lundi 13 novembre 2017

On the Buzz Word "Pedophilia" and the Confusion it Causes


Status
In Kent Hovind group
shared a link:

Paedophilia a 'sexual orientation - like being straight or gay'
Ian Johnston @montaukian Sunday 3 April 2016 18:02 BST
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/paedophilia-sexual-orientation-straight-gay-criminal-psychologist-child-sex-abuse-a6965956.html


Leaving
some responses out.

HGL
= Hans-Georg Lundahl, me
Has it occurred to anyone that the word, having at least three different meanings, is meaningless?

KG
[anonymised, for now]
Wtf?! Next they're going to tell us being a pedophile is hardwired I honour DNA & that ppl are born with it.. Being a child predator is not genetic, it's a choice & it's disgusting..

HGL
Child predator, however, has one meaning, it should not be watered down to "pedophile".

You know, some shrinks consider "pedophile" to mean a certain propensity, not a certain act. And after all, it is they who invented the word.

I still think their word is meaningless, since the "certain" propensity is one for three different kinds of act, one of which is neither predating on children, nor on adolescent boys and not necessarily on adolescent girls, that depends on how marital legislation is (if you marry a girl, you are not a predator).

KG
Seems like you had more of a comment that got cut out..

HGL
"Cut out"?

KG
Maybe not. I thought maybe you posted only part of your comment & maybe another part got cut out for some reason.

I care not for semantics. Looking upon a child with lust is immoral & acting upon a lustful thought should be a capital offense. Pedophiles & child predators should be castrated or killed

HGL
"Looking upon a child with lust"

What is a child in this context?

Below puberty, below legal age of consent or below legal age of marriage in your jurisdiction?

Does intention to (if possible) marry count as "looking with lust"?

"acting upon a lustful thought should be a capital offense"

OK, hardliner, I see ... in several Christian jurisdictions this has not been so.

Even in the OT some rapes were punished by rapist being obliged to marry the victim.

"Pedophiles & child predators should be castrated or killed"

I was going to ask you if by pedophiles you meant child predators, apparently not.

Why should a "pedophile" - whatever you mean by the term - who has not acted criminally on his propensity be subjected to such gross treatment?

KG
We all know what a child is. Semantics will not help you here. Intent to marry implies a sexual & intellectual attraction. Adults cannot be foolishly swayed in the way children can. Also, the bible never condones rape with marrying the oppresser. What you probably have read is the NIV translation of Deuteronomy 22:28, which is what that particular translation says. However that translation is corrupt, among others. It also contradicts itself because in the verse directly before it (verses 25 & 26) it also states that a raped woman shall suffer no penalty & the rapist stoned. The kjv translates the verse in Deuteronomy 22 verse 28 accurately in that a virgin woman, unbetrothed (not engaged) is found laying with a man, they must marry & dude is to pay her father. The NIV translates this verse as meaning 'raped' when it clearly does not. It says 'lay hold of' which is a sexual expression much like the phrase 'knew her' means having sexual relations such as when the virgin Mary got pregnant of the holy spirit & the text reads that Joseph ' 'knew her not'. Meaning they hadn't had sex yet, in cultural context. Anyways, the NIV got the translation wrong & the kjv has the correct translation of the verse you brought up. Read the differences for yourself. This was the verse that lead to me to question certain translations of the bible. Some are inaccurate. The kjv is closest to the original text & has a majority of manuscripts backing up it's translation. I've digressed but i felt it was important to touch on the mistranslstion of deut 22:28 in the NIV because it does basically insinuate God condones rape. However the KJV has the correct translation of said verse & it reads quite the opposite.

Pedophiles are child predators by definition. They seek to have sexual relations with small children for their own pleasure. I never said ppl should be punished for thoughts. I said that lustful thoughts an a child is immoral & acting upon those thoughts should be a capital offense. When you engage in sexual relations with a small child, your actions do absolutely no good for them as it's purely for the pleasure of the one acting.

HGL
"We all know what a child is."

Apparently not.

To me a child is someone who is not yet in puberty. At least when puberty is not extremely early.

I have been accused of pedophile intentions because of a girl definitely puber, but not yet of legal age of consent.

I would have, at least thought so, up to her age of consent, one year's delay, have met her at openly seen places and with her parents and so, up to when she could have asked authorities to get a dispensation to marry me.

That she rejected me was one thing. But that the whole village more or less pushed her to go on rejecting me due to me being, apparently, "pedophile" means, they had a different view on what constitutes a child than I had or have.

"They seek to have sexual relations with small children for their own pleasure"

With SMALL children, thank you, your definition of pedophile is relatively sound, unfortunately not share by that village.

KG
Age of consent is up to the society. Idk what it is where you are. In America, it's below the age of 18.. of course parents can give consent at an earlier age. I'd define someone as a child until the age of ab 14 or 15. Even then someone of that age doesn't really know the repercussions of their actions or give it much thought. What makes a child differ from an adult is more mental maturity than it is physical development, although it certainly still plays a role in discerning. Why did you wanna marry this young woman? If she rejected you, she obviously wasn't showing you her feelings were anymore than platonic. Seems you tried rushing the idea of marriage before the relationship was foundational & mutual. I wasn't there, but it seems the case from your description.

HGL
Ah, I'd agree with 14 for boys, 12 for girls.

