Background to Christmas Martyrology

Background to Christmas Martyrology · What Martyrology, by the way?

I was told by my correspondent, Stephan Borgehammar : "Texten intogs sedan i det officiella Mart. Rom. enligt Joannes Baptista Sollerius: 'Aliae temporum dimensiones ex calculo Septuaginta interpretum hodie adjectae, in nullo codice repertae sunt, in nullo Martyrologio quod antiquius sit editione Bellini'." And now, let's translate that to English, both his Swedish and Sollerius' Latin: The text was thereupon entered into the official Martyrologium Romanum, according to Johannes Baptista Sollerius : "the other dimensions of times today added from the LXX calculation, are found in no codex, in no Martyrology that is older than the edition of Bellini."

Bellini 25.12 (Venetiis 1498): Anno a creatione mundi, quando in principio Deus creavit caelum et terram, quinto millesimo centesimo nonagesimo nono, qui annorum numerus complebatur in proximo sequente mense Martii, ejusdem mensis die vigesimo, in illa enim die creatus est mundus. A diluvio vero, anno secundo millesimo nongentesimo quinquagesimo septimo, qui numerus complebatur decima septima die sequentis Aprilis. A nativitate Abraae, anno secundo millesimo quinto decimo. A Moyse & egressu populi Israel de Egypto, anno millesimo quingentesimo decimo. Ab excidio Troiae, anno millesimo centesimo septuagesimo nono. Ab unctione David in regem, anno millesimo trigesimo secundo. Olimpiade centesima nonagesima tertia. A prima autem Olimpiade, anno octingentesimo. Ab urbe Roma condita, anno septingentesimo quinquagesimo secundo. Hebdomada sexagesima tertia, juxta Danielis prophetiam, scilicet anno quadringentesimo quadragesimo vel circa. Anno imperii Octaviani quadragesimo secundo. Sexta mundi aetate, januis clausis, toto orbe in pace composito, Christus Jesus aeternus Deus, aeternique patris filius, mundum volens suo adventu piissimo consecrare, de Spiritu sancto conceptus, novemque post conceptionem decursis mensibus, (hic dicitur alta voce) In Bethleem Judae nascitur ex Maria virgine factus homo; (hic autem altius & in tono passionis:) Nativitas Domini nostri Jesu Christi secundum carnem.

Year from Creation of the World, when in the beginning God created Heaven and Earth, five thousand, one hundred and ninety-nine, which number of years was completed in the following year of March, in the 20th day of same month, for in that day the world was created. But from the Deluge, the two thousand nine hundred fifty seventh year, which number was completed seventeenth day of following April. From birth of Abraham, the two thousand fifteenth year. From Moses & the Exodus of the people of Israel from Egypt, the thousand five hundred tenth year. From the ruin of Troy, the thousand hundred seventy-ninth year. From the anointing of David unto king, the thousand thirty-second year. In the hundred ninenty third Olimpiad, and in the eight hundredth year from the first Olimpiad. From the founding of the city of Rome, the seven hundredth fifty second year. The sixty-third week, accorting to the prophecy of Daniel, that is the four hundred fortieth year or thereabout. Year of the rule of Octavian, the forty-second. Sixth age of the world, gates closed, all world composed in peace, Christ Jesus eternal God, and Son of the eternal Father, wanting by his most tender advent consecrate the world, conceived by the Holy Ghost and nine months gone through after conception (here it is said in high voice) is born in Bethlehem of Judah from the Virgin Mary, made man; (here higher voice and in passion tone:) Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh.

Where do the numbers come from? It seems for 942 years between Flood and birth of Abraham, though Josephus has something similar if you take his partials and add them up, and not his total, can have come from at least as far back as Sextus Julius Africanus:

Fragment 5

Noe was 600 years old when the flood came on. From Adam, therefore, to Noe and the flood, are 2262 years.

Fragment 6

And after the flood, Sem begot Arphaxad.

Arphaxad, when 135 years old, begets Sala in the year 2397.

Sala, when 130 years old, begets Heber in the year 2527.

Heber, when 134 years old, begets Phalec in the year 2661, so called because the earth was divided in his days.

Phalec, when 130 years old, begot Ragan, and after living other 209 years died.

Fragment 7

In the year of the world 3277, Abraham entered the promised land of Canaan.

Extant Works (Julius Africanus)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0614.htm

[Enjoy or ignore the maths here as you like it:]

2397 3277 3277 2527
2262 2262 2242 2397
0135 1015 1035 0130

2661 1015 1035 2661
2262 0075 0075 2527
0401 0940 0990 0134

However, his total for pre-Flood world exceeds the usual one by 20 years. And this is not reflected in Roman Martyrology.

Here we have the great name whose authority is behind the numbers given in Roman Martyrology:

All the years are added up until the 6th consulate of the Emperor Valens and the second of the Emperor Valentinian the younger: from the 15th year of Tiberius and the preaching of our Lord Jesus Christ:     351 years from the second year of Darius, King of the Persians, in which period the temple at Jerusalem was restored     899 years from the first Olympiad, in which time Isaiah was prophesying among the Hebrews     1,155 years from Solomon and the first building of the Temple     1,411 years from the capture of Troy, at which time Sampson was among the Hebrews     1,561 years from Moses and Cecrops, first King of Attica     1,890 years from Abraham and the reign of Ninus and Semiramis     2,395 years The whole list from Abraham until the time written above     2,395 years but from the flood until Abraham there are counted     942 years and from Adam until the flood     2,242 years There are altogether from Adam until the 14th year of Valens, that is, until his 6th consulate and the second of Valentinian     5,579 years

St. Jerome, Chronicle : Preface
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_chronicle_01_prefaces.htm

St. Jerome, Chronicle : part I
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_chronicle_02_part1.htm

St. Jerome, Chronicle : part II
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_chronicle_03_part2.htm

To return to Stephan, he suggested Roman Martyrology could have gotten this from Historia Scholastica, a manual of Biblical history which was also translated to vernaculars, at times, at least Flemish Rijmbijbel, I thought I recalled it had Tower of Babel 100 years after Flood, which would be Masoretic chronology, no, in Historia Scholastica, Babel project starts after Noah died, that is no earlier than 350 after Flood. It was Postilla in Libros Geneseos, presumably by St Thomas Aquinas in his youth, before he came to Paris, or by an unknown author, which had a Masoretic chronology to Tower of Babel. Historia Scholastica for Gospel History then actually does say Christ was born 5199 after the world was created.

