Gender language literally speaking
First, brothers and sisters- (from LSJ)
- as Subst., adelphos, ho, voc. adelphe; Ep., Ion., and Lyr. adelpheos (gen. -eiou in Hom. is for -eoo), Cret. adelphios, adeuphios, Leg.Gort.2.21, Mon.Ant.18.319:--brother, Hom., etc.; adelphoi brother and sister, E.El.536; so of the Ptolemies, theoiadelphoi Herod.1.30 , OGI50.2 (iii B. C.), etc.; ap'amphoterônadelpheosHdt.7.97 : prov., chalepoipolemoiadelphôn E.Fr.975 : metaph., a. gegona seirênôn LXX Jb.30.29.
As an adjective adelphos means equally "brotherly" or "sisterly".
Second, uioi - sons.
I have seen very few translations that translate the uioi of Israel, as the "sons of Israel", [except when referring to the named sons of Jacob.] Take a language like Hebrew, in which there is a word for "son" and a word for "daughter", and translate into English, in which there is a word for "son, daughter and child." In the plural, which is more literal - "sons" or "children"?
Third, fathers. (from LSJ)
- In pl.,
1.forefathers, Il.6.209, etc. ; exetipatrônfrom our fathers' time, Od.8.245 ; ekpaterônPi.P.8.45 .
2.parents, D.S.21.17, Alciphr.3.40, Epigr.Gr.227 (Teos).
3.parentnation, opp. colonists, Hdt.7.51, 8.22, Plu.Them.9. (Cf. Skt.pitár-, Lat. pater, etc.)
This leaves the singular "they". Excuse me. I have a code in the node. Pass the kleenex. Atchoooooooooooo.
Apart from the contentious S"T" is there any basis for arguing that gender neutral language is less literal? What is the evidence?
I am hoping that the literal translation blogabout, which I have been enjoying up until now, can continue without having to rework the gender issue. Surely we can set this aside for a bit.