Not an iota

[Stefan Ram]

A small iota is written beneath a long vowel, forming the
second element of a diphthong, as in ᾳ, ῃ, ῳ. Insofar it
seems to be small.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Stefan Ram
A small iota is written beneath a long vowel, forming the
second element of a diphthong, as in ?, ?, ?. Insofar it
seems to be small.

An i-ota?

Jan

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Stefan Ram
A small iota is written beneath a long vowel, forming the
second element of a diphthong, as in ?, ?, ?. Insofar

You can't use "insofar" like that.

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Stefan Ram
it
seems to be small.

An i-ota?
Jan

[Richard Heathfield]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Stefan Ram
A small iota is written beneath a long vowel, forming the
second element of a diphthong, as in ?, ?, ?. Insofar

You can't use "insofar" like that.

Clearly he can, and has indeed done so. But we're in danger of returning
to chisels and paint tins.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Stefan Ram
A small iota is written beneath a long vowel, forming the
second element of a diphthong, as in ?, ?, ?. Insofar

You can't use "insofar" like that.

So I didn't.
-Please snip my name-
when you react to somebody elses text over my head,

Jan

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Stefan Ram
it
seems to be small.

An i-ota?
Jan

[Dingbat]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Stefan Ram
A small iota is written beneath a long vowel, forming the
second element of a diphthong, as in ?, ?, ?. Insofar it
seems to be small.

An i-ota?

It is the smallest of the Hebrew letters, and due to its size the Greek version
of the name - iota - came to mean "a very small amount"
https://www.balashon.com/2006/09/yod.html
That "smallest of Hebrew letters" is a yod, not an iota, so it ought to be "not a
yod". Iota (pronounced like yota) is the name of a Greek letter. I have trouble
picturing Greeks calling the Hebrew letter too an iota.

[CDB]

A small iota is written beneath a long vowel, forming the second
element of a diphthong, as in ᾳ, ῃ, ῳ. Insofar it seems to be small.

The technical term for it is "iota subscript". AS far as I know, there
was no diphthongisation involved: the vowel-plus-subscript was
pronounced like long alpha, eta, or omega.

[occam]

Post by Stefan Ram
A small iota is written beneath a long vowel, forming the
second element of a diphthong, as in ᾳ, ῃ, ῳ. Insofar it
seems to be small.

[ Meta: I do not know how you always manage to break up a thread into
two different threads - same subject, same theme - but I just stumbled
across this alt-"Not one iota" thread.]

If you were following the other [OP] thread, you will have seen that
there are two 'iotas' to contend with:

* iota the Greek letter (from c. 8 BC)
* iota-subscript (later addition, Middle Ages)

I have convinced myself (with the help of Jerry F., & PDT) that the
expression "Not one iota" comes from Matthew 5:18, and not the subscript
variant, some 1300 years later.

[Dingbat]

Post by occam

Post by Stefan Ram
A small iota is written beneath a long vowel, forming the
second element of a diphthong, as in ᾳ, ῃ, ῳ. Insofar it
seems to be small.

[ Meta: I do not know how you always manage to break up a thread into
two different threads - same subject, same theme - but I just stumbled
across this alt-"Not one iota" thread.]
If you were following the other [OP] thread, you will have seen that
* iota the Greek letter (from c. 8 BC)
* iota-subscript (later addition, Middle Ages)
I have convinced myself (with the help of Jerry F., & PDT) that the
expression "Not one iota" comes from Matthew 5:18, and not the subscript
variant, some 1300 years later.

Matthew says jot, from Middle English jote, from Latin iōta.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jot_and_tittle

The page doesn't have one meaning of tittle I've seen claimed:
a mark to indicate an elision like an apostrophe does in English.
I wonder whether that claim was wrong.

[occam]

Post by Dingbat

Post by occam

Post by Stefan Ram
A small iota is written beneath a long vowel, forming the
second element of a diphthong, as in ᾳ, ῃ, ῳ. Insofar it
seems to be small.

[ Meta: I do not know how you always manage to break up a thread into
two different threads - same subject, same theme - but I just stumbled
across this alt-"Not one iota" thread.]
If you were following the other [OP] thread, you will have seen that
* iota the Greek letter (from c. 8 BC)
* iota-subscript (later addition, Middle Ages)
I have convinced myself (with the help of Jerry F., & PDT) that the
expression "Not one iota" comes from Matthew 5:18, and not the subscript
variant, some 1300 years later.

Matthew says jot, from Middle English jote, from Latin iōta.

Matthew could not have said jot(e) because he could not speak either
Middle English or Latin.

What is more plausible is that he said:
"ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μία κεραία" (iôta hèn ḕ mía keraía)

ἰῶτα is iota.

This is from the page you reference.

Post by Dingbat
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jot_and_tittle
a mark to indicate an elision like an apostrophe does in English.
I wonder whether that claim was wrong.

