Discussion:
Enter the Dragon
(too old to reply)
Christian Weisgerber
2018-01-30 21:51:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
English has the phrasing “enter <character>”, originally and I guess
still used as a stage direction, but also metaphorically in all
sorts of contexts--including the movie title I used in the subject.

But what _is_ “enter”, grammatically speaking, in “enter the dragon”,
“enter Hamlet” etc.?

(1) A verb in the imperative. Faites entrer le dragon.
Semantically a straightforward command.

(2) A verb in the subjunctive. Que le dragon entre.
A hortative use of the subjunctive.

(3) A fossilized expression that can no longer be analyzed as a
verb synchronically and is best taken sui generis.

Ideas?
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de
Ruud Harmsen
2018-01-31 16:20:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Tue, 30 Jan 2018 21:51:52 -0000 (UTC): Christian Weisgerber
English has the phrasing “enter <character>”, originally and I guess
still used as a stage direction, but also metaphorically in all
sorts of contexts--including the movie title I used in the subject.
But what _is_ “enter”, grammatically speaking, in “enter the dragon”,
“enter Hamlet” etc.?
(1) A verb in the imperative. Faites entrer le dragon.
Semantically a straightforward command.
I vote for this one. A transitive meaning of 'to enter'. Push the
actor on stage in spite of his stage freight, he HAS to act NOW.

[Stage freight? Stage fright. Freight train. Vrachtwagen,
*vrachttrein, vrachtwagon, goederenwagon, goederentrein.]
(2) A verb in the subjunctive. Que le dragon entre.
A hortative use of the subjunctive.
(3) A fossilized expression that can no longer be analyzed as a
verb synchronically and is best taken sui generis.
Ideas?
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Adam Funk
2018-01-31 16:54:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christian Weisgerber
English has the phrasing “enter <character>”, originally and I guess
still used as a stage direction, but also metaphorically in all
sorts of contexts--including the movie title I used in the subject.
But what _is_ “enter”, grammatically speaking, in “enter the dragon”,
“enter Hamlet” etc.?
(1) A verb in the imperative. Faites entrer le dragon.
Semantically a straightforward command.
I'm inclined to reject this one because "enter" isn't transitive in
that sense:

We entered Spot in the dog show. -- OK
We entered Spot. -- syntactic but not nice
Post by Christian Weisgerber
(2) A verb in the subjunctive. Que le dragon entre.
A hortative use of the subjunctive.
I agree with this one.
Post by Christian Weisgerber
(3) A fossilized expression that can no longer be analyzed as a
verb synchronically and is best taken sui generis.
I agree with this one too, derived from (2).
--
We seem to understand the value of oil, timber, minerals, and
housing, but not the value of unspoiled beauty, wildlife,
solitude, and spiritual renewal. --- Calvin
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-31 17:36:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christian Weisgerber
English has the phrasing “enter <character>”, originally and I guess
still used as a stage direction, but also metaphorically in all
sorts of contexts--including the movie title I used in the subject.
But what _is_ “enter”, grammatically speaking, in “enter the dragon”,
“enter Hamlet” etc.?
(1) A verb in the imperative. Faites entrer le dragon.
Semantically a straightforward command.
(2) A verb in the subjunctive. Que le dragon entre.
A hortative use of the subjunctive.
(3) A fossilized expression that can no longer be analyzed as a
verb synchronically and is best taken sui generis.
Ideas?
It represents something in Latin, because they still say Exit and Exeunt.
Adam Funk
2018-01-31 19:02:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Christian Weisgerber
English has the phrasing “enter <character>”, originally and I guess
still used as a stage direction, but also metaphorically in all
sorts of contexts--including the movie title I used in the subject.
But what _is_ “enter”, grammatically speaking, in “enter the dragon”,
“enter Hamlet” etc.?
(1) A verb in the imperative. Faites entrer le dragon.
Semantically a straightforward command.
(2) A verb in the subjunctive. Que le dragon entre.
A hortative use of the subjunctive.
(3) A fossilized expression that can no longer be analyzed as a
verb synchronically and is best taken sui generis.
Ideas?
It represents something in Latin, because they still say Exit and Exeunt.
Good point, & now that you mention it, those are not subjunctive.
"Exeunt Rosencrantz & Guildenstern" just means "R & G go out"
(indicative).

