"Women" versus "female"
I must make one short apology here. Chris Heard calls me out on my use of “women bibliobloggers,” which he notes should be “female bibliobloggers” as “women” is not an adjective. Well, Dictionary.com (oh, holy of holy resources) does have it listed as one, but it is not exactly a ringing endorsement for its usage: “13. of women; womanly. 14. female: a woman plumber.” Normally on matters such as the evolution of language, I might be a little more liberal in accepting the vernacular usage (in this case, “woman plumber” or “woman biblioblogger”), but I can see the inherent gender bias in this convention. For instance, one wouldn’t say “man dancer” (before anyone accuses me of anything there, my mother-in-law was a ballet teacher for many years and that is why it came to mind).
At any rate, my apologies, particularly since the post has gotten so much attention.
On the more controversial issue of Jim’s exegetical work (Jim’s response to Michael Westmoreland-White’s comment has brought literally hundreds of people to that post), I am still going to let that go to others. It’s finals week, anyway.
"Just" grammar?
My friend Matt, who happens to be a PhD student in New Testament studies at Fuller Seminary, and has been a TA for two of my classes now, has a strong opinion about the word “just.” He handed out a list of “Things to Avoid” to the class and this was at the top of the list:
Do not use the word “just” improperly. It should only be used in academic writing as a synonym of “righteous” or the like.
How did I go my whole life without getting this instruction? I actually forgot about the advice until I got my paper back from last quarter’s class and he had pointed out a few instances of my incorrect usage of the word “just.” What I’m wondering (and I’m sure he will read this and want to weigh in) is whether this truly is a hard and fast grammatical rule. Just from a cursory glance at various dictionaries via dictionary.com, most have the “improper” (as Matt understands it) uses of “just” listed under its adverbial usage. Through our library databases, I checked out “just” as an adverb in the Oxford English Dictionary (what’s more authoritative than that?). The OED agrees with the other dictionaries. None of these have usage notes like you would find for such contemptible grammatical mistakes as “irregardless” and the like. Cannot “just” be used with the meanings: “exactly, precisely; verily, actually; closely” or “in like manner” or “merely”? What’s the rule? Is “just” no longer an adverb in academic writing?
Sorry to put you on the spot, Matt!
-
Elsewhere . . .- Blog titles beginning with "A" to "Z" on your reader Mark Goodacre
- Of making many books there is no end Chris Brady
- Free Online: The Liddell-Scott Jones Lexicon S and C
- Does Higher Criticism Attempt to “Destroy the Bible”? II agathos
- Steven J. Friesen and the Identity of Satan’s Throne in Pergamum alan
- Does Higher Criticism Attempt to “Destroy the Bible”? agathos
- Bloomsbury buys Continuum Mark Goodacre
- Imperial America Peter J. Leithart
- C.F.D. Moule on the Birth of the New Testament d. miller
- Responding to Kostenberger (with comparisons to Marshall) Jeremiah
-
As a member of RevGalBlogPals, I am committed to building a supportive online community for women clergy, women church professionals, and women in religious life.
Research assisted by: