my religion to be (on the basis of somewhat inadequate evidence).

Furthermore, so far you've displayed no relevant useful knowledge of linguistics or ancient Hebrew at all, yet you insist on making changes to discussions of matters relating to those subjects. That's part of the problem. AnonMoos 15:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

---

P.S. To try to spell it out for you in words of one syllable or less, when you changed the English translation from "The people of Israel lives!" to "The people of Israel live!" , you transformed a simple present indicative into a kind of third-person imperative (the same difference as there is between "The king lives long" and "Long live the king!"). What valid evidence is there in the original Hebrew for this alteration? This is a question which you've consistently refused to answer... AnonMoos 15:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

answers

1) You told be to edit articles on music rather then this since I have no idea what I am doing. This was first. Why are you launching personal attacks on me?
2) All of the example translations you removed, are all ones used all the time, see as an example of Am Yisrael Chai being translated as The people of Israel live. Am Yisrael Chai is idiomatically translated in many ways, and you removed them.
3)Genesis 45:3 is not the source as I wrote, it is cf. Genesis 45:3, where the cf. means that though not directly related, it derives from that. An example of where this is cited for example can be found here
4) As I asked before, please cite that Black Hebrews write the word as kai and then include it, otherwise leave it out.
5) You have also removed the constructive general formatting, the mentions that Am Yisrael Chai is a rallying cry and a tradional song, and you have not responsed to this either.
6) You keep just reverting my edits to the last version by you, which is really the only version on this page, and refuse to edit my edits
7) You have also claimed since you created this page, and you created the graphic, this means you aren't going to let it get screwed up by me.
8) You also keep editing what I have written on your talk page, I am not sure the reasons for this. Please stop.
Epson291 21:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Dude it's hard to get any kind of constructive discussion going when you absolutely refuse to bring any relevant facts whatsoever to bear on the problematic issue of why the phrase should be translated with an English quasi-imperative or semantically-optative verb, when חי in Hebrew is not an imperative verb and does not have optative semantic force. Furthermore, I'm not prepared to put up with any smarmy condescending sanctimonious nonsense about Wikipedia policies from you on my User talk page, when you were the one who chose to start launching personal attacks by attacking me for what you perceive my religion to be (on the basis of somewhat inadequate evidence). I hope you're very proud of this edit of yours, because in all probability it's going to remain in the Wikipedia edits database indefinitely: [1] . And furthermore it's a little too late to claim that you're deleting the reference to Black Hebrews because it's uncited, when you previously said that you were deleting it because the group is personally distasteful to you.

And I simply find that none of your edits (other than the new external links you added), have resulted in any particular improvement of this page. You have a tendency to pad things out with unnecessary verbosity and redundant wordage, and when you rephrase things in areas which you do not have solid knowledge of, the results often tend to be somewhat unfortunate. AnonMoos 22:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, when I told you should just stick to editing pages on the other religion, it was just a response to you telling me to stick to editing pages on "music" (which I have never edited) because I had no idea what I was doing. You started the personal attacks and it was unprovoked and very rude. As for the Black Hebrews, I said to you I looked for a ciation on the Internet but could not find one, and could not see why it was necessary for a small fridge extremist group to be included anyways (and they are distateful, and that is objective). However, if you cite it, feel free to include it, though numerically I am not sure they amount to very many people at all. It is important to include the idiomatic translations, I have usually seen it translated as "The People of Israel Live" or including the word still, or substituting Israel for Jewish. And I have seen a lot of translations. I also added lots of grammar and hebrew templates which you have removed. And you also keep removing that it is used as a rallying cry and a traditional song. I provided you links for example of the Genesis reference, which you have not responded too, and for an example of a prominent Jewish organization giving the translation as "The people of Israel live" I have asked for a volenteer mediation since you refuse to consider my edits in its entirety. Epson291 19:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure we'll be able to work together contructively once you're able to give me one good explanation as to why the verb modality of the English translation should be changed from indicative to non-indicative -- this was the first thing I asked, it was the first thing you made a nasty comment to me about ("Oh, and your nonsense about the verb stuff makes no sense." on my user talk page, something which partially set the tone of our future interactions), and something which you've been twisting and turning to avoid answering consistently since the beginning. AnonMoos 03:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well hopefully the tone can change then, let me try to make some different edits and see how you respond to them. As for the shift from indicative to non-indicative is this is how it is often translated, no other reason. What is correct and usage are two different things and all enyclopedias use usage, even if it isn't exactly correct. Epson291 22:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I really don't care whether or not you can turn up a few Google hits on it -- I want YOU to give a reasonable EXPLANATION as to WHY the verb modality of the translation should be changed. Once we get over that little hurdle, I'm sure there will be further opportunities for collaboration. AnonMoos 00:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It is very clear at this point you made this a personal edit war, which you have admitted several times yourself. March of the Living, Aish HaTorah, and a Rabbi are very valid sources, not "google hits" Epson291 01:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason for changing the verb modality of the English translation from indicative mood to non-indicative was the first major question I asked you at the very beginning, the first question that you "flunked" in a major way (by refusing to answer the question at all), and the original source of the unpleasant tone of our association (when you put in a nasty comment while refusing to answer the question). Therefore, your ability or willingness to answer the question of why the verb modality of the English translation should be changed from indicative mood to non-indicative mood seems to be a "pons asinorum" of whether you are able to make worthwhile major changes to this article -- you've pretty much made it into one by your own past actions. AnonMoos 11:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

---

By the way, the Tetragrammaton doesn't necessarily have any inherent connection with חי, but the article Tetragrammaton happens to discuss the gematria of חי as 18 (as you could have found out for yourself). AnonMoos 11:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)