Meanwhile, I looked at the Annals of the Four Masters, which has Partholan arrive in Ireland before Babel:

From the Deluge until Parthalon took possession of Ireland 278 years; and the age of the world when he arrived in it, 2520.

These annals use the Chronology of St Jerome, hence, one can presume Partholan arrived speaking Hebrew, however his name in later records came about.

Par = Bar? Tholan = Tolam = Tolmai? Was the original Hebrew Aramaic?

Either way, the chronology stating Christ born in 5199 after creation can be traced back to St Jerome. And at least in some detail, as Flood to Abraham, beyond.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris XI
St Gabriel of Our Lady
of Sorrows
27.II.2019

Insulae, in Aprutio, sancti Gabrielis a Virgine Perdolente, Clerici Congregationis a Cruce et Passione Domini nuncupatae, et Confessoris; qui, magnis intra breve vitae spatium meritis et post mortem miraculis clarus, a Benedicto Papa Decimo quinto in Sanctorum canonem relatus est. (Isola del Gran Sasso in Abruzzo region)

Le Père de Ste. Walpurge

Le journal LaCroix d'hier (on est 26.II, c'était le 25.II.2019), on peut lire:

Sainte Walpurge
(+VIII sècle)
Fille du roi Richard d'Angleterre ...

Non, ce n'est pas que le siècle soit mal noté, elle était abbesse missionnaire à l'époque de St. Boniface.

Par contre, "[le] roi Richard d'Angleterre" sonne comme si elle était fille d'un roi d'Angleterre entière, qui s'appelait Richard. Or, le premier Richard d'être roi d'Angleterre, c'était Richard Cœur de Lion, plusieurs siècles plus tard ...

Que se passe-t-il donc?

Wiki à la rescousse, son père s'appelait effectivement Richard, mais il était plutôt roitelet d'une partie de Wessex. Et, ce n'est pas certain qu'il s'appelait même Richard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_the_Pilgrim

Richard was from Wessex, England[3] and his real name is uncertain.[1]		Richard était de Wessex, Angleterre, et son vrai nom est incertain.
He appears to have been an Anglo-Saxon chieftain or Under-King in Wessex, probably of part of Devonshire.[4]		Il semble avoir été un chef de tribu ou roitelet en Wessex, probablement partie de Devonshire.
He obtained by his prayers the recovery of his three year old son Willibald, whom he laid at the foot of a great crucifix erected in a public place in England, when the child’s life was despaired of in a grievous sickness.[5]		Il obtint par ses prières le rétablissement de son fils de trois ans, Willibald, qu'il posa au pied d'un grand crucifix érigé en place public en Angleterre, quand la vie de l'enfant semblait cause désespérée dans une grave maladie.
Around the year 721, he entrusted his eleven year old daughter Walpurga to the abbess of Wimborne in Dorset,[6] renounced his estates, and set sail with his two sons from Hamblehaven near Southampton.		Autour de l'an 721, il confia se fille d'onze ans, Walpurge, à l'abbesse de Wimborne en Dorset, renonça ses possessions, mit voiles avec ses deux fils de Hamblehaven, près de Southampton.
They landed in France and temporarily stayed in Rouen.		Ils accostèrent en France et temporairement se posèrent à Rouen.
From there, they set off on the pilgrimage route to Italy, where they prayed at shrines situated along the way.		D'où ils se mirent en pèlerinage sur la route vers Italie, en priant aux lieux saints situés le long du chemin.
He died unexpectedly after developing a fever in Lucca, Tuscany, where he was buried in the Church of San Frediano, founded by the Irish monk Fridianus.		Il est soudainement mort après un fièvre à Lucques en Toscane, où il fit enseveli dans l'église San Frediano, fondé par le moine irlandais Fridianus.
Miracles were reported to have occurred at his tomb and a cult venerating him developed.		Des miracles ont été rapportés comme ayant lieu à son tombeau, d'où le développement d'un culte de vénération.
The people of Lucca gave him the name "Richard" and embellished their accounts of his life, describing him as an English prince.		Les gens de Lucques l'appelèrent "Richard" et embellirent les récits de sa vie, le décrivant comme un prince anglais.
Another apocryphal story described him as the Duke of Swabia in Germany..[3]		Autre histoire apocryphe le décrit comme le Duc de Souabe en Allemagne..
The reigning king of the West Saxons or Wessex during this period was King Ine, who ascended the throne in 688 and died in or possibly after 726.		Le roi regnant des Saxons occidentaux ou de Wessex à cette époque était le roi Ine, qui ascenda le throne en 688 et mourut en ou possiblement après 726.
Bede states that he abdicated after 37 years, i.e. 725-26.		Bède renseigne qu'il abdica après 37 ans, c'est à dire en 725-26
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle refers to him abdicating in and around 726-28, then traveling to Rome and dying there. [7]		La Chronique anglo-saxonne dit qu'il abdica en ou autour de 726-28, puis voyageant à Rome mourut là.

Cependant, je ne dirais pas que ce serait le roi Ine qui était Richard, car Ine semble avoir à Rome même fondé la Schola Saxonum. Non plus son prédécesseur Cædwalla, qui était parti trop tôt, en 688. En plus de ceci, il y a aussi le tombeau à Lucques. Donc, ce Richard était un roitelet, pas un roi d'Angleterre entière.

C'est un peu comme Sainte Brigitte a été décrite comme pas juste "principissa Nericie" (princesse de Néricie, son mari - c'est une sainte veuve - étant juge suprême de Néricie), mais peut-être pour certains même "principissa Suecie" (princesse de Suède). Parce que, qui en Italie pourrait tenir compte des petites provinces en dehors de l'Italie, comme Néricie en Suède ou comme Devonshire ou même Wessex en Angleterre?

