Flagrante indeed!

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
John Parsons

Flagrante indeed!

Legg inn av John Parsons » 21 jul 2005 12:39:02

The phrase Richardson was looking for, but failed to find, is "in flagrante
DELICTO," definitely not "in flagrante DILECTO."

"Dilecto," Richardson's version, is from a verb meaning "to love" or "value
or esteem highly" (diligo, diligere, dilexi, dilectum). I suppose he might
really have meant "delicto," meaning "fault,"
"defect," "crime," or "transgression."

A correct translation of "in flagrante delicto" is not "red handed." As
with many Latin expressions (especially those dealing with legal matters) an
exact translation would fall awkwardly on modern ears--something like "in
flaming transgression." Even "caught in the act" is preferable to a merely
colloquial "red handed."

Or maybe Richardson really intended "dysligo, dysligere, dyslexi,
dyslectum"?

Regards

John P.

Peter Stewart

Re: Flagrante indeed!

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 21 jul 2005 12:39:03

""John Parsons"" <carmi47@msn.com> wrote in message
news:BAY107-F1253A2C96050B00320F819B2D60@phx.gbl...
The phrase Richardson was looking for, but failed to find, is "in
flagrante DELICTO," definitely not "in flagrante DILECTO."

"Dilecto," Richardson's version, is from a verb meaning "to love" or
"value or esteem highly" (diligo, diligere, dilexi, dilectum).

Yes, or "to choose" - and a choice has to be made while the criminal flame
is alight, before the trangression is committed.

But of course "delicto" is the term all the same.

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Flagrante indeed!

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 22 jul 2005 07:08:46

Dear John ~

Please call me Doug. Richardson sounds terribly formal.

You, are, of course correct. The term is "in flagrante delicto," not
"in fragrante dilecto." Mea culpa. It was late when I posted last
night.

As far as a translation of "in flagrante delicto" is concerned, the
Merriam-Webster dictionary says the following:

Etymology: Medieval Latin, literally, while the crime is blazing
: in the very act of committing a misdeed : RED-HANDED; also : in the
midst of sexual activity

So, contrary to your statement, red-handed is indeed a correct
translation of the term, in flagrante delicto.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

"John Parsons" wrote:
< The phrase Richardson was looking for, but failed to find, is "in
flagrante
< DELICTO," definitely not "in flagrante DILECTO."
<
< "Dilecto," Richardson's version, is from a verb meaning "to love" or
"value
< or esteem highly" (diligo, diligere, dilexi, dilectum). I suppose
he might
< really have meant "delicto," meaning "fault,"
< "defect," "crime," or "transgression."
<
< A correct translation of "in flagrante delicto" is not "red handed."
As
< with many Latin expressions (especially those dealing with legal
matters) an
< exact translation would fall awkwardly on modern ears--something like
"in
< flaming transgression." Even "caught in the act" is preferable to a
merely
< colloquial "red handed."
<
< Or maybe Richardson really intended "dysligo, dysligere, dyslexi,
< dyslectum"?
<
< Regards
<
< John P.

Peter Stewart

Re: Flagrante indeed!

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 22 jul 2005 09:14:09

<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1122012526.477604.71440@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear John ~

Please call me Doug. Richardson sounds terribly formal.

You, are, of course correct. The term is "in flagrante delicto," not
"in fragrante dilecto." Mea culpa. It was late when I posted last
night.

As far as a translation of "in flagrante delicto" is concerned, the
Merriam-Webster dictionary says the following:

Etymology: Medieval Latin, literally, while the crime is blazing
: in the very act of committing a misdeed : RED-HANDED; also : in the
midst of sexual activity

So, contrary to your statement, red-handed is indeed a correct
translation of the term, in flagrante delicto.

No, it is a figurative translation but not the actual meaning of the words
as you stated.

The Latin you gave was "flagrante dilecto", a perfectly meaningful ablative
absolute only not the phrase with a preposition adopted into English usage
that is properly defined as in your dictionary.

There is no sexual connotation whatsoever for "red-handed", which comes from
the image of blood on the hands after committing murder. The terms are only
forced into equivalency by the rough and pretentious Latin usage of English
lawyers.

By the way, how could you be so idiotic as to consult such a work for the
definition of a word within a day of calling me a fraud and charlatan over
doing the same for "cognatus"?

Peter Stewart

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Flagrante indeed!

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 22 jul 2005 09:42:38

In message of 22 Jul, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1122012526.477604.71440@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear John ~

Please call me Doug. Richardson sounds terribly formal.

You, are, of course correct. The term is "in flagrante delicto," not
"in fragrante dilecto." Mea culpa. It was late when I posted last
night.

