Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

thehistoryblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 274 posts

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#261

Post by psychoslave »

brudgers wrote: post #241
psychoslave wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pedantic side note maybe and sorry about that, but I found disturbing to see multiple "the TFA", where I guess TFA stand for "the fine article", so "the the fine article"? If it’s about brevity, "the peg" is just as short and mean in journalism parlance "A topic of interest, such as an ongoing event or an anniversary, around which various features can be developed."

I used the phrase “the TFA mummy” where the “the” is the article for “mummy.” “The TFA mummy” has the same three articles as “the mummy in TFA” but one less word. And pedantically, pedantry leaves the house when “TFA” walks in the door.

First of all, do as you please, really. Just be aware that on the other side it might feel surprising/awkward.

"The mummy in the fine article" is very aligned with the usual "preposition before article", while "the the fine article mummy" is apomediary¹ with its "article before article" structure.

¹ Distant from mean/median practices.

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#262

Post by eru »

Razengan wrote: post #213
Razengan wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But 2500+ years of ancient egypt is a very long damn time. To put that in perspective, consider how long 100 years ago feels.. not in technological terms, but in human perception of time: The USA was founded 250~ years ago. Try to recall your own life from 20, 40, 50 years ago.. it's a literal lifetime. Most people only meet people as far back as their grandparents, just 2 generations back. Great-grandparents and t…

Sorry I meant "to people from 4000 years before us" because BC is negative years lol

It would be properly negative years, if they had started counting at 0 AD.

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#263

Post by eru »

psychoslave wrote: post #228
tclancy wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think you’re reclaiming “peg”. Lost cause.

Everyone should be champion of some lost causes, not because their own have much chance to succeed, simply because otherwise they are all certain to never happen while in the first case, at scale, it’s almost guarantee that some will defeat the odds. That said, "TFA" is ok, but "the TFA" seems even more extravagant than "PDF format"

PDF format is the same as EXE format or BMP format. They are named for the file extension. And the etymology of the file extension is treated as opaque.

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#264

Post by eru »

dmos62 wrote: post #167
brudgers wrote: post #110

Unearthed from a 1,600-year-old Roman-era tomb That's c. 400 AD. Closer to today, than to the time of King Tut...and King Tut was closer to the TFA mummy than to the First Dynasty. Ancient Egypt is really really old. The Great pyramid was 3000 years old at the time of the TFA mummy. The TFA mummy is about equidistant between today and the events of the Iliad and the book was already more than 1000 years old in 400 CE…

The pyramids aren't actually datable, because it's rock. Maybe if you were to find something with carbon that's provably from the time of construction, that could be used, but I don't think that happened. The popular datings for the older pyramids are educated guesses. Edit: the Sphynx dating is even more controversial, because it seems to have rain erosion on it.

Carbon ain't the only substance that's datable.

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#265

Post by tclancy »

weirdmantis69 wrote: post #244
tclancy wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the artifacts stayed where they were found. Different concept.

You must have been cheering when they blew up the Buddhas of Bamiyan because at least white people didn't have them.

We had a party and everything. If you meet the Buddha on the road ...

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#266

Post by brudgers »

latexr wrote: post #251
brudgers wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They wrote “the TFA mummy” every time I had it both ways when it was first posted, about twenty minutes later after reading the “what is TFA?” comment I edited it to be consistent. Only first line was the only “TFA” without the article…or with only one article? or is that two articles? Anyway, the three article phrase “the TFA mummy” is equivalent to the three article phrase “the mummy in TFA” which is what I started…

> “the mummy in TFA” Personally, I would’ve found that clearer. I know what TFA means but still found “the TFA mummy” awkward to read and parse every time. But maybe “TFA” itself was the biggest problem there. Since you were editing anyway, “the article’s mummy” was an option too. Sometimes we all forget how acronyms aren’t universal and can impede rather than assist communication. > my poetic license removes “the TF…

It was a lighthearted comment

That is how I took it and I was just having fun with words. In this case, setting up “poetic license.”

Fun is why I write comments. Fun is why what-you-would-have-found-clearer was not my priority. I did not write my comment with you in mind. I wrote it for the kind of people who might like what I wrote.

There’s no poetry to your comment

Everything is not for everyone.

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#267

Post by brudgers »

psychoslave wrote: post #261
brudgers wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used the phrase “the TFA mummy” where the “the” is the article for “mummy.” “The TFA mummy” has the same three articles as “the mummy in TFA” but one less word. And pedantically, pedantry leaves the house when “TFA” walks in the door.

First of all, do as you please, really. Just be aware that on the other side it might feel surprising/awkward. "The mummy in the fine article" is very aligned with the usual "preposition before article", while "the the fine article mummy" is apomediary¹ with its "article before article" structure. ¹ Distant from mean/median practices.

I was fairly aware of what I was doing. I was having fun writing for the part of HN that enjoys reading things like what I wrote.

Everything is not for everybody.

The more generous a person is regarding what they accept, the more things are for them.

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#268

Post by MaxHoppersGhost »

tsimionescu wrote: post #165
dyauspitr wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate these gotchas but I can’t resist and it’s on a flagged comment so no one is really going to see this. Are you saying trans people are just cross-dressers?

No, it just suggests that to call Achilles "macho" is extremely weird. And the GP didn't even mention his extreme emotionality at the death of his lover, Patrocles, which is like half his plot in the Illiad.

They were not lovers, that is modern BS painted over myth.

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#269

Post by bazoom42 »

throwfaraway135 wrote: post #226
bazoom42 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it also patronizing towards Americans to have Brad Pitt play Achilles?

I don't get your argument. You can look at historical monuments or modern Greeks and Brad Pitt doesn't look to different from them. Let me try to elaborate on my argument. Imagine you are in a park and there are three children playing, child A, B and C. Imagine child A has 10 toys, B has 7 and C 1. Now if you forcefully took toys from A and B and gave them to C, then that's patronizing behavior as it means "you can't…

What historical monuments are you referring to?

Re: Iliad fragment found in Roman-era mummy

#270

Post by defrost »

MaxHoppersGhost wrote: post #268
tsimionescu wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it just suggests that to call Achilles "macho" is extremely weird. And the GP didn't even mention his extreme emotionality at the death of his lover, Patrocles, which is like half his plot in the Illiad.

They were not lovers, that is modern BS painted over myth.

Modern BS based on Classical era BS ?

It's not some new DEI post-WWII crazy.

  ... frequently interpreted and depicted as lovers in the classical period of Greek literature, particularly in the works of Aeschylus, Aeschines and Plato.
  Other writers at the time, such as Xenophon in his Symposium, say that their relationship was not sexual, but instead an intense friendship.

  Ancient writers referenced both sides, and additionally debated whether and how the relationship fit into the scheme of pederasty in ancient Greece.
~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achilles_and_Patroclus

I'm pushing 70, don't much care one way or the other, but can state it's been cast as a very probably just another example of Greek lovers since I was in school .. and, as linked above, thought to be as such since the Classic Era writers.

You're certainly entitled to the opinion that pederasty wasn't a thing in ancient Greece, multitudes of texts and vases from the period wear that down somewhat.

Post reply on HN