hypothetical question for discussion - meaning of 'their' depends on context

hypothetical question for discussion - the use of 'their' dependent on context

Did Christians experience a measure of lust in the same genre as homosexual lust also?

It is said in "Grammar Unit: Possessive Pronouns", http://www.stanford.edu/~kenro/Edu208/GrammarUnits/possessivepronounsUnit.html (as 07-12-07): "You can only use possessive pronouns when all the people involved in the interaction understand to what you are referring".

This implies either they have experienced the subject or have been introduced to it.

In other words, the possessive pronoun takes situations for granted. To quote Schutz: "I take it for granted - and assume that myfellow man [sic] does the same - that if I change places with him so that his 'here' becomes mine, I shall be at the same distance from things and see them with the same typicality as he actually does". (Schutz, 1962: 11). (http://www4.gu.edu.au:8080/adt-root/uploads/approved/adt-QGU20051201.083726/public/03Main.pdf p78 as at 12-07-08) Notpayingthepsychiatrist. So Paul is saying himself and he, they, (their) - the gentiles, experience lust (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

For example, Romans 1 says "gave them up to uncleanliness" (not using 'their' - implying the whoever was being paraphrased or was speaking were not unclean) "to dihonour their bodies" (implying the Christians had bodies).

If the known world was divided into East and West Roman Empire, (just as it is into Jews and Gentiles in Romans 1 & 2).

If a diplomat from the West goes to the east for the first time and brings back a photo of royalty saying 'Here are the princes and princesses wearing their crowns'. Does the use of their, in this introductory instance, mean Western princesses and princesses have crowns too.

As the Stanford quote said everyone involved must understand what you are referring to. They can only do this by experience or introduction. As there are only two empires, they cannot have learned about royalty from any other place than themselves. Otherwise, if he were to say: 'Here are the princesses and princess wearing crowns'; could you assume, in the absence of the possessive that in the West they don't wear crowns?

On subsequent visits he would use 'their' crowns in either case because they had been introduced.  The extended elaboration makes a 'well known' and derogatory use of 'their lust' unlikely.

My argument is that in Romans 1. Where it says: "for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. " KJ.

the use of the word 'for' makes this an explanatory remark, and explanatory remarks are introductory.

Could we then assume, just as 'their' women, and 'their' crowns means the speaker had some of the same, that 'their lust one toward another' means the speaker's community had some of the same; and maybe it is the 'burning' that Paul finds mentionable.

I think that the subjects of the 'their' or not 'their' comparrisons have to be the same.

If the subject is the SAME it has the same name - princes and princesses of both kingdoms(in my example below), men and women of both beliefs(Romans 1). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of 'their' is changed by our familiarity with the context.  If we were to say:  "Today I met some travelers from a nearby town called Jerto. They told me a bit about their annual 'Fulag' ritual, in which they re-celebrate all the new marriages and new births of the past year."; it is true that nothing indicates we have a fulag ritual.

[(16-09-08) a change have to be made to the above example to fit the rules: "Today I met some travelers from the Union Republic. They told me a bit about their annual 'Fulag' ritual,...", where the Union Republic is the only other country on earth. So we too have rituals - just as in the Bible's case the Jews too had lust.]

Whether the listeners are familiar with the people mentioned seems to have affected the above Jerto example. For example, if we all know Jerto exists we could say: "Today I met some travellers from Jerto, they told me a bit about an annual 'Fulag' ritual..." implying we do not have an annual 'Fulag' ritual; whereas, "their annual 'Fulag ritual" implies we have one too.

another example

Another example would be after the holocaust, when the world is divided into 2 surviving groups. I recently met the other survivors from Jerto, they told me a bit about 'their' survival skills - we have survival skills; the told me a bit about survival skills - no thier - we have no survival skills. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

(The hat and crown example. Examples may be made in which the use of 'their' makes a difference, for ex: "Here is a photo of the royalty travelling in carriages, and here is a photo of the royalty eating at a palace - couldn't these mean we don't have these things? "Here is a photo of the royalty travelling in their carriages, and another one of them eating at their palace" - could this mean our royalty have those things? The use of coordination for comparrison between them and us fits as a reason for these sentences. Comparrison may be the coordinate reason for the use of 'and' and no 'their' in your example, as perhaps in the home country it is shameful for a man to have something on his head - as it says in Corinthians. Or would there be another reason for 'and')

Hebrew oddity

In 'An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax', by Waltke, BK and O'Connor, M, Eisenbrauns, Indiana 1990 section 6.1-6.3,the authors discuss the history of analysis of gender differences in language. They mention that in the past, linguists have sort to explain things of the masculine gender as having stereotypic male attributes - strong, active etc; or female...etc. One wonders what these older linguists would have made of made of words such as 'way' or 'chest' which 'show two genders' (p101). Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


In this case the overall theme of Romans 1 and 2 is not to judge as Paul says: whenever you judge you condemn yourself, as you do the same. So the fact that 'their' can 'infer' the speaker has some of the same lust ties in with this message of Paul's (and the Sermon on the Mount).  (talk) 07:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

All text contributed to Wikipedia by the author, except for the Jerto example which has been adapted.  From http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Realiseyourdignity&diff=238811590&oldid=238727346

All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.



Genetic Linkage to an area called Xq28 was reported by Dean Hamer in Science.  Did he report the Kinsey study as saying you were either one sexuality or the other or as a continuum?   Xq28 in one study on RETT syndrome was suggested to be an area for shallow breathing.  This would give credance to what we suspect was the geological context to Sodom and Gomorah: that the cities were built on volcanic territory under the Dead Sea (pillars of salt; fire) resulting in oxygen deprivation..