In Sweden, I got stamped as pedophile because in love with a girl under 15, declaring it a few days before her 14th BD.

"What makes a child differ from an adult is more mental maturity than it is physical development,"

There is a brain development which is basic for any kind of "mental maturity", which is physical and surer to go by than subjective evaluations of the mental.

Apart from that there are also physical developments connected to sex hormones.

KG
That's technically pedophilia. Keep in mind guys don't really reach mental maturity till they're almost 30. Women perhaps around 25, if I remember right. Maybe stick to women around your own age. 12, 14, or even 18 is still pretty young, mentally. These ppl (guys & girls) are still pretty foolish & naive at such a young age. Stick to around your own age as a limit, man. My niece is 12. If any dude tried marrying her, I'd be going to jail.. That's not happening.

HGL
"Keep in mind guys don't really reach mental maturity till they're almost 30. Women perhaps around 25, if I remember right."

30 or even 25 is rather late to marry, for a woman.

I am sorry, but you are wrong.

You seriously do NOT know what a child is. You are part of a modern pseudoculture.

As was the father of that gal. Too bad, I thought he was conservative.

"Maybe stick to women around your own age."

An old maid 49 is too old to marry. A divorcee, in the eyes of God, is married to someone else. And widows, I don't want to speculate in someone else's death.

KG
Perhaps she thought an old man as too old to marry.. you're a pedophile. You should seek help before you end up hurting someone who doesn't share your views..

HGL
Look here, I was 28 on the occasion.

And, no, I am not "seeking help" the way you put it.

Your view of what a pedophile is, is worthless blabla, has nothing to do with what is inherently right or wrong, unlike for instance detesting homosexuality.

YOUR'S is the view which is making Europe childless and greying and a prey to immigration.

HGL
Here is some history:

James V of Scotland James V (10 April 1512 – 14 December 1542)
Spouses:
1) Madeleine of Valois (1537)
Madeleine of Valois (10 August 1520 – 7 July 1537) was a French princess who became Queen of Scots as the first spouse of King James V. (She was 16, and died that year)
2) Mary of Guise (1538–42)
Mary of Guise (French: Marie de Guise; 22 November 1515 – 11 June 1560) was Queen of Scots from 1538 to 1542 as the second wife of King James V. (She was married twice, her first spouse)
Louis II, Duke of Longueville
(m. 1534; d. 1537) (She was 19 when marrying first spouse)

James V's
Father James IV, King of Scots
Mother Margaret Tudor

James IV (17 March 1473 – 9 September 1513) was the King of Scotland from 11 June 1488 to his death. He assumed the throne following the death of his father, King James III, (1451/52–1488, reigned 1460–1488) in the Battle of Sauchieburn, a rebellion in which the younger James played an indirect role.

Margaret Tudor (28 November 1489 – 18 October 1541) was Queen of Scots from 1503 until 1513 by marriage to James IV of Scotland and then, after her husband died fighting the English, she became regent for their son James V of Scotland.

Margaret Tudor was 13 to 14 when she married James IV. Was he a pedophile? You have just spit on a large part of your own ancestry.

[He was also 16 years older]

KG
Always seeking to justify your sin.. Just like the bible says ppl would. I don't understand why a mature 28 year old would seek courtship with a 14 year old. Go for someone your own age. Plenty of women your age are looking for mates. Leave children alone, Jesus warns that those who offend children, will suffer great torment on judgment day.

Sexuality is sacred, along with ethnicity. That's why Christians get uptight when racism is committed & homosexuality. Ethnicity & sexuality is a gift of God & is very sacred. Homosexuality is abomination to the sacred nature of sexuality granted to us by God. So, it seems that you are then one who has no moral foundation on which to base right or wrong actions. Pedophilia is a sexual predator of young children. Its not natural. You should seek a mate your own age & maturity level.

HGL
"Always seeking to justify your sin.. "

My sin? It would have been a sin not to try to marry.

I Cor 7:9

"I don't understand why a mature 28 year old would seek courtship with a 14 year old."

I said it was in a village, right?

I had ran out of prospects about my age, including two Catholic young ladies (that is my confession) a bit older than I. Both had been teaching what I had taught, German and Swedish.

She was, in my eyes, if not the, at least one of the most mature among my ex pupils. Note, ex, I tried nothing like that as long as I actually was a teacher. Also, I was not going for someone I thought less mature.

"Go for someone your own age. Plenty of women your age are looking for mates."

1) I had no one more there.
2) I am 49 now. An old maid of 49 is not very fertile. And I don't go for divorcees, respecting Mark 10:6 (a Bible verse which should be known on this forum) in its context. I don't want to speculate in other men's death, even if widows are licit.

"Leave children alone, Jesus warns that those who offend children, will suffer great torment on judgment day."

Oh, definitely. But she was 14, no longer a child. If you say she was a child, you do NOT know what the word means.

You are accusing God, our Creator, of tempting children, since clearly most girls of 14 like most boys of 16 can have sexual desires (and I mean vastly, the traditional limits of 14 / 12 are for about 50/50 statistics).

"Homosexuality is abomination to the sacred nature of sexuality granted to us by God."

So is masturbation, and your support of bad laws is helping these push young adults to masturbation and damn themselves.

"So, it seems that you are then one who has no moral foundation on which to base right or wrong actions."

Woah, no homosexuality here!

