- My status in group Catholic Cosmology
- I wonder if Robert Sungenis has so far corrected the fault about "the deception of Olivieri"?
It’s All In the Translation Posted on April 7, 2014 by David Palm
[Quoting link quoting Sungenis:]
As Mayaud notes concerning Olivieri’s duplicity:
One may easily imaging what the deception of Olivieri [la déception d’Olivieri] was in this year 1822.
Now, in English, deception is usually a cognate of the active voice of the verb, or rather "deception of someone" is used as "someone deceives". But in Latin, a verbal noun can have two different genitives, a subjective and an objective one, so "deception of someone" might have meant "someone was deceived" as easily. And in its daughter language French, "déception de qqn" = someone felt as if he had been deceived. Déception = disappointment.
Because, if the correction has been made, and David Palm notified thereof it is somewhat disingenuous of David Palm to not have acknowledged the correction as duly done.
When print was it, he would have needed to do so in the next printed work, or next edition of same work in a footnote. But in a blog post, he is free to update the blog post itself, for the benefit of all future readers.
Whether it has or hasn't been corrected, here is my little response to Palm's post on the matter from where he linked to that post:
Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Supposing Pius VII had enthroned Heliocentrism – why did anyone scold Anfossi ?
- Robert Sungenis
- Hans, thanks for bringing this up. First, yes, it has been corrected. I have changed it to "One may easily imagine what the disillusionment of Olivieri was in this year 1822." The previous translation was done by a women friend of mine (I will withhold her name so that David Palm doesn't start attacking her) who had been doing the translating of all of Mayaud's works for me. (She is presently working on another piece by Mayaud). I never approached her on the mistake with "deception." Rather, I went to a professional translator and he told me that "deception" could be translated as "deception" in English, but the context would determine whether it would be proper, and that the context from Mayaud did not make it proper. So that is when I changed it to "disillusionment." Of course, David Palm is not in this to help the project along, but to nitpick for anything he can find to discredit it. But as Joseph told his brothers, "What you meant for evil, God meant for good."
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Ha. Probably some of the quarters were someone was praying for me to trust you less.
As you know, I will very much not trust you on Slavic names again. Remember [undisclosed]!
[Story is, he had misunderstood a given name as another name, or spelling, I had trusted him on it and used the spelling he gave before correcting myself. If you ever find me in error on a Slavic name after Sungenis wrote it, remind me I should not have trusted him on that - it is not as if he was as good on them as on astrophysics ...]
By the way, mind if I bring to my readers attention your answer here?
Right, your words here are for public consumption.
Oh, what was the date when you told David Palm you had changed it?
- Robert Sungenis
- Hans, make a practice not to communicate with David Palm, for reasons I think are quite obvious. 1 Corinthians 13:1-2 comes to mind.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Oh, that would explain why David Palm has not noted that you corrected it. If you did not communicate the correction to him.
1 Cor 13: If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.  And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
To me that implies no single statement on avoiding anyone, but rather one to assume no bad will in David Palm's error when you haven't corrected it.
I am somewhat pained to say the words "Hans, make a practice not to communicate with" x strike me as somewhat reminding of his accusation you are making some kind of parallel magisterium. Usually it is for the magisterium to decide who one treats as excommunicatus vitandus.
If it was not that kind of decision, but just friendly advice, I think I have had more than my fair share of suffering due to people saying "NN, make a practice not to communicate with Hans" as a piece of friendly advice. So, no, I am not sure I feel obliged to take it.
I am not accusing you of being a Mason, but I think the gesture has a somewhat Masonic and possibly Synagogal ring to it. Generally in a debate between two persons, one communicates, not just when one has made an answer to them, but also when one has corrected an error they noted.