“Props” isn’t net-slang, it’s more street-slang. “Give props” means “say X is great/cool/worthy of respect”. As far as I can tell, “props” is pretty close in meaning to “respect” or “praise”. “I want to give props to my peeps”==“I want to say my people (friends) are great”.
Gaudere, thank you for your response. Actually, I had gathered the meaning from the context of its use, so I suppose it’s “my bad,” as it were, that I failed to make clear that I was looking for something in the way of an etymology.
When I saw the movie “Grand Canyon,” for example, I became somewhat frightened when the the tough hood in the bad neighborhood challenged Kevin Kline’s character, and said “Are you dissin’ me?” The reason for my fright was that I had no idea what the word “dissin’” meant, and I am certain that, in the same position I would have responded inappropriately. I still didn’t find out that it was derived from “disrespect” for several months after that.
So, does “props” derive from anything in particular?
Well, my OED is not much help in this (although it does tell me that “prop” was slang for valuable jewelery or a cowrie-shell game, but I think it’s a bit of a stretch to get its current meaning from that). Best I can guess is it comes from the common meaning of “prop”: support, something that sustains. “I’d like to give support to all my homies”? Works for me.
WAG: Short for “proper respect” or “proper due”
Ugly
AHunter3 wrote:
Wait a minute! Valved trumpets weren’t invented until the 1800’s!
This is cool. A convergence of posts. You read on, you’ll see what I mean.
Gaudere:
The Talmud explains the Torah. The restrictions the Talmud cites law of the rebellious child, to which you’re referring, is derived, from the words used in the text. Those words describe, in concise language, a specific sequence of acts. To use your example, the child in question must only be a male (females are not subject to this law), and must be between the ages of thirteen-plus-one-day and thirteen-plus-three-months. The Torah calls the rebellious child a “ben,” which implies youth, but places the word directly next to the word “ish” (referring, on the surface, to the father, but the specific phrasing implies) meaning a “youth who is close to having the strength of a man.” The son must have stolen money from his parents (I still haven’t tracked down how the Rabbis derived that detail) and used it to buy meat and wine, of which he eats and drinks an enormous amount in one sitting. The Rabbis derive this from the next verse, in which the parents must testify that the son was “zollel and soveh,” words that mean “gluttonous and drunk,” and a reference in Proverbs 23:20 points to these terms as referring specifically to meat and wine. This must have happened not once, but twice in the span of those three months, since the first verse says the parents disciplined him and he didn’t listen. Agsin, the word used for “discipline” in Hebrew is elsewhere used to refer to whipping administered by the court. If, after having done such a thing and received a whipping for it, the son does such a thing again, all within that three month window, then the death penalty can be applied. So, this isn’t an override, this is an explanation through detailed textual analysis.
Now, why would the Torah bother to include a law which is so odd that the chances of its being invoked are astronomical? Read on…
Libertarian:
I didn’t ignore this. I addressed this. In doing the right thing for their own honor rather than that of G-d, they are still doing the right thing. And this brings us to what is probably the second most findamental difference between Judaism and Christianity (I’m sure that most people can figure out what the foremost difference is):
Actions have inherent value.
When G-d created the physical world, he set up rules for physical action, what is permitted and what is forbidden; what is praiseworthy and what is worthy of condemnation. Of course, it is best if the proper actions are done for the proper reasons, with the proper intentions. However, when good actions are done, even for the basest of reasons, it is still a worthy action, because it is an action prescribed by G-d for the good of the person, his soul, and the world. Ditto (here’s where your issue comes in, Gaudere) for actions that are bad. It is important to know what acts G-d considers bad, even if they are unlikely to ever happen.
Now, I’m not downplaying the importance of having the right intentions in mind. It is certainly important. And in the case of some actions, lack of the right intentions even invalidates any credit for the action, e.g., in prayer, where the whole point of the action is the communication. But it is not hypocritical. It is still a good action, which, when a person becomes accustomed to performing good actions, it inevitably draws him to higher levels of service (i.e., good action with proper intentions).
What, then, is hypocricy as condemned by Judaism? Isaiah 66 gives a good example: The chapter decries those who would bring sacrifices to appease G-d while doing evil and while (actively) choosing abominable acts. When one is doing bad acts side by side with good ones, then he is as likely to be drawn to evil as to good, and this renders the good acts devoid of value.
In Christianity, on the other hand (and please correct me if I’m wrong, guys), faith is the primary element, without which all else is meaningless…and with that faith, heaven is a foregone conclusion (although there are acts which can buttress that faith).
Chaim Mattis Keller
I’m not sure what the quandry is, but you’re right in faith being the primary element. More like the ‘first step’ really. Once one has faith, he has made the determination to sacrifice ‘self’ for the will of God. Once that first step is made, heaven is a forgone conclusion (this starts a OSAS debate most times, but that is for another thread) once the first step is made, there is more ‘sacrificing’ to be done. One by one, one must die to ‘self’ and allow the will of God to have dominion over parts of our lives. Some people make that first step, then try to keep working with their own good deeds, instead of ‘dying to self’ and allowing the work of the ‘spirit’ to carry us through.
I don’t know if I answered or confused the issue more.
Peace.
† Jon †
Phillipians 4:13