So why have we half-translated (preserving Latin word order) one of
them ("enter Hamlet" for "introit Hamlet")?
--
Civilization is a race between catastrophe and education.
--- H G Wells
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-31 20:48:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Christian Weisgerber
English has the phrasing “enter <character>”, originally and I guess
still used as a stage direction, but also metaphorically in all
sorts of contexts--including the movie title I used in the subject.
But what _is_ “enter”, grammatically speaking, in “enter the dragon”,
“enter Hamlet” etc.?
(1) A verb in the imperative. Faites entrer le dragon.
Semantically a straightforward command.
(2) A verb in the subjunctive. Que le dragon entre.
A hortative use of the subjunctive.
(3) A fossilized expression that can no longer be analyzed as a
verb synchronically and is best taken sui generis.
Ideas?
It represents something in Latin, because they still say Exit and Exeunt.
Good point, & now that you mention it, those are not subjunctive.
"Exeunt Rosencrantz & Guildenstern" just means "R & G go out"
(indicative).
As a fundraiser, the New York Classic Theatre (which does Shakespeare in various
parks) auctioned off the privilege of being the ... in *Twelfth Night*'s "Exit,
pursued by a bear." They do five shows a week (weather permitting), and the
shows run about six weeks, so that was presumably about 30 hefty contributions.
Post by Adam Funk
So why have we half-translated (preserving Latin word order) one of
them ("enter Hamlet" for "introit Hamlet")?
The motet (or sentences, or whatever) sung during the procession at the start
of Mass is called the introit (two syllables, doesn't rhyme with Detroit because
the stress is on the first syllable).
Arnaud Fournet
2018-02-01 06:57:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Christian Weisgerber
English has the phrasing “enter <character>”, originally and I guess
still used as a stage direction, but also metaphorically in all
sorts of contexts--including the movie title I used in the subject.
But what _is_ “enter”, grammatically speaking, in “enter the dragon”,
“enter Hamlet” etc.?
(1) A verb in the imperative. Faites entrer le dragon.
Semantically a straightforward command.
(2) A verb in the subjunctive. Que le dragon entre.
A hortative use of the subjunctive.
(3) A fossilized expression that can no longer be analyzed as a
verb synchronically and is best taken sui generis.
Ideas?
It represents something in Latin, because they still say Exit and Exeunt.
Good point, & now that you mention it, those are not subjunctive.
"Exeunt Rosencrantz & Guildenstern" just means "R & G go out"
(indicative).
As a fundraiser, the New York Classic Theatre (which does Shakespeare in various
parks) auctioned off the privilege of being the ... in *Twelfth Night*'s "Exit,
pursued by a bear." They do five shows a week (weather permitting), and the
shows run about six weeks, so that was presumably about 30 hefty contributions.
Post by Adam Funk
So why have we half-translated (preserving Latin word order) one of
them ("enter Hamlet" for "introit Hamlet")?
The motet (or sentences, or whatever) sung during the procession at the start
of Mass is called the introit (two syllables, doesn't rhyme with Detroit because
the stress is on the first syllable).
Normally, the introit is sung *after* the procession is finished.
A.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-02-01 12:36:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Adam Funk
So why have we half-translated (preserving Latin word order) one of
them ("enter Hamlet" for "introit Hamlet")?
The motet (or sentences, or whatever) sung during the procession at the start
of Mass is called the introit (two syllables, doesn't rhyme with Detroit because
the stress is on the first syllable).
Normally, the introit is sung *after* the procession is finished.
The way it's done in French churches -- especially the special-dispensation pre-Vatican II
ones you apparently prefer -- is not relevant to the usage in American RC churches or the English language.
Arnaud Fournet
2018-02-01 13:17:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Adam Funk
So why have we half-translated (preserving Latin word order) one of
them ("enter Hamlet" for "introit Hamlet")?
The motet (or sentences, or whatever) sung during the procession at the start
of Mass is called the introit (two syllables, doesn't rhyme with Detroit because
the stress is on the first syllable).
Normally, the introit is sung *after* the procession is finished.
The way it's done in French churches -- especially the special-dispensation pre-Vatican II
ones you apparently prefer -- is not relevant to the usage in American RC churches or the English language.
I agree these people have nothing to do with Catholicism and the Church, founded by Jesus Christ.
A.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-02-01 14:04:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Adam Funk
So why have we half-translated (preserving Latin word order) one of
them ("enter Hamlet" for "introit Hamlet")?
The motet (or sentences, or whatever) sung during the procession at the start
of Mass is called the introit (two syllables, doesn't rhyme with Detroit because
the stress is on the first syllable).
Normally, the introit is sung *after* the procession is finished.
The way it's done in French churches -- especially the special-dispensation pre-Vatican II
ones you apparently prefer -- is not relevant to the usage in American RC churches or the English language.
I agree these people have nothing to do with Catholicism and the Church, founded by Jesus Christ.
Like a good Catholic, you seem never to have read the Bible. Jesus did not
"found a church."
DKleinecke
2018-02-01 18:25:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Adam Funk
So why have we half-translated (preserving Latin word order) one of
them ("enter Hamlet" for "introit Hamlet")?
The motet (or sentences, or whatever) sung during the procession at the start
of Mass is called the introit (two syllables, doesn't rhyme with Detroit because
the stress is on the first syllable).
Normally, the introit is sung *after* the procession is finished.
The way it's done in French churches -- especially the special-dispensation pre-Vatican II
ones you apparently prefer -- is not relevant to the usage in American RC churches or the English language.
I agree these people have nothing to do with Catholicism and the Church, founded by Jesus Christ.
Like a good Catholic, you seem never to have read the Bible. Jesus did not
"found a church."
Even Paul did not found a church - he founded churches.

I think Ignataios was the person that brought the very idea of
bishops to Rome and the bishop of Rome was mere one among many
for several centuries. It is a bit more uncertain but I feel
First Corinthians was sent by bishop-free Rome to urge the
Corinthians to give up their newly-created bishop and go back
to the good old ways. But Ignataios converted the church in
Rome to the new way of thinking.

Getting even more speculative I see the Romans electing
Telesphoros pope and the bishop of Rome and bishop of
Asia (Ignataios) dying together as martyrs in the
Colosseum. A historical romance never written.
Arnaud Fournet
2018-02-01 23:03:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Adam Funk
So why have we half-translated (preserving Latin word order) one of
them ("enter Hamlet" for "introit Hamlet")?
The motet (or sentences, or whatever) sung during the procession at the start
of Mass is called the introit (two syllables, doesn't rhyme with Detroit because
the stress is on the first syllable).
Normally, the introit is sung *after* the procession is finished.
The way it's done in French churches -- especially the special-dispensation pre-Vatican II
ones you apparently prefer -- is not relevant to the usage in American RC churches or the English language.
I agree these people have nothing to do with Catholicism and the Church, founded by Jesus Christ.
Like a good Catholic, you seem never to have read the Bible. Jesus did not
"found a church."
Even Paul did not found a church - he founded churches.
of course, Jesus gave St Peter the mission of guiding the Church.
A.
Ruud Harmsen
2018-02-02 07:52:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Thu, 1 Feb 2018 15:03:17 -0800 (PST): Arnaud Fournet
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Adam Funk
So why have we half-translated (preserving Latin word order) one of
them ("enter Hamlet" for "introit Hamlet")?
The motet (or sentences, or whatever) sung during the procession at the start
of Mass is called the introit (two syllables, doesn't rhyme with Detroit because
the stress is on the first syllable).
Normally, the introit is sung *after* the procession is finished.
The way it's done in French churches -- especially the special-dispensation pre-Vatican II
ones you apparently prefer -- is not relevant to the usage in American RC churches or the English language.
I agree these people have nothing to do with Catholicism and the Church, founded by Jesus Christ.
Like a good Catholic, you seem never to have read the Bible. Jesus did not
"found a church."
Even Paul did not found a church - he founded churches.
of course, Jesus gave St Peter the mission of guiding the Church.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter
==
According to Catholic teaching, Peter was ordained by Jesus in the
"Rock of My Church" dialogue in Matthew 16:18.
==

CATHOLIC teaching, mind you.

