Comments by "Chompy the Beast" (@chompythebeast) on "What was the REAL Name of Jesus? (feat. Dr. Benjamin Suchard)" video.

  1. Can't believe it took so much scrolling to find this lol
    4
  2. If you could expect people to correctly pronounce any name from any language from any time period anywhere in the world, then we'd probably all just speak the same language at that point
    3
  3.  @sobertillnoon  Letters have more than one sound they can make, especially in English. End/English/Ensnare all start with "en" but the "e" could be pronounced differently in each case. Other languages have vowels that are much more consistent, but English as a written language is in many ways a translation and transliteration of several diverse tongues, all crammed into one 26 letter Latin alphabet. In fact, "nun" itself is a Greek word (νῦν) meaning "now", and while it is pronounced "noon", as you can see, a more faithful transliteration would give you not "noon" but "nun", pronounced the same either way. That's the art of transliteration for you
    2
  4. Peter, Paul, George, Ringo, and Billy Preston
    2
  5.  @sobertillnoon  "Ruse", "Rude", "Rule", "Ruminate". There are many words where u is pronounced the long way rather than the short way. We have weird rules about silent e's affecting the length of our vowels, but clearly our vowels make multiple different sounds in English either way. And the upsilon is the parent of our modern u, it isn't really a different letter at all in a historical sense. So when working with historical documents, our English u makes more sense to most than using completely different dipthongs or letters that reflect English's quirks more than the source language's. If you pronounce "English" "en-glish", then I'm curious what sort of accent you speak with: It's pronounced "ing-glish" by virtually ever native speaker I've ever heard, though maybe some dialects might do it differently. The en in "end" and "ensnare" are often pronounced the same, but you can also pronounce it "in-snare" and it would be just as regular. Anyway, transliteration, like translation, is an art, not a hard science, so you're of course entitled to do it the way you prefer to
    1
  6.  @sobertillnoon  You accuse me of not understanding how silent vowels affect length as you ironically champion a transliteration that does exactly that, "oo". That isn't two o's, its the first lengthened by the second, just like the silent e in "rude". I clearly understand that in English we use separate letters to affect the length of our vowels in ways most languages do not: This is exactly why transliterations into English normally don't use them, preferring instead to use the serviceable syntax closest to the original language. For the record, my degree is in philology. Granted, I am not a linguist, but I have engaged in translation and transliteration (from Greek, no less) a fairly great deal. This topic of conversation is elementary in that regard and my credentials aren't required, but I share them because you seem to forget the academic nature of this channel and the discourse that happens here. Because "But it makes no sense to transliterate something into A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT script and not follow basic rules and instead make new exceptions." describes the art of transliteration to a tee, and I agree with this sentiment, it's just that you don't seem to know the standard rules used in its execution. Once again, feel free to translate Πολυκράτης however you like if seeing the unusual-in-English y in "Polykrates" rubs you the wrong way. He could just as easily be "Pahlickratees" if that's how you like it
    1