Iunctim, Iuncta or Simul

CMI : Why believe God took as long as six days to create?
Published: 19 December 2015 (GMT+10)
http://creation.com/instantaneous-creation

Regarding the second problem, patristics expert Dr Benno Zuiddam explains it well in Augustine: young earth creationist:

He [church father Augustine of Hippo] used an old Latin version when he quoted from Jesus Sirach 18:1 (‘He who lives eternally has made omnia simul’). Augustine interpreted the Latin words omnia simul as ‘everything at the same time’. He consequently thought that God would have created everything instantaneously. That is why he came up with the theory that Creation should have been shorter than six earth days.

The newer Latin translation being made in his time also has:

Qui vivet in aeternum creavit omnia simul. Deus solus justificabitur, et manet invictus rex in aeternum.

The word "simul" translates the Greek κοινηι. Which means together, which Douai Reims duly has.

He that liveth for ever created all things together. God only shall be justified, and he remaineth an invincible king for ever.

There is an anectode (by now of course very ecdote!) of St Jerome one night being beaten for being too Classic in his Latin. Angels beat him up and told him "you are a Ciceronian, not a Christian!" So he woke up and wrote a less Classical Latin.

My suspicion is that he was trying to translate κοινηι as iunctim - the true Classical word for together (as an adverb).

However, in his day nobody said iunctim any more. In Italy of Pope Damasus, in Gaul where he had stayed and probably in his native Stridon too (though there we have no Romance language surviving to prove it), one had started using "simul" or even (and that much less Classical, by Latin standards even incorrect) "insimul" for "together". In French it gives "ensemble" and in Italian "insieme".

However, in Spain and presumably also St Augustine's North Africa, one was probably using an adjective as a predicative attribute. "They went togethery" instead of "they went together". In original "iuncti" if qualifying a masculine plural nominative, like example given (ibant iuncti), OR, "iunctos" if qualifying a masculine plural accusative (We saw them together - vidimus eos iunctos). Hence Spanish "juntos" in this meaning (and "juntas" for feminines), even in nominative function.

So, St Augustine was NOT used to using simul or insimul for iunctim, and he did not find iuncta (accusative neuter plural), which he would have understood as the vernacular for iunctim.

So, if he had been praying for St Jerome to be duly corrected if trying to be too Classical, he may well have got more than he bargained for. If St Jerome had only been allowed to be as Classical as he wished, he would have translated iunctim, and St Augustine would have understood.

If St Augustine, as a bishop, prayed for St Jerome (who was only a priest, not a bishop) to be corrected about too classical Latin, he got what he wanted. But he got more than he bargained for, he got a place he got wrong, because he didn't master the vulgar of NW of Mediterranean, where St Jerome took his form from. And now he is suffering the relative shame of his "not literally six days" being taken as a warrant for "millions of years".

So, that may be why bishops in the Latin Church since then have a tendency to give intellectuals and geeks more slack.

However, there is another side to this: Sts Jerome and Augustine lived in a world where they were expected to use daily, like corresponding to using Shakespearean English now. The real vernacular being used for things like Beavis and Butthead or South Park. And THAT is what the Bible was translated to. Gives a little of a new slant to the rumour the Bible was put into Latin to "stop people from reading it", doesn't it?

You may now go and read:

Great Bishop of Geneva! : Answers about "The Forbidden Book"
http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.fr/2013/01/answers-about-forbidden-book.html

Hans Georg Lundahl
Wishing Happy New Year
from Paris

No, I am not a believer in Astrology

1) Astrology may well be astrolatry, BUT not because of geocentrism "of Babylonians" or of extra month in Pagan Greek calendar. ; 2) No, I am not a believer in Astrology

Text from 9 Amazing Astrology Facts		My comments.
1.) In 2010, a study by Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee accidentally provided scientific proof that there is a connection between the position of the planets on your date of birth and your personality. The study conducted on mice proved that not only was their behavior affected by their birth date but also their brain activity patterns.		Mice are not created in God's image. (Reepicheep is fictional.)
2.) There have been many famous followers and believers of astrology throughout history. These include Queen Elizabeth I, Winston Churchill, Benjamin Franklin and Albert Einstein to name just a few. As you can imagine the astrological advice given to these powerful people could well have had a big influence on the course of history.		Didn't you forget Hitler on the list? Or was it some other Nazi?
3.) Many words that are used today have a connection to astrology. For example, the word disaster is derived from the Latin word for bad star. The word lunatic derives from the word Luna meaning moon and refers to the impact that the moon is supposed to have on our emotional well-being.		Yes. So? Btw, dysaster is Greek (δυσαςηρ).
4.) You can study for a degree in astrology at a number of Universities. The Kepler College in Seattle, Washington was the first to offer the degree. You can even do a Master of the Arts (MA) post-graduate degree in Cultural Astronomy and Astrology at the University of Wales in the United Kingdom.		You can even study for degrees in psychology and psychiatry, doesn't mean THEY are sciences! Not to mention you can study astrophysics and evolutionary biology for degrees, doesn't mean THESE are sciences either!
5.) Some astrological signs are more common than others. It is believed that Scorpio is the most common sign of the zodiac whilst Aquarius is the least common of the signs. The signs in order of the most common to least common are Scorpio, Virgo, Gemini, Pisces, Libra, Cancer, Taurus, Capricorn, Aries, Sagittarius, Leo and Aquarius.		Stamps me as a very common man - especially if it is supposed to affect behaviour.
6.) Astrology is older than astronomy. Astrology was very much considered an academic subject. It was not until the 1600s that interest in astrology led to the development of astronomy. Evidence of astrology has been found as early as the 2000 years BC in ancient Babylon in texts found by historians since.		This is actually wrong. Astrology always presupposes astronomy. But astronomy can be used for other applications or left practically unused. Also, astronomy is not equivalent to Heliocentrism, an aberration which indeed arose out of astrological interest.
7.) Astrologers believe that the moon can affect humans in the same way that it affects the tides of the sea as humans are made of a large percentage of water. They believe that the phase of the moon can impact on human emotions causing feelings of emotion highs and lows.		But does not affect the way we deal with it, at any rate.
8.) The most famous astrologer in the world is probably Michel de Nostredame who wrote under the pseudonym Nostradamus. In his 66 years of life he reportedly predicted world events both during the time he was alive and long after his death. He has been credited with predicting the great fire of London, the atomic bomb and Hitler’s rise to power amongst others.		a) Nostradamus is not a pseudonym, it is a latinisation. Actually not a quite correct one. The grammatically correct for Nostredame is Nostradomina. Perhaps he was playing on an older French (or Provençal, he was from the South of France, from Provence) "dames" = donnons, a form like "sommes", and like the 1p pl of past simple forms. "nous allâmes, nous fîmes, nous donnâmes ...". "Nostra damus" means "we give [what is] ours". So, if Nostredame means "Our Lady", it was a wrong latinisation, but if there was a word play on a French meaning "we give [what is] ours", it was even a right one. I don't know enough French & Provençal historic linguistics to know if this could be the case. b) His predictions were not made primarily by astrology, but by inducing himself into a hypnotic state. c) Whether x has been predicted in them is always very disputable, since his words have less clear meanings.
9 a) The word Zodiac is derived from the Latin word zodiacus meaning ‘circle of little animals’.		Correct, except that the word is a loan from Greek, and the complete Greek phrase for it would in Latin letters be "ho zodiacus cyclus" (ο ζοδιακος κυκλος). Also, "little" is probably irrelevant. It is also a fact of astronomy that these stars do exist around the plane where Sun, Moon and other Planets circle around Earth (some would claim : Earth with Moon and other planets around Sun). This is also correctly associated with the seasons. When Sun is in Capricorn, we have Northern Hemisphere Winter. This remains true whatever the planets and stars may mean for behaviour of mice or for moods even of men.
9 b) Libra, the only sign to not have an association with an animal, was not recognised as a sign by the Greeks who used the word Zodiac. Libra came along much later documented by the Romans around the 3rd century BC.		Probably false. The fact that most are conventionally beasts does for one thing not prevent one or two exceptions, and also, "to zoon" would involve either man or beast. Or, for that matter, a goddess holding a balance: Μυθολογικά o Ζυγός σχετίζεται με τη Θεά Δίκη και με την Νέμεσις. Για τους Αιγύπτιους εσήμαινε την κρίση των ψυχών ενώπιων του Aνουβι όπου η καρδιά ζυγιζόταν κι αν ήταν ελαφρύτερη ενός πτερού οδηγούνταν ενώπιον του Οσίριδος. Αν ήταν βαρύτερη καταστρεφόταν από την Αμμούτ. Αν το βάρος της καρδιάς εξισσοροπούσε τότε η ψυχή επανασαρκωνόταν ώστε να λάβει τα απαραίτητα γι'αυτήν μαθήματα. No mention here of earlier Greeks not using it!

Chiara Bozzone on Caland System - Short Review, Trubetskoyan Comment

1) Human population after Noah, racial and demographic pseudoproblems for creationism, 2) Have "Humans Interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovans"?, 3) Sorry, Duursma, but all languages have the cases of Proto-Indoeuropean, there is no primitive language ... (which is on Φιλολoγικά/Philologica blog), 4) After Flood and Babel : Was There a PIE Unity?, 5) Chiara Bozzone on Caland System - Short Review, Trubetskoyan Comment (which is again on Φιλολoγικά/Philologica blog)

I am giving only her conclusions, now:

9. Conclusions

[9.1] The Caland system represents an older class of Pre-PIE Adjectives that were verbal in nature. In Pre-PIE, the system was presumably limited to finite forms of a root aorist used in predicative function, and root aorist participles used in attributive function. Next to this, Pre-PIE had an INSTRUMENTAL PREDICATIVE CONSTRUCTION that could be used with nouns expressing property concepts.

[9.2] When IE shifted to having noun-like adjectives (probably as a result of developing into a mainly DEPENDENT-MARKING language), the Caland roots had to be adapted to the new system via derivation. They then received suffixes which clearly shaped them into nouns, adjectives, and verbs; these are the Caland suffixes. The old root aorists (once the basis of the system) were gradually eliminated, and only few direct and indirect traces of them remain in the daughter languages.

[9.3] As the system was shifting, PIE came to have a SWITCH adjective strategy (like Biblical Hebrew and Oromo). In this strategy, Caland roots could inflect both verbally and nominally; in particular, adjectival predication was done nominally in the present (using the instrumental of a new Caland root noun), and verbally in the aorist (using the old root aorist). It is in this system that the instrumental *-eh₁ was reanalyzed as an imperfective suffix, and was provided with personal endings, yielding the stative present of the Lat. calere type. In some daughter languages, common imperfective suffixes (plain thematic *-o/e-, *-ske/o-, *-ye/o-, nasal affixes etc.) were used to the same end.

From: Academia : The Origin of the Caland System and the Typology of Adjectives
by Chiara Bozzone, UCLA
at occasion of East Coast Indo-European Conference XXXIII, June 6, 2014
https://www.academia.edu/7281904/The_Origin_of_the_Caland_System_and_the_Typology_of_Adjectives

Well, on the assumption of development from an ancestral language - proto- or even (as in this case) pre-indo-european, her conclusions are pretty well documented.

On the other hand, the material itself does somewhat suggest "esperantisation" or "russenorskification" on an advanced level (not by bunglers who reduce morphology to a bare minimum) - diverse real parent languages contributing diverse strategies of expression, and in case of giving the adjective to the "common stock" of "international" vocabulary, obviously tended to, but did not need to, each, primarily retain the one in vogue with its own pre-indo-europeanised stage.

Chiara's explanation is at its most basic:

[4.2] In this layer of Pre-PIE, to say "the cat is/becomes red", one would say "the cat reds". We shall discuss the inflection of such forms below; for now, we can just assume that these were root formations. Such CALAND ROOT VERBS would then constitute the bedrock of Caland formations, and provide the base on which the rest of the system is eventually derived.

[4.3] Later, when IE developed a noun-like adjective class (the productive one we observe in all IE languages), Caland formations had to be reshaped to fit within the new system. In this process, IE derived both nominal and verbal formations to the Caland roots. We would then have:

• New verbal formations: *h₁rud^h-eh₁-ye/o-, *h₁rewd^h-e/o-, etc.
  
  
• New nominal formations: *h₁rewd^h-i-/-u-/-ro- etc.

And mine:

• • One language would contribute a verb to the stock of adjectives,
  • One an adjective in -ro-,
  • One an adjective in -i-,
  • One an adjective in -u-
  
  
  
• • Languages with verb-like adjectives would add noun like adjectives in -ro- etc from other languages,
  • Languages with noun-like adjectives would add verb like adjectives from other languages,
  
  
  
• • Then : Each language would have an enlarged stock of adjectival expressions, and would even tend (often in concord with each other) to enlarge each ajective into all or many of the possible forms.
  • Hence the system of secondary derivatives noted in 4.4 is "seemingly lacking a synchronic base".

Now, do look up her very good essay:

Academia : The Origin of the Caland System and the Typology of Adjectives
by Chiara Bozzone, UCLA
at occasion of East Coast Indo-European Conference XXXIII, June 6, 2014
https://www.academia.edu/7281904/The_Origin_of_the_Caland_System_and_the_Typology_of_Adjectives

In it, she gives a lot of detail and documentation, and I think the documented forms fit my explanation as well as they do hers.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Ember Wednesday of Advent
Wednesday after Gaudete Sunday
16-XII-2015

Discussion de Proto-Langue Réelle ou Non, approfondie par référence à Ruhlen

1) Logothètes à nos mesures, 2a) Le PIE, a-t-il existé?, 2b) Discussion de Proto-Langue Réelle ou Non, approfondie par référence à Ruhlen, 3) Mythologie Nordique - indo-européenne ou proche-orientale? Transmission par Odin?, 4) Corrigeant arte sur Apfel, Pomme, Mela

[En discutant le système n-/m- des langues amérindiennes:] Il est bien connu en linguistique que les pronoms ne sont presque jamais empruntés ; et ces emprunts qui, selon les américanistes, se seraient effectués pêle-mêle entre des nombreux groupes différents, seraient un cas sans précédent dans toute la littérature linguistique [...] Pour d'autres critiques, ces pronoms se seraient diffusés à travers les Amériques après que les différents peuples aient déjà occupé l'Amérique du Nord comme du Sud. Mais, là encore, ce genre de diffusion de pronoms est un phénomène inconnu en linguistique.

Merrit Ruhlen, L'origine des langues, pp. 103 s.

Quand une chose est bien connue, il vaut la peine d'y jeter encore un œil. Parfois elle est fausse, parfois elle est beaucoup plus vraie que supposée, généralement.

Les pronoms ne se ressemblent pas partout, Meillet (cité autre part) avait tort (et son observation aurait encore invalidé le groupe indo-européen, simplement comme groupe, si elle avait été vraie), sauf dans l'aspect beaucoup plus banal de brièveté, et même là le Japonais actuel fait exception. Entre indo-européen et finno-ougrien, soit il y a origine commune (qui exclut les langues amérindiennes, les langues afro-asiatiques, les langues khoïsanes, j'imagine aussi), soit il y a eu, précisément, diffusion.

Imaginez que vivent en endroit étroit la totalité (au moins apperçue) de deux groupes linguistiques. L'un a le système m-/t- (moi, toi, mich, dich, minä, sinä ...), l'autre a le système n-/m- (typique des langues amérindiennes - les indigènes sauf esquimeaux et na dene). Le cas est hypothétique, mais le résultat prévisible serait que les deux finissent en adoptant un système (tant que je sache d'ailleurs non-existant) de ** n-/t-, avec élimination du m- ambigu entre les langues.

Ce qui pourrait empêcher l'un ou l'autre de le faire est le fait d'avoir d'autres voisins avec qui on partage déjà le même système pronominal. Là, on tendrait sans doute à conserver le sien (voisins dans le temps comme littérature du passé y est pour quelque chose aussi).

Dans le cas de deux langues partageant le même système (et tendant donc à le conserver) vivant ensemble avec deux autre langues ne le partageant pas et ne partageant pas non plus un autre système commune à elles, celles-ci tendraient à effacer leurs systèmes en faveur du système déjà partagé entre deux, du système qui pourrait prétendre à un statut pour ainsi dire κοινη, et encore davantage s'il est partagé déjà par plusieurs. Avec, aussi dans ce cas, les mêmes observations sur les facteurs capables de conserver un système en cas du non-isolation.

Est-ce que indo-européen et le finno-ougrien ont eu une aire géographique commune? Oui, si le nesili (ou hethite) est indo-européen et si le hattili (ou le hattique) est finno-ougrien. Encore une fois oui, si l'italique et le celte du côté indo-européen et les langues dites tyrséniennes sont réellement finno-ougriennes, plus précisément du très vieux hongrois ou très apparentées.

Est-ce que le latin, le grec et le sanskrit ou une forme encore plus vieille de l'aryen ont partagé le même aire? Dans le cas que les italiques aient été originaires de Grèce (voir l'Énéide selon le résumé pour cet aspect donné par notre auteur - je ne connais pas l'endroit précis, mais j'imagine sans difficulté la seconde partie, les chants VII - XII), assez certainement oui, alors ça serait le monde grec. Car la langue du linéar A, parlée sur Crète avant le grec, semble avoir été aryenne, et "Mont Ida" semble avoir été "Mont Indra". Donc, le latin part de la Grèce vers l'Italie, les langues aryennes de Crète vers l'Est ... Madan aurait alors emprunté sa langue aux Caphthorim. (Hmmm?) Et cette aire est toute proche de l'aire où se sont rencontrés le nesili et le hattili. Toute proche du nesili.

Des langues indo-européennes, le nesili, le gothique, et avec contamination peut-être aussi le celte et le slave, partagent la forme fenno-ugrienne ou altaïque pour "père". Pour nesili "attas", pour gothique "atta", (à côté de "faðar" qui avait plutôt la nuance "papa"), c'est évident (quoique pour gothique on pourrait dire que l'emprunt du hunnique serait une possibilité).