The literal text is:
https://www.statenvertaling.net/bijbel/matt/16.html
==
En Ik zeg u ook, dat gij zijt Petrus, en op deze petra zal Ik Mijn
gemeente bouwen, en de poorten der hel zullen dezelve niet
overweldigen.
==

King James:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16%3A18&version=KJV
==
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I
will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against
it.
==

What was the Greek word, which in English is church, but in Dutch not
kerk but gemeente?
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Ruud Harmsen
2018-02-02 07:55:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ruud Harmsen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter
==
According to Catholic teaching, Peter was ordained by Jesus in the
"Rock of My Church" dialogue in Matthew 16:18.
What was the Greek word, which in English is church, but in Dutch not
kerk but gemeente?
Indeed ekklesia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession_of_Peter
==
The word "church" (ekklesia in Greek), as used here, appears in the
Gospels only once more, in Matthew 18:17, and refers to the community
of believers at the time.[3]
==
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Arnaud Fournet
2018-02-02 08:30:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Ruud Harmsen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter
==
According to Catholic teaching, Peter was ordained by Jesus in the
"Rock of My Church" dialogue in Matthew 16:18.
What was the Greek word, which in English is church, but in Dutch not
kerk but gemeente?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession_of_Peter
==
The word "church" (ekklesia in Greek), as used here, appears in the
Gospels only once more, in Matthew 18:17, and refers to the community
of believers at the time.[3]
==
yes, of course, the Church is the community of believers and followers of Jesus.
The Church does not include Protestants and Muslims, who are heretics with a completely invalid and erroneous liturgy, theology and approach of Jesus.
A.
Ruud Harmsen
2018-02-02 08:59:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Ruud Harmsen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession_of_Peter
==
The word "church" (ekklesia in Greek), as used here, appears in the
Gospels only once more, in Matthew 18:17, and refers to the community
of believers at the time.[3]
==
Fri, 2 Feb 2018 00:30:38 -0800 (PST): Arnaud Fournet
Post by Arnaud Fournet
yes, of course, the Church is the community of believers and followers of Jesus.
The Church does not include Protestants and Muslims, who are heretics with a completely invalid and erroneous liturgy, theology and approach of Jesus.
Yeah, right.

A community of believers = de gemeente der gelovigen. What you say is
literally the Protestant Dutch rendering.

What about that other Greek word,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumene, do you know it? Even your Pope
embraces that now, did you know?
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Arnaud Fournet
2018-02-02 13:48:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Ruud Harmsen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession_of_Peter
==
The word "church" (ekklesia in Greek), as used here, appears in the
Gospels only once more, in Matthew 18:17, and refers to the community
of believers at the time.[3]
==
Fri, 2 Feb 2018 00:30:38 -0800 (PST): Arnaud Fournet
Post by Arnaud Fournet
yes, of course, the Church is the community of believers and followers of Jesus.
The Church does not include Protestants and Muslims, who are heretics with a completely invalid and erroneous liturgy, theology and approach of Jesus.
Yeah, right.
A community of believers = de gemeente der gelovigen. What you say is
literally the Protestant Dutch rendering.
Possibly a community,
but outside the Church, founded by Jesus, in all cases.
A.
Post by Ruud Harmsen
What about that other Greek word,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumene, do you know it? Even your Pope
embraces that now, did you know?
Bergoglio is a Leftist, gnosticist and Satanist.
He'll end up into the Cloacum Maximum of the Church.
I do not even consider him a Christian, in the first place.
A.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-02-02 14:09:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Ruud Harmsen
What about that other Greek word,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumene, do you know it? Even your Pope
embraces that now, did you know?
Bergoglio is a Leftist, gnosticist and Satanist.
He'll end up into the Cloacum Maximum of the Church.
I do not even consider him a Christian, in the first place.
It's really not up to you.
Daud Deden
2018-02-02 21:08:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Ruud Harmsen
What about that other Greek word,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumene, do you know it? Even your Pope
embraces that now, did you know?
Bergoglio is a Leftist, gnosticist and Satanist.
He'll end up into the Cloacum Maximum of the Church.
I do not even consider him a Christian, in the first place.
It's really not up to you.
-

English: rock, stone, pebble
Dut/Gk: petrus, petra
Aztec: tetl [DD: I suspect petla.petla->petetl->tetl]
Hebrew: tzur [DD: I suspect petra.petra->petz.r->tzur]
Malay: batu [DD: I suspect mbuatlua->buatua->batu] (tua = old)

-

Ruud:" "church" (ekklesia in Greek),

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesia says ekklesia is
the LATIN term for the Christian Church as a whole, not the Koine
Greek term,

What was the Greek word, which in English is church, but in Dutch not
kerk but gemeente?"

-

***@Scot: circle? ~ ***@Hebrew: circle ~ ***@PIE

***@Dutch ~ jambo/meet(ing)

***@Amharic: talk, commun.icate

-

The Church does not include Protestants and Muslims, who are heretics with a completely invalid and erroneous liturgy, theology and approach of Jesus. A.

The Church does not include Jews, Protestants and Muslims, who are heretics with a completely invalid and erroneous liturgy, theology and approach of Jesus. A. (with inclusive exclusion)

-

Personally, I think that Jesus would be labelled a heretic by most religious groups.
Ruud Harmsen
2018-02-02 21:48:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Fri, 2 Feb 2018 06:09:43 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Ruud Harmsen
What about that other Greek word,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumene, do you know it? Even your Pope
embraces that now, did you know?
Bergoglio is a Leftist, gnosticist and Satanist.
He'll end up into the Cloacum Maximum of the Church.
I do not even consider him a Christian, in the first place.
It's really not up to you.
May I proudly present to you, Arnoud Fornait, Holier than the Pope!!!

Vote for him! Fornet for Praesident!
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Ruud Harmsen
2018-02-02 21:43:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Fri, 2 Feb 2018 05:48:50 -0800 (PST): Arnaud Fournet
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Ruud Harmsen
What about that other Greek word,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumene, do you know it? Even your Pope
embraces that now, did you know?
Right, so I take it you do not believe in religious freedom, in
freedom of the conscience. You are a religious dictator. Everybody has
to bow for the Pope and the Spanish Inquisition.

Believe me, we won't. You are out of luck.

Do you also not allow me to be an atheist now, by my own free choice?

There too, you are out of luck. Your will means nothing, I and we will
do and feel as I/we please. That is what we fought for in the 80
year's war and later against your dictator Napoleon. And finally, we
won.

That's our freedom, now within the EU.

France is ours anyway: Dutch is New-Nether-Frankish, France is
Frankrijk, the Rijk, the Reich, of the Franks.

