Monday, September 25, 2017

Theodore Harvey's 18th C ancestry : Median Lifespans


Excerpting from:

Ancestors of Theodore Harvey
http://www.angelfire.com/in3/theodore/genealogy/trh/trh.html


For those not familiar with Sosa Stradonitz, it is an improvement on the Biblical patrilinear only genealogical system. Sosa, the earlier inventor, was actually a Franciscan arguing about genealogies of Our Lord in Matthew and Luke : while several between King David and Our Lord are same generation, they are different "ancestry numbers". You don't have ONE grandfather, you have TWO, and unless you are grandchild of Adam, or product of incest, they are different people. This system has "the person concerned" as number 1, any father of any person n as 2*n, thus father of person concerned 2, paternal grandfather 4, any mother of any person n as 2*n+1, thus mother of person concerned as 3, maternal grandmother as 7. This means, parents are 2 and 3, grandparents 4 to 7, great grandparents 8 to 15 ...

But here we get to the generations which were certainly born before industrial revolution started improving things, though not all before it started deteriorating things:

  • Great-Great-Great-Great-Grandparents

    70. Charles Wright (Cornwall)
    71. Priscilla N

    72. Isaac Westlake (1779, New York, NY – 1872)
    73. Gee N

    74. N Sears

    80. Shadrack Felton (1804 – 1865)
    81. Susan Savage (1805 - ?)

    82. John Clark(e)
    83. Elizabeth Matthews

    84. Peter Parker [no, not this one, Marvel fans!] (1775/84 - c. 1828, Gates Co., NC)
    m. 6.19.1805
    85. Elizabeth "Betsy" Brown (1780/4 – 1847)

  • Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Grandparents

    148. Isaac Sears (1730 – 1786)

    160. Noah Felton (1764-1814)
    161. Jane Riddick (1768-1834)

    168. James Parker (c. 1765 – 1805)
    m. c. 1782 [when both were 17]
    169. Judith Copeland (c. 1765 – 1823)

    170. James Brown (c. 1760-1797)
    171. Christian Parker (c. 1765-1799)

  • Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Grandparents

    320. Richard Felton (1720 - 1776)
    321. Ann Harrell (1735 - 1792)

    336. Josiah Parker (c. 1735 - 1789)

  • Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Grandparents

    640. Richard Felton (1690 – 1764)

    642. Richard Harrell (1710-1762)
    643. Margaret N (? - 1735)


Obviously, among the Great-Great-Great-Great-Grandparents, 64 to 127, many are missing. Even more from the previous generations. But those who are there were not included in the known part because they had exceptionally long lifepans.

And, this will involve some with known lifespans, though in two cases there are two alternatives about birth years. This will leave median unaffacted, but will differ upper and lower quartiles a bit. Here we count the known lifespans:

(1779, New York, NY – 1872) 93
(1804 – 1865) 61
(1775/84 - c. 1828, Gates Co., NC) 44 / 53
(1780/4 – 1847) 63 / 67
(1730 – 1786) 56
(1764-1814) 50
(1768-1834) 66
(c. 1765 – 1805) 40
(c. 1765 – 1823) 58
(c. 1760-1797) 37
(c. 1765-1799) 34
(1720 - 1776) 56
(1735 - 1792) 57
(c. 1735 - 1789) 54
(1690 – 1764) 74
(1710-1762) 52

16/24 are known with lifespans. And how do they line up for medians and such? Note, since there are two persons with two alternative lifespans, it would be possible to make 4 different line ups. With three, 8 different lineups. With 4, 16 different lineups. In such cases I only do one with each at the lower count and one with each at the higher count, making these the outer limit cases.

Lower count:

34 37 40 44 50 52 54 56=56 57 58 61 63 66 74 93
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08=09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Higher Count:

34 37 40 50 52 53 54 56=56 57 58 61 66 67 74 93
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08=09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

So, these guys, obviously not involving those who died too young to marry, died around 56. Either 50 % were dying between 50 and 61 (lower count) or 50 % were dying between 52 and 61 (higher count).

As Theodore is a fan of Monarchy - and so am I with historic at least monarchy - it fairly well matches ancestry of Louis XVI or of Marie Antoinette.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Firmin of Amiens
25.IX.2017

PS - Links were inserted at the names of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette in above text./HGL

For those who Believe in Computer Linguistics


Do you also believe this priest is called Fr Anthony Chicana?



I'd have thunk it was Cekada, right?/HGL

Una Cum Rege Nostro N




This is from a Missal from 1806.

Belgium under the late King used to have this insertion. It was the man who abdicated for one day instead of ratifying abortion.

