OTHER.—1. Moon (Revisers’ English, p. 120 ff.) contends that (following the AV) the RV has omitted ‘other’ where it should be, and inserted it where it should not be. Asan example of the former he quotes Mk 4%-™, where the mustard seed is said to be ‘less than all the seeds that are upon the earth,’ a sentence which strictly means that it is less thanitself. For the latter he quotes Mk 1933 ‘ There is none other but he.’
2. In Old Hugin the plural of ‘ other’ was othre. When this inflexion was dropped there was for a time no distinction between the sing. and the plu. of the word. After a time, however, a new plural was formed by adding s. There are a few examples in AV of the old plu. ‘other,’ viz. Jos 8” ‘The other issued out oe the city against them’; 2Ch 392 «From the hand of all other’; Job 24%, 1 Mac 9, 2 Mac 733, Lk 23%, Jn 1918, 1 Co 1459, Ph 2° 4°. In OT the RV retains ‘other’; in NT itis changed into ‘others’ except Ph 95 which is retained, and 48 which is changed into ‘the rest.’ In 1 Mac 9: RV gives ‘they,’ and omits the word in 2 Mac 7. Examples are in Tindale, Mt 218 ‘ Other cut downe braunches from the trees’; 27 ‘He saved other, him sylfe he can not save’; and from the Rhem. version He 7% ‘And the other in deede were made priestes, being many, because that by death the were prohibited to continue’ ; cf. Ps 7 al. [Pr. Bk.].
3. The phrase ‘other some,’ formerly very com- mon when ‘some’ preceded, is twice retained in AV, 2 Es 13" ‘Some were glad, some were sorry, some of them were bound, and other some (so RV) brought of them that were offered’ (quidam... quidam... aliqui.. . . aliqui); Ac 17 8 (καὶ τινες ἔλεγον... οἱ δέ, so RV). The archaism is not in ‘other’ but in ‘some,’ which in the sing. was equivalent to ἡ one,’ ‘a certain,’ and so in the plu. meant ‘persons’ or ‘things’ ; hence ‘ other some’ is ‘ other persons’ or ‘things.’ Cf. Mt 13° Rhem. ‘ Othersome also fell upon rockie places, where they had not much earth’; and Eph 4" Rhem. ‘And he gave, some Apostles, and some Prophets, and othersome Evangelists, and othersome pastors and doctors.’ Also in Judgment of Dort, p. 35, ‘The cause of which his divers dis- pensation is not to be imputed to the worthinesse of one nation above another, or to the better using of the light of nature by some then by other some.”
J. HASTINGS.
OTHNI (ny; B Γοονεί, A Todvl).—A son of
Shemaiah, 1 Ch 267.
OTHNIEL (dxny, Γοθονιήλ), described in Jg 1 8° as ybpo 3dp πὰ )}}.---ἰῦ is not impossible from the point τ view of strict grammar to construe
2 adduced. (For the discussion of tahmés see NIGHT HAwk). ‘The derivation of this name of the ostrich from the idea of greed corresponds with its traditional voracity, which leads it to swallow pebbles, bits of glass, metal, bone, ete. This, how- ever, is the same instinct as that which leads fuwls to swallow small angular pebbles, to assist in the trituration of their food. The large size of the substances swallowed by the ostrich has given him his special reputation. Some have attributed to the root the meaning ‘to cry out,’ and fortify their eoemaloey by referring to the voice of the ostrich, which they say resembles that of the lion (ef. Mic 15).
2. oy réndnim. AV (Job 39") tr. this word
peacocks,’ RV ‘ostrich.’ It is derived from a root signifying ‘ to give forth a sound,’ esp. a twang- ing or resonant sound (cf. Arab. ranna). While this derivation would suit the peacock, there is a special name for that bird, ovaa tukkiyyim (1 K 103), or Ὁ» (2 Ch 9%). It eminently suits the ery of the female ostrich. The description (νν.} 18) can apply to no other bird than the ostrich. AV recognizes this by wrongly translating nézah= ‘feathers’ at the end of v.58 by ‘ostrich.
The ostrich, Struthio camelus, L., is a bird of Arabia and Africa. It has been found on the S.E. confines of the Syrian desert. It is the largest of existing birds. The Bible alludes to a number of its characteristics. It is a desert bird. It is several times (Is 344 43%) mentioned in connexion with tannim, which we believe to be the wolf (see DRAGON, 1). It is the swiftest of runners, sur- passing in this respect even the warhorse when he is urged on by his gallant rider. It is said (Job $9") that ‘God hath deprived her of wisdom, neither hath he imparted to her understanding.’ This is said to explain her leaving her eggs in the aust. The facts are that the ostrich lays her eggs in a shallow excavation in the sand and then covers them to the depth ofa foot. They are left by day, in tropical climates, to the heat of the sun, and incubated at night. A few eggs, supposed to be reserved for the nourishment of the chicks, are laid near the nest, and left exposed on the sand. This mode of nesting and incubation is probably the basis of the allusion in the above passage. In any case it must be regarded as the reflexion of a popular opinion, founded on the external aspects of the case. It is intended to heighten the contrast of the opening verse of the passage, which describes