Pour le celtique, l'explication courante est que *patéér ait perdu le p- comme tous les autres mots et fait du éé un î pour aboutir à un proto-celtique probable *atîr assez proche du vieil-irlandais athair. Mais on peut également soupçonner que cet atéér ou atîr ait été une contamination entre (pa)téér et at(a). Ensuite ce mot aurait été le début d'une perte de p- initial dans les mots que le celte prends de l'indo-européen - c'est à dire du vocabulaire que le celte aura, avant la perte du voisinage, commencé à partager entre lui-même et les autres langues qui sont comptées dans ce groupe, de quelle-conque le mots ait originé. Prenons le mot "ucht", il a pu commencer en celtique comme "*p@ktos", être emprunté en italique comme "pektos" (pectus en latin) et aboutir dans la langue d'origine comme *p@ktos > *@ktos > *uktos > ucht, PARCE QUE:

*patéér : *atîr = *p(e?)ktos : *@ktos

et ainsi de suite. Ou originer en italique, comme *pektos, et être emprunté comme *uktos selon exactement la même analogie.

Et pour italique *pibit (latin attesté "bibit") et celtique *ibit (vieil irlandais "ibid"), de même, quelle que soit la langue d'où vient le mot. C'est même possible que le mot est d'origine celtique et que le p- ait été ajouté en analogie avec *patéér en contraste avec *atîr.

Peu importe si l'expression "high brow" vient de Martha's vinyard ou autre part, là il va être prononcé avec diphthongues débutant en @ (@y, @w), ailleurs il va être prononcé avec diphthongues commençant avec un a plutôt classique, tant que le rapport entre les dialectes est clair pour les deux parleurs.

Pour le slave, il pourrait s'agir d'une double subsitution.

*Patéér analysé comme pa-téér, morphème de paternité échangé en racine hongroise atya et morphème de nomen agentis échangé en -ek. Pa-téér donc calqué comme *aty-ek (dont ojciec etc.). Pour *mâ-téér, on aura aussi coupé mât-éér avec une substitution juste partielle, mat-(e)ka, la forme féminine pour ces nomina agentis.

Qu'il s'agisse de noms de paternité ou de pronoms ... dans les deux cas, il s'agit des conceptes dont la précision importe et qui ne sont pas en soi visibles. On ne peut pas pointer un père de doigt, pour quelqu'un qui ne connaît pas la famille, et dire le mot pour père, car on pourrait vouloir dire "homme" ou "grandpère" ou ... vous voyez. Là, comme dans les pronoms, un système qui transcende les frontières linguistiques est pratique. D'où la forte possibilité qu'il ait été adopté comme tel, pour cette raison.

Je suis profondément d'accord avec Merritt Ruhlen, que les similitudes entre langues ne s'arrêtent pas sur le niveau indo-européen. Le désaccord est celui-ci : en évolutionniste, il prétend que la raison en est une proto-langue encore plus vieille que le proto-indo-européen, qui remonterait, celle commune entre indo-européen et finno-ougrien-avec-altaïque à encore une autre proto-langue encore plus vieille (et l'indo-européen lui-même remonterait déjà à vers 3000 ou 4000 av. J.-Chr.!), ce qui contredit assez nettement la chronologie biblique et en plus rend la punition miraculeuse à Babel superflue.

Moi, je me range dessus, comme pour l'indo-européen, avec Troubetskoï. L'unité indo-européenne et à plus forte raison celle entre indo-européen et ouralien est de la même nature que l'unité balcanique. Sprachbund. Et si on m'objecte que le phénomène de Sprachbund sur le Balkan n'a pas abouti à éliminer les différences de système pronominel entre roman, grec, slave, albanais et turc, je réponds que ces langues ont toutes des modèles par quelque forme de voisinage hors le Balkan pour retenir leur système pronominal.

Pour les Amériques, les langues hormis le groupe na dene et l'esquimeau-aleutique doivent avoir pris leur système pronominel bien avant de se répandre - quand elles étaient soit voisines, soit une seule langue. On n'a pas repéré lequel ou lesquels des petit-fils de Noé qui est l'ancêtre de ces peuples.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre-Paris X
Pape St Damase I, Confesseur
11-XII-2015

PS, on a d'ailleurs trouvé "atir" en gaulois. La seule raison donc de retenir l'astérisque avant *atîr est de savoir si le i en gaulois était long (alors, attesté) ou bref (alors reconstruit derrière "atir")./HGL

PPS, autres corrections : "vieil irlandais athair" ... non, c'est irlandais moderne, en vieil irlandais c'était athir; et "et son observation aurait encore invalidé le groupe indo-européen, simplement comme groupe, si elle avait été vraie", c'est à dire quant à ce dans l'argument qui est des pronoms. Il y a d'autres aspects de l'argument que son observation n'aurait pas invalidé, même si vraie au-delà de la brièveté./HGL

Pyramide de Chéops - prouve-t-elle la précession ou non?