Now, why would England get this in a Missal, when its Kings were heretics and known to be such?

Well, that is like asking why a Sedevacantist is using a Missal with "una cum Papa Nostro N." in the text : he doesn't read the line, but he hopes to be reading it as soon as there is a Catholic and admitted Pope around to read it about.

In 1806, under George III, this line was certainly omitted. One was probably hoping that George IV would publically convert, which would have implied the right and for a priest obeying that order from Rome even duty to read the line. It is possible that George III opposing Napoleon and abolishing slavery was taken as a hope of his converting himself, and George IV married in secret a Catholic woman, whom later he repudiated.

So, the answer was perhaps as simple as : Rome was hoping for a Catholic monarch in England.

It is also possible that some were reading "together with our King Henry Edward" - the last direct Stuart claimant actually was not just a Catholic, but a Catholic priest and Cardinal of the Roman Church. He is buried in the Vatican, in St Peter's Basilica.

This is not a sign that any Catholic priest was praying "una cum rege nostro Georgio" as long as George III had not converted.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Cleophas
25.IX.2017

Credits:

https://archive.org/details/a550137400unknuoft

PS, Fr. Cekada says:

"But in any event, as regards the priest’s altar Missal itself, the liturgical commentators are clear: The Missal of Pius V discontinued the mention of the king or civil rulers in the Te Igitur, and the practice was allowed only by way of privilege (as in Spain and Austria), where the ruler was a Catholic."


Obviously, an English King converting and risking his throne to be Catholic would have been worthy of that privilege. We can count on the privilege having been granted beforehand to automatically be valid from the day an English monarch was again Catholic - or of Stuarts, like Henry Edward, enjoying it./HGL

Monday, September 18, 2017

Tolkien Week? Hmmm


Tolkien Week is observed as the calendar week containing September 22, which is always observed as Hobbit Day. Tolkien Week 2006 will begin Sunday, September 17 and end Saturday, September 23.


Hobbit Day and Tolkien Week
American Tolkien Society
http://www.americantolkiensociety.org/hobbit_day_and_tolkien_week.htm


I think, this year, I'll have to plead a Swedish or Lithuanian week, Monday to Sunday. Pirmadienis, sekmadienis ... and in school we were taught week days otherwise in Sweden from in Austria.

So, while 2017 has same Sunday letter as 2006, it will be from 18th to 24th. Today, I'll link to a Catholic (?) Priest (?) giving some Catholic (yes!) views on Muslims and Christians.

Where do Muslims and the Muslim religion come from? · Letter to Charlene Law - part 2 · Letter to Charlene Law - part 3 · Letter to Charlene Law - part 4 · Letter to Charlene Law - part 5 · Letter to Charlene Law - part 6 · Letter to Charlene Law - part 7 · Letter to Charlene Law -- part 8 · Letter to Charlene Law - part 9 · Letter to Charlene Law -- part 10 · Letter to Charlene Law -- part 11 and last

God bless some of the Muslims I have met, but I can't say their religion is the true one!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Joseph Cupertino
18.IX.2017

Continuing:

Tolkien liked Roy Campbell, and probably approved of Carlism. So, why not mention a death in connection hereto:

FSSPX News : Suisse : Rembarre a posé sa plume
18 Septembre, 2017
http://fsspx.news/fr/news-events/news/suisse-rembarre-pos%C3%A9-sa-plume-32056


RIP

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Tuesday, St Susan
19.IX.2017

Friday, September 15, 2017

There are Guys who Think Latin is an Analytic Language


I suggest they try to present Chinese as a Polysynthetic one, while they are at it, bungling language typology!

Do you know what I found? Well, first, what was I looking for? I was looking for "fishing" as in the trade practised by some of Christ's disciples on lake Genesareth. In order to contrast it with agricultura and commercium. I though piscatus could be the word, but wanted an online check to be sure.

You know what was the first hit? Or second after a totally irrelevant wiktionary hit on the Spanish and Italian word pesca, involving both the word for fishing and the word for persica, peach, which involved - unlike the relevant meaning of pesca - a reference to Latin.

Well, here is this second hit:

IDl : How to Say Fishing in Latin
https://www.indifferentlanguages.com/words/fishing/latin


And here is the explanation:

If you want to know how to say fishing in Latin, you will find the translation here. We hope this will help you to understand Latin better.

Here is the translation and the Latin word for fishing:

piscandi

Check out other translations to the Latin language:


Er, no thanks!

Piscandi is not a word, it is a word form. It is not a noun meaning fishing, it is a form of the verb "to fish", and it is the form which is the gerund in the genitive. Here is a way in which you can use it:

Ibamus ad fluvium piscandi causa / intentione.