All your base are belong to us!
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Bergoglio is a Leftist, gnosticist and Satanist.
He'll end up into the Cloacum Maximum of the Church.
I do not even consider him a Christian, in the first place.
Never heard of Bergoglio, no idea what you are talking about. Neither
do I care.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Arnaud Fournet
2018-02-03 06:59:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Fri, 2 Feb 2018 05:48:50 -0800 (PST): Arnaud Fournet
Post by Ruud Harmsen
What about that other Greek word,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumene, do you know it? Even your Pope
embraces that now, did you know?
Right, so I take it you do not believe in religious freedom, in
freedom of the conscience. You are a religious dictator. Everybody has
to bow for the Pope and the Spanish Inquisition.
Believe me, we won't. You are out of luck.
Do you also not allow me to be an atheist now, by my own free choice?
of course. Adam was free from the start. Adam was free to damn himself.
I think you don't understand the word "freedom".
Freedom does not mean everything is ok. Freedom goes with accountability.
You believe in freedom with no accountability. I don't.
A.
Post by Ruud Harmsen
There too, you are out of luck. Your will means nothing, I and we will
do and feel as I/we please. That is what we fought for in the 80
year's war and later against your dictator Napoleon. And finally, we
won.
That's our freedom, now within the EU.
The EU is nothing more than a dictatorship, the Fourth Reich.
No freedom in there, just desolation for most people, especially the poor.
A.
Post by Ruud Harmsen
France is ours anyway: Dutch is New-Nether-Frankish, France is
Frankrijk, the Rijk, the Reich, of the Franks.
All your base are belong to us!
Don't worry. Islam will solve the problem and reduce your pretentions.
A.
Ruud Harmsen
2018-02-03 14:31:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Do you also not allow me to be an atheist now, by my own free choice?
Fri, 2 Feb 2018 22:59:52 -0800 (PST): Arnaud Fournet
Post by Arnaud Fournet
of course. Adam was free from the start. Adam was free to damn himself.
I think you don't understand the word "freedom".
Freedom does not mean everything is ok. Freedom goes with accountability.
You believe in freedom with no accountability.
How does that follow, in any way, from my not believing there is a
God?
Post by Arnaud Fournet
I don't.
Neither do I.
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Ruud Harmsen
There too, you are out of luck. Your will means nothing, I and we will
do and feel as I/we please. That is what we fought for in the 80
year's war and later against your dictator Napoleon. And finally, we
won.
That's our freedom, now within the EU.
The EU is nothing more than a dictatorship, the Fourth Reich.
Dictatorship by whome? All power in the EU lies with the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Council, which consists of 28
heads of government.
Post by Arnaud Fournet
No freedom in there, just desolation for most people, especially the poor.
Quatsch.
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Ruud Harmsen
France is ours anyway: Dutch is New-Nether-Frankish, France is
Frankrijk, the Rijk, the Reich, of the Franks.
All your base are belong to us!
Don't worry. Islam will solve the problem and reduce your pretentions.
No way.
Ruud Harmsen
2018-02-02 21:46:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Fri, 2 Feb 2018 05:48:50 -0800 (PST): Arnaud Fournet
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Bergoglio is a Leftist, gnosticist and Satanist.
He'll end up into the Cloacum Maximum of the Church.
I do not even consider him a Christian, in the first place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Francis

This is funny. You present yourself as a devout catholic, a
protestants hater and Bartholomew night supporter, but you don't even
support and recognise your own pope, the successor of Saint Pierre
who, in your words, founded the church on behalf of Jesus Christ in
person.

Really funny.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Ruud Harmsen
2018-02-02 22:02:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Fri, 2 Feb 2018 05:48:50 -0800 (PST): Arnaud Fournet
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Bergoglio is a Leftist, gnosticist and Satanist.
He'll end up into the Cloacum Maximum of the Church.
I do not even consider him a Christian, in the first place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Francis
This is funny. You present yourself as a devout catholic, a
protestants hater and Bartholomew night supporter, but you don't even
support and recognise your own pope, the successor of Saint Pierre
who, in your words, founded the church on behalf of Jesus Christ in
person.
Really funny.
Bergoglio, by the way, is clearly an Italian name (Spanish spelling
would be: Bergollo, Portuguese Bergolho), so he's back in the homeland
now. So many Argentians are originally Italian: Piazolla, etc.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Arnaud Fournet
2018-02-03 06:44:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Fri, 2 Feb 2018 05:48:50 -0800 (PST): Arnaud Fournet
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Bergoglio is a Leftist, gnosticist and Satanist.
He'll end up into the Cloacum Maximum of the Church.
I do not even consider him a Christian, in the first place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Francis
This is funny. You present yourself as a devout catholic, a
protestants hater and Bartholomew night supporter, but you don't even
support and recognise your own pope, the successor of Saint Pierre
who, in your words, founded the church on behalf of Jesus Christ in
person.
Really funny.
Bergoglio, by the way, is clearly an Italian name (Spanish spelling
would be: Bergollo, Portuguese Bergolho), so he's back in the homeland
now. So many Argentians are originally Italian: Piazolla, etc.
yes, his parents were Italians.
I think Bergoglio speaks Italian, but not the standard form, some northern dialect.
A.
Arnaud Fournet
2018-02-03 06:42:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Fri, 2 Feb 2018 05:48:50 -0800 (PST): Arnaud Fournet
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Bergoglio is a Leftist, gnosticist and Satanist.
He'll end up into the Cloacum Maximum of the Church.
I do not even consider him a Christian, in the first place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Francis
This is funny. You present yourself as a devout catholic, a
protestants hater
No, I do not hate Protestants, I just think they're heretics.
A.
Post by Ruud Harmsen
and Bartholomew night supporter,
This Bartholomew night is mostly a reaction to all the misdeeds of Protestants in France, which had exasperated the general population.
A.

but you don't even
Post by Ruud Harmsen
support and recognise your own pope, the successor of Saint Pierre
who, in your words, founded the church on behalf of Jesus Christ in
person.
Really funny.
There's nothing funny.
The Church is completely derailed since Vatican 2 horrible council.
And this pope Bergoglio is one of the worse in history.
Some people are worried that the Bergogliesque aberrations might cause a conservative backlash.
A.
Ruud Harmsen
2018-02-03 14:37:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Fri, 2 Feb 2018 22:42:46 -0800 (PST): Arnaud Fournet
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Fri, 2 Feb 2018 05:48:50 -0800 (PST): Arnaud Fournet
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Bergoglio is a Leftist, gnosticist and Satanist.
He'll end up into the Cloacum Maximum of the Church.
I do not even consider him a Christian, in the first place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Francis
This is funny. You present yourself as a devout catholic, a
protestants hater
No, I do not hate Protestants, I just think they're heretics.
That's the same thing, seeing how heretics were treated by the church,
already before protestantism. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharisme
. The origin of the Dutch word "ketter" for "heretic".