Bon, sainte Walpurge avait donc un père, et il est honoré comme St Richard ou St Riquier. Autre moniale. Hildegarde de Bingen.

NH : Hildegard of Bingen: A Renaissance Woman Before Her Time
https://www.newhistorian.com/hildegard-of-bingen-a-renaissance-woman-before-her-time/8909/

People with a wide range of diverse knowledge and skills are often described as “Renaissance men.” One of Europe’s great Renaissance men was actually a medieval woman, Hildegard of Bingen.

Des gens avec une panoplie vaste de savoirs et compétences divers sont souvent décrits (en anglais!) comme des "hommes de Renaissance" - et un des très grands hommes de Renaissance était en effet une femme du Moyen Âge : Hildegard de Bingen.

Bon, la décrire comme "homme de Renaissance", ça passe alors, mais moins bien "en avance son temps" (phrase souvent idiote). Car, le Moyen Âge était beaucoup mieux adapté pour qu'une femme puisse fonctionner comme polymathe ou simplement comme érudite. Car la Renaissance cherchait ses racines dans l'Antiquité classique, qui réduisait la femme honnête à la maison, pas juste comme son endroit, mais aussi comme centre de ses intérêts. La femme* était - comme le nota Régine Pernoud - plus libre au temps des cathédrales*.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
St. Nestor
26.II.2019

Perge, in Pamphylia, natalis beati Nestoris Episcopi, qui, in persecutione Decii, cum diu noctuque orationi insisteret postulans ut grex Christi custodiretur, comprehensus est, ac, nomen Domini mira libertate et alacritate confessus, Praesidis Pollionis jussu equuleo saevissime est cruciatus; ac demum, cum se Christo semper adhaesurum constanter profiteretur, crucis suspendio victor in caelum migravit.

PS : je n'ai pas pu repérer si notre St. Riquier était le saint patron de Richard Cœur de Lion.

* Voir : Amazon : La Femme au temps des cathédrales
Poche – 1 octobre 1982, de Regine Pernoud (Auteur)
https://www.amazon.fr/Femme-au-temps-cath%C3%A9drales/dp/2253030341

More Language Questions on Quora

Language questions on quora · More Language Questions on Quora

I

Which numbers replace which letters in Proto-Indo-European?

Hans-Georg Lundahl, amateur linguist

Answered 9m ago

One other man guessed you are asking of “the sounds represented by symbols h₁, h₂, h₃ and so on”

I’ll go with that. On the theory or one explicitation of it, h₁ would be normal h, the unvoiced version of any adjacent vowel or, lacking such, of ö, h₂ would be ach-laut, also unvoiced, and h₃ would be voiced (for once) version of it, with added labialisation.

The reason you write h₁, h₂, h₃ is that this is not definitely agreed fact, and these symbols are useful standins, in case someone else would come up with other sound values.

So, H1 leaves a following e as e, H2 makes it an a, H3 makes it an o, and they all disappear.

H1e > e H1a > a H1o > o
H2e > a H2a > a H2o > o
H3e > o H3a > o H3o > o

If the laryngeal (technical name for these) comes after vowel instead of before, they also make the e longer (long vowels are marked with following :).

eH1 > e: aH1 > a: oH1 > o:
eH2 > a: aH2 > a: oH2 > o:
eH3 > o: aH3 > o: oH3 > o:

A N D if there is no vowel next, they become e, a, o, like this (C=any consonant):

CH1C > CeC, CH2C > CaC, CH3C > CoC

These formulas are closer to solid fact (they aren’t solid fact even themselves) than identification with h, χ, γw.

One reason to have H3 as γw, voiced, is, some unvoiced C become voiced next to H3.

Note, all this is a theory on exactly how certain words none of which contain any proven different H1, H2, H3 in any language, while Hittite version of one or two of these is h (whatever that was), came to have the exact relations that they have between languages of the family today.

One more thing, one theory related to this one says that a did not exist in Proto-Indo-European apart from H2.

II

Would a Latin speaker from the beginning of the Roman Empire understand a speaker from the end of the Roman Empire and vice versa?

Hans-Georg Lundahl, knows Latin

Answered just now

Written Latin, rather easily. That’s why Latin written language is conservative, so later readers can understand earlier writers.

Especially from Caeasar’s time on. From Punic Wars or just after, with Plautus or Ennius, there would be some gap.

On the pronunciation side, arguably it would be at least as difficult as for a Swede to understand Danish. Prounciation changed, and the most radically changed pronunciations are not taught when teaching Latin, they are more relevant for understanding how French and Spanish arose (Iordanes who wrote in Spain and Gregory of Tours who wrote in France are best examples of Latin written as wrotten form of this pronunciation). Btw, we are not concerned with end of West Empire, or supposed such, we are more concerned with beginning of Carolingian one. The date 800 led to a “language divorce”.

Before : traditional pronunciation of Latin was given traditional spelling of Latin.
After the whole process : traditional pronunciation of Latin was spelled with a new spelling, as Provençal or French, traditional spelling, or a bit more arcvhaic, was now spelling of an archaising, restored pronunciation.

476, 4th September, when Romulus Augustulus is deposed, did not mark any linguistic revolution. 800 - 813 did, at the end of which part of above process was completed : written Latin then had both a popular/local and a learned/international pronunciation.

III

If someone is perfectly fluent in multiple languages and gets amnesia is it possible to forget they know the languages but still be able to speak and understand them?

Hans-Georg Lundahl, amateur linguist

Answered just now

Probably yes.

They would be amnesiac about learning, but rediscover fluency.

IV

Can a dead language be reconstructed from the substratum influence it imparted upon other speeches?

Hans-Georg Lundahl, amateur linguist

Answered 7m ago

In some linguistic aspects, those that are preserved in other languages as substratum.