You are mixing oranges and very rotten apples here! Just because one thing called "pedophilia" is what used to be called pederasty, and is a homosexual predating, doesn't mean that anything you can label as "technically pedophilia" is homosexual too!

Just as both of these things, the good and the bad one, are not equal to the Satanic rituals involving babies!

"Pedophilia is a sexual predator of young children. Its not natural."

Marriage is not sexual predatorship. Marriage is natural.

" You should seek a mate your own age & maturity level."

I don't do "maturity level" on gliding scales. Either one is, or one is not mature enough to marry. Nearly all boys of 16, nearly all girls of 14, naturally are!

And I have just explained why "my own age" has by now become a no no.

KG, I missed to comment on this one:

"Age of consent is up to the society."

That is a Lutheran heresy, just as Luther imagined "society" (in his words rather "the prince") is able to legalise divorce and remarrige or even bigamy, contrary to Mark 10:6 (at least in the case of a society of state type sovereignty in majority inhabited by baptised Catholics).

No, there are limits the state has no right to touch.

mardi 31 octobre 2017

Stray comments on an article from Mises


Here is a link to the article:

Mises : Messianic Communism in the Protestant Reformation
10/30/2017 · Murray N. Rothbard
https://mises.org/library/messianic-communism-protestant-reformation


My comments after a friend posted the text on my wall:

Obviously, Munzer was a heretic as much as Luther.

Also, technically, this is not Medieval, but Early Modern Age (except by some fringe settings of limit).

[My friend had spoken about "Medieval Communism"]

"Most Anabaptists, like the Mennonites or Amish, became virtual anarchists. They tried to separate themselves as much as possible from a necessarily sinful state and society, and engaged in nonviolent resistance to the state’s decrees. The other route, taken by another wing of Anabaptists, was to try to seize power in the state and to shape up the majority by extreme coercion: in short, ultratheocracy."


Münzer came a few decades before Menno, precisely as the violent followers of Ziska came before the Moravian Brethren.

Pacifism and withdrawal were reactings to failure of revolution (as with Mormons who had a Califat like state in Utah, before it was beaten).

Kudos to Rothbart for citing Mgr Knox! [Later on]

"Müntzer was converted by the weaver and adept Niklas Storch, who had been in Bohemia, to the old Taborite doctrine that had flourished in Bohemia a century earlier."


Did not know this connection.

Taborites = followers of Ziska.

So Hus is not just responsible for Moravians and Methodists, but also for Mennonites and Amish - did not know.

"Furthermore, marriage was to be prohibited, and each man was to be able to have any woman at his will."


Reminds me both of feminism (which rules in Sweden) and of 1 Tim 4:1-3!

jeudi 12 octobre 2017

Leif Eriksson's Predecessors in Americas


Aristibule Adams
7 octobre, 20:37 ·
Monday is Leif Erikson Day.

Skipping
some, even if fun.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Obviously some descendants of Noah came quite a while before Leif ...

(Not that I am not partial to Leif, Islands thusund ár and all that)

Aristibule Adams
They didn't hold the True Faith, but had fallen into idolatry.

Maximos Elisha Williams
Leif?

Aristibule Adams
The descendants of Noah who preceded Leif here (sons of Shem, Nimrod, and Japheth as far as we can tell.)

Maximos Elisha Williams
ah

Aristibule Adams
Which is whom Olaf the King commissioned him to bring the Gospel to.

John Gordy
Noah? Billionzz of yearzz, remember.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Aristibule Adams We do not know whether the first arrivals after Flood had already fallen into idolatry or not.

American Aboriginal religions involves both monotheism and idolatrous adoration of spirits.

It could have started as Nimrodian idolatry, but more arguably not. Aztec and similar ones with human sacrifice could be from a later arrival, like Phenicians.

"The descendants of Noah who preceded Leif here (sons of Shem, Nimrod, and Japheth as far as we can tell.)"

Do you pretend that all descendants of Cham are descended from Nimrod? Do you pretend that none else are?

"They didn't hold the True Faith,"

Palaeoindians are carbon dated to earlier than Göbekli Tepe, i e, on my view, earlier than Babel. This means, if I am correct in the identififcation, they arrived speaking Hebrew, believing in the true God, and recalling Genesis 1-9 and at least parts of Genesis 10.

Aristibule Adams
No - just that Nimrod's descendants fled north from Babel and became the Tartar (Mongol) peoples - and some American Indian bands and tribes are descended from that same population: the Dene, Apache, Athabascan, Tlingit, Haida,etc. A minority in North America. This population has C3 predominating as a male haplogroup - just as in Mongolia.

The majority of American Indians are descended from Turkic tribes though - sons of Japheth. Q, Q1, and Q3 in most of the Americas just like Selkup Turks, Turkmen, and Yeniseian tribes, and a small minority of R1b of a type normally only found in Central Asia & Siberia up in the northeast among Algonquin and Iroquoian peoples. Otherwise R1b is the most common among Western, Northern, and Central Europeans - but found as far east as the Bashkirs, who were originally Uralic. Maybe there were proto-Uralic people among the NE Woodland Indians. But interesting in that the 'Indo-Europeans' and most American Indians were of the closest relation among the sons of Noah. (So the German fascination with American Indians isn't so odd after all.)

