<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Electronic Edition of the Göttingen Septuagint Announced by Logos</title>
	<atom:link href="http://biblical-studies.ca/blog/2009/03/03/logos-gottingen-septuagint/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://biblical-studies.ca/blog/2009/03/03/logos-gottingen-septuagint/</link>
	<description>My musings on Biblical Studies, Biblical Hebrew, Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint, Popular Culture, Religion, Software, and pretty much anything else that interests me!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2010 00:21:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tyler F. Williams</title>
		<link>http://biblical-studies.ca/blog/2009/03/03/logos-gottingen-septuagint/comment-page-1/#comment-289539</link>
		<dc:creator>Tyler F. Williams</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:11:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://biblical-studies.ca/blog/?p=1389#comment-289539</guid>
		<description>Hey Ed,

Thanks for your comments and explanation! Now I know.... it just didn&#039;t sound right and I just followed Logos&#039;s description.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Ed,</p>
<p>Thanks for your comments and explanation! Now I know&#8230;. it just didn&#8217;t sound right and I just followed Logos&#8217;s description.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ed Gallagher</title>
		<link>http://biblical-studies.ca/blog/2009/03/03/logos-gottingen-septuagint/comment-page-1/#comment-289537</link>
		<dc:creator>Ed Gallagher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:26:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://biblical-studies.ca/blog/?p=1389#comment-289537</guid>
		<description>I was debating whether I should leave a comment about your use of the plural &quot;apparati&quot; when I saw at the Logos link that they employ two different systems for pluralizing &quot;apparatus&quot;. 

Quote from Logos: &quot;The Logos edition of Göttingen Septuagint contains 24 print volumes divided into 65 resources, with the text of the Septuagint and the critical apparatuses split into separate files for optimal use in your digital library. In addition to the Greek text and apparati, these volumes also contain a wealth of introductory and supplementary material on the text.&quot;

The problem is that the Latin &quot;apparatus&quot; is fourth declension, so the Latin plural would be &quot;apparatus&quot;, with a long final syllable. This does not come over easily into English. I prefer &quot;apparatuses&quot; to &quot;apparati&quot;, because while neither form is correct Latin, at least the first follows the dominant pattern for pluralization in English. 

However, the best solution may be to omit the plural altogether. If a text contains more than one apparatus (as the Gottingen Septuaginta does), you could say it has multiple levels of apparatus. In the sentence from Logos quoted above, they should perhaps simply say &quot;the text and apparatus&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was debating whether I should leave a comment about your use of the plural &#8220;apparati&#8221; when I saw at the Logos link that they employ two different systems for pluralizing &#8220;apparatus&#8221;. </p>
<p>Quote from Logos: &#8220;The Logos edition of Göttingen Septuagint contains 24 print volumes divided into 65 resources, with the text of the Septuagint and the critical apparatuses split into separate files for optimal use in your digital library. In addition to the Greek text and apparati, these volumes also contain a wealth of introductory and supplementary material on the text.&#8221;</p>
<p>The problem is that the Latin &#8220;apparatus&#8221; is fourth declension, so the Latin plural would be &#8220;apparatus&#8221;, with a long final syllable. This does not come over easily into English. I prefer &#8220;apparatuses&#8221; to &#8220;apparati&#8221;, because while neither form is correct Latin, at least the first follows the dominant pattern for pluralization in English. </p>
<p>However, the best solution may be to omit the plural altogether. If a text contains more than one apparatus (as the Gottingen Septuaginta does), you could say it has multiple levels of apparatus. In the sentence from Logos quoted above, they should perhaps simply say &#8220;the text and apparatus&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