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ketter
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Orphism
http://rudhar.com/lingtics/deoforia.htm
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Ruud Harmsen
and Bartholomew night supporter,
This Bartholomew night is mostly a reaction to all the misdeeds of Protestants in France, which had exasperated the general population.
There was a lot of bloodshed and vandalism from both sides, true.
Post by Arnaud Fournet
The Church is completely derailed since Vatican 2 horrible council.
And this pope Bergoglio is one of the worse in history.
Some people are worried that the Bergogliesque aberrations might cause a conservative backlash.
I see. 1965. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tweede_Vaticaans_Concilie
Arnaud Fournet
2018-02-02 08:27:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Thu, 1 Feb 2018 15:03:17 -0800 (PST): Arnaud Fournet
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Adam Funk
So why have we half-translated (preserving Latin word order) one of
them ("enter Hamlet" for "introit Hamlet")?
The motet (or sentences, or whatever) sung during the procession at the start
of Mass is called the introit (two syllables, doesn't rhyme with Detroit because
the stress is on the first syllable).
Normally, the introit is sung *after* the procession is finished.
The way it's done in French churches -- especially the special-dispensation pre-Vatican II
ones you apparently prefer -- is not relevant to the usage in American RC churches or the English language.
I agree these people have nothing to do with Catholicism and the Church, founded by Jesus Christ.
Like a good Catholic, you seem never to have read the Bible. Jesus did not
"found a church."
Even Paul did not found a church - he founded churches.
of course, Jesus gave St Peter the mission of guiding the Church.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter
==
According to Catholic teaching, Peter was ordained by Jesus in the
"Rock of My Church" dialogue in Matthew 16:18.
==
CATHOLIC teaching, mind you.
https://www.statenvertaling.net/bijbel/matt/16.html
==
En Ik zeg u ook, dat gij zijt Petrus, en op deze petra zal Ik Mijn
gemeente bouwen, en de poorten der hel zullen dezelve niet
overweldigen.
==
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16%3A18&version=KJV
==
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I
will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against
it.
==
What was the Greek word, which in English is church, but in Dutch not
kerk but gemeente?
μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν
https://theotex.org/ntgf/matthieu/matthieu_16_gf.html

Don't show up claiming that the Church distorts the words of the Bible and that Protestantic extravagant translations are better...
A.
Daud Deden
2018-02-02 00:00:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Adam Funk
So why have we half-translated (preserving Latin word order) one of
them ("enter Hamlet" for "introit Hamlet")?
The motet (or sentences, or whatever) sung during the procession at the start
of Mass is called the introit (two syllables, doesn't rhyme with Detroit because
the stress is on the first syllable).
Normally, the introit is sung *after* the procession is finished.
The way it's done in French churches -- especially the special-dispensation pre-Vatican II
ones you apparently prefer -- is not relevant to the usage in American RC churches or the English language.
I agree these people have nothing to do with Catholicism and the Church, founded by Jesus Christ.
Like a good Catholic, you seem never to have read the Bible. Jesus did not
"found a church."
Even Paul did not found a church - he founded churches.
-

Chapel~chamber~temple~***@Aztec~tipi~steeple~kippah~qufa~kiva
Xyambuatla

Holy Oldies!

-
Post by DKleinecke
I think Ignataios was the person that brought the very idea of
bishops to Rome and the bishop of Rome was mere one among many
for several centuries. It is a bit more uncertain but I feel
First Corinthians was sent by bishop-free Rome to urge the
Corinthians to give up their newly-created bishop and go back
to the good old ways. But Ignataios converted the church in
Rome to the new way of thinking.
Getting even more speculative I see the Romans electing
Telesphoros pope and the bishop of Rome and bishop of
Asia (Ignataios) dying together as martyrs in the
Colosseum. A historical romance never written.
Arnaud Fournet
2018-02-01 23:01:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Adam Funk
So why have we half-translated (preserving Latin word order) one of
them ("enter Hamlet" for "introit Hamlet")?
The motet (or sentences, or whatever) sung during the procession at the start
of Mass is called the introit (two syllables, doesn't rhyme with Detroit because
the stress is on the first syllable).
Normally, the introit is sung *after* the procession is finished.
The way it's done in French churches -- especially the special-dispensation pre-Vatican II
ones you apparently prefer -- is not relevant to the usage in American RC churches or the English language.
I agree these people have nothing to do with Catholicism and the Church, founded by Jesus Christ.
Like a good Catholic, you seem never to have read the Bible. Jesus did not
"found a church."
Jesus founded the Church, as written in the New Testament.
I agree with you that Protestants seem to entirely fail to understand what the word Church means. I discovered that in a kind of Popular Encyclopedia written by American Protestants, and it's clear that they swim in massive lexical and semantic confusion.
A.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-02-02 04:06:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Adam Funk
So why have we half-translated (preserving Latin word order) one of
them ("enter Hamlet" for "introit Hamlet")?
The motet (or sentences, or whatever) sung during the procession at the start
of Mass is called the introit (two syllables, doesn't rhyme with Detroit because
the stress is on the first syllable).
Normally, the introit is sung *after* the procession is finished.
The way it's done in French churches -- especially the special-dispensation pre-Vatican II
ones you apparently prefer -- is not relevant to the usage in American RC churches or the English language.
I agree these people have nothing to do with Catholicism and the Church, founded by Jesus Christ.
Like a good Catholic, you seem never to have read the Bible. Jesus did not
"found a church."
Jesus founded the Church, as written in the New Testament.
Chapter and verse, as they say?
Post by Arnaud Fournet
I agree with you that Protestants seem to entirely fail to understand what the word Church means. I discovered that in a kind of Popular Encyclopedia written by American Protestants, and it's clear that they swim in massive lexical and semantic confusion.
No reference to any such "Popular Encyclopedia," of course.
Ruud Harmsen
2018-02-02 07:39:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Thu, 1 Feb 2018 20:06:24 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Adam Funk
So why have we half-translated (preserving Latin word order) one of
them ("enter Hamlet" for "introit Hamlet")?
The motet (or sentences, or whatever) sung during the procession at the start
of Mass is called the introit (two syllables, doesn't rhyme with Detroit because
the stress is on the first syllable).
Normally, the introit is sung *after* the procession is finished.
The way it's done in French churches -- especially the special-dispensation pre-Vatican II
ones you apparently prefer -- is not relevant to the usage in American RC churches or the English language.
I agree these people have nothing to do with Catholicism and the Church, founded by Jesus Christ.
Like a good Catholic, you seem never to have read the Bible. Jesus did not
"found a church."
Jesus founded the Church, as written in the New Testament.
Chapter and verse, as they say?
Interestingly, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesia says ekklesia is
the LATIN term for the Christian Church as a whole, not the Koine
Greek term. So indeed, I also wonder, which chapter(s) and which
verse(s)?
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Arnaud Fournet
2018-02-02 08:19:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Adam Funk
So why have we half-translated (preserving Latin word order) one of
them ("enter Hamlet" for "introit Hamlet")?
The motet (or sentences, or whatever) sung during the procession at the start
of Mass is called the introit (two syllables, doesn't rhyme with Detroit because
the stress is on the first syllable).
Normally, the introit is sung *after* the procession is finished.
The way it's done in French churches -- especially the special-dispensation pre-Vatican II
ones you apparently prefer -- is not relevant to the usage in American RC churches or the English language.
I agree these people have nothing to do with Catholicism and the Church, founded by Jesus Christ.
Like a good Catholic, you seem never to have read the Bible. Jesus did not
"found a church."
Jesus founded the Church, as written in the New Testament.
Chapter and verse, as they say?
St Matthew 6-18
Jesus talking to Simon-Peter: I say to thee, Simon son of Jonas, that thou art Peter (= Stone) and upon that rock I will build my Church.