We were walking toward the river for the sake / in the intention of fishing.

Obviously, you can also translate the latter of the two as:

We were walking toward the river in the intention to fish.

Or even more fluently ... intending to fish.

But the context where I wanted "fishing" was not this one. I said "agricultura est forsan dignior piscatu inquantum securior" commenting on Cicero's words about agriculture. And I said Cicero's preference of agriculture over fishing is doubtful, due to apostles being fishermen, but if it is in any way true, it is because of it being more secure to plow and sow than to throw your nets.

Well, in the sentence I used piscatu. This is a case form of piscatus, which is the noun for fishing, at least that would have been the noun for fishing or for fish catch if Spanish pescado is a good clue, which I hope it is, I did certainly find no better clue on the above site.

Now, if instead I had used "piscandi" I would have been wrong. Why? Piscandi means "to fish". But "to fish" is not translated piscandi in all contexts. The gerund is rivalling with the infinitive.

So here we have a full case declinsion of "to fish", singular only, since activities are no objects which can be counted:

Nominative piscare
Genitive piscandi (!)
Dative piscando (rare)
Accusative a piscare
Accusative b [ad, in] piscandum
Ablative piscando


Which of the forms could I have used to translate "agriculture is perhaps more dignified, since more secure, than to fish"?

I could have used either nominative, which is the infinitive and doesn't look like the gerund, and I could have used the ablative of comparison, I'll give you both:

Agricultura quam piscare forsan dignior, quia securior, est.

Agricultura piscando forsan dignior, quia securior, est.

In the first, but not the second case, I could also put quam piscare after dignior or securior:

Agricultura forsan dignior quam piscare est, quia securior.

Or:

Agricultura forsan dignior, quia securior, est quam piscare.

But using a verb form for the comparison after a noun for the concept taking the comparative is as clumsy (or voluntarily quirky) in Latin as it is in English to say "farming is ...er than to fish" or "agriculture is ...er than to fish". English can use "fishing" not just as a participle, but also as a noun, meaning the second as well as the first can be amended to "than fishing". Latin cannot use piscandi as a noun in the nominative after quam or as a noun in the ablative of comparison. For a noun, comparable to "agricultura" you need a noun, like piscatus.

You can either say "piscatu forsan dignior quia securior" or "forsan dignior quam piscatus, quia securior".

Do you know what the sad thing is? The guys behind the site IDl / InDifferent languages are doing this kind of thing, not just from English, but also from Spanish and from Russian. If they dared to mistreat Russian as much as they do Latin, they would be out of business fairly quickly with this site at least!

A few notes on above, to those not familiar with linguistic terminology. In linguistics, we distinguish two main directions of syntactic-morphological type, analytic and synthetic, with the former relying more on extra words and on word order, the latter more on endings or choice or stem vowels or such. English is more Analytic than Russian. Russian is more Synthetic than English. While Spanish descends from Latin, a documented fact, not just a reconstruction, though the details of the process can be disputed, Spanish is more Analytic and Latin more Synthetic. So, treating "piscandi" as "a word", a unit independent of context which is simply a unit, is treating Latin as an Analytic language which it is not, rather than as a Synthetic language which it is. I suggested, while they were at it, they could also try to present the extreme form of Analytic languages, the Isolating ones, like Chinese, as a Polysynthetic, the extreme form of Synthetic, and the real example of it would be Esquimeau / Greenlandic.

In Latin, the accusative is used both as a direct object and after certain prepositions. An infinitive is good for the direct object but in Latin unusable for accusative after preposition. "Volo" meaning "I want" can obviously take a direct object : volo panem, I want bread. Equally obviously, it can have an action as direct object, and that object is just as much as the subject behind est, an infinitive : volo piscare, I want to fish. To go cannot take a direct object. If I say "let's go fishing", English uses a form which started out as meaning sth like "let us go while we fish" or "let us go and be fishing at the occasion". In Latin it would be "eamus ad piscandum".

However, to express purpose, Latin has after the classical period borrowed a Greek usage, since Greek has no gerund, but uses infinitive for all cases. Hence, we can now, after Caesar, in Christian times, also say "eamus piscare".

But neither Classical, nor now, there is no going "piscandi". There is only an intent of piscandi. The site was simply wrong. Now, I will give them some feedback, and later you can check if they took notice or bungled on with a Latin they certainly are not qualified of mastering.

Or qualified to master.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Our Lady of Sorrows
15.IX.2017

PS, feedback submitted.

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Tradition sur Chérotonie


En réponse à un site Protestant. Duquel sont données les citations du verset qui ne sont ni en grec, latin ou ma propre traduction, ni de Crampon.

