Unacceptable Grammar

rational, look up the dictionary, against can have the meaning in comparison to. They are on opposite sides being matched up with each other.

I keep getting notices in my email whenever anyone posts something here. How do I turn it off?

I am surprised that no one made any mention of the common mistake of putting adjective/description before the noun as is done in English. For example
Chosheve mosad or chosheve bachur (vs. mosad chashuv)

Chanuka mesiba (vs. Mesibas chanuka)

Purim seuda (vs. seduas purim)

You may also realize that that there is no term in the sefarim of shalach manos (mishloach manos)

BTW the same people who defend the Yeshivishe way of talking should also defend Ebonics (spoken by African American lower class) as a vald dialect that should be respected. They really are quite parallel.

I looked it up in the dictionary and below is what I found. I am aware that the Hebrew k”neged can be used as “in opposition to” and in lashon chachamim as intending “corresponding to” as in “k”neged arba’ah banim”, which obviously does not mean “adverse to”.
That was my objection to the translation of k’neged as “against”. I do not see in the definition below any mention of the word “against” as “corresponding to”, as all the descriptions are along the lines of “in opposition to, adverse to”, that is, a negative connotation. The third seudah on Shabbat is definitely not negatively disposed to or “against” any kabbalistic or Jewish concept.

I do accept the explanation above that it is a translation from Yiddish. I am not interested in criticizing perverted translations from Yiddish to English, except to say they are incomprehensible to someone who grew up speaking American English.

a·gainst
/əˈɡenst/
Learn to pronounce
preposition
1.
in opposition to.
“the fight against crime”
synonyms: opposed to, in opposition to, hostile to, averse to, antagonistic toward, inimical to, unsympathetic to, resistant to, at odds with, in disagreement with, contra; More
2.
in anticipation of and preparation for (a problem or difficulty).
“insurance against sickness and unemployment”
synonyms: in case of, in/as provision for, in preparation for, in anticipation of, in expectation of
“it is advisable to insure all oriental rugs against theft”

“against can have the meaning in comparison to. They are on opposite sides being matched up with each other.”

Precisely. The two are “not the same”.They are being compared, meaning there are distinctions and differences between them that are being noted. That is in contradiction to what is meant by “seudah shlishit is k’neged spiritual attributes of shabbat”

In order to understand the use of “against” in this context, one must first translate it back into the Hebrew k’neged, and then switch to the medrashic use of the word instead of its more direct meaning. Convoluted.

I’m signing off.
Shabbat Shalom and Chag Sameach from Israel the Zionist Jewish State.
Gut Shabbes and Gut Yuntiff from Eretz Yisroel.

The word K’neged clearly has two possible meanings – a) Corresponds/equivalent to, or b) Against. This dual meaning has often been used as Drush to reveal a second ‘hidden’ meaning in various pesukim or sayings of Chazal.

One of them was quoted above from the Satmar Rebbe Zatza”l.
Another was the drasha quoted above about Eizer K’Negdo.

How would you explain Talmud Torah K’Neged Kulam?

I meant if you insist on the other meaning of K’Neged (against.)

Yabia Omer, the words ahavta, dibarta, akhalta and the like, in those mishkalim, are mill’eil when used in past tense. The ones I quoted, preceded by a vav ham’hapekhes (or “hahippukh,” if you prefer), as in v’ahavTA (meseg/g’ayya – secondary accent on the aleph’s open syllable) or v’dibbarTA bam in K’rias Sh’ma, uveirakhTA in bentching, and v’akhalTA in both, are most certainly mill’ra, accented on the final, ultimate syllable, and thus in future tense, and should, at least l’khatt’chila be pronounced as such.. It is brought down that the kavvana should not be spoiled by trying to be m’dakdek, but if talmidim learn it properly the first time, it shouldn’t impact the kavvana. The change in meaning is certainly enough to require going back in k’rias HaTorah, even though that is normally d’Rabbanan. Of course, if done, it must be done beforehand, or in a way that does not embarrass anyone, so that one is not oveir on a d’Oraisa in the process of being machmir on a d’Rabbanan, to paraphrase something that has been said b’shem R Soloveitchik zt”l. The accent would not change in certain conditions, e.g., in a tzuras hefsek/pausal form, as in the second of V’AkhalTA v’saVAta; uVEIrakhTA… or in a nasog achor situation, to avoid adjacent accented syllables, such as v’aKHALta sham (with a dagesh chazzak in the shin) in Parashas R’ei. Incidentally, Mishnah B’rura clearly holds to go back even between a pashta and a kadma, even though I would estimate that a large percentage of ba-alei k’ria, especially among Ashkenazim in America, are not even aware that they are very different. Unfortunately, neither are many Bar Mitzva teachers, which just perpetuates the problem.

you know if someone is Israeli if he says ‘chamesh shekel’ instead of ‘chamisha shkalim’

Meticulousness in grammar is a character flaw.

“Could care less” is worse than speaking a local dialect.

CTrebbe
“… spoken by low-class ignoramuses who could care less what they sound like…”

Yes ! I love it You win the internet today.

which brings me to Ubiquitin’s Law of the internet:

when the thrust of an argument is directed against criticizing, other’s grammar, it is a near certainty that said criticism will contain at least one grammatical error.