So, obviously, Jesus states that he puts Simon-Peter in charge of the Church.
Note that there's a reference to the Hebrew word tzur "rock", that is used in the psalms as another name of God. So there's an equivalence God = Jesus = My rock = The Church.

Quite absurdly, Protestants who don't understand (or pretend not to) what the Church is, write my church (with little c) as if it were some kind of mundane building. Nonsense, of course.
The Church, put in the hands of Simon-Peter, is of course the Gathering of the Faithful: the Church, founded by Jesus. Chrystal clear.
A.
Ruud Harmsen
2018-02-02 08:56:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Fri, 2 Feb 2018 00:19:38 -0800 (PST): Arnaud Fournet
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Adam Funk
So why have we half-translated (preserving Latin word order) one of
them ("enter Hamlet" for "introit Hamlet")?
The motet (or sentences, or whatever) sung during the procession at the start
of Mass is called the introit (two syllables, doesn't rhyme with Detroit because
the stress is on the first syllable).
Normally, the introit is sung *after* the procession is finished.
The way it's done in French churches -- especially the special-dispensation pre-Vatican II
ones you apparently prefer -- is not relevant to the usage in American RC churches or the English language.
I agree these people have nothing to do with Catholicism and the Church, founded by Jesus Christ.
Like a good Catholic, you seem never to have read the Bible. Jesus did not
"found a church."
Jesus founded the Church, as written in the New Testament.
Chapter and verse, as they say?
St Matthew 6-18
Jesus talking to Simon-Peter: I say to thee, Simon son of Jonas, that thou art Peter (= Stone) and upon that rock I will build my Church.
So, obviously, Jesus states that he puts Simon-Peter in charge of the Church.
Note that there's a reference to the Hebrew word tzur "rock", that is used in the psalms as another name of God. So there's an equivalence God = Jesus = My rock = The Church.
Quite absurdly, Protestants who don't understand (or pretend not to) what the Church is, write my church (with little c) as if it were some kind of mundane building.
No, they don't. Protestant translations (like the Dutch
Statenvertaling that I quoted) translate Greek ekklesia as something
like "communinity" (Dutch: gemeente, cognate with German Gemeinde),
which is what the Greek word meant before the Christian era:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesia
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesia_(ancient_Athens)>

It was more of less a parliament, a congregation, like Congress in the
US.

So Jezus commanded Petrus to establish a democratic church?
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Nonsense, of course.
The Church, put in the hands of Simon-Peter, is of course the Gathering of the Faithful: the Church, founded by Jesus. Chrystal clear.
Gathering. Vergadering, bijeenkomst, meeting, assembly. All valid
word. There is something to say for all interpretations and they are
not contradictory.