But yes, by the time of Leif it was in idolatry - hence the negative reactions to the missionaries. The mission to the Skraelings didn't go well. Somewhere in the Atlantic provinces was the grave of the Irish or Saxon monk Jon, who they slew - and the Vinlanders buried him and set up a carving of a cross of a rock - calling the place Crossness. The location still has never been identified. We don't know if the rock was defaced, or if it has ever been discovered.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
" just that Nimrod's descendants fled north from Babel and became the Tartar (Mongol) peoples"

Ancient source?

"But interesting in that the 'Indo-Europeans' and most American Indians were of the closest relation among the sons of Noah."

That is presuming IE are either one single name in table of nations or names of brothers.

In fact, Anatolia would arguably in the East have had Chanaanean (Chamite) children of Het (first born of Chanaan) who would probably have been speaking at first Hattili, before they were conquered.

Lydians and Luwians are from Lud in Sem's line.

West of Aegean we have Javan, further west we have Thiraz, both of Japheth, and both Anatolia (Cappadocia) and Gaul we find Gomer : but south of if we have Caphthorim on Crete who could very well be earliest speakers of Aryan languages, there was one attempt to decipher Linear A, and it involved Cretan before Greek was spoken as being Aryan. Mount Ida is in this view named for "Indra" - appropriate about whoever became thundergod in both India and on Crete.

So, IE unity comprises an early at least divergence of Caphthorim, Gomer, Javan, Thiraz and Semitic Lud.

Some have considered Madan would be auhor of first IE language, but this places Aryan first - and Elamite is somewhat different, and Aryan priority within IE is a bit old fashioned linguistics. Hittite is probably older.

One of them could be next of kin to Scythians, not all of them.

So, that is why I go by idea that IE was rather starting out as a Sprachbund - or an Esperanto attempt which failed.

(Hattili is possibly Ural-Altaic, certainly agglutinative, like Sumerian : Hittite is rather called Nesili, and is probably from Cappadocia, a land of Gomer, not of Heth : first Nesili document actually treats Hattusha as Joshua treated Jericho, though later it became the capital).

(Just checked : Nesha / Kanesh, etymon for Nesili, is same centre of Anatolia as Cappadocia)

Salvatore Sberna
Hans I'd love to see the sources for this. Fascinating.

Aristibule Adams
Indo-European was spread by R haplogroup Y-chromosome speakers from Central Asia - who are most closely related to Q haplogroup. The spread of IE by that genetic group is well understood now. Most who speak those languages are still majority R haplogroups - Central Asians, South Asians, Eurasians, Europeans.

I think we've already pointed out before that the first Europeans were sons of Shem, and then more sons of Shem moved in, as well as sons of Ham (specifically sons of Phut). Sons of Japheth came to Europe quite late as his 'lot' was the greater part of Asia. In either case, we Europeans are mixed of Noah's sons - most thoroughly in the Balkans (the oldest settled part of Europe.)

Christopher Cline
The North American continent also featured a large civilization of some sorts before the Native tribes as we know them existed.

Aristibule Adams
Yes - European settlement came only after a major collapse happened. The first settlers of Virginia and New England had entered a Continent that had already collapsed due to rampant epidemic disease, fall of a major civilization, and endemic warfare. As our Iroquois elders said "every man if he met another tried to kill him." It was a Mad Max like post-apocalyptic landscape. Some areas were still that bad, and some had made a limited recovery (ie, such as those influenced by Hiawatha and Deganawida - about 1450.) It also explains the big disparity between bands: some had preserved the old civilization in part (such as the Natchez) and others had fallen into a much meaner way of life.

I think things were very different when Leif came, but the tales mostly tell of contact with the Skraelings (Inuit ancestors.)

Mississippian culture - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippian_culture


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Later events, no disagreement.

Earlier ones:

"Indo-European was spread by R haplogroup Y-chromosome speakers from Central Asia"

According to one theory, which is not substantiated by solid proof.

"The spread of IE by that genetic group is well understood now."

Well understood - or well publicised. An earlier time, a few decades ago, IE was spread by Scandinavians.

"I think we've already pointed out before that the first Europeans were sons of Shem"

Which one?

"Sons of Japheth came to Europe quite late as his 'lot' was the greater part of Asia."

I would have considered his lot as being generally "the North", with South divided as Cham to West and Shem to East.

Salvatore Sberna sources for which part of what I said?

I am giving a synthesis the parts of which are from somewhat different sources.

Which shall I take first?

Salvatore Sberna
Hans-Georg Lundahl post-deluge people movements

Hans-Georg Lundahl


Bible History : The Table of Nations in Genesis 10
http://www.bible-history.com/old-testament/table-of-nations-genesis-10.html


Probably based on Josephus.

Giving one link at random, since not having the sources I originally used at hand.

I think there was a good one over at CMI too.

Aristibule Adams
Sons of Shem will have closer relation on y-DNA. Same with sons of Japeth, etc. You can't have closer relation to someone on y-DNA than your own father or brothers.

Those maps by Protestants often don't place the lots of the sons of Noah in the correct place either. Though they do have Ashkenaz in the right place (abouts.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"You can't have closer relation to someone on y-DNA than your own father or brothers."

Probably right, but does not account for how many of the peoples have had admixture by immigrating males later on.

Actually, not a single nation I know of has its all members belonging to a single haplogroup, unless Samarians with only 777 members in two locations do so.