Voici ce message blog:

Les anciens : élus par les assemblées ? Désignés par les apotres ?
https://bereenne.wordpress.com/2016/11/01/les-anciens-sont-ils-elus-par-les-assemblees-entieres/


Text grècque, Nestlé Aland:
[Actes 14:]
23 χειροτονήσαντες δὲ αὐτοῖς κατ’ ἐκκλησίαν πρεσβυτέρους, προσευξάμενοι μετὰ νηστειῶν παρέθεντο αὐτοὺς τῷ κυρίῳ εἰς ὃν πεπιστεύκεισαν.

Ma traduction
et ayant pour eux ordiné-par-imposition-des-mains des prêtres en chaque église-diocèse, ayant prié avec des jeûnes (?) et confiaient eux au Seigneur en Lequel ils avaient cru

(ouf, mon grec ancien est vraiment rouillé!)

Vulgate:
[Actes 14:]
[22] Et cum constituissent illis per singulas ecclesias presbyteros, et orassent cum jejunationibus, commendaverunt eos Domino, in quem crediderunt.

Ma traduction
et après qu'ils avaient constitué pour eux en chaque église-diocèse des prêtres, et prié avec jeûnes, ils les confiaient au Seigneur en Lequel ils ont cru.

[avaient = crediderant, et le texte a crediderunt]

(ouf, plus aisé que le grec!)

Crampon:
[Actes 14:]
22 Ils instituèrent des Anciens dans chaque Eglise, après avoir prié et jeûné, et les recommandèrent au Seigneur, en qui ils avaient cru.

Douay Rheims:
[Actes 14:]
[22] And when they had ordained to them priests in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed.

[le texte anglais introduit l'idée plus exacte d'ordination d'après le mot grec pour imposition-des-mains]

Les citations suivantes
sont donc du message blog, auquel je donnai un lien, et probablement le verset n'est pas cité en entier, mais la partie pertinente - je ne cite pas le groupe de traductions protestantes ou œcuméniques qui s'accordent mieux avec la traduction Crampon.

Semeur :
Actes 14:23 ils firent élire des responsables, à main levée

Martin
Actes 14:23 par l’avis des assemblées ils eurent établi des Anciens

Segond 1910 :
Actes 14:23 Ils firent nommer des anciens dans chaque Église

Stapfer 1889
Actes 14:23 Ils firent nommer des Anciens dans chaque Église


Il semble que le mot cheirotonein a un autre sens dans le grec classique, profane, d'élection-par-levée-des-mains.

Notons que ceci exige de prendre χειροτονήσαντες comme "faire élire par levée de mains" plutôt que comme "élire par levée de mains". Ce qui est un usage possible, mais pas le primaire. Si les apôtres avaient eux-mêmes élus les presbytres, à quoi bon procéder à une levée de mains? Mais, nonobstant, levée des mains a été la connotiation retenu par certains Protestants.

Néanmoins, nous avons par la tradition depuis les débuts de l'église, car immémoriale, que dans le contexte des presbytres ici évoqués, des prêtres ou selon certains même des évêques (le Nouveau Testament aurait utilisé "presbyteros" pour évêque et "episcopos" pour simple prêtre, la terminologie se serait inverti après, ce qui explique pourquoi St Jean, certes un évêque, pas juste un simple prêtre, appelle certains ses "syn-presbyteroi"), cheirotonein veut dire ordiner-par-imposition-des-mains.

Comme nous savons aussi par la tradition que le mot Église est davantage une société parfaite - un état pour ainsi dire - qu'une simple congrégation privée, cette fois communément avec l'usage classique.

Vous savez que des clubs ont leur présidents? Que le président d'un club s'appelle en anglais soit "president", soit "chairman"?

Néanmoins, par la tradition des États Unis, nous croyons que les Présidents étaient déjà au temps de Georges Washington des rois électifs à mandat limité à quatre ans, et non des présidents de salons, des chairmen.

Nonobstant que certains clubs à cette époque ont dû appeler leur "chairman" encore "president". Depuis cet usage a été éliminé pour éviter confusion avec la fonction publique.

Comme nous savons aussi par tradition que la lettre A (en majuscule un triangle avec deux points en bas et les jambes prolongées en dessous de la base, en minuscules une autre forme considérée équivalente par convention celle aussi traditionnelle) est un signe pour le son A (le son vocalique avec la bouche la plus ouverte, au moins dans la plupart des langues).

Il est erroné de faire une reconstruction des significations des mots en contrariété avec l'usage traditionnel de l'église.