C'est à dire que le hazard seul a promu l'étoile α de la constellation de la Petite Ourse à l'honneur d'être l'"étoile polaire". Aujourd'hui et pour deux ou trois siècles encore, le prolongement de l'axe terrestre perce le ciel dans ses parages. Mais il n'en sera plus de même dans quelques milliers d'années, comme il n'en était pas de même au temps des anciens Égyptiens, du pithécannthrope ou du diplodocus. Le cercle de précession tracé en tirets (figure 11) représente, si l'on veut un cadran d'horloge gradué de 0 à 25 800 ans, ou les divisions sont marquées par les étoiles. De nos jours, l'aiguille pointe α Petite OUrse : il y a 4 500 ans elle pointait α Dragon. Il y a 4 500 ans : c'était l'époque où le pharaon Chéops bâtissait la grande Pyramide, et les constructeurs, en même temps astronomes habiles, eurent soin de ménager, dans l'édifice, une galérie inclinée, braguée exactement sur la Polaire de ce temps là, α Dragon.

pp. 69 - 70
Pierre Rousseau
L'Astronomie
À la découverte de nouveaux mondes.

Attention ... la galérie pointait α Dragon alors et pointe donc α Petite Ourse maintenant, puisque la Terre a changé direction de l'axe, comme une toupie?

Dans ce cas, comment savoir, par les Égyptiens, que l'étoile polaire de ce temps était α Dragon? Si elle était α Petite Ourse comme aujourd'hui, et ils bâtissaient la galérie pour pointer α Petite Ourse alors, également, tant que le pôle pointe α Petite Ourse, la galérie pointera α Petite Ourse.

Autre possibilité ... la galérie pointe α Dragon maintenant ... et avec la précession, elle pointait où à l'époque? Si l'étoile polaire d'alors était α Dragon, elle a dû pointer vers une autre étoile à l'époque. Et c'est alors soit un hazard, soit une connaissance très précise de la précession qui fait qu'elle pointe α Dragon maintenant.

Ou alors, elle pointe α Dragon maintenant, puisqu'elle pointait α Dragon à l'époque ... et donc, l'étoile polaire était à l'époque aussi α Petite Ourse - quoi qu'en pensaient les Égyptiens.

Intéressant que cette α Dragon est une étoile très au nord. Ça nous laisse peut-être mieux comprendre une phrase comme

ab aquilone pandetur malum supra terram

Pardon, je récherche en drbo.org et je trouve:

Jeremias (Jeremiah) 1:14
Et dixit Dominus ad me: Ab aquilone pandetur malum super omnes habitatores terrae

Les Égyptiens qui bâtissaient cette galérie ont pu le pointer vers α Dragon, non pas parce qu'elle était étoile polaire, mais plutôt parce que'lle représentait Le Dragon et ils étaient draconolâtres.

Il est aussi possibles que d'autres monuments ont été "aquiloniés" d'après α Dragon ou Véga ou δ Cygne ou autres choses non pas par exactitude du nord, mais par symbolique ou répérabilité. Par exemple, si une de ces étoiles brille plus clairement que α Petite Ourse, ce que je pense est le cas avec Véga, on fait avec ses vacillations autour et on ignore α Petite Ourse (ou la trouve en référence à cette autre) comme moins répérable ... si elle est répérable à l'œil nu, c'est dans notre culture grâce à sa place pointée par La Grande Casserole (qui aussi est en dehors d'elle).

Donc, s'il y a eu d'autres raisons que la position en étoile polaire pour viser par on architecture à α Dragon ou quoi que ce soit (je me souviens que Michael Tellinger avait sa raison "astrochronologique" pour sa datation à 100 000 ans de certains structures en Afrique du Sud), α Petite Ourse a bien pu être déjà l'étoile polaire et l'argument d'architecture ancienne ne prouve rien en termes de précession.

Ça n'est pas une preuve qu'elle n'existe pas (quoique pour l'instant je n'ai pas une idée très détaillée comment la défendre en termes géocentriques, sauf l'idée toute générale que l'explication angélique pour les mouvements rétrogrades des planètes, les mouvements dite d'aberration et de parallaxe annuelle, et des nutations - c'est comme ça qu'on dit wobble, non? - suffisent aussi pour celle des précessions, à supposer qu'elles existent), ni même qu'elle ne soit pas prouvée autrement.

Car le livre n'est pas très généreuse en preuves. Sur la page 45, après avoir cité les désaccords de Mercier en 1805 et d'Édouard Drumont en 1904, l'auteur nous dit:

Passons sur ces faintaisies d'ignorants, simplement destinées à faire parler d'eux. En cette seconde moitié du XX^e siècle, et dans un livre d'astronomie, nous ne perdons pas notre temps, ni celui de nos lecteurs, à démontrer le mouvement de la Terre.