For those who count Greek as descended from Proto-Indo-European rather than Indo-Europeanised in an Indo-European Sprachbund, “thalassa” is substrate from pre-Greek. According to this theory (the first), words in -tta / -ssa and some other ones (-ssos, -enai, -nthos) come from the pre-Greek language. So, you have reconstructed three, four endings from toponymy, along with a few roots.

Other option is of course, “thalassa” (or previous versions of word) always belonged to Greek and Indo-European traits of Greek were either borrowed from Greek to other IE, or from other to Greek.

The bottom line, languages can be reconstructed depending on two factors, the one is, how much trace they left, the other is, where they were related to the preserved languages. And that latter is sometimes a guess.

Feet and Martyrologies

Imagine you live in a village!

You have never heard of the metre system, and while you may have heard of a foot (which is a little longer than your foot at the end of your leg, if you take it from heel to toe), perhaps you have no foot measure at all, perhaps you came across two or three different ones of different length in the village (like first inhabitants came from two or three different villages, and they brought different foot measures along).

Suppose further, you had no town or city very close by, the king's capital was even further away. But you had heard of the foot (still not meaning one of the two you hopefully have at the end of your legs), and you also wanted a foot measure. Perhaps this model I'll propose is a bit unrealistic, I'll come back to why and then correct it, but first I'll propose it.

I found it in a book on the history of mathematics which I saw and loved decades ago. Twelve men (dressed in Medieval clothes on the picture) line up, each putting his right foot toes behind the heel of the one before him. Either it was a stretched string they were all lining up on, or a straight line drawn in the gravel or by chalk. The full length from the toes of the first to the heel of the last is then divided into twelve, and you have a foot.

From how I recall the illustration, they had shoes on. This would explain why the foot measure is (as said) a little longer and that distinctly so than the length of a human foot from toe to heel. Especially if at the same time you arranged a space so heel and toe did not touch, or if the shoes were the longtoed type known as Krakow shoes, which was popular in part of the Middle Ages (14th C, second half I think and definitely after the death of St Alexis Falconieri).

Now, where is this model unrealistic? In certain areas with independent peasantries, like Alps or like Basque country, it isn't. Or similarily in the remoter parts of Sweden where Helsings and Yamts were slowly pushing Lapps further North. But often, and that most parts of England or France, a village would not be so autonomous, it would have a lord who was typically but not always a knight. He could also be a squire, permanently, though being a squire was often a stage on someone's road to knighthood. But noblemen of certain ranks (like a Count or later Duke of Austria) would have permanent squires who were adults (one who went with duke Leopold V to the Third Crusade was involved in taking Richard Lionheart captive and in founding Wiener Neustadt* - according to a novel in which he is the hero, not sure if he is fictitious). But he could be a priest, a bishop, an abbot (with his monastery), a rich burgher, and even a collectivity, like a university or a hospital. Back then, kings didn't give hospitals or universities yearly portions of tax money, to be squabbled over, he gave them land with its serfs or tenants. What they would otherwise have given the king or his reeve, they gave that collectivity.

So, the village would more typically get its foot measure from the landlord or from the nearest town, so, the twelve men here imagined (in that book of history of mathematics) would be just any villagers, but men who served the landlord, or burghers in town. But even so, this method with twelve men's feet could be used. If it ever was, and if so where, is another question.

Apart from long toed shoes, one explanation why the the foot measure is longer than the human foot where it touches the ground is, if it is taken individually (this would be from Egyptian antiquity, but could obviously be reused in Middle Ages), it is taken from big toe not just to where the heel touches the ground, but around it, so as to be a cobbler's measure, to where the heel ends anatomically at the ankle. To make this square with previously outlined method (if it was ever used) one could make a definite length, like a hand's breadth, a short span, intervene between heels and toes all the way. If the cobbler's string was an older method, shaping a longer foot measure, this would have been how one avoided drastically shortening the foot.

Now, suppose several villages in Yamtland or in Alps of Austria or Switzerland or in Gipuzkoa were deciding to unify a so obtained foot measure. One way would of course be to repeat the process with one man from each of twelve villages, but another one would be to take the original twelve foot long strings from twelve villages, add their lengths and divide the total by twelve equal parts, and then again divide this twelve foot length into twelve parts.

Now, here is exactly where I think this process (whether it occurred or not) can be a parable for something which arguably happened in the Church.

You see, the martyrologies we gave (each spanning mainly martyrs' feasts at first, but also some non-martyr feasts with a fixed date, like Christmas, and adding as time went by also feasts of many non-martyr saints), they are all of them relating facts from all over the Roman Empire and at least some of them beyond. This means that each locality having a bishop and a martyrology has in this martyrology facts for which the local tradition there (including in this case very clearly local written tradition) cannot be the primary source. How did they do it?

I suppose for my own part, and I read a paper by Stephan Borgehammar about a year ago, which I recall as similar (will ask him for reference), so I am probably reproducing his thought (he is a Church Historian), each martyrdom was in proportion to possibilities reported to all over the Church as soon as possible. But supposing someone died in a persecution without all Catholics celebrating his heavenly birthday first time over a year later, suppose some of the news did not duly arrive to all places, and so martyrologies came to diverge, what then?

Well, one possibility would be, as time passed by, especially after Constantinian peace 313, bishops sent each other (especially sending to Rome or, after that in importance, other major city like Antioch and Alexandria) the local martyrologies. Let's see how this could have worked out for today's entry:

A possible proto-martyrology from Rome:

[Romae], via Flaminia, natalis sancti Valentini, Presbyteri et Martyris, qui, post multa sanitatum et doctrinae insignia, fustibus caesus et decollatus est, sub Claudio Caesare.

Item [Romae] sanctorum Martyrum Vitalis, Feliculae et Zenonis.

[Ibidem depositio sancti Cyrilli, Episcopi et Confessoris; qui, una cum sancto Methodio, similiter Episcopo et fratre suo, cujus dies natalis octavo Idus Aprilis recensetur, multas Slavicas gentes earumque Reges ad fidem Christi perduxit. Horum tamen Sanctorum festivitas Nonis Julii celebratur.] [Probably later addition since living later, when more than local martyrologies already existed.]