See also
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ecclesia#Latin
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%90%CE%BA%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%AF%CE%B1#Ancient_Greek
"[...] ekkaléo, “to call forth, summon” [...]
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Ruud Harmsen
2018-02-02 09:03:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
the Gathering of the Faithful
De samenkomst der gelovigen.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Christian Weisgerber
2018-01-31 20:49:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam Funk
Good point, & now that you mention it, those are not subjunctive.
"Exeunt Rosencrantz & Guildenstern" just means "R & G go out"
(indicative).
So why have we half-translated (preserving Latin word order) one of
them ("enter Hamlet" for "introit Hamlet")?
And why not "enters Hamlet"?
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de
António Marques
2018-01-31 22:47:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Adam Funk
Good point, & now that you mention it, those are not subjunctive.
"Exeunt Rosencrantz & Guildenstern" just means "R & G go out"
(indicative).
So why have we half-translated (preserving Latin word order) one of
them ("enter Hamlet" for "introit Hamlet")?
And why not "enters Hamlet"?
Third person -s only got tenure recently.
Christian Weisgerber
2018-01-31 23:30:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by António Marques
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Adam Funk
So why have we half-translated (preserving Latin word order) one of
them ("enter Hamlet" for "introit Hamlet")?
And why not "enters Hamlet"?
Third person -s only got tenure recently.
So why not "enterth Hamlet"?
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de
António Marques
2018-02-01 01:27:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by António Marques
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Adam Funk
So why have we half-translated (preserving Latin word order) one of
them ("enter Hamlet" for "introit Hamlet")?
And why not "enters Hamlet"?
Third person -s only got tenure recently.
So why not "enterth Hamlet"?
I did not mean as opposed to -th, but as opposed to nothing at all.
b***@ihug.co.nz
2018-02-01 01:46:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by António Marques
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by António Marques
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Adam Funk
So why have we half-translated (preserving Latin word order) one of
them ("enter Hamlet" for "introit Hamlet")?
And why not "enters Hamlet"?
Third person -s only got tenure recently.
So why not "enterth Hamlet"?
I did not mean as opposed to -th, but as opposed to nothing at all.
OED has a note on this theatrical use:
-----------------
As to the grammatical character of ‘enter’ as a stage direction,
cf. the Latin directions in Calisto & Melibœa 1520, which has
frequently intret, exeat, and those in Udall's Roister Doister
1553, where exeat, exeant, cantent, etc. appear throughout;
also Bales' Kynge Johan: ‘Here the Kyng delevyr the crowne
to the Cardynall’, ‘Her go owt Sedwsion’, ‘Here the Pope go out’,
‘Here cum Dyssimulacyon syngyng of the letany’, etc.
-------------------
If I'm drawing the correct inferences from the forms they cite,
they are suggesting that "enter" may have originally been a subjunctive,
though as others have noted "exit" and "exeunt" are not.
Adam Funk
2018-02-01 09:35:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by António Marques
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by António Marques
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Adam Funk
So why have we half-translated (preserving Latin word order) one of
them ("enter Hamlet" for "introit Hamlet")?
And why not "enters Hamlet"?
Third person -s only got tenure recently.
So why not "enterth Hamlet"?
I did not mean as opposed to -th, but as opposed to nothing at all.
-----------------
As to the grammatical character of ‘enter’ as a stage direction,
cf. the Latin directions in Calisto & Melibœa 1520, which has
frequently intret, exeat, and those in Udall's Roister Doister
1553, where exeat, exeant, cantent, etc. appear throughout;
also Bales' Kynge Johan: ‘Here the Kyng delevyr the crowne
to the Cardynall’, ‘Her go owt Sedwsion’, ‘Here the Pope go out’,
‘Here cum Dyssimulacyon syngyng of the letany’, etc.
-------------------
If I'm drawing the correct inferences from the forms they cite,
they are suggesting that "enter" may have originally been a subjunctive,
though as others have noted "exit" and "exeunt" are not.
But the examples exeat, exant, & cantent are all subjunctive.
--
Some people just have hatred built into them. I don’t know if there
is anything we can do for them... The right wingers of our country
might just have bad genetics. And I’m saying that as a transvestite.
--- Eddie Izzard
b***@ihug.co.nz
2018-02-01 11:08:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam Funk
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by António Marques
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by António Marques
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Adam Funk
So why have we half-translated (preserving Latin word order) one of
them ("enter Hamlet" for "introit Hamlet")?
And why not "enters Hamlet"?
Third person -s only got tenure recently.
So why not "enterth Hamlet"?
I did not mean as opposed to -th, but as opposed to nothing at all.
-----------------
As to the grammatical character of ‘enter’ as a stage direction,
cf. the Latin directions in Calisto & Melibœa 1520, which has
frequently intret, exeat, and those in Udall's Roister Doister
1553, where exeat, exeant, cantent, etc. appear throughout;
also Bales' Kynge Johan: ‘Here the Kyng delevyr the crowne
to the Cardynall’, ‘Her go owt Sedwsion’, ‘Here the Pope go out’,
‘Here cum Dyssimulacyon syngyng of the letany’, etc.
-------------------
If I'm drawing the correct inferences from the forms they cite,
they are suggesting that "enter" may have originally been a subjunctive,
though as others have noted "exit" and "exeunt" are not.
But the examples exeat, exant, & cantent are all subjunctive.
Yes. That's why I think they are arguing that "enter" is also a subjunctive.
Adam Funk
2018-02-03 13:59:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Adam Funk
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by António Marques
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by António Marques
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Adam Funk
So why have we half-translated (preserving Latin word order) one of
them ("enter Hamlet" for "introit Hamlet")?
And why not "enters Hamlet"?
Third person -s only got tenure recently.
So why not "enterth Hamlet"?
I did not mean as opposed to -th, but as opposed to nothing at all.
-----------------
As to the grammatical character of ‘enter’ as a stage direction,
cf. the Latin directions in Calisto & Melibœa 1520, which has
frequently intret, exeat, and those in Udall's Roister Doister
1553, where exeat, exeant, cantent, etc. appear throughout;
also Bales' Kynge Johan: ‘Here the Kyng delevyr the crowne
to the Cardynall’, ‘Her go owt Sedwsion’, ‘Here the Pope go out’,
‘Here cum Dyssimulacyon syngyng of the letany’, etc.
-------------------
If I'm drawing the correct inferences from the forms they cite,
they are suggesting that "enter" may have originally been a subjunctive,
though as others have noted "exit" and "exeunt" are not.
But the examples exeat, exant, & cantent are all subjunctive.
Yes. That's why I think they are arguing that "enter" is also a subjunctive.
So we now use one English subjunctive & two Latin indicatives (exit,
exeunt). Madness!
--
FORTRAN: You shoot yourself in each toe, iteratively, until you run
out of toes, then you read in the next foot and repeat. If you run out
of bullets, you continue anyway because you have no exception-handling
facility.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-02-03 23:11:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam Funk
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Adam Funk
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by António Marques
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by António Marques
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Adam Funk
So why have we half-translated (preserving Latin word order) one of
them ("enter Hamlet" for "introit Hamlet")?
And why not "enters Hamlet"?
Third person -s only got tenure recently.
So why not "enterth Hamlet"?
I did not mean as opposed to -th, but as opposed to nothing at all.
-----------------
As to the grammatical character of ‘enter’ as a stage direction,
cf. the Latin directions in Calisto & Melibœa 1520, which has
frequently intret, exeat, and those in Udall's Roister Doister
1553, where exeat, exeant, cantent, etc. appear throughout;
also Bales' Kynge Johan: ‘Here the Kyng delevyr the crowne
to the Cardynall’, ‘Her go owt Sedwsion’, ‘Here the Pope go out’,
‘Here cum Dyssimulacyon syngyng of the letany’, etc.
-------------------
If I'm drawing the correct inferences from the forms they cite,
they are suggesting that "enter" may have originally been a subjunctive,
though as others have noted "exit" and "exeunt" are not.
But the examples exeat, exant, & cantent are all subjunctive.
Yes. That's why I think they are arguing that "enter" is also a subjunctive.
So we now use one English subjunctive & two Latin indicatives (exit,
exeunt). Madness!
Exit is good English, Exeunt is archaic. Is it used as long ago as Shaw? as
recently as McNally?
Adam Funk
2018-02-09 12:07:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Adam Funk
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Adam Funk
But the examples exeat, exant, & cantent are all subjunctive.
Yes. That's why I think they are arguing that "enter" is also a subjunctive.
So we now use one English subjunctive & two Latin indicatives (exit,
exeunt). Madness!
Exit is good English, Exeunt is archaic. Is it used as long ago as Shaw? as
recently as McNally?
The OED's citations for "exeunt" range from c1485 to 1781.
--
...and Tom [Snyder] turns to him and says, "so Alice [Cooper], is it
true you kill chickens on stage?" That was the opening question, and
Alice looks at him real serious and goes, "Oh no, no no. That's
Colonel Sanders. Colonel Sanders kills chickens."
Adam Funk
2018-02-01 09:34:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by António Marques
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by António Marques
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Adam Funk
So why have we half-translated (preserving Latin word order) one of
them ("enter Hamlet" for "introit Hamlet")?
And why not "enters Hamlet"?
Third person -s only got tenure recently.
So why not "enterth Hamlet"?
I did not mean as opposed to -th, but as opposed to nothing at all.
What? Flipping through the verb paradigms in a textbook on Old
English, it looks like all the 3rd-person singular *indicative* forms
end in þ or vowel+þ.
--
You're 100 percent correct --- it's been scientifically proven that
microwaving changes the molecular structure of food. THIS IS CALLED
COOKING, YOU NITWIT. --- Cecil Adams
b***@ihug.co.nz
2018-02-01 11:11:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam Funk
Post by António Marques
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by António Marques
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Adam Funk
So why have we half-translated (preserving Latin word order) one of
them ("enter Hamlet" for "introit Hamlet")?
And why not "enters Hamlet"?
Third person -s only got tenure recently.
So why not "enterth Hamlet"?
I did not mean as opposed to -th, but as opposed to nothing at all.
What? Flipping through the verb paradigms in a textbook on Old
English, it looks like all the 3rd-person singular *indicative* forms
end in þ or vowel+þ.
Yes, the indicative 3s forms have -þ in OE, which is gradually replaced by -s.
But there is never a *zero* (unmarked) indicative 3s. That's why "enter"
requires some explanation.
Adam Funk
2018-02-03 13:59:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Adam Funk
Post by António Marques
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by António Marques
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Adam Funk
So why have we half-translated (preserving Latin word order) one of
them ("enter Hamlet" for "introit Hamlet")?
And why not "enters Hamlet"?
Third person -s only got tenure recently.
So why not "enterth Hamlet"?
I did not mean as opposed to -th, but as opposed to nothing at all.
What? Flipping through the verb paradigms in a textbook on Old
English, it looks like all the 3rd-person singular *indicative* forms
end in þ or vowel+þ.
Yes, the indicative 3s forms have -þ in OE, which is gradually replaced by -s.
But there is never a *zero* (unmarked) indicative 3s.
That's what I thought --- thanks for the confirmation.
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
That's why "enter"
requires some explanation.
Yes.
--
And I won't like [this usage] any better if you produce examples from
Shakespeare, Milton, Johnson ... Or, indeed, myself. --Mike Lyle
Hen Hanna
2018-01-31 20:01:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Christian Weisgerber
English has the phrasing “enter <character>”, originally and I guess
still used as a stage direction, but also metaphorically in all
sorts of contexts--including the movie title I used in the subject.
But what _is_ “enter”, grammatically speaking, in “enter the dragon”,
“enter Hamlet” etc.?
(1) A verb in the imperative. Faites entrer le dragon.
Semantically a straightforward command.
(2) A verb in the subjunctive. Que le dragon entre.
A hortative use of the subjunctive.
(3) A fossilized expression that can no longer be analyzed as a
verb synchronically and is best taken sui generis.
Ideas?
It represents something in Latin, because they still say Exit and Exeunt.
great question!
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Christian Weisgerber
What about
Come Christmas, we meet Santa Claus at every street corner? <<<