The haplogroup of Yamnaya is now BEST represented in Scandinavia (Sweden and Norway) and LEAST (but still some) in Sardinia. (Credits to the neo-Pagan Survive the Jive).

"Those maps by Protestants often don't place the lots of the sons of Noah in the correct place either."

I am myself not happy with "Gomer and Iavan" in the North. The map per se is not my source, since I mislaid it, it is a source which I offered.

However, the part with Anatolia including Semite Lud around Lydian, Phrygian and Lykian homelands makes perfect sense, and is supported by an ancient authority named Josephus.

Gomer being in Anatolia is supported by St Hippolytus, since he was the one who said Cappadocia hails from Gomer. He or Josephus tells us that Gomer is patriarch of Gaul as well.

Caphthorim being on Crete and coming from Cham is uncontroversial. It is also sure that the Linguist who lately claimed to have deciphered Linear A as an Aryan language was a Frenchman : his page is down, he withdrew the claim, no doubt due to pressure from other Linguists in France. Iavan being Greeks on South Balkan is uncontroversial, since Doric invasion is after Greek began to be spoken among Ionians. As to Heth in the East of Anatolia, their first language was not the IE Hittite (Nesili), but the non-IE, possibly Fenno-Ugrian Hattic (Hattili). The Hittite language takes its Hittite name, Nesili, from Kanesh, in Cappadocia - that is the original speakers of Hittite, the men who destroyed Hattusha like Joshua did with Jericho (on very similar terms of curse) were descendants of Gomer.

So, you must still count on earliest IE nations known in history coming from two peninsulas around the Aegean, and an island too : and you must count on them being from different Noahide (if I may say so without confusion with a certain religion) tribes : Chamite Caphthorim, Semite Ludites and Japhethite Gomerites and Iavanites. Add Madan as a later documented nation. Add Heth's children abandoning Hattili for Nesili.

This means, IE is not a single tribe as far as nations go and therefore probably not as far as languages go either. It's like Balkans. Languages not intelligible to each other get more intelligible by exchanging words and by exchanging grammatical traits.

As to CMI, I said "there was a good one", but I know there was also a bad attempt, trying to pretend IE was originally the language of Madan (why not Magog, while they are at "expansive").

I searched and found the CMI references:

Here we have the good one:

CMI : The sixteen grandsons of Noah
by Harold Hunt with Russell Grigg
https://creation.com/the-sixteen-grandsons-of-noah


Here, I was looking for the bad one, but found this which is rather good, though mistaken in equating IE with Japhetic:

The Early History of Man: Part 1. The Table of Nations
BILL COOPER, EN Tech. J., vol. 4, 1990, pp. 67–92
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j04_1/j04_1_67-92.pdf


Here is the one which I was looking for, bad in equating IE with Madai (I had misrecalled Madan), and also in misassigning carbon dates:

The origin of languages: a synthesis
Thomas C. Curtis , CEN Technical Journal 12 (3) 1998
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j12_3/j12_3_314-338.pdf


Carbon date of 9000 BC is not the first settlement after Flood, whether locality of Shanidar is so or not.

Carbon date for Flood is more like 40 000 BP. Neanderthals being arguably a pre-Flood race, Cro Magnon contemporary with Neanderthals in "40 000 BP" being arguably more related to Noah, the Cro Magnon settlement being arguably post-Flood, from carbon date 35 000 BP or a little earlier on.

After this
I have seen no more answers on the subthread, attention has gone on to another one where red hair (Leif and especially his father Eric were known red heads, his father was even nicknamed Eric the Red) was claimed to be a Germanic trait. I answered that in the North it is more of an Irish one after what I have heard, a Celtic one. In Sweden and Norway, red heads consider they have Celtic ancestry and what with Viking slave hunt on Ireland, it is rather well possible. But that regards his predecessors in his own ancestry, not his predecessors on American soil.

mardi 10 octobre 2017

And a Controversial One at That, Sometimes


HGL's F.B. writings : But I AM a Latinist · And a Controversial One at That, Sometimes · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Latin Spoken to When? Quora

3 octobre

Pau Amaro-Seoane
Why is it "deinon" in this sentence and not "deiná" ("terrible things"), in plural... which I would expect... "The storms do terrible things". Am I wrong?



Samuel Kaldas
I think δεινόν (masc. acc. sg.) is modifying χειμῶνα (masc. acc. sg. of χειμῶν). So it's something like "the winds produce [make] a terrible storm"

Pau Amaro-Seoane
that would be deinoos (written with omega), Brian

Brian Kelly
Correct. kai ... kai .. here gives us 'both ... and ...' - need better glasses and more coffee.

Diane Warne Anderson
Samuel has said it, χειμώνα is masc. acc. sing. also. (Sorry for the modern Greek accents)

Pau Amaro-Seoane
τόν χειμῶνα... yes, right... for some reason I thought it was n. and not m. and believed it was an accusative plural... everything clear now... thanks to everyone! It's nice to know that I can get my questions replied so quickly.

Bert McCollum
We are aware that's not Latin,,,,right?

Abran Serge
:D

Oneida Musa
Nonis latinius? Ummmm....confusinitus erat Greekasbus. or....scribbelious!

Bert McCollum
At least no one has had the temerity to say, "It's all Greek to me!"