Notons aussi, la perpétuité de l'Église ne passe pas par le fait que les Albigeois auraient élu leurs clergé par levée de mains, comme ça pourrait être souhaité par ceux qui voient l'Église primitive dans ou par un nuage de protestantisme, car ils utilisaient eux aussi une imposition des mains, certes pas de bonne manière, certes pas comme sacrement valide, mais en donnant au mot "cheirotonein" un sens sacral plutôt que de votes. Un vasselage ou une propagation spirituelle plutôt que la levée de mains des assemblées démocratiques.

Et faire remonter les Vaudois de leur côté aux temps d'avant Constantin, ça serait moins possible maintenant qu'à l'époque des inquisiteurs, qui n'étaient pas trop grands historiens (juste meilleurs que leurs clientèle).

C'est une chose d'avoir une tradition disant "nous remontons à l'église primitive" (et une telle tradition est plus facile à frauder dans une société sécrète comme l'étaient les sectes préprotestantes face à l'inquisition, surtout après que les premiers débuts avaient abouti à très peu sauf aux ou à parmi les prémiers bûchers et qui étaient lynchages probablement parce que n'ayant pas cette fausse tradition - elle pourrait aussi remonter comme simple copie collée de la tradition catholique, dans laquelle cette affirmation est vraie), et une autre chose de prouver par ses traditions qu'on a effectivement des traditions de chaque siècle depuis l'église primitive, sur tel Augustin de Hippone ou sur tel autre Augustin de Cantorbéry, sur telle conversion des Irlandais et telle autre des Anglo-Saxons. Telle conversion par un missionnaire lié à un monastère, telle autre conversion par un missionnaire lié à la papauté.

Donc, le fait que la tradition peut être contrefaite ne contredit pas qu'elle demeure le critère le plus fiable.

Mais évidemment, il y a un problème dans la solution, autrement les Protestants mêmes n'auraient pas cherché une autre.

Si les Apôtres élirent et ordinèrent des prêtres, qui avait ce pouvoir après le décès du dernier apôtre, qui se chargeait même de ça en leur vivant mais en leur absence?

La solution est là pour ça aussi, mais elle n'est pas très bienvenue parmi les Protestants : c'étaient des évêques ordinés ou consacrés par les apôtres, qui donc en sont les successeurs. Cette solution n'est pas bienvenue parmi Protestants, car elle les condamne : ils n'ont pas des évêques consacrés en ligne droite depuis les apôtres. Leur rites - dans les cas qu'on garde même le nom d'évêque, comme pour Anglicains, Luthériens, Méthodistes et Moraviens - sont considérés comme frelatés, comme incapables à conférer l'épiscopat.

Nous prenons la traditionalité des rites (et la continuité des lignés dans cette traditionalité des rites) avec tellement de sérieux que certains de nous ne considérons même pas que les nouveaux rites après Vatican II sont capables à produire des vrais évêques. André Vingt-Trois, catholique selon Vatican II, sacré en 1988 ne serait donc pas un évêque, pas non plus que Landesbischoff Friedrich Otto Coch, luthérien (et "chrétien allemand" ou national-socialiste), installé en 1933 dans une "église" qui n'avait déjà pas d'évêques depuis sa séparation des diocèses de Dresde et Meissen suite au prêche néfaste de Luther.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
St Philippe d'Alexandrie
13.IX.2017

Bonne Science Fiction dans le Monde de Narnia


Cette pensée fut déjà partagée sur le Forum Narnia France:

Livres Narnia : Bonne science fiction dans le Monde de Narnia
sur Narnia France
http://www.lemondedenarnia.com/forums/view_topic.php?forum=11&topic=6570


Et la voici:

J'ai un exemple, d'autres seraient bienvenus.

Dans la trilogie cosmique, il est possible que le premier livre faisait une bourde en peignant tout le système solaire comme illuminée par le soleil et donc radieux. Car, dans le vide, il n'y a pas de diffraction.

Le bleu du ciel vient de diffraction aussi, mais d'une diffraction particulière. Une étoile rouge qui ne produit pas ou peu de lumière bleue ne va pas donner un ciel bleu.

D'où le ciel presque noir, malgré le fait qu'il est jour, quand Digory et Polly arrivent à Charn.

J'imaginais qu'il avait fait un bobard en d'abord peignant le jour comme très sombre et ensuite permettre aux enfants de regarder des vêtements colorés dans la salle ... non, il y a un mention qu'il était plus lumineux qu'ils avaient cru.

Donc, en pleine lumière de jour, si la lumière bleue manque, alors le ciel va paraître très sombre. Ce qu'il a aussi exprimé pour le monde de Charn.

Avez-vous d'autres exemples?/HGL