---- I don't think that's related.


My 1st thought about [Enter the Dragon]
was that it could be Pidgin or
Calque (like [Long time no see] ).
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Christian Weisgerber
It sounds as though it comes from theatre, where scripts tend to read 'enter [name of character]' to signal that this character appears on stage. Hence the character name is a proper noun, even if it is one that usually functions as a normal noun, which explains the omission of the article. <<<
I guess he's talking about [Enter fool] or [Enter knave] ?
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Christian Weisgerber
...... It seems to be a phrase taken from drama scripts that has moved into every day speech. Another example of the verb + name construction would be "Exit Gratuitous, stage left".
António Marques
2018-01-31 22:42:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christian Weisgerber
English has the phrasing “enter <character>”, originally and I guess
still used as a stage direction, but also metaphorically in all
sorts of contexts--including the movie title I used in the subject.
But what _is_ “enter”, grammatically speaking, in “enter the dragon”,
“enter Hamlet” etc.?
(1) A verb in the imperative. Faites entrer le dragon.
Semantically a straightforward command.
(2) A verb in the subjunctive. Que le dragon entre.
A hortative use of the subjunctive.
(3) A fossilized expression that can no longer be analyzed as a
verb synchronically and is best taken sui generis.
Ideas?
Historically it’s a third person indicative, even if it lacks the -s (it
may be considered to have entered English already as a fossil, but still a
third person indicative).
Daud Deden
2018-01-31 23:28:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christian Weisgerber
English has the phrasing “enter <character>”, originally and I guess
still used as a stage direction, but also metaphorically in all
sorts of contexts--including the movie title I used in the subject.
But what _is_ “enter”, grammatically speaking, in “enter the dragon”,
“enter Hamlet” etc.?
(1) A verb in the imperative. Faites entrer le dragon.
Semantically a straightforward command.
(2) A verb in the subjunctive. Que le dragon entre.
A hortative use of the subjunctive.
(3) A fossilized expression that can no longer be analyzed as a
verb synchronically and is best taken sui generis.
Ideas?
--
***@Mbuti: in/enter (the in of skin/shine)
***@Mbuti: interior/under (shield/canopy)
***@Efe Mbuti: interior/under (shield/canopy)

Oldest domicile had no entryway to enter, it was lifted for entry/egress.
Arnaud Fournet
2018-02-01 07:01:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christian Weisgerber
English has the phrasing “enter <character>”, originally and I guess
still used as a stage direction, but also metaphorically in all
sorts of contexts--including the movie title I used in the subject.
But what _is_ “enter”, grammatically speaking, in “enter the dragon”,
“enter Hamlet” etc.?
(1) A verb in the imperative. Faites entrer le dragon.
Semantically a straightforward command.
This is going to be understood as: "Let the termagan in" by French speakers.
Here *entrer* is just the infinitive and *le dragon* is the postposed subject of *entrer*.
A.
Loading...