Après quoi il nous dit que chacun "sait" que l'empirie directe des observations faites d'une ou faites comme d'une Terre fixe n'est que l'apparence des mouvements de cette Terre non fixe ... on n'a pas le temps, chacun sait ... c'est la culture scientifique popularisée à la française ! *

Pour un scientifique ou un journaliste de sciences un peu plus honnête ou qui prenne sa matière plus au sérieux, un livre d'astronomie** serait précisemment LE lieu d'aborder les preuves, s'il y en avait ou celles qu'on se considère avoir, plutôt, pour les mouvements de Terre condamnés comme erronés et pour l'un comme hérétique en 1633.

Quidam : "Oh ça ... pas le temps, je vais au Bataclan pour écouter Eagles of Death Metal"

Ou quelque chose comme ça. Je pense qu'on était épargnés de ses Eagles of Daeth Metal comme des massacreurs de leurs fans en région parisienne à l'époque de Pierre Rousseau. Mais déjà, on n'avait pas le temps.

J'ai quant à moi-même fréquenté des profs de science et lu des livres par auteurs dont les deux ont eu le temps d'expliquer les prétendues preuves, de manière que j'ai pu les analyser et refuter. Mais ce n'étaient pas des français.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Universitaire
de Nanterre-Paris X
Veille de la Nativité de la
Veille de l'Immaculée Conception de la
Bienheureuse Vierge Marie
7-XII-2015

*Et on parlait aussi davantage de pithécanthrope que d'homme de Java, malgré le fait que les trouvailles plus complètes étaient assez humains et l'idée du pithécanthrope était venu par une comparaison à de très peu de restes - une molaire, une calotte de crâne, et un fémur. ** Voir le titre!

Someone Suggested, Maliciously, Lincoln was Murdered for the "Very Dark Cloud" Anti-Catholic Talk

1) Is It Presentism to Condemn the Racialism of Woodrow Wilson?, 2) Someone Suggested, Maliciously, Lincoln was Murdered for the "Very Dark Cloud" Anti-Catholic Talk

"There is a fact which is too much ignored by the American people, and with which I am acquainted only since I became President; it is that the best, the leading families of the South have received their education in great part, if not in whole, from the Jesuits and the nuns."

In other words, he did not gather it in his own right as explorer of reality, he was told by someone he trusted.

"Hence those degrading principles of slavery, pride, cruelty, which are as a second nature among so many of those people. Hence that strange want of fair play, humanity; that implacable hatred against the ideas of equality and liberty as we find them in the Gospel of Christ."

Was he really that much Anti-South?

Also, I am very much afraid he overdoes the portion of Jesuit and Nun teachers among Southron Aristocracy. The main influence was Calvinism, as with Generals Lee (who was kind to his slaves and freed them all antebellum) and Stonewall Jackson.

"You do not ignore that the first settlers of Louisiana, Florida, New Mexico, Texas, South California and Missouri were Roman Catholics, and that their first teachers were Jesuits"

In Louisiana, though slaves were abundant, they were better treated than elsewhere. For instance, a freed man of colour was, mostly, under France, entitled to wear a pistol. The exception, I recall, was during the period of Regency or possibly personal reign of Louis XV. That is, worst French behaviour to blacks of Louisiana was not inspired by Catholicism, but by Enlightenment, which was a reaction against Catholicism. And also a product of Freemasonry.

In Texas, the slavery came with the Calvinists who led to its secession from Mexico. Santa Ana was as much antislavery as Abe Lincoln.

Florida, New Mexico and South California were not very actively involved in slavery, as far as I know (possibly wrong about just Florida), though they took the side of secession.

"As I told you before, it is to Popery that we owe this terrible civil war. I would have laughed at the man who would have told me that before I became the President. But Professor Morse has opened my eyes on that subject. And now I see that mystery; I understand that engineering of hell which, though not seen or even suspected by the country, is putting in motion the large, heavy, and noisy wheels of the state cars of the Southern Confederacy. Our people is not yet ready to learn and believe those things, and perhaps it is not the proper time to initiate them to those dark mysteries of hell; it would throw oil on a fire which is already sufficiently destructive. You are almost the only one with whom I speak freely on that subject."

• 1) If the quote is genuine, Abe was overtrusting the expertise of Professor Morse;
  
  
• 2) If the quote is genuine, Abe was not saying this in a speech, but in a private conversation. With some confidant. Which means his words carry far less responsability on his part than the JFK speech against insiders, which was really a speech.
  
  
• 3) If the quote is genuine, I would like to know if Professor Morse was a Calvinist or a Freemason.

Will try to check that anyway, and go by wikipedia for Morse code. Then its inventor. Hah, it worked! Here:

"Samuel Finley Breese Morse (April 27, 1791 – April 2, 1872) was an American painter and inventor. After having established his reputation as a portrait painter, in his middle age Morse contributed to the invention of a single-wire telegraph system based on European telegraphs. He was a co-developer of the Morse code, and helped to develop the commercial use of telegraphy."