Brian Kelly
Rome, Athens, Constantinople - it was all the Roman Empire (and after AD 476 those eastern bits *were the Roman Empire) - and the Greeks insisted they were Romans! The Greeks had a word for it too: Romiosine.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
(and after AD 476 those eastern bits *were the Roman Empire)

Hmmm ... no. Francia was from close after 476 to 800 auxiliarii, and its kings started off with patricia dignitas conferred by Constantinople.

Meaning that from 800 Aachen is as Roman as Constantinople.

Brian Kelly
Didn't deny that! But my point was that the Greek-speaking emperors and their circle insisted that they were ROMANS - a point not often appreciated by west Europeans.

[If I had taken it as if he had denied it, it was his use of "were THE Romans", and I did not have time to formulate a sensible answer before closing time of library.]

Pau Amaro-Seoane
Dialects of the same language, anyway...

Brian Kelly
.... although it is interesting that a lot of Greek words don't appear to be Indo-European (at least that's how it seems to me) - indications of the pre-Indo-Europeans of Greece?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Indications of IE unity being of Balkan type rather than of Romance type?

Abran Serge
Pelasgi.

Brian Kelly
A lot of common and important words have been identified as 'Pre-Greek' loan words:

Pre-Greek substrate - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Greek_substrate


Abran Serge
Like "labyrinthos"....

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Brian Kelly, that is according to the theory that Greek developed from Proto-Indo-European.

Brian Kelly
Do you doubt that, Hans-Georg? It looks certain to me on comparative grounds (which is what historical linguisitcs is all about).

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Comparative grounds speak for there being cognates.

But cognates are possible both on Balkan model and on Romance model, both Sprachbund and Proto-Language.

I do not doubt for a minute that water and Swedish vatten are related to the Hittite words.

I also do not doubt for a moment that pater / father is the same word with a real common proto-form in :

  • Greek, Latin, Sanskrit
  • Germanic
  • possibly Celtic (but athir could be a conflation between pater gloss and attas gloss, and triggering, when perceived as cognate of pater, the other losses of initial p or h).


I also do not doubt that pater, pater, frater all originated in the same language as the -teros ending for comparatives and in Latin esp binary choices.

But pater and water could in theory be from two different languages, neighbouring each other in the same area for sufficient long to exchange words - like the three sides of the Aegean, Asia Minor, Bulgaria and Greece, Balkans, extending east perhaps as far as - shall was say "Babel" or "Göbekli Tepe"?

In neighbouring languages, some syllables will yield instant cognates as soon as a word is borrowed. Any French word in té will yield an English one in ty, an Italian one in tà.

lundi 25 septembre 2017

But I AM a Latinist


HGL's F.B. writings : But I AM a Latinist · And a Controversial One at That, Sometimes · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Latin Spoken to When? Quora

Gabriel Svoboda
I have a few questions about what the 3rd declension looked like in Archaic Latin – namely whether it was more regular in the past than it looks today. I have a theory that 3rd declension nouns originally had only one stem (for example leg-) and the irregular singular nominatives are a result of later phonological or orthographical interactions between the stem and the nominative singular ending -s or -is (for example leg- + -s --> lex).

I understand ius/iuris was originally ius/iusis (then the s-->r change happened between vowels).

Was corpus/corporis originaly corpus/corpusis, or corpos/corposis, or none of the above?

Was curator/curatoris originally curatos/curatosis?

Was carcer/carceris originally carces/carcesis?

Was sermo/sermonis originally sermon/sermonis (then the n nasalized the preceding o and disappeared)?

What did origo/originis look like in Archaic Latin? Was it origin/originis (and then the word-final -in somehow managed to become -o)?

Was veritas/veritatis originally veritats/veritatis (then the t was assimilated by the following s)?

Was virtus/virtutis originally virtuts/virtutis?

Was miles/militis originally milits/militis, or milets/miletis, or none of the above?

Was gens/gentis originally gents/gentis?

Was fraus/fraudis originally frauds/fraudis?

Was sanguis/sanguinis originally sanguins/sanguinis?

Was crimen/criminis originally crimin/criminis, or crimen/crimenis, or none of the above?

Was opus/operis originally opus/opusis, or opes/opesis, or none of the above?

Was cinis/cineris originally cinis/cinisis, or cines/cinesis, or none of the above?

Was vulpes/vulpis originally vulpis/vulpis?

What about iter/itineris?

What about senex/senis?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"I understand ius/iuris was originally ius/iusis" Yes.

"Was corpus/corporis originaly corpus/corpusis, or corpos/corposis, or none of the above?"

Corpos, corposis, then r shift and last o > u when not before r, I think. Perhaps rather corpos, corposes, since -es > -is arguably at same time as -os > -us.

"Was curator/curatoris originally curatos/curatosis?
Was carcer/carceris originally carces/carcesis?"


No, these two words have r from start.

"Was sermo/sermonis originally sermon/sermonis (then the n nasalized the preceding o and disappeared)?"

Sermo would have been sermon, yes, but probably before any recorded Latin, the Greek has Platon, Platonos, where Latin has Plato Platonis.

"What did origo/originis look like in Archaic Latin? Was it origin/originis (and then the word-final -in somehow managed to become -o)?"

Probably something like origo (long II o) *origones (short II o), where later *origones became originis. o > i because a vowel in short internal syllable not before r or labial, e > i because e and o when short in final syllables get closed to i and u.

I am not sure if what comes before woul have been orig- or perhaps oreig-.