[Dingbat]

Post by occam

Post by Dingbat

Post by occam

Post by Stefan Ram
A small iota is written beneath a long vowel, forming the
second element of a diphthong, as in ᾳ, ῃ, ῳ. Insofar it
seems to be small.

[ Meta: I do not know how you always manage to break up a thread into
two different threads - same subject, same theme - but I just stumbled
across this alt-"Not one iota" thread.]
If you were following the other [OP] thread, you will have seen that
* iota the Greek letter (from c. 8 BC)
* iota-subscript (later addition, Middle Ages)
I have convinced myself (with the help of Jerry F., & PDT) that the
expression "Not one iota" comes from Matthew 5:18, and not the subscript
variant, some 1300 years later.

Matthew says jot, from Middle English jote, from Latin iōta.

Matthew could not have said jot(e) because he could not speak either
Middle English or Latin.

KJV's Matthew says jot. It's a book, not a he. The quoted he is Jesus,
who would have spoken in Aramaic, not in the words below. I
haven't seen an analysis of whether that sentence is possible in
Aramaic; if the gospel's author made up the quote, they'd be his
words, not Jesus'.

Post by occam
"ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μία κεραία" (iôta hèn ḕ mía keraía) .
ἰῶτα is iota.
This is from the page you reference.

Post by Dingbat
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jot_and_tittle
a mark to indicate an elision like an apostrophe does in English.
I wonder whether that claim was wrong.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by occam

Post by Dingbat

Post by occam

Post by Stefan Ram
A small iota is written beneath a long vowel, forming the
second element of a diphthong, as in ᾳ, ῃ, ῳ. Insofar it
seems to be small.

[ Meta: I do not know how you always manage to break up a thread into
two different threads - same subject, same theme - but I just stumbled
across this alt-"Not one iota" thread.]
If you were following the other [OP] thread, you will have seen that
* iota the Greek letter (from c. 8 BC)
* iota-subscript (later addition, Middle Ages)
I have convinced myself (with the help of Jerry F., & PDT) that the
expression "Not one iota" comes from Matthew 5:18, and not the subscript
variant, some 1300 years later.

Matthew says jot, from Middle English jote, from Latin iōta.

Matthew could not have said jot(e) because he could not speak either
Middle English or Latin.
"ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μία κεραία" (iôta hèn ḕ mía keraía)

There is no reason to suppose that Matthew (either the actual
apostle or the writer of the gospel) spoke Greek. The First Gospel
is the one that shows its Semitic (Hebrew/Aramaic) background
the clearest.

Post by occam
ἰῶτα is iota.
This is from the page you reference.

Post by Dingbat
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jot_and_tittle

[occam]

Post by occam
[ Meta: I do not know how you always manage to break up a thread into
two different threads - same subject, same theme - but I just
stumbled across this alt-"Not one iota" thread.]

I've never tried to work out whether this is a weakness of Thunderbird
or a genuinely broken reference chain, but usually this happens when
someone in the references chain is in your killfile. In that case one
of the references in the header becomes useless because it points to
a missing article, so the thread has to be reconstructed from the
remaining references. Sometimes that's not enough information.

Stefan Ram is not in my killfile.

I also suspect Thunderbird sometimes. However, when I tried to look at
Stefan's user agent, nothing is visible. Perhaps he has an alternative
agent (to his regular one) , which is weird enough to cause this.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by occam

Post by Stefan Ram
A small iota is written beneath a long vowel, forming the
second element of a diphthong, as in ᾳ, ῃ, ῳ. Insofar it
seems to be small.

[ Meta: I do not know how you always manage to break up a thread into
two different threads - same subject, same theme - but I just stumbled
across this alt-"Not one iota" thread.]
If you were following the other [OP] thread, you will have seen that
* iota the Greek letter (from c. 8 BC)
* iota-subscript (later addition, Middle Ages)
I have convinced myself (with the help of Jerry F., & PDT) that the
expression "Not one iota" comes from Matthew 5:18, and not the subscript
variant, some 1300 years later.

For the third time, there was nothing to be "unconvinced" of. There
was no such thing as a iota subscript until centuries later. It was
never a viable option.

[Stefan Ram]

Post by occam
I have convinced myself (with the help of Jerry F., & PDT) that the
expression "Not one iota" comes from Matthew 5:18, and not the subscript
variant, some 1300 years later.

I was not aware of those datings and realize that,
in view of those datings, the use cannot refer to
something that happened only after it.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by occam
[ Meta: I do not know how you always manage to break up a thread into
two different threads - same subject, same theme - but I just
stumbled across this alt-"Not one iota" thread.]

I've never tried to work out whether this is a weakness of Thunderbird
or a genuinely broken reference chain, but usually this happens when
someone in the references chain is in your killfile. In that case one
of the references in the header becomes useless because it points to
a missing article, so the thread has to be reconstructed from the
remaining references. Sometimes that's not enough information.

Don't worry, it is just a mistake made by Stefan Ram,

Jan