A possible proto-martyrology from Interamna Lirenas (near the current Pignataro Interamna):

[Interamnae] sancti Valentini, Episcopi et Martyris, qui, post diutinam caedem mancipatus custodiae, et, cum superari non posset, tandem, mediae noctis silentio ejectus de carcere, decollatus est, jussu Praefecti urbis Placidi.

[Interamnae] sanctorum Proculi, Ephebi et Apollonii Martyrum, qui, cum ad sancti Valentini corpus vigilias agerent, Leontii Consularis jussu comprehensi sunt, et gladio caesi.

A possible proto-martyrology from Alexandria, Egypt:

[Alexandriae] sanctorum Martyrum Cyrionis Presbyteri, Bassiani Lectoris, Agathonis Exorcistae, et Moysis; qui omnes, igne combusti, evolaverunt ad caelum.

[Alexandriae] sanctorum Martyrum Bassi, Antonii et Protolici, qui demersi sunt in mare.

Item [Alexandriae] sanctorum Dionysii et Ammonii decollatorum.

A possible proto-martyrology from Naples:

[Neapoli, in Campania, sancti Nostriani Episcopi, qui in catholica fide contra haereticam pravitatem tuenda exstitit insignis.] [Probably later addition since living later, when more than local martyrologies already existed.]

A possible proto-martyrology from Ravenna:

[Ravennae] sancti Eleuchadii, Episcopi et Confessoris.

A possible proto-martyrology from Bithynia:

In Bithynia sancti Auxentii Abbatis

.

A possible proto-martyrology from Sorrento:

[Apud Surrentum sancti Antonini Abbatis, qui e monasterio Cassinensi, a Longobardis devastato, in solitudinem ejusdem urbis secessit; ibique, sanctitate celebris, obdormivit in Domino. Ipsius corpus multis quotidie miraculis, et praesertim in energumenis liberandis, effulget.] [Probably later addition since living later, when more than local martyrologies already existed.]

Original part common to many martyrologies:

Et alibi aliorum plurimorum sanctorum Martyrum et Confessorum, atque sanctarum Virginum. R. Deo gratias.

Placenames were added when conflating martyrologies, perhaps, but probably in the case of good communications, could have been there from the start, even before 313, as the martyrology was not meant to be purely local. Here is how it looks now:

Romae, via Flaminia, natalis sancti Valentini, Presbyteri et Martyris, qui, post multa sanitatum et doctrinae insignia, fustibus caesus et decollatus est, sub Claudio Csesare.

Ibidem depositio sancti Cyrilli, Episcopi et Confessoris; qui, una cum sancto Methodio, similiter Episcopo et fratre suo, cujus dies natalis octavo Idus Aprilis recensetur, multas Slavicas gentes earumque Reges ad fidem Christi perduxit. Horum tamen Sanctorum festivitas Nonis Julii celebratur.

Item Romae sanctorum Martyrum Vitalis, Feliculae et Zenonis.

Interamnae sancti Valentini, Episcopi et Martyris, qui, post diutinam caedem mancipatus custodiae, et, cum superari non posset, tandem, mediae noctis silentio ejectus de carcere, decollatus est, jussu Praefecti urbis Placidi.

Alexandriae sanctorum Martyrum Cyrionis Presbyteri, Bassiani Lectoris, Agathonis Exorcistae, et Moysis; qui omnes, igne combusti, evolaverunt ad caelum.

Interamnae sanctorum Proculi, Ephebi et Apollonii Martyrum, qui, cum ad sancti Valentini corpus vigilias agerent, Leontii Consularis jussu comprehensi sunt, et gladio caesi.

Alexandriae sanctorum Martyrum Bassi, Antonii et Protolici, qui demersi sunt in mare.

Item Alexandriae sanctorum Dionysii et Ammonii decollatorum.

Neapoli, in Campania, sancti Nostriani Episcopi, qui in catholica fide contra haereticam pravitatem tuenda exstitit insignis.

Ravennae sancti Eleuchadii, Episcopi et Confessoris.

In Bithynia sancti Auxentii Abbatis.

Apud Surrentum sancti Antonini Abbatis, qui e monasterio Cassinensi, a Longobardis devastato, in solitudinem ejusdem urbis secessit; ibique, sanctitate celebris, obdormivit in Domino. Ipsius corpus multis quotidie miraculis, et praesertim in energumenis liberandis, effulget.

Et alibi aliorum plurimorum sanctorum Martyrum et Confessorum, atque sanctarum Virginum. R. Deo gratias.

A each church, probably entries would also include death dates of benefactors one needed to pray for. This was certainly the case later on (with varied, but already rich martyrologies already there) in Necrologium Lundense and its Liber Daticus, where the part relating to benefactors has been misinterpreted by Vilhelm Moberg as Medieval Church only being interested in money ... no, the money from a gift could be long since lost or used up, and the canons would still be praying for the benefactor's soul.

As you can gather from the comparison between the supposed proto-versions and the extant version, even if it may be overschematised about pre-313 "localism", the entries were copied and inserted, this partly in chronological order, partly in order of importance (Sts Cyril and buried in Rome was obviously later than some of the entries below, but since he and St Method had converted so many Slavic nations or kingdoms, this burial was placed as second most important entry of today). Once this was done, the older ones in could be discarded, serve as palimpsest or be used for packaging or sth. And this would explain why we have the entries now only in martyrologies compiled many centuries after the original entries were made.

