--- In [email protected], off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So you are saying that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. > > All those interested please note: Rory is correct here, Wikipedia is > not a reliable source.
Many thanks for several things, Offworld! Thank you for giving me the impetus, and showing me how easy it is, to join Wikipedia, where (probably to the infinite relief of almost everyone on FFL) I have taken my sourced case against your argument that secularis = seclorum. As for your further desire for proof that seclorum is indeed the genitive plural form of seclum, I suggest -- if you don't believe me -- you heed any other Wikipedia contributor who has actually studied Latin, like Bonus Onus, or consult any good 1st-year Latin textbook, or Google "2nd declension Latin" and come up with something like this: http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/caseusage/qt/Latin2nddecl.htm (Other than that, I'll just mention that you probably mean "18th century understanding of Latin," instead of "17th century," as you wrote here and on Wikipedia -- if you're referring to the mostly- Masonic "Founding Fathers".) Thank you too for bringing up yet more particles of self-righteous fundamentalist fervor within me who think we absolutely *know* the truth, despite our vast ignorance, and who apparently just cannot be reached at this moment with anything other than awe-struck, silent, unconditional Love. I stand humbled! This is Me! Wow. The strength of my ignorance is the sheer force of Kundalini-Shakti Herself. I love you/me/Us! Thank you again. :-) *L*L*L* > > <<to > > support your "secular" stance since I first gave the link. They > did > > forget to take out the line which says, correctly, "The word > seclorum > > does not mean "secular", as one might assume, but is the genitive > > (possessive) plural form of the word saeculum, meaning (in this > > context) generation, century, or age." >> > > Which has no references to substantiate this dubious translation of > 17th century understanding of Latin. Very amatuerish source without > references. > > > > > However, the new editor has then completely contradicted this > correct > > statement by -- after removing the reference to Dan Brown's > > mistranslation of the phrase -- adding incorrect data like > > the "Saecularis = Saeclorum" material you've posted here. I can > > certainly understand the political motivation behind such a > > mistranslation, as I too believe the "Founding Fathers" (not sure > > where the Founding Mothers stood) were probably following a > Masonic > > rather than a Christian blueprint for this nation, but that's no > > excuse for bad scholarship, is it? :-)>> > > > Correct again Rory. Your "scholar" on Wikipedia actually states: > ''Saeculum'' did come to mean "world, worldly" in late, Christian, > Latin, and "secular" is derived from it, through ''secularis''. > > He is correct here, the founding fathers would have thought of it as > meaning "secular", and that is obvious to scholars, but he doesn't > use any references. > > That is why I use proper references ! !!...unlike your Wikipedia > pseudo-scholar: > > c.1290, "living in the world, not belonging to a religious order," > also "belonging to the state," from O.Fr. seculer, from L.L. > sæcularis "worldly, secular," http://www.etymonline.com/index.php? > search=secular > > OffWorld > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Rory Goff" <rorygoff@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], off_world_beings > <no_reply@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Actually, your own quote states: "Secular" -- from the > > > adjective > > > > > > Saecularis: "worldly, secular, of the age" > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words it means "secular" also. > > > > > > No, SAECULARIS means "secular" and SECLORUM means "of the ages". > > > > > > > > > Saecularis MEANS "worldy", "secular", so what is the > dispute? > > > > > > See above; SAECULARIS means "secular" and SECLORUM means "of the > > > ages." > > > > > > > > > > > The phrase is NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM, not NOVUS ORDO > SAECULARIS. > > >>> > > > > > > > > Lol....You were the one that compared it to SAECULARIS , not > me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > SECLORUM means "of the Ages," or "of the Centuries," whereas > if > > > > they had meant "Secular" they would have used SAECULARIS.>>> > > > > > > > > It does not mean 'of the ages' and the seal's designer, > Charles > > > > Thomson, wrote that the words "signify the beginnings of the > New > > > > American Era." > > > > > > Yes, the literal translation is "A New Order of the Ages." Feel > > free > > > to learn or re-learn Latin and see for yourself, or just take my > > word > > > for it, or check out the Wikipedia link I gave you before. Here > it > > is > > > again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novus_Ordo_Seclorum > > > > > > > And according to your our own quote which states: > > > > "Secular" -- from the adjective Saecularis: "worldly, secular, > of > > > > the age" > > > > > > > > In other words it means "secular" also. > > > > > > No, *only* SAECULARIS means "secular," SECLORUM means "of the > > ages." > > > I was pointing out how it would be easy to confuse the two > words, > > > given their similar sources, but it would still be a mistake to > do > > > so. > > > > > > > Seclorum means Saecularis which MEANS "worldy", "secular", so > > what > > > > is the dispute? > > > > > > No, SECLORUM does *not* mean SAECULARIS. SECLORUM (noun, > possessive > > > plural) means, literally, "of the Ages," and SAECULARIS > (adjective) > > > means "worldly, secular." Again, feel free to take my word for > it, > > or > > > learn Latin for yourself, or consult Wikipedia regarding its > > nuances > > > of meaning and its origins in Virgil's Eclogues: > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novus_Ordo_Seclorum > > > > > > I've said all I have to say on this subject, ad infinitum et ad > > > nauseam :-), and so this will be my last post on the subject of > > Novus > > > Ordo Seclorum. > > > > > > I am in agreement with you on Judy! > > > > > > *L*L*L* > > > > > >