As far as a translation of "in flagrante delicto" is concerned, the
Merriam-Webster dictionary says the following:

Etymology: Medieval Latin, literally, while the crime is blazing
: in the very act of committing a misdeed : RED-HANDED; also : in the
midst of sexual activity

So, contrary to your statement, red-handed is indeed a correct
translation of the term, in flagrante delicto.

No, it is a figurative translation but not the actual meaning of the
words as you stated.

The Latin you gave was "flagrante dilecto", a perfectly meaningful
ablative absolute only not the phrase with a preposition adopted into
English usage that is properly defined as in your dictionary.

There is no sexual connotation whatsoever for "red-handed", which
comes from the image of blood on the hands after committing murder.
The terms are only forced into equivalency by the rough and
pretentious Latin usage of English lawyers.

By the way, how could you be so idiotic as to consult such a work for
the definition of a word within a day of calling me a fraud and
charlatan over doing the same for "cognatus"?


But surely you know by now - he is a hypocrite. The remarkable thing
is how often he does it in public to prove to us that he really is one.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Peter Stewart

Re: Flagrante indeed!

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 22 jul 2005 10:03:33

I wrote:

By the way, how could you be so idiotic as to consult such a work for
the definition of a word within a day of calling me a fraud and
charlatan over doing the same for "cognatus"?

Tim Powys-Lybbe replied:

But surely you know by now - he is a hypocrite. The remarkable thing
is how often he does it in public to prove to us that he really is one.

Quite so, but I must share with his admirers a resistance to believing
that he can be every bit as foolish as he betrays himself to be. In me
this resistance is vanishingly small, in a few it is still
unaccountably large. Richardson is doing his best to break it down in
all of us.

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Flagrante indeed!

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 22 jul 2005 10:50:09

My comments are interspersed below. DR

Peter Stewart wrote:
< <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
< news:1122012526.477604.71440@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
< > Dear John ~
< >
< > Please call me Doug. Richardson sounds terribly formal.
< >
< > You, are, of course correct. The term is "in flagrante delicto,"
not
< > "in fragrante dilecto." Mea culpa. It was late when I posted last
< > night.
< >
< > As far as a translation of "in flagrante delicto" is concerned, the
< > Merriam-Webster dictionary says the following:
< >
< > Etymology: Medieval Latin, literally, while the crime is blazing
< > : in the very act of committing a misdeed : RED-HANDED; also : in
the
< > midst of sexual activity
< >
< > So, contrary to your statement, red-handed is indeed a correct
< > translation of the term, in flagrante delicto.
<
< No, it is a figurative translation but not the actual meaning of the
words
< as you stated.

Figurative works for me. The dictionary says it's correct usage. In
any event, my post was directed to John Parsons, not you. Please butt
out.

Peter Stewart

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Peter Stewart

Re: Flagrante indeed!

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 22 jul 2005 11:10:27

<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1122025809.526557.127260@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

<snip>

Figurative works for me. The dictionary says it's correct usage. In
any event, my post was directed to John Parsons, not you. Please butt
out.

So from now on Richardson will only respond to posts explicitly addressed to
himself - or we will have yet another piece of flagrant hypocrisy to laugh
over.

The dictionary does NOT say that anything is "correct" usage - dictionaries
record definitions in actual usage, right or wrong. There may be editorial
comment in some definitions, but you haven't quoted one relating to
"red-handed" as a "correct" translation of "in flagrante delicto". Tell us
where your dictionary "says it's correct usage".

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Flagrante indeed!

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 22 jul 2005 11:30:46

Dear Newsgroup ~

After Peter Stewart posts, Tim Powys-Lybbe chimes in "Hypocrite" for
the umpteenth time. This must be Tim's new mantra. It's not very
original and not very effective.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:

<
< But surely you know by now - he is a hypocrite. The remarkable thing
< is how often he does it in public to prove to us that he really is
one.
<
< --
< Tim Powys-Lybbe
tim@powys.org
< For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Flagrante indeed!

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 22 jul 2005 14:34:04

In message of 22 Jul, "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com"
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

<snip>

In any event, my post was directed to John Parsons, not you. Please
butt out.

While I do not accept this as a rule of newsgroups, which are public
places, this sounds like we have a useful rule here:

If we address postings to "everyone apart from Richardson" then he is
obliged by his personal rule not to reply to it.

I have deliberately not addressed this particular post in that way so
that he has the opportunity to clarify what his curious rule for
himself might really be.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Flagrante indeed!

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 22 jul 2005 14:37:14

Dear everyone apart from Richardson,

In message of 22 Jul, "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com"
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

Dear Newsgroup ~

After Peter Stewart posts, Tim Powys-Lybbe chimes in "Hypocrite" for
the umpteenth time. This must be Tim's new mantra. It's not very
original and not very effective.

But it is very true. And I see that the charge has never been denied.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»