"Was veritas/veritatis originally veritats/veritatis (then the t was assimilated by the following s)?"

Possibly, but possibly avoidance of -ts group was longstanding, so that it changed well before both Latin and Greek : both languages have III declinsion dental stems with nominative -s, not -ts.

Same for miles, gens, fraus, except that gens may have been nominative gentis, an -i-stem, since having gentium as genitive plural. I think we are dealing with gentis, genteis becoming gens, gentis.

"Was sanguis/sanguinis originally sanguins/sanguinis?"

Do not know.

"Was crimen/criminis originally crimin/criminis, or crimen/crimenis, or none of the above?"

Crimen, crimenis, then e > i, like all vowels in short medial syllables, not before r or labial.

"Was opus/operis originally opus/opusis, or opes/opesis, or none of the above?"

Probably opos, oposes, possibly opos, opeses. Medial short vowels become e before r, unless, sometimes, they stay o (corporis). I think opos oposes and corpos corposes were same declinsion type exactly, but the "sound law" vaccillated on the resulting internal vowel.

"Was cinis/cineris originally cinis/cinisis, or cines/cinesis, or none of the above?"

Could have been either. Cines would have become cinis because short e and o in final vowels close, unless before r. Cinisis would have become cineris, because short internal vowels before r become e (or sporaidically o, if originally o or u).

"Was vulpes/vulpis originally vulpis/vulpis?"

Not sure.

"What about iter/itineris?"

Originally iter itinis. If water had not been aqua, it would arguably have been **uater, uatinis, with a nominative close to English and German forms, an oblique stem close to Swedish and Icelandic forms : you probably find that in Hittite, if not in Latin.

Then itinis became itineris, contaminated with the r from nominative, like iecur, iecinoris.

"What about senex/senis?"

Two different word formations taking turns around a paradigm.

I am Also NOT a Pagan, But Some Take me for That Too


Luke Lefebvre
[material equivalent to these two links:

What Are the Unicorns and Satyrs Mentioned in the Bible?
by Wayne Jackson
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/880-what-are-the-unicorns-and-satyrs-mentioned-in-the-bible


The Myth That the Bible is Just a Myth
by Robin Schumacher
http://blogs.christianpost.com/confident-christian/the-myth-that-the-bible-is-just-a-myth-15757/
]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"All pagan religions have these mythical creatures that they believed in that never were real and God’s going to bring those ideas to an end."

I do not consider satyrs clearly non-extant.

When St Anthony the Great went to visit St Paul the First Hermit, he met a faun crying over his probably going to be damned, because pagans were worshipping him.

A wise satyr, I'd say.

Luke Lefebvre
Apology is not the same thing as history and just because God mentions mythological creatures it doesn’t mean he believes the existed. He demonstrates that with the Babylonians believed about the mythical creatures will come to an end

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Does he? It does not say so very clearly.

Either way on St Anthony's visit, I am here not citing the faun, but the Centaur:

Creation vs. Evolution : Was St. Jerome Calling Genesis a Myth, and if so in what sense?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2012/08/was-st-jerome-calling-genesis-myth-and.html


Luke Lefebvre
This mythical creatures don’t exist and just because the Bible mentions the Babylonian mythical creatures they believe in doesn’t mean it’s true

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"This mythical creatures don’t exist"

How do you know?

Some have seen them. Including some Christians, like St Anthony the Great.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
As for Zeus, well, it seems he banished his father to Italy where he became ancestor to Lavinia, and therefore to Julius Ceasar.

Doesn't mean he is a god, still less the highest god, but he seems to have existed.

Luke Lefebvre
No it simply means that Zeus didn’t exist and it definitely demonstrates that the Babylonian concept of a half man half goat doesn’t exist either and God one day will do away with all of it

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"No it simply means that Zeus didn’t exist"

Christians have thought otherwise.

As to "the Babylonian concept", it has been witnessed by non-Babylonians, and the words in Isaiah do not exactly mean "will be done away with". Dancing means normally something else.

Luke Lefebvre
Christians were completely wrong because there’s a difference between a Bible believing Christian and a religious Christian. A religious Christian thinks he has a good chance of going to heaven because he’s really not that bad a biblical Christian knows that he doesn’t deserve to go to heaven but the Saviour saved him and what he did for the senior allows him to go there. That’s the bottom line difference

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Christians were completely wrong because there’s a difference between a Bible believing Christian and a religious Christian"

How many "Bible believing Christians" of your type do you find back in the times of the Church Fathers and of St Anthony the Great?

Luke Lefebvre
I can attest to the five new the apostles. Clement of Rome Ignatius of Antioch Polycarp Papius etc

Tertullian I’m sure he did so did Justin martyr Hippolytus etc. lots of the second century pastors believe God’s word literally

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Good, I'd agree they believed the Bible.

[Answered before he brought in Tertullian, who died a Montanist]

I'd also say they were what you call religious Christians.

And I'd definitely remind you they were a few centuries before either St Anthony or the Church Fathers who commented extensively on Pagan Epic myths.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Tertullian was definitely a "works justice".

Luke Lefebvre
Well he was a lawyer and he believed God’s word

Hans-Georg Lundahl
He was certainly not a Protestant.

