So then the Greek Koine would use words as overloaded operators (computing term) more often than English, but still they did use different words for different categories of rocks is that right?
I wouldn't restrict your analogy to operator overloading. In fact, programming languages which ignore certain changes in variable or object names (esp. case, e.g., defining a class/object/whatever "client_US" as equivalent to "client_us") are probably more similar. But the problem with computer analogies is that even before Turing and von Neumann (from Liebniz to Frege), and even before computers themselves, the entirety of computer science has been fundamentally based on logic and mathematics, which are formal languages. And the entire point (or at least a main point) of formal languages is the removal of ambiguity and semantic content.
So if, in a given language, certain overloading is allowed, it is only allowed in a very specific way. If a programming language uses the same operator for string concatenation and for integers (long, short, double, etc.), but you use & instead of +, the compiler or intepreter will simply fail.
Language works very differently. Novel usage is common, meanings are extended, and in some ways the generalizations possible in formal languages, such as the use of + to add vectors, scalars, matrices, strings, and in programming to violate the equation notation by expressions such as x=x+1, are not possible in natural language. For example, saying "MATLAB beats SPSS hands down" is completely different from "MATLAB defeats SPSS palm faced towards ground". That's because "hands down" is idiomatic.
On the other hand, I can say "the limitations of HTML drive me cazy/insane/mad/up the wall/out of my mind/etc.", and not only can all those words/phrases following "drive" make sense easily, but the fact that "drive" almost always implies movement in a vehicle like a car doesn't matter.
The basic unit of language is not really the word. For one thing, many languages make determing what a word is problematic. To illustrate, we naturally think that despite apparent differences, child and children are the same word. One is just plural. Likewise, the fact that I can use a form of a verb like "to program" as a subject (
programming would be great if I didn't have to remember every single semi-colon) doesn't confuse people. However, "program" is also a noun. So is the verb "program" ("I program", "I will program", "I have programmed", etc) the same word as "program" in "Your comments and variable names in your program make is impossible to follow" ?
English doesn't use much inflection anynmore. It is primarily order that distinguishes sentences like "the girl gave the boy a gift", "the boy gave a gift to the girl", and "the boy gave the girl a gift" involve no changes to the "shape" of the words (i.e., we don't have "boys" instead of "boy", or "give.plural.past." instead of "gave").
In some languages, like Navajo, almost everything is a verb. The way that English turns the verb "explode" into "explosion" is basically how the entire language works. In general, the more inflection/morphology you have, the fewer words you need. One reason Greek requires few words is because it has a middle voice. In English, the active voice is when the subject does the action: "You only think I guessed wrong!
I switched glasses when your back was turned!" Passive turns the object into the subject: "
The glasses were switched when your back was turned". Greek not only differentiates both by morphology (i.e., changes in word shape like the difference between "switch" and "switched"), but has a whole different category called the "middle voice" which English does not.
That is but one of many ways in which Greek uses grammatical methods to convey semantic content. English uses additional words. However, even for languages which tend to use little inflection and use words instead, English is exceptional in the number of words with very related meanings it has.
I have heard about 'The Four Loves' that CS Lewis wrote about and how the Greeks have four words to our one when it comes to that.
I am a huge fan of Lewis, although I like Tolkien more (Lewis' friend from their days in at college and their club). He's probably the greatest Christian apologist of the 20th century. However, his linguistic abilities aren't as good. He once praised tolkein in old english (if memory serves), but his grammar was just a bit off.
Eros,
philos, and other words for "love" the Greeks have are nothing compared to the English. The word
philos is probably the most common. However, it can be translated in many cases as "friend" or other related notions. English has like, love, admire, infatuated, drawn to, adore, lust after, appreciate, fancy, esteem, cherish, fond, etc.
I am vaguely aware that ritual cleanness was a social status symbol that Peter could not afford or rejected for the money that fishing could bring him; but I really want to clarify what point I'm trying to make if any.
The whole point of ritual cleanliness in a social-religious environment is that if it is vital than everyone can do it. Recall that John the baptis was a loner in the desert and baptised for free.
What I'm really getting at is that 'Rock' is a Biblical symbol in the Tanach which is hugely important when you get to the conversation between Jesus and Peter. That Jesus calls him 'Rock' 'Stone' or 'Pebble' all carry the symbolism, though I would have preferred a Greek word indicating a smooth stone.
This is why translations are such problems when you get to a certain level. Distinctions between constructions and words (or word forms) make all the difference in the world. In Greek, the word "to write" means more like "to draw shapes/make images", but in context it means more or less "to write". What
grapho signifies, then, depends greatly upon context and the form of the verb.
My emphasis upon 'Smooth' comes from David's smooth stones, from other stones such as the ones that the Israelites piled up such as in Genesis 31:46.
Stone heaps were a very specific thing, quite apart from Hebrew. The word in the line you reference is
lithos, not
petros.