Since he lived longer than Abe Lincoln and since he was arguably already famous for the Morse Code well more than a decade before he could have met Abe, this would probably be him.

"Samuel F. B. Morse was born in Charlestown, Massachusetts, the first child of the pastor Jedidiah Morse (1761–1826), who was also a geographer, and his wife Elizabeth Ann Finley Breese (1766–1828).[1] His father was a great preacher of the Calvinist faith and supporter of the American Federalist party. He thought it helped preserve Puritan traditions (strict observance of Sabbath, among other things), and believed in the Federalist support of an alliance with Britain and a strong central government. Morse strongly believed in education within a Federalist framework, alongside the instillation of Calvinist virtues, morals and prayers for his first son."

OK, Morse had a strong Calvinist bias. At least as strong as what Tolkien called C. S. Lewis' Ulsterior motives (not a misspelling, but a pun intended) for non-conversion to Catholicism and probably much stronger. C. S. Lewis had a Catholic friend (namely Tolkien) and never spoke out harshly against Catholicism. VERY different kind of Protestant compared to Morse.

"After attending Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts, Samuel Morse went on to Yale College to receive instruction in the subjects of religious philosophy, mathematics and science of horses. ..."

Was the subject religious philosophy at YALE (New England, Connecticut, between Plymouth Rock and New York, though closer to latter), back in 19th Century, taught in a manner fair to Catholics or in a manner unfair to Catholics?

Anyone somewhat familiar with facts will see one overwhelming probability.

"While at Yale, he attended lectures on electricity from Benjamin Silliman and Jeremiah Day, and was a member of the Society of Brothers in Unity. He supported himself by painting. In 1810, he graduated from Yale with Phi Beta Kappa honors."

Phi Beta Kappa, Brothers in Unity, the latter is a secret society, the former is short for Φιλοσοφία Βίου Κυβερνήτης or in Latin letters Philosophia Biou Cybernētēs, which is not a Catholic sentiment, and it is a society.

So, Morse was in company which was probably very Anti-Catholic.

"Morse was a leader in the anti-Catholic and anti-immigration movement of the mid-19th century. In 1836, he ran unsuccessfully for mayor of New York under the anti-immigrant Nativist Party's banner, receiving only 1496 votes. When Morse visited Rome, he allegedly refused to take his hat off in the presence of the Pope.

"Morse worked to unite Protestants against Catholic institutions (including schools), wanted to forbid Catholics from holding public office, and promoted changing immigration laws to limit immigration from Catholic countries. On this topic, he wrote, "We must first stop the leak in the ship through which muddy waters from without threaten to sink us."

"He wrote numerous letters to the New York Observer (his brother Sidney was the editor at the time) urging people to fight the perceived Catholic menace. These were widely reprinted in other newspapers. Among other claims, he believed that the Austrian government and Catholic aid organizations were subsidizing Catholic immigration to the United States in order to gain control of the country."

In other words, Morse was an Anti-Catholic hot head and he was probably somewhat influential in making US support Benito Juarez against Emperor Maximilian.

As he was against Catholic schools, this does not witness of a great love of freedom in himself. It is a bit like Commies arguing against Christian homeschooling liberties (and this against both Calvinists and Catholics).

I must admit I had from the heading "marriages" - plural - suspected he was a bigamist by divorce, no he was an honest widower, as the article stands now, when wooing the second bride.

But what I do find in Morse is really bias enough and more than enough to discredit the possible advice he gave to Lincoln, before this man possibly said the above quoted words to some confidant in private.

It is even possible secret societies who were disappointed with Lincoln not keeping up the Catholic stance, when he got a chance to get personal acquaintance could be behind the assassination.

In order for Lincoln to have been assassinated for the "very dark cloud speech", it would have had to been publically known, or his confidant would have had to be spying for the Vatican. It was, as said, a talk in private to a confidant.

In order for Lincoln to have been assassinated for not living up to it, the confidant does not totally need to have been a spy for secret societies, the talk does not need to have been known. But the fact it was ultimately known (if genuine!) might argue the confidant was either that or a very benighted man if thinking that speech was why he was killed.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Vigil of the Nativity
Vigil of the Immaculate Conception
of Our Lady, the BV Mary
7-XII-2015

Quoted works on which I commented:

My Gospel Workers : I see a very dark cloud on our horizon. And that dark cloud is coming from Rome – Abraham Lincoln
http://mygospelworkers.org/mgwministry/i-see-a-very-dark-cloud-on-our-horizon-and-that-dark-cloud-is-coming-from-rome-abraham-lincoln/

The Wickipeejuh : Samuel Morse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Morse