But that does not mean nothing was written for centuries, and then martyrologies produced wholesale centuries after the facts, as some seem to imagine.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Valentine's Day
14.II.2019

PS, if you didn't already get it, I am much more certain of the entries (generally speaking, they are not inerrant Scripture, only infallible as to morals) in martyrologies, than I am about modern histories of the sciences, including mathematics./HGL

* Wiener Neustadt [veena(r) noyshutt] means Viennese Newtown or ... "Newton at Vienna" if you like. It's 50 km or 31 miles south of Vienna, which in German is Wien. To be neither confused nor separated from Wein [vine], which is German for wine. As to the squire ... the local legend actually says "Einer von Herzog Leopolds Dienern, der den englischen König gut kannte," (one of duke Leopold's servants, who knew the English king well). And another one actually says it was the kitchen chef of a hunting castle "Als der Küchenmeister nach einiger Zeit nachschaute, ob das Spanferkel schön braun gebraten sei, erkannte er in dem Pilger König Richard, den er während des Kreuzzuges oft gesehen hatte." (as the chief cook after a while looked if the suckling pig was fried nicely brown, he recognised in the Pilgrim King Richard, whom he had often seen during the Crusade). Servant and cook are not incompatible with squire, but "squire" could also have been added to make a hero see some action.

Can Jews Count? Oh, sorry, I meant Protestants

I went to a list labelled 109 Locations whence Jews have been Expelled since AD 250. And no, it was not as I first thought compiled by Jews, it was compiled by Jew-admiring Protestants.

I copied the full list going year followed by location. Then I got the dashes between them shortened on a word document, which had a widget telling me 108 replacements were made. Somehow, 108 is not 109. There is one little difference between them.

But more important than a possible miscount (or keeping the title after one dubious item was removed?) is whether they know what to count.

Look at how often they were expelled from France (prior to Nazis):

1182 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - France
1306 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - France
1322 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - France (again)
1394 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - France
1420 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lyons
1453 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - France

For one thing, this means, they were back somewhat quickly. While Lyons is not the whole of France, it is in France, not in Empire, back then (as far as I know), meaning that before 1420 they were back in France, at least the part called Lyons. And the expulsion from Lyons didn't stop them from going elsewhere in France, so ... prior to the great expulsion in Spain, at the very least, expulsions were not too longterm.

But for another, this means France counts as five different locations.

I do find Papal States only once on the list, 1569, under Pope St Pius V. It could have been mentioned he made two exceptions, ghetto of Rome and ghetto of Ancona. He also gave them ample time to cross the border to surrounding places in Italy or huddle in Rome and Ancona, so ample, they could have taken each direction in one Sabbath journey per day, resting totally on Sabbaths, and still be out in time.

I am not sure if it is relevant to context or not, but previous year, 1568, Pope St Pius V had decreed another expulsion, namely of homosexual offenders from all types of clerical public dignity, the offenders were either to be reduced to lay status or to make penance for all their lives (for instance, a Benedictine monk having given the vows to God and not to the Church could not get the vows back from the Church, therefore he could not marry as a layman (unless one judged that celibate was in such a case not a necessary part of conversio morum, Bendictines don't vow celibacy directly, but it's normally considered as included in convesion morum), however, he could also not go around in public as a Benedictine monk, he had to do penance in solitude).

In some way it could be relevant even if Jews had no involvement in making the sexual conduct worse, namely insofar as both sodomy and usury are considered as unnatural indulgence in barrenness. Fighting against one of the sins and fighting against the other could have been associated in the saint's mind. Wait ... I looked up the Pope in Italian wiki, which gave a Latin text of Hebraeorum gens, from which these words:

Nam ut tam multa usurarum genera omittamus, quibus Hebraei egentium Christianorum substantiam usquequaque exinaniverunt, perspicuum satis putamus eos, furum & latronum receptores, atque participes, qui quasque res ab iis subreptas, & interversas, non modo profanas, sed etiam divino cultui servientes ne internoscantur, aut ad tempus supprimere, aut alio transferre, aut omnino transformare conantur, plerique etiam specie tractandae rei proprio exercitio convenientis, honestarum mulierum domos ambientes, multas turpissimis lenocinii praecipitant, quodque omnium perniciosissimum est, sortilegiis, incantationibus, magicisque superstitionibus & maleficiis dediti, quam plurimos incautos atque infirmos Satanae praestigiis inducunt, qui credant eventura prenunciari, furta, thesauros, res abditas revelari, multaque paeterea cognosci posse, quorum ne investigandi quidem facultas ulli omnino mortalium est permissa.

The accusations are three (I might make a full translation later*, I am tired now and need a coffee), namely,

• 1) let's not talk about usury, that's peanuts
• 2) they hide thieves and stolen goods, including even stolen sacred vessels
• 3) the provide the magic deceits** of Satan to those who want love filters and divination.

As said, considering they had 90 days to get away from Papal states excepting ghettos of Rome and Ancona, and how small the Papal States were (less than 90 km in each direction), they could walk a Sabbath journey per day and be out in time. Some preferred overcrowding the ghetto of Rome, though.

I recall the context of the expulsion 1268, by St Louis IX. It is not against Jews as Jews, but against usurers as usurers. It also expels foreign usurers that are (nominal, bad) Catholics, like Lombard and Florentine ones. Perhaps this is the expulsion from France which brought the total to 109 (if you rename it "locations and times" instead of just "locations"), and which was, very properly, taken away from the list.

This expulsion obviously recalls that by Ulysses Grant in 1862. The item is given as:

1862 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Areas in the U.S. under General Grant's Jurisdiction[1]

Footnote 1 explains that this means the Jurisdiction General Grant exercised in the areas of the South which he occupied during the war. It means carpetbaggers.

To make a comparison, during the Napoleonic wars, France did not expel Jews, it made Rothschild a baron. Both occasions show Jews willing to earn good money while war is going on. Grant had his financing from other quarters, notably industrialised parts of the North. Napoleon wanted Rothschild as a financer.

By contrast, I don't think Grant tried to expel Jews already resident in those parts of the South since Antebellum and who were not profiteering.

Likewise, St Louis IX did not expel Jews who were not usurers. He also had less interest in their money than Napoleon, since, while it was suggested usurious money be confiscated to finance seventh crusade, he said no, he did not want it financed by such a dishonourable resource.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_IX#Mesures_prises_contre_les_Juifs

He personally helped a lot of people who had been of Jewish confession and who became Christians, and he was personally sponsor to more than one of them. In the case of burning the Talmud, those taking the initiative were ex-Jews who were probably personally grossed out by certain parts of it, and perhaps not quite wrongly so.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Seven Holy Founders of the Servites***
12.II.2019

* I'm off for coffee now ... back, let's see what I can do.

Yeah, here we go:

Source: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebraeorum_gens
Nam ut tam multa usurarum genera omittamus,		For, to omit the so many kinds of usury,
quibus Hebraei egentium Christianorum substantiam usquequaque exinaniverunt,		by which Hebrews have totally ruined the fortune of poor Christians
perspicuum satis putamus eos, furum & latronum receptores, atque participes, qui quasque res ab iis subreptas, & interversas,		we find it sufficiently evident that they, as receivers and partakers of thieves and robbers, who with all things of them smuggled and hidden
non modo profanas, sed etiam divino cultui servientes ne internoscantur,		not only profane, but also serving the divine cult, in order to prevent discovery
aut ad tempus supprimere, aut alio transferre, aut omnino transformare conantur,		try to either suppress them for a time, or hand them over to others, or totally transform them.
plerique etiam specie tractandae rei proprio exercitio convenientis,		and many also, under species of vehiculating a convenient thing for proper exercise
[have the case endings been meddled with?]
honestarum mulierum domos ambientes, multas turpissimis lenocinii[s] praecipitant,		going around the houses of honest women push many of them over into the worst consents of adultery
[that's one defintion of lenocinium, at least]
quodque omnium perniciosissimum est, sortilegiis, incantationibus, magicisque superstitionibus & maleficiis dediti,		and what is most pernicious of all, given to spells, incantations, magical superstitions & witchcrafts
quam plurimos incautos atque infirmos Satanae praestigiis inducunt,		lead as many uncautious and weak ones as possible into the deceits of Satan
qui credant eventura prenunciari, furta, thesauros, res abditas revelari, multaque praeterea cognosci posse,		who then believe that future events are foretold, thieveries, treasures, hidden things revealed and many more things be able to be known
quorum ne investigandi quidem facultas ulli omnino mortalium est permissa.		of which not even a faculty to investigate (let alone know) is allowed to any single mortal at all.

** Changed resumé of charges from "magic of Satan" to "deceits of Satan" as per closer translation efforts.

***Sanctorum septem Fundatorum Ordinis Servorum beatae Mariae Virginis, Confessorum, quorum depositio respectivis diebus recolitur. Quos autem in vita unus verae fraternitatis spiritus sociavit, et indivisa post obitum veneratio populi prosecuta est, eos Leo Decimus tertius, Pontifex Maximus, una pariter Sanctorum fastis accensuit.

Language questions on quora

Language questions on quora · More Language Questions on Quora

I

The so called "Indo European language family" is nothing more than a hoax, it's laughable sometimes with even "Proto Indo European" and other nonsense, why not look for homeland of Santa Claus?

Hans-Georg Lundahl, amateur linguist

Answered 8m ago

We have lots of words for which a common origin is necessary over more than one “branch of indo-european” or more than one “indo-european language family” (as opposed to hypothetically “the indo-european language family,” what you are talking about).

There are basically two possibilities to explain this:

• Indo-European language families belong to one language family, the indo-european one.
• Indo-European languages have early on borrowed from each other, before each of them got written.

I tend to the latter one, I don’t think “the indo-european language family” is a hoax, it is more like an error of interpretation.

To give an idea why we are talking of the subject, the word for foot is related in many languages. Foot in English and similar in similar Germanic; pedem (I take the accusative, which shows the root better than the nominative) in Latin, from which pié, pied, piede in Spanish, French, Italian and similarly in similar Romance; poda (same remark) in Greek, since I couldn’t look up Sanskrit, here is Hindi pad, which in wiktionary is given first meaning foot, second footstep and a few more, while Armenian votk’ (if Google translate wasn’t meddled with) just could be related too. Oh, Slavonic is the odd man out, noga is definitely not related, but Lithuanian, which is Baltic, has pėda. Welsh has troed which is, like noga an outlier.

To give you an idea of why there are doubts on the single origin hypothesis, the word for hand is hand in English and similar in similar Germanic languages, ranka in Lithuanian and ręka in Polish, and similar in other Baltic or Slavonic languages, cheira in Greek, manum in Latin (again giving accusative on both), and from Latin you have mano, main, mano in Spanish, French, Italian. In Armenian you have tzerk, while haath is Hindi. In Welsh you have llaw, and, interestingly, a word mun which could be related to Latin manum and to a very oldfashioned Germanic word, mund.

Hungarian and Finnish are supposed to be related in a way a bit similar to two different branches of Indo-European, and here we have, for foot, jalka in Finnish, láb in Hungarian, not related, käsi and kéz (obviously related) for hand in Finnish and Hungarian.

Other perspective, Persian and Arabic (Indo-European and Semitic) seem to share more vocabulary than English and Russian (Germanic Indo-European and Slavonic Indo-European). Both cases, too much for pure hazard. However, Persian and Arabic words from same (often Classic Arabic) origin are more similar, since the common origin in form of borrowing is more recent.

We can definitely say, the words in common between English and Russian, unless modern international vocabulary, have become so dissimilar that the common origin, whether common ancestral language or mutual borrowing, would probably be further back in time than 900 AD when Persian reemerges in writing with lots more Arabic words than previously.

Also, in historic times, there are no obvious occasions on which English and Russian could have borrowed from each other previous to modernity, so, if mutual borrowing, or common borrowing from a set of languages borrowing mutually even earlier, these are just as prehistoric (to when the history of these regions and languages starts to be known in written documents) as the other possibility, common ancestral language.

We know where English and Russian borrowed words like kosmonaut (=Russian astronaut) and so on, namely in modern media and dictionaries, but where English and Russian came from or what area they borrowed nose / нос (pronounced noss) from each other, that is something one needs to look for and speculate about, if one is curious.

By the way, the old homeland of Saint Nicolas is Myra, in what is now Turkey, and his relics are or to recently were in Bari, in Italy.

II

Do you find Slavic languages intimidating?

Hans-Georg Lundahl, amateur linguist

Answered just now

No, I find language learning when I don’t have a bed to sleep in intimidating, since even slight, but constant, sleep privation is incapacitating on language learning and other artistic talents.

Before I became homeless, I was just starting to get a grip on Polish, at university.

III

What is the difference between necaverunt and interfecerunt in Latin?

Hans-Georg Lundahl, knows Latin

Answered 55m ago

They are two different words both meaning “they killed”.

The exact shade of different connotations I don’t know, I did not analyse that deeply, but one can say that verb “necare” (of which necaverunt is perfect preterite third plural active) is simply a verb meaning kill, while “interficere” (of which interfecerunt is perfect preterite third plural active) is a composite which literally means “make between” probably derived via “interire” (literally “go between” but in fact “get lost, perish”, like “perire” means “go through”), so the “interficere” would be sth like “make someone perish” - when first the word was coined.

But by Classical times, this could have been some time ago, and the connotation could have shifted.

Is Time the Relevant Factor?

The development of languages is nothing like biological evolution
by Allan K. Steel | This article is from
Journal of Creation 14(2):31–40—August 2000
https://creation.com/the-development-of-languages-is-nothing-like-biological-evolution

I concur with the main thesis. Here is however one of the backing arguments, which I do not share.

A universally observed phenomenon of all language families is that inflexional morphology10 has simplified over time.

In some cases we see the opposite, as when Romance has a new future not yet there in Classic Latin which as a bonus side effect gives Romance also a conditional. Replacing also Latin's simple past future (except in passive) with future of auxiliary + past participle (as in passive only, but auxiliary "to be") has acted as a cue to similarily form a past conditional.

Now, while overall morphological categories have grown, I must admit those expressed in simple forms rather than compound ones has diminished.

However, morphological complexity growing is definitely possible - through no sound change, but "analogy" meaning intelligent input from the speakers.

Now, this put me to the task to ask whether morphological complexity growth is recognised by linguists.

I suppose the one example I gave is uncontroversial and it is at least one party of indo-europeanists who presume that the verbal systems of Sanskrit, Greek and Latin, more complex than Hittite on some parameters (while Hittite shares a certain other parameter of complexity with Gaelic, preverbs), is also less old than Hittite. In other words, complexity grew - no doubt via "analogy" or intelligent input.

However, I wanted to check this. I came across quite another variable than time. And this for decreased complexity.

Language Structure Is Partly Determined by Social Structure
Gary Lupyan , Rick Dale | PLOS Published: January 20, 2010
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0008559
or https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0008559

Here is a discussion:

We conducted a statistical analysis of >2,000 languages using a combination of demographic sources and the World Atlas of Language Structures— a database of structural language properties. We found strong relationships between linguistic factors related to morphological complexity, and demographic/socio-historical factors such as the number of language users, geographic spread, and degree of language contact. The analyses suggest that languages spoken by large groups have simpler inflectional morphology than languages spoken by smaller groups as measured on a variety of factors such as case systems and complexity of conjugations. Additionally, languages spoken by large groups are much more likely to use lexical strategies in place of inflectional morphology to encode evidentiality, negation, aspect, and possession. Our findings indicate that just as biological organisms are shaped by ecological niches, language structures appear to adapt to the environment (niche) in which they are being learned and used. As adults learn a language, features that are difficult for them to acquire, are less likely to be passed on to subsequent learners. Languages used for communication in large groups that include adult learners appear to have been subjected to such selection. Conversely, the morphological complexity common to languages used in small groups increases redundancy which may facilitate language learning by infants.

As what they discuss is "evolutionary pressure" which doesn't per se cause morphological complexity of the biological type, it would on evolutionary theory need mutations, which are not apt to provide them, and in human language, intelligent input is apt to so provide them, this should not be controversial among us Creationists.

The points to make historically in favour of this are:

• English simplified to about modern (or even less) morphological complexity over contact with Danish and probably also over contact with Norman French.
• French made a simplification after the Crusades increased trade (Middle French unlike Old French has reduced two case system to one case system).
• English, French have arguably been less isolated than Germans less than Poles, Russians, Icelanders (certainly Swedes were less isolated than Icelanders and the most trade communicational dialects of North Germany have made simplifications reminiscent of Scandinavia).
• Hittites were once more central than Greeks or speakers of Sanskrit.
• Esquimeaux and Amerindian languages were definitely more isolated than Europeans, and baffle by the morphological complexity.

This obviously in no way presents an obstacle to either God at Tower of Babel creating several languages independently, nor to Indo-European as per my pet theory going back to more than one rather than to just one. The other day I saw stats suggesting to me (I can have misunderstood them) that the lexical similarity between Arabic and Persian (clearly unrelated "genetically") is greater than between English and Russian, while Balkan shows also non-lexical mutual influences occurring, like a tendency to replace infinitive with subsidiary clauses or a tendency to conflate Genitive and Dative (as in Greek nouns and as in the Romanian definite forms of nouns, see table below my signature).

However, this would pose one constraint on my theory of early mutual grammar borrowings in Indo-European languages. It would have had to be in simple and not very cosmopolitan societies. Possibly excepting pre-verbs in Hittite and Gaelic (unless both start out a dialects of Gomer's language after Babel). Otherwise the mutual influence would have tended to simplification, not to complex grammars.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Ignatius of Antioch
1.II.2019

		Neo-Grk		Roman.
Nom		άνθρωπος		băiatul
Gen/Dat		ανθρώπου		băiatului
Acc		άνθρωπο		băiatul (=Nom)
Voc (Sg)		άνθρωπε		băiatule
Nom Pl		άνθρωποι		băieții
Gen/Dat Pl		ανθρώπων		băieților
Acc Pl		ανθρώπους		băieții (=Nom)
[Voc Pl=]		= Nom Pl		= Gen/Dat Pl

As to chosen masculine words, (o) άνθρωπος means (the) person, and băiatul means the boy. Romanian shares with Greek and Slavonic languages a three gender system, like Latin and unlike other Romance languages.