Luke Lefebvre
We don’t need a priest to tell us what God’s Word says. God said to Moses that he spoke in plain language this is not a hard concept

[page with his work - not attributed to elsewhere]

Luke Lefebvre
What’s your point here exactly? Tell me you’re not trying to tell me that these mythological ideas were actually true?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am sorry, but "allegory" and "dark speech" is not the same.

Also, priests have other functions than telling us what the Bible mean.

Yes, I believe Pagan mythological ideas were true observed phenomena or historic memories - to a degree. NOT to the degree of involving Pagan theology being true. Ulysses came back to Penelope, and may have seen a Cyclops on the way, but it was not because Zeus and Athena spoke about it on Olympus.

Subthread A

Luke Lefebvre
Well prove it to me. Prove to me that Sue’s actually existed outside of just belief?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Saturn was exiled from Crete to Italy, father of Picus, grandfather of Latinus, greatgrandfather of Lavinia who married Aeneas.

We have a genealogy from Aeneas to Romulus and fairly prosy historic events part of the way.

Saturn's other son in Crete was Zeus or Jove.

Luke Lefebvre
Various cultures using the various concepts of these mythological ideas and believing it is not the same thing as proving it. Romulus was a real person we know that from history

All these various cultures that believe these deities by different names because of their culture only points to what they believed in Mesopotamia at the Tower of Babel. That’s why these various names are attributed to these various mythological ideas that are not true but share similar concept under different names. Tower of Babel

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Then so was his [Romulus'] ancestor Saturn, and therefore also this man's other son, Zeus.

Luke Lefebvre
Prove to me that the Greek god Zeus exist

So you say prove it to me

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I did.

But I neither claimed, nor proved he was a god.

Luke Lefebvre
How did you you told me about it how did you

You didn’t prove it to me you told me what that’s with the people believed. Prove to me that he did prove to me that he turned into an ox and came to Europia and defiled her and then killed her I’ll wait

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I never said he turned into an ox.

It is however possible that by witchcraft he got the looks of an ox and that by witchcraft Europe thought she was a cow.

Luke Lefebvre
I know you didn’t but I know for a fact that’s the story. I want you to prove to me that Zeus is an actual being. Don’t tell me that’s what they said prove it to me

Hans-Georg Lundahl
What we know he did, he was a king on Crete, he banished his father to Italy, and that is why Saturn was there.

We know history because of tradition, that is a constant, whether the tradition is pre-Jewish (as Genesis) or Christian or Pagan.

As for still existing, he is an actual human soul, probably damned in Hell.

Note also, the person why by witchcraft defiled Europa need not be the same person who banned his father to Italy and whose cousin several generations removed is Julius Caesar. He could be, but they could also be two different actual sinners.

Or Europa could have been defiled by a demon, not a man.

Luke Lefebvre
None of that story is true and you can’t prove that story even happen physically. Just because people believe it doesn’t mean it’s true. We have physical evidence of the crucifixion of Christ

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"None of that story is true"

That is more than you know.

"and you can’t prove that story even happen physically."

Most stories and therefore most of history cannot be proven physically.

"Just because people believe it doesn’t mean it’s true."

It does, unless there is a reason to think they could or even would have been mistaken.

"We have physical evidence of the crucifixion of Christ"

Yes, the Holy Cross found by St Helen and the Syndone of Turin. Both of which are relics that Protestants have historically contested as Catholic forgeries and fake stories.

End of subthread A

Luke Lefebvre
Mystery’s etc. got made himself plain and simple and we don’t need anybody telling us what the Bible says. We can read the Bible and understand its literal meaning

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well, for one thing, its literal meaning in Isaiah seems to be satyrs exist, if we don't need some professor telling us what it says.

Luke Lefebvre
No it’s literal meaning is that they believe they existed but not the Jewish people the Babylonians. No prove to me that Zeus actually existed

Clearly it’s called Greek mythology for a reason the Bible is not called mythology Jesus is not a mythological person

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Greek mythology" is a very fluid concept.

Some parts are clearly false, like most things that are involved in Theogony, some parts are clearly true, like Trojan War or Ulysses getting home.

Luke Lefebvre
Prove to me that Zeus exists

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I did on the other thread [=subthread A].

Meaning, he now exists as a probably damned soul in Hell.

Luke Lefebvre
You didn’t prove it to me. Give me some physical evidence other than what people believed it

Hans-Georg Lundahl
There is his tomb on Crete.

But generally, history is by stories told, not by physical evidence outside stories.

lundi 11 septembre 2017

I am NOT a National Socialist, But Some Take me For That




I have, for social justice reasons, sympathies for Fascism or Corporativism.

Meaning, Unions should have the power to impede Employers treating Employees like dirt, but not have the power to allow Employer to run his company within reasonable limits.

State and even non-parliamentarian state is sometimes required to step in.

Since I have Jewish roots as to my family, I am however a bit picky about which Fascism I go with.

I believe Jews are entitled to life, liberty and property, as long as not forfeiting these by acts of their own. This means a promotion of whatever was done to Jews in 1933 to 1945 by the Hitler régime against these just limits, whatever was not meant to stop unfair Jewish business practises and left at that, is out.

I am not a National Socialist, nor will I be so. I have other Fascisms I prefer, and as for Mussolini, I prefer him as to before 1938, I am not a Racialist. Carta della Razza was not a hit with me, unlike at least salient parts of Carta del Lavoro.

Alas, this A. O. shows that some Jews are unable to grasp